Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Craig, Cleland, Gordon Smith, Cantwell, Wyden and Boxer to reintroduce the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act of 2001. Trade is the lifeblood of Washington state's economy. From aerospace to software to agriculture, one out of every three jobs in my state is trade-related. Without access to markets around the world, Washington state's economy cannot function. The legislation I am introducing today would open and expand markets for U.S. agricultural exports. It would help rural economies. It would create jobs in regions that need them the most. In the 106th Congress, we focused our attention on opening markets to American goods and services. I strongly supported efforts to pass permanent normal trade relations for China, to reform our ineffective unilateral sanctions policies, and to create new trade relationships with Africa and the Caribbean Basin. Our nation's producers generally supported these efforts, but their enthusiasm for new trade agreements is waning. It's difficult for our farmers and ranchers to endorse new trade agreements when our trade partners heavily subsidize their producers. It's difficult for farmers and ranchers to get excited about potential new markets when federal agencies give a green light to imports from nations that won't let our products in. It's difficult for farmers and ranchers to support free trade when our competitors have the advantage of cheaper labor, cheaper land, cheaper water and fewer environmental regulations. When these trade challenges are combined with low prices, a strong dollar, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and higher energy and fertilizer prices, I understand why many of our farmers and ranchers are losing patience with our trade agreements. I believe agricultural producers and rural communities should continue to support free trade. U.S. producers are so productive that we can't afford not to push for more open markets. But I also believe we should give our agricultural producers a fighting chance to succeed. We need to pursue trade agreements that are fair. We need to enforce the good agreements we make. And we need to invest in market promotion and development. The legislation I am introducing today will help give producers a fighting chance. It invests in market share, not potential markets. It builds on success, not rhetoric. Current law authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Export Enhancement Program. But the program isn't being used. Current law does not allow the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer those authorized funds to programs that are being used, like the Market Access Program and the the Foreign Market Development ``Cooperator'' Program. My bill would change that. The Agricultural Market Access and Development Act does three things. First, it raises the existing cap on the Market Access Program from $90 million to $200 million. Second, it creates a $35 million floor for the Foreign Market Development ``Cooperator'' Program. The Market Access Program and the Cooperator Program have helped to expand markets for apples, potatoes, wheat, wine and other products from Washington state and around the nation. Under these programs, the federal government reimburses a non-profit industry association or a private business for a portion of trade promotion activities. Third, the bill establishes a mechanism to pay for these changes. It authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer a percentage of unspent funds under the Export Enhancement Program to market access and development programs. The legislation I am introducing today is nearly identical to S. 1983, which I introduced in 1999. In the 106th Congress, more than eighty agriculture and food organizations wrote to Members of Congress supporting S. 1983. I believe we will have equal--if not greater-- support as we start working on the next farm bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Craig, Cleland, Gordon Smith, Cantwell, Wyden and Boxer to reintroduce the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act of 2001. Trade is the lifeblood of Washington state's economy. From aerospace to software to agriculture, one out of every three jobs in my state is trade-related. Without access to markets around the world, Washington state's economy cannot function. The legislation I am introducing today would open and expand markets for U.S. agricultural exports. It would help rural economies. It would create jobs in regions that need them the most. In the 106th Congress, we focused our attention on opening markets to American goods and services. I strongly supported efforts to pass permanent normal trade relations for China, to reform our ineffective unilateral sanctions policies, and to create new trade relationships with Africa and the Caribbean Basin. Our nation's producers generally supported these efforts, but their enthusiasm for new trade agreements is waning. It's difficult for our farmers and ranchers to endorse new trade agreements when our trade partners heavily subsidize their producers. It's difficult for farmers and ranchers to get excited about potential new markets when federal agencies give a green light to imports from nations that won't let our products in. It's difficult for farmers and ranchers to support free trade when our competitors have the advantage of cheaper labor, cheaper land, cheaper water and fewer environmental regulations. When these trade challenges are combined with low prices, a strong dollar, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and higher energy and fertilizer prices, I understand why many of our farmers and ranchers are losing patience with our trade agreements. I believe agricultural producers and rural communities should continue to support free trade. U.S. producers are so productive that we can't afford not to push for more open markets. But I also believe we should give our agricultural producers a fighting chance to succeed. We need to pursue trade agreements that are fair. We need to enforce the good agreements we make. And we need to invest in market promotion and development. The legislation I am introducing today will help give producers a fighting chance. It invests in market share, not potential markets. It builds on success, not rhetoric. Current law authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Export Enhancement Program. But the program isn't being used. Current law does not allow the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer those authorized funds to programs that are being used, like the Market Access Program and the the Foreign Market Development ``Cooperator'' Program. My bill would change that. The Agricultural Market Access and Development Act does three things. First, it raises the existing cap on the Market Access Program from $90 million to $200 million. Second, it creates a $35 million floor for the Foreign Market Development ``Cooperator'' Program. The Market Access Program and the Cooperator Program have helped to expand markets for apples, potatoes, wheat, wine and other products from Washington state and around the nation. Under these programs, the federal government reimburses a non-profit industry association or a private business for a portion of trade promotion activities. Third, the bill establishes a mechanism to pay for these changes. It authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer a percentage of unspent funds under the Export Enhancement Program to market access and development programs. The legislation I am introducing today is nearly identical to S. 1983, which I introduced in 1999. In the 106th Congress, more than eighty agriculture and food organizations wrote to Members of Congress supporting S. 1983. I believe we will have equal--if not greater-- support as we start working on the next farm bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of comprehensive pipeline safety legislation. I want to especially commend Senator McCain for his strong, personal leadership on this issue. He held hearings on pipeline safety in the last Congress, and he's helped make this legislation a priority here in the Senate. We would not be here today without Senator McCain's leadership. I first got involved in this issue 20 months ago in the wake of a horrible pipeline explosion in my home State of Washington. On June 10, 1999 in Bellingham, Washington a gasoline pipeline ruptured. Gas poured out of the pipeline and overflowed into Whatcom Creek. Eventually, that gasoline ignited, and it created a massive fireball. The explosion sent a plume of smoke more than 20,000 feet into the air--as you can see in this picture. But most tragic of all, the explosion killed three young people. It shattered a community and inflicted serious environmental damage. Without warning on a quiet summer day, three young people were taken from their families in a tragedy that should never have happened. After the accident, I spent several months learning about pipelines. I learned that the Office of Pipeline Safety oversees more than 157,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines and more than 2.2 million miles of natural gas lines throughout the country. These pipelines run near our schools, our homes, and our communities. They perform a vital service-- bringing us the energy we need for cars, airplanes, and home heating. But at the same time, they are not as safe as they could be. I learned that it's hard for citizens to find out if they live near a pipeline--much less if that pipeline is safe. I learned that many of these pipelines were laid down 30 or 40 years ago, and they are getting old. They're subject to internal corrosion and to external damage. And worst, of all--they may not receive regular inspections. I learned that too many pipeline operators don't have the training they need. And I learned that we're not investing in pipeline safety--both in oversight and in the new technology that will make pipelines safer. Mr. President, the impact of all of these problems can be seen in the number of pipeline accidents. Between January 1, 1986 and December 31, 1999, there have been more than 5,700 pipeline accidents in this country, 325 deaths, 1,500 injuries, and almost $1 billion in environmental damage. On average there is one pipeline accident every day in this country, and 6 million hazardous gallons are spilled into our environment every year. As I worked on pipeline safety, I talked to a lot of people. I worked with officials at all levels of government, with industry representatives, environmentalists, state and federal regulators, and concerned citizens. Last year, I introduced my own pipelines safety legislation. I was pleased when Senator McCain--as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee--made this issue a priority and held a hearing and a markup on pipeline safety legislation. And many other Senators played key roles--especially Senators Hollings, Bingaman, Inouye, Domenici, Breaux, and Wyden--and also former-senator Slade Gorton. On June 15, our bill passed out of committee. Then, on August 19, there was another terrible pipeline explosion near Carlsbad, NM. That blast killed 12 people. That horrific accident reminded this Senate that we had to act. As a result, our bill passed the Senate on September 7. Let me review the features of the McCain- Murray bill as passed last year. To make pipelines safer, our bill improved the qualification and training of pipeline personnel, improved pipeline inspection and prevention practices, expanded the public's right to know about pipeline hazards, raised the penalties for safety violators, enabled States to expand their safety efforts, invested in new technology to improve safety, protected whistle blowers, increased funding for safety efforts by $13 billion, and recognized State citizen advisory committees and allowed for their funding. This bill--which is again being considered today--was the strongest pipeline safety bill to ever pass either Chamber of Congress. The Senate has clearly made pipeline safety a priority--and we are doing so again this year. Then our bill moved to the House for debate. In the House, it did gather support from a majority of Representatives. Unfortunately, it was brought up for a vote through a procedure that required a two-thirds majority--and it fell short. Again this year, it is the House of Representatives that must step up to the plate on this issue. That is why I have worked with Washington's congressional delegation--especially Congressman Rick Larsen who represents Bellingham--to develop additional provisions to address some of the concerns expressed by the House last year. I am proud to report that Congressman Larsen introduced that legislation in the House this week. I also plan on introducing it here in the Senate today so it can become part of the process we use to enact the best legislation. The