Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Corzine and Senator Edwards be added as cosponsors to the Mikulski amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 2989, the Department of Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This is the first time that the Senate will debate an appropriations bill that combines these critically important Government functions. As my colleagues know, at the beginning of this year, the Appropriations Committee combined the Transportation Subcommittee with the former Treasury, Postal and General Government Subcommittee. We were particularly fortunate to have Senator Shelby as our chairman, especially since he is perhaps the only Senator who has chaired both the Transportation Subcommittee and Treasury Postal Subcommittee at different times. Ever since the Senate adopted this year's final budget resolution, I have worried that the Appropriations Committee would not have sufficient resources to meet our needs and to make the investments we must make to improve our country. Today it is clear that my concerns were well-founded, not only with this appropriations bill, but with others the Senate has debated this year. However, despite the limited allocation that was granted to our subcommittee, I think this bill is well-balanced in meeting the needs of many of the competing Government functions that we are required to fund. I would like to highlight a few elements of the bill, starting with funding for America's highways. I am especially proud that this bill proposes a highway obligation ceiling of $33.84 billion. That is real progress. It is almost $4.6 billion more than the administration recommended, and it is $2.25 billion more than fiscal year 2003. Just in the area of highway funding, our subcommittee has over the past 3 years has funded the Federal-aid Highway Program at $13 billion more than the levels recommended by the Bush administration. I have always recognized the critical importance of highway funding, and that is why, when I chaired the subcommittee, the bill we reported out restored every penny of the $8.6 billion cut that was proposed in the Bush administration's budget for that year. This year, under Senator Shelby's leadership, we are continuing our progress in addressing America's deteriorating highway infrastructure. Again this year, we propose a historically high level of highway funding of $33.84 billion. In addition, our bill increases funding for highway safety activities at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to try to reverse a disturbing increase in highway fatalities, especially deaths associated with drunk driving. For the Federal Aviation Administration, the bill proposes appropriations and obligation ceilings of just under $14 billion. That is roughly a half a billion dollar increase over the level approved for fiscal year 2003. I also want to note that our half a billion dollar increase includes a $100 million increase in the airport grants program. I want to take a moment to make some observations about Amtrak. The bill before us includes $1.346 billion for Amtrak. Let me put that number in context. It is $454 million below the level requested by Amtrak's board of directors and its president, David Gunn. It is $454 million below the level that the Amtrak board says it needed to make progress on the railroad's deferred capital needs while operating the entire national system. And it is $454 million below the level assumed in the Senate-passed budget resolution. The Bush administration's budget for fiscal year 2004 singled out Amtrak for a 14 percent cut in funding down to the level of $900 million. Amtrak's president has made it quite clear in testimony before several committees that adoption of the administration's proposed level of $900 million will mean certain bankruptcy of the railroad. It will mean the end of service to the thousands of daily Amtrak riders and the ten of thousands of mass transit riders whose commuter rail systems depend on continued Amtrak service. The level of funding recommended by the Appropriations Committee of $1.346 billion will be barely enough to enable Amtrak to operate all of its services for fiscal year 2004. This fact has been confirmed in testimony by the Department of Transportation Inspector General before the Senate Commerce Committee. The increase above last year is directed to accommodate the nondiscretionary cost increases that will burden the railroad in fiscal year 2004, including cost increases associated with mandated pay raises for employees under contract: and, automatic increases in debt service payments associated with debt that the railroad has already taken on. There is no question that the level of Amtrak funding in the bill is more than some Senators would like and less than other Senators would like. In my view, as the ranking member of this subcommittee, I do not believe that there are other areas in this bill where other Amtrak resources can be found. I believe the level of funding in this bill will allow the authorizing committees to continue to work on reform legislation and hopefully address the long-term financial needs of the railroad, including its sizable backlog of critical capital investments. I would like to mention a few other funding highlights concerning the IRS and GSA. For the IRS, the bill before us includes $10.35 billion, including very sizable amounts to help the IRS move forward in modernizing its information technology infrastructure. For the General Services Administration, the bill includes appropriations as well funding limitations in excess of $6.4 