Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, to express my strong support for this important legislation. I do so in the belief that every single American deserves fair treatment under the law, no matter their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. As one of the few women ever to serve in the U.S. Senate, I bring a different perspective to this issue. As a mother and as the ninth woman ever elected to the Senate and the first ever from my home State of Washington, I understand very clearly what it means to be part of a group who seeks fairness and equal opportunity. Not so long ago, many thought it impossible for women to serve in the Senate, much less elected office of any other kind. Today, I am confident none of my colleagues would deny the contributions women have made here, in the House, in the State and local governments, and at every level of public service. Mr. President, I am proud, not only that I was elected to one of the highest offices in the land, but also because I know now that my daughter will have the same opportunity. The point is this: She will have choices and she will have the opportunity, because these are the values of the American people. I do not believe elected leaders serve our country well if they deny any of our citizens these choices. A person's success or failure must depend on their qualifications, skills, effort, and sometimes even luck. Most important, their fate should rest on having the opportunity to test these things. No one, not one person, should be denied opportunity because of their race, their religion, their gender, or their sexual orientation. I know that historic debates such as this one have been very hard, but I say to my colleagues, change is never easy and we should let our past successes be our guide in the future. Thirty-five years ago, our national conscience was challenged like never before as the civil rights movement blossomed. By passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we made unquestionable progress toward ensuring equality for all citizens. Today, none among us would deny that we did the right thing by outlawing discrimination based on race. We know we did the right thing by guaranteeing the civil rights of women, racial minorities, and members of every religion. The same must be done in this case. So we can be justifiably proud of our rich history of protecting civil rights, and we should dedicate ourselves to doing better. And make no mistake, we can do better. To my colleagues, I offer this caution: Do not be convinced by those who argue that discrimination is no longer a problem in the workplace. Every day, citizens of this Nation somewhere feel the sinister burn of job discrimination, be they women, racial minorities, or gays and lesbians. And unlike the rest of America, this latter group cannot today count on the protection of Federal law to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace. I recently heard the story of a woman named Nan Miguel who worked for a hospital in my home State of Washington as an administrator in the radiology department. She oversaw a small staff and worked very hard at her job. Three years ago, she hired a woman she believed was the most qualified candidate for an x-ray technician's position. She did this despite pressure from certain staff members who believed that the woman she wanted to hire was a lesbian. The new employee went on to work hard and did an excellent job, just as Nan expected she would. Unfortunately, it did not end there. One coworker in particular was opposed to working with a woman because of the rumors about her sexual orientation. Nan sought help from senior management in resolving this issue, but to her shock, they told her that the coworker must simply be responding to the discord created by the technician. Her employee's job performance was strong and, therefore, she felt it wrong to fire her. Instead, she continued to try and find a solution. In the end, the hospital told Nan that it would be easier for them to remove her than to remove her coworker. Nan was placed on administrative leave and subsequently fired. A short time later, the technician was fired as well. Only the worker who displayed intolerance on the job stayed on the job. If the same situation had occurred because the technician was Hispanic, because she was a woman, or because she belonged to the Mormon Church, the same outcome could not have happened. We would not even be talking about it, because today no one would question the competence of an employee based on those characteristics, and if someone did, that employee would have recourse under the law. Mr. President, a moment ago I mentioned my daughter and the opportunities that she will have. I am also very concerned about the experiences of young people who may be denied those same opportunities. I am worried about those who must find jobs in cases where their parents have forced them out of the House and they are on their own. At a very early age, they must support themselves just to get through high school, let alone college. Young people are very vulnerable to discrimination and cannot hold jobs, and they will have an extremely hard time. I have heard real stories of gay and lesbian young adults in my State who ended up moving away from home, relying on public assistance or even considering suicide if they did not get help. They become very cynical about the world they live in, and they start to think that the regular rules do not apply to them. When this happens, we lose very productive members of our society. We may pay more for public assistance, and we deny young people the chance to pursue the same goals every one of us has--education, a good job and a place in the community. As I said before, current law says people cannot be treated differently in the workplace based on race, origin, gender or religion. The bill before us today would simply add sexual orientation to that list. It is written even more narrowly than current law because it does not allow positive actions, such as quotas or other preferential treatment. All it says is a person cannot be treated differently in any decision related to employment based on their sexuality--whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Under this bill, a person could not be hired solely because they are homosexual, nor could they be denied a job if they are heterosexual. A person cannot get a raise simply because they are married to a member of the opposite