Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Two minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. On an amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I have taken the time over the last year to talk to hundreds of young people in my home State. I have talked to people, young students who are 4.0 students; I have talked to students in juvenile detention centers. The one thing they all say in common is they believe that in this country today, adults do not care about them. Mr. President, we have an opportunity tomorrow to vote for the Kerry- Murray amendment to put dollars back into our education account and show our young people they are a priority to us. I can think of no better investment in this country to invest in the education and training of our young people. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment. I remind my colleagues, this is a way we can make a difference for this country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to remind all of my colleagues that one of the most important amendments that we are considering tomorrow is the Kerry-Murray amendment that adds $56 billion to function 500. That is the function in the budget that covers education and the investment in our young people. I wanted to rise today to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record articles from the Seattle PI that did a survey that shows the No. 1 issue in my home State is education. I believe this is replicated around the country. In fact, USA Today had a poll recently that said this is the No. 1 issue to voters.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I believe it was 1:30 or 2. I am willing to do it now.

Mrs. MURRAY. Three minutes. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, since I have been waiting here, I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I wanted to send to the desk. If the Senator from Nevada would allow me, it would only take me about 2 minutes. Will he let me do that ahead of his 20 minutes?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I am pleased to be offering this amendment today, along with Senators Kerry, Levin, Kennedy, Daschle, Wellstone, Simon, Harkin, Dodd, Kohl, Bingaman, Mikulski, Dorgan, and Wyden. Mr. President, our amendment simply increases the level of investment this country will make in education and job training over the next 6 years. When Senator Magnuson, whose seat I now sit in, was here over two decades ago, education proponents were asking Congress to dedicate one-third of the Federal budget to education. Today, very sadly, a mere 3 percent of our budget is invested in our children's education. Function 500's discretionary initiatives--the part of the budget that this amendment addresses--contain some of our most successful education and job training programs, including Head Start, title I, impact aid, school-to-work, vocational education, and education technology programs. I can tell you, as a Senator who is a preschool teacher, a PTA member, a mother, and a Senator, that I know each of these programs makes a difference in the lives of our young people. Mr. President, children are our Nation's most precious resource. I have heard so many of my colleagues say this. We know the next generation faces more challenges than any who came before them. They face a more competitive job market, rapidly changing occupations, more technology, and increasing international competition. Adequately funding function 500 is one of the best ways the Federal Government can prepare our children for the changing work force. It is a simple, commonsense investment. And it is an investment that yields big dividends quickly. I, personally, have seen a Head Start student smile as she listened to a teacher read her a book for the very first time. I have talked with college students who would not be in school were it not for a Pell grant. I was on a school board that passed a bond to put technology into our classrooms because we knew that in our lifetime every student would need to be able to use the latest technology. I have been in schools like the Bethel School District, where students tell me school- to-work programs have changed their lives and brought personal success. Quite frankly, I am a little disappointed that we need to offer this amendment today. We all know last year's budget debate was acrimonious. But, after much haggling, we were able to restore valuable education funds in the omnibus fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. I commend Senators Specter, Harkin, Kennedy, and others for their hard work and dedication to getting that job done in the last budget. But, after all of this, I did not expect to see the new Republican budget propose another truly inadequate level for education and job training funds. Now, I have heard the Republicans tell us their budget actually increases education spending by $3.1 billion over 6 years. Well, that is not the whole story. I have to tell my colleagues, that amount will not even keep pace with inflation. Nor will it match the amount needed to serve the Nation's increased enrollment projections. Student enrollment will increase 7 percent over the next 6 years, and next year's enrollment will be the highest national level since 1971. It is clear to me that, over 6 years, the Republican budget amounts to a cut--plain and simple. It is $26 billion below inflated fiscal year 1996 levels. It is a retreat from our responsibility to provide education and opportunity to the next generation of Americans, and it lacks the core values I believe most Americans hold. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I offered this amendment last week in the Budget Committee markup. Unfortunately, it was not accepted. It was rejected along party lines. But let me take a minute to describe this amendment a little bit further. This amendment increases function 500's 6-year spending level $56.1 billion over the Republican proposal. However, please note, this amendment falls short of what we would be spending under fiscal year 1995 prerescission levels. I want to emphasize that point. This amendment spends $17.7 billion less than what would have been invested if the fiscal year 1996 prerescission policies were kept in place. The 1995 level is the most appropriate. However, I understand that that level is not fiscally possible because we all need to give a little as we move toward a balanced budget. I believe this amendment is truly a good-faith concession from the most acceptable education and job training funding level. Finally, it is important to understand that this amendment is paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and extending expired tax provisions. Our children--our young people are worth it. Mr. President, I have held a series of town hall meetings throughout Washington State over the course of this past year. In Tacoma, Spokane, Yakima, and Vancouver people came together to talk about the responsibility adults have in improving the well-being of our children. We agreed to respect our differences, but to get beyond them to the things we can all agree on. Overwhelmingly, all adults and young people agreed we need to invest in our children's education. In fact, whenever I talk with my friends and neighbors about the budget, they always tell me not to cut Federal investments in education and job training. They know Head Start works in Washington State. It serves 11,000 kids annually, but there are 6,000 more eligible children that could be