Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Minnesota and Wisconsin for their support of this issue, for their understanding of this issue, for their backing and their commitment to making sure that we set as a priority in this country the issue of education and, most critically, the issue of class size across this country. Mr. President, I came to the Senate 5 years ago. And I was frustrated when I came, and I felt that leaders in Washington, DC, were not really dealing with the issues that I talked about and I worried about at home at my kitchen table every night 2,500 miles away in the State of Washington. I have to say that over the past 5 years we have begun to make progress and talk about the real issues that everyday families talk about at their kitchen tables every night. Certainly we have finally balanced the budget and stopped deficit spending, something that families worry about. But, more importantly, we have faced issues such as family medical leave that allows parents to take time off from their jobs to take care of a sick child. We have put 100,000 police officers on the streets because many families across this country at their kitchen tables worry about the safety of their families on a daily basis. We have addressed some of those critical issues and much more. But today on the floor of the Senate, I can say with certainty that this Congress, under this proposed budget, is badly missing the mark when it comes to addressing the most important concern that every parent faces today and every family talks about at their kitchen table at night. Families ask: Will my child get a good education? Will my child get the attention they deserve? Will they be safe? Will they be taught the skills they need to get a job in tomorrow's economy? Those are the kitchen table conversations that worry every single family in this country. Mr. President, I can tell you today I feel absolutely confident that I can speak to this issue with a lot of background and understanding. I came to the Senate with a daughter who was in 7th grade and a son who was in 10th grade. They both have spent their entire K-12 years in public education. I am a product of public education. Today my daughter is a senior in high school, and she is my best adviser about what is happening in our public education system. And what they say to me--what my daughter and my son say to me--is, it is difficult to learn the skills that they need when they are in crowded classrooms. They do not get the attention they need in math or science or English, and they tell me that there is what they call ``hall rage'' in our classrooms because of crowded classrooms with a lot of kids in our classrooms. It tends to generate a lot of frustration and rage among our children, and safety is a concern. Mr. President, as Senator Wellstone said, I come here as an educator. I am a former community college instructor. I taught parent education, and I also taught preschool. I had in my class twenty-four 4- and 5- year-olds. I know what a difference it makes when you reduce the number of children that are in a classroom. When I had 18 children in my classroom, I could take the individual time that I needed to work with these young children to help them get a grasp on the alphabet, to begin to learn to spell their names, to understand the world around them, to sit down in groups with other children and learn how to ``get along'' --a skill too many kids do not have today. I know what happened the next year when I had 24 children in my class--much less individual attention; it became no longer teaching, it became crowd control. I know as a teacher that reducing class size, particularly in the young grades, will make a difference for children across this country. I also come here with experience being a school board member. I have managed budgets at the school district level. I know how tough those decisions are. I know how difficult it is to meet the demands that everyday school districts have. As a school board director in a suburban district, I was frustrated with the lack of funding that we got. We were frustrated with the lack of priority that education had at the Federal level, and we were constantly frustrated that we could not do the right thing. I can tell you, as a schoolboard member who has managed thousands of dollars in education funding at the local level, this amendment, this goal, this direction for our country, is badly needed. I also come here as a former State senator. I served on the budget- writing committee in my State senate. I know what a priority education is for our States, and I know how difficult it is for them to address this issue. My State of Washington has the fourth worst class size in the Nation. If my State and other States across this country were told that this was a national priority and one that they would not just be told is a priority they have to do, but one that they got a jump-start with from the Federal level, it would make it easier for them and a priority for them to do what we are asking them to do and what they know they need to do. I come here today as a budget writer in the U.S. Senate. I have served on the national budget-writing committee for 5 years. I have worked diligently to reduce the deficit and to make sure that we put our priorities in place. That is why, when I look at the budget that is on the floor today, I say the priorities are not in the right place. My amendment simply puts aside a reserve fund so that when this Congress begins to do what parents are asking them to do across this country, and to make this a national priority, we have in place a deficit- neutral account that we can begin to put funds in so that we can address this absolutely critical issue. I have told you what my personal experience is. You have heard from several of my colleagues. But most importantly, studies back up what I have just told you. A 1989 study of the Tennessee STAR Program, which compared the performance of students in grades K through 3 in small and regular-sized classes, found that students in small classes--13 to 17 students--significantly outperformed other students in math and reading every year at all grade levels across geographic areas. Mr. President, I have heard a number of my colleagues come to the floor and worry and fret over the fact that students are not graduating from high school with the skills they need to get into the job market. Class size makes a difference in their ability to get these skills. The studies show it. The followup study of the STAR Program in 1995 found that students in small classes in grades K through 3 continued to outperform their peers at least through grade 8 with achievement advantages, especially large for minority students. Class size reduction makes a difference. How long are we going to ignore these studies on the floor of the Senate? How long are we going to say no, not here? Other State and local studies have since found that students in smaller classes outperform their peers in reading and math, they perform as well or better than students in magnet or voucher schools, and that gains are especially significant among African American males. The studies back up what my experience shows, and the studies back up what every single Senator and Congressman says that they have as a goal today, which is to improve math and science and reading skills across this country. But we do not just have to listen to what the studies say; we should listen to what parents say. When any parent is sitting there the afternoon that their child comes home from their very first day of school in September, there are two questions that every single parent in every household across this country asks their child on that first day of school when they come home. They say: ``Who is your teacher? How many students are in your classroom?'' Who is your teacher? Universal questions in every home across this country. Why? Because parents know that who that teacher is and the quality of that teacher is critical to their child's learning for the next entire 9 months: ``How many children are in your classroom?'' Every single parent intuitively knows that their child will get a better education the smaller the class size. And I can tell you, when that student answers, ``35 children, 40 children,'' that parent feels, ``This is not going to be a great year.'' Parents know that the skills their child needs to succeed will be better learned in a smaller class size. And that is why they ask on the first day of school, ``How many students are in your classroom?'' Parents today are also concerned about children's safety. No surprise. And I can tell you as a teacher, and I know that every parent knows, that if a teacher has the ability to listen to their children, to work with their children, to prepare their children, and to really get to know those young people in their classrooms, their safety will be much, much better. And discipline will be much less of a problem, because that teacher has time to work with those tough kids that are in their classes today. But, we have heard what parents say. We know what the studies say. What are teachers saying? I have taken some time over the last few weeks to ask teachers what they said about class size. These are the people, the professionals that are in our classrooms every day with our young people. Here is what some teachers have said to me: This ``is the