sex, nor can they be denied a promotion because they marched in a gay pride parade. In short, it simply takes the issue of sexual orientation out of personnel decisions altogether. Mr. President, these are reasonable expectations and, in fact, they have already been adopted by nine States, many local governments across the country and Fortune 500 companies that recognize that it makes good business sense to value each and every one of their employees equally. It is time that our laws reflect these values as well. To my colleagues who believe this bill would bring up increased litigation, I ask these questions: Should we then have denied women equal rights because it would have increased the number of cases in our courts? Should we have allowed segregation to continue because it would take too much time and money to hear Brown versus Board of Education? Did the Framers of our Constitution think about caseloads in our courts when they guaranteed our freedom to worship? My answer to these questions is a strong, clear no, and I am surprised at the arguments against this legislation. They sound hauntingly familiar to the ones we have heard in the past against allowing women, religious members, and racial groups equal protections under the law. We have heard a lot from both political parties in the past few weeks about the big tent philosophy and the importance of inclusion, equal treatment under the law, and equal opportunity in the workplace. The ENDA bill gives Senators of both parties a chance to act on that rhetoric. Mr. President, this is not a conservative or a liberal issue. It is not about one group's protection at another's expense. It is about common sense, common decency, and about our fundamental values as Americans. Consider an editorial written 2 years ago by former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. He wrote that we must allow gay and lesbian citizens the same protections we have extended to other people to ensure their civil rights. He points out that ``anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this is not about granting special rights--it is about protecting basic rights.'' Like many of my colleagues on both sides of this aisle, I strongly agree with him. When Nan Miguel tells her story, she says that by treating the woman she hired with dignity and respect, she was following the Christian beliefs that she was brought up with. And I know that in my family, my mother and father taught us to respect other people and to treat them the way we wanted to be treated. I urge my colleagues to take the high ground on this issue. Think of what history will say when the 104th Congress made the decision which once again protected our civil rights. This is not about one group of people, it is about all people and our belief in one another. If we do not pass the ENDA bill, our sisters and brothers, sons and daughters will remain vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace. We can do better than that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday, by unanimous vote, the Senate passed the Newborns and Mothers Health Protection Act as an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. There is no more important issue before this Congress than the health of mothers and their newborns, and so I applaud the Senate. This amendment is vital. I want to express my pride in being a cosponsor, and my thanks to Senator Bradley and Senator Frist for all of their hard work. This amendment will require health insurers to allow moms and their newborns to stay in the hospital for a minimum of 48 hours after a normal delivery and 96 hours after a cesarean section, unless the mother and her attending health care provider decide a shorter stay is in the child's best interest. I sent a letter, along with Senator Snowe of Maine, to Senator Dole back on May 1 of this year, asking for a vote on this bill. That letter was signed by all the women Senators, from both parties. I am glad we have finally had a debate and approved this language. This amendment has many cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, and has the support of numerous organizations from around the country. These organizations represent the broad range of health care providers that work with mothers, newborns, and the full range of their health concerns. There are experts from every corner of the country who will attest to the importance of this amendment, and as Senator Bradley has noted, more than 80,000 Americans have sent in letters asking us to pass this legislation, because they know it can mean the difference between life and death for a loved one. Protecting mothers and their infants is the right thing to do, and is overdue. Many States already provide these protections, and hospitals such as Tacoma General in my State are already allowing these decisions to be made by the mother and her care provider, which is the way it should be. We know from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that hospital stays for new mothers decreased by almost half between 1970 and 1992--from 3.9 days to 2.1 days. We know the length of stay has continued to decrease, and is now about 24 hours after normal delivery. We know there can be serious health complications within the first 48 hours even after a normal delivery. Most important, we know these decisions should be in the hands of the mother and her attending health care provider. I am glad the Senate has taken this action, and I think it is a good first step toward improving the health of infants and other children in this country. We need to give all newborns every advantage possible. In my mind, a healthy start on life is a good start on life.