delegation legislation that Congressman Larsen and I have worked on will improve the McCain bill in several ways. It will strengthen the provision on employee certification. It will further increase penalties for safety violations. It will improve the community's right to know. And, it will ensure periodic inspections of pipelines. The strongest pipeline safety bill ever to pass either body of Congress is on the floor of the U.S. Senate right now. A vote yes is a vote for progress--a vote to make pipelines safer. A vote no is a vote for the status quo. A vote no freezes the process. A vote no leaves us exactly where we were when three people were killed in Bellingham and 12 people were killed in Carlsbad. Are there things we can do to improve this bill? Yes. But we well never get to them unless this bill passes out of the Senate. This bill represents our single best opportunity to make pipelines safer. That's clear from what happened last year. Last year, the Senate passed this bill, and some in the House had problems with it. The improvements will be made--and the differences will be worked out--in the conference process. But we can't get to the conference process until the Senate and the House each pass pipeline safety legislation. Voting against this bill won't make pipelines safer. Voting for this bill--and making improvements during conference--will make pipelines safer. Frankly, Mr. President, I expect the bill we're debating today--S. 235--to pass the Senate again this year--as it did last year. Then--once again--the House will need to pass its own legislation. At that point, the two bills will be reconciled by a conference committee. That committee's work will be critical. Ultimately, I hope that the conference committee's final bill will resemble the bill I've been working on with the Washington state delegation. Mr. President, this isn't the end of our discussion on pipeline safety. In fact, it's just the start and that starting process begins by voting yes for this bill. Before I conclude, I want to comment on the current energy crisis. It's something that I have spent a lot of time on in the past few months, and it is having a real impact on the people of my State. I have been listening very closely to President Bush's comments. Among other things, he has suggested streamlining the approval process for installing pipelines. That concerns me. I recognize that we need to increase our energy generation, but we shouldn't do it at the expense of our safety or our environment. Just because we are having an energy crisis does not mean that the families in Bellingham or Carlsbad will accept a rollback of safety standards. I hope President Bush will agree that we shouldn't replace our current energy crisis with a pipeline safety crisis. Let me offer four ways President Bush can show his commitment to public safety, The first one is simple. We shouldn't backtrack on safety. Senate bill 235-- represents the new minimum of safety standards. President Bush should not send us a proposal that is less stringent than this bill. Let me give you one example. Our bill expands the public's right to know about problems with pipelines and ensure communities and States have a role in pipeline safety. Last week, I heard about a draft energy plan that President Bush may put forward. It gives the oil and gas industry a guaranteed seat at every meeting on pipeline regulations. However, it provides no guarantee that concerned citizens, local officials or state representatives would be part of the decisionmaking process. President Bush should not undue the progress we made last year. And I hope he'll show a sensitivity to safety and environmental concerns that have been absent from his discussions on this issue to date. Second, President Bush should signal his support of pipeline safety legislation, which I hope will ultimately take the form of him signing a bill into law. Third, President Bush should fund pipeline safety in his budget as a priority. I will be fighting for pipeline safety funding in the upcoming budget debate, and I will hold the administration accountable for its commitment to investing in pipeline safety. Finally, President Bush's Department of Transportation should continue to issue administrative rules to make pipelines safer. The Clinton administration took several important administrative steps. They issued safety and environmental regulations that require mandatory safety testing of pipelines in populated areas, in sensitive environmental areas, and along waterways. And at my request, they stationed a pipeline inspector in Washington State. And they agreed to give Washington state more of a role in pipeline inspections. I hope the Bush administration will show the same level of commitment. So I hope President Bush will reconsider his energy proposal to make sure it will heed the lessons we've learned from so many pipeline accidents. We do need to address our energy needs, but not at the expense of our safety. Let's make pipelines safe first, before we lay down more pipelines. I want to close with one final image. This chart shows where pipeline accidents have taken place between 1984 and 1999. As you can see, pipelines fail in every State. The states marked in yellow had between 3 and 19 accidents. The states marked in orange had between 20 and 69 accidents. And the states marked in red had 70 or more pipeline accidents. As you can see--most of the States are red. I don't want to have to color more of these States red. If we learned anything last year, it's that we must not wait for another tragedy to force us to act. We must pass a comprehensive pipeline safety bill this year. This bill represents the start of our efforts in Congress this year, and I will work with anyone who want to make pipelines safer. I know that we can't undo what happened in Bellingham, but we can take the lessons from the Bellingham tragedy and put them into law so that families will know the pipelines near their homes are safe.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleagues from New Jersey for offering these four excellent amendments. I share their passion on this issue, having lost three young children in Bellingham, WA, a year and a half ago when a pipeline exploded at a school where my sister teaches seventh grade. It has impacted the lives of those families every single day since that explosion. This is a passionate issue in my State. I have to say, before that explosion, no one knew that they lived next door to a pipeline. No one knew that their school was on a pipeline. I commend them for bringing forward these provisions. They are all excellent. They are all incorporated into a bill that I have dropped in with the Washington State delegation today. If they are unable to pass on this bill, I urge my colleagues from New Jersey to continue to work with us. This bill has a long way to go before passage, certainly as it goes through the House and through conference. These provisions are excellent ones that I hope will be incorporated into a final bill, regardless of what happens on the floor today. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to serve as Attorney General. I want to be very clear. I did not seek this debate. I think it is unfortunate that this new Senate has to address such a difficult and contentious nomination that opens up old history and old wounds and old debates, rather than moving forward on issues that unite our country. I do not relish the role of opposing a new President's nominee for Attorney General. In fact, quite to the contrary. I believe a new President should be able to fill his Cabinet with the people he wants. Unfortunately, this is not something over which I have control. President Bush picked Senator Ashcroft and in doing so he brought this conflict upon himself and he must accept responsibility for that decision. Senator Ashcroft, too, must accept responsibility for his actions, especially those that have raised doubts about his ability to serve as Attorney General. I did not seek this conflict, but under the U.S. Constitution the Senate is called upon to provide advice and consent on Cabinet appointments, and I take that responsibility seriously. I do want to point out that I and all of my colleagues took great care to treat John Ashcroft carefully. In fact, throughout the debate over Senator John Ashcroft's nomination I have said that I would only make a decision after Senator Ashcroft had a full and fair hearing. That is what fairness requires. Senator Ashcroft had an opportunity to respond to questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I reviewed the testimony thoroughly and then I reached my decision. I want to share with my colleagues and the people I represent how I reached the conclusion that Senator Ashcroft should not serve as Attorney General. First, I considered the unique responsibility and trust placed in an Attorney General. Far more than any other Cabinet officer, the Attorney General of the United States has the power to affect the rights and the lives of all Americans. For that reason, this nominee must be chosen with great care. I can tell you I spent many days and several long nights thinking about qualities I would want to see in an Attorney General. In addition to being honest and independent, that person must actively enforce the laws and ensure the public's confidence in our legal system. The Attorney General must also display the highest standards of fairness, trust, and respect for the law. I developed those standards and then I looked at Senator Ashcroft's statements in the Record. As I have looked at the facts, it seems clear that, in his hearing, he obscured his record and did not prove to me that he is qualified to be Attorney General. As I said, I have taken great care to ensure that John Ashcroft had a fair opportunity to respond to the questions raised about his nomination. Unfortunately, Senator Ashcroft did not extend that same standard of fairness to Judge Ronnie White, and fairness is one of the critical qualities needed in an Attorney General. In the case of Ronnie White, Senator Ashcroft leveled serious charges against a respected jurist. Through Senator Ashcroft's timing and maneuvering, Judge White was never asked about those charges. Judge White was never even given an opportunity to defend himself, and that is fundamentally unfair. In any Senator, such behavior is inappropriate and regrettable. In an Attorney General, such behavior can be dangerous. Unfortunately, Ronnie White was not the only nominee that Senator Ashcroft, in his long tenure, has treated questionably. Senator Ashcroft's treatment of Ambassador James Hormel is also very troubling to me. At the time Senator Ashcroft said he opposed Mr. Hormel's selection to be Ambassador to Luxembourg because he actively promoted the gay lifestyle. More recently, however, we heard a different answer from John Ashcroft. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he voted against Mr. Hormel because he knew him personally. But Mr. Hormel has said that he never met Senator Ashcroft, and, further, that Senator Ashcroft had refused to even meet with him. In fact, John Ashcroft would not even attend the nomination hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee of which he was a member. His treatment of Mr. Hormel, and his varying and contradicted claims about the reason for his decision, give me great pause. It would be easy to give Senator Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt if this were an isolated incident, but in addition to Ronnie White and James Hormel, Senator Ashcroft also treated Bill Lann Lee unfairly. As my colleagues will recall, Bill Lann Lee was nominated to be head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division. In opposing Lee, Ashcroft said Lee had an intensity that belongs to advocacy, not the balance that belongs to administration. It seems to me that Senator Ashcroft would not even pass his own test. Senator Ashcroft's treatment of Judge White, Ambassador James Hormel, Bill Lann Lee, and others does not show the level of fairness that an Attorney General must display. This is not how the U.S. attorney general should treat people. Let me turn to the second standard I considered--trust. The Attorney General must be someone the American people can trust to vigorously protect their rights. Citizens of this country should feel comfortable that the highest law enforcement officer of the land will ensure their basic liberties. Unfortunately, for far too many Americans, Senator Ashcroft's record creates fear, not trust. His appointment sends the wrong message to Americans who already face discrimination and unfair treatment in their daily lives. Next I want to turn to integrity because Senator Ashcroft is often said to be a man of integrity, and I do not challenge his integrity, but I do ask this: If he is true to his beliefs, how can he vigorously enforce the laws he has vehemently