most important improvement we can make. A working condition that in many ways is [far] more important [to me] than salary. If teachers feel like they are making progress, other complaints seem minimal. If teachers feel behind, at a loss, and overwhelmed by large classes, any other problems loom large.'' ``It's not only important for classroom management, but also for time spent evaluating each student's work, and time for individual attention with each student.'' One teacher told me: ``The difference between teaching a class of 31 high school students and teaching 28 is the difference between lion- taming and teaching.'' Mr. President, students and teachers and parents know that class size reduction makes a difference. I also have a young group of students that I work with in my home State. They are called my Student Advisory Youth Involvement Team. I go to them on a regular basis, and I tell them, as young people under the age of 18, that their voice is important here in the Nation's Capital and their priorities are important as well. And I ask them how they feel about different issues that are coming before the Senate. I took some time to talk to some of those young students over the past several weeks about class size and what is happening in their schools and what could make a difference. Christopher Shim, who is a 17-year-old from Mercer High School, said, ``In elementary school, I actually felt I was pretty lucky. I was able to get personal time with the teacher, even though we had 30-35 students in my elementary classrooms.'' He continued, ``In high school, I have 40 people in my calculus class. This means any time I have a question, there are 10 people in line.'' Mr. President, we stand out here on the floor of the Senate and we talk about how important it is for our young people to get math and science skills, and yet here is a student who says when he needs help with a question in calculus, there are 10 people consistently in line. Smaller class sizes make a difference. I had another student who said to me, ``In [my] high school civics class, there is only one teacher teaching two classes of 40 students each. It's harder to get through the curriculum and get answers to your questions.'' Mr. President, consistently students gave me comments. And I will be reading more of them throughout the debate. But one after the other, what these young people--who are in the classrooms today, where the stress is on them to get the good grades, to go on to college, to get a good job--what they told me consistently was that they felt that reducing class size was important. Are we going to listen to parents? Are we going to listen to teachers? Are we going to listen to the young people themselves? Are we going to listen to the thousands of families across our communities today who know this makes a difference, who say to their child when they come home, ``How many kids are in your classroom?'' because they know? Are we going to listen to the studies? Are we going to say it is the right thing to do to make this a national priority? Or today on the floor of the Senate, are we going to say no? Are we going to say that 2 percent is enough? Are we going to say that education is no longer a priority of this Government? I have heard too many people say, ``Leave it to the local school boards. Leave it to the States. It should not be a national priority.'' I could not disagree more. We cannot pass the buck any longer. Making sure that every one of our children gets a good education is a priority for every adult in this country, whether they are a parent, a community leader, a State leader, or a national leader. It is our responsibility to set the priorities within this budget. My amendment allows us to do that as the debate progresses across the rest of this year. Mr. President, as you know, I feel strongly about this, and I know there are a number of my colleagues who are here today who support this as well. I yield to the Democratic ranking member at this time for a statement.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I taught at the community college level, parent education, and I taught preschool, 4- and 5-year-olds.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are about to consider, I believe, one of the most important amendments that this body faces. It has to do with public education and the direction that this Congress, this Senate, this budget is going in that will affect the lives of thousands of students and their families and their neighborhoods and communities across this country. Mr. President, I believe one of the main principles that this country was founded on was that of education, public education, the ability for every child in this country, no matter who they are, where they come from, what their financial background is, to have a strong education, an education that will allow them to learn how to read, how to write, how to participate in a democracy, and how to be a contributing citizen to our economy once they have reached the adult age. Mr. President, I think it is very shocking that this budget which sits before us and the policies we are about to put in place say to students and their parents across this country that education is no longer a top priority in this country. I think that is a terrible message and one that we have to change with this budget today. Now is the time. Mr. President, it is amazing to me that in the fiscal year 1998 budget, the entire budget--look at this chart--2 percent of our entire Federal budget goes to education. Yet, when you ask parents and families and people across this country whether or not we are spending enough on education, only 9 percent of this country think we are spending too much; only 26 percent think we are spending the right amount; and 58 percent of the people in this country believe we are spending too little on education. Mr. President, I could not agree more. Two percent of our budget is not enough. It is not enough funds for our children, and it is the wrong message in this country, where we believe that democracy will survive if every one of our children has the access they need to a quality education--be it public or private. But in particular, in terms of what we spend here in the Nation's Capital for students across this country, it is far too little. The amendment that we now have before us simply establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for class size improvement, especially in the early grades. It was used as an offset for any available mandatory savings or revenues, with the exception of tobacco revenues. What this amendment does is put in place a placeholder, if you will, in the budget so when this Congress begins to listen to parents and students and families and teachers and communities across this country, we will have a placeholder in the budget that we can at our discretion put available funds into to make sure that we address the issue of class size. I know that class size reduction makes a difference. Every parent in this country knows that, every teacher knows that, businesses know that, and communities know that. And throughout this morning's debate, I will talk about what parents say, what students say, and what teachers say, because I believe if we begin to fundamentally address the issue of class size and the tremendous loads in our classrooms today, we will begin to address the critical need of education and make a tremendous difference for our country in the future. Mr. President, at this time, I will yield such time as he may need to Senator Wellstone to speak on behalf of this amendment, and then I will go into detail about my amendment and what I want to do in this budget.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. That is fine.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that we have sent to the desk has to do with education and class size. I ask this amendment be laid aside and have debate at a time to be determined by the ranking member.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is really a great morning. After 2 years, I have the immense pleasure of voting with the majority of my colleagues to confirm two judges that I have worked very hard to get through this often difficult process. I thank my colleagues for their support of these two fine individuals, Ms. Margaret McKeown and Mr. Ed Shea. In particular, I thank our chairman, Senator Hatch, our ranking member, Senator Leahy, and my colleague, Senator Gorton, for their perseverance on behalf of these two individuals. I would first like to tell my colleagues about the newest judge to the Ninth Circuit, Ms. McKeown. Before coming to the Senate, I had heard across the spectrum that Ms. McKeown was one of the finest business lawyers in the northwest. Now that she and I have spent time together, I have come to understand why she had that reputation: she is tenacious, does outstanding work, is an accomplished advocate, and has the patience of Job. Let me summarize some of the high points of Ms. McKeown's career: She was the first woman partner at the 70-year-old, prestigious firm of Perkins Coie; She has served for 11 years on the Perkins Coie executive and management committees; She is a nationally recognized litigator who was named in Top Players in High Tech Intellectual Property; Her range of litigation is amazing: one day she is litigating about the typeface in personal computers, the