Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the events in the past few days are disheartening. Congress passed two bills that should provide stopgap measures for the Government to operate, both the debt extension and the continuing resolution. These bills are necessary to buy time to work out differences that we have on the budget. But both were loaded down with political baggage, and the President has been forced to veto both. Now here, amazingly, today we are talking about exporting Alaskan oil. The Government is shut down, the budget is in crisis, and we are debating a major giveaway to foreign oil companies at the expense of Washington State refinery workers. Mr. President, it does not have to be this way. We have a job to do. We passed a budget resolution months ago. We passed a budget reconciliation 3 weeks ago. And we literally have been sitting here since then. We have a responsibility to problem solve, to work out our differences and send a package to the President. Yet here we are drawing lines in the sand and wasting time. I think everyone looks bad if we do not keep the budget process moving. Mr. President, when I came to Washington in 1993, I was excited, motivated, and ready to make a change. I was ready to make Congress work for average people. I was driven to restore common sense to this institution. And in large part I acted on that impulse by becoming a member of the Budget Committee, which put together the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. We all remember the 1993 budget debate. It was intense, but yet it was productive. Not everyone liked it, but we got the job done. We had no debates about continuing resolutions or debt limits. There were no discussions of Government shutdowns and work furloughs. Instead, we simply worked hard and we beat every deadline with room to spare. I understand the new majority's enthusiasm and in many ways I share their interest in changing the way this place works. And, believe me, I understand how difficult it is to put together a comprehensive budget package. But, Mr. President, what I do not understand is the new majority's inability to do so. Here we are, November 14, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This body passed a budget way back on October 27, but we still have not seen a House-Senate compromise [[Page S 17034]] package. More importantly, this Congress still has not passed 8 of its 13 appropriations bills. That astounds me. Our constituents expect us to pass appropriations by September 30. In fact, we passed the Senate budget plan 3 weeks ago and literally have done nothing since. People do not want to hear about Government shutdowns. And they certainly do not like it when Congress plays political games with their lives. How do we explain the pending Government shutdown without admitting our inability to do what is asked of us? We cannot; it is impossible. We cannot explain this stalemate without telling the public that the last 2 weeks have seen nothing but arguing, posturing, and finger pointing from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. I do not like to say it, but this behavior reminds me of the preschool classes I used to teach. Mr. President, we have to be responsible. We should not risk our Nation's creditworthiness and its ability to borrow. We should not shock the bond market, raise long-term interest rates and hurt American investors and consumers. We must understand the ramifications of our actions and our inactions. I urge my colleagues to consider my words. The American people do not care about who wins and who loses in this budget battle, let alone the continuing resolution battle. They simply care about results. They want to feel secure, and they want to know this Congress is up to its job. Mr. President, our goal should be to restore faith in Government, to demonstrate progress, action, and change. People want to see us working and working hard just like they do. But if the Government shuts down, all they are going to know is the politicians in Washington, DC, dropped the ball again. It is time to put aside the brinkmanship and give people what they want. I hope we can move quickly to enact a reasonable continuing resolution that has no strings attached. Budget negotiations will come soon enough once we resume work on the budget bill. In the meantime, let us be responsible legislators. Let us live up to our responsibilities and the expectations of our constituents. As far as the pending legislation is concerned, again I am amazed that we are debating this bill when this Government has come to a standstill. But I want my colleagues to know, I think that this bill is not a good one. It does not favor my constituents or the Nation. It gives away precious oil resources when our own country is 50 percent dependent on foreign oil. It threatens the healthy water of Puget Sound with unsafe, single-hull oil tankers. And most importantly, if this body actually takes a step to opening ANWR to drilling, it is possible that that oil also will be exported. This makes no sense at all to me, Mr. President, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on the conference report.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas. The Government Shutdown

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield back our time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield my colleague from North Dakota 3 additional minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes at this time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I stand here today concerned, anxious, and worried. Along with all Americans, we have nervously waited as this budget impasse puts every citizen in a precarious situation. It seems incredible to me on a day where the Government is shut down and the budget is in crisis we are on the floor of the Senate debating a major giveaway to foreign oil companies. I must say that I am deeply concerned that in the midst of a national catastrophe we may pass legislation that begins another national crisis. I know that not all of my colleagues understand the ramifications of S. 395. I realize that many feel this is an Alaskan issue and, because of that, some have questioned my intense interest in this issue. For nearly 2 days this past spring I held the Senate floor expressing my dissatisfaction with this bill. I often stood alone. But in the end several of my colleagues came forward to express concerns of their own. All of the arguments raised on each side of this issue are, unfortunately, based on assumptions, and that remains the crux of our problem in this debate. Those in favor of exporting Alaskan North Slope oil say it will increase production, promote jobs, and raise revenues for the State of Alaska. These are positive possibilities that certainly help my neighboring State of Alaska, and if the impact of exporting that oil stops within Alaska's boundaries, I would have wholeheartedly accepted this legislation and would have wished my neighbor success. However, that additional income for a few of our citizens must be weighed by a body charged with addressing the concerns of an entire nation. After 8 months of intense scrutiny of this issue, I am still convinced that the exporting of American oil can only lead to job losses, price increases, a dependence on foreign oil, and great environmental risks. I know that my colleagues from Alaska can show stunning charts that predict differently. However, these are merely predictions. We do not know that tankers heading to Asia with Alaskan oil will not stay in Asia for ship repair. This means 5,000 jobs within our region and $160 million in annual employment income--more than half of the marine industry's west coast employment. We do not know that Alaskan oil, once bound for independent refineries within Puget Sound will now steer for Far-Eastern markets throwing 2,000 refinery workers out on the streets. We do not know that exports of our oil will not lead to price increases at