billion. The subcommittee was able to make progress on the construction on a limited number of new courthouses. We followed the recommendations of the Judicial Conference, even though these courthouses were not funded in the President's budget and were largely unfunded in the House-passed bill. So, in conclusion, I stand in strong support of this bill. While overall it does not have as many resources as I think are needed to address all of our transportation infrastructure, transportation safety, drug prevention, election reform, and other needs, I think it does an outstanding job addressing these competing needs in a balanced way, under the funded ceiling that was given to the subcommittee due to the budget resolution. I want to thank Chairman Shelby for the very cooperative and collegial approach that he always brings to this process. When it comes to allocating funds for Members' priority projects, whether it is for highways, mass transit or Federal building construction, Senator Shelby and I work together to meet Senators' highest priority requests. The process was balanced and fair, without regard to political affiliation or geography, and I continue to be indebted to him for the fair- mindedness that he consistently brings to this process. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and help our country make important progress in transportation, safety and critical infrastructure.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota. I am a cosponsor of bipartisan legislation that was introduced earlier this year that would allow travel between the United States and Cuba. Current policy with regard to Cuba, as enforced by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, permits travel to Cuba only with permission in the form of a license from the Treasury office for certain reasons such as to visits relatives, or for journalism, religious, or humanitarian purposes. According to Treasury documents, between 1996 and 2003, about one- third of Cuba travel cases opened for investigation were referred for civil penalty enforcement action. Typical penalty assessments for unauthorized travel range from $3,000 to $7,500. For 40 years, the United States has maintained an isolationist position toward Cuba, and the current regime has remained throughout that time. I believe that permitting travel to Cuba would help demonstrate to Cuban citizens what a democracy is all about. Mr. President, it is time to lift the travel restrictions to Cuba. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. My distinguished colleagues from California have told me of the importance of this project to their constituents in East Los Angeles, as well as to the LACMTA's expanding rail transit system. I will work with Chairman Shelby to help the committee meet this project's funding needs.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Wisconsin has highlighted an important nine-State effort regarding high-speed rail and I will do all I can in Conference to accommodate the Senator's concerns. eastside light rail transit

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, while we are working through the last couple of amendments, let me say that I appreciate the work of Senator Shelby, all of the staff on the majority and minority side who really have done tremendous work in putting this bill together. I thank all of them for the hard work they have done, as well as my colleague, Senator Shelby, who has really done a good job today of moving this bill through. I thank him for that. Amendment No. 1963

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, more than 2 years ago the Senate began a journey to help improve our military readiness by replacing the outdated Air Force asset with 100 new Boeing 767 air refueling tankers. In spite of the best efforts of the Air Force to maintain that tanker fleet, those planes are outdated and cost billions of dollar to maintain. In the 2 years that have passed since we first began discussing replacing our Nation's tanker fleet, the KC-135s have grown older, more corroded, and less safe. It is a testament to the resourcefulness of the flying men and women of our Air Force that these planes are still flying as well as they are. Over the past several days, Senator Cantwell and I have engaged in a very productive series of meetings and discussions with Chairman Stevens and Chairman Warner, ranking Members Levin and Inouye. We were here late last night, as Senator Warner indicated, and all day long working with our colleagues on a way to move this forward. I am really pleased we have worked our way through some very big issues. The leaders of our Senate Armed Services Committee agree we do need to provide the Air Force a way to begin to recapitalize its aging tanker fleet with new Boeing 767s. I am proud Senator Warner and Senator Levin agree Boeing airframes will help our air men and women protect our Nation and advance our security around the world. I had the honor of meeting with a number of people who fly these planes. I am proud we are finally working our way to bring some new planes to these brave young men and women. These planes are critical. They are the backbone of America's air power capability. The importance of replacing them cannot be overstated. The Warner-Levin proposal is a great step in the right direction. It is finally going to allow Boeing to begin producing state-of-the-art KC-767 aircraft right away with delivery of the first four tankers in 2005. There are outstanding issues remaining, but it is clear to me today that we have a commitment finally to move forward and the Air Force is going to get the tankers it so desperately needs. I commend Senator Warner, Senator Stevens, Senator Levin, Senator Inouye, and especially my colleague in Washington, Senator Cantwell, who spent a tremendous amount of time trying to work this issue through with all of the details. I am proud to serve with her in the Senate. She is a testament to the people who are going to be building these planes and her advocacy for them, particularly over the last several days. I yield to my colleague from Washington.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