served with increased funding. I have seen firsthand the successes that come from our vocational education programs. We must remember that over 50 percent of our children will not go on to college, and they need to graduate with skills that give them real jobs. We know, vocational education and school-to-work programs help prepare those young adults to compete in the rapidly changing global marketplace. I recently talked to a young woman who was waiting to hear if she would get a Pell grant this year. Her eyes filled with tears as she told me this was her one chance to get to college next fall. I also know from personal experience, as a teacher, the progress being made in our public schools through title I funding and education technology grants. Sure, cutting education funds will not mean we stop teaching reading, writing, or math. But, if we do not pass this amendment it will mean one more child will not get the help they critically need to be a success one day. Mr. President, these programs work in my home State. But, support for these programs is widespread. My colleagues may have seen a recent USA Today poll that showed 82 percent of Americans do not want to balance the budget if it means cutting education. We should listen to this message and do what our constituents recommend. The debate over our fiscal priorities has come a long way since exactly 1 year ago, and Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, deserves a lot of the credit for advancing this discussion and moving our Nation closer to a balanced budget. I believe the differences between the two parties has narrowed to a point where compromise is within reach. All we need now is the courage to do so. Mr. President, last year's budget debate was painful for all of us. But, I know it was especially painful for our constituents--our hard- working friends and neighbors. They did not know why the budget debate forced the Government to shut down twice; one time for 3 straight weeks. They did not see that as progress. Instead, they saw it as just another example of what is wrong with Congress and the Government today. I do not mention this to point fingers at any particular party, but as a reminder that the budget debate requires compromise if we hope to really serve the people. In the end last year, we learned our Government is truly a democracy. We learned any successful budget agreement will need to be as broad and bipartisan as possible. Most importantly, we learned that it is possible to balance the Federal budget without retreating on education or hurting children. The final appropriations bill increased education funding from the original proposal because we all recognized we needed to compromise on this critical area of funding. We have to do that again, now, with this budget and with the passage of this amendment. Mr. President, I am optimistic we have learned from our mistakes and I am confident Congress and the President can come to terms on a balance budget plan. Both sides have come a long way over the course of a year. During the appropriations process, Republicans have acknowledged the need to increase funding for education, the environment, cops on the street, and AmeriCorps; and the President has submitted a CBO-certified balanced budget that includes cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Finally, Mr. President, I want to note that many of my colleagues argue for the Republican budget package by claiming it will benefit our children and grandchildren in the long run. They claim we will give our children a better economy and lower interest rates tomorrow by balancing the budget today. Well, this may be true, but they fail to note that this plan cuts our vital investments to do so; programs like Head Start, title I, Pell grants, and vocational education. I fail to see how my children will be better off tomorrow without decent, quality education today. In fact, if my kids do not have an education, they will not get a job, and if they do not get a job, they will not be able to buy a home with those lower interest rates. Mr. President, a businessman recently commented to me that a good business that plans to be here in the future cuts its budget carefully and invests in its most important resources. He said he feared this Congress appeared to be having a fire sale. We need to look ahead and say we do want to survive long into the future. This amendment helps get us there. So, again, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, when compared to prerescission 1995 levels, this amendment is a modest investment in education and job training and restores a core value I believe Americans hold: The belief that education is important. I strongly urge my colleagues to support Senator Kerry, myself, and others in supporting this critical amendment. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I sent forward is simply a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I believe most of my colleagues will support. I hope it can be accepted by voice vote later today or next week. This amendment simply directs the General Services Administration to facilitate the process of getting excess Government computers to schools or nonprofit school organizations. This amendment is following a Presidential Executive order that was to make modern computer technology an integral part of every classroom, provide teachers with professional development that they need to use new technologies effectively, and connects classrooms to the national information infrastructure and encourages the creation of educational software. I have heard many of my colleagues talk about the need to put computers and technologies into the classroom, but the reality is that many school districts cannot afford this expensive equipment. The President's Executive order now has all Federal agencies documenting their excess computer equipment. My amendment will direct GSA to facilitate this process so the excess computers that are in Government service can be gotten into the schools where they are needed. I urge my colleagues to support this. Again, I hope it can be done quickly and efficiently on a voice vote. I thank my colleagues and yield back my time.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their accommodation and ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside in order that I may introduce an amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Moseley- Braun today in cosponsoring the Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996. This legislation addresses one of the most important issues facing women today--retirement security. Of course, both men and women share many of the same concerns about growing old and planning for the future. But, the fact is that women face a unique set of circumstances that put us at a disadvantage for living comfortably in our retirement. We are all very aware of the anxiety being felt by our friends and neighbors as they see and hear about the wave of corporate downsizing taking place in many of America's largest industries. American workers no longer expect to hold down one or two jobs throughout their working careers. Rather, most Americans expect to hold five or six different jobs throughout their careers. This job insecurity ripples through every aspect of our lives and impacts the way one determines how to afford a home, pay for a child's education, and set aside savings for retirement. This anxiety is real and it is justified. Working families throughout Washington State are