opposed and sought to overturn throughout his public service? His past history shows he does not believe in and has fought against the laws that strengthen gun safety, protect a woman's right to choose, and civil rights. I can only assume that a man who prides himself on his integrity would continue to advocate those views. John Ashcroft is a man of uncommonly strong beliefs. Based on what I know of Senator Ashcroft, he has not convinced me that he can set aside those beliefs to execute fully the laws with which he disagrees. I also considered Senator Ashcroft's willingness to enforce the law, especially those with which he disagreed. Because we are a nation of laws, the Attorney General must actively enforce our laws. This is an area where Senator Ashcroft has an extensive record. Unfortunately, as Missouri's attorney general, John Ashcroft was selective in his application of the law. Often he acted outside the scope of his office. For example, Senator Ashcroft refused several court orders to implement desegregation of public schools in St. Louis. In fact, one judge said of Senator Ashcroft's efforts representing Missouri: The State has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of this court. The St. Louis desegregation case is the most troubling example of Senator Ashcroft's refusal to enforce the laws with which he disagreed. Senator Ashcroft has also failed to convince me that he would actively enforce the laws that protect a woman's right to choose. Finally, the Attorney General must be someone to whom all Americans can look as their advocate. President Bush has said he wants to unite our country, not divide it. This nomination, more than any I have ever seen, has divided our country and left many Americans wondering if their rights will be protected in the Bush administration. I have received literally thousands of calls from a wide variety of citizens in my State asking me to oppose Senator Ashcroft's nomination, and they are not just saying oppose Ashcroft and hanging up. These are people who are telling me they have been following the debate and are really concerned that their rights will not be protected if John Ashcroft becomes Attorney General. I want to say one more thing about the high level of public comment we have heard in recent weeks. Some claim that interest groups are to blame for John Ashcroft's problems. I disagree. No interest group made John Ashcroft mistreat Ronnie White or James Hormel or Bill Lann Lee. John Ashcroft did that himself, and he has to accept responsibility for his actions. Those are the factors I considered: fairness, trust, ability to enforce the law, and ability to represent all Americans and to safeguard their rights. I asked myself: Is John Ashcroft someone whom all Americans can trust to treat them fairly and to protect their rights? I have concluded he is not. I will vote against John Ashcroft because he has not shown the fairness, the trust, or the respect of the law required in America's highest law enforcement officer. Given the likelihood of his confirmation, I hope that John Ashcroft's actions in office will prove me wrong. Either way, I will hold President Bush accountable for his decision. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want the Record to reflect my strong support for the final appropriations measure that we are completing today. Since the first day I walked into this distinguished Chamber, I have been fighting to bring the priorities of our budget closer to the priorities of America's families. As I talk to parents and students in my State about what would improve their lives, over and over, I hear that a quality education for our students is a top priority for families across this country. Today is a victory for families. The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill shows this Congress is listening to people across this country. It provides a $6.5 billion increase in education spending. This is a 17 percent increase. It makes an investment in the things that matter--reducing class size, improving teacher quality, and repairing and constructing schools. This bill gives the Congress a benchmark to work with the new President who has made education a personal priority. I have come to the Senate floor numerous times over the years to ask for an investment in reducing class size. This is something that matters to parents, teachers and students across this country. After a year long battle against efforts to eliminate class size reduction funds, this bill provides $1.62 billion final appropriations bill for the purpose of reducing class size. By making this investment, we are sending an important message to every community in this Nation. Class size reduction is important because it makes a tangible difference in real-world public schools. I've talked to teachers in my State about class size reduction. These teachers told me the benefits of smaller class size. They say that when class sizes are smaller, they see better student achievement, fewer discipline problems, more individual attention, better parent-teacher communication, and dramatic results for poor and minority students. These are the kinds of things we need in our public schools. Our kids deserve this investment. In Washington State, the funds included in this bill will provide over $25 million to the State for the purpose of reducing class size. Currently, over 600 teachers have been hired with Federal class size reduction funds across the State to reduce class size. With the funds secured this year, Washington State will be able to hire approximately additional 130 new teachers to reduce class size. This appropriations agreement also makes an important investment in school construction. Students across this country are going to school in inadequate facilities. The majority of students in this country attend schools that are over 40 years old. These have leaky roofs, inadequate heating and cooling, and are not the type of learning environment that goes hand in hand with expecting our students to achieve high standards. This bill makes an investment in school construction, providing $1.2 billion for this purpose. In addition, it makes an investment in teacher quality. Our districts need help in the area of teacher quality. The districts need to be able to provide teachers the support they need, and make efforts to reach out and bring more highly qualified people into the teaching profession. This appropriations bill provides a $150 million increase over last year in our investment to improve teacher quality. This bill provides more than a 30-percent increase for IDEA, the biggest increase in the program history. I'm sure there is not a member of this Senate who has not visited a school district and heard the struggles the district faces in funding special education services. This bill provides $1.35 billion more for IDEA than last year. We should not back down from this commitment to our schools. The bill provides close to a 50-percent increase for after school programs. The funding is raised from $435 million to $851 million. There is a much needed investment in child care. There is a 70- percent increase in child care funding, bringing the funding up to $2 billion. With these additional funds, nearly 150,000 children will receive child care subsidies. An increase of over $1 billion in Head Start: These funds would allow an additional 70,000 children to participate in Head Start. The bill invests in college opportunities for students. The $450 increase in the Pell Grant Program and the substantial increase for SEOG, LEAP, and Federal work-study will give more families the ability to send their children to college. While I am extremely disappointed that this Congress failed to finish consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I am glad we were able to make a commitment to kids through this appropriations bill. Investing in reducing class size, teacher quality, college affordability, and things to help our young children like Head Start and child care are the kind of investments we need in this country. While these investments are not quite as high as the ones agreed to in October, I still believe we are moving the right direction in this bill by investing in the things that we know work. Kids, teachers and parents across this country deserve these investments. And while I have focused my remarks on education, I should note that this bill contains vital investments in many key areas like health care. I am immensely proud of the increased investments we are making in health care research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. These investments represent our strong commitment to finding cures to life threatening ailments like breast and prostrate cancer, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis. This bill funds key health projects in Washington State like Children's Hospital and others. This bill makes an essential investment in health care with $35 billion for BBRA relief. These improvements are imperative for access to quality health care for people everywhere. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of these changes to hospitals, home health, skilled nursing facilities which serve the elderly. Ensuring this population has high quality health care is high priority, and I commend my colleagues for recognizing this pressing need. As a member of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues to join in support for this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the chairman yield to me on this issue?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left under my control?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire have 5 minutes, the Senator from North Dakota have 3 minutes, and that any other Senators who wish to bring their statements and have them printed in the Record at this point regarding Senator Gorton be able to do so.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time does the Senator from New Hampshire need?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from New Mexico whatever time he needs to speak about Senator Gorton.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as we all know congressional lame duck sessions following an election are a rarity. They usually arise when Congress is unable to finish its business in a timely fashion, and that is true with this year as well. But this session affords me and this Congress an opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to the service of an esteemed colleague. Senator Slade Gorton, the Senior Senator from Washington state, will be ending his service here after 18 years in the Senate. Washingtonians--regardless of party affiliation--have come up to me with high praise and appreciation for Senator Gorton's long service to our state, our country and this proud institution. I want to share with my colleagues a passage from an editorial this week in the Everett Herald. The Herald editorial reads, History will rank Gorton with Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson and Senator Warren G. Magnuson as an extraordinary leader in D.C. on behalf of the state. Throughout his career in the Senate and state government, Gorton has been a leading force in many major efforts to protect the environment. He also has been a consistent, passionate advocate for individuals with problems dealing with bureaucracy. Within the Senate, Gorton has been a grand force for reasoned bipartisanship, never afraid to take a strong stand but also willing to work graciously and effectively with members of the opposition even at the tensest moments. Many of our colleagues are well aware of Slade's history of public service. As a young man, Slade Gorton moved to Washington state from Chicago almost 50 years ago. He wanted to go West in search of new opportunities. And with $300 and a one-way ticket on a Greyhound bus, Slade Gorton moved to Washington State. History has shown that this Midwest native fit right into Washington State. And like so many immigrants to our great State, Slade Gorton was welcomed and given an opportunity to make the most of his talents. From the very beginning, Slade Gorton went to work on behalf of Washington State. First, he married Sally Clark from Selah, Washington. That same year--1958--Slade went into politics and was elected to the Washington State House of Representatives where he rose to serve as the majority leader. In 1968, he was elected attorney general of Washington State. On numerous occasions on several historic cases, Slade represented the people of Washington before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Warren Burger once said that Slade, ``makes the best arguments before the Supreme Court of any Attorney General in America.'' He was also recognized with the prestigious Wyman Award given to the outstanding attorney general in the United States. By this time, Slade had also become a respected leader throughout Washington State. After