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference agreement to H.R. 3754, the fiscal year 1997 legislative branch appropriation bill. I commend Senator Mack for his leadership of the managers on the part of the Senate. I also compliment the House conferees, particularly the House subcommittee chairman, Mr. Packard, and his minority counterpart, Mr. Thornton. Their obvious knowledge of this legislation certainly played a large part in the expeditious manner in which this conference proceeded. All in all, Mr. President, this is a good conference agreement. In most cases, we split the difference with the House with respect to the funding levels for the related agencies in this bill. One exception is the funding for the Joint Economic Committee. The Senate-passed bill funded that committee at a level of $750,000 and the House-passed bill at a level of $3,000,000. The conferees agreed to a funding level of $2,750,000 with language stating that the long-term need for this committee should be reviewed and that funding for the committee is expected to be phased down to zero in the future. In addition, I was pleased that the House accepted my amendment regarding the disposal of excess computer equipment to public schools. And, at the recommendation of Congressmen Fazio and Serrano, the House included language stating that they support this policy for excess House computer equipment. Mr. President, I note that section 312 of the House-passed bill, the issue of so-called dynamic scoring, was dropped from the conference agreement. As Members are aware from previous statements I have made on the floor, I steadfastly opposed this provision and, therefore, am pleased to report that the House agreed to remove this provision from the conference agreement. In closing, I again commend this Legislative Branch Subcommittee chairman, Senator Mack, for his leadership and for the spirit of bipartisanship in which he operates. Many difficult issues have arisen with respect to this legislation over the 2 years of his subcommittee chairmanship and he has unfailingly faced those issues and resolved them in a fair and objective way on a nonpartisan basis. He has always endeavored to keep me fully informed on all matters coming before the subcommittee, for which I am deeply appreciative. I urge the support of this conference agreement by all Members.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to describe a project being undertaken by a remarkable organization in my home State of Washington. PeaceTrees Vietnam, the 20th international PeaceTrees Program sponsored by the Earthstewards Network, represents the dedicated work of individuals working to promote peace on a local and global scale. For over a decade, Earthstewards has worked around the world to foster dialog between peoples of various countries, and to contribute to communities around the world. Earthstewards has organized PeaceTrees Programs in many communities, including Capetown, South Africa; Auroville, South India; Bluefields, Nicaragua; and Tacoma, WA. Now, this organization is embarking on a project in Vietnam. Every week in Vietnam, a child is killed or maimed by the explosion of an antipersonnel landmine. At this time, there are over 58,000 leftover landmines and unexploded ordnance in the Quang Tri Province of Vietnam, the DMZ during the Vietnam war. PeaceTrees Vietnam seeks to eliminate the threat of these devices by removing landmines, planting trees, raising community awareness, and reducing the dangers of landmines in Vietnam and across the globe. This important program has several phases. First, beginning this summer, landmines will be removed near the old Khe May military base in the town of Dong Ha in Quang Tri Province. American and Canadian retired military experts as well as Vietnamese local militia will extract these destructive weapons of war. Then, in November, a Friendship Forest will be planted in this area. Not only will this serve as a cooperative effort of the Westerners and Vietnamese who plant these trees, it will help set up a buffer to stop the dry, hot winds from Laos and restore life to deforested terrain. Next, construction of a Landmine Awareness Education Center will begin. Educational displays will be created, so children and adults may understand how to identify potentially unsafe areas, and what to do if a landmine is encountered. Mine clearance will continue through 1997 in the thousands of hectares of the surrounding farm and forest land. This will allow citizens to productively and effectively utilize the land again, and will help re-forest the area. As a member of the PeaceTrees Vietnam International Advisory Board, I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist efforts to make this landmine-ridden area safe again, and to raise awareness of the global problem of landmines. I applaud the work of all those who have helped organize and implement PeaceTrees Vietnam. Efforts such as theirs truly make a difference in the lives of countless individuals around the world.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is clear that most Americans agree we need to change welfare as we know it. Our current system does not work, not for those on public assistance and not for those who pay for it. The American people feel strongly that personal responsibility has to be a part of this country's welfare system. I could not agree more. Mr. President, for nearly 4 years I have spent countless hours examining the current welfare structure, talking to participants and listening to the frustrations of both reformers and people on public assistance. This Senate has debated many ideas for welfare reform. I have worked with my colleagues to do everything possible to help create a welfare bill that will move able-bodied adults off welfare and into work. The transition from welfare to work is the core of this policy debate. But my concern is this. We are creating a system in which people will not get a welfare check, but they will not be able to get a paycheck either. If people leave welfare, but are not qualified or cannot find work, they are faced with one fundamental problem: The grocery bill is still there, and there is no way to feed their kids. My vote on this final welfare bill is one of the most difficult I have had to cast. There are no easy answers. I want welfare to be reformed. I hear from those recipients who complain that the current system does not work. There is too little job training. There is too little child care. And the programs try to fit every single welfare recipient into one single mold. As this bill worked its way through the Senate and House, I have sponsored and cosponsored numerous amendments to protect the well-being of children, from preventive and emergency health care, nutritious meals, safe child care, illiteracy, issues that are important because they affect the ability of parents to move successfully from welfare to work while they are still taking care of their own kids. I agree with President Clinton that this welfare reform bill makes significant strides toward ending welfare as we know it. It will help put some people back to work and end the cycle of dependency that this system is accused of breeding. It will give more flexibility to the States and allow for more local