telling me they are worried about their futures and that of their children. My constituents recognize the skyrocketing costs of long-term health care, doubt whether they can ensure a successful and prosperous life for their children, and are losing faith in the Social Security system. We all know that women often play the role of caregiver for sick parents or children. In this role, they are forced to leave their jobs and, in turn, jeopardize their own future security. As the daughter of two aging parents, I understand this anxiety and want to do all I can to ensure women are not penalized for doing the right thing--for taking care of their families. In today's world, it takes two incomes to raise a family. This is not solely an issue of improving the security of retired women. This is about providing stability and peace of mind for working families and their children. It is about opportunities for the future and strengthening the resources that families can depend on tomorrow. This is about ensuring that both parents' hard work is rewarded. The Women's Pension Equity Act corrects current pension laws, which often fail to account for the special pattern in a women's working life. Our employment patterns differ from our male counterparts in the work force. Women's tenures tend to be shorter--4.8 years compared with 6.6 years for men. Many women leave their jobs before they reach the required years of service to qualify for employer retirement plans; usually 5 to 7 years. Also, under current law, if a woman's husband dies after leaving Government service but before starting to collect retirement benefits, no retirement or survivor benefits are payable to the spouse. This bill, among other things, will amend the Civil Service retirement system to make sure the spouse doesn't lose the benefits to which her family is entitled. We can alleviate some of the anxiety Americans are experiencing. For instance, we can help Americans save for their future by expanding pension opportunities for the employees of small businesses. Only 24 percent of all employees in small businesses have pension plans, while 76 percent of employees in large businesses have pension plans. Or we could widen the scope of Individual Retirement Accounts. For instance, I am a cosponsor of S. 287, a bill that allows spouses who work at home to get a full IRA deduction. Congress has the ability to improve the savings opportunities for millions of Americans, and Senator Moseley-Braun's bill will do so for millions of working and retired women. This legislation makes sense and successfully highlights the discrepancy that exists between male and female retirees and it lays out several ways to narrow the income divide that exists between them. The facts are clear. Older women are twice as likely as older men to be poor. According to the Older Women's League, more than 70 percent of nearly 4 million persons over 65 living in poverty are women. Fewer than 25 percent of older women receive any pension income. And in 1993, the median pension benefit received by new female retirees was half that of men. Given all this, we must keep in mind that once they reach 65 women live on average 4 years longer than men. This bill helps Americans save for the future, and it will make retirement life more secure for millions of women. It is an important first step to addressing the many obstacles which women face as they try to plan for their futures and those of their children. I commend Senator Moseley-Braun for her leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with her on behalf of working families across our Nation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Moseley- Braun today in cosponsoring the Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996. This legislation addresses one of the most important issues facing women today--retirement security. Of course, both men and women share many of the same concerns about growing old and planning for the future. But, the fact is that women face a unique set of circumstances that put us at a disadvantage for living comfortably in our retirement. We are all very aware of the anxiety being felt by our friends and neighbors as they see and hear about the wave of corporate downsizing taking place in many of America's largest industries. American workers no longer expect to hold down one or two jobs throughout their working careers. Rather, most Americans expect to hold five or six different jobs throughout their careers. This job insecurity ripples through every aspect of our lives and impacts the way one determines how to afford a home, pay for a child's education, and set aside savings for retirement. This anxiety is real and it is justified. Working families throughout Washington State are telling me they are worried about their futures and that of their children. My constituents recognize the skyrocketing costs of long-term health care, doubt whether they can ensure a successful and prosperous life for their children, and are losing faith in the Social Security system. We all know that women often play the role of caregiver for sick parents or children. In this role, they are forced to leave their jobs and, in turn, jeopardize their own future security. As the daughter of two aging parents, I understand this anxiety and want to do all I can to ensure women are not penalized for doing the right thing--for taking care of their families. In today's world, it takes two incomes to raise a family. This is not solely an issue of improving the security of retired women. This is about providing stability and peace of mind for working families and their children. It is about opportunities for the future and strengthening the resources that families can depend on tomorrow. This is about ensuring that both parents' hard work is rewarded. The Women's Pension Equity Act corrects current pension laws, which often fail to account for the special pattern in a women's working life. Our employment patterns differ from our male counterparts in the work force. Women's tenures tend to be shorter--4.8 years compared with 6.6 years for men. Many women leave their jobs before they reach the required years of service to qualify for employer retirement plans; usually 5 to 7 years. Also, under current law, if a woman's husband dies after leaving Government service but before starting to collect retirement benefits, no retirement or survivor benefits are payable to the spouse. This bill, among other things, will amend the Civil Service retirement system to make sure the spouse doesn't lose the benefits to which her family is entitled. We can alleviate some of the anxiety Americans are experiencing. For instance, we can help Americans save for their future by expanding pension opportunities for the employees of small businesses. Only 24 percent of all employees in small businesses have pension plans, while 76 percent of employees in large businesses have pension plans. Or we could widen the scope of Individual Retirement Accounts. For instance, I am a cosponsor of S. 287, a bill that allows spouses who work at home to get a full IRA deduction. Congress has the ability to improve the savings opportunities for millions of Americans, and Senator Moseley-Braun's bill will do so for millions of working and retired women. This legislation makes sense and successfully highlights the discrepancy that exists between male and female retirees and it lays out several ways to narrow the income divide that exists between them. The facts are clear. Older