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. I ask the Chairman, as you know, late last night a very important amendment regarding funding for Afghan women's programs previously authorized by the Afghanistan Freedom Act of 2002 was accepted in the House version of this bill. The amendment was introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York. I know you share my concerns about the treatment of women in Afghanistan. And as we discussed earlier today, I have agreed not to offer my amendment, which was similar to the one accepted in the House bill, with the understanding that you will support this issue in conference.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chairman and Senator Byrd. usna hurricane isabel damage

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has been a year since the full Senate debated military action in Iraq, and now the President is asking Congress for $87 billion. It is time to assess where things stand, to look at the reality facing our troops, and to see if we are on the right track in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is clear to me that today we are not where we need to be in protecting our troops, gaining international support, or even having a plan to win the peace. As the daughter of a disabled World War II veteran and the representative for hundreds of thousands of Washington State veterans and military families, I will fight for every dollar our troops need to protect themselves, and to complete their mission successfully, and I am deeply troubled that the President still does not have a plan for success in Iraq. I have invested a lot of time examining the President's $87 billion request. I am taking a close look at what is needed and who will foot the bill. I have attended hearings and briefings where I have questioned administration officials, from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to Ambassador Bremer. And I have heard a great deal from the citizens I represent in Washington State. Everywhere I go at home, I am approached by people who have a family member who is now serving or a family member who is going to be called up. As we speak, 3,500 soldiers with the Army's 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Fort Lewis are being deployed to Iraq. About 2,100 Washington reservists are serving in Iraq today. About 300 Washington National Guard are already serving in Iraq and another 3,300 are on ``ready alert.'' Like their families, I am very concerned about what they--and all of our troops--will encounter overseas. Each day in Iraq, our American soldiers face vicious attacks from snipers, car bombs, roadside explosives, and rocket-propelled grenades. These attacks are taking a deadly toll. We learned this morning that four more soldiers were killed in Iraq. Our hearts and prayers go out to their families as we continue to support all of the men and women who are still there. Five months ago, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier--under a sign that read ``Mission Accomplished''--and told us that major combat operations had ended. Since that day, however, more than 180 American soldiers have been killed, including four from Washington State. Their families will never be the same. Their communities will never be the same. They--and all of our troops--deserve our thanks and our gratitude. But they deserve much more. They deserve a plan that will help them complete their mission successfully and return home safely. So far, there is no plan. Many of the questions I asked on the Senate floor a year ago still have not been answered, but today we must focus on the reality on the ground. We have about 130,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Defense Department. They are working hard in dire circumstances, and they are facing deadly attacks every day. There is still no plan for winning the peace. There is still no real international support, either in troops or treasure. Anyone who asks a legitimate question or who talks about what is really happening is criticized. And now the administration wants $87 billion without accountability. The way to fix this is for the White House to ``swallow some pride,'' face reality, be accountable, and offer a credible plan. But instead of a plan, the administration is offering a public relations campaign. Today we have complaints about media filters and a lively policy debate within the administration, but we still have no plan. So as I assess where things stand in Iraq, I see no real international support; no tolerance for important questions; no consistent policy--even within the administration; no accountability as to how money is spent in Iraq; no plan for success; and a PR campaign to ``paper-over'' the failures. With all due respect, that is not a formula that will help bring our troops home. We have to deal with the situation as it is and figure out how to make it better. Sound bites and speeches are not going to help our troops finish their mission and come home. A credible plan, accountability, and