decisionmaking authority. But I also agree with President Clinton that this bill has serious flaws. Nine million children will be cut off from services. Legal immigrant children will be ineligible for almost all Federal and State services, other than in an emergency, leaving them hungry, uneducated and desperate on our streets. One-half of the $60 billion cut in spending will come from nutrition programs. It will have a dramatic impact on the very individuals who need the most help today in this country, and that is our children. It has been clear for quite some time that this bill is going to be passed by an overwhelming majority and signed by the President, but I realize that I cannot in good conscience support a bill that will put so many of our children in jeopardy. Mr. President, I am the only former preschool teacher to serve in the U.S. Senate. I have looked into the faces of 2- and 3- and 4-year-olds who are hungry every single day. I have worked as a parent education instructor with adults who have lost their jobs. Food stamps provided the only chance they had to feed their children while they desperately were looking for work. I knew immediately when a child in my class was unable to learn and felt frightened because of tough financial times at home, and I saw the effects those kids had on all the other kids in my classroom. Many times I have sat and listened to young women whose lives have been devastated. They have been left alone to care for young children. They have no job skills and no ability to go to work because their full-time job was being a mom. For me, the bottom line in the welfare reform discussion is, what will happen to our Nation's children? What will happen to those children I held in my lap in my preschool? For me, it is a risk that I am not willing to take. It is vital that parents return to work. But we have to help ensure that our children receive adequate health care, nutrition, and are not left home alone or, worse, to wander on our streets. When this welfare reform proposal passes, we have to ask, what is next? This bill only tells people what the Federal Government will not do anymore. In its place will come 50 different experiments in 50 different States. It may help some people, and it most certainly will hurt others. But whether it works or not, from this day forward I believe that we have to begin a national commitment to our children and to give them a fair chance, every one of them, at succeeding in life. We all want a country where every child is secure, where every person can be a contributing member of our society and our economy, and where the world around us is a healthy and safe place to live. No one disagrees with that. To make sure it happens, we have to start a discussion in every single community and neighborhood and every single dinner table in this Nation. We have to ask, what is important to us as Americans? Are we going to be a compassionate Nation? When push comes to shove, are we going to help our neighbors when they need it? And if, as I suspect, the answer is yes, we are going to have to say how. In the aftermath of this welfare reform bill, these are the questions that every one of us as adults in this country will have to answer. I am not going to dwell on changes brought about in this welfare reform. Instead, I am going to aggressively seek answers to the questions I have raised, and I will reaffirm my own commitment to children. I will work for constructive solutions to problems that arise in the future. I have already formed a bipartisan working group within the Senate to help develop and create ideas to help adults find more time to spend with our young children. And I formed an advisory group at home in Washington on youth involvement to help support this effort. Hopefully, the people of this country will ultimately work to create the kind of communities that we can all be proud of. But, Mr. President, one good thing will come out of this for sure that will happen as a result of us passing welfare reform. Finally, we will no longer, either here on the floor of the Senate or in living rooms across this country, be able to blame welfare as the cause of our Nation's problems. After today, instead, perhaps, we can all sit down and work to agree on what we can do to keep our young children in this country healthy and secure and educated and growing up in a country that we are all proud of. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I intend to support S. 1936, as amended. However, I would also like to express my reservations about portions of this bill. I supported cloture and I appreciate my colleagues from Nevada agreeing to allow this bill to move forward. It is critical that we proceed with the business we have to complete prior to adjournment; namely, 13 appropriations bills. I hold no grudges against my sincere colleagues from Nevada for their use of Senate rules to delay this bill. Were I in their shoes, I too would likely use every parliamentary device available to me to prevent enactment of this bill. It is because I do not want to be in their shoes that I support this bill. I, and many of my constituents, are concerned that there may be a renewed effort to place either an interim or a permanent nuclear waste repository in Washington, at Hanford, adjacent to the Columbia River. As many who have dealt with this issue over the years know, Hanford, a Texas site, and Yucca Mountain were the winners in the permanent repository selection process. So, for the health of my constituents, I support development of Yucca Mountain. Conversely, it is also that fear for my constituents that makes me most nervous about S. 1936. While I appreciate the improvements made about Environmental Protection Agency authority regarding radiation release and exposure standards, I am worried about the bill's easing of some environmental and health standards. It is not unlikely that someday we in Washington may have the rest of the Nation decide that Hanford radiation standards could be lessened in order to foist some new batch of nuclear waste upon us. So, I am leery of such provisions in this bill and am pleased that the authors continue to make improvements. I also am frustrated that the U.S. Government has made a commitment to some of its citizens, to ratepayers, to the nuclear industry, to store nuclear waste by 1998. Maybe we should not have made such a commitment or collected fees to follow through on that commitment. But we did. It is time to act on that commitment--even if it means so doing with this imperfect vehicle. Mr. President, this is a very difficult issue for me. I care about my State, I care about the ratepayers' money being spent on this never- ending project to get nuclear waste in a permanent geologic repository, I care about the health of all people, including Nevadans, and I care about fairness. I agree with many of the arguments made by my colleagues, Senators Bryan and Reid. Therefore, I will support any amendments that address my concerns. In the end though, I will support S. 1936 in its final form.