Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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, we have been debating education policy for several days and actually several times over the last several months here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am very excited about that, because one of the reasons I came here to the U.S. Senate was to make sure that we focus on real issues that affect everyday average families across our country. There is nothing more important to any parents than making sure, when they send their children off to school in the morning, that they get the kind of education that will mean they will be a success in this country. I am disappointed, however, that the bill before us, the Coverdell IRA proposal, will not provide that kind of quality education that parents are demanding. I believe it is a flawed policy which really will not make any meaningful difference for either private or public school students and their families. It is not a real results-driven proposal. Many of my colleagues have been out here on the floor over the last several days talking about what the IRA Coverdell proposal will do and that it will only mean $7 for a family in the future. Many of my colleagues have talked about how it will begin us on a road to publicly funding private schools, and the dangers of that. We can debate that. But I am here today to bring forward an amendment that I believe will make a substantial difference in our children's education across the country, and that is regarding the issue of class size. Ask any parent who sends his or her child off to school what question they ask when their child comes home on the first day of school. It is, ``How many kids are in your class?'' They ask that because they know it will make a difference in whether or not their child gets the attention and the education he or she needs throughout that entire school year. If there are 40 kids in the classroom, or 35 kids in the classroom, your child will not get the kind of education and attention that he or she needs and deserves in this complex world that we live in today. My amendment that is before the Senate is a sense of the Congress that we should support efforts to hire 100,000 new teachers so that we can reduce class sizes in first, second and third grades to an average of 18 students per class all across America. This is simply a sense of the Congress saying this is the way we should move forward. We have been on the floor before to debate this issue, and this Congress has said no, they are not going to fund lower class sizes. I am back today because I believe this is the kind of difference that we can make, that we should make, and that we must make. Reducing class sizes will make a difference for children across the country. Will 100,000 teachers be enough? No, but it will be an impetus. This amendment simply will send a message that we understand the issue and we are willing to take it under consideration and move it forward. I know as a former educator what a difference it makes to have a smaller class size. I have taught 4-year-olds. I have had 18 children in my classroom. I have had 24 children in my classroom. It means the difference between having the time to work individually with students or simply having crowd control for the entire classroom. Every teacher of early grades will tell you the more time they have with their students, the better chance they have to make sure that all students will have the chance to learn to read, to learn to write, to learn the basic skills that will mean that they are a success throughout their later years. It also means that those teachers will have the time to deal with the complex problems that come before them as a teacher in our classrooms. I distinctly remember one time I had with a class when I had a young student come to class and we were in the process of talking about the alphabet. We were talking about one of the letters. I was talking with my young children about different words that begin with the letter A, and all of a sudden a young child in my classroom just simply blurted out to me, ``My dad didn't come home last night; he was arrested.'' My entire class stopped. How could I have talked about the alphabet? How could I have talked about the words that started with the letter A? I had a devastated child in my classroom of 24. Yet, I could not take the time to sit with him and work with him because I had 23 other children in my classroom who needed attention and whose parents wanted them to learn about the alphabet. That child probably went on to a very troubled adulthood. We could have made a difference simply by having fewer students in the classroom, by simply having the time to deal with these kind of problems. Don't just take it from me as a former educator, take it from the studies. I have submitted a number of studies in the past as I have talked about this issue on this floor. A 1989 study of the Tennessee STAR Program which compared the performance of students in grades K through 3 in small and regular size classes found that students in small classes of 13 to 17 students significantly outperformed other students in math and reading every year at all grade levels across all geographic areas. My sense of the Congress simply says we understand this is significant. It says we in the Senate want to make a difference in the learning of American children, and we want to move forward on the progress of reducing class size and take that on as an issue in this country. I have talked about it as an educator. I have talked about the studies many times that prove what I say, but we should also be listening to other people. I know that when we were here a month ago and debating, I submitted a number of letters from different teachers from across my State and across this country, but I want to specifically have printed today a letter, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the editor by State Senator Al Bauer be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Al Bauer is a former colleague of mine in the State Senate of Washington. He is also a former educator, and he speaks from his heart when he talks about education. He wrote in his letter that hiring more well-trained teachers will help school districts stave off cuts to other special programs for at-risk students. He argues that more teachers does not have to mean more classrooms. It is the number of well-trained adults in the room that is important, because students' access to time with the teacher is at the heart of learning. He argues that Congress can pay for class-size reductions if we can put billions of extra dollars into transportation. State Senator Al Bauer is absolutely right. The arguments against this proposal are not valid. It doesn't mean that we need more class space. It doesn't mean that we will siphon money from other places. It does mean that this Congress, this Senate, the people on this floor are listening to what parents and educators and people across this country are saying. When we send our children off to school, we want to know they are