the pump for our citizens. And perhaps most importantly to me and the millions of residents of Washington State that live, play, and work [[Page S 17025]] along the beautiful waters of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, we have no guarantee that exporting U.S. oil will not lead to increased oil imports on environmentally risky, foreign ships. The Coast Guard rates as high risk one half of the current foreign tanker fleet that carries crude through Puget Sound. This is why I have stood for so long. I have remained stubborn and angered some of my colleagues for concerns that I truly believe outweigh the benefits garnered by a single State. I was able to include several amendments that I thought would attempt to address these concerns. Knowing that a Senate cloture vote was impossible, I relented on this legislation with the assurance that my amendments would be included. These amendments included a thorough GAO study that examines job, price, and environmental changes before oil exports may begin. I was also able to include language that mandated an escort vessel, dedicated at the entry to Washington State waters and available 24 hours a day to assist tankers that have run adrift. For the first time, we had created legislation that proactively fought oilspills. This amendment would have prevented the spill before it occurred rather than focusing on the millions spent on cleanup of these spills once the damage is done. Unfortunately, even this was too much for House conferees concerned more with overmanagement of the Coast Guard rather than the protection of our fragile coast. The current language adopted by the House mandates a 15-month plan that would implement a private-sector tug-of- opportunity system. This system utilizes current vessels already in operation, coordinated to provide timely emergency response to vessels in distress. It also directs the Coast Guard commandant to work with the Canadian Government in implementing this plan and making available Coast Guard equipment for purposes of response. I am pleased that this language incorporates the private industry. I applaud the proactive segments of this community who came forward to seek a compromised solution. Our intent was never to tax cargo and grain shippers, but to impose a fee on those who stand to gain millions from these oil exports--the oil companies themselves. This new amendment does clarify that U.S. shippers will not be taxed and their continued desire to meet these environmental concerns is commendable. I still feel this language does not go far enough, though. I am concerned that without a dedicated vessel at one location, the availability of an operating tug may put them out of reach of the distressed vessel. I am also concerned that once that tug reaches the distressed tanker, it may not have the capability to tow that large vessel, or in the least hold it from running aground. Sadly, we may not know the answers to all of these questions until oil is exported, foreign tankers are moving through our waters and we experience a major oilspill. None of us, particularly my colleagues from Alaska, ever want to relive the Valdez situation. None of us want oil on our hands under our watch. When and where it will happen remains the paramount question. I only hope that all in this body can head home at night knowing that we did all within our power to decrease that risk. The White House has committed to me that they will proactively seek out these risks, even before the 15-month study expires. They are prepared to conduct hearings in the State that address these issues and will enter into the Record a letter from the White House stating these actions. I appreciate that commitment and hope I can count on the Alaskan leadership to do all that they can to meet these environmental concerns before exports begin. I realize that I can stand again for 2 days or 2 weeks and try to delay this legislation. However, I am a realist who knows that this legislation could be attached to reconciliation without amendments, and I understand that the votes to stop these exports that were there for decades have now been reversed. I only ask my colleagues to try to understand some of the logic that has motivated the debate to export oil. It is truly in our national interest to produce our own oil, and if we agree that the North Slope of Alaska has a finite amount of oil left, why must we send our oil overseas and more quickly dry up our own wells? There are certainly projected increases, but to whose benefit?-- executives of British Petroleum and car owners in Tokyo. Further, it will only lead us closer and much more quickly to the opening of ANWR. More U.S. oil can be expected to be exported, and will again pit profits of international interests against environmental concerns. I ask everyone to consider the implications of exporting our oil: the policy implications, job risks, price concerns, and environmental risks. If you truly believe that these questions pale in comparison to the profits of a very few, then support 395. Otherwise, vote with a clear conscience that errs on the side of people and the world we are entrusted to protect. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report. Again, Mr. President, I must say that it does seem very disconcerting to me when my office phones are ringing off the hook with my constituents who are saying this Government is shut down, it is hurting me, and it is hurting our country. It is not the right direction that we are standing in front of this body debating a bill that will benefit an oil company, a special interest. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. I did want to enter into the Record a statement from the White House at this point stating their plans to evaluate the environmental problems including holding field hearings in my State. Ironically, due to the Government shutdown, the Council of Economic Advisers and other White House staff working on that letter had to go home at noon today, so I will have to submit it when I get it. I guess irony goes to show it is extremely incredible to me that we are continuing to talk about this bill at a time when our budget is in crisis. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts 5 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time is remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as an American and a Member of the Senate of the United States of America, I have certain responsibilities regarding what I say here on the floor. But unlike thinking individuals in most other societies throughout human history, I--uniquely in my role as a U.S. Senator--can come to the Senate floor and speak my mind freely, and no one can stop me, or retaliate against me, so long as I follow the few rules of common courtesy. If we adopt the Istook language, other American citizens, not lucky enough to be Members of this august body, are going to be told they can no longer speak freely before their Government. The Istook amendment to restrict advocacy, under consideration by the Senate will send this message loud and clear to every American citizen. Well, almost every American citizen. What the Istook amendment says is this: If you belong to a nonprofit group you will be restricted from lobbying Congress. If, however, you are a member of a Fortune 500 company or any other special interest constituency with money, you will have no restrictions. If you as a senior citizen join a group to receive services designed for seniors like you, your Government has no problem with that, and might even give your group a grant to do their important work. But if part of what your group does is relay to your Senator your wish to keep pharmaceutical prices down, your Government is no longer going to allow that to happen. If, however, you work for a large pharmaceutical company, you can lobby Congress like there's no tomorrow for your company's needs. I believe most Americans have a problem with this. Over half of the Members