international support will. We do not need a PR campaign to make it look like things are going well. We need a plan that will actually help our troops succeed, and the American people are losing patience. That is the context in which we are having this debate. Now I wish to turn to the specifics of the President's $87 billion request. Most of it--about $65 billion--would go to military operations. I absolutely support that. Without question, we must provide our military men and women with the resources they need to complete their missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every corner of the global war on terrorism. About one-quarter of the $87 billion is being proposed to rebuild Iraq. I am concerned with how the burden for Iraq's reconstruction is being shared with the rest of the world. The Bush administration is proposing to spend more than $20 billion in Iraq, while the rest of the international community has currently pledged only $3 billion--$20 billion from American taxpayers and $3 billion from the rest of the world. This is far different than the 1991 gulf war. In 1991, the first President Bush put together a coalition of countries to liberate Kuwait. The cost of that operation was $60 billion. Because that President had won the support of our allies and had secured the support of NATO and the United Nations, America's allies paid 90 percent of the cost of that war. The U.S. paid only $6 billion. I am also troubled, both as a citizen who cares about my country and as a Senator who will cast a vote on this bill, that Americans were told a lot of things about Iraq before the war which have turned out to be false. One repeated assertion was that Iraq's vast oil reserves could pay for its own reconstruction. In fact, the Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said: There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. Just a few months later, it is clear that the bill to reconstruct Iraq is massive, and that bill is being handed to every American family. As my Republican colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, said last night: It's very hard for me to go home and explain how you give $20 billion to a country that is sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil. The American people were told that Iraq's oil reserves would finance its reconstruction but now we are getting stuck with the bill and I believe the American people deserve an explanation. We all agree that we must help Iraq and Afghanistan get back on their feet quickly, but we should not carry the burden alone while our own schools, hospitals, and communities are in need. We all understand the importance of helping the Iraqi people, but it need not come at the expense of our needs here at home. Even though the administration says that Iraq should be able to produce $35 billion in oil revenues in a few years, the American taxpayer is still getting stuck with the bill. Let's remember, there is no guarantee that President Bush will not come back to ask U.S. taxpayers to provide even more money for Iraq's reconstruction. The World Bank says Iraq's reconstruction will cost at least $60 billion. Today our families and communities are being asked to do more with less. Americans everywhere are sacrificing to make up the difference. American families will feel this $20 billion impact in crowded classrooms, delayed transportation improvements, and less access to health care. One of the reasons American taxpayers are so upset is because we need those kinds of investments here at home. This administration's priorities are wrong. The people I represent want to see that level of effort and resources put back into our own country. After all, we will only be strong abroad if we are strong here at home. Let's not forget no matter how much we are sacrificing at home, the burden is always far higher on our soldiers overseas. That is why, while they are fighting for us, we must continue to fight for them. We have to make sure they come back to a country that has jobs that can support them, health care they can count on, retirement they can look forward to, and education and opportunity for their children. Before we reach for our wallets again, the American people deserve to know how this money will help bring our troops home as soon as possible. It is clear that our concerns and questions will not be fully addressed before we are forced to vote on this legislation. It is also clear that we cannot afford to fail in Iraq. We have situations in Iraq and Afghanistan that can go either way. Both Iraq and Afghanistan could become either havens for terrorism or nations that can inch their way toward stability. We have to get it right. We cannot allow Iraq or Afghanistan to descend into chaos. We have tried to make this proposal better through amendments. I voted to separate the military funding from the reconstruction funding. I voted to make the entire $20 billion a loan. I voted to require a long-term plan for the reconstruction. Unfortunately, those amendments failed, but I am very pleased that last night, the Senate took a positive step to improve the proposal. The Senate passed an amendment that will ensure the burden of debt is shared and will give the Iraqi people a greater stake in their own reconstruction. The progress last night is a dramatic improvement over the President's proposal and is a good reason to support the modified funding request. At the end of the day, we cannot afford to fail in Iraq. The reality is that we have got 130,000 troops over there. We cannot fail to give them what they need to protect themselves and