next day she is defending a securities case, the next day she might be litigating avionics in military aircraft; She was president of the Federal Bar Association for the Western District of Washington and a lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference; She has worked as an aide to United States Senator Cliff Hansen of Wyoming, as a special assistant under President Carter to Interior Secretary Andrus, and as White House Fellow under President Reagan; She is on the executive committee of the Washington State Council on International Trade; and She has served as counsel for the Downtown Seattle Business Association. While who you know is important, and what you do as a lawyer is critical, where you put your priorities is also vital. One of the reasons I so strongly supported Ms. McKeown's nomination is because of her commitment to her community and family. I am amazed that the same person who represented Boeing in a multi- billion dollar merger and who has successfully defended Citibank in a complex leverage buy out case has also served in virtually every position in the Girl Scouts. She has been a Brownie leader, troop consultant, committee member, and for nine years, member of the National Board of Directors of Girl Scouts of the USA and a member of the Executive Committee. Even with her national commitments, Ms. McKeown makes time for the girls themselves, leading her daughter, Megan's, Junior Girl Scout Troop #1091. Ms. McKeown is active in other arenas as well. She volunteers in the schools, with YMCA, with the Children's Museum, and on abused children projects. I want to point out something else special about Ms. McKeown: She has received the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. That magazine several years ago named Ms. McKeown as one of the ``100 Women of Promise in America.'' Mr. President, Margaret McKeown is a highly-qualified lawyer with a diverse background, who has demonstrated her commitment to community and family. Now, finally, after surviving the political and judicial battles for two years, she will take her seat on the Ninth Circuit and become an outstanding judge. Congratulations, Margaret, we finally made it! Mr. President, I also want to thank my colleagues for confirming Mr. Shea this morning to serve on Washington's Eastern District Court. While Mr. Shea's road to confirmation has not been as filled with hurdles as Ms. McKeown's, it is a great pleasure to see this fine lawyer move onto the Federal bench. Mr. Shea will make an excellent judge. He is a highly respected member of the legal profession. He has served with distinction as a trial lawyer, including national recognition as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. The five superior court judges in Benton and Franklin counties, where Mr. Shea has lived and practiced for more than 25 years, have written a letter describing him as having a ``well-earned reputation, not only in our community but throughout the Northwest, as an outstanding trial lawyer.'' His fellow Washington state lawyers honored him by electing him president of the Washington State Bar Association, where he served with distinction. Many of them have approached me to congratulate me on my role in promoting Mr. Shea's judicial candidacy. While we must look first to his legal qualifications, I believe the best judges are those who have worked in their communities to make them better places. Mr. Shea is well-qualified in that arena, too. He has been an advocate of equal access to the law, volunteering and working to get free or reduced legal services to local organizations, such as the March of Dimes, the Sexual Assault Response Center, and the Faith Christian Academy. Mr. Shea also worked hard in an area nearest to my heart: education. He pushed to improve access to education in his community by helping establish a branch campus of the Washington State University in the Tri-Cities. He too has been a stalwart supporter of the March of Dimes, recently being named the Chapter Counsel of the Year by the national March of Dimes. Mr. Shea is a well-respected member of the business community. He has the unanimous support of the board of the Tri-City Industrial Development Council. Mr. Shea has received two strongly-supportive editorials in the Tri-City Herald. Numerous members of the business community have thanked me for championing his nomination. Mr. President, Mr. Shea was selected by a bi-partisan Judicial Merit Selection Committee comprised of a diverse group of lawyers and community leaders. I have faith in that selection process and believe Mr. Shea will be an outstanding member of the Federal bar. Let me close by saying a few words about judicial nominations and the process we have developed in Washington. As I travel around my state, people ask me why we have so many judicial vacancies. I haven't been able to give them a good answer, but can only point to political one- upmanship as the culprit. After this morning, I can happily report we are finally moving forward and that two excellent judicial candidates have been confirmed. Let me also add that while I have been the Senator of the same party as the President, I have invited and encouraged Senator Gorton to participate in judicial nominations. I recognize this is a tremendous break in tradition, but I know our citizens are best served when we work together. I intend to continue working with Senator Gorton to find the very best and most able members of the Washington bar to recommend to President Clinton. I will fight to ensure our citizens have their day in court and that justice is not denied because nominations are delayed. Mr. President, I appreciate the endorsement of my colleagues for Ms. McKeown and Mr. Shea. There are many other qualified judges waiting to move through the process. I urge the Senate to move quickly to hear and confirm them so the crisis our judiciary faces will come to an end.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his continued work on this issue to try to allow us the opportunity to come here to the floor to talk about the most critical issue in this country today, which is the education of our young children. There is a very serious debate that ought to be had. Are we going to go down the road of vouchers and block grants and cutting out the Department of Education, where fewer and fewer children have the opportunity for an education? Or are we going to talk about the proposals that we would like to debate--whether or not our class sizes should be smaller, how we are going to train our teachers for the skills they need with our children in their schools, how we are going to deal with our classrooms that need school construction so badly across this country. There is a debate to be had. We are ready to join it. We want to have that opportunity, and we will stand behind the Democratic leader to be allowed to have that debate on this floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Veterans Burial Rights Act of 1998. I want to personally thank Senator Frank Murkowski, my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the former chairman of the committee, and Senator Paul Sarbanes for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also want to thank the veterans service organizations that worked with us to draft this very important legislation. I particularly want to thank the veterans of my state who first brought this issue to my attention and who have been true partners in this effort. I introduced this legislation for a very simple reason: every day, veterans are being buried across this nation without full military honors--honors earned through service to us all. And that is not right. The Veterans Burial Rights Act of 1998 is a common sense piece of legislation of great importance to the veterans of our country. Our bill requires the Department of Defense to provide honor guard services upon request at the funerals of our veterans. Our bill is the right thing to do. Our country has asked a lot of our veterans. I believe we have a responsibility to tell each and every veteran that we remember and we honor their service to our country. The Veterans Burial Rights Act of 1998 gives meaning to the words ``on behalf of a grateful nation,'' that accompanies the presentation of the flag to the family at a funeral. I can speak personally to the importance of this legislation. I lost my own father last year, a World War II veteran and proud member of the Disabled American Veterans. My family was lucky. We were able to arrange for an honor guard at his service. Having the honor guard there for my family made a big difference and a lasting impression. We were all--and particularly my mother--filled with pride at a very difficult moment for our family, as Dad's service was recognized one final time. It should be this way for every family who lays a veteran to rest. With a downsized military, installations are no longer able to provide trained personnel to perform military honors for every veteran. Veterans service organizations have stepped in and tried to provide the color guard services for deceased fellow veterans. And by most accounts, they do a pretty good job. But VSO's cannot meet the need for color guard services. By their own admission they often lack the crispness and the precision of trained military personnel. Our veterans' population is getting older. More than 36,000 World War II veterans are dying each month. In my own state, close to 5,000 veterans are being laid to rest each month. We cannot expect a group of older veterans to provide these honor guard services day in and day out for their military peers. We are simply asking too much of a generation that has already given so much. I believe we have a responsibility to act. This bill will ensure that every veteran receives a funeral worthy of patriotic service to our country. By passing the Veterans Burial Rights Act of 1998, the Congress will send a powerful message to veterans that their service to us all will never be forgotten. I encourage all Members of the Senate to join in this effort.