would argue with me, but I believe this Tuesday we heard at least the first rumblings among Americans about what their Government is about to do to them. I believe when America wakes up, Members of this Congress won't be able to shut out the free speech. We will hear from all of America loud and clear if this language becomes law. Not since the days of McCarthyism has such an assault on the rights of free speech been considered. There are already protections in Federal law that restrict the use of Federal funds for lobbying activities. There are already stiff penalties for breaking the rules. There is no evidence that ladies from trailer parks in Middle America have been misusing Federal funds to buy Congress. And if there was evidence of such a crime, then the knitting circle would be going up against the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America. That's under current law. Surely, there are few deterrents stronger than the first-strike capabilities of our tax watchdogs. I would like us all to remember: People mostly join nonprofits to help other people. I would like us all to remember: If the current budget cuts go through, people in this country are going to need a lot of help. And, I would like people to remember: If we do get information from a nonprofit group helping Americans at the grassroots, the information is coming from a place far closer to the needs of real people than the halls of Washington, DC. Most of the nonprofits I hear from give me good information from people who cannot speak for themselves, and be heard 3,000 miles away. Yes, I get calls and visits from citizens in my State, but I also represent people without plane fare, telephones, and some who don't even have a roof over their head. And now we're going to tell them they can't even lobby Congress. That is not reform Mr. President, that is muzzling the citizens I represent, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes for the Campbell amendment. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the pending bill to increase the debt limit. [[Page S 16912]] I think it is fair to say this session of Congress has been as partisan as any in history. We have had a lot of disagreement, and there have been a lot of games. Fortunately, in this Chamber, there have been occasional demonstrations of rational bipartisan consensus. I am pleased when that happens, because it means we are taking care of the peoples' business. Well, if there is one issue that should be above partisanship, it the Federal debt limit. This issue goes to the very core of our economy. A couple years ago, I was a housewife and a mother living on the west coast, so I have a pretty good sense of how most people view issues like this. Most of my friends and family know this is a pretty complicated issue. They may not know how to completely explain it, but they do know it makes our economy work. And because of that, we have a responsibility as elected officials to deal with this issue clearly and decisively. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I have listened to the complex issues that affect the ups and downs of our economy. The debt limit issue affects the Treasury Department's ability to buy and sell bonds, to pay interest, and to manage the economy in the most positive direction possible. Nearly everything that happens on Wall Street, or in the real estate markets, is pegged to Government bond rates. Nearly every low-risk investment portfolio, every adjustable rate mortgage, every savings plan in the country is tied to Government bonds and interest paid on those bonds. Every single person in this country--from the average working family, to the top-flight stock broker--has an interest in seeing this issue held above partisan bickering, and protected from the kind of political shenanigans we have seen all year long. We should be considering a straight, clean debt limit extension to keep the economy going, and to allow the Treasury Department to meet its obligations to bond holders. But unfortunately, we are not. We are considering a Christmas tree, Mr. President. This bill is loaded down with provisions that have nothing to do with Treasury bonds. Everyone on this floor is aware of it. This bill has reg reform provisions, something the Senate has defeated three times before. It eliminates the Commerce Department, when export promotion is more important than ever. And it changes the law to loosen up death penalty guidelines. What does any of this have to do with Treasury bonds and the economy? Nothing. This bill is simply another in a long line designed solely to score partisan political points. It makes a mockery of commonsense; at best, it amounts to political extortion, wit an increasingly healthy economy held hostage. At worst, it is reckless endangerment of the national economy and the household budget. Mr. President, it is time for us to put aside hot-button political agendas, and start focusing on solving the Nation's problems. This Senate passed a bill to balance the budget almost 3 weeks ago. And nothing has happened since then. We have had no debate. No conferees have been appointed. No progress has been made. Why? So the majority can back us up against the debt limit, and play an elaborate political game with the President, with the economy at stake. What happens if we pass this bill? With so much unnecessary baggage attached, this bill will be vetoed. And rightly so, in my opinion. And unless we can get our act together by Monday, the Government will default on its loans for the first time in history. At the end of the day, the people will feel worse about Congress than ever, and with good reason. All because partisan politicians could not get together to solve problems, but had to play politics instead. It's a pretty sad scenario. I have heard my colleagues say the Senate is the saucer that cools the cup. Well, we need a little cooling off. We need a clean debt limit extension, and then we need to return to the budget debate. In short, we need to take care of the peoples' business. But with this bill, we are not even close. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I will comment on the time of the Senator from New Hampshire and respond to the question that that is not what is being debated on this floor. The procedure that we are debating is a medical procedure that is done at the end of a pregnancy or midterm of a pregnancy when a woman's life is at stake. That is a critical decision that we have not had the information on to make a decision at this time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I respond to my colleague, the legislation in front of us has to do with women making a decision because of a medical procedure that is involved, not because of sex.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the motion offered by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to commit S. 939 to the Judiciary Committee for a public hearing. This legislation deserves full and comprehensive hearings before we vote on it, and I am very concerned about the implications of proceeding without the benefit of a full, open committee process. I was very disturbed by the debate on this bill in the House of Representatives; the misinformation and factual distortions put forth by the proponents of this legislation were staggering. And, now here in this Chamber, there is an effort to bring the bill before the full Senate without first going through the traditional committee process. There is no justification for moving ahead without fully examining the consequences of this bill. I appeal to my colleagues to send this bill to committee where we can hear from the public [[Page S 16787]] and the experts about its impact and ramifications. Because, make no mistake, this bill has dangerous, far-reaching, and precedent-setting implications. Madam President, this is the first time in our Nation's history that Congress is even attempting to get involved in telling physicians what