safe, we want to know they will learn, and we know they will be safe and they will learn and get the attention they need if we begin to focus on class size in this country. Now, a person could spend a year or a lifetime searching, and they would not be able to find someone who understands education in Washington state more deeply than Senator Al Bauer. And he happens to be a former educator, and he happens to be a Democrat. But Senator Bauer and I stood together in the state Senate, and we worked with our Republican colleagues to do everything we could to improve public education. He knows and I know that Republicans and Democrats in Washington state can work together. They have worked together to reduce class size, increase family involvement in school decisions, fund school construction, improve teacher quality, allow communities to set higher standards for students, publish school report cards, hold schools accountable for results, reward schools that do well and mediate schools that are failing, increase student's options about which school they attend. All these things were bipartisan proposals, based on what local school communities told us would work to improve results for students. And the great news is that many of these proposals have actually improved things in Washington state schools. And when I think about the partisan tone of this debate on education, and I look at the education IRA proposal which offers only a seven- dollar a year solution to only a few families--I think of all the things we could be doing that would really make a difference for all students. And class size improvement is near the top of that list. I think it is important to listen to what educators say. I want to read to you what some of the educators have written to me as I have talked about this issue over the last several months. Larry Swift, who is the executive director of the Washington State School Directors' Association, wrote to me, and I especially appreciate his words because I am a former school board member and Larry Swift represents the school board members across my State. He says: As we pursue our state's goal of improving learning for all of our students, it becomes increasingly important that all of our resources be used efficiently and effectively. The most valuable resource in today's schools is the people who devote their time and effort to make schools successful--the teachers. Reducing the ratio of students to adults is particularly critical for youngsters with a variety of learning challenges that must be overcome if those students are to meet the new, higher learning standards. Mr. President, Larry Swift is right. Representing the school boards across my country, he makes a very clear case that increasing the number of teachers and reducing the class size is critical because we are requiring our young students to know more today than we ever have before in the history of this country. Let me also quote from Kenneth Winkes, who is the head of the Association of Washington State Principals. He represents all the principals in my State, and here is what they say: It is increasingly evident that students entering our schools have diverse and unique needs which can only be addressed by principals, teachers, and support personnel who are not overwhelmed by crowded classrooms. Rather, educators must be able to devote attention to each student in smaller, more manageable classes. That is what principals say. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four short statements be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr, President, I have numerous quotes from teachers, and I can tell you from personal anecdotes, as I have talked with teachers throughout my State, it makes a difference when you have time, it makes a difference when you have to turn away three or four students with a question because you simply don't have time. We demand higher learning skills. We have a responsibility to do something about it. We can't just say, ``Oh, it's a local school district problem.'' ``Oh, it's a State problem.'' ``Oh, it's somebody else's problem.'' We have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate as leaders in this country to send a message that we want to make a difference and we are listening to the people we represent that class size makes a difference. Let me also tell you what some students say, because I have a group of students who are my advisors. They are called my student advisory youth involvement team or SAYIT. I go to them and ask them to tell me what they think of the issues we are debating. On the issue of class size, this is what students say: Brook Bodnar, who is age 16, recently moved from a school with larger classes to Olympia High School which has smaller classes. She says: . . . with smaller classes I'm learning so much more. Class is going so much faster. That is what a student says. Jared Stueckle, age 16, a junior at Selah High School, believes education should be a higher priority in funding and that class size is a good investment. Jared says: The classes in which the number (of students) is lower I generally do better, but in a crowded class, the teacher does not give us enough individual attention. I have numbers of comments from young students. They are excellent. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if we listen to parents, if we listen to teachers, if we listen to principals, if we listen to school board members, and if we listen to our children, we will hear what the American public truly wants and knows is right. Parents say it, teachers say it, studies prove it: Smaller class sizes will make a difference in our children's ability to learn. My amendment simply says that it is the sense of the Congress that we will move forward in any way we can to make sure that class sizes in this country are reduced to manageable levels. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2216.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of amendment No. 2268 to S. Con. Res. 86 introduced by Senator kempthorne, expressing the Sense of the Senate that funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) should be fully maintained as authorized and aggressively utilized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to encourage U.S. agricultural exports, strengthen farm income, counter subsidized foreign competition, and protect American jobs. The MAP is an important trade promoting program that truly benefits the diverse agriculture of Washington state and the nation. The MAP is a partnership with private agriculture to promote U.S. agricultural goods around the world. It helps to level the playing field for our growers in a global marketplace made increasingly competitive by subsidies foreign governments provide to their growers. This Sense of the Senate resolution corrects the misguided direction of the Budget Committee to cut the MAP. This proposed cut was one among many reasons that I voted against this Budget Resolution when it was passed out of the Budget Committee. Since moving towards market-based agricultural programs under the 1996 FAIR Act, research and trade have become the new safety net for our growers. Without continuous and vigorous trade promotion, our growers will see market share decline and farmgate prices drop. Our growers are already suffering under depressed prices, they need us to maintain the MAP and other agricultural trade initiatives to remain competitive. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to be on the floor today as we discuss a budget that is balanced and does have a planned surplus for as far as the eye can see. It was only a few short years ago when we were here on the floor debating budgets that anticipated deficits well into the future. While I support the fiscal responsibility assumed in this budget, I have to rise in opposition. This budget does little to prepare for the next century and it allows the federal government to turn its back on our children. This budget is a failure for our children and our economic future. During Committee consideration and floor debate, I attempted to amend this Resolution in an effort to ensure that children remain a top priority of the federal budget. Unfortunately, the Republicans chose to ignore the education and early development needs of our children. The Republican budget strategy is to spend for today and do little to plan for tomorrow. As a new Member of the Senate Budget Committee in 1993, I was committed to reducing the deficits and restoring fiscal order to federal spending. I knew that it would be a tough challenge and a difficult task, but I also knew we owed our children this much. We had to end deficit spending and stop borrowing from their future. I stood on this floor during the summer of 1993 when we debated the Deficit Reduction plan, which many of my Colleagues on the other side predicted would drive our economy into recession and do little to reduce the deficit. As we debate the fiscal year 1999 Budget Resolution, I am pleased to report that the discussion has gone from how to reduce the deficit to how to invest the surplus. The economy is strong and all indications show that economic growth will continue. Unemployment is at an all time low and interest rates are not raging out of control. I am proud to have worked to get our fiscal house in order without jeopardizing our economic prosperity. I also welcome the new challenges of how to invest the surplus and maintain our investments in our future. I am pleased that the Republican budget does do the right thing on Social Security. As called for by the President, the Resolution currently before us today does dedicate any budget surplus to saving Social Security. This is the kind of bipartisan work that I am pleased to be part of. Saving Social Security is important for current workers and future retirees. Social Security is the most important anti-poverty program ever implemented by the federal government. As a result of the enactment of Social Security, far fewer seniors live in poverty when they retire. For many, having Social Security gave them the ability to retire. Without Social Security, old age would mean economic insecurity and instability. The program has been an unqualified success and we must continue this proud legacy. We have made a commitment to today's workers that must be honored. When they retire or become disabled, Social Security will protect them and their families from economic disaster. We must do everything possible to maintain the success of Social Security. But I am concerned that there are some who want to use the surplus to provide tax shelters to the most affluent. Make no mistake about it, simply allowing tax cuts to encourage workers to set up individual retirement accounts will not have Social Security. It will give those with more income a greater ability to shelter this income, but it does little to help Social Security. Keep in mind, Social Security is a social insurance plan, not a retirement plan. Insurance works best when the risk is spread across the population. Allowing the rich to shelter more of their income to save for retirement will not save Social Security. Please do not hide behind saving Social Security to provide tax cuts to the most affluent. The American worker deserves a more honest and responsible approach. We can reform Social Security without dismantling the program. We need to work in a bipartisan manner to enact real reforms, not tax cuts in disguise. I also urge my Colleagues on the other side not to fool themselves into thinking that dedicated all federal tobacco revenues to Medicare will save the program. Medicare's problems go well beyond just a cash reserve. Unlike Social Security, Medicare has always been a pay-as-you- go program. Simply throwing money at the program will do little to improve the long term condition of the Medicare program. We all know that structural changes are the real answer. We have to improve the health of senior citizens before we can hope to improve the financial health of Medicare. I am pleased that my amendment regarding prevention benefits for Medicare beneficiaries was adopted by the Senate. If my Colleagues on the other side are serious about saving Medicare, we must increase the prevention focus within Medicare. It is simply beyond understanding why Medicare will not reimburse for prescription drugs to reduce cholesterol, but will pay for inpatient, acute care for by-pass surgery. A greater focus on prevention will prove that we are serious about saving Medicare. Prevention benefits are the kind of reforms needed to really save Medicare. It seems almost insincere to target new federal tobacco revenues to Medicare and not put these benefits to use in improving the health status of senior citizens. I think the greatest failure of this budget is the complete disregard for enacting real tobacco control legislation. The debate is not just about how to spend tobacco revenues, but enacting a national anti- smoking bill that could potentially wipe out smoking in less than one generation. We have an historic opportunity to end the plague of tobacco. We cannot afford to let this opportunity pass. The Republican budget resolution creates huge roadblocks for enacting tobacco control legislation. I am concerned that the Resolution will block any new revenues for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nicotine as a drug. Without new revenues, FDA cannot enforce youth access laws that prevent children from buying cigarettes. Without tobacco revenues, FDA cannot regulate an industry known for hiding the facts and lying to Congress. How can FDA challenge an industry that has creatively targeted our children? There can be no anti-smoking national policy without a strong and well-financed FDA. Any attempt to pass anti tobacco legislation without a strong FDA will only fail. We will never end the tobacco companies attack on our children. This Budget Resolution fails our children in many ways. Not just about tobacco, but in preparing them for the challenges they will face tomorrow. We have all seen study after study that proves we need to place education as a top priority at both the federal and state level. Our children do not