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, I rise in strong support of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program and in opposition to the McConnell amendment. This program is the right way for our nation to provide business opportunities for all Americans. I believe in the goals of the DBE program: To improve economic opportunities for qualified, but disadvantaged, business owners, who most frequently are women and people of color. This program counters the effects of past discrimination with a flexible and goal-oriented program that has worked. We have a much more diverse federal contracting base than we have ever had before. Since 1978, where women- and minority-owned businesses won only 1.9 percent of the federal highway construction contracts, they have 14.8 percent. That demonstrates the tremendous success of this program. The DBE program does an excellent job of providing sufficient flexibility to target true disadvantaged businesses. If an African female-owned business truly is not disadvantaged, it will qualify under this program. Likewise, if a Caucasian male owns a disadvantaged business, he has an opportunity to qualify under the DBE program. That flexibility is why so many of us believe it offers us the best path forward toward true equality for all business people. It focuses our attempts to strengthen our economy on those who need our help most; it forces us to look at economics, not race or gender. Mr. President, in 1995, the Senate debated this issue as part of the legislative branch appropriations bill. At that time, members of this body recognized this type of proposal simply goes too far. I led the fight to defeat that amendment with bipartisan support, 61-36. As ranking member of the legislative branch appropriations bill at the time, I offered a compromise amendment in an attempt to reach middle ground and deal with this issue in a constructive manner. That amendment passed 84-13. I pledge to continue to fight economic, gender and race discrimination throughout this country. The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is one proven path toward that goal. This is not about special preferences or arbitrary set asides; this is about expanding opportunities for business people. I intend to oppose the McConnell amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Gorton, Senator Smith of Oregon, and Senator Wyden to introduce the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act. Having outlined the history and intent of this important piece of legislation on February 12, 1998, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Gorton, Senator Smith of Oregon, and Senator Wyden to introduce the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act. Having outlined the history and intent of this important piece of legislation on February 12, 1998, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Burns, the chairman of the committee, who has done an outstanding job in leading our way through this bill. Mr. President, the Senate today once again is addressing the line- item veto exercised by the President of 38 projects that were included in the fy 98 military construction appropriations bill. Last fall, the Congress and the American people were informed of a list of 38 projects included in the military construction appropriations bill that fell victim to the President's new line-item veto authority. The administration cited three criteria that were used in determining whether the President should veto certain projects. The first criteria is that the project was not included in the President's fy 98 budget request. However, in creating our fy 98 military construction bill, it should be noted that careful thought went into considering the President's requests, the priorities included in the Department of Defense's five-year plan, and due consideration for the Guard and Reserve projects that are too often woefully overlooked by the Department in fashioning its request. We balanced these interests with the interests of our constituents and the American people to come up with a comprehensive, reasoned and well-rounded list of projects that will benefit our country. This balancing of interests is consistent with committee practice-- particularly with regard to Guard and Reserve matters. The budget is not perfect, and Congress must act affirmatively to make the most responsible decisions. The second criteria demanded by the White House is that the project was not a quality of life project, such as housing, dining, clinics, child care or similar family-oriented facilities. This has always been my number one priority, and in fact, the subcommittee added many such quality of life projects on its own initiative. I know the President shares my concern for quality-of-life initiatives, but there needs to be some give and take on both our parts to ensure that not only are we providing our men and women in uniforms with a high quality of life, but we are doing this without sacrificing our readiness capabilities. The third and final criteria offered by the White House, which we were told had to be met by all projects selected, is that the project must be executable in fiscal year 1998. Inexplicably, the administration claimed none of the projects were executable. However, this was not the case at all. In fact, all the projects included in the FY 98 Senate-passed bill were in fact executable. By a standard set by the subcommittee itself along with recommendations of the Armed Services Committee, every project was deemed executable. Furthermore, the executable status of these projects was confirmed in Department of Defense reports. Mr. President, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senators Stevens and Byrd, rejected the vetoed items as an inappropriate overreaching of authority on the part of the administration. I am gratified that the committee has stood up for the subcommittee's work. It is a substantially better product than the budget submitted by the President, and that is our job. The administration has no exclusive corner on wisdom in making its selection of projects. Mr. President, the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval, rejecting the President's veto of the projects in the military construction bill last October 30, 1997. Under the terms of the Line-Item Veto Act, the President then exercised his veto power of this Senate resolution. It is that final Presidential veto that we are attempting to override today, and thereby reinstate the viability of the projects originally subjected to his line-item veto pen. While it is clear that the entire question as to the constitutionality of the line-item veto law is being considered by the Supreme Court and will be ruled on in the next few months, that nevertheless should have no impact on Senators' votes on the matter before us. I suggest that Senators need not address their position on the constitutionality or wisdom of the line-item veto legislation itself to vote for this resolution. It was supported by 69 Senators last October, and I would hope it has at least that much support this afternoon when we vote on it again. A vote for this measure is a vote against the administration's blatant exercise of power that was sloppy and rushed and resulted in many errors. The subcommittee and full committee, as well as membership of both houses, labored over a period of several months to scrub the budget and add only those projects that were deemed worthy. I hope that this measure will receive the strong support of the full Senate as it has in the past, and that this will be the end of this matter. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Seattle's African American community loses a visionary and much respected leader when the Rev. Dr. Samuel B. McKinney steps down after four decades of service at the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Seattle. Dr. McKinney is well known throughout the region as a tireless advocate for social justice, supporter of youth and proponent of economic development. Samuel Berry McKinney was born in Michigan, and raised in Ohio. He entered Morehouse College in Atlanta, where he became friends with a fellow minister's son, Martin Luther King, Jr. His college career was interrupted by a tour of service in the U.S. Army, but he returned to Morehouse to earn his degree in 1949. He then continued his education at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, graduating in 1952. Dr. McKinney began his ministry at Mt. Zion on the first Sunday of February 1958. His ministry would become the longest in the church's 107-year history as well as one of the most accomplished. He quickly established himself as an energetic and ambitious young pastor. In 1961, Dr. McKinney invited his college friend, Dr. King, to participate in a lecture series presented by the Brotherhood of Mount Zion Baptist Church, a program started by Dr. McKinney. It would be Dr. King's only visit to Seattle and had a lasting impact on Seattle's African American community. Mt. Zion has flourished under Dr. McKinney's leadership. The membership has more than tripled in size. An educational wing was constructed in 1963 and a new sanctuary in 1975. The church was a forerunner in accredited, church-site, preschool and kindergarten education. The Feeding Ministry provides meals to hundreds of homeless persons, seniors and shut-ins each week. Mt. Zion's six choirs provide music for the church and community at large. Mt. Zion's work on behalf of children has been especially noteworthy and reflects Dr. McKinney's belief in educational achievement. The Educational Excellence Program presents annual awards to students from kindergarten to grade 12. The Scholarship Ministry annually provides an average of over $25,000 for undergraduate and graduate school education. The Youth Credit Union brings to participants training and experience in responsible financial management. Dr. McKinney is well known in local and national church circles. He has served as a leader of the American Baptist Convention USA. He was the first African American president of the Church Council of Greater Seattle from 1965 to 1967. He has served as Advisor on Racism to the World Council of Churches, and as a representative to WCC's Seventh Assembly. Dr. McKinney's leadership has extended beyond the religious community to the community at large. He has been active on the community, regional and state level. He was an original member of the Seattle Human Rights Commission and served for 12 years on the Washington State Commission for Vocational Education. He was founder of the Seattle Opportunities Industrialization Center and served as President of the Board of Directors for 20 years. He was a charter member of Seattle's first African American bank and served on the Advisory Board of Directors for the 1990 Goodwill Games. He has served as Chair of the Washington State Rainbow Coalition. For his many works of community service, Dr. McKinney was awarded the YMCA's prestigious A.K. Guy Award. He was also honored by his alma mater with the hanging of his portrait in the Chapel of Morehouse. Even with retirement growing near, Dr. McKinney remains involved in a variety of community activities. They include membership on the boards of the Fred Hutchinson Research Center, Washington Mutual Savings Bank, the Seattle Foundation and the Washington Gives Foundation. He is also a member of the Housing Commission of the National Baptist Convention, USA. At Dr. McKinney's side throughout his years of service has been his wife, Louise Jones McKinney. Mrs. McKinney, retired from the Seattle Public Schools where she was Director of Academic Achievement, shares her husband's deep commitment to community service and to encouraging academic progress. The McKinneys have passed their values and work ethic to their accomplished daughters. Lora-Ellen McKinney earned her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and has received awards for her innovative work with children. Rhoda Eileen McKinney Jones has a graduate degree from Columbia University School of Journalism and writes for many national church publications. I know that Dr. McKinney will continue to make his mark on the community. I wish him the best of success in his future endeavors.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the last 5 years we have been debating the issue of campaign finance reform and for the last 5 years we have failed to fix the system that most Americans agree is broken. I have voted for campaign reform legislation several times now, and each time it has been killed off by filibuster. Today we are once again presented with the opportunity to do what is right and stop the rising tide of special interest money that is drowning the democratic process. We last debated the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in October. Since that time the bipartisan group of Senators committed to reform has continued to work together to build a coalition and to craft a measure that is fair and offers meaningful change. I have been proud to support that effort. Changing the status quo has been an uphill battle. The opponents of reform cleverly disguise their argument. They wrap themselves in the flag and posture as protectors of ``free speech.'' They make complicated and convoluted arguments about ``threats to the Constitution.'' but here's what they are really saying: if you have more money, you are entitled to more influence over campaigns and elections. People out there find this argument to be a cynical charade and it's time to stop playing games. The opponents of reform are just not listening. The American people have been calling for reform for years, and now the call is louder than ever. Eighty-nine percent of the American people believe fundamental changes are needed in the way campaigns are funded. We were elected to represent the American people. We cannot continue to ignore their wishes. The campaign system is clogged with money, and there is no room left for the average voter. The last time we debated reform, I told a story of a woman who sent my campaign a small contribution of fifteen dollars. With her check she enclosed a note that said, ``please make sure my voice means as much as those who give thousands.'' With all due respect, this woman is typical of the people who deserve our best representation. Sadly, under the current campaign system, they rarely do. In 1996, $2.4 billion was raised by parties and candidates. Let me say that again: $2.4 billion flowed into campaigns all across the country and dictated the terms of our elections. And as if that weren't enough, hundreds of millions more were spent on so-called ``issue advocacy''. Nobody knows exactly how much more because these ads, even though they are political, are unregulated. Currently there is no disclosure requirement for these expenditures, there is no ban on corporate or union money, and there is no limit on how much can be spent. ``Issue ads'' frequently take the form of negative attacks made against candidates by groups that no one has ever heard of. Because of the current weak laws, the American people don't know who are making these charges, what their agenda is and who is paying for it. The bill we are considering today would change that by strengthening the definition of political advertising to include these sorts of expenditures. We need more accountability, not less. My first Senate campaign was a grassroots effort. I was out spent nearly three-to-one by a congressional incumbent. But because I had a strong, people-based effort, I was able to win. I am proud of the contributions I have received for my campaign. And I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I hope to offer an amendment to implement full disclosure of campaign contributions. Under current law, the names and addresses of contributors who give more than $50 at a time or $200 in aggregate must be disclosed. My amendment would drop those numbers down to zero. Under my amendment every contribution to a PAC or a campaign must be disclosed. Having full disclosure for campaign contributions is like listing the nutritional facts on a candy bar: the public deserves to know what it's made of. But I also want to make a pledge. Whether or not my amendment passes, I still intend to tell my constituents everything about who is contributing to my campaign. I will make full disclosure of all my contributions, no matter how big or how small. This is my commitment, this is my pledge. I challenge all of my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, the opponents of reform miss the point. In America, money does not equal speech. More money does not entitle one to more speech. The powerful are not entitled to a greater voice in politics than average people. In America, everyone has an equal say in our Government. That is why our Declaration of Independence starts with, ``We, the people.'' Mr. President, I believe we have made this debate way too complicated. This issue boils down to one basic question: Are you for reform, or against is? Are you with the people, or against them on the need for a more healthy democracy? The votes we are taking today will show the answers to these questions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, soon after the upcoming recess, I will join my colleague, Senator Slade Gorton, to introduce the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act. The ocean Dungeness crab fishery in WA, OR, and CA has been successfully managed by the three states for many years. The states cooperate on season openings, male-only harvest requirements, and minimum sizes; and all three states have enacted limited entry programs. Although the resource demonstrates natural cycles in abundance, over time the fishery has been sustained at a profitable level for fishermen and harvesters with no biological problems. The fishery is conducted both within state waters and in the federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Although state landing laws restrict fishermen to delivering crab only to those states in which they are licensed, the actual harvest