medical procedures are and are not acceptable. And this is the first time in our Nation's history that Congress is considering banning an abortion procedure. This bill directly challenges the Supreme Court ruling, Roe versus Wade. And this bill carries with it severe consequences for the women of this country whose health and lives will be compromised, and possibly even sacrificed, to further the agenda of an extreme few. I cannot imagine the U.S. Senate would railroad this bill through without a single public hearing. To do so would be an appalling disrespect for the legislative process, and for the lives and health of the women involved. This legislation sets a dangerous precedent--it criminalizes doctors for performing a legal, rare, and medically necessary procedure. Surely, there is not a Member of this body who could defend the notion that a bill with this intent is not worthy of a committee hearing. Surely, I am not the only Member of this Senate with questions, concerns, and reservations. I do not want to get into the details of this bill. We have all seen the graphic photographs; we have heard the vivid and disturbing rhetoric. But, what many of us haven't seen or heard are the tragic stories of the women who have lived through the tragedy of a difficult pregnancy, or of a life-threatening complication which required them to have this procedure. And, many of us have not had the benefit of the facts--as presented by the doctors and health professionals who can set the record straight. I have spoken with women who had no choice but to give up a baby they desperately wanted to have. I have listened to their tragic stories. And, I have heard from doctors who are angry and offended by the misrepresentation of facts and mischaracterization of a life-saving, emotionally traumatic medical procedure. That is what is at issue here today; we have the ability to ensure access to accurate and complete information. We need to do the right thing, and let the public and all the Members of this body have a real opportunity to look at this bill, and examine what it will mean for doctors, for women, their lives and their health. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Specter motion to commit, so that we can have the opportunity to fully understand what this bill means for our Nation. Madam President, it is the right thing to do. I yield my time back to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, like so many of my colleagues, I want to rise today and pay tribute to the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who lost his life in the name of peace this past Saturday in Tel Aviv. Many of us have spent the last several days mourning the loss of a great man--not only for Israel but also for the world. On Monday, Kings, Presidents and Princes gathered in Jerusalem to pay tribute to this finest of leaders--the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. But as I listened to the statements of praise and honor, I was struck most by the words of his granddaughter, who spoke of his place in Heaven more than his place in history. ``Grandfather,'' she said, ``may the God of Israel that keeps over all of us keep you in Heaven, as you merit.'' Heaven now cradles the man who spent his life fighting wars and waging peace on behalf of the great nation of Israel. And so it is left to those of us still living to carry his torch--that ``pillar of fire'' described by his granddaughter, that lit a path toward peace few thought possible. Yitzhak Rabin, we will miss your vision and courage. But we will not let the message of your life be lost. Today it falls to each of us, citizens and leaders of all nations, to guarantee that your legacy of peace is fully realized. Yitzhak Rabin was trusted by Israelis first for his military knowledge, and later for his political leadership. He has been a central actor in his nation's history since its founding in 1948, leading his country through times of war and peace. His was truly a remarkable life, held together by a singular, unwavering commitment to the security of Israel. Yitzhak Rabin once said that he worked to end the hostilities in the region so that his children and his children's children would no longer ``experience the painful cost of war.'' Today, on behalf of Yitzhak Rabin's granddaughter and all the children of Israel, we must not ask if the Middle East peace process can survive, but rather, how. We must devote ourselves to that goal with unity and courage. For my part, my commitment to ensuring a strong and secure Israel remains steadfast. As always, Israel has a true and lasting friend in the United States. Since its founding, the American people have stood by Israel in the search for peace and stability. Today, as Israeli citizens mourn, we stand by our friend. In the months ahead, we will stand by Israel's side as that nation heals, and as it finds the courage to take the next step toward peace. Shalom, Yitzhak Rabin. We praise your life and the gifts you gave to Israel and the world community.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to support the passage of the bill, H.R. 2492, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. The provisions in this bill are exactly the same as those contained in the conference report on H.R. 1854, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate on September 22, 1995, by a vote of 94 to 4 but was subsequently vetoed by the President on October 3. At that time, as Members will recall, the President indicated [[Page S 16572]] that because the Congress had completed action on only two appropriation bills for fiscal year 1996--legislative branch and military construction--he felt it would be inappropriate to provide full-year funding for Congress and its offices while most other activities of the Federal Government were being funded through a short- term continuing resolution. I am hopeful that the leadership will not send this bill to the President until Congress receives assurances that he will sign it. For the benefit of Senators, let me briefly point out that this bill required many difficult decisions in order for the legislative branch to do its share in achieving substantial deficit reduction in fiscal year 1996. The bill appropriates $2,184,850,000 for fiscal year 1996 for legislative operations, which is a reduction of over $200 million from the 1995 level, or approximately 10 percent. The majority leader has cited the important features of the bill, which I will not repeat at this time, but, Mr. President, I do want to again thank Senator Mack, the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, for his unfailing courtesy and to express my appreciation to him for the open and bipartisan spirit in which he has handled this important legislation throughout the year. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2492. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment on funding for international family planning programs and against the House position to cut and restrict family planning aid. I want to commend my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for the excellent statement which she just made on the subject. The House position, which we should all vote to reject, is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It pretends to be anti-abortion. But in fact, it is anti-family planning and does not affect the question of abortion funding at all. In addition, the House position pretends to address the horrendous problem of forced abortions in the People's Republic of China--in the guise of trying to solve that terrible problem by denying United States support for the United Nations Population Fund. Mr. President, the debate surrounding UNFPA began over a decade ago during the Reagan administration. Foes of UNFPA claimed then, as they do today, that the United States should withdraw support for UNFPA because of the fund's presence in China, where there have been persistent reports of government sanctioned forced abortions. Mr. President, there is no question that the Chinese do many things that I abhor. Forcing women to have abortions or forcing individuals to undergo sterilization is a gross violation of human rights and should be condemned by our Government at the highest level. Likewise, the killing of female infants in China is widespread and repugnant--and appears to often go unpunished by Chinese officials. But it would be illogical--and counterproductive--for the United States to pull out of those international agencies that give aid to children in China because the horrific practice of female infanticide plagues that nation. So why should we ask UNFPA to carry the sins of China on its shoulders when it comes to the question of family planning? The facts have never supported this approach. When the question of UNFPA funding was first debated during the Reagan administration, officials under President Reagan investigated the issue and found--and I quote from an AID document from that time-- that ``UNFPA is a benevolent factor in China which works to decrease the incidence of coercive abortion'' in China by providing effective family planning services. That same Reagan administration investigation found absolutely ``no evidence'' that UNFPA participated in or supported in any way China's coercive family planning practices. Sadly, caught up in the pro-life politics of the time, UNFPA was nonetheless defunded by President Reagan. President Clinton has since resumed U.S. support for this agency, and therein lie the roots of today's debate. Through all of this, however, the facts have been clear--that UNFPA has been part of the solution in China, by helping to reduce the incidence of abortion in that country and others by providing high quality voluntary family planning services. UNFPA's goal is to eliminate the need for abortions. They do so by providing maternal and child health care and voluntary family planning services. These are the kinds of programs that are unquestionably the most effective means of preventing abortion. And the majority of UNFPA's assistance goes towards projects in these areas. In addition to targeting UNFPA funding for elimination, the House position seeks to reinstate language similar to what used to be called the Mexico City policy. The House-adopted language is broad and ambiguous. It will impose a gag rule on foreign nongovernmental family planning organizations-- denying those organizations U.S. support if they provide certain services--not limited to abortion--with their non-U.S. funds. For example, in Russia, where abortion is legal, the United States currently provides humanitarian aid to help local family planning clinics deliver better services to women. Years ago, the United States determined this to be a priority within our Russian aid program because of the tragically high abortion rate for Russian women who, lacking family planning services, often have as many as 10 or 12 abortions over their life time. If, however, we adopt the House language, we may be prevented from helping Russian family planning clinics simply because those clinics are affiliated with Russian hospitals where abortions are performed. This would be making a bad situation worse--pulling support from clinics that are doing their best with scarce resources to provide alternatives to abortion for so many desperate Russian women. So the House language is double trouble--targeting UNFPA, the world's largest source of voluntary family planning services, as well as the hundreds of smaller local family planning providers around the developing world. Ironically, by denying support for so many organizations that provide quality family planning services, the House language might well have the unintended effect of increasing the incidence of abortion in China and elsewhere. As has been pointed out by others during this debate, the foreign operations conference report continues the longstanding policy of banning the use of U.S. funds for abortions overseas. That ban, commonly known as the Helms Amendment, has been a part of the permanent foreign aid statute since 1973 and remains unchanged in the committee's bill. Further, the conference report prohibits the use of U.S. funds for abortion lobbying. In addition, UNFPA's own position on abortion provides additional safeguards. UNFPA does not, and never has, supported abortions or abortion-related services in any country in which it operates. [[Page S 16488]] According to the UNFPA's governing Council, it is ``the policy of the UNFPA . . . not to provide assistance for abortion, abortion services, or abortion-related equipment and supplies as a method of family planning.'' So the real question facing the Senate today is this: The conference report is already stringently anti-abortion. But if we adopt the House language, thereby disqualifying the most tried and true family planning organizations from receiving U.S. support, do we really want to make this bill anti-family planning as well? Let me take a minute to review for my colleagues why U.S. support for voluntary family planning is so important. While childbirth anywhere carries certain risks, in the developing world mothers face grave statistics. In Africa, for example, 1 out of every 21 women will die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth, making the African woman 200 times more likely to die as a result of bearing her children than a European woman. The kinds of programs provided by UNFPA and other voluntary family planning organizations can prevent many of these maternal deaths. So when we support family planning aid, we are supporting those women and families across the developing world who seek the means to space their births and avoid high-risk pregnancies. Equally important, when we support family planning aid, we are increasing the chances that child survival rates will increase across the developing world. 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. Voluntary family planning programs seek to support child survival efforts, and help women understand the vital link between child survival and family planning. So as I noted in my earlier remarks, the House language will do nothing to prevent abortions in China or elsewhere. But it will prevent vital health services from being delivered to women and children in the world's poorest nations. I urge my colleagues to remember what is really at stake here. This is a public health issue, and an extremely serious one. Family planning saves lives. Experts estimate that the lives of 5.6 million children and 200,000 women could be saved every year if all the women who wanted to limit their families had access to family planning. I ask my colleagues to really think about those statistics--5.6 million children and 200,000 women each year. So when we debate this issue of whether to support voluntary family planning programs like UNFPA and others, let us keep this debate focused squarely where it belongs--on the world's young women, who struggle against impossible odds to better their lives, and who desperately need reproductive health care services. Let us keep this debate squarely focused on the young mothers around the world, who have small children or babies and need family planning assistance to ensure that they do not become pregnant again too quickly--endangering their own lives and that of their babies and young children. Let us keep this debate squarely focused on the thousands of women in poor nations who, lacking access to reproductive health care, resort to self-induced abortions and, too often, tragically lose their lives. Experts estimate that at least half a million women will die from pregnancy-related causes, roughly 200,000 from illegal abortions which are prevented when women have family planning services. The issues of refunding UNFPA and the Mexico City policy came before Congress again and again when Presidents Bush and Reagan were in office. Congress repeatedly voted for the United States to resume UNFPA funding, and to reject Mexico City-like restrictions on our family planning program. So let us move on to the task of ensuring that women in the developing world have access to the kinds of reproductive health services they deserve. Let us adopt the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment. I yield back the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