three terms as the Washington State Attorney General, Slade Gorton ran for an won a seat in the United States Senate. He was elected three times to the United States Senate giving him an impressive record of winning statewide election six times in Washington. All of this is offered as a brief history of Slade's many years of service. With time, there will certainly be many public tributes to Senator Gorton. But what I'd like to focus on now is our time together in the United States Senate and the work we were able to do together over the last eight years. I am sure all of my colleagues share my own appreciation for the support, guidance, and sacrifices our families make so that we can serve in the Senate. Our successes throughout our careers in public service are shared with our families. We rely on them in so many ways. And that is certainly true for Slade Gorton. Sally and Slade have been partners for all of his years of service. From Olympia, Washington to Washington, D.C., Sally Gorton has been there each and every day. She and Slade have three children and seven grandchildren, who I know bring immense pride to the Gorton family. So, as we acknowledge and honor Slade Gorton, I want to pay special tribute to Sally Gorton and the entire Gorton Family. We've all had to endure some tough things in seeking to represent our States in the Senate. We accept that politics can sometimes be rough. Our families--as our biggest defenders--often take it more personally than we do. And, like all political families, the Gorton family has been instrumental to all of Slade's many successes. Washington State is proud and appreciative of all that Sally Gorton has also done. Much has been said in Washington State about the differences between Senator Gorton and myself. And while Slade and I have had our differences, not enough has been said about our ability to work together on behalf of Washington State. Slade Gorton was a champion for Washington State. When the interests of Washington State were at stake, we were a great team. I will miss our ability to work together on a bipartisan basis, combining our strengths, to represent our great State. As my colleagues know, there is also no greater adversary in the United States Senate than Slade Gorton. When Senator Gorton took on an issue, everyone knew they had better prepare for an energetic and spirited fight. Senators on both sides of the aisle know what a challenge it is to take on Senator Gorton. Most of you didn't have to take those fights home to your constituencies like I did. But those differences between Senator Gorton and I were rare. And they were never personal or vindictive. There were no political vendettas, and we were always able to move onto the next issue of importance to our constituents. Ask the Clinton administration and the Justice Department what it is like to take on an issue and differ with Slade Gorton. He was a champion for Microsoft in its ongoing legal battles with the Department of Justice. I respected his work on behalf of Microsoft and was proud to work with him on behalf of our constituents. And certainly, all of Washington State appreciated his determined efforts to represent one of the great symbols of Washington State. Ask the Bush administration what it was like to do battle with Slade Gorton when he fought his own party to save the National Endowment for the Arts. Despite Washington, DC's strong desire to label us all, Slade was always open. And when he took on a cause, he often surprised people. Throughout his career in both Washingtons, Slade defied labels. Most recently, Senator Gorton and I worked very closely on the issue of pipeline safety. Unfortunately, a tragedy in Bellingham, Washington claimed three young lives and scarred forever a community. Slade was right there with me from the very beginning, working to raise the profile of the issue and eventually pass through the Senate the toughest pipeline safety legislation ever adopted by either body of Congress. Senator Gorton was instrumental to this effort. Working together, we took on some very powerful interests and extracted some tough compromises. At the Appropriations Committee, Senator Gorton and I teamed up on numerous instances each and every year to advance and protect Washington's many interests. From agriculture research programs benefiting apple growers and wheat farmers to export promotion programs to land exchanges. Washington was the only State with two appropriators. We were fortunate. More so because Slade chaired the Interior Subcommittee where Washington has so many interests. We worked together to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. We were partners in the effort to ease the Puget Sound area's very difficult traffic congestion problems at the Transportation Subcommittee where we both served. Beyond the Appropriations Committee, there are so many other issues that we worked well together on behalf of Washington State. Commercial fisheries is immensely important to our State and we worked closely on the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 and the American Fisheries Act in 1998. We recently worked together to pay tribute to a Nisei veteran and Washington State native William Kenzo Nakamura by naming a courthouse after him in Seattle, Washington. We did work collaboratively on selecting Federal judges in a time when confirming judges was overly partisan. We succeeded in getting our judges through this difficult process by working together. Time and again, we both worked to help Boeing in its relationships with many foreign aircraft customers. Whether working with USTR or a foreign government, Slade worked hard for the almost 100,000 Washington State families who work at Boeing and rely on aircraft sales. Senator Gorton and I also worked closely on health care issues important to our constituents. We worked together to boost the growing biotech sector in our State and the promising future that companies like Immunex and others are building in Washington State. From securing research dollars to representing the UW Medical School, Washington State's health care needs were well served by the work of Senator Gorton. Here, like in so many areas, he had an impact for the betterment of our State and our country. He was a champion on autism issues and I regularly worked with him to expand health care for children. Senator Gorton was always known for tremendous staff work both in Washington, DC and throughout the State of Washington. He has served as a mentor to literally thousands of professionals. The family tree of Gorton staffers past and present is a truly impressive list of Washingtonians. One of Senator Gorton's greatest and lasting contributions to our State will be the years of public service his former staffers will give to Washington State. My staff and I have worked closely with Senator Gorton's staff. That working relationship was always interrupted by an annual softball game that could be as competitive as any Apple Cup football game between the University of Washington and Washington State University. I am proud to say the Murray softball team won its share of games. But so did the Gorton team. And there were a couple of years where Senator Gorton himself contributed to his team's wins. It was a friendly rivalry but I am sure Slade will agree, we both really wanted to win that game. The Gorton staff is as loyal as any on Capitol Hill. And I am sure they will have an opportunity to thank Senator Gorton for all of his personal and professional guidance and assistance. But I am also sure they would want me to say to Senator Gorton that they believed in his work and that they will always be proud to call themselves Gorton staffers. This is certainly a time of change for the country and for the Senate. And while Senator Gorton will leave the Senate, we shouldn't expect to see him fade from the public scene. At home, he will continue to be a respected leader with perhaps many opportunities ahead to further shape and influence our State. And, perhaps his service in Washington, DC will continue as well. Change may seem uncertain but I am confident--just as he did almost 50 years ago on the Greyhound bus--that Senator Gorton will make the most of the new opportunities to come. Senator Gorton, on behalf of all of Washington State, thank you for making Washington State your home. We have benefited enormously from the decision you made as a young man to settle in Washington State. Your service here in the Senate is one proud part of a dedicated and accomplished career in public service. I yield the floor to my colleague Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of statements regarding Senator Gorton and his distinguished service. I want to take particular note of the statement by our colleague, Joe Lieberman, who could not be here today. Senator Gorton and Senator Lieberman worked on many initiatives over the years. I want to read his statement: Mr. President, I wish to express my greatest respect and affection for Slade Gorton of Washington with whom I have enjoyed working closely for a number of years. Slade's life is characterized by his commitment to faith, family, service, and law. As he leaves the Senate, I want to reminisce about some of the matters I have been privileged to work with Slade Gorton. Over the years, Senator Slade Gorton has been a great leader on educational reform, striving to raise the performance of our nation's elementary and secondary schools and the quality of education so that all children may reach a high level of academic achievement. The senior Senator for Washington and I have worked together on a number of proposals to improve our educational system. His contributions have led the way for better educational accountability and innovation in the years ahead. Of great importance to our country are Slade Gorton's continued efforts to preserve and honor American history by calling for stronger history curriculum standards and literacy awareness in our colleges and universities. I truly believe such endeavors help to unite our nation by demonstrating the importance of our shared heritage and civic culture as Americans. One of my most memorable experiences with Slade was the work we did together after the House impeached President Clinton. All of us in the Senate knew that how we handled the impeachment trial would test us all--both individually and as an institution. We could either fall into intense partisanship, miring ourselves and the country in lengthy and disruptive proceedings that threatened to leave this institution demeaned and scarred, or we could rise above partisanship and join together in a way that preserved this body's dignity while at the same time ensuring a full airing of the issues before us. Slade took the lead in guiding us to a dignified path, formulating a plan that ultimately formed the basis of the process the Senate adopted. Notwithstanding his personal views, his love for his country and this institution led him to put principle above partisanship and to formulate a plan for resolving the impeachment case before it wreaked more havoc on the Senate and the nation. I was delighted to work on that plan with him, and was impressed again by the civilized, thoughtful, and nonpartisan way in which Slade Gorton proceeded. I truly believe that his leadership was instrumental in seeing the Senate through that difficult time with honor. Slade Gorton leaves the Senate with much to be proud of, and much to look forward to. For my wife and myself, I send Slade and Sally and their wonderful family love and every good wish for the next great chapter of their lives. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several editorials regarding Senator Gorton's long service to our State of Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may need to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my disappointment with the Bankruptcy Conference Report. I reluctantly will be voting no on the final conference agreement because it fails the fairness test and because it fails to protect the most vulnerable families facing dire financial times. I have supported bankruptcy reform in the past. I continue to support fair and balanced reforms to prohibit the misuse of the bankruptcy code and to prohibit individuals from using the code as a shield against honoring their financial commitments. We need reform because we all pay for the abuses. Working families struggling with the cost of credit deserve reform. Families trying to save to purchase their first home cannot afford the added burden forced on them due to abuse of our bankruptcy laws. Unfortunately, the final product presented to the Senate is unacceptable. In an attempt to prevent a fair and open debate, this conference report has bypassed the normal legislative process, and Senators have been denied the opportunity to improve the legislation. Clearly this conference report has been driven by special interests and not the interests of working families. It does not ensure that mothers and children who depend on child support and alimony payments won't lose out to big special interests. It does not require any responsible actions by credit card companies in educating or informing consumers to the cost of debt. This conference report is vastly different from the bill that passed the Senate in March. I supported that bill. The conference report before us, however, will make it impossible for families to seek bankruptcy protection when they are hit with overwhelming financial problems often caused by events beyond their control. In many cases, families are forced into bankruptcy due to unexpected medical bills caused by a disabling accident or condition. Many women are forced into bankruptcy due to the break up of their family and their inability to collect court ordered child support. These families should not be turned away simply because credit card companies made reckless decisions in issuing credit to individuals unable to manage debt or unaware of the costs of managing debt. This conference report also eliminates the Schumer Clinic Violence Amendment that I cosponsored and that I believe must be part of any reform bill. We cannot allow those who use violence or the threat of violence to shield themselves from financial responsibilities by running to bankruptcy court. Without the Schumer amendment, the Bankruptcy Code will continue to be subject to exploitation by perpetrators of violence against women. Protecting access to reproductive health clinics and providers is not an abortion issue, but a women's health and safety issue. Violent anti-choice groups provide legal assistance to violent protesters on how to use the Code to protect their assets against possible financial liability. Their criminal debts are simply excused under the current Code. This conference report fails to close that loophole. The Schumer amendment was adopted on an 80 to 17 vote, but the final conference agreement simply dropped this bipartisan anti- violence amendment. We know that this conference report will be vetoed and has little or no chance of becoming law. The decision to push this through in a partisan manner has jeopardized bankruptcy reform. As a result, working families will suffer. I am hopeful that with the new Congress and the need to work in a bipartisan manner we will see real bankruptcy reform in the next Congress. I will continue to work for reform that is balanced, fair and that protects women against violence and intimidation. I want reform, but not at the expense of women or children. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues will honor the mandate we all received in the election. The American people did not give one party or one philosophy a mandate to govern. They want a bipartisan Congress that will put aside political bickering and special interest and work to solve the problems facing real people and real families.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, one of the most important issues we consider here in the U.S. Senate is how to balance our economic needs with our responsibility to conserve our natural resources. I believe we can strike the right balance. With that hope, I'd like to talk about America's fisheries. In the Pacific Northwest, fishing is more than just a way of life. It is an important part of our economy and contributes to our region's culture. Unfortunately, that way of life is becoming more difficult. Many fishing families are struggling because some fish stocks are at very low levels. For example, the West Coast salmon and groundfish and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries have declined dramatically in recent years. Washington's fishing families contribute to our economy and feed consumers both here and abroad, but too often they work within a system that threatens their safety and their livelihood. I've met with harvesters and processors from my region, and I've visited small towns in Washington state that depend on fisheries. The problems they face aren't limited to Washington state. They can also be seen in Alaska and other states. In an effort to recover decreasing numbers of fish in our waters, fisheries managers have developed complex management systems to limit fishing. In some cases, our current policies encourage fishers to catch as many fish as possible over a limited period of time. This creates a dangerous and inefficient ``race for fish'', which requires fishermen to venture out in bad weather. In fact, one of the most dangerous occupations for young people today is to work in the Bering Sea/ Aleutian Island crab fishery. The ``race for fish'' is one way to manage fisheries in which too many fishermen are competing for too few fish. However, there are alternatives to this management approach. I'm proud that there is a growing interest in an innovative management tool called individual fishing quotas. This creative approach uses the marketplace to encourage a safer, more productive, and more sustainable fishing industry. In some cases, it would be a significant improvement over the status quo. Individual fishing quotas or IFQs would bring some regularity to what are currently short-lived, intense fishing seasons. Under this system, each participant in a fishery would be allocated a percentage of that season's total fish catch. Because they are guaranteed a certain amount of fish, fishermen wouldn't have to ``race for fish.'' They could stretch their fishing out over longer, more balanced fishing seasons. I believe that individual fishing quotas can help fisherman, fisheries, conservation, and consumers. IFQs can help fishing families because boats won't need to go out in dangerous weather. In addition, because of the slower pace, fishermen would be less likely to lose fishing gear, a common problem in some fisheries. This new system can help fisheries because fishermen will be able to sell or lease quota. That means there will be fewer boats, which can mean cleaner, more efficient fisheries. In addition, IFQs can improve conservation. In some cases when the fishery slows down, fishermen take better care of their catch and are more careful with bycatch. Let's look at just one example of how the speed of the current system hurts conservation. Currently, some North Pacific crabs that are too small to be caught legally end up trapped in crab pots. Under the race for fish, these pots are harvested so quickly that undersized crabs don't have time to escape. Under a slower fishery, those small crabs would have time to crawl out of the crab pots and grow to maturity, thereby helping to sustain the fishery into the future. For consumers, IFQs mean they can enjoy fresh fish later in the seasons. For example, fresh halibut is now available more often as a result of a fish quota program put in place to manage halibut harvesting. Clearly, individual fishing quotas can be an effective management tool and can solve a lot of the problems facing fisheries today. I'm pleased that many of my colleagues have expressed interest in IFQs. In fact, a number of members would like to see a national policy on IFQs developed. Since 1996, I've supported fish quotas and a national policy, and I reiterate my support again today. But in the meantime, there are important steps we can take. When Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1996, Congress placed a four-year moratorium on new individual fishing quota programs. The moratorium on new quota programs expired on September 30, 2000. Now that this ban has expired, we should allow fishery management councils to develop additional fish quota programs. Councils should have the freedom to develop and implement these programs. I am not advocating that Councils be required to implement them, because individual fishing quota programs must be developed on a fishery-by-fishery basis. I do think, however, that individual quota programs should be available as one of the many management tools Councils may draw upon. I must add that all eight Councils have asked for this freedom and have asked for Congress to lift the moratorium. However, I know that some members want to extend the moratorium. They don't want to allow some fisheries to go ahead with IFQs until there is a national policy in place. I understand and appreciate this perspective. I also recognize members of the environmental community would be more comfortable with such programs if a national policy were already in place. As I said, I support a national policy on these programs, and I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to develop one. However, I would like to point out that all fishery management plans, including those that rely on quota programs, are required to meet the national standards already in the Act. Let me offer a few examples of these standards. Any fish quota program would have to meet National Standard 4, which prohibits conservation and management measures from discriminating between residents of different states. This standard also mandates that fishing privileges be allocated fairly and equitably, that they are calculated to promote conservation, and that they are carried out so that no entity shall have an excessive share. Any fish quota program would also have to meet National Standard 8, which requires such measures to take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities. They would also have to meet National Standard 9, which requires measures to minimize bycatch, and National Standard 10, which addresses safety. In addition, the Act requires all individual fishing quota programs approved on or after October 1, 2000, to meet several additional criteria. For example, these programs must be subject to review based on any future national policy and such revision may require reallocation of quota. These programs must also be effectively managed and enforced, which may require reliance on observers and/or cost- recovery fees. In addition, these criteria address the most contentious aspect of individual quota programs: the initial allocation of quota. The Act requires programs to ensure a fair initial allocation of quota, to prevent excessive control over quota, and to include a mechanism for entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners and crew members to access quota. I think all of these examples illustrate that some elements integral to a national policy on individual fishing quota programs are already included in the Act. I believe we are much closer to having a national policy in place than some people may believe. Unfortunately, it appears likely that the moratorium will be extended. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to consider several caveats to this extension. First, I ask that the moratorium be extended for only 8 months. This will take the moratorium off the appropriations cycle. Placing the moratorium on the yearly appropriations cycle creates a precedent that is easy to repeat every year. Taking the moratorium off the appropriations cycle will increase the urgency for Congress to develop a national policy within the months ahead. Second, I ask for an exception to the moratorium for fixed-gear sablefish along the West Coast. This fishery is ready for fishermen to be allowed to consolidate permits, which is technically considered an IFQ. In fact, the fishery has been ready to do so since 1994. We should not make these fishermen wait any longer. They deserve to be freed from a 9-day race for fish, and fishermen who want to get out of the fishery should be compensated for their investments. I ask for your support for this exception. Third, I support asking NMFS to gather input from the eight regional Councils on a national policy for individual fishing quotas. It is appropriate and important for Congress to have this input before we finalize a national policy on quota programs. Most important, however, I ask for the commitment of my colleagues to deal with this issue next year, during the first session of the 107th Congress. It is not fair to punish those few fisheries that are ready to move forward with quota programs just because other fisheries are not. We have already had four years to resolve these issues, to no avail. If my colleagues believe this issue must be addressed within the broader context of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization, I understand and I hope they will consider this Senator ready and willing to move forward with that challenge. I support Senator Snowe's and Senator Kerry's efforts to hold more hearings on reauthorization, and I offer to help them in any way I can to ensure it happens. Let's commit ourselves to have a productive, comprehensive dialogue on a national policy. Let's commit to reaching a consensus that will allow our Councils and fisheries to pursue this innovative, effective solution that can work for fishing families, fisheries, conservation and consumers.