have the resources and are not being given the opportunity to meet their potential. I am disappointed in the lack of any effort in the Republican Budget Resolution to deal with overcrowded classrooms and decaying schools. How can we hope for high test scores when children have no heat in the classroom or windows covered with cardboard? How can we hope to prepare our children when there are 45 children in each classroom? How does a child receive the individual attention so important to cultivating their skills and their self esteem when there are 45 students for every teacher? Our classrooms boarder on chaos every day because of these deplorable conditions. Yet the Republican response was to simply ignore these problems. These are not local problems as some may argue. A well educated and skilled work force is a national security issue. We cannot remain a global economic power without a well educated and skilled work force. If we do not dedicate the resources necessary to ensure that every child can learn and can learn in an environment that is geared toward more than just survival, we jeopardize our own economic stability. Education is not just a local concern or a concern of parents. Ask any business owner about the need to have an adequate supply of skilled labor. I can assure you that this is not a local issue, but is becoming a national disgrace. Ignoring investments in education is simply irresponsible and selfish. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and address the pressing needs of today's classrooms. We can do better.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, my amendment increases Function 500 budget authority and outlays to include the President's education initiatives, and adds the Resolution level for IDEA. The offset is a Function 920 across-the- board reduction of less than one percent, taken from non-defense discretionary funds. The President's budget request only included a level of $35 million for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (I.D.E.A). To get the Federal Government back on track toward its responsibility to cover 40 percent of the cost of educating special education students at the local level, significant increases are necessary. The Resolution level in fiscal year 99 for Function 500 is $500 million below a freeze. It does not provide enough funding for the important education initiatives requested by the President and supported by the American public: Continuing investments in education technology, including teacher training reflecting my Teacher Technology Training Act; creation of education empowerment zones; appropriations for Minority Teacher Recruitment; funding for the 21st Century Learning Centers; appropriations for Children's Literacy and Work Study; increases for Title I funding; an increase in the maximum Pell Grant; and increased funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. My amendment makes education a higher priority within the construct of a balanced budget. I must point out that even with my amendment, the President and the Budget Committee have left other critical educational services unfunded. But by passing this amendment, we will take steps to stop the cuts to education, and get on the road toward results for American students. Mr. President, the American people believe education should be a higher priority than its current 1.8 percent of total Federal outlays. They see the need to improve the quality of every Federal education program, minimize red tape, improve efficiency, and create collaboration. But, they also see our Nation facing increased enrollments, a teacher corps nearing retirement, and other factors which increase the overall need for education funding at this critical point in our history. The American people see that education must become a higher priority in our national budget. Unfortunately, this budget fails to meet the education needs of America. It does not invest in the future. It cuts from services that are helping students in schools today. This budget resolution places America at a crossroads--and it takes us down the wrong road. A vote for the Murray amendment is a vote that honors our commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of special education funding, but doesn't try to pit students against one another over limited federal dollars. We need to invest in the future, and we need a budget that reflects America's priorities. Mr. President, when looking at the budget resolution as it came from the Committee, I think we need to ask ``what do the assumptions in the Republican budget resolution leave out?'' The answers are disturbing. Within Function 500, for sub-function 501 (Elementary and Secondary Education), Chairman Domenici's Committee resolution starts with a freeze. The resolution then adds $2.5 billion for funding for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), and $6.3 billion for Title VI School Reform efforts, for a total of $8.8 billion over 5 years. From this amount, the majority then assumes that $2.2 billion will be saved through consolidation of current educational services, leaving their overall add to a freeze at $6.6 billion. Mr. President, another important question now arises: Which important priorities of the American people were left out when the majority ignored the President's new initiatives? The only education programs explicitly left unfunded by the discretionary Republican budget resolution are the President's new initiatives (such as educational empowerment zones; teacher technology training; the new transition to school program; community-based technology centers; and Safe and Drug-Free Schools coordinators). These programs total $2.4 billion. When added to the $7.3 billion in mandatory spending for class size reduction, the total President's request level for new sub-function 501 funds is $9.7 billion over a freeze. Because the Republicans assume $2.2 billion in consolidation, we need to ask another question: Which current programs will be cut under their $2.2 billion consolidation proposal? This list could include any discretionary elementary and secondary education program, such as: Title I Education for the Disadvantaged (including reading and math assistance for needy students; Even Start; Migrant Education; services for neglected and delinquent students; and others.) America Reads Children's Literacy Eisenhower Professional Development Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Magnet Schools Education for Homeless Children and Youth Inexpensive Book Distribution Bilingual Education Goals 2000 Arts in Education Women's Educational Equity School-to-Work Vocational Education The American people will remember that last year, during debates on consolidation and block granting, proponents of block-granting federal education funds proclaimed that by eliminating bureaucracy under block- granting, school districts would actually have more money to spend, not less. Hold-harmless provisions were discussed, which would purportedly assure that school districts would not see funding cuts. But we had all heard this kind of talk before, from