Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to recommend this bill to the Senate. The recommended amount, $9.18 billion, is within the 602(b) allocation for the Military Construction Subcommittee and is frugal, some $600 million, or 6 percent below last year's appropriated level. Nevertheless, we have added nearly $800 million to the amount requested by the administration, primarily to correct serious shortfalls in the budget request for National Guard and Reserve forces, and for quality-of-life initiatives in housing and medical care for U.S. military personnel. In order to keep our Guard and Reserve forces healthy, we have again, as in the past, had to add substantial sums, some $392 million, to an inadequate request. As for housing, we have added approximately $152 million for family housing, and despite this increase, we are still about $301 million below last year's level. The added funds, however, are in the new area of housing initiatives known as privatization, whereby the money acts as seed capital which is multiplied over some three or four times with infusions of private developer funds, so the funds we have added carry an added punch. On another quality-of-life measure, we have added substantially to the request for medical and hospital facilities, increasing the request by nearly 50 percent, for a total of $208 million. These initiatives have been put together in a truly bipartisan fashion, in close cooperation with the distinguished chairman, Senator Burns and his staff. It is a good product, worthy of strong Senate support. I appreciate the courtesies that have been extended to me by the chairman and his staff, and believe this close working relationship has created a product which is balanced and fair to all Senators. We appropriated money for nearly all the projects authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and have attempted to evaluate and satisfy the requests of all members fairly, and fund worthy projects, through design or minor construction if they have not been authorized. We have made every effort to include report language that members have suggested to us. We fully funded the BRAC request, some 22 percent of the bill, fully funded environmental projects, and we have tried to accommodate the sizable construction request for overseas projects, such as barracks in Europe and Korea. Overseas construction constitutes 24 percent of the overall construction request. The committee is concerned over the amounts that will be needed for additional costs of NATO expansion, based on the decisions at the Madrid summit, and for the funds requested for Southwest Asia propositioning of equipment in the nation of Qatar. We have asked for a report on NATO expansion costs by mid-October, hopefully in time for the Senate debate on this matter. We have also asked the administration to execute a burdensharing agreement with the Government of Qatar, whose population of 550,000 people enjoy a $21,000 per capita income and has, in fact, offered to help defray our expenses in our prepositioning program. This legislation is extremely important to our military personnel for many reasons. One of the most important for me is the messages we are able to send our active duty personnel serving abroad separated from family. We are providing for families--housing, day care, community support facilities--providing for families so our active duty personnel can focus on the task at hand when serving a tour on the U.S.S. Lincoln or patrolling near the DMZ in Korea. I am particularly pleased the committee was able to fund several authorized projects in Washington State. At Fairchild Air Force Base, we were able to meet the base's priority need for alterations to the fire station and provide moneys for an education center and a library. The committee was able to provide moneys for barracks replacement and a medical/dental clinic at Fort Lewis, and important C-17 facilities at McChord Air Force Base. I do appreciate the committee's willingness to be responsive to the needs of Washington State. I, again, thank the chairman for his help in making this a truly bipartisan bill, and I commend staff on both sides of the aisle for their outstanding professional work on this legislation. I join Chairman Burns in recommending that the Senate adopt this legislation with strong bipartisan support. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to once again join my colleague from Vermont, Senator James Jeffords, in introducing the James P. Grant World Summit for Children Implementation Act. I particularly want to pay tribute to Senator Jeffords for his continuing leadership in the effort to aid all children. The World Summit for Children Implementation Act is our effort to ensure that the United States implements the plan of action adopted at the 1990 United Nations World Summit for Children. Our legislation proposes a series of life-saving, cost-effective programs to protect the health and well-being of children worldwide. Importantly, while this legislation proposes several increases in individual foreign assistance programs, it does not call for an increase in overall foreign aid levels. Specifically, the Jeffords-Murray bill increases funding allocations for child survival, basic education, vitamin A and other micronutrients, UNICEF, AIDS prevention and care, refugee assistance, and family planning. Our bill also calls for an increase in funding for two important domestic programs: WIC and Head Start. The world's children have a right to adequate nutrition, full immunization, a decent education, and health care. The United States has traditionally led the way in promoting the well-being of children. Because the nations of the world are more interdependent than ever before, the well-being of children around the globe affects us here in the United States. Children are not just the foundation of our society and our future; they are truly the foundation of the future of the world. According to UNICEF, more than 33,000 children die each and every day; most from easily preventable diseases. The under 5 mortality rate for children in the least developed countries is 20 times greater than that of the United States and other industrialized nations. More than 2 million children under age 5 die each year from vaccine preventable diseases like diphtheria, measles, pertussis, polio, tuberculosis, and tetanus. Diarrhoeal diseases, often caused by a total lack of clean sanitation facilities and clean water, kill an additional 3 million children per year. And for every child that dies, several more live on with stunted growth, ill health, and diminished potential. The world's political leadership can ill-afford to ignore these statistics. These are just the mortality statistics for young children. Equally disturbing figures are available regarding access to education, the treatment of young girls, nutrition, and child labor. Clearly, our work on behalf of children is far from completed. While we have much to celebrate, we have much more to do. And I am delighted to be joining Senator Jeffords to unequivocally state our belief that the United States must continue to champion the future health, education, and economic well-being of children everywhere. Importantly, to reach children, we must reach out to the world's women including young mothers, family providers, and elders. Women are often overlooked in tradition development programs. Fortunately, the World Summit for Children recognized to improve the lot of children, the status of women also had to improve. For example, recognizing the important link between child survival and family planning, the World Summit for Children called for universal access to family planning education and services by the end of this decade. Family planning saves the lives of both women and children. We know that babies born in quick succession to a mother whose body has not yet recovered from a previous birth are the least likely to survive. Increasing funds in this area has been a top priority for me in my work in the Senate, and is addressed positively in the legislation we are introducing today. Basic education is another important component of this legislation. Of the 143 million children in the developing world not attending school, 56 percent are girls. Of the world's 900 million illiterate adults, nearly two thirds are women. World Bank studies have estimated that each additional year of education for a young girl results in a 10-percent decrease in birth rates and child death rates, and a 10 to 20 percent increase in wages earned. Foreign aid is never a popular item. I