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the HELP Committee in urging passage of this important bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. For more than 30 years, the Older Americans Act has been our Nation's most important resource for helping seniors get the services they need in their own communities. The OAA provides funding for senior centers, transportation, recreation, adult education, Meals-on-Wheels, preventive health care, and other essential services. In fiscal year 2000 alone, OAA programs have provided more than $15 million in services in Washington State. In addition, the act provides resources for the Nation's largest program for older workers, and it provides subsidized jobs and training to more than 65,000 low-income workers over age 54. With more people retiring, the demand for OAA services has grown dramatically in recent years. Unfortunately, the program has not kept pace with current needs. Today, we have an opportunity to finally reauthorize the Older Americans Act, and I'm calling on my colleagues to pass a clean reauthorization bill that is based on the bipartisan legislation developed by the members of the HELP Committee. As a member of the Aging Subcommittee of the HELP Committee, I have been eager to pass a strong reauthorization bill, While I'm disappointed it has taken so long, I know this bill will improve the programs that seniors and their families rely on. As I have traveled around my State, I've seen the impact these programs are making. It's not just seniors who want the act reauthorized. Their families, physicians and communities also want to see the Act strengthened. The safety net programs authorized in the Older Americans Act provide a life line for our most vulnerable citizens. The Older Americans Act closes the gaps in services and offers seniors a way to maintain a dignified quality of life. The nutritional assistance programs alone are critical to addressing the needs of low and moderate income seniors. Job training programs allow seniors to keep their economic independence and to maintain important social ties to their communities. The most significant improvement in this legislation is the creation of the new Family Caregiver Support program. This innovative new program will offer families real support in meeting the long term care needs of their loved ones. It will also provide assistance to older spouses--often older women-- who are left to care for a frail family member. The Aging Subcommittee heard testimony from many family members who are struggling to care for their aging parents. Because they don't have any help, they face significant financial and emotional burdens. I know this new program will begin to address the problems facing those families who are caring for aging relatives in their homes. I thank the chairman of the Aging Subcommittee, Senator DeWine, for his leadership in making this bill a reality. I also thank Senator Mikulski for her efforts and hard work in making sure we honor the commitment to our seniors before we adjourn for the year. I urge my colleagues to defeat the pending amendment and send this bill to the President without further delay. We cannot allow this session to end without continuing the programs that have served America's seniors so well throughout the years. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee to express my strong support for this conference report. I want to extend my congratulations to Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell as this is clearly one of the best Foreign Operations bills produced in recent years. This is a good bill which will advance U.S. interests on many fronts. This is a good bill for my constituents who are engaged in global affairs in everything from international trade to humanitarian relief efforts. This is always a tough bill to finish because it address several very controversial issues. Unlike years past, however, this bill is being widely praised by both parties and by the Administration. Again, that is a tribute to the leaders of our subcommittee who worked so hard to bridge very difficult issues. Perhaps the most significant agreement within this bill is the commitment to fulfill U.S. obligations on debt relief. By providing the requested $435 million for debt relief, this Congress is sending a powerful message to the poorest countries in the world. The U.S. and the international community, by following through on debt relief to the world's poorest citizens, can give new hope to millions of people. I am proud to have supported this effort. And I am so proud of my constituents who embraced campaigns like Jubilee 2000 which made debt relief an issue no one could ignore. I want to single out one gentleman in particular who touched so many of us here on Capitol Hill with his work. The Reverend David Duncombe from White Salmon, Washington was a heroic champion for debt relief. On two occasions in the last year, Reverend Duncombe staged hunger strikes here in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate the effects of starvation on the human body. Reverend Duncombe visited my office almost every Wednesday morning when he was in Washington, D.C. He stood before us all, day after day, in solidarity with the millions of people affected by this issue. Passage of debt relief is a genuine tribute to people like David Duncombe who rallied Americans to the debt relief cause all across our country. I'm proud Americans came together to ensure our foreign aid dollars will make a difference for poor citizens around the world. I am strongly in support of this bill's increased funding for international family planning. This bill also repeals the global ``Gag'' order which has crippled our international family planning efforts in previous bills. We know that more and more women in the developing world are starting businesses and contributing to the economic health of families. These women want access to family planning programs and information to build strong, sustainable families. It is time to take our domestic political debate out of the international family planning appropriations process once and for all. International family planning programs help save the lives of women throughout the world. International family planning in a health issue and should be treated that way. This bill is also strong in the area of export promotion. This bill provides more than $900 million to the Export-Import Bank of the United States which facilitates job creating exports from throughout our country. Other trade promotion entities like OPIC and TDA will receive increased funding under this bill as well. These programs are tangible, real proof that our foreign aid program generates jobs and economic opportunity for Americans. There's so much more in this bill which will benefit America's interests. We continue our strong program of microcredit lending. Our commitment to UNICEF and important organizations like the Peace Corps continues with this bill. And we are providing increased funding to confront AIDS, tuberculosis and other health threats to the developing world. I am particularly supportive of the bill's $50 million contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines & Immunizations. The Foreign Operations Subcommittee has devoted much energy to the GAVI effort, and I encourage the Senate to continue its involvement in this promising program. Our efforts to assist Russia and the former Soviet states as they continue to struggle with reform are key parts of this bill. Washington state is particularly interested in the Russian Far East. This bill funds democracy-building initiatives, economic transition and other programs for most regions of the former Soviet Union. It's frustrating work, but I support this assistance because it is important to our national interest. In other parts of the world, this bill funds human rights work, environmental protection programs, and other important democracy-building initiatives. From Burma to Serbia to Latin America, this bill works to advance America's interests in so many areas. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important conference report.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Missouri in telling the family of Mel Carnahan how deeply sorry we all are. It must be a terribly difficult time for the citizens of his State, for his family, and for everyone who knew him. I hope we can carry on his tradition, one about which he talked so much in the last four decades, of making sure all of our children get a good education and the people of this great country have the opportunities about which he cared so deeply. I thank the Senator from Missouri.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk about education. In the past month, students across our country have gone back to school. They have entered schools where there are health and safety hazards, and they are trying to learn in classrooms that are overcrowded. They are competing for the time and attention of a teacher, and they are looking to us for support. I am frustrated to say this, but as this session of Congress draws to a close, this Congress has done very little to support those children across this country. This Congress, for the first time in 30 years, has failed to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is a disservice to students who are trying to learn in overcrowded classrooms, to students who are stuck in crumbling schools, and to students who do not feel safe at school. We can't pass ESEA reauthorization; it is too late. But we do have one place to make it up: in the final funding plan for the upcoming fiscal year. There are kids out there counting on us to do the right thing, and we need to pass a budget that addresses their needs. That is why I have come to the floor today, to urge my colleagues to do just that. As I look back on this session of Congress, I am frustrated by the way this process has broken down. We have been updating our national education policy for about 30 years. It has always been a bipartisan and productive process--but not this year. This year, the ESEA reauthorization was stalled by sharp partisanship. We had a chance to make a lot of progress, but this Congress failed. We weren't able to update our Nation's education policy to meet the needs of today's classrooms. As a parent, as a former educator and a former school board member, that is discouraging. What is even more discouraging is some of the talk that we have heard on the campaign trail this year. Not long ago, Governor Bush said that our country is experiencing a ``recession in education.'' I have thought a lot about that statement. To the teachers who are working harder than ever, it certainly doesn't feel like a recession. In fact, I think Governor Bush has it exactly backward. A recession is where there is a slowdown in economic activity, when production and employment decline, when there isn't much demand, when workers are idle and factories are slow. That is a recession. But that is not what is happening in education today at all. Our schools are not slowing down; they are working harder than ever. Our classrooms aren't empty; they are overcrowded. Our teachers aren't being idle because they are not needed; they are needed more now than ever. It is not that demand has slowed. The demands on our schools are higher than ever. The problem is our investment has not kept up. Any enterprise or business that wants to stay in business invests in its people, invests in the latest equipment, invests in capital projects, so that the capacity will keep up with the demand. That is what we have to do. But for some reason, when it comes to our schools, we have not made those investments. We have let schools that were built 40 or 50 years ago simply decline. We have let great educators leave the classroom because they are frustrated by a system that doesn't give them the support or respect they deserve. Governor Bush, we are not in an education recession; we are in a period of explosive growth and growing demand in the classroom, and we need to make the investment to meet that growing demand. Governor Bush has the problem backward and that is why he has come up with the wrong solution. As a parent of two students who went to public school, I can tell you I don't want our next President to close down my school; I want him to make my school better. You don't do that by bashing public schools. You do it by investing in the things that we know work in the classroom. I have said it before and I will say it again: Our schools are facing overwhelming challenges with inadequate resources. Our public schools are not failing, but by failing to invest in them this Congress is failing our public schools. We need to give our schools the resources, the tools, and the support to meet today's challenges. There are important needs in my home State in classrooms. Sitting here in the Chamber, it is easy to forget the challenges that