complete their mission. Reluctantly, I will vote for this $87 billion request because we cannot deny our troops the resources they need even as we demand that the administration offer a real plan. To illustrate just how badly our troops need resources and equipment, I want to read an email I received on Wednesday from David Willet of Bellingham, WA, about his son Ian Willett. David writes: My son, Specialist Ian Willet, a 2001 graduate of Sehome High School, was deployed to Iraq on September 5th, his 21st birthday. Prior to him leaving he came to me to request money in order to help him buy combat gear he would need to take with him to Iraq. This is gear the Army either would not issue him or was as old and outdated as to be virtually useless. I, of course, bought the gear that he requested. After talking with other men who have come home or are on their way to combat, I have become quite angry that our government has placed our sons and daughters in combat without the best equipment in the world. As an example, Ian spent $50.00 his grandfather gave him for his 21st birthday on knee pads. The Army-issue knee pads fall down around your ankles when you run with them on. Now I read a quarter of the combat troops in Iraq don't have the right body armor. I am outraged that it has taken over four years to get this ceramic body armor to our combat troops, and that our troops would even be sent into combat without this necessary technology. The reason front line troops don't have this body armor? Delays in funding, production and shipping. Small solace to family that has their loved one killed in combat for lack of the proper vest. Other stories in the press talk about wounded soldiers being given bills for food they ate while in the hospital in the U.S. recovering from combat wounds. The Bush Administration wants us to focus on the good news coming out of Iraq. It is outrageous that we are sending our soldiers to Iraq without the equipment they need, forcing their parents and grandparents to buy things that our government should be providing. Ian is married and has two children. His family can't wait for him to return home, and the burden of protecting Ian should not fall on his family. It is the job of our Government. I am voting for this amendment so that soldiers like Ian won't have to ask their parents for the equipment they need to protect themselves. Even as I support this funding, I want to be very clear that this is not over. I am going to watch this administration very closely. I am going to watch how they spend this money; how accountable they are; how our soldiers fare; and how much international support we get. We will hold this administration's feet to the fire. I will continue to be an aggressive advocate for moving us in the right direction because there is too much at stake to just trust that the President has learned from his failures so far. America is a strong nation, and Americans are a determined people. In our Nation's history, we have confronted adversity. We have dealt with the challenges that have threatened our democracy. In each case, we had a clear vision and a plan to get there. There were bumps in the road, but at the times of our greatest need, America has come together with resolve and determination. Today is no different. The American people are ready, and we are waiting for the President to face reality in Iraq and to give us a credible plan to win the war and win the peace.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan. USGS binational groundwater study

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I heard the Senator from Nevada correctly, am I to understand there is going to be a second-degree amendment to his amendment that I just spoke about that will essentially allow the outsourcing to continue while we move forward in the appropriations process this year? If that is the case, I ask the Senator from Nevada, if you are a park employee in one of our beautiful parks--and you referenced the Cascades; we have Olympia National Park, Mt. Rainier. I invite all of our colleagues to come and see--if you were an employee and you knew Congress was going to continue to move forward with this proposal or some type of variation, would you not be worried that you would not continue to do the same good job that our employees do right now because really your future is up in the air and you would be looking for something else?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I intend to speak on the Reid amendment and I would ask what the pending business is.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would like to enter into a coloquy with Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan. The Indian Health Service and the University of Washington have been conducting research into Fetal Alcohol Syndrome with funds provided in the Interior Appropriations bill. I want to thank the Chairman and Senator Dorgan for the Subcommittee's continued support for these research efforts. I hope to work with the Senators in conference related to this on-going research.