applaud Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for her advocacy work in support of foreign aid and U.S. assistance abroad. And I am pleased that the both bodies of the Congress have voted to provide additional moneys for foreign assistance in fiscal year 1998. In my view, our foreign aid dollars are best spent when we are investing in programs that strengthen families around the globe, and give a special hand to women and children. That is exactly what Senator Jeffords and I propose to do with the James P. Grant World's Summit for Children Implementation Act. I urge my colleagues to review and support this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I'd like to congratulate Senator Mikulski on her amendment providing $20 million for America Reads under the VA- HUD Appropriations Act. There is no more important skill we can give young people in this country than the ability to read. If a child can read quickly and accurately early in her school career, all other challenges will be much easier for them in school and in life. I have been working for some time to bring literacy issues before the Senate, from the amendment Senator Simon and I offered to last year's welfare bill, to my work on the Appropriations Committee, to the educational briefings I host for congressional staff. Recently, these briefings have included information from Dr. Reid Lyon from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We now know from the research that the process of reading involves several steps. A student must acquire skills in a logical progression, and in a timely manner, in order to be able to read quickly and effectively enough to make sense of what she reads. Once this process has occurred, reading becomes a tool for learning. If this process does not occur, the prospect of helping her learn to read becomes much more difficult. This and other evidence from research must inform what we do with regard to children's literacy. We must assure that we take advantage of the political will to improve children's literacy, by putting into place a national effort that reflects what we know. It must reflect what we know about how children learn, how important family literacy is to the literacy of the child, and what we know about how volunteer efforts work in our communities, among other things. In order to build a successful volunteer effort, which must be part of what we do for children's literacy, we need to look at all the aspects of the effort. In what capacity will volunteers be working with students? How will the primary reading teacher be involved? What about reading specialists? How will research inform what happens in the classroom, or in afterschool or summer programs using volunteers? Where will we find volunteers in communities already taxed for help? How will they be trained in providing literacy assistance, in recruiting volunteers, or in coordinating community programs? By simply including AmeriCorps in our efforts to improve children's literacy, we don't answer all of these questions, but we do answer some. We do call on experience already in our communities--in training, recruiting, and coordinating volunteers, in providing programs that help people learn to read, and to gain success in other areas of their lives. We do call on an incredible resource for improving people's engagement in their communities, and for improving their skills. Literacy AmeriCorps has been very successful in my home State of Washington, in doing things like setting up talk times for people with limited English proficiency to talk with one another in English, and practice what they are learning with other people, on topics that interest them. Community support is there--and that gives us a great base to expand on as we look to improve children's literacy. AmeriCorps has demonstrated success in many areas across the country; now it is time to enlist AmeriCorps in our efforts to help children learn to read. AmeriCorps is a much-needed ally in a complicated, difficult, and crucial endeavor. Again, I want to congratulate Senator Mikulski on her amendment, and encourage all of the Members of the Senate to work with us to improve children's literacy this year.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield my time back.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the DeWine amendment (No. 936) to the Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. This amendment is nothing more than another attempt to attack basic reproductive health services for Federal employees and their dependents. This has become an annual tradition during consideration of appropriations bills. What always surprises me about this amendment is the arguments used in defense of denying Federal employees access to the same reproductive health and choices afforded most private sector employees. We are told that this is a matter of not allowing for the use of Federal funds for abortion related services. But, this is not argument does not make sense when one considers that most Federal employees contribute to their own health insurance through premiums, deductibles, and copayments. In addition, health insurance benefits are a form of compensation for services rendered. They are not viewed as a direct Federal payment, but rather a cost of labor. If we believe that Federal health insurance benefits are not a form of compensation, but rather a direct Federal payment to employees, then we should be looking to refund women who selected health insurance based on the reproductive services provided. If it was a direct Federal payment, why would the insurance companies be reluctant to reimburse all female Federal employees the cost of these services? If one were to take this argument to the next level, then supporters of this amendment should be looking to forbid any Federal employee from using their salary to pay for abortion related services. Maybe we should have whole list of things that Federal employees cannot use their own salaries to support. But, we know that offering this type of amendment would expose the true motivation behind this continued attack on a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion. That is what we should be discussing; the continued erosion of access to safe and legal abortion services. Instead of these piecemeal attempts, perhaps we should have a full and open debate on banning a woman's right to chose. That is what this amendment is all about. It is not Federal funding, but rather another attempt to further restrict and control access to safe reproductive health services. Using Federal funding simply allows those who oppose a woman's right to chose the chance to hide behind a baseless argument. I feel confident that few Members in the U.S. Senate would be comfortable telling all women that they are no longer protected and can no longer be guaranteed access to a safe, affordable abortion regardless of the circumstances. Few Senators would want to tell their constituents that the issue is not for them to decide, but rather the decision has been made by the U.S. Senate. So instead, the strategy is to hide behind issues like the use of Federal funds, or Federal facilities. Putting aside the issue of abortion for a moment, as guardians of the FEHBP and Federal employees, we must ask if it is right to deny a Federal employee access to a safe and affordable abortion. Currently, there are approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on the FEHBP for their medical care. These women, by simply choosing a career in public service, agree to be discriminated against every day when it comes to health insurance coverage. Approximately, two thirds of private fee-for-service plans and 70 percent of HMO's provide abortion coverage. Many of these same plans participate in the FEHBP and must offer a different level of benefits for Federal employees. They are legally allowed to discriminate against women who are also Federal employees. In no other situation would Congress stand for this form of discrimination within a plan that participates in the FEHBP. But, today we are voting to do just that. I am always surprised by the lack of understanding of the real problems facing real people, shown by some of my colleagues. Supporters of this amendment state that a woman can still get an abortion, but she simply cannot receive health insurance coverage for this care. This may sound reasonable until one considers that costs for this type of care can be anywhere from $400 to several thousand dollars depending upon the severity of the problem. For many female Federal employees, who are in most cases the lowest paid, this is a lot of money. It might as well be $10,000. In addition, what guarantee is there that the care will be adequate and meet the standard of care for all FEHBP participants? Unfortunately, there are no guarantees. This could also create additional costs and problems for insurance plans. We all know that an unsafe abortion can be life threatening. We can also assume that there is followup care required to ensure the overall health of the woman. Who is responsible for this care? Who is financially responsible for the effects of unsafe abortion or in a situation where the woman could not afford the followup care required? Some of my colleagues seem to think that an abortion is a decision made with little or no thought, they must also assume that the procedure is done with little or no thought. I can assure you, no woman makes this decision lightly and like all surgical procedures there is always some risk. I strongly oppose this discriminatory attempt to deny 1.2 million Federal employees and their dependents access to safe, affordable health care coverage and urge my colleagues to think very carefully about voting to continue this discrimination. This is not about the use of Federal funds. We all know that not one Federal employee received a refund when Congress acted to eliminate this coverage. For most insurance plans, abortion related services are a part of a package of reproductive health benefits--they do not single out abortion. This amendment is simply about denying some women access to safe, affordable and comprehensive reproductive health care benefits. Mr. President, time and again, Members come to the floor to talk about how they support women's health. Once again, we are going to take reproductive health of women away from women. This is about the health of women. It is denying Federal employees the ability to make choices about their own reproductive health. I urge you to vote ``no'' on the DeWine amendment. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the amendment introduced by the Senator from Arkansas regarding MFN status for China. This issue is of immense importance to Washington State and the Nation. As a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I must state for the record that I believe that this is not the appropriate forum for this amendment. The Senator from Arkansas has chosen to spring upon the Senate--with little notice--his amendment to fundamentally alter our relationship with the world's most populous nation. I am sure the Senator knows that the House of Representatives recently followed the process established by the Jackson-Vanik amendment to overturn the President's decision to renew most-favored nation status for the People's Republic of China. The House of Representatives in strong bipartisan fashion rejected the effort to overturn the President of the United States. I applaud the House for taking this action. The House vote in favor of MFN followed extensive hearings, much thoughtful debate, and considerable input from our constituents, the business community, and the Clinton administration. While this is not a new issue to many in the Senate, the Senator from Arkansas now asks the U.S. Senate go on record on this important strategic issue on the wrong bill without the benefits of adequate debate and thorough consideration. I don't believe this is the way to make good policy, and particularly on the United States-China relationship which is perhaps the most important, most difficult and most challenging relationship for United States policy makers to manage. I applaud Senator Hutchison's interest in the United States-China relationship. In fact, I share many of the concerns that he in his arguments has outlined. But I differ in his prescription for addressing the problems in the United States-China relationship. I don't believe ending MFN or normal trade ties with China will advance United States interests. Rather, I believe the approach prescribed by opponents of MFN would for all intensive purposes end our relationship with China. For my State, this would be disastrous. Chinese students--some of whom will become future government leaders in China--will likely discontinue their studies at universities in this country including at the Henry Jackson School of International Affairs at the University of Washington. As many as 400 Washington State families might lose the ability to adopt a young Chinese girl in the coming year as a result of this amendment. The Reverend Ned Graham and his East Gates Mininstries based in Sumner, WA, could see its mission in China curtailed or possibly ended altogether. East Gates Ministries has distributed nearly 2 million Bibles printed in Chinese dialects throughout China. Other Washington State faith-based ministries are active in China and could see their activities halted if the Senate agrees to this amendment. I recently traveled to Hong Kong and China to discuss candidly the issues like MFN, the World Trade Organization, Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese sovereignty, the trade imbalance between the United States and China, my personal concerns on human rights, and numerous other issues. In Hong Kong, I met with officials from the U.S. Consulate, the American Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong Government, and others. On the street and in official meetings, I sought to determine the mood of the people of the former British Colony prior to the reversion to Chinese sovereignty. Again and again, I was encouraged to convey to the Congress the importance of MFN to Hong Kong. Virtually every leader from Hong Kong has communicated to Congress the devastating impact that MFN revocation would have on the island recently named the freest economy in the world. In my view, it is important for all who want to influence change in China to recognize that Hong Kong's transition may be our best opportunity to further influence the mainland in such important areas as the rule of law, respect for individual rights, and the many democratic principles that we cherish in the United States. In Beijing, I met with China's Vice Premier, Chinese Trade Ministry officials, and Chinese leaders involved in financial services, transportation, agriculture, electronics, and aviation. I also spent a significant amount of time with U.S. Ambassador Jim Sasser, our former Senate colleague. Ambassador Sasser, who was a China critic as a member of this body, now adamantly supports the renewal of MFN status for China. In my meeting with Vice Premier Li Lanqing, I focused on the trade imbalance between the United States and China, my concerns and those of my constituents on human rights, and the importance of China abiding by its commitments to Hong Kong. I also discussed the Chinese counterparts many other issues important to us, including the growth of the Internet in China, the competitive advantage of Washington State's ports and transportation infrastructure, the future energy needs of China, food security issues, including China's ability to feed its own people, problems associated with large, unproductive state-owned enterprises and growth patterns in coastal and rural parts of China. My point in discussing my trip to China tonight is quite simple: If the Senate adopts the Hutchinson amendment, it will have disastrous consequences on the United States-China relationship. I believe it will threaten our very ability to dialog with the Chinese on all of the issues I have just outlined. If the opponents of MFN truly believe the Senate must go on record on this issue, so be it. Let's do it in a responsible fashion with the proper consideration that an issue of this importance merits. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote against the Hutchinson amendment. I believe it is unwise and irresponsible for the Senate to address this issue in this fashion.