those who start by ``consolidating,'' and then take the next step to ``downsizing.'' Too often a block-grant equals a cut, and our school communities know it. We were told that the fundamental philosophical question was whether or not we believed that individual school districts and parents and teachers know best how to handle education in their own communities, or whether we believed those fundamental decisions are best left to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. I think the fundamental question is rather when certain people in positions of authority in Washington D.C. are going to listen to their state and local governments and the people. This is a time of incredible renewal in education. Republicans, Democrats and Independents in my state of Washington and other states are on a serious, measurable road to school improvement. From school report cards, to higher standards, to increased family and community involvement--improvement is happening, accountability is present, and students and their parents are seeing results. At a minimum, there is a fundamental discussion about educational improvement going on in every community in my state. When federal consolidation is tied to questions of ``who knows best,'' I think those who do know best, the parents, teachers, students, and community leaders like those in my state have reason to feel betrayed. Because money does matter. Yes, we need to consolidate services where it has an educational goal. Yes, the federal government works best when it creates red tape least--but Americans interested in improving education already have venues to make these changes. And these discussions--such as the one that will occur during the 1999 rewrite of federal elementary and secondary education programs--respect the knowledge and experience of those who actually learn with or work with federal education services. But when the Congress ignores needed investments to improve school facilities and improve the quality of school personnel--then uses block-grants as cover for education cuts--local communities have reason to feel betrayed. So, my hope is that those who want to improve the federal government's efforts to help students learn, and who see consolidation as a vehicle toward this end, will work with local school communities. My hope is that they will work with those of us who have experience in education. My hope is that we can work together to find results for students. Because when the Congressional majority begins to pay attention to the appropriate federal role in school improvement, that is a positive step. Now that the discussion is joined, however, it must be productive, bipartisan, and aimed at efforts that will work. When we look at this budget resolution, we also need to ask ``what do the assumptions in the President's budget request leave out?'' The President's budget request assumes less than sufficient funding (less than current-services funding, or complete terminations) for, among others: Impact Aid (Construction and payments for Federal Property) State Student Incentive Grant Innovative Education Program Strategies Ellender Fellowships Literacy Programs for Prisoners Urban Community Service National Early Intervention Scholarships and Partnerships State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders In addition, the President's budget includes only $35 million for funding for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act over a freeze annually. My amendment would meet the $500 million increase per year in Sen. Domenici's Committee reported resolution ($465 million over the President's level). For too long, the Congress has not met its obligation to pay 40 percent of the costs of educating each special education student. Education, especially public education, is near and dear to the American people. Although the challenges are great, there are productive discussions happening in public schools across the country. Local people are making decisions that are producing results for students. We know we need to expect more from our schools than folks did in the past. We know we have an economy and a society full of new demands. Regardless of political persuasion, ethnicity, income, age, or any other dividing line one might find--all Americans want students to succeed. And there is broad recognition that we should do more, not less. More to improve the quality of our schools. And more to make education a higher priority in the federal budget. I urge adoption of the Murray amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters regarding education funding be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of this amendment and offer my congratulations to the Senator from Illinois for bringing this critical issue to the attention of the Senate and to the attention of the Nation. Certainly it is an issue of safety and health for many children across our country. For all of us who go out and visit schools on a regular basis, we see classrooms that are in cafeterias, in gymnasiums, and in closet space--of all things--all across this country, and that is wrong. This is an issue that has to be addressed. Let me also bring to the attention of my colleagues the issue that many of us hear about--the high number of jobs that are available today in the area of technology. The ITEA recently put out a study showing there are 200,000 job openings today. These are $40,000- to $60,000-a- year jobs available in technology, yet we don't have the skills or students with the skills available to go into these jobs because they haven't had the education and the experience in their schools. I have worked very hard to bring technology to the floor of the Senate as an issue. We have put computers into our schools, technology into our schools. In a few minutes, the Labor Committee will be working on the Reauthorization Act that includes my language to train teachers in technology throughout our schools, but if we don't pass the issue of school construction, far too many of our children will never have access to these skills because they are in classrooms where you cannot plug in a computer. This issue is critical and I urge my colleagues to support it. I, again, thank my colleague from Illinois for bringing it to our attention and appreciate her long concern and work on this issue.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be laid aside.