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by Senator Reid that temporarily bars the Department of the Interior from spending any more money on competitive sourcing studies. The House has already inserted this language into its Interior spending bill, and I hope the Senate will do the same. This amendment is critical so we can assure the people who visit our already overstressed national parks that they will not be subjected to even fewer services. ``Competitive sourcing'' is a new term that has been created to describe the opening up of public sector jobs to private sector competition. Now, we have all been told that competitive sourcing is not the same as outsourcing, but I think it is pretty safe to say it is not a whole lot different. As all of us know, one of the primary goals of this current administration is to privatize large numbers of Federal workers. This administration, under its initial outsourcing policy, mandated that each Federal agency review for privatization no less than 15 percent of its commercial activities by the end of fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, this onerous and apparently arbitrary privatization quota did not take into account the different agencies' unique conditions. After a lot of pressure from Federal workers, environmentalists, and labor groups, the White House finally abandoned its original blanket competitive sourcing scheme. But now the initial plan has been replaced by a new plan that actually pushes for more outsourcing, not less. Although there is no concrete timeline, this new incentive-based plan encourages Federal agencies to outsource 50 percent or more of their commercial activities. So while we in Congress are trying to slow down this outsourcing drive, the administration is now working to speed it up. So what does that mean for an agency such as the National Park Service? I am very concerned that the President's outsourcing policy may well cause critically needed maintenance funds in our parks to be spent, instead, on further studies for competitive sourcing. In my home State of Washington, we are very concerned about the reports that Mount Rainier National Park, for instance, could possibly have to divert up to 40 percent of its repair budget due to this outsourcing and antiterrorism requirements. So when they were faced with this possibility, the National Park Service director at Mount Rainier promised that at Mount Rainier no more outsourcing studies would be conducted using 2003 and 2004 dollars. This comes as a great relief to the users of Mount Rainier National Park and the surrounding communities, but now everyone is asking, What about Olympic National Park? What about Cascade National Park? Those are national treasures that are in my home State. And what about all the other national parks across the country that remain vulnerable to this proposal? Outsourcing is by no means a new policy for the Department of Interior, especially in the National Park Service. The Park Service, in fact, currently outsources nearly $2 billion in services, including over $800 million in concessions and over $1 billion for contractors. Those contractors currently provide functions such as janitorial services, tree work, garbage pickup, construction, and management consulting--things like that. So when the Department of Interior is now told to outsource up to 50 percent of its commercial responsibilities, we are very concerned that some of the National Park Service's key functions are going to be threatened. The Park Service, as we all know, was initially created to preserve the natural and cultural resources of the Park System and to provide recreational opportunities for generations of Americans. The last thing we should be doing is lessening the agency's ability to do just that. The amendment now before the Senate, that was offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, will not completely stop all outsourcing efforts. It will simply slow them down. I believe that is the right thing to do. So far, in the case of the Department of Interior, OMB's outsourcing initiative has been on the fast track. The Reid amendment will simply prevent funds from this year from being used to initiate any new studies for competitive sourcing. It will, however, still allow the studies initiated with money from the last 2 years to be completed. I think that is the right course to take. Slowing down this outsourcing initiative will allow us in Congress to have the time to analyze the costs and implications of this administration's proposal--I believe something we should have done in the first place. The National Park Service is truly a mission-driven organization. Its core responsibilities include promoting the highest level of environmental stewardship, and, in turn, providing the best possible service to each and every park visitor. So far, as we all know, the Park Service has done a tremendous job of doing just that. Consistently, 97 percent of our national park visitors have indicated they are ``satisfied'' or ``very satisfied'' with their national park experience. A lot of this public regard is attributed to the high quality and high morale of our Park Service employees. Historically, National Park Service workers have maintained an extremely high level of camaraderie and positive spirit. Often these wonderful employees of ours are called upon to perform multiple duties that fall outside any one particular job title. It is not uncommon, in our national parks, for a maintenance worker to give interpretive talks on the weekends, or a park geologist to perform first aid, when it is necessary, or for a visitor assistant to help in fighting forest fires. This kind of overlap of job duties is possible because of the way in which Park Service employees are currently cross-trained and because of the workers' extraordinary commitment to their jobs. In my opinion, having these kinds of outcomes with 9-to-5 contract workers would be very unlikely. All of the implications of the President's policy of outsourcing in the National Park Service are not yet known or understood by those who use the parks or by Members of Congress