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, yesterday evening, the Senate passed the conference report on H.R. 1905, the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. I would like to comment on one aspect of this bill that has tremendous meaning to people in my State of Washington. During the debate, the senior Senator from Washington made a statement regarding a recent agreement between the various Members of the Senate from the Pacific Northwest and the Clinton administration regarding the recovery of salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. He correctly pointed out the two things it represents: First, an acknowledgment by the administration of the need to stabilize recovery costs; and, second, an interim solution that provides some breathing space for the region to develop ideas for longer-term solutions. My colleague also went the extra step of pointing out all the problems with the status quo, problems on which there is almost no disagreement. He spoke of the escalating costs of recovery measures. He spoke of the increasing financial pressures on Bonneville Power Administration. He spoke of conflicting Federal laws. He spoke of the inability of the Federal Government to develop solutions that work for a very unique region of the country. These are things on which we can both agree. These are problems on which I want to work with him to solve. He also spoke of his goals in this debate. And again, his goals are substantially similar to mine. He spoke of the need to rebuild the once vibrant salmon runs which so much define the people of the Northwest and their culture. He wants to accomplish that soon, and so do I. He wants the Pacific Northwest--and the United States--to continue to benefit from the magnificent Federal Columbia River Power System, and I think he's right on target. During his remarks, however, he drew an interesting parallel between this issue and the spotted owl controversy that has vexed our region for so many years. He said, in effect, that while owls are important, they should not be more important than people. I do not think any right-thinking person ever argued that owls should be more important than people; I know I have not. But most people know the real issue has been the gradual degradation of the public forests for which the owl became a symbol. The public has soundly rejected overcutting and overexploitation of the national forests, in favor of ecosystem management approach currently embodied by the Northwest forest plans. The senior Senator suggests that--like his approach to the spotted owl--we should restore fish, but not at the expense of anyone else. I think that he fundamentally misjudges the differences between the salmon issue and the spotted owl issue. This is not as simple as jobs versus owls. Unlike the owl, salmon are firmly identified with people. They are part of people's basic vision of the Northwest, and they are part of the economic foundation on which our great State has been built. Salmon mean jobs. They put a roof over the heads of fishers and their families. They are at the spiritual center of native American cultures. They are at the core of many family relationships; how many parents have taken their child out for his or her very first fishing trip? And the decline of salmon has sent a horrendous ripple effect through our economy, through our State, our politics, and even our international relations. The decline of salmon has driven fishers from Washington and Oregon up to Alaska. It has driven parents out of homes. It has created tension between politicians from neighboring States. Lawsuits have been filed. Indian peoples have threatened to enforce their treaty rights. Canada has taken a punitive line against our fishing boats, and our treaty with them has fallen into serious dispute. Why? Because the Federal Government has not taken care of our salmon runs. It is as simple as that, and it's a problem we can fix. My colleague from Washington correctly points out that the administrative agreement reached last week to [[Page S 16516]] establish a budget for salmon recovery is just that--a promise by the administration to bring costs under control. He also expressed concern that nothing has been committed to paper describing this agreement. That is why I insert language into the conference report on H.R. 1905-- with his support--that directs the agencies involved to enter into a memorandum of agreement detailing the manner in which the annual salmon budget will be implemented. Make no mistake: a huge amount of money will be devoted to salmon recovery, and the public deserves detailed accounting of how it is spent. We will have accountability, or we will pull the plug. I expect the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the four Northwest States--either through their Governors, or the Northwest Power Planning Council--to reach agreement on the best approach to recovery, and to provide a full written accounting of their efforts. How will we recover these salmon runs, when we have had so little success to date? The answer is by following good science. The senior Senator and I also agree on this, though he made one comment that disturbs me. He said we should not spend all this money solely to recover one, two, or three weak runs of fish. Well, I agree, and I do not think anyone is suggesting we should just focus on three runs. There are over 80 salmon and steelhead runs in this basin, and we should focus on managing the whole population to maximum advantage. Like the national forests that are home to the spotted owl, the health of the river system is in trouble. Nearly every single salmon and steelhead run is trending downward in population. If we examine the science as it is currently understood, we will find that what is good for 1 weak run is also good for 79 others. Furthermore, the Northwest Power Planning Council has developed its own plan, and it's almost identical to that of the Federal Government. The only difference is that it targets the whole basin. That is right; the regional, homespun salmon plan aims to rebuild all salmon runs in the basin, and yet it calls for recovery measures almost identical to those required by the ESA: better passage around dams, faster travel time to the ocean, habitat conservation, and decreased predation. So it is reasonable to conclude that scientific theories are headed in the same direction for all salmon in the basin, be they listed under the Endangered Species Act, or not. My colleague also pointed out that the region's current problems are the fault of Federal laws and overzealous bureaucrats. While that is surely true in part, it is not the whole story. The Endangered Species Act gives NMFS the responsibility to act to save salmon. It has kicked in as a measure of last resort, because other actions have failed. There are other laws that also apply. The Northwest Power Act--written by our Senators Warren Magnuson, Scoop Jackson, and Mark Hatfield specifically for the region--requires BPA to manage the river system to ensure the propagation of salmon. That law set up the Northwest Power Planning Council to oversee BPA. It was a regional solution; but it maybe outdated, because it's no longer working. But that's not all. The Federal Power Act requires non-Federal dams to take serious measures to protect salmon before they can get an operating license. There are treaties with native Americans--upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States as the highest law of the land-- that require the Government to ensure healthy salmon runs exist. And finally, we have a