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we will vote on this shortly. I believe it is one of the most important issues that is before us, and I urge its adoption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that material regarding class size reduction be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Dodd, and I commend the Senator from Connecticut for attempting to make the Senate address the need to improve affordable childcare in this nation. Mr. President, few issues are more important in determining the future of our children and our nation than access to safe and affordable child care. Ensuring the availability of affordable, quality child care programs must be a top national priority for us as lawmakers, as parents, and as citizens. Today, we have a rare opportunity to offer hope to families struggling to find or keep their children safe and learning. By sponsoring this amendment, Senator Dodd has sent an important message to every American who is working hard to raise a child--we know it is sometimes difficult, and we know your government has a responsibility to assist you in your most important work. With this amendment, of which I am lead cosponsor, we make room in the budget to lay out a vision for the type of assistance the American public has told us will truly help. First, I must say that like many issues affecting children and families, child care is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Senator Dodd and I have had the opportunity to work toward child care solutions with several Republican senators over the past couple of months. Although both parties and the administration have submitted differing child care proposals, I know we can all work together to create a new child care law that does what American families need. With the right mix of participation from families and communities, private industry, and government, we can create a child care system that is the envy of the world. But we don't have that system today. And, this is why the Senator from Connecticut's proposal is so critical to our nation's success. Because child care is not just a place you put a child until you get home from work. If we know one thing about child care today, that many of us have long intuitively known was the case, it is that child care is an enterprise defined by the quality of education and care that it provides. Let us examine some of what we know about child care in America today: Recent research about the way a child's brain develops shows us the importance of quality care to a child's healthy development. The first three years of a child's development are decisive in determining that child's future. Quality child care, with an age-appropriate developmental and educational focus, provides the early stimulation required to correctly develop a child's sensitive neural systems. It is time for policy-makers and the American public to reject the narrow view of early child care and education as separate entities. Early child development must now assume its place in our local and national funding priorities as an integral piece of the educational process. Child care lays the foundation required for a lifetime of learning. Children who experience quality care demonstrate higher language and math skills when entering school. Our first National Educational Goal is that by the year 2000 every child will enter school ready to learn. Without quality early child development programs for all children, we cannot meet this important goal. Early child development also gives children the increased self-perception and social skills that allow them to succeed in school and in life. We cannot continue to view child care as ``just another expense.'' Funding for quality care represents a wise investment in our nation's future. Studies consistently show that quality child development programs produce long-term positive social benefits. Quality care reduces the anti-social behavior and chronic delinquency which threaten the stability of our communities. Early child development must also be a priority if we truly want to halt the spread of crime. Law enforcement leaders across the nation agree that investments that create a safe and nurturing environment for children, especially in the critical hours between 3 and 10 p.m., will sharply reduce crime. Some early childhood services for low-income toddlers have been found to cut the number of chronic criminal offenders by 80 percent and delinquency by 90 percent. By providing children with the preparation to learn, quality child care prevents the lack of literacy and marketable skills that force many people to rely on public assistance. By reducing the later, more-expensive costs of public assistance and imprisonment, investment in child care can save billions of taxpayer dollars. The High Scope Preschool Study found that by providing increased tax revenues and reduced costs of crime and welfare, every dollar invested in high quality early childhood programs for low income children eventually saved $7 of taxpayer money. Despite the monumental consequences, the current American ``system'' of early child development meets neither the demand for supply, nor the quality required of it. In too many communities, parents are simply unable to find affordable, quality care. The situation is especially acute for low-income parents; the working poor currently face waiting lists in thirty-eight states. Although children from low-income families receive the most benefit from child care, they attend child development programs at only half the rate of children from high-income families. The 1996 welfare law dramatically increased the already urgent demand for affordable, quality child care. Welfare plans will direct over two million parents, mostly mothers, into the workforce. Without the support provided by child care which meets at least minimal standards of affordability and quality, few parents can afford to leave the home for the workplace. Too many existing child care programs fail to provide developmentally-appropriate care. Studies show that less than a tenth of child care centers provide appropriate care. A recent national study found that most centers provide care that is poor or mediocre. The widespread lack of appropriate training and experience, and the lack of safe facilities, holds long-term consequences for the health and development of American children. Efforts to improve K-12 education can never be fully successful when one-third of our children enter kindergarten unprepared to learn. We cannot not allow providers to maintain environments which harm our children. The federal government must do something to help states improve their standards--we cannot allow dangerous and inadequate child care environments to continue. A recent analysis of state regulations found that no states have child care safety regulations above the ``mediocre'' level. We must also improve standards in the half million to million unlicensed home child care businesses operating in this country. Simply because a child is in an unlicensed facility does not decrease her need for developmentally-appropriate challenges. There are things we can do to increase the kind of care that stimulates a child's early growth. Parents are an integral part of a child's early developmental growth and must have the opportunity to become involved in early child care programs. Parents cite lack of time as the top reason for not becoming involved in their children's education. I am proud to have sponsored the Time for Schools Act of 1997 which expands uses for time under the Family Medical Leave Act to allow parents to be involved in their children's education, or to take care of child care emergencies, without losing their job. There is also so much more we can do to involve parents in the care and education of their