who are passing this legislation. I think Congress has yet to carefully consider the consequences of this policy, especially when it comes to the services we expect for our families when they visit our national parks. I am on the floor of the Senate today to thank Senator Reid for putting this amendment forward, and I urge the Members of the Senate to follow the House and slow down the President's outsourcing policy to protect the core mission of the National Park Service by voting for the Reid amendment, and then thoroughly taking the time to analyze and understand how this will impact our incredible heritage at our national parks before we move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I am pleased to join with Senators Boxer and Harkin in the debate to reaffirm the protections guaranteed to women in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Let's be clear: The Republican leadership is trying to do something extraordinary on the Senate floor, something everyone who cares about the Constitution and women's rights should pay attention to. They have already done it in the House. The Senate, now, is the last line of defense. It is helpful if we look at the history of this debate to see why the Republican approach is a threat to women's constitutionally protected rights. Earlier this year, the Senate debated the so-called partial- birth abortion ban. I joined with many of my colleagues in speaking against that proposal. I noted the bill was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Nebraska because it was too broad and because it did not include an exception for women's health. We made that case in the Senate, but we were repeatedly turned back. We also offered reasonable amendments to make sure this legislation would not threaten the lives or the health of women and to reduce the number of abortions in America. Opponents rejected almost all of our amendments. That showed me their real goal was not to reduce the number of abortions or to protect women but to use the power in Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade. As the debate continued in the Senate, my suspicion was confirmed. For example, I introduced a prevention amendment to reduce the number of abortions. My amendment would have provided contraceptive equity in health plans, expanded education about emergency contraceptives, made emergency contraceptives available in the emergency rooms for victims of rape, and would have offered CHIP health insurance coverage to protect women. My amendment was defeated on a budget point of order. Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to protect the health of a woman. That amendment was defeated as well. That brings us now to the Harkin-Boxer amendment and the reason we are having a debate today. That amendment reaffirmed the Senate's support for the Roe v. Wade decision. It passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote of 52 to 46. The Senate was firmly on the record supporting the Roe decision. Eventually, that so-called partial-birth abortion bill passed the Senate, including the language supporting Roe. Then something happened, something completely undermined the will of this Senate. The Republican leadership tried to bring up the House version of the bill and send it to conference. Many Members objected. That is why we are here today, to completely disregard the will of the Senate. To disregard the fundamental rights afforded all women in this country by the United States Supreme Court is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and send the amendment back to conference. The Senate needs to send the right message to the Supreme Court and to women across this country--that their inherent right of privacy and their right to make reproductive health care decisions will not be jeopardized. This is another attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling in the Stenberg v. Carhart case. The authors of this bill tried to get around the law of the land by inserting a section of congressional findings in their unconstitutional bill. These findings dispute the basis for the Supreme Court's decision, and they state that Congress finds the partial-birth abortion ban legislation to be constitutional. The authors of this legislation claim that congressional findings are all that is necessary to ensure a law is constitutional. That is a bit optimistic on their part, and it ignores past congressional findings that were ignored by the Court. The Court struck down the Nebraska law for one reason. It did not contain any consideration for the health of the woman as prescribed in the original Roe decision. Telling the Court that Congress does not find women's health to be important does not meet the constitutional test. It is somewhat surprising that opponents of this motion would now argue that talking about Roe or the constitution protections provided in Roe is not relevant. One of the reasons I opposed S. 3, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act, was because I know this legislation is unconstitutional. It simply does not meet the constitutional test that requires providing some consideration for the health of the woman. The Court has been extremely clear on this point. We are voting to ban a legal, safe medical procedure that is used to save the life and health of women. Proponents of this legislation will argue that S. 3 does not undermine Roe, that it does not jeopardize a woman's life or health, and that it simply bans one procedure. I think we all know the true objective here. It is to overturn Roe piece by piece. The other side claims