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, as a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I want to commend both Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy. Once again, the leadership of the subcommittee has produced a bill that I am sure will be widely and bipartisanly supported by the Senate. I also want to take this opportunity to commend Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The Secretary appeared before the subcommittee to explain and justify the administration's increased request for this bill. But she went further than this, further than her Democratic and Republican predecessors at the State Department. Secretary Albright has taken the case for foreign aid and the work of this subcommittee directly to the American people. She has done a remarkable job conveying to our constituents the benefits to the American people of our role in the world and the importance of continued U.S. leadership abroad. The foreign operations, export financing, and related programs Appropriations bill provides monies to meet a great number of important policy initiatives. I want to use my time today to draw attention to just a few of the important initiatives. Importantly and with my full support, this bill fully funds the Administration's assistance request for our democratic ally Israel. I visited Israel late last year with a delegation of my constituents. It was my first trip to the Middle East. The trip was a wonderful experience that has benefited me personally and professionally as I approach my work at the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. I met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with the chief Palestinian negotiator, and with the Norweigian diplomats who negotiated the Oslo accords. I met with the Ambassador to Israel, toured important historic and cultural sites, and stood atop the Golan Heights. More than ever, I am convinced that the foreign assistance moneys provided by this legislation to Israel and in support of the peace process are warranted and of strategic importance to the United States. This bill is also a key tool in our efforts to increase U.S. exports and to generate new jobs all across the country. The provisions of this bill providing moneys for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade Development Agency are vitally important to my constituents. A recent 1997 study titled, ``Foreign Exports and the Washington State Economy,'' concluded that ``no state derives more economic benefit from the production of goods and services for the foreign markets that Washington State.'' Shortly after the turn of the century, one in three Washington State jobs will be reliant upon international trade. Jobs related to trade in my state also paid wages 46 percent higher than the State average. These trade promotion programs are priority issues for me and I am pleased that we've met the administration's request for these programs. In the case of the Ex-Im Bank, the subcommittee has exceeded the administration's request. Another key component of this bill is our assistance program to Russia and the newly independent states. This assistance is as important as any granted by the United States. It is a small price to pay to ensure that the trillions of dollars spent on the cold war does not go to waste. Certainly there are problems on the ground in Russia and the NIS countries; religious persecution, political and economic corruption, weapons proliferation and environmental pollution to name just a few. The United States must be diligent in tackling these problems as they arise in our continuing efforts to promote and support democracy. I am particularly interested in our efforts to increase and highlight the linkages between the Russian Far East and the west coast of the United States. Washington State is as involved in the Russian Far East as any State in the country. Chairman Stevens is also personally very knowledgeable about the importance of this region as Alaska also maintains many direct ties to the Russian Far East. The Committee bill also contains many important provisions to children. It contains funding for UNICEF and other child survival programs. Our bill provides moneys to educate young girls as well as provide microcredit loans to young families and women in the developing world. These funds make an enormous difference in the lives of millions of children and families in the world. I have touched on just a few of the the provisions within this important bill. Again, I want to thank the manager's for bringing this legislation to the Senate today. And I encourage my colleagues to support the foreign operations legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last Monday I introduced an amendment that could have helped ensure this bill is not vetoed by President Clinton because it violates the bipartisan budget agreement. Today, we have reached agreement on that amendment--but it does not go nearly far enough. Let me lay out what this defense authorization bill does in very large terms. This bill adds $5.1 billion to the Pentagon's request. It does this by moving $2.4 billion from defense-related activities of the Energy Department to the Defense Department--primarily in procurement and R&D. The two Energy programs hardest hit are privatization of cleanup efforts and forward funding of asset acquisition. My amendment sought to restore some of the privatization money because we have a huge problem at the Hanford Reservation that could be solved with this new funding. We have 177-million-gallon tanks filled with chemical and high-level radioactive waste located near the Columbia River. The environmental devastation at Hanford and other former defense nuclear sites is truly mind-numbing. We must clean up the mess we have made. Privatization offers us an opportunity to do that and reduce costs and increase efficiency. My amendment sought to restore $300 million of the $1 billion the President sought in this one-time shot in the arm of the environmental management program. Instead, I was successful in securing only $59.7 million, making the amount this bill funds only $274.7 million. This is a tremendous shortfall and could result in the Federal Government missing legally enforceable cleanup milestones. Mr. President, the House defense authorization bill is even worse-- funding the entire privatization program at only $70 million. Our Senate conferees must insist we keep the entire amount we have in this bill. Senator Gorton and I have the commitment of Sen. Thurmond that the conferees will do that. On the appropriations front, I was able to secure an extra $43 million yesterday in the Senate energy and water development appropriations bill. The privatization account increased from $300 million to $343 million. Again, the House is rumored to be far, far lower--and the appropriation's conferees will have a difficult job ahead to keep even these greatly diminished funds. We made a huge mess at Hanford while we were fighting and winning the cold war. Now we must pay the debt the federal government owes to these cold warrior communities. And this bill takes a small step--but just doesn't do the job. However, I do want to thank the committee for accepting my amendment and I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to ensure these numbers remain in the bill this Congress sends to the President.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me just end this debate by reiterating for my colleagues that today a woman who seeks reproductive health services has to ask her commanding officer and be flown home at taxpayer expense on one of our transports in order to receive reproductive health services. Under my amendment, she will be able to pay for it at her own cost in a safe military hospital overseas. The bottom line is this is about the basic rights of those women whom we are asking to serve in remote locations to protect this democracy and fight for our country and for other countries overseas to be given the right to reproductive health care services.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me make this very clear again. Today, if a woman serving overseas--whether she is in Bosnia or Saudi Arabia--would like to have health services, she would have to go through a commanding officer and request permission to come home to the United States to have that procedure take place, and at the taxpayers' expense they would fly her home. Under my amendment she would be allowed to use her own money to pay for abortion-related services in a military hospital overseas. I think that is a reasonable request for those women that we ask to serve in a country far away from home. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield such time as she may consume to my cosponsor, the Senator from Maine.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Robb, and Senator Wyden. Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment simply strikes the existing ban on privately funded abortions in overseas military hospitals for military personnel and dependents. For the information of my colleagues, it is identical to the amendment that I offered last Congress which was adopted by the Senate. Mr. President, it is extremely amazing to me that today a woman who volunteers to serve our country and is stationed overseas surrenders her ability to receive a safe and legal abortion without unnecessary and intrusive obstacles. Not only are female military personnel denied this basic reproductive health service, but so are dependents of military personnel. Mr. President, I know that my colleagues share my concerns regarding current allegations of sexual harassment against women in the military. We all agree this is intolerable and cannot and will not be accepted. We are all committed to protecting women from sexual harassment or discrimination while serving in the military. We all recognize that serving one's country does not mean sacrificing one's civil and constitutional rights. While the military may have a separate code of conduct, basic civil rights are afforded all military personnel. It is important for me to stress this to my colleagues. No Senator would come to the floor to support any legislation that eliminated constitutional guarantees for military personnel. However, that is exactly what happens today unless we lift the current ban on access to safe and legal abortion services for military personnel serving overseas. In 1993, the ban on privately funded abortion services for military personnel and independents was lifted, restoring basic health care protection to all women serving overseas. Unfortunately, in the 1996 Department of Defense Authorization Act, this ban was reinstated. I was at a loss then and I still am today as to what the justification is for this ban. I have heard supporters of the ban talk about the use of Federal funds to provide abortion-related services. Mr. President, this argument is weak at best. My amendment would require that personal funds be used. The cost to the patient to provide abortion services far exceed the cost of the procedure itself. Mr. President, without my amendment, we subject women to undue hardships when they serve overseas. If a woman serving overseas cannot obtain a legal and safe abortion at her own expense, she must request leave from her commanding officer to fly back to the United States for this procedure. We should be outraged at the cost to the military for transporting her back to the United States and for the leave time that must be granted. Why is it better to pay for these costs than simply to have the woman pay for the procedure at her own expense at a safe U.S. military hospital? Based on this fact, the argument that it costs Federal tax dollars to provide abortion-related services to military personnel cannot be the issue. Today, it takes more tax dollars to provide a safe and legal abortion for military personnel than it would under my amendment. If anyone is concerned about Federal tax dollars funding abortion, they should support my amendment, as it would require the woman to pay for the procedure with private funds where she is stationed rather than flying her home to the United States. Supporters of the ban may also claim that military medical personnel should not be trained to perform or counsel on abortion-related services. I remind my colleagues, however, current law provides coverage for abortions in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the woman. Doctors must now be trained, regardless of what happens here today. Let me respond as well to statements that insist that this amendment would require any doctor to perform an elective abortion, regardless of their own personal objections. This amendment does not change or impact current DOD policy which clearly spells out that health care providers who, as a matter of conscience or moral principle, do not wish to perform elective abortions, shall not be required to do so. The DOD policy and the conscience clause enforced by all four branches of the service have worked. There have been no reported cases of a military doctor being forced to perform an elective abortion despite their moral or ethical objections. Mr. President, like all of our service personnel, women in the military deserve our utmost respect, honor, and gratitude. They certainly do not deserve to be told that they must check their constitutional rights at the door when they are stationed overseas. This amendment protects their precious rights and ensures their safe access to quality medical services. Like all military personnel, women should be guaranteed access to quality and safe medical services. The current ban on abortion services at DOD facilities could force women to seek unsafe, back-alley abortions in a foreign country. Without adequate care, an abortion can be life-threatening or permanently disabling. Mr. President, we often have Members come to the floor to advocate for women's health issues. I remind my colleagues that forcing a woman to delay an abortion could further jeopardize her health. Every week a woman has to wait increases the health risks. It is simply wrong to jeopardize the health and well-being of our military personnel. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray-Snowe amendment and to give every woman in the military the same rights, the same rights, that are afforded every other American woman. This is our chance to show women in the military and dependents serving overseas that we do care and that we appreciate their contributions to protecting our national security. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 593 and ask to proceed under the previous agreement.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to speak on amendment No. 424 to the defense authorization legislation that was proposed yesterday by my colleague, Senator Gorton. I am a cosponsor of this amendment to require the Navy to reopen the selection process for the donation of the USS Missouri. From the beginning, I have followed closely the Navy's handling of the Missouri, working with Senator Gorton, Congressman Norm Dicks, the Washington congressional delegation, and my constituents. The ``Mighty Mo'' is a relic of immense importance and historical significance. It was on the decks of this great battleship that World War II came to a welcome end. The Missouri is particularly valued by the residents of my home State where she has been berthed for most of the last 40 years in Bremerton. She is a source of great pride to the veterans in my State, many of whom served in World War II, including in the Pacific theater and aboard the Missouri. I have reviewed yesterday's debate over the amendment, and I want to take this opportunity to make several additional remarks for the Record. I first want to commend both Senator Gorton and Senator Inouye. The debate was indicative of the immense interest in the Missouri and all of the States that competed for the honor of displaying this important piece of our history. While I cannot speak for the other applicants, I know of the care, the time, and the commitment demonstrated by the Bremerton, WA, community in preparing its proposal to the Navy. Bremerton, Kitsap County and Washington State have developed a kinship with the ``Mighty Mo.'' It is because of this kinship with the battleship, and our 40- year record of paying tribute to the Missouri each and every day, that I continue to believe that Bremerton is the ideal home for the Missouri. Last August, the Secretary of the Navy announced the decision to award the Missouri to Honolulu, HI. Following the Navy's decision, significant questions were raised regarding the Navy's process in awarding the battleship. It is those questions, including a General Accounting Office report, that brings me here today to seek the Senate's support for our amendment to reopen the Missouri donee selection process. I want to reiterate what our amendment seeks to accomplish. We simply seek only the Senate's support to instruct the Navy to conduct a new donee selection process. We do not seek to influence or prejudge that selection process. We only want a fair competition administered by the Navy in a manner worthy of this great battleship. I recognize that the Navy is under no obligation to conduct a competition for important relics like the Missouri, but the fact is the Navy did conduct a competition for the Missouri. Having conducted this competition, I think it is only fair to the competing communities to expect the Navy to conduct itself in an aboveboard and a forthright manner. Clearly, significant mistakes were made by the Navy in the Missouri competition. The GAO report clearly identifies the Navy's numerous shortcomings in this competition. Proponents and opponents can and do differ over whether the Navy's handling of the competition influenced the outcome. But I find it very difficult to conclude that all communities were treated fairly by the Navy. And that is what we are asking for today. It really is just a simple matter of fairness for all of the competing