schools face across the country. If this Chamber is about to go into recess without making an investment in education, it needs to hear directly from people on the front line. So I decided to read a few letters I have received from students and teachers in my home State of Washington. Kristen Jensen Story is a parent and a teacher at White Center Heights Elementary School in the Highline School District. At her school, the majority of the students live in public housing and come from homes where English is not the first language. She tells me: We have been working hard to make sure these children succeed and become contributing citizens to our great Nation. The need for Federal public education funding is greater now than ever before. We have the money. The Federal budget is forecasted to have a $1.9 trillion surplus over the next decade. Make the funding of public education a national priority. Let me read another letter. This one is from Becky Scheiderer, a teacher from the Bethel School District in Washington State. She writes: Children cannot wait another session. She goes on to explain some of the challenges her school is facing: Our students need to continue the successful programs, such as Title I, special education, and smaller class sizes to work with these students inclusively. Our district is growing, and we need schools constructed soon. Our teachers, students and staff need safe schools to work in for 7.5 hours a day. The need for Federal funding is even greater now than ever before. Those are some of the real challenges facing our schools, and you don't fix them by bashing educators; you fix them by making an investment in the things that we know work. I want to turn to a few investments that we should be making in our final budget plan. It is our last chance this year to do the right thing for America's students. Let me start with making classrooms less crowded. We know our classrooms are overcrowded and we know that students can learn the basics, with fewer discipline problems, in less crowded classrooms. Parents know it, students know it, teachers know it, and studies show it. Two years ago, we made an investment in making classrooms less crowded. I am pleased to report that the investment is paying off for America's students. It is making a positive difference in their education. We gave local school districts the money to go out and hire more than 29,000 new qualified teachers for the early grades. And today, 1.7 million students are learning in less crowded classrooms. Our goal is to hire 100,000 new teachers. You would think that with the success we have had so far, there would be no question that we would keep our commitment to reducing class size. But that is not the case in this Congress. Right now, there is no guarantee that schools across the country will have funding guaranteed to reduce classroom overcrowding. Some of my colleagues on the Republican side say we don't need to commit money for class size reduction. They say if schools want to hire teachers, let them take the money out of title VI funding. Reducing overcrowding should not be done at the expense of something else. That money should be there--guaranteed to make a positive difference for students. In this debate, two things have been forgotten. First, part of the Federal role is to help disadvantaged students. The class size program is set up to target funding to low-income schools. If you dump that program into a block grant, there is no guarantee that it will be focused toward disadvantaged students. Title I, homeless and migrant education programs are all targeted to ensure that disadvantaged students get the help they need. A block grant offers no guarantees. The second point overlooked in this debate is the importance of accountability. Under a block grant, there is no guarantee this money will go to hire new teachers. Block grants mean less accountability. Right now, we can show that money was spent and how it is making a difference. If the money is block granted, we have no idea if it is making classrooms less crowded. Today, everybody is talking about accountability, and the best way to ensure accountability is to show that Federal dollars are being spent in a specific, targeted way to reach a specific goal. If we put Federal education funding into a block grant, there is no way to keep that money accountable. Class size is just one of the areas in which we need to invest. Let me mention another: school construction and modernization. Today, too many students enter school buildings that are crumbling or that have major safety hazards. In fact, 7 million students attend schools with safety code violations, including the presence of asbestos, lead paint, or radon in ceilings or walls. Almost 16 million students in this country attend schools without proper heating, ventilation, or air-conditioning. And too many of our schools don't have the technological infrastructure to meet our students' needs. For example, in our poorest schools, only 39 percent of classrooms have Internet access. We need to pass legislation that will give local school districts the financial help they need to build new schools and to modernize old ones. I want to turn to teacher quality. We can help ensure that every teacher in America is fully qualified and has the tools and the support to help our children reach their full potential. Today, there are thousands of world-class, high-quality teachers in our schools. They are professionals. They care deeply about the quality of our children's education, and any of us would be lucky to have our children learn from them. But the current system makes it harder and harder for teachers to really do their best. Instead of offering them the support they need to make a difference, the current system puts roadblocks in front of too many teachers. Teachers and parents have told me that the main challenges are the three R's: recruiting great teachers, retaining great teachers, and rewarding great teachers. We need to recruit young people into the teaching profession. We need effective, ongoing, professional development programs that are aligned with local standards and curricula. We need efforts to boost pay for great teachers and to raise respect for educators. In the closing weeks of the 106th session, we should be supporting efforts to improve teacher quality. Finally, the subject of accountability. We should not accept defeat or give up on our Nation's schools. We need to identify schools that need extra help and turn those schools around. It is late in the legislative process, and we are in a rush to end this year's session. Let's remember one thing. America's students didn't create this rush. I am standing here today and I will be fighting to make sure that our students are not penalized because this Senate failed to do its work. I know my colleagues are eager to go home, but we still have time to do the right thing. We still have time to support the work that local educators, students, and parents are doing. The way to do it isn't to bash public schools but to put Federal dollars where they will help the most and to keep those dollars accountable. The way to do that is to invest in things that we know work, such as smaller classes, modern facilities, fully qualified teachers, and accountability. It is not too late to do the right thing. Parents, teachers, and students across this country are counting on us to do our part as a responsible Federal partner. Let's not let them down. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his comments. I am looking forward, hopefully, to him chairing the Judiciary Committee next year; so that women such as Bonnie Campbell are not held up for months on end and we actually have a chance to put good, qualified women and minorities into judiciary positions in this country. I also thank the Senator from Vermont for his tremendous work on the Violence Against Women Act, bringing us to a point today where we are finally going to have a vote on this bill, despite the fact there are other parts of this bill that I do not believe should be attached to it. I appreciate his efforts because this is an extremely important bill. I have come to the floor to express my strong support for reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and to endorse the pending conference report. In communities across America, the Violence Against Women Act has been an overwhelming success. It has empowered women and children to escape violent relationships, and it has helped to put abusers behind bars. On every account, the Violence Against Women Act deserves to be reauthorized. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation. It is unfortunate that reauthorization was allowed to lapse this past month, but I am pleased the Republican leadership has finally agreed that reauthorization must be a priority. I wish we had reached the conclusion earlier in this session. This subject deserves a much more open and extended debate than has been allowed, but I want to take full advantage of the opportunity before us, the chance to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA has been nothing short of historic. Not long ago, domestic violence was considered a private family matter. That perception made it very difficult for women to get help and for communities to confront domestic violence. But all of that changed in 1994. I am very proud to have worked to pass the Violence Against Women Act because, for the first time, our Nation recognized domestic violence for what it is--a violent crime and a public health threat. Through the Violence Against Women Act, we created a national strategy for dealing with violence against women. Today, looking back, it is very clear just how revolutionary the act was. For the first time, it established a community-wide response, bringing together cops and prosecutors, shelters and advocates and others on the front lines of domestic violence. It authorized programs to give financial and technical support to police departments to focus on domestic violence and to encourage arrests. It recognized and supported the essential role of the courts in ensuring justice. It provided funding for battered women's shelters and for programs that address the public health impact of domestic violence. VAWA authorized funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for Rape Prevention and Education, and it helped establish a national toll-free hotline for victims of domestic violence. Today, 1-800-799-SAFE offers battered women immediate help. In fact, every month, that hotline receives more than 13,000 calls. Back in 1994, some people wondered whether this unprecedented national strategy would work. Today, 6 years later, the facts are in and it is clear that the Violence Against Women Act has been a success. Arrests and convictions are up. We have more than doubled funding for battered women's shelters. Since 1994, we have appropriated close to $2 billion for VAWA-related programs. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, one of my highest priorities has always been increasing funding for the Violence Against Women Act programs. In communities throughout my State and others, the need is overwhelming, and funding makes a dramatic difference. Working with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have seen funding for shelters climb from $10 million to more than $100 million. I know Senator Specter has been a strong advocate for the Violence Against Women Act programs. I am pleased that VAWA has always been a bipartisan issue in appropriations. While we have much to be proud of today, we cannot forget that abuse is still too common. In Washington State, my home State, the toll-free domestic violence hotline received more than 37,000 calls between July 1998 and July 1999. We cannot forget that there are still too few resources for women in need. In my State during that same period, 23,806 women and children were turned away from shelters--turned away as they sought help because the resources were not there. We cannot forget that not all communities offer a full range of services, and not all police departments are equipped to handle a life- threatening domestic violence call. The truth is, while the Violence Against Women Act was a historic first step, it was just that, a first step. The time has come for us to build on the foundation created by that act. VAWA offered an immediate response to the threat of violence. Now it is time to address the long- term issues. It is time to confront the long-range economic barriers that trap women and children in violent relationships. I have worked with Senators Wellstone and Schumer to write and introduce the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This legislation tears down economic barriers and breaks the cycle of violence. Our bill deals with employment discrimination, insurance discrimination, housing assistance, legal help, and child care. It addresses