women are twice as likely as older men to be poor. According to the Older Women's League, more than 70 percent of nearly 4 million persons over 65 living in poverty are women. Fewer than 25 percent of older women receive any pension income. And in 1993, the median pension benefit received by new female retirees was half that of men. Given all this, we must keep in mind that once they reach 65 women live on average 4 years longer than men. This bill helps Americans save for the future, and it will make retirement life more secure for millions of women. It is an important first step to addressing the many obstacles which women face as they try to plan for their futures and those of their children. I commend Senator Moseley-Braun for her leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with her on behalf of working families across our Nation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am honored and proud to recognize the Boeing Co. from my home State of Washington as the 1996 winner of the prestigious Collier Trophy presented by the National Aeronautic Association. The Collier Trophy, the industry's highest honor for aeronautics achievement, will be presented to the Boeing 777 team this evening here in the Nation's capital. According to the National Aeronautic Association, Boeing was cited for, ``designing, manufacturing and placing into service the world's most technologically advanced airline transport.'' These words are high praise, yet they only begin to describe the awesome innovations achieved by the 777 team. The 777 was developed under the theme ``Working Together'' and represents the work of thousands of Boeing employees, Boeing customers and program partners, thousands of suppliers, regulatory authorities, passengers, pilots, and flight attendants. The Working Together concept and process will be a model for future research and development efforts for U.S. industry. The 777, with approximately 300 aircraft on order, positions the Boeing Co. and its family of aircraft to compete and succeed in the competitive global market for years to come. The 777 is the fourth Boeing Co. Collier Trophy winner; the B-52, the 747 and the 757-767 programs also received this coveted award. The Boeing 777 is the first commercial jetliner designed and preassembled entirely by computer simulation. More than 235 design- build teams, linked electronically through advanced computers, worked together to create the airplane's parts and systems and to evaluate the aircraft from every perspective. This new and innovative development process enabled the 777 program to exceed its goal of reducing change, error, and rework by 50 percent. Importantly, Boeing plans to apply this new development model for maximum efficiency to other airplane programs. The most exhaustive flight test program in commercial jetliner history helped the 777 earn simultaneous certification from the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Joint Aviation Authorities. The 777 is the first airplane in aviation history to earn FAA approval to fly extended-range twin-engine operations routes at service entry. This allowed airlines to offer the most direct routes between transoceanic cities beginning on the aircraft's first day of service. Before entering into service, the 777 set National Aeronautic Association-certified speed records between Seattle, Washington and cities in Sweden, Thailand, France, Germany, and Switzerland. The 777 contains numerous other technological aircraft advancements. The fuselage is wider in cross-section than any other jetliner with similar seating capacity. Advanced composite materials have lowered direct operating costs, improved aircraft safety, and created new cargo opportunities for airlines. More than 7,000 hours of flight deck pilot simulation will provide more reliability, longer service life and better visibility for pilots. The landing gear features better weight distribution on runways while reducing weight and maintenance costs. The 777 will carry approximately 100 more passengers and has a noise footprint less than half that of the older jets it is designed to replace. On May 15, 1995, United Airlines took delivery of the very first Boeing 777. This momentous occasion was marked by a special ceremony at the Seattle Museum of Flight. On June 7, 1995, the 777 entered commercial service with United as Flight No. 921, traveling from London's Heathrow Airport to Dulles Airport in Washington, DC. More than 20 airlines have signed orders to purchase and fly the Boeing 777. Importantly, virtually all of the airlines are foreign customers including British Airways, China Southern, Cathay Pacific, Korean Air Lines, Thai Airways, Japan Airlines, South Africa Airways, and Saudi Arabia Airlines. This ensures that the Boeing Co. will remain one of America's premier exporters. I want to stress to my colleagues that this international aircraft is a job generator for my home State as well as Americans in virtually every State. Congratulations to the 777 team, the Boeing Co., and the thousands of individual Washingtonians who labored to design and build this historic aircraft.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to welcome the 28th annual Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society [WOCN] conference to Seattle, WA, June 15-19, 1996. The theme of the conference, ``The Future is Ours to Create,'' will focus on future opportunities and challenges relating to the changing and expanding role of enterostomal therapist nurses, and other nurses specializing in wound, ostomy, and continence care. Founded in 1968, WOCN is the only national organization for nurses which specializes in the prevention of pressure ulcers and the management and rehabilitation of persons with ostomies, wounds, and incontinence. In addition, WOCN is a professional nursing society which supports its members by promoting educational, clinical, and research opportunities, to advance the practice and guide the delivery of expert health care to individuals with wounds, ostomies, and incontinence. I applaud them for their commitment and dedication to their work. In this age of changing health care services and increasing costs, the WOCN nurse plays an integral role in providing cost-effective care for their patients. This year's Seattle conference will provide a unique opportunity for WOCN participants to learn about the most current issues and trends related to their practice. I am honored that WOCN has chosen Seattle to host its conference and wish them every success.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the Senate considers S.1664, the Immigration Control and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I want to take this opportunity to explore and comment on a number of the key issues. Immigration reform has always been a controversial issue for our immigrant based society. As our Nation continues to develop and grow, it is appropriate for the Senate to debate these issues. Therefore, I want to complement the members of the Judiciary Committee, both the majority and the minority, who have labored to bring this bill to the floor. The bill does do much to address the problems associated with illegal immigration. I support the bill's provisions to add several thousand new border patrol agents between now and the year 2001. Additionally, I support the language to add new INS investigators to enforce alien smuggling and employment laws. Illegal immigration along our Southern border is a serious and costly problem. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of our Southern States and to ease the financial burdens associated with illegal immigration. It is important to note that many of the bill's provisions dealing with illegal immigration are similar, and in some cases identical, to legislation proposed by President Clinton. Despite the ongoing problems with illegal immigration, the Clinton administration has waged an unprecedented campaign against illegal immigration. The administration has increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 40 percent since 1993. The administration is on target to meet its goal of 7,000 Border Patrol agents, trained and deployed, by the end of fiscal year 1998. I commend the administration for committing the financial resources and political capital to fight illegal immigration. Despite laudable attempts to combat illegal immigration, this legislation threatens to become a punitive vehicle aimed directly at children and families. My objections are numerous; I will detail a few today. If the Senate chooses to follow our House colleagues down the road of punishing children and families as well as abandoning our historical and cultural acceptance of legal immigrants, I will oppose the legislation. My objections begin with any effort to combine legal immigration restrictions and cutbacks with S. 1664, the bill before the Senate to curb illegal immigration. The effort to combine the two issues will doom passage of illegal immigration reform this year. Legal immigrants have long been a source of strength for our Nation. My own family has an immigration story to tell. My husband's family immigrated to Washington State from Norway and settled in the Ballard section of Seattle. Even today, the Ballard community remains the focal point for Scandinavian culture in Seattle. Flags from Norway dot most of the storefronts, school children can learn to speak Norwegian and summer festivals highlight our shared cultural heritage. My husband's family came to Seattle as the shipping and fishing industries first began to shape the Pacific Northwest economy. Today, these industries generate thousands of jobs for Washingtonians and more than $1 billion in annual economic activity. Just as early immigrants boosted the growth of the shipping and fisheries industries, today's immigrants are instrumental to the growth of Washington's high-technology sector. My Washington State colleague, Senator Slade Gorton, and I wrote to Chairman Simpson in late November to express our opposition to language that would severely restrict the ability of the high-technology industry to access global talent when necessary to facilitate economic growth in the United States. Tens of thousands of Washington State residents are employed in the high- technology industry at high-skill, high-wage jobs. Senator Gorton and I both believe in the historic record of the United States in attracting and keeping the best international talent and harnessing this talent for the benefit of all residents of our State and our country. I also want to take a moment to express my strong personal and moral objection to any amendment to deny educational benefits to any child. This in my mind is perhaps the most troubling language associated with this bill. I simply cannot understand this attempt to punish innocent children as well as turn our classrooms into interrogation rooms, and our teachers into INS agents. This language is veto bait; both the Secretary of Education and the Attorney General have indicated this language will generate veto recommendations for the President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler versus Doe ruled that States may not, consistent with the 14th amendment, deny undocumented children the same free public education they provide to other children living in the State. The language barring children from school is mean-spirited. I am saddened the House of Representatives chose to include this language in its version of illegal immigration reform. I implore on the Senate, please reject this cruel attack on innocent children. The language is in reality a massive unfunded mandate upon our schools and upon the State and local government entities that will be forced to pay costs associated with these barred children in the community on a daily basis. This legislation proposes to allow States to base a legal immigrant's eligibility for a host of public assistance programs on their income, and that of their sponsor. I am particularly concerned about this legislation's impact on children. Here are just some of the services children now have access to that States could deny them under this proposal: Maternal and Child Health Services, Preventive Health and Health Services, public health assistance for immunizations and testing and treatment to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, services from Community Health Centers, Child Care and Development Block Grant services, Child Nutrition Act Programs, including Women and Infant Children [WIC], and Head Start. All these programs help children. All could be denied to certain, legal immigrant children. I would like to remind the proponents that children's needs are not different, just because their paperwork is different. And what could be more noble or of greater benefit to the Nation than giving a child--any child--every opportunity to succeed in life? Mr. President, I remain committed to combating the problems associated with illegal immigration, particularly in the Southern States where our problems are most severe. It remains my hope that this legislation will not lose focus on this objective. Therefore, Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of S. 1664. I do so with reservations, however, because the Senate rejected a number of very good amendments, which, if adopted, I believe would have strengthened this bill. As it stands, this bill will achieve some needed reforms in immigration policy. However, I feel it dances a bit too close to the line in terms of humanitarian treatment of individual people. I can say with confidence that if the Senate bill is altered in any way to reflect the House-passed bill during conference, I will not support it. Specifically, I cannot in good conscience support any provisions that would deny basic human services, such as education and health care, to children. Likewise, I cannot support any conference report that places new onerous restrictions on legal immigration. I do not believe this would be in the interest of the Nation's economy or culture. By sticking close to the Senate mark, a conference committee on illegal immigration reform can show the American people that Congress is occasionally capable of putting aside fundamental differences and crafting consensus legislation that serves the public interest. I sincerely hope this happens.