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the transportation appropriations bill. I want to applaud Senators Hatfield and Lautenberg for their strong leadership over an area of increased competition for fewer dollars. This legislation though, is bittersweet, as it marks the final transportation bill for Chairman Hatfield. My neighbor to the south has been a compassionate champion for our Nation's infrastructure. The loss to this body and the Pacific Northwest will be felt for a very long time. The State of Washington has witnessed tremendous growth over the last decade, accompanied by traffic congestion on roads that have not kept pace with this region's large influx of residents. I am pleased that this bill seeks to accommodate much of that growth within the Puget Sound region. The committee has included funds which support a commuter rail service between the cities of Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma. This line would form the foundation for a larger regional transit service in the Puget Sound that is set for a vote this November. This commuter service would operate trains on existing track between the most heavily populated centers of Washington State. The committee also included funding to aid commuters traveling from suburban cities to downtown Seattle. These funds will enable King County Metro to connect the cities of Kenmore, Redmond, Renton, Tukwila, and Auburn with Seattle, through smaller neighborhood buses that meet larger commuter buses heading into the city. Further, I am thrilled that the bill has included funds that support a comprehensive transportation solution to congestion around the Kingdome and new baseball stadium. Together with King County, the city of Seattle, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Port of Seattle, the Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District and Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad, these dollars will create a transit center facilitating access for both transit and pedestrians through the area. Last, Mr. President, I wanted to commend the committee for allowing Wenatchee to finish construction on the Chelan-Douglas Multimodal Center. The city of Wenatchee and Link Transit Systems have been working on the Multimodal Transportation Center project for 3 years. These funds will finish construction on the project and improve pedestrian and bicycle access. All of these projects utilize several different modes of transportation to more quickly and efficiently move our growing population. I appreciate the committee's hard work in light of difficult budget choices and urge my colleagues' support of this critical appropriations bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment just sent to the desk be laid aside.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me say that I support the amendment the Senator has offered. We are simply on this side waiting for the authorizing committee to review it, and hopefully that will come fairly soon. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have had time to review all of these amendments. There is no objection.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3754, the fiscal year 1997 legislative branch appropriation bill. The bill as reported by the full committee is a fair and responsible bill. As Members will recall, this committee took a bold step last year in recommending a bill that cut spending for the departments and agencies funded in the legislative branch appropriations bill by $200 million, or 10 percent. This year, again, we have continued the effort to reduce the funding levels and streamline the operations of Congress by recommending a bill that cuts a net of over $22 million from the 1996 enacted level. At the proposed funding level contained in this measure, the Legislative Branch, in total, will have less funding than in fiscal year 1991 or 6 years ago. The major reductions recommended by the committee involve the support agencies that are so vital to the Congress in order to enable us to complete our work in an effective and expeditious manner. The committee this year saves $6.1 million below fiscal year 1996 as a result of the elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment. I did not personally support that elimination but, nevertheless, it has been accomplished and we are saving $6.1 million this year because of OTA's elimination. Another major reduction in this year's bill is the cut to the General Accounting Office. Their budget is reduced by $44,381,000 below fiscal year 1996. Testimony by the Comptroller General, Mr. Bowsher, made clear that the GAO can undertake this reduction as part of their overall, 2-year 25 percent commitment made to the Congress last year. The amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for the GAO is $338,425,000 and will provide for a personnel ceiling of no more than 3,500 positions. This personnel ceiling amounts to a reduction of 1,825 below the level of GAO's workforce in 1992 when they had a ceiling of 5,325 positions. As Senators can see, the reductions the committee is recommending this year are dramatic. However, Mr. President, I believe that the committee has accomplished these savings in a way that is as fair and even-handed as possible. We have been careful to ensure that the organizations and agencies which support Congress and are funded in the legislative branch appropriation bill are able to carry out their responsibilities under these reduced budgets as effectively as they have in the past. I would have adamantly opposed these budget cuts if they were undertaken only to save dollars, without recognizing any negative consequences. It would be fruitless, for example to reduce the budget of the Congressional Budget Office with their ever-increasing responsibilities simply for the sake of saying we have achieved budgetary savings. With this in mind, I carefully