communities. I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton-Murray-Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a country we have congratulated ourselves time and time again on our enormous victory in winning the cold war. But today I want to remind my colleagues that the cold war was won at a cost, a very steep cost, and one of the biggest debts owed remains unpaid: the environmental devastation created at places like Hanford Nuclear Reservation in south-central Washington State. Later today, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee will mark up its fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. We will have a lot of work to do to make up the shortfalls found in both the Senate Armed Services defense authorization bill and the House national defense authorization bill. Rather than funding the cleanup bills, the authorizing committees have taken nearly $1 billion-- billion--from the defense environmental management accounts of the Department of Energy and moved them into procurement and other Department of Defense accounts. Let me tell you the effect this move will have on one place in my State. Probably the single biggest environmental problem on any of our former defense nuclear weapons sites is the 177 storage tanks filled with chemical and high-level radioactive waste at Hanford. Each of these tanks contains from a half million to a million gallons of toxic waste. Some of that waste is rock solid, some of it is soupy sludge, some of it is liquid, and some is poisonous gas. Several tanks have ``burped'' their noxious gases. We have only recently begun making real progress in learning what chemicals and radioactive waste were put into these tanks and what substances have now been created through indiscriminate mixing of wastes. The most troubling aspect of these tanks is that they are leaking, moving these vile substances into ground water and toward the Columbia River. Let me say it again. These tanks are leaking, and they are located next to one of this Nation's greatest rivers. They are upstream from Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, Portland, and many smaller communities in Washington and Oregon. And their toxic waste is slowly migrating toward the Columbia River, which many view as the lifeblood of the Pacific Northwest because it provides fish, irrigation, power generation, recreation, and much more. In this year's budget, the Department of Energy requested $427 million in budget authority to continue a privatization initiative, called the tank waste remediation system, and another $500 million plus for other environmental management privatization efforts. My colleague in the Washington delegation, Representative Adam Smith, was successful in getting the House National Security Committee to place $70 million in the defense authorization bill for tank waste, nearly $350 million short of the budget request, but the House gave no other sites any funds. Our Senate Armed Services Committee bill provides $215 million for four privatization projects, including $109 million targeted to tank waste. This is simply not adequate. Yesterday, I submitted an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill that would increase these privatization accounts by about $250 million. Most of that money goes toward solving the tank waste problem which almost everyone familiar with this issue agrees must be our top priority, but money is also added at Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Idaho Falls, and Fernald. In addition, my amendment would facilitate the riskiest part of this privatization venture by helping to ensure DOE is able to meet its time lines for delivery of this toxic waste to a private company for vitrification or immobilization. I added $50 million for this initial stage of characterization and remediation of the tank waste. The offsets come from noncleanup programs and another privatization effort within the Departments of Energy and Defense. Mr. President, I am talking about deadly risks to human health and the environment, and so far, this Congress is choosing to ignore them. Simply wishing that these enormously costly projects will go away will not make them disappear. It will only make them worse and more costly to clean up later. The Department of Energy has proposed an innovative method of solving these problems by privatizing them and letting some of the best, most established companies in the world use their expertise to clean up these sites. In order for industry to succeed, this Congress must demonstrate its commitment to the privatization program by funding it. Going from a Presidential request of $1 billion to $70 million in the House and $215 million in the Senate will not give the capital markets or private industry the confidence they need to make this work. We need more money for the tank waste remediation system and other cleanup priorities. Let me remind my colleagues that even if my amendment prevails, this authorization bill will still contain about $500 million less than was agreed upon by the President and Congress in the recent historic budget agreement. The President finds this funding shortfall so serious that he has issued veto threats on both defense authorization bills, citing this as one of his primary concerns. I urge my colleagues to stand with me as we work to get our former defense nuclear weapons sites restored or at least stop them from causing further harm to our rivers, our air and our land. We cannot turn our backs on the nearby communities that have sacrificed so much for this Nation in the past. Let's make our victory of the cold war complete by leaving our children and our grandchildren a safe, healthy environment, not a contaminated wasteland that sites, like Hanford, will become without sufficient Federal cleanup dollars. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Washington State colleague in offering this amendment to require the Navy to revisit the awarding of the U.S.S. Missouri. I have followed closely the Navy's handling of the Missouri; working with Senator Gorton, Congressman Norm Dicks, the Washington congressional delegation, and my constituents. I am also pleased that California Senators have joined this effort to question the Navy's Missouri decision. The history of the ``Mighty Mo'' is known all across our country and throughout the world. This is a relic of immense importance and historical significance. It was on the decks of this great battleship that World War II came to a welcome end. The Missouri is particularly valued by the residents of my State where she has been berthed for most of the last 40 years in Bremerton. She is a source of great pride to veterans in my State; many of whom served in World War II including in the Pacific theater and aboard the ``Mighty Mo.'' Following the Navy's decision to remove the Missouri from the Naval Vessel Register, five proposals were submitted to the Navy from communities interested in taking ownership of the famed battleship. Bremerton, WA was among the five applicants seeking to display and honor the Missouri. San Diego, San Francisco and Honolulu all submitted proposals. Each community vying for the Missouri submitted voluminous applications to the Navy responding within a year's time to a set of Navy criteria previously used in the disposition of the U.S.S. Lexington. While I cannot speak for the other applicants, I know of the care, the time, and the commitment demonstrated by the Bremerton community in preparing its proposal to the Navy. Bremerton's proposal to permanently display the Missouri was delivered to the Navy in October 1995. Last August, the Secretary of the Navy announced the decision to award the Missouri to Honolulu, HI. Following the Navy's decision, significant questions were raised regarding the Navy's process in awarding the battleship. Congressman Norm Dicks in his capacity as a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee requested a General Accounting Office study on the Navy's donation process of the Missouri. It is the results of this GAO study that bring us here today. Since coming to the Congress, I have sought to let the Sun shine on the political process--to share with the public the great decisions before this body. The GAO study demonstrates that the Navy also needs a little sunshine. Here's what the GAO found in reviewing the Navy process. Following the review of applications, the Navy added new and previously unused criteria to the selection process. And, according to the GAO, the Navy did not do a good job communicating the relative importance of the new evaluation criteria. According to the