treaty with Canada that requires each country to replaced the amount of fish it takes from the other's waters. What solutions have been proposed by my senior colleague? He consistently has proposed shortcutting the law and tilting the balance of decisionmaking by limiting public involvement. His approach has been to find the quick fix: suspend the laws as they apply to our region, and impose an outcome from the Federal level. Well, more often than not, that approach shortchanges the science and leads to massive lawsuits. He has also proposed sweeping revision to the ESA, some of which might be needed. But the fact remains, we could repeal the ESA tomorrow, and it would not do a thing to help restore salmon to the Columbia Basin. It is not as simple as turning the whole mess over to the States. That might get the Feds out of the picture, but it does not begin to solve the problem. In the end, we need to stop addressing all Columbia River issues in isolation. Salmon costs are not BPA's only problem; some might argue it is the least of its problems. BPA's biggest problem is how to continue delivering benefits to the people, given competitive changes to energy markets. It has inefficient management, a huge debt load, numerous public policy mandates, very little accountability, and virtually no regulatory oversight. Politicians should commit to working for a series of shared values, and then start looking for ways to achieve them for the people. I think those values remain very clear: we should have clean, affordable hydropower; we should have bountiful fish and wildlife; and we should pay off the debts incurred to construct the system. For fish, we need to find a way to make the requirements of all these laws and treaties consistent. And then we need one plan to meet these requirements. One set of standards, and one plan to meet them. We must utilize a scientifically sound, adaptive management approach. We must test, monitor, and adapt as we learn more about salmon science. The fact is, salmon science is inexact. There are many different theories on what is best for them; only by experimenting will we find the solutions that work best. Our challenge is to conduct these tests in the most sensible, cost effective way. For the hydro system, we need to carefully reevaluate the role of BPA--and all its assets--as we enter the 21st century, and try to identify the role that makes the most sense for consumers in the new marketplace. The four Northwest Governors and the Department of Energy are currently planning a regional forum to review these issues. I hope this forum can be used to review proposals for change coming from the bottom up. I have been talking with many constituents over the past year, and I know much work has been done on the ground to scope out changes to the law that make sense for the region. I want to see that work carry over into the public arena. In my view, the Governors are best positioned to bring people together, review ideas, and forward useful guidance to the congressional delegation here in Washington, DC. Mr. President, I have listened very closely to the people of the Northwest. They want salmon runs. They want clean hydropower in favor of nuclear power, or coal, or even gas. But above all else, they want to avoid the controversies of the past like the spotted owl: they want a solution. I am passionately committed to finding a solution that works for the Northwest. People do not want to see their politicians bicker. They do not want to see winners and losers in public debate. They want to see their politicians work together, and they want problems solved. The agreement reached with the Clinton administration last week was a solid beginning. It was not landmark, and it certainly was not a long- term solution. But it buys time for the region to think this through very carefully, and it does not harm any aspect of the river system, or the fish. We now have an opportunity. We can move forward, and find solutions, or we can draw lines in the sand and let things devolve into politics. I know the people of the Pacific Northwest want the former.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Peter Zuanich, a man who has devoted 43 years of his life to serving as an elected commissioner of the Port of Bellingham, in my home State of Washington. His record of public service extends beyond his work as port commissioner; he has dedicated time and resources to building our community in so many other capacities. During his tenure in this post, he has cultivated economic and trade relations both domestically and internationally. In particular, he has fostered economic relations between the states of Washington and Alaska. Under his leadership, the port was successful in its bid to become the southern ferry terminus for the Alaska Marine Highway System. Throughout his entire career as commissioner, Mr. Zuanich did not spend any of the earnings he received. Instead, he invested them, believing they should eventually be spent on an important community project. He recently donated the entire amount--about $88,000--to a fund created to raise money for the construction of a local community swimming pool. In addition to his many accomplishments as port commissioner, Mr. Zuanich has served as president of a variety of groups, including the board of directors of the Purse Seine Vessels Association, the executive board of the Commercial Fisherman's Inter-Insurance Agency, the Bellingham Jaycees, and the Washington Public Ports Association. I admire the foresight Mr. Zuanich exhibited in his early involvement with the recycling industry. During the 1950's, he founded the first waste paper recycling facility in western Canada. His activism in this area has continued, through the establishment of recycling centers throughout our community, and I want to thank him for his efforts in this area. He has been recognized in these professional and community involvements in many ways, winning the Bellingham Jaycees' Man of the Year Award, receiving the Master Mariner Award of the Propeller Club, accepting a Legislative Citation in 1993 from the Alaska State Legislature, and receiving a ``Citation of Merit'' award from the Washington Parks and Recreation Association. Born in Bellingham, WA in 1916, he has worked tirelessly to promote the development of our community. Following his retirement, Mr. Zuanich will have more time to spend with his family, including his wife Marie and two sons, Robert and Peter, Jr. I am proud to salute the leadership and dedication Mr. Zuanich has demonstrated throughout his life. Although he will be retiring on December 31, I am certain his record of selfless service will continue far into the years ahead. His hard work and philanthropy truly make him a role model for all. Mr. Zuanich, please accept my best wishes as you enter not only the conclusion of one of your careers, but the beginning of a new chapter of your life.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify a single sentence in the conference report accompanying H.R. 1905 relating to economic development activities. Within the Department of Energy environmental management account, in the nuclear material and facilities stabilization section, there is a sentence that provides: ``Additionally, none of these funds should be used for economic development activities.'' It is my understanding that this language was included because there was concern by some members of Congress that money was being diverted from cleanup and restoration efforts and used for economic development. It is clear from this language that money should not be used for economic development activities when those activities are unrelated to the project for which the money was appropriated. However, where this money can be used both to achieve its intended purposes and assist in community transition and diversification, it should be so used. The Department of Energy should allow the use of these funds to achieve as many positive results as possible and leverage this money to assist the communities they serve in achieving economic diversification.