takes place along most of the West Coast, roughly from San Francisco to the Canadian border. Thus, it is not unusual for an Oregon-licensed fisherman from Newport to fish in the EEZ northwest of Westport, WA, and deliver his catch to a processor in Astoria, OR. In recent years, federal court decisions under the umbrella of U.S. versus Washington have held that Northwest Indian tribes have treaty rights to harvest a share of the crab resource off Washington. To accommodate these rights, the State of Washington, has restricted fishing by Washington-licensed fishermen. This led Washington fishermen to request an extension of state fisheries jurisdiction into the EEZ. The Congress partially granted this request during the last Congress by giving the West Coast states interim authority over Dungeness crab, which expires in 1999 (16 U.S.C. 1856 note). The Congress also expressed its interest in seeing a fishery management plan established for Dungeness crab and asked the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) to report to Congress on this issue by December, 1997. The PFMC established an industry committee to examine the issues, which developed several options. At its June meeting, the PFMC selected two options for further development and referred them for analysis to the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee which operates under the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. After lengthy debate, the Tri-State Committee recommended to the Council that the Congress be requested to make the interim authority permanent with certain changes, including a clarification of what license is required for the fishery, broader authority for the states to ensure equitable access to the resource, and clarification of tribal rights. The Tri-State Committee agrees that each state's limited entry laws should apply only to vessels registered in that state. I ask unanimous consent to include the report of the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee and the membership list of the Committee in the Record following my remarks. On September 12, 1997, the PFMC unanimously agreed to accept and support the Tri-State Committee recommendation. The Council agreed that the existing management structure effectively conserves the resource, that allocation issues are resolved by the restriction on application of state limited entry laws, that tribal rights are protected, and that the public interest in conservation and fiscal responsibility after better served by the legislative proposal than by developing and implemeting a fishery management plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This legislation will fully implement the Tri-State Committee recommendation and ensure the conservation and sound management of this important West Coast fishery. I look foward to the Senate's timely consideration of this bill. Report of the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee to the Pacific Fishery Management Council on Options for Dungeness Crab Fishery Management, August 7, 1997 The Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee met on August 6-7, 1997 to review the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) Analysis of Options for Dungeness Crab Management. A list of the attending Committee members, advisors, and observers is attached. After completing that review, the Committee discussed the merits of each option and offered the following comments for PFMC consideration. There was general agreement within the Committee that Option 1, No Action, would not satisfy the current needs of the industry. There was unanimous opposition, however, among Oregon and California representatives to Option 3, Development of a Limited Federal Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Washington representatives were not strongly in favor of a FMP, but viewed it as the only realistic means to address their concerns for the fishery. After an extended discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that a modified version of Option 2, Extension of Interim Authority, was preferred. There were three common themes that appeared during the discussion. No Committee members believe that there should be fishing or processing of Dungeness crab in waters of the EEZ under PFMC jurisdiction by any vessel not permitted or licensed in either Washington, Oregon, or California. The Committee generally accepted that additional tools beyond area closures and pot limits could be needed to address tribal allocation issues. Finally, the Committee also agreed that as a matter of fairness, vessels fishing alongside each other in an area should be subject to the same regulations. On that basis, the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee recommends that: 1. The PFMC immediately request that Congress make the current Interim Authority a permanent part of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, applying only to Pacific coast Dungeness crab, with the following adjustments. (a) delete the limitations listed in the current Section 2 of the Interim Authority so that state regulations will apply equally to all vessels in the EEZ and adjacent State waters; and (b) clarify the language in the current Section 3B of the Interim Authority to prohibit participation in the fishery by vessels that are not registered in either Washington, Oregon, or California. 2. The PFMC defer action on a Dungeness crab FMP until March 1998 to determine whether Congress will be receptive to this extension of the Interim Authority. Proposed draft bill language for an extension of the Interim Authority is attached. This recommendation is not made without reservations on both sides. Washington representatives were reluctant to totally withdraw consideration of a federal FMP option, in the event that efforts to extend the Interim Authority fail. They expressed little confidence that a request for Congressional action would be successful. Representatives from Oregon were concerned that discriminatory regulations could be enacted in the future by other states that could effectively exclude them from participation on traditional fishing grounds. They preferred this risk over the involvement of federal agencies under a federal fishery management plan. Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee Meeting, Attendance--August 6-7, 1997, Portland, OR Committee Members Dick Sheldon, Columbia River Dungeness Crab Fishermen's Association, Ocean Park, WA Ernie Summers, Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's Association, Westport, WA Larry Thevik, Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's Association, Westport, WA Terry Krager, Chinook Packing, Chinook, WA Paul Davis, Oregon Fisher, Brookings, OR Bob Eder, Oregon Fisher, Newport, OR Tom Nowlin, Oregon Fisher, Coos Bay, OR Stan Schones, Oregon Fisher, Newport, OR Russell Smotherman, Oregon Fisher, Warrenton, OR Joe Speir, Oregon Fisher, Brookings, OR Rod Moore, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, Portland, OR Harold Ames, CA Fisher, Bodega Bay, CA Mike Cunningham, CA Fisher, Eureka, CA Tom Fulkerson, CA Fisher, Trinidad, CA Tom Timmer, CA Fisher, Crescent City, CA Jerry Thomas, Eureka Fisheries, Inc., Eureka, CA Advisors Steve Barry, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Montesano, WA Paul LaRiviere, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Montesano, WA Neil Richmond, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Charleston, OR Observers Tom Kelly, WA Fisher, Westport, WA Mike Mail, Quinault Tribe, Taholah, WA Nick Furman, Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission, Coos Bay,

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to express my frustration and concern with the opposition to the nomination of Dr. Satcher as the new Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health. I will not reiterate what has been said here today about Dr. Satcher's outstanding credentials or his outstanding work as head of the Centers for Disease Control. This has been well documented. I do not wish to lengthen the debate any more than necessary. Dr. Satcher is an ideal candidate who should already be serving the American people as our Surgeon General. I come here today to unmask some of my Colleagues who are attempting to further delay the nomination of Dr. Satcher to advance their own political agenda. They are not opposing him because his is not qualified, but rather because he stands with the President, and the Supreme Court in defense of a women's right to adequate medical care that protects her life and health. What my Colleagues on the other side are attempting to do is to ask a nominee for the position of Surgeon General to disregard the law and acceptable medical practice. This is what the debate is about. I have heard and read other concerns expressed by opponents, but interestingly enough these issues were not debated at any great length during the Committee process. This would have been the opportunity to air these other issues or concerns. Instead they chose to block the nomination on the floor all because Dr. Satcher believes in protecting the health and life of women. They are trying to do what they could not and would not do in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. They did not have the votes. I have listened to many of my Colleagues come to the floor as champions of women's health care. I see bill