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Burns, Senator Leahy, Senator Dole, Senator Pressler and others in cosponsoring the Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era Act of 1996. The strong bipartisan support for this bill emphasizes how important our national encryption policies are becoming and reflects Congress' growing awareness of the issues surrounding the production and sale of encrypted software and hardware. I commend Senator Burns and Senator Leahy for their efforts in putting this legislation together. As many of my colleagues know, the Department of Commerce recently released a report stating there are tremendous international growth opportunities for software exporters in the next five to 10 years. Unfortunately, the Department of Commerce also acknowledged most U.S. companies don't pursue international sales because our export control laws are too cost prohibitive. Rather than dissuading international sales, our national policies should be encouraging American companies to enter the global marketplace. American software producers are losing tens of billions of dollars in lost sales due to outdated export controls. I recognize there are legitimate national security concerns underpinning the Export Administration Act. However, these archaic laws are no longer relevant to the post-cold-war world in which we now live. Today's national export controls should target those items that really need to be controlled in order to maintain national security. Simply, they should make better sense; it doesn't make sense to tell U.S. software producers they can't export a product that is already widely available on the world market. Senator Burns' bill makes sure our innovative private sector producers lead the way in developing acceptable encryption technology, and it makes sure government mandates and national export control policies do not hamper private sector developments. Mr. President, I introduced the Commercial Export Administration Act in the 103rd Congress, and I am pleased Senator Burns is incorporating the spirit of my language in his bill. My language reduced regulatory red tape and made it easier to export generally available mass-marketed commercial software. Washington state is home to some of the most innovative software producers in the world, and they are eager to export their goods. Unfortunately, our export controls keep Washington state's companies from penetrating the world market. Some of my colleagues may not know that Washington state's small and mid-sized high-tech companies provided more than 98,000 jobs in 1995. Mr. President, I mention this because our bill will increase exports and enable our high-tech companies to grow further. Higher growth means more jobs--plain and simple. A recent study revealed U.S. software and hardware exporters lost $60 billion in potential 1995 sales, and the study estimates a loss of 200,000 jobs in the industry by the year 2000. Given the increase in international competition, we can no longer afford to hold U.S. companies back from potential world sales. This legislation is badly needed, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Burns and me in supporting this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk that seeks to protect legal immigrant children from being denied access to foster care. Under the deeming provisions of this bill, children who would otherwise be eligible to be placed in foster care, due to abuse and neglect for example, could be denied this benefit. The Murray amendment protects these children from being forced to remain in an abusive situation because they are deemed ineligible to receive AFDC benefits, and therefore do not qualify for foster care assistance. This applies to any situation which would result in the child being placed in a foster care, transitional living program, or adoption assistance under current law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to record the passing of a truly great American, Admiral James S. Russell. Adm. Russell built a remarkable legacy as a distinguished and decorated military officer and a respected civic leader in Washington State. James Sargent Russell was born on March 22, 1903, in Tacoma, WA, where he spent his childhood. Eager to serve his country in World War I, he attempted to join the U.S. Navy after graduating from high school. Because he was too young, the Navy would not accept his enlistment. Instead, he followed his love of the sea, beginning his maritime career as a seaman in the Merchant Marine. In 1922, he entered the U.S. Naval Academy, from which he graduated in 1926. This marked the beginning of a long and illustrious tour of duty with the U.S. Navy. After serving aboard the battleship West Virginia, he entered the young field of naval aviation, and was designated a Naval Aviator in 1929. During World War II, then-Lieutenant Commander Russell led Patrol Squadron 42 in the Aleutian Island Campaign. For his heroism and exceptional service, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal, and the Legion of Merit. After serving in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, DC, he returned to combat duty in the Pacific and was awarded a Gold Star in lieu of a second Legion of Merit. Following World War II, he assumed the post of commander of the U.S.S. Coral Sea and then was chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, rising to the rank of vice admiral. From 1958 to 1962, he served as Vice Chief of Naval Operations with the four-star rank of Admiral. Because of his exceptionally meritorious efforts in that capacity, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal. In 1962, Admiral Russell was named commander in chief of the Allied Forces in Southern Europe, a position he held until his retirement from active duty in 1965. His leadership during a time of heightened tensions earned him a Gold Star in lieu of the second Distinguished Service Medal. The advancement of the field of naval aviation owes a great deal to the work of Admiral Russell. He entered the field when biplanes ruled the skies and aided the development of supersonic fighters. For his work on the development of the F-8 Crusader Navy fighter, the first ship-based fighter to fly faster than 1,000 miles per hour, Admiral Russell was awarded the prestigious Collier Trophy in 1956. Recognition of his work extends beyond the borders of the United States, and is evidenced by his receipt of three foreign decorations. These include: the Order of Naval Merit (Grand Officer) by Brazil, the Legion of Honor (Commander) by France, and the Peruvian Cross of Naval Merit (Great Cross). After retiring from active duty, Admiral Russell returned to the Tacoma area and became a prominent member of that community. He remained active in the aerospace industry as a consultant and board member. However, his second career, which spanned almost as many years as his first, was as a civic leader who bridged the civilian and military communities. Indeed, at an age when many of his contemporaries were enjoying a quiet retirement, Admiral Russell took an active role in community affairs. Admiral Russell leaves his wife, Geraldine; his son and daughter-in- law, Don and Katherine Russell; his daughter-in-law, Anitha Russell; five grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren. I wish to express my sincere sympathy and condolences to these and other members of his family. All who are acquainted with Admiral Russell know that his work has benefited and will continue to benefit countless individuals in Washington State, across this Nation, and around the globe. Admiral Russell served his country and community selflessly for three-quarters of a century. He led by example and earned the respect of all who knew him. I and so many people --his friends, colleagues, family, and community members--are sincerely grateful for his many contributions to military and civilian life. He leaves behind a great legacy and will not be soon forgotten.