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment to protect our children's heritage. I rise because this budget reconciliation debate should be about revenues. It should be about how much we have and how much we spend. The Arctic Refuge coastal plain is not about money; it is about values. It is a question of whether we are willing to trade off wilderness and wildlife that are our national heritage and legacy for our children, in order to make a short-term payment on bills we have accumulated. Future generations will look back on what we might do today with sadness. They will not see this as a matter of shared sacrifice, but as a mark of the selfishness of a generation which, to pay off a minuscule fraction of its debts, sacrificed the inheritance of future generations. Let me explain the several other reasons why I support this amendment. First, leasing the Refuge does not result in a significant return of money to the Federal Treasury. If the dubious assumptions of the Budget Committee prove correct, the leasing revenues would be a mere two- tenths of 1 percent of our budget gap. If we lease this unique Arctic wilderness that has been called America's Serengeti, it would be permanently destroyed. For most Americans, trading our natural wealth in the Arctic Refuge wilderness for the possibility of oil is not worth it. Even worse, there is little assurance that the leasing revenues would be at the level assumed by the Budget Committee. Other highly prospective leases nearby in Alaska have been made at considerably less per acre. Lease sales in the Beaufort Sea, immediately offshore the Arctic Refuge, received only $33 to $153 per acre; the most recent onshore State lease sale, located west of the refuge, brought in just $48.41 per acre. This budget provision assumes an astounding $1,733 per acre if the entire coastal plain is leased. Furthermore, the State of Alaska, not the Federal Government, is likely to reap a significant amount of the financial benefit of the leases. The Budget Committee assumes that only 50 percent of the leasing proceeds will go to the State of Alaska. However, Alaska currently receives 90 percent of the leasing revenues from Federal lands. It is unlikely that the citizens of Alaska--who receive annual dividend checks of nearly $1,000--would willingly forfeit proceeds they believe they are due; a lawsuit to recover the difference would be much more likely. Second, the public could lose access to this remarkable area. A handful of major oil companies stand not only to make enormous profits, but to have the right to exclude the rest of us from their leased refuge lands. Today, public access in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields is strictly prohibited without an oil company escort. So hikers, rafters, fishers, hunters, and solitude seekers will likely be excluded from their Arctic Refuge. One more wild place will be closed. Third, the Budget Committee suggests that the square acreage impacted by oil and gas leasing would be relatively small. However, this area is the biological heart of the refuge. It is the most coveted by oil companies and the most critical for wildlife. The coastal plain is an integral part of the only conservation area in North America that protects a full spectrum of Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems. While only 13,000 acres would be affected, the wilderness in the entire coastal plain would be impacted by oil development. The massive industrial complex would not be in a compact area, but would sprawl over hundreds of square miles in a network of roads, pipelines, airports, and processing plants. Fourth, budget reconciliation is the wrong place to decide such an important issue. We should have a full and fair airing of all views about the leasing of our Arctic Refuge. Money is not the only value we should consider. Before we drill holes and pave portions of the refuge, we should consider all of its value, not just its infinitesimal contribution to the budget deficit. I believe its sponsors know that they could not win in the light of full debate. A massive spending bill provides them the cover of darkness that they know they must have to win. In closing, I quote the great writer and naturalist Margaret Murie, ``Wilderness itself is the basis of all of our civilization. I wonder if we have enough reverence for life to concede to wilderness the right to live on?'' I will cast my vote to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-- for wilderness and for my children.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, to strike certain restrictive language from the Medicaid block grant portion of this bill, and I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important amendment. I consider the inclusion of this language to be yet another attack on poor women waged by this Congress, and I urge my colleagues to support this motion to strike. The Medicaid block grant proposal approved by the Senate Finance Committee includes a provision which bars States from using Federal funds to pay for most abortions for poor women. The bill allows States to use Federal dollars to fund abortions only in cases of rape, incest or where the mother's life is in danger. This is not a new idea--we have seen restrictions like this one, known as the Hyde amendment, added to appropriations bills year after year. The key difference is that, now, this discriminatory ban could be made permanent--and I urge my colleagues to join us in ensuring this does not happen. Including this ban as a component of Medicaid law is an unprecedented and alarming evolution in the attempt to restrict women's access to abortion, and will have devastating effects on the women who rely on the Medicaid program to provide health care coverage. Even more offensive, the target in this case is low-income women, who deserve the same access to critical reproductive health services available to other women in this country. If we do not strike this language from the bill, we are allowing Congress to single out poor women, and this sends a very strong message to the women of this country. This ban is shortsighted, careless, and insulting to women across our Nation. Voting to include the Hyde language tells these women--we do not care. Without providing coverage for abortion services, we will be sending low-income and poor women straight to the back alley where they will be forced to choose unsafe alternatives and risky procedures--and make no mistake, Mr. President--women will die. Women who receive an average of $400 a month from public assistance cannot raise the estimated $300 for a first-trimester abortion. What do you think a woman in this position will do? Will she divert money she should be spending on rent? Will she be forced to use the money she sets aside to feed herself or her child she already has? Or will she choose the cheaper, albeit unsanitary and dangerous, alternative? I do not want to place poor women in the position of having to make this kind of choice. It is wrong and it is cold-hearted. And lastly, Mr. President, how does this federally-mandated restriction on how States can spend block granted funds fit into the mantra of the Republican reform agenda--State flexibility? This ban does not foster State innovation, and it certainly is not about getting Washington, DC out of local policy decision-making. In fact, this ban ties the State's hands and is really nothing short of the kind of Federal micro-management the Republicans are usually so quick to attack. I want to commend Senator Chafee for his commitment and his leadership on this issue. I know he tried to strike this restrictive and discriminatory language in Committee, but was unfortunately defeated. I thank him for trying again here on the floor, and I am proud to join in his efforts. I urge my colleageus to support this amendment. Thank you.