they are not seeking to overturn Roe but, rather, to protect women and the unborn. If they really believe this and they are not concerned with a constitutional challenge, they should support the Harkin-Boxer amendment. This amendment should be part of any final legislation. I think it is important to discuss what Roe did and did not say. I often hear that Roe allows for abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnancy. That is simply not true. The Justices worked very hard to achieve a balance between the privacy of the woman and the interests of the state. They found this balance by distinguishing between pre- and post-viability. The underlying issue in Roe was privacy. The Roe case built on the precedent established in Griswold v. Connecticut, which outlawed State laws that criminalized or hindered the use of contraception because they violated the right to privacy. In the Roe decision, the Supreme Court used this same right of privacy to prohibit laws that banned abortions performed before viability. After viability, the Court did rule that the State does have a prevailing interest to restrict abortion, which is why so few abortions are performed late in pregnancy. Eighty-eight percent of abortions are performed before the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, and 98 percent occur during the first 20 weeks. What the Court said regarding post-viability is that the State could restrict access, but the law must include a health and life exception. The Supreme Court found that the State's right to restrict or regulate abortion could not--and let me repeat, could not--jeopardize the life or health of the woman. It is disheartening to me that efforts to overturn or restrict the rights afforded in the Roe decision often exclude any consideration for the life or health of the woman. I have heard supporters of S. 3 claim that so-called partial-birth abortions jeopardize a woman's health and are never necessary to protect the health of the woman. If anyone doubts that Roe was not important for the life and health of a woman, they should consider the world before Roe. In 1973, abortion, except to save a woman's life, was banned in nearly two-thirds of our States. An estimated 1.2 million women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortion, despite the risks associated with unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, and hemorrhage. Because the procedure was illegal, there is no exact figure on the number of deaths caused by illegal abortions in the U.S. One estimate that was made before 1973 attributed 5,000 deaths a year to illegal abortions. According to a 1967 study, induced abortion was the most common single cause of maternal mortality in California. The number of deaths per 100,000 legal abortion procedures declined from 4.1 percent to 0.6 percent between 1973 and 1997. The choices women had prior to 1973 were often the choice between life and death. The Roe decision, coupled with the Griswald decision that gave women the right to contraceptives, finally gave women full and just reproductive choice. But again the Roe decision does not allow for abortion on demand. The decision placed the appropriate restrictions on late-term abortions without forcing women into the back alleys. Currently, 41 States have laws that restrict or ban post-viability abortions, except to save the life and health of the woman. This is consistent with Roe. Clearly, Roe did not result in abortion on demand at any stage in the pregnancy. today we are ready to turn back much of what was achieved in Roe by banning a safe medical procedure at any stage of the pregnancy regardless of the threat to the woman. S. 3 removes any consideration of the health of the woman. Personally, I believe the Court will strike down this misguided legislation when it passes. However, we should send the right message to the Court that the U.S. Congress supports the Roe decision and believes that the right of privacy is an important protection for all Americans. I am fortunate to represent a State that has twice voted to reaffirm Roe and to protect a woman's right to reproductive choice. In fact, in 1998, a similar effort to ban a safe and legal abortion procedure was defeated in Washington State. People in Washington State understand the need to provide for the health and the life of a woman. In fact, a recent ABC News poll shows a majority of Americans support a health exception for the woman for late-term abortion. The poll-- which was just conducted in July--asked, if a late-term abortion would prevent a serious threat to the woman, should it be legal? Twenty percent said it should be legal in all cases, 41 percent said it should be legal if health is threatened--a total of 61 percent. This poll shows what many of us believe, that a woman's health is an important factor and consideration. This motion will give Members the chance to cast their vote either in support of Roe or in support of overturning this landmark decision. If you believe that women in this country should be afforded full reproductive choice, then you must vote to ensure that the Harkin-Boxer amendment remain part of any final conference agreement on S. 3. If you oppose this amendment, you are saying that you do not believe that the Constitution provides women with the right of privacy and that there should be no consideration for the health and life of the woman. I hope we don't turn back the clock on the floor of the Senate and place women in this country at risk again.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to have the time until Senator Boxer returns.