GAO, several of the applicants reported that the Navy gave them the mistaken impression that the additional requirements were not that significant. Shockingly, these new criteria were actually given 75 percent of the donation award weight. After more than 1 year of discussion among the interested communities, the Navy changed the rules and failed to explain the importance of the new rules. Then the Navy gave the competing communities 12 days to respond to the new rules which turned out to be decisive in awarding the battleship. Clearly, the Navy bungled the process--either innocently or with other motives in mind. I am not here to accuse either the Navy or another applicant of behaving inappropriately. Rather, I do believe the facts of the case as established by the GAO argue for our amendment. Let me state clearly what our amendment seeks to accomplish today. We simply seek the Senate's support to instruct the Navy to conduct a new donee selection process. We do not seek to influence or prejudge that selection process. We only want a fair competition, administered by the Navy in a manner worthy of this great battleship. Like all of my colleagues interested in displaying the Missouri, I have every confidence in the proposal from my home State. Bremerton continues to host the Missouri today and the community is devoted to remaining the steward of this unique historic monument. The Missouri is a passion for the residents of Bremerton, Kitsap County, and indeed all of Washington State. I recognize that the interests of Washington State may not be enough to sway the Senate to overturn the Navy's decision. However, I do want my colleagues to know that this is not a small, regional competition. Veterans all across this country care about the Missouri. Those who served aboard this great battleship live in every State in the country; many are now elderly and incapable of traveling great distances to commemorate their service. It is for our veterans and particularly for those that served aboard the ``Mighty Mo'' that we must ensure that the process is fair to all. All World War II vets recognize and revere the ``Mighty Mo.'' Just recently, Bremerton hosted a group of 110 families and survivors from the Death March of Bataan and Corregidor. These veterans, many in poor health, could travel to Bremerton. And they wanted to see the ``Mighty Mo.'' This reverence for the battleship demands that the Senate stand for a process fair to all. I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton-Murray amendment. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Ms. Snowe]. The Senator from Hawaii.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today the Senate completed action on S. 949, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997, legislation implementing the tax relief provisions from the historic bipartisan balanced budget agreement. I support this legislation because it does provide real tax relief and adheres to the balanced budget agreement, which we worked hard to achieve. American families need this tax relief and they need our continued commitment to a balanced budget. I have listened to the concerns of many of my colleagues regarding this legislation and the benefits for working families. There is no disputing the fact that this legislation does benefit upper income families, but it also benefits working families and the tax cuts are not at the expense of vital, investment programs. I have heard a great deal about the inequities in this legislation and I supported the Daschle substitute which would have eliminated many of these inequities. But, I do think it is unfair to make the criticism without examining the entire balanced budget agreement and the tax relief adopted in 1993 for struggling, working families. The bottom line is that working families will benefit from estate tax relief, capital gains tax reductions, education investment tax credits, a per child tax credit and expanded IRAs. Beyond taxes, my colleagues must remember that the balanced budget agreement was not only about tax relief, but it was also about helping working families by allocating additional resources for health care, education, environmental protection, and nutritional assistance. It also protected Social Security and Medicare for our Nation's senior citizens. Before weighing any inequities, let's make sure we examine the complete picture. The balanced budget agreement, which this body adopted on June 5, 1997, calls for a significant investment in education. The agreement assumes additional Federal funding for important programs aimed at improving access to quality education for our children. I can assure my colleagues that working families will benefit from improved educational opportunities for their children. Quality education is one of the major priorities for many of the constituents that I talk to in Washington State. And again, there are education tax incentives which will help middle class working families who are facing escalating tuition and higher education costs. The Hope tax credits and the permanent extension of section 127 employer-provided educational assistance tax exemption are the kind of tax relief that my constituents have endorsed. There is no doubt that this legislation can and should be perfected. We can work to target more relief to the middle class and I will be seeking these changes in conference. I am also hopeful we guarantee that these tax cuts do not result in an explosion in the deficit. I will not sit by and watch our deficit run out of control. When I first came to the Senate in 1993, the deficit was close to $300 billion annually. For 1997, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that our deficit could be as low as $70 billion. This was not done without some pain and sacrifice. It is imperative that we stay the course and maintain a balanced budget well after 2002. Now that the Senate has completed action on part II of the budget agreement, I sincerely hope that every effort will be made to correct the problems with S. 947, the spending reconciliation legislation. The Medicare provisions added by the Senate Finance Committee go well beyond protecting Medicare and will jeopardize access to health care for millions of low income senior citizens. I supported a balanced budget agreement that included constraints on spending and tax relief. It is imperative that we enact both parts of the bi-partisan balanced budget agreement, and I will be making every effort to improve S. 947 in conference and I will continue to oppose efforts that seek to undermine the historic, bipartisan balanced budget agreement.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a Member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have spent the last four months in ongoing negotiations working towards the enactment of a real, balanced budget plan. I was part of the bipartisan negotiations that resulted in the historic balanced budget agreement. Getting to this agreement was not an easy task, but I realized that the need to get to balance was critical. I negotiated in good faith and believed that the final product was an equitable, fiscally sound agreement that did balance the budget without jeopardizing vital programs. The agreement ensured the continued solvency of Medicare. It guaranteed that Medicare would remain an affordable health insurance program that provided quality health care for millions of senior citizens. The agreement also allowed for an expansion of health insurance for 10 million children that have no health insurance. It called for the largest investment in education in over 30 years and it would provide real tax relief for working families. While I still had some reservations about the agreement, I supported the package because I knew that in any good faith negotiation one can never expect to win on all points. It was not a perfect agreement and as I have said in the past, it is not the one that I would have produced. But, it was a bipartisan, fiscally sound balanced budget agreement. The agreement called for $204 billion in net deficit reduction. This would be in addition to the over $200 billion in deficit reduction already accomplished as a result of the 1993 deficit reduction package. The agreement built on this successful deficit reduction package which resulted in 4 straight years of declining deficits. In 1993, the annual Federal deficit was close to $300 billion, for 1997 the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit could fall to $70 billion. I was proud to be part of this deficit reduction effort and believed that we could get our fiscal house in order. Following passage