the punitive elements of the welfare system that can penalize women who are fleeing dangerous situations. It provides additional help to shelters and providers to meet the overwhelming needs of battered women and children. I had hoped we would have been able to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in a timely manner and move to addressing those economic issues that I have outlined. Unfortunately, we cannot have that debate today or in this session of Congress. But let me assure my colleagues we will be back in the 107th Congress to fight to put these powerful tools in the hands of victims and their advocates. Before I conclude, I want to say a special word of thanks to the many people who have helped us reach this point today. I thank, again, Senator Leahy and Senator Biden for their leadership. They worked very hard to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor today. I also thank all of the advocates who fought so hard to ensure the success of the Violence Against Women Act and who have been aggressive in urging this Congress to act. Without their support in our communities, VAWA would never have been a success. I thank the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence for its dedicated work. I thank all of the advocates, police officers, and community leaders with whom I have worked since 1994 to implement VAWA and to strengthen this important act. I thank the many shelters and organizations that have opened their facilities to me during this session of Congress, including the Tacoma- Pierce County YWCA, Kitsap Special Assault Victims Investigative Services in Bremerton, the Bellingham YWCA, the Vancouver YWCA Domestic Violence Day Care Shelter, the Spokane Domestic Violence Consortium, the Spokane Women's Drop-In Center, and the people at Vashon Island Domestic Violence Outreach Services. As I have visited with them, I have seen firsthand the services they offer and the challenges they face. I have spoken personally with women who have had their lives changed because of the services offered, and I have been impressed by the progress they are making day in and day out. Those experiences have strengthened my determination to support their work in the Senate. In closing, it is clear the Violence Against Women Act has been a remarkable success. We cannot delay authorization any longer, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure. I look forward to working with those in the Senate and those in my State to help build on the progress of the Violence Against Women Act in the next session of Congress. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I've come to the floor to join my colleagues in discussing where our annual budgeting process stands. We are just three days away from the start of the new fiscal year, and the Senate is far behind in its work. The resulting rush is leading some to short-circuit our usual appropriations process. Like so many of my colleagues, I am dismayed that Senators are being denied the opportunity to fully consider and debate these appropriations bills. I want to commend Senator Byrd for his comments today. Senator Byrd is once again speaking for the United States Senate. His comments are neither Republican nor Democrat. With his usual elegance and candor, Senator Byrd is championing this institution, and we should all commend him for that. The Senate that he defends so passionately is one that works for both parties; works for all Senators; and most importantly, works for the American people. Time and again during my eight years of service in this body, I have made the walk from my office to this floor. And each time, I bring with me a certain excitement and anticipation for the great opportunity the people of Washington state have given me to represent them as we debate issues from education to foreign policy to health care. Unfortunately, there have been very few opportunities to come to this floor and engage in meaningful debate. Too often, the majority has sought to either stifle or deny debate on the issues Americans care about. On the rare occasions when we have had debates, they have not resulted in meaningful legislation that has a chance of being signed into law. For example, the Senate spent several weeks debating the Elementary and Secondary Education act. We debated the issues, and we cast tough votes on the ESEA bill. But, for some reason, the bill was shelved by the majority. Now it looks certain to die as the Congress tries to adjourn quickly in this election year. As we watch the clock tick toward the end of the fiscal year this weekend, only two of the 13 appropriations bills have been signed into law. We now find ourselves in an unnecessary impasse. The breakdown in this year's appropriations process did not happen overnight. It is not merely the result of election eve politicking, or jockeying for position between the Executive and Legislative branches, although there are plenty of both going on. No, the breakdown of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations process can be traced back to the opening days of this session of Congress in January. Back then, the House and Senate leadership promptly fell into disarray over the handling of the President's request for a supplemental spending bill. You may recall that the President requested $5 billion in supplemental fiscal year 2000 funding. The House subsequently passed a $12.8 billion supplemental funding bill--more than twice what the President had requested. The Senate Appropriations Committee, at the behest of the Senate Majority Leader, shelved plans to draw up a separate supplemental funding bill. Instead, the Senate attached a total of $8.6 billion in supplemental funding onto three regular appropriations bills--Military Construction, Foreign Operations, and Agriculture appropriations. The Majority Leader's plan was to have all three bills enacted into law by the Fourth of July holiday. Needless to say, things did not quite go as planned. Despite weeks of congressional wrangling, the three bills in the Senate could not be reconciled with the one bill in the House. Finally--in desperation--the House and Senate ended up jamming $11.2 billion in supplemental funding into the conference on the FY 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Bill. Much of that funding had never seen the light of day in either the House or Senate. The conference report was approved on June 30, and became the first of the FY 2001 appropriations bill signed into law. With the exception of the swift and relatively smooth passage of the Defense Appropriations Bill a month later, the FY 2001 appropriations process has gone from bad to worse. We now find ourselves in the intolerable position of having 11 of the 13 appropriations bills still pending--with two days to go before the end of the fiscal year, and no clear game plan in sight. The House has passed all of the regular appropriations bills. And the Senate Appropriations Committee--on which I serve--has reported all 13 regular appropriations bills. But only 10 of these 13 bills have been passed by the Senate. Once again, desperation is setting in. The focus is shifting from the flow of open debate on the Senate floor to the closed doors of the conference committees. Just last week, the Senate leadership attempted to attach the Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill--which the Senate has never considered--to the Legislative Branch conference report, and pass them as a package deal. The Senate was wise to reject that approach. The Senate should have an opportunity to fully consider these three significant appropriations bills. To abandon the reasoned debate this chamber is known for would represent a full surrender by this body of our responsibilities to the American people. Mr. President, there are many pressing issues from programs for veterans healthcare and the courts to the National Weather Service. We should be able to debate these funding plans and then vote for or against them. Mr. President, it doesn't have to be this way. The Senate still has time to take up the remaining appropriations bills, debate them, amend them, and send them to the President. They may be contentious. But that is precisely why they must be aired in the light of day before the entire Senate and not swept into law under the cover of an unrelated appropriations conference report. If the Senate acts promptly, the conferees will have ample time to complete their work, and report back to the full House and Senate. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am acutely aware of our responsibilities to the people of this nation when it comes to appropriating taxpayers' dollars. I take that responsibility very seriously. The people have a right to know what Congress is doing with their money. And members of Congress have a responsibility to appropriate money wisely. We cannot do our jobs or meet our responsibilities, if we delegate our work to a handful of appropriators hammering out a conference agreement, or to a closed circle of congressional leaders and White House officials huddling over a conference table. Mr. President, we are poised to pass a Continuing Resolution that will keep the government operating through October 6. I believe that if we could put aside political posturing, partisan bickering, and retaliatory tactics for just one week, just one week, we could complete work on the appropriations bills, in an orderly and responsible fashion, and close out this Congress. We may not have accomplished all that we would have wished to accomplish. But I am confident that continued bickering over the appropriations process in the waning days of the 106th Congress will not improve the climate for any other legislation to move forward. Mr. President, the American people deserve more than this mess from their elected leaders. I know the Senate can do better. In the days ahead, I urge my colleagues to work with our leaders and with the leadership of the Appropriations Committee, to tackle the remaining appropriations bills and conference reports, to debate, to vote, and to complete the work that we have been charged to do. Though time is running out, it is not too late to make these spending decisions in the most responsible way, and that is what I am calling on my colleagues to do.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would designate the existing United States Federal Courthouse for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, Washington, as the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse.'' William Nakamura was born in 1922, and grew up in Seattle, Washington. He attended public schools and was a student at the University of Washington when he and 110,000 other Japanese Americans were removed from their communities and forced into internment camps. For many, the disgrace of the internment camps and the injustice of that American policy fostered resentment and anger. Rather than succumb to hate, William Kenzo Nakamura chose to fight for the very country that had treated him unjustly. He enlisted in the 442d Regimental Combat Team, which went on to become the most decorated military team in U.S. history. While fighting in Italy, Pfc. William Nakamura was killed on July 4, 1944. At the time of his death, he was providing cover for his retreating platoon. Earlier that day, he had also gone beyond the call of duty and single-handedly destroyed a machine-gun nest. Following his death, Nakamura's commanding officer nominated him for the Medal of Honor. According to Army policy at the time, Japanese Americans could not receive the Medal of Honor. Instead, Pfc. Nakamura was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the military's second highest honor. This past June, Pfc. Nakamura and 21 other Asian- American veterans of World War II were finally honored with the Congressional Medal of Honor. Senator Inouye, who served in the same unit as Mr. Nakamura, was one of those who received the Congressional Medal of Honor that day. I was proud to be present at the White House for the ceremony. I am pleased that both of the Medal of Honor recipients in Congress are original cosponsors of the bill: Senators Inouye and Kerry. I am also honored to have my Washington state colleague, Senator Gorton, as an original cosponsor. Congressman McDermott is sponsoring this legislation in the House, and I thank him for his efforts. Like many Asian-American veterans, Nakamura didn't hesitate when his country called. He and many others went to war and gave their lives for freedoms which they and their families were denied at home. Mr. President, we can't undo the injustice suffered by Japanese- Americans during World War II, but we can give these noble Americans the recognition they deserve. The William Kenzo Nakamura Courthouse will serve as a permanent reminder that justice must serve all Americans equally. I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.