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to gratefully express my relief that finally, 7 months into the current fiscal year, we are debating the bill that will put this year's budget to bed. And I am pleased to be able to support this bill based on changes that have been made over the past few days. This agreement did not come easy, and it comes nearly too late for many people. It's unfortunate that it took two Government shut-downs, innumerable furloughs, and needlessly bitter partisan disputes, before we reached the path of resolution: serious bipartisan negotiations. I do not think many families would make their budgets this way, 6 months late. I know I would not. But I am glad we've reached an agreement nonetheless. I said to all my colleagues and the people of Washington State early last year there is a right way, and a wrong way, to balance the Federal budget. The wrong way would be to use quick and dirty gimmicks, paper tigers like the constitutional amendment or the line item veto. I said the right way is to go through the budget line-by-line, program-by-program, and make the tough choices necessary to balance the books. Well, that is what happened on this bill. It reflects tough decisions, and strong, clearly-set priorities of both political parties. The final agreement saves the taxpayers another $23 billion under last year's budget, and I think that's a good thing. But it also redirects funds to support important education programs, health programs, and environmental programs. In other words, we achieved a rare balance between spending cuts and spending increases that is good for the people. I want to talk briefly about each of these three areas, environmental priorities, education priorities, and public health priorities. Mr. President, I am so pleased with the progress the administration made in stripping this bill of almost all environmental riders. I believe this cleaner bill represents a victory for all of us who care about the health of our environment and protection of natural resources. Two provisions I spoke against on the floor 3 days ago have been dropped: those affecting the Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project and those addressing the timber salvage provisions. Now, the Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project can go forward, providing resource managers with comprehensive, scientific information about how best to protect the land, restore riparian habitat, and sustainably use our natural resources. This offers us one of our first opportunities to get ahead of the curve, and proactively address resource management before it we face a debilitating crisis. I appreciate my Senate colleagues agreeing to allow this project to move forward. Likewise, I appreciate Senator Hatfield dropping the salvage provisions. I know there was legitimate disagreement between the chairman and the President about whether these provisions would help or hinder the administration's ability to alter current timber contracts to protect old growth forests. This has been such a contentious, divisive issue that finding the right course of action in this atmosphere has been nearly impossible. I wish this Senate had chosen simply to repeal the entire timber salvage rider and replace it with the long-term salvage program I had advocated in my amendment. Overall, the Interior portion of this bill is balanced and fair. The President's Forest Plan is well-funded, the Elwha Dam has initial acquisition funds, Native American programs have been sufficiently funded, some important land acquisitions have been made, and many vital programs remain intact. I am very sorry the Lummi People are still being coerced about water rights on their reservation and wish we could have made more progress on this provision. Now on to education. Mr. President, my greatest concerns in this budget were the deep and painful cuts to programs that support America's young people. When we began this debate, we were faced with a proposal that would have slashed nearly $4 billion away from the education of our next generation. Had these cuts been enacted, we would have faced the largest setback to education in our Nation's history. Thankfully, for children in Washington State and the millions of young people who can not be heard through the vote, rational and thoughtful leadership prevailed. The add backs to education and training represent a commitment to programs that provide opportunity and hope. We have restored $333 million for dislocated worker retraining that puts my State's timber workers back into the work force. We have added back $137 million Head Start dollars that insure our kids begin school ready to learn. We have restored $635 million for summer youth jobs for our young people that provide many of our most disadvantaged kids with the opportunity to give back to their communities. We have also saved the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program with $200 million that works proactively to take the fear out of our classrooms. Finally, the School-to-Work Program, which has been proven effective in the State of Washington received an additional $182 million. These programs, along with $814 million new Title I dollars that provide our schools with the essentials of learning, will immeasurably benefit our kids and our Nation's future. I also want to talk about how AIDS research, prevention, and treatment issues have been handled by this Congress. Today's agreement has been a long-time coming. Finally, we have the opportunity to vote and pass a spending measure that will give help and peace of mind to many who need it most. Of course, we can always do more and there is always room for improvement. But, after months of debate and disagreement, we have come up with a plan that I can vote for. I recognize the need to cut spending and allocate Federal resources with strict scrutiny. But, these decisions cannot be made at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. Programs like the Ryan White CARE Act receive a much needed increase. This bill raises funding for programs which care for those living with HIV/AIDS by $106 million over last year. These are critical dollars for: emergency care for particularly hard-hit cities like Seattle; comprehensive care for all our States to cope with the epidemic; early intervention services to save money down the road; and funds for Pediatric AIDS demonstration projects. The AIDS Education Training Center program, which I fought so hard to protect last fall, and which I fought hard for throughout this process, will be maintained. This critical program provides information to health care professionals about HIV and keeps them up-to-date on the latest in treatment for those living with HIV and AIDS. We must make sure that information and public awareness are kept at an all-time high, and I congratulate my colleagues for having the good sense to recognize the importance of the AETC program. I also want to briefly express my relief that the blatantly discriminatory policy of discharging HIV-infected service members is repealed in this bill. This proposal was closed-minded, unfounded, and offensive to our men and women in uniform who have chosen to serve our country. The Dornan-provision sent the wrong message; it said that Congress bases decisions on ignorance, fear and hate. I want no part of sending that message, and today we have the chance to right a terrible wrong. Finally, Mr. President, while I am pleased with many of the changes that were made to this bill, I am deeply disappointed that Senator Hatfield's language on International Family Planning was not maintained. Like many issues in this Congress, the Senate has taken a different approach than our counterparts in the House with respect to International Family Planning assistance. Throughout the debate on this issue, the Senate has continually supported funding for this program, and I have spoken many times in favor of our efforts to continue providing these services. As it stands now, none of the appropriated funds can be spent until July 1. After that, money can only be spent on a month-to-month basis at a rate of 6.7 percent a month until the new fiscal year begins on October 1. The result is funding for U.S. population assistance will be reduced by about 85 percent from last year's level. This is a disastrous situation that will severely hamper this program. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I will work this year to try to restore these funds in fiscal year 1997. The millions of couples who rely on these valuable services are counting on this assistance. Mr. President, I am glad we have finished the fiscal year 1996 budget. It's the people's business, and it's our responsibility to conduct. While the process over the past several months has been dominated by partisanship and dispute, the past few weeks have demonstrated that if reasonable leaders get together, they can usually resolve their differences and reach agreements that serve the public interest. I sincerely hope this example sets a new tone that will carry into the fiscal year 1997 budget process. We have a short year, only a few months left to complete work on 13 new budget bills, before the political season completely overtakes Congress. I think it is in everyone's interest that we remain at the table and complete our next set of tasks with good humor and discipline.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of the Democratic leader's time be reserved for Senator Kennedy.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today is Earth Day. It is a day that many young people and adults across our country take time out to plant a tree, clean up a river or a lakeside, and to make the statement that each of us has a responsibility to pass on a safe, clean, healthy, and secure environment to the generations that come behind us. Mr. President, today I use Earth Day to voice my concerns with the many riders that are attached to the Interior section I of the omnibus appropriations bill that is currently in conference. These riders, I believe, are not good policies for today or for tomorrow, and they certainly go against the concept that Earth Day was designed to highlight. Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about three riders that most directly affect my home State of Washington. The riders are the limitations to the interior Columbia basin ecosystem management project, the restricted timber salvage provisions, and the threats to the Lummi Nation. Mr. President, let me begin with the Columbia basin ecosystem management project. Most people in this Chamber know little about the Columbia basin project. I would like to change that today by explaining briefly what the project is and what its creators hope to accomplish. This project is a joint planning effort by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to develop a scientifically sound ecosystem- based strategy for managing the forests and the lands of the interior Columbia basin. Its most salient feature is that it is one of the first attempts made in natural resource policy to get ahead of the problem, rather than simply reacting to it. Its original proponents, Senator Hatfield and former Speaker Foley, had dealt firsthand with the spotted owl controversy and wanted to attack the problems of the inland West differently. In addition--and this may come as a surprise to my colleagues--almost everyone, from commodity interests to environmental activists, agrees that we have problems with the ecosystems of the inland West. They agree on something. So let us use that consensus to figure out how to manage these damaged or unhealthy lands. We need to develop a plan to ensure sustainable commodity production, healthy fish stocks and wildlife populations, and protection of ecosystems. That is what the Columbia basin project attempts to do. Unfortunately, some commodity interests are afraid of this project. I don't want to discount their fear, because I know some businesses have been hurt by changing Federal policies and lawsuits. However, the limitations imposed in the Interior appropriations rider will too severely restrict sound resource management, ecosystem restoration, and decisionmaking. At every stage of this lengthy appropriations process, I have tried to improve the Columbia basin provisions, since I knew I did not have the votes to strike the section. I was successful in two areas. First, we have allowed the agencies to spend up to $4 million to finish this important project. This is a dramatic improvement over the original House bill, which prohibited any money from being spent for implementation of the project and which allowed only $600,000 to be spent to complete the project. The second important change I fought for was the removal of shackles from the scientists. The bill had limited the scientific assessment to such things as forest land management and had prohibited study of anything else. The omnibus appropriations bill now allows a scientific assessment of the entire ecosystem, not just that portion of the system primarily affecting commodity production. So, the Columbia basin project provisions have improved somewhat from what the House originally proposed. However, serious, serious problems remain. The most wrongheaded provision is that shielding many timber sales, mining operations, and other projects from Endangered Species Act consultation. Any national forest or BLM district may, at its discretion, amend the plans in place for protecting threatened fish and wildlife, namely PACFISH and INFISH, and thereby avoid later consultation on potentially harmful activities. This provision is made worse by another limitation imposed in the appropriations bill: The agencies may not select preferred management alternatives in the draft environmental impact statements or publish a record of decision. These restrictions on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act thwart decisionmaking about management decisions that affect diverse and wide-ranging species, such as salmon and bull trout. It allows individual forests to alter existing fish and wildlife protections in any manner they desire and then escape ESA consultation scrutiny on individual projects and timber sales. Mr. President, sufficiency language regarding the ESA and NEPA is very popular with this Congress. I believe that limiting consultation, restricting public review, and piecemeal management of public lands is a bad way to manage our Nation's resources. I urge the conferees to strip the entire Columbia basin project section. In the alternative, the conferees should delete the ESA and NEPA sufficiency language and allow the agencies to select a preferred alternative and publish a record of decision providing direction regarding the best management alternative.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague, the minority leader, for an excellent statement. I hope that all of our colleagues take time to read it. Certainly, we do stop and question our role in the world often on this floor, and I think the words that Senator Daschle just gave to us are words that we all should heed. I appreciate his statement.