children. Across this nation, people have worked to put tools in the hands of parents, so they can make the best choices possible when it comes to the care of their children. The family is the engine that drives our economy and society. Any child care legislation must include efforts to get parents and families the information they need, whether it's about choosing quality child care, choosing to stay home and care for a child, or choosing strategies to make caring for a child safer and more affordable. There are things that states across the nation can learn from my the experiences of my home state of Washington. Washington state has a child care system nationally recognized for its excellence. State licensing requirements far exceed federal standards and go further than almost all state regulations towards ensuring safe child care. The state has implemented an integrated system of child care assistance for all low-moderate income families, regardless of whether they are involved in work first programs. In addition, the state legislature has instituted a training requirement for child care professionals, and provided initial funds for a training system and a registry to track that training. But even in a state like Washington, the lack of investment from the federal level forces difficult choices at the state level--in our case, lower subsidies which are reducing options for low-income parents. So whatever solutions we seek here must give assistance flexibly to states, so individual states can make improvements in the areas where they need it most. Two other discussions in my state are very promising, and they deserve your attention. First, there is the work of the Human Services Policy Center at the University of Washington. The Policy Center has reached out to leaders in the private and public sectors, and to parents and the child care community, and come up with recommendations to improve child care financing. Their study, ``Financing Quality Child Care in Washington,'' provides a thorough review of the state of child care financing in one state, with implications for our national debate. Another very exciting discussion and project is underway in Spokane, Washington, of which you all should be aware. It is a family child care demonstration home and small business center, created by a wide array of partners: Founding partners, including The Health Improvement Partnership of Spokane, Holy Family Hospital, the Nevada-Lidgerwood Neighborhood, and Northwest Regional Facilitators (the local child care resource and referral agency); and newer partners, including the Child Care Facility Fund of Washington State, the Dayton Hudson Foundation, Spokane Falls Community College, Eastern Washington Association for the Education of Young Children, Eastern Washington Family Child Care Association, Family Care Resources, Kathy Modigliani National Accreditation, the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, the Washington State Office of Child Care Policy, the Small Business Development Center, and the Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network. The project is called the ``Family Child Care HOME (Hands On Model Environment)'' and provides child care in a high quality family child care setting for children from infant to age twelve. The projects also provides orientation and training for child care providers, and a business incubation center for new family child care businesses. The HOME project partners have also set up a revolving microcredit loan program, for child care providers to purchase equipment, expand their business, acquire professional training and remodel their facilities. On site at the child care home, there is a library, equipped with toys, books, start-up supplies, videos, and child centered leaning materials for all child care providers throughout the county. In addition, there is a consumer education center for parents, businesses, and communities to learn more about family child care. I have gone into some detail today, about the state of child care in this nation, and some examples from my own home state, because the Dodd amendment gives us a chance to do something good for American families. The Senator from Connecticut has introduced legislation to address this issue more comprehensively than the amendment before us today. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that bill as well. But if we do not pass this amendment, this Senate will never even have a chance to debate the merits of the bill that could actually improve child care for working parents. Working Americans, many of them lower income, are in the greatest need for assistance in our current child care system; the Dodd-Kennedy- Harkin-Murray ACCESS bill would do a lot of important things to help them. It includes refundable tax credits to provide such assistance. The ACCESS bill does not mandate national standards; it gives states the funding and flexibility to make quality improvements where they see them as necessary. The bill expands Family and Medical Leave to more employees. Taken along with my ``Time for Schools Act'' allowing parents to take care of child care emergencies, this represents a true step forward. The ACCESS bill provides funding for important quality improvements, including resource and referral services --currently the best source parents have for child care information in many states. Parent education can be expanded with these funds--giving parents the kind of information and resources they are looking for. The bill makes several changes to promote the kind of private/public partnerships happening in my state. It sends out challenge grants and employer tax credits, but doesn't limit businesses' involvement to the children of their own employees. The quality of child care in the community as a whole will benefit from such provisions. But the point here today is that we will never even have a chance to pose such questions to the Senate if the Dodd amendment is rejected. That is because the budget resolution before us today does not allow us to debate childcare. It makes no provisions for addressing the childcare needs of American families. By reading this resolution, one could easily conclude the majority party in the Senate simply does not care about childcare. Not every partent can afford to hire a nanny to look after their children. When we begin to see child care, especially family child care, as a business opportunity, and supporting investments that lead to child care businesses becoming licensed and meeting other quality guidelines then we will begin to build capacity in our communities. We want people to enter this business, to do it well, and to succeed. As I mentioned, there is bipartisan agreement about the need to improve child care in this country. There must also be agreement about funding, or we will not have child care improvement this year. I can assure the American public that if Congress hears loudly enough about the interest and need for child care improvement, we will find the money for this. Within the context of a balanced budget, with or without a tobacco settlement or any