after bill being introduced in the Senate, all in the name of protecting or improving women's health. But, when it comes to really protecting women's health many of these same Senators are silent or stand in direct conflict with what is good for women's health. Women's health is not just about breast cancer or cardiovascular disease. We all know that these are important women's health concerns and issues, but women's health also includes reproductive health. Dr. Satcher recognizes this fact and realizes the importance of standing for women's health. In addition to the reproductive health issues involved here today, I think I should remind many of my Colleagues that we need a Surgeon General and we need one now. The American people need someone who they can trust and depend on as they try to negotiate through a more complicated and frustrating health care delivery system than any of us ever envisioned. We need someone who will talk to us about health care and access to health care, especially prevention services. While there is little consensus on what reforms or changes need to be made in the way our health care system currently delivers care, the one thing that we all can agree on is consumers need more information that speaks to their needs and concerns. It is no wonder so many of my constituents are concerned about the increasing role of non medical personal in making their health care decisions. Who else is out there talking to consumers, besides insurance companies? For those of you so concerned about women's health, keep in mind that women are the true health care consumers in most American families. They pick the family doctor; they take care of the sick child; they make the doctors appointments for the aging parent; and they worry the most about lack of information available to make informed decisions. Let's end this debate and move to vote on the nomination of an outstanding doctor to be our new Surgeon General. We all know that there will be another day to debate the issues surrounding late term abortions. This has become an annual event so we do not need to delay the nomination of Dr. Satcher simply to have yet another debate on late term abortion.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in just a few days, the Department of Energy will lose one of its best, most able and selfless public servants. Al Alm, Assistant Secretary for the Department of Energy's Environmental Management program, is leaving federal service on January 31. Al epitomizes the best in public service. Integrity and responsibility are his hallmarks. He has left those marks throughout the government, in academia, and in private industry. Al's government service has included positions in the Atomic Energy Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, and two stints in the Department of Energy. He has been a tireless advocate for the programs in which he has been involved, most notably for me, cleanup of our nation's most polluted former defense nuclear production sites. I personally found Al to be the most accessible and helpful assistant secretary in the administration. He worked closely with me, other members of the Washington congressional delegation, our staffs, and our constituents to ensure Hanford's most important programs received adequate funding and support. Al's steadfast support for Hanford, in the face of so many competing needs, has been outstanding. Whether it is safety, funding, expediting work, or employee concerns, he has been out in front. I will sorely miss Al. Al has accomplished a lot in the 20 months in which he has served as the leader of Environmental Management. He has led the charge in revitalizing management and focusing energy on getting sites--and programs--closed, or well on their way to closure, by 2006. The billions of dollars and decades of time saved are extraordinary in themselves, but the public health and environmental protection are the real, tangible results of his efforts. He has helped us develop a goal and start moving toward that goal. Mr. President, I want to say a big thank you to Al Alm on behalf of myself and my Senate colleagues. We will miss him and his leadership of a very difficult, complex and controversial program. We wish him all the best in whatever endeavors he undertakes and hope he leaves knowing how much we have appreciated his enthusiasm and hard work.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a distinguished citizen of the great state of Washington, Mr. Doug Scott. Doug was recently recognized by the Sierra Club with the 105-year-old organization's highest award, the John Muir Award. The Sierra Club presents this award to honor individuals with a ``distinguished record of leadership--such as to continue John Muir's work of preservation and establishment of parks and wilderness.'' Doug Scott has certainly perpetuated the vision and leadership of John Muir throughout his years of commitment to the environment. Beginning his career of dedication to the environment in 1967 by joining the Sierra Club, Doug moved from his first involvement in the public policy process to be one of the original founders of Earth Day. From 1973 to 1977 Doug was the Sierra Club's Northwest field representative. In 1980, Doug became the National Conservation Director of the Sierra Club and in 1988, the organization's Associate Executive Director. In 1990, Doug left the Sierra Club for the beautiful San Juan Islands in my state of Washington to direct the San Juan Community Theater in Friday Harbor. Doug is now the Executive Director of a local, grass-roots environmental organization, Friends of the San Juans. It is in this most recent capacity that I have come to most appreciate Doug's skills and abilities. Doug is an essential member of the Northwest Straits Citizen's Advisory Commission that I convened with Congressman Metcalf. This local citizen's advisory commission is designed to assess the resource protections needs and values of the Northwest Straits marine environment and to explore the best ways to provide protections for this exquisite natural area. Doug's participation in this process has been invaluable. His deep commitment to protection of the marine environment combined with his thoughtful, innovative, and pragmatic approach has provided real progress for the Commission as it works through its mandate. Doug's ability to work with individuals with differing idealogies and perspectives in a cooperative and productive manner is a true asset to the Commission, and to the Northwest Straits as well. In Doug's remarks at the Annual Awards Dinner, he said: Much as this award is personally gratifying. I prefer to think of it as recognition for an era in the growth and growing effectiveness of the Sierra Club and the citizen environmental movement. Each achievement during that era was the work of many hands. This award is for all of the Sierra Club volunteers and other activists that have proven that in this democracy, working together, an engaged citizenry can make a tremendous difference. I discovered the power of citizen activism over 25 years ago in the Sierra Club and now I see its impact every day in my work in the San Juan Islands. The Sierra Club has chosen well in awarding Doug Scott the John Muir Award. I applaud their decision and I applaud Doug Scott. I thank him for his commitment to the environment of the San Juan Islands, the Northwest Straits, Washington state, and the United States. Great work, Doug. Congratulations. Mr. President, I ask that the nominating statement for Doug Scott by Bruce Hamilton, Conservation Director of the Sierra Club be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Doug Scott Receives the Sierra club's John Muir Award nominating statement by Bruce Hamilton, conservation director, sierra club Doug has been a mentor and an inspiration to an entire generation of environmental leaders, myself included. I feel so lucky to have learned my skills at the side of this master. Doug had a way of turning dreams and visions into reality. Ed Wayburn had the vision for an Alaska Lands Act, but it was Doug Scott who pulled together and directed the 8 year campaign that passed the largest land protection bill in history. Rupert Cutler may have conceived of the RARE II wilderness review, but it was Doug Scott who marshalled the resources and provided the leadership to steer dozens of RARE II wilderness bills through the Congress. When states like Utah couldn't even boast a single wilderness area in the entire state, Doug packaged a group of areas together into the Endangered American Wilderness Act and mobilized a national campaign to pass it. Doug also developed the strategy that enabled us to pass the Superfund (remember the Superactivist we mailed out of SF every Friday?), the Clean Air Act Amendments (remember the Vento-Green medals?), and other anti-pollution campaigns. He was the inspiration and strategist for the California Desert Protection Act even though it did not pass until after he had left the Club. Doug was also the most inspirational and motivational speaker within the Club, flying tens of thousands of miles every year to appear at Chapter annual meetings and retreats to preach about the power of the grassroots and the importance of combating apathy and cynicism. He was also one of the funniest leaders the Club has known, the source and subject of jokes and follies songs. He was the spark behind the national conservation work of the Club for 15 years. The Club has been blessed with a series of powerful, inspirational, smart, and articulate leaders that exemplify the best traits of our founder, John Muir. From the late 1970's to the early 1990's Doug Scott lead the Club in the spirit of John Muir. He deserves the Club's highest conservation honor for his service, accomplishments, and inspiration.