reviewed the testimony of our witnesses for any indication that cuts of the magnitude we have recommended would harm the ability of these Congressional-support agencies to carry out their very important responsibilities. Testimony received by the subcommittee indicated that these recommended savings can be achieved while allowing these support agencies to carry out these responsibilities with no reductions-in-force. Mr. President, Senator Mack provided members with a detailed explanation of all of the recommendations contained in the bill, and I will not take the time of Members by repeating them. I would, however, call to the attention of Members Section 5 of the administrative provisions. I included, with the enthusiastic support of Chairman Mack, language that will enable the Sergeant at Arms to transfer excess or surplus computer equipment to schools. In the past, the Senate sold its computers to employees at bargain prices. Fortunately, this practice has been terminated, and I commend the Sergeant at Arms for doing so. For the past couple of years, our computers have simply been transferred to GSA for disposal through the normal surplus process. I think Senators should be aware that the Senate disposes of over 1500 computers every year. Over the past 3 years, nearly 5,000 computers have been let go. For the most part, these are IBM- compatible, 386, 16-megahertz machines. They are a generation old, but they could be very useful to schools, especially in rural areas, that may not have a big budget to buy fancy new computers. I am fortunate to represent Washington State, which is very aggressive in trying to put computers in the classroom. Our companies have been generous in donating software and hardware, and people are excited about giving kids skills that will help them get an edge in life. But not every school district is moving aggressively on computers. Many do not even know how to go about it, and cannot afford it. I am certain that every Senator is aware of how fast technology is evolving in our economy. I really believe that, in the future, a child's ability to compete in the work force will be measured in part by his or her familiarity with computers. In my view, the earlier they start, the better. The Senate will debate the broad role of government in education technology, and I look forward to having that debate. For now there is a small, and I think constructive, role for the Senate to play. We can use the bully pulpit. We can lead by example. We can help school children by transferring our computers to schools that want or need them. By doing this, we can help some kids, and we can show the country we think bringing technology to the classroom is a high priority. Here is how it will work: the Sergeant at Arms will make sure that any excess or surplus computers are in good working order. Then he will make them available to interested schools at the lowest possible cost to both the Senate and the schools. Most likely, he will transfer these computers to the General Services Administration. GSA, in turn, will provide information to schools through its regional offices about available inventory. The equipment eligible for transfer will include computers, keyboards, monitors, printers, modems, and other peripheral hardware as described in the bill. I envision schools being able to obtain this equipment on a first- come, first-served basis, for the cost of shipping and handling from GSA regional offices. The language provides the Sergeant at Arms with flexibility to determine the best way to complete the transfers. I think this is a useful change in policy. Again, I appreciate the help of Chairman Mack on this, and I look forward to working with him and the Sergeant at Arms to make this work. Finally, Mr. President, I would point out that there is a provision included in the House-passed bill--Section 312--that was stricken pursuant to a motion by Senator Hatfield during full committee markup. That section deals with so-called ``dynamic'' scoring of certain measures. Although this provision would apply to House measures only and, therefore, would normally not be stricken by the Senate in view of the comity between the Houses that is traditionally recognized, in this instance there is a Budget Act point of order under Section 306 which would lie against Section 312 and that was the basis upon which the committee chairman moved to strike the provision. I strongly oppose Section 312 on its merits. I do not believe that either branch of Congress should be dictating selective macroeconomic scorekeeping procedures upon either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation. I will have more to say on this later during debate on this bill should any attempt be made to revive Section 312 or anything similar to it. On balance, Mr. President, I believe this is a good bill that deserves the support of Members. I would hasten to add, however, that I share the concerns expressed by Senator Reid, a former chairman of this subcommittee, during the committee's markup of the legislative branch appropriation bill. Senator Reid stated that we have reached the bottom of the barrel in cutting the legislative branch appropriation bill. Once the savings we have undertaken are accomplished in the Congressional-support agencies over a multi-year period, we cannot look to these agencies for further budget cuts. These agencies have been very forthcoming and have understood our need to reduce spending for the Legislative Branch, and I am deeply appreciative of their willingness to do so. But, Mr. President, we have indeed reached the bottom of the barrel. Mr. President, let me close by commending our subcommittee chairman, Senator Mack. He has proven himself to be a real leader on legislative branch issues and has worked with me on a bipartisan basis. I appreciate it very much. I also wish to express my thanks to the subcommittee staff--Keith Kennedy, Jim English, and Mary Dewald for their fine work, and also to recognize the excellent support we had from Ric Ilgenfritz of my staff and Larry Harris for Senator Mack. Mr. President, I urge the support of all Members for this bill. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at this time I would like to send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Leahy.