of S. Con. Res. 27, the FY98 Budget Resolution, which incorporated the balanced budget agreement, I was hopeful that a fair, equitable and fiscally sound balanced budget would be in place by the end of the year. I negotiated in good faith; I agreed to adhere to the agreement; and I was of the belief that my colleagues would do the same. Unfortunately, the reconciliation spending measure adopted by the Senate, violates this bipartisan agreement. But, more importantly, it violates the commitment I made to my constituents when I was elected to the U.S. Senate. One of the commitments I made to the people of Washington State was to work to expand affordable health care for all Americans. I am proud of the steps we have taken to improve access to health care for more Americans. Unfortunately, included in this reconciliation legislation is a provision that will deny affordable, quality health insurance for those Americans age 65 to 67. Increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 will deny affordable, quality health insurance for millions of Americans. I cannot in all good conscience support legislation that increases the number of uninsured Americans. We should be looking to reduce the numbers of Americans with no health security, not adding to it. I did not come to this decision without a great deal of thought. I have listened to the debate on both sides of these issues. I cannot help but think about the impact that these provisions will have on senior citizens who have worked hard all of their lives and are now facing escalating health care costs and limited retirement income. I only need to think about my own parents to truly understand what these changes mean to our senior citizens. When my father was diagnosed with M.S. my parents saw their insurance deductibles increase to $2,000 a piece overnight. Their premiums also increased dramatically every year. There was nothing that they could do as there were no other available health insurance plans that would cover my father. They were struggling to simply make their insurance payments and other basic life necessities. My father was desperate to turn 65 because he was not sure how much longer he could afford insurance or how much longer they would cover him. An additional two more years of skyrocketing premiums and deductibles would have financially devastated my parents. My father may have lost his insurance if he had to wait two additional years. He would have lost access to effective therapies for treating MS and slowing the progress of this crippling illness. As it was I know that there were times when my parents feared going to the doctors because of the impact on their deductible and premiums. Is this what we want for our parents? My parents knew that once they reached 65 they would have some guarantee of affordable, quality health insurance. Prior to this, there simply was no guarantee. They knew that prior to 65 that were one illness away from financial disaster. If we act to increase the eligibility age to 67 there will be those seniors who face an even worse fate and will be at the mercy of insurance companies. They will see their retirement security jeopardized and their access to preventive health care gone. We should be encouraging greater access to preventive health care as it controls long term health care costs. Increasing the age to 67 will only make people sicker and poorer. I cannot support this type of outcome. There is another troubling provision within the reconciliation package which, I might add was only introduced yesterday and was not part of the balanced budget agreement. With less than 24 hours to consider the implications, the Senate is ready to means test Part B premiums. Medicare premiums could climb to over $2,000 for senior citizens earning more than $50,000. The Social Security Administration would now have to know the exact income of every beneficiary for any given month. The administrative burdens alone warrant further Congressional review. Additionally, adding to the cost of the administration of Social Security represents a direct attack on the Social Security Trust Fund. The means testing as proposed in the reconciliation package that the Senate adopted is unworkable. There are simply too many questions regarding these provisions. We need more time and debate before we act to radically alter Medicare. Medicare remains one of the most successful anti-poverty programs ever adopted by Congress. The popularity of this program speaks to the success of the program and the success of efforts to ensure health care security for our senior citizens. Enacting an increase in the eligibility age and means testing Part B premiums will do little to address the long term financial solvency issues. What it will do is undermine our commitment to senior citizens and jeopardize the success of the Medicare program. We all know that real Medicare reforms are necessary. When the so- called baby boom generation begins to retire there will be a significant increase in Medicare enrollees. I am ready to face the challenge of enacting real comprehensive Medicare reforms. However, I am concerned that these two provisions including in the reconciliation package are being offered as some kind of panacea to real reform and will do little to address long term solvency concerns. Increasing the age for Medicare eligibility and the means testing proposal will do little to control Medicare costs, they will, however, devastate millions of senior citizens. This reconciliation bill is not the appropriate venue for significant Medicare changes. Reforming any program that serves over 33 million Americans requires a more cautious and thorough process. I came to the debate hoping that at the very least we would remove these two provisions from the legislation. I supported amendment that would have conformed this reconciliation bill to the equitable provisions included in the balanced budget agreement. It now appears that this is unlikely and these two provisions will remain in the bill. I could not support any legislation that would jeopardize affordable, quality health care for millions of senior citizens. It is truly unfortunate that we were not successful in eliminating these provisions as there are many aspects of this legislation that do adhere to the balanced budget agreement and could have positive fiscal, economic and social ramifications. But, I had to send the message that I could not support any legislation that jeopardizes Medicare. It is difficult for me to vote no on this entire reconciliation package. This legislation will fix the devastating impact of welfare reform for disabled, low-income, legal immigrants. It provides an additional $16 billion for children's health care initiatives. It allows for an expansion of prevention benefits for Medicare beneficiaries. I am also pleased that the Managers accepted my amendment to clarify that States can waive victims of domestic violence from the punitive welfare reform requirements. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Budget Committee for accepting this important amendment and am disappointed that I cannot support the overall package. I know that there is a very good chance that these problems could be addressed in Conference as they are not currently included in the reconciliation bill passed in the House. I will make every effort to ensure that these provisions do not survive Conference. I believe that if we can get back to the bipartisan agreement and good faith negotiations, we can still send to the President a balanced budget agreement that he can sign. If we have learned nothing else over the last two years, I sincerely hope that my Colleagues have learned that legislative accomplishments can only happen through honest, bipartisan efforts. I reluctantly voted no on this reconciliation bill. I want my Colleagues to know that this bill is unacceptable and violates the bipartisan balanced budget agreement. If we can work in Conference to improve the bill and correct the unnecessary Medicare provisions I believe we would have a good balanced budget plan. I urge my Colleagues to put aside their philosophical differences and work to enact the historic balanced budget agreement.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering simply clarifies that they can waive victims of domestic violence from the Welfare Act. This was an amendment that was unanimously accepted in the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution and in the welfare reform bill. I thank my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for his work on this issue and appreciate the acceptance by the Senate.