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there are very few pieces of legislation that we will act on that has the kind of impact that S. 830 will have on improving the quality of lives for millions of Americans. Ultimately, this legislation will impact every Member of this body. S. 830 represents a historic piece of legislation that will reform and modernize the Food and Drug Administration. This legislation will result in the more rapid approval of new, lifesaving drugs and medical devices without jeopardizing a strong public health protection role for the FDA. Millions of people will have access to break through medical technology faster. More children will also benefit from the rapid improvement in drugs and devices to treat serious and life-threatening illness. And, finally the FDA will be given the resources it needs to meet the challenges and demands of protecting the public health and approving safe and effective drugs in a more timely manner. When I made the decision to seek a seat on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee I did so because I wanted to be directly involved in the development of education and public health reform. I am proud to have worked with Chairman Jeffords in his effort to shepherd through the FDA reform legislation. I know that at times this was a difficult task and his leadership and patience were truly tested. I want to thank him for his willingness to forge a bipartisan bill that addressed many of the concerns that I had early in the process. I also want to thank Senator Kennedy for his efforts on behalf of patients and consumers. Senator Kennedy's hard work and commitment to a strong public health role for FDA resulted in some real improvements in this legislation. The fact that we have before us today a bipartisan reform agreement is in itself a historic accomplishment. Prior to the 105th Congress I thought that I had a pretty good understanding of how the agency worked and where improvements needed to be made. What I discovered is that the drug and device approval process from lab to patient is a complex process involving numerous steps. The pressure on the FDA to improve safe and effective drugs and devices with minimal delay is overwhelming. In addition, the FDA must regulate billion dollar industries that have almost unlimited resources. What I have learned from this process is that the FDA is by far one of the most important public health agencies, but it is also one that we all seem to take for granted. S. 830 is not just about the reform or modernization of a Federal agency. The activities of the FDA effect every single one of us, every single day. Whether it is taking an aspirin or brushing our teeth the FDA was involved. It ensured that the aspirin and the toothpaste was safe and effective. The FDA manufacturing standards protect these products so that we can feel confident that they were not contaminated or tampered with prior to our purchase. The agency is also involved in making sure that new technology to diagnosis or screen for life-threatening illnesses is reliable and that the claims made by the manufacturer are consistent with the available technology. The FDA must also ensure the safety and effectiveness of all drugs as well. When we pick up a prescription like an antibiotic at the pharmacy, we never think twice about the safety or effectiveness of the drug. We simply assume that if taken properly it is safe and effective at treating an ear infection. It is because of the success of the FDA that we do take so much of this for granted. This is not to say that there have not been problems in the past. But, I believe the changes and improvements made by S. 830 addresses some of these problems and that the commitment made by the chairman to maintain aggressive and effective oversight of the agency will prevent significant problems in the future. I know that there are some who are skeptical of the reforms and modernization called for in this legislation and they point to past problems at the agency as their proof. I am not dismissing past mistakes by the FDA, but I also do not believe we can allow the past errors to paralyze the agency. We have to move toward the future, and learn from the mistakes of the past. The agency has been given a daunting task with limited resources. However, it has become obvious over the years that a major modernization was necessary in order to keep pace with the rapid changes in drugs and devices and the globalization of the biotech industry. In 1992 the Prescription Drug User Fee Act [PDUFA], the partnership between the agency and the prescription drug industry, was enacted. This major effort has proven to be a major success for the FDA, industry, and patients. I am pleased that we were able to include reauthorization of PDUFA in S. 830 that builds on the success of the 1992 legislation. I am pleased that we have completed this process and are sending a solid, bipartisan bill to the President for signature. I am confident that enactment of S. 830, FDA Modernization and Accountability Act will prove to be one of the major accomplishments of the 105th Congress. I know that I am proud to have been directly involved in the development of this legislation. I look forward to working with Chairman Jeffords and Senator Kennedy in the same bipartisan manner as we tackle other public health reform initiatives.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to encourage the Senate to adopt H.R. 1090. This legislation is identical to my bill, S. 464, to address the issue of clear and unmistakable error. S. 464 was unanimously reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee on which I proudly serve. I want to extend my thanks to both the chairman and ranking member of our committee for moving this important legislation in a timely and bipartisan manner . Importantly, this legislation has been adopted by the House in three consecutive Congresses. Congressman Lane Evans has long championed this legislation; I commend him for his persistent and determined leadership. This legislation has also long been a priority issue to the Disabled American Vetetans. It has been a pleasure for me to work with the DAV here in Washington, DC and with local DAV representatives in Washington State. Clear and unmistakable errors are errors that have deprived and continue to deprive veterans of benefits for which their entitlement is undeniable. The status quo denies benefits to a small number of veterans who are legally entitled to the benefits in question. To deny a veteran a legally entitled benefit due to a bureaucratic error or other mistake is beyond comprehension in my mind. In recent months, I've handled several cases with the Department of Veterans Affairs that directly involved clear and unmistakable error. In one case, a veteran with a serious shoulder injury dating back to the Vietnam war was rated incorrectly for more than 20 years. In another case, a veteran with PTSD also dating to service in Vietnam was misdiagnosed for a lengthy period affecting his disability rating and benefits and the treatment he received. My legislation seeks to correct this. I believe that we must make available every opportunity to right a wrong on behalf of a veteran. To the VA's credit, some cases of clear and unmistakable error are reversible but it depends on where the veteran is in the VA process. S. 464 and H.R. 1090 will codify the VA's current regulatory authority to review ratings decision based on claim of clear and unmistakable error. Unfortunately, some cases of clear and unmistakable error no longer offer recourse to the veteran. S. 464 and H.R. 1090 will allow a veteran to request that the Board of Veterans' Appeals review its prior decision based on a claim of clear and unmistakable error. A veteran would also have the opportunity to challenge the Board of Veterans' Appeals decision at the Court of Veterans' Appeals. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this legislation is budget neutral. This legislation will not require additional resources for the VA or take needed resources from other VA programs or benefits. So often we in Congress talk about providing for veterans or about meeting our obligations to veterans. That is what this bill is all about; it gives a veteran the right to request a review rather than subjecting an ailing vet to a sometimes faceless bureaucracy hesitant to correct its mistakes. In passing this legislation, the Senate will stand with veterans that have been deprived of benefits for which their entitlement is undeniable. Many veterans have waited decades for this day. The Senate should end this wait now with a strong vote. A strong vote will also send a message to President Clinton. In closing, I call upon President Clinton to bring this legislative effort to a successful conclusion; to join us all to ensure that the system errs on behalf of a deserving veteran rather than the Federal Government.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Chairman yield?