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just thank the Senator from Florida for his work on the legislative branch appropriations bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill. It contains funding for many programs and projects important to our Nation and my region. I thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Johnston--and their very capable staffs--for the superb jobs they have done. Cleanup and restoration of the Hanford site is one of my top priorities. In this bill, the Department of Energy's Environmental Management program is well funded. While I disagree with the allocation of resources between defense and nondefense programs in the majority's budget, I appreciate that some of that extra defense money goes to worthwhile programs, like environmental management. One aspect of the EM program that continues to trouble me is the approach the Department has taken to privatization at Hanford. I appreciate the subcommittee's effort to minimize the impact of privatization by suggesting that only $150 million, rather than $185 million, be taken from the tank farm operating budget in order to make a down payment on the tank waste remediation program. Senators Gorton, Domenici, Johnston, and I have sent a letter to the Department asking a number of questions about this approach to privatization. While I am a supporter of privatization, I believe sweeping changes must be well thought out and should not harm ongoing efforts to stabilize the tank farms. Mr. President, this administration has done a terrific job of moving Hanford cleanup forward. For years, Hanford has been largely a money hole into which enormous Federal dollars were thrown, but little was accomplished. I want to recognize the accomplishments of Secretary O'Leary's Department of Energy and the people at Hanford who have done such an outstanding job of reducing costs and increasing results. Let me share some of the latest results at Hanford. There are several specific cleanup programs that have made significant progress recently. One of those is at the Plutonium Uranium Extraction [PUREX] Plant where the criticality system was shut off forever last month. The alarm is not necessary because there is no longer a chance of a nuclear accident at the 40-year-old plant. This shows tremendous progress and is evidence of the dedication of Hanford employees--who reached this goal 16 months ahead of schedule and $47 million under budget. The K-basin's spent fuel project is also on track. The canister storage building is 15 percent complete and the managers estimate they can begin large-scale spent fuel removal by December 1997. At that time, fuel will be removed from both K-basins to be cleaned, loaded into baskets, placed in multi-canister overpacks, dried in a cold vacuum, and placed in the canister storage building. Already, several hundred spent fuel canisters have been removed and cleaned; and the system is working as planned. Another point of interest is that project acceleration decisions made and implemented in 1995 have saved $350 million and will allow the project to be completed 4 years early. This is great progress. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is in the final stages of construction of the new Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory [EMSL]. The lab is a critical component of our efforts to develop the scientific understanding needed to create innovative and cost-effective technologies for environmental remediation. EMSL scientists will research soil and water quality, waste characterization, processing, and health effects. This state-of-the-art facility will complement the Hanford cleanup mission and make a positive contribution to many of our most troubling environmental and pollution problems. Mr. President, I appreciate the commitment of this body and the administration to the cleanup of former defense production sites, like Hanford. I pledge to work with my colleagues to see that progress continues and that the Federal Government fulfills its responsibility to the people of this Nation who fought and won the cold war. I would also like to voice my strong support for an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords regarding funding for renewable energy. In the last 2 years, funding for wind, solar, and other renewable energy research and development programs has been cut by almost 40 percent. Last year, the Senate restored some of the funding for these important programs, but eventually the renewables program lost ground in conference with the House. I want to lend my voice to many of my colleagues who support renewable energy and see such programs as a critical component of the Federal Government's commitment to future generations and a healthy environment. Again, I thank Senators Domenici and Johnston for their work on this important bill and urge my colleagues to support final passage. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the senior Senator from Washington yield for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator. As you know, the Northwest Power Act requires the Power Planning Council and Bonneville Power Administration to mitigate the effects of the hydro-electric system on fish and wildlife generally, and anadromous fisheries specifically. The amendment proposed by the senior Senator would require the council to consider ocean conditions prior to making its science-based recommendations for mitigation priorities to Bonneville. Does the Senator agree that his amendment does not expand the scope of Northwest Power Act with respect to hydro system mitigation, nor does it make hydro system mitigation efforts contingent on known ocean conditions?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks about the foreign operations legislation for fiscal year 1997. Let me begin by complementing both Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy for bringing this bill to the floor today. As a member of the subcommittee, I appreciate the lengths to which both of these Senators have gone to accommodate me and the citizens of Washington State. This is important legislation; issues including the Middle East peace process, the growth of democracy in the former Soviet Union, efforts to combat disease and starvation around the globe, international family planning and job-creating export assistance financing are all part of this bill. Few pieces of legislation address so many issues of importance to this country--economic issues, national security issues and others associated with our role as the world's lone superpower. Importantly, this is all accomplished for an investment that represents