other possible funding source--if this is a national priority, we can take this step. But the American people must weigh in, or it will not happen. Increasing the supply of quality child care must become a top national priority. Failure to do so threatens our children's future, and that of our nation. I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, for offering this amendment I offered in the Budget Committee. I can tell you, as a working parent, one of the most critical issues that faces parents every single morning across this country is, will my child have a place to be? I have had the experience, and I guess that many parents across this country have had the experience, of dropping their child off at day care on a Friday and have them say to you, ``We will not be here on Monday. We decided to go out of the business.'' There is nothing worse that can happen to you in a day than to all of a sudden panic and try to find a place to put your child who may be 2, 3, 8, or 10, and you know they need a safe place, you know you need to be at work Monday morning, and there is nowhere for your child. Mr. President, across this country businesses are recognizing this critical issue because they know they need their employees to be productive. A productive employee is not sitting at work worrying about whether their child is safe or taken care of; a productive employee is one who knows their child is all right. This amendment simply puts in place a placeholder so that this Congress will address the issue that is discussed at almost every kitchen table of every family across this country. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for being a leader on this issue for so many years.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive all points of order against the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the amendment that we will vote on shortly simply puts in place a deficit-neutral reserve fund for class-size improvement, especially in the early grades. And, it would use as an offset anything we designate over the coming year in available mandatory savings or revenues, except for tobacco revenues. I know that the chairman is going to say that this reserve fund has no money and it has not set up any specific policy on class size reduction. He is absolutely right. It is exactly what he has done in his budget with the tobacco reserve fund and with the tax cut fund. I have learned from him that if we want priorities within our budget, this is the way we go about it. Education is a priority. As I pointed out this morning, 2 percent of our budget goes to education. At a time when parents and families and communities and States are struggling with this issue. Parents say to us that they want their children's class sizes reduced. I have talked to parents, I have talked to students, teachers, principals. Down the road, they say, this is going to make an important difference in our children's education. I think the most important thing to remember is what every parent says to their child when they come home on the first day of school. They ask two questions: Who is your teacher? and how many students are in your classroom? because they know that the best qualified teacher, the best trained teacher will make a difference for their child, and they know that the number of students who are in that classroom will make a difference in their child's ability to learn and be productive and get the skills they need to grow up and get a job and be a positive member of our economy and society in the future. Budgets are not just about today. Yes, we have a balanced budget before us today. But, more importantly, we have to ask ``will it be balanced in the future?'' The only way for our budget to be balanced in the future is for us to make sure that our students, who are in school today, have adequate resources available. To make sure they get the skills they need to contribute to the economy, so that we have a strong budget in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Dodd and Senator Kennedy as original cosponsors of this amendment, as well as Senator Daschle.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes off the budget time on the Democratic side.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague for her tremendous leadership on this issue. There is nobody from the other side on the floor here. If they can find the chairman, we would like to find out what their intent is on this vote. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague. I absolutely agree. I believe we are at a fundamental crossroads in this country, where we are going to decide now, today, whether we are going to go down a narrow path of just letting a few kids succeed in education across this country, with vouchers, block grants, and eliminating the Federal role altogether; or we can collectively say, no, not in my country, not in my home, not in my community, not in my State. In this country, where we believe that public education is critical for every student, we want to go down the road that makes a difference. By making sure our crumbling schools are fixed, making sure that there are teachers who are well-trained, and making sure there is a number of students in a classroom that allows them to learn those math skills and English skills they so desperately need in today's and tomorrow's economy. I look forward to working with my colleague to make sure we go down the right road and not the wrong road. We will find out today what the Senate says. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for putting in perspective what we are talking about today. The students in my classroom weren't Republican, Democrat, or Independent. They didn't say, oh, this is a local issue; oh, this is a State issue, those Federal people should not be involved. They looked around in their classroom and said: How many kids are in here with me? Do I get time with my teacher; do I get personal attention? As my colleague from Illinois notes, there is no silver bullet to making education better across this country. But we have to put our efforts in places where we know they make a difference. My colleague from Illinois has addressed tirelessly the issue of crumbling schools across the country. And the issue of safety and the ability to learn, and the issue of class size, again, where school buildings simply can't expand, where our children are in unsafe situations. If together we address the crumbling schools, and class size, and if we train our teachers with the skills they need to teach effectively in our classrooms today and tomorrow, we will turn public education around. I know my colleague from Illinois has heard as much as I have from all those politicians and leaders who are saying public education has failed. I don't believe public education has failed. I believe we have failed public education. We have a responsibility to turn it around right now, today, in the Senate. I thank my colleague from Illinois. I yield to her.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield such time as she may consume to the Senator from Illinois.