less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. I am particularly pleased that the Appropriations Committee fully funded our assistance program to Russia to foster the growth of democracy and build important new markets for United States goods and services. My home State of Washington is actively involved in Russia, particularly the Russian Far East. Educational, cultural, health and athletic exchanges, numerous sister city relationships, the West Coast Working group of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, and of course, international trade and commerce with Russia have all captivated the citizens of Washington State. Washington State has demonstrated a commitment to developing and expanding ties with the Russian Far East by locating a state office in Vladivostock. I have already mentioned that this bill addresses many national interests of concern to the United States. Any of which could be explored in greater detail today here on the floor of the Senate. I want to take a few moments to focus on the provisions of this bill that promote exports from the United States--the job creators of this legislation--and specifically, the Export-Import Bank of the United States. This legislation provides nearly $770 million to the Export-Import Bank of the United States for fiscal year 1997. Ex-Im is the great equalizer for U.S. firms seeking to export abroad in a competitive global marketplace. A marketplace where our international competitors are spending vastly greater sums of money in support of their exporters. For example, in 1994, Japan provided export financing to nearly 40 percent of all that nation's trade deals. In the same time period, Canada financed almost 20 percent of its exports. U.S. export financing through the Ex-Im bank equaled 3.3 percent--a figure significantly below virtually all of our trade partners. It is estimated that the fiscal year 1997 appropriation will support between $15 and $18 billion in exports. Think about it, the Export- Import Bank will leverage its $770 million appropriation to generate $15-$18 billion in economic activity--job creating economic activity-- right here in the United States in the next year. For several pennies, the American taxpayer, through Ex-Im, will support nearly 500,000 American jobs. And export-related jobs have shown to pay approximately 13-percent more than nonexport jobs. The Ex-Im Bank is sustaining and creating family wage jobs all across this country. In my own State of Washington, the Ex-Im Bank is having a significant impact on trade promotion and job creation. Many identify the Boeing Co. with the Export-Import Bank. While the relationship between the bank and the aerospace industry is often overstated, it is important to note that approximately 2,000 small businesses in Washington State do contracting work for the Boeing Co. So when Ex-Im helps the United States commercial aircraft industry develop new markets for aircraft in Poland and Lithuania, Ex-Im supports jobs at small businesses across my State. There are numerous examples of the Export-Import Bank aiding Washington State businesses seeking to export abroad. With Ex-Im assistance, Pacific Propeller, a propeller manufacturer and overhauler, located in Kent, WA secured $7.5 million of important work in Indonesia. Connelly Skis exported its recreational equipment including the new ``Big Easy'' water ski to Belgium, Columbia, South Africa, and Jamaica. And the Lamb Weston Corp. shipped Washington State french fries to Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, and Aruba. This was all done with assistance from Ex-Im--all of these export deals may not have occurred without Ex-Im assistance. Clearly, the Export-Import Bank of the United States is a major contributor to my State's efforts to compete and succeed in international trade. Few recognize the benefits of this small appropriation to the Export-Import Bank, many work and prosper due to this agencies important work. Ex-Im is the lender of last resort; meaning the bank finances only deals that will not go through without assistance. The bank supports U.S. exporters when foreign governments offer subsidized financing to competitors, when private financing is unavailable or when small businesses are unable to locate commercial banks willing to provide financing. Importantly, the Ex-Im bank is a vital tool for small businesses seeking to export. Support for small businesses represented almost 80 percent of all Export-Import Bank transactions during fiscal year 1995. I do have several reservations about the language in the bill which addresses an outstanding controversy regarding the Bank's provision of so-called retention bonuses. The bill restricts funding for the salary and expenses of the chairman and president of the Bank until Mr. Kamarck is confirmed by the regular process of the Senate. A full Senate hearing is, after all, the best forum to question Mr. Kamarck's actions and his nomination to lead the Bank. I urge the Senate to proceed immediately with a hearing for Mr. Kamarck. Additionally, this legislation cuts administrative expenses for the Export-Import Bank by nearly $7 million. This punitive action is another expression of congressional frustration over the retention bonus issue. My concern is that in our zeal to protest previous Bank actions, we will actually be harming the Bank's ability to help America's exporters. I hope my colleagues in the Congress and the administration will come together to address outstanding Bank issues prior to this bill becoming law. This legislation also provides important funding for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC] and the Trade and Development Agency [TDA]. Both of these entities are also important components in the U.S. Government's trade promotion arsenal. Mr. President, in my mind, the trade and export promotion provisions of this legislation represent a partnership with states across the country. In Washington State, by virtue of our location and history, we enjoy important cultural and economic ties with virtually every corner of the world. Despite an activist statewide commitment to international trade, Washington State needs the backing of the Federal Government to counter the resources of the Japanese and German Governments and those of our other international trade partners. For a minuscule investment, agencies like the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency all provide needed support--financial and consultative--to U.S. exporters.