Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for his efforts in making sure we pass a bill that will improve the safety of family and children who work or play near pipelines in this country. He is right; the House has an obligation now to take up the bill that we have passed in the Senate and move it forward. I thank him and I agree with his comments. We have been joined by the chair of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, who has done a tremendous job in moving this legislation forward. I personally thank him, as well. It has been 16 months since a pipeline exploded in Bellingham, Washington and killed 3 young people. Back then, few Americans knew about the dangers of our Nation's aging pipelines. But in the past year--especially after the explosion in New Mexico last month--it became clear that this Congress had to do more to protect the public. As my colleagues know, it is difficult to reform any major industry in just one year. But it was clear that we couldn't wait any longer to make pipelines safer. We in the Senate had a responsibility to protect the public, and I am pleased that the bill we passed earlier this month will go a long way to making pipelines safer. It is a dramatic improvement over the status quo. That's why I've been so dismayed by what has happened in the House in recent weeks. The House of Representatives has not passed--or even marked up--any pipeline bill, but some Members have already called our bill inadequate. They also claim that they can pass a better bill this year--with just a few scheduled legislative days left in this Congress. I don't see it happening. I have worked on this issue for over a year and that's why I want to address those claims--because they are based on three incorrect assumptions. The first fallacy is that the Senate bill will not improve safety. We worked long and hard over many months to pass a strong bill. And this bill will improve safety. Let's look at some of the provisions. Expanding the public's right to know about pipeline hazards; Requiring pipeline operators to test their pipelines; Requiring pipeline operators to certify their personnel; Requiring smaller spills to be reported; Raising the penalties for safety violators; Investing in new technology to improve pipeline safety; Protecting whistle blowers; Increasing state oversight; and Increasing funding for safety efforts. These are clear improvements over the status quo and they will make pipelines safer. This is not a perfect bill, but we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let's take the steps we can now to improve pipeline safety. Some also suggest that the Senate bill relies on the Office of Pipeline Safety too much. Now it is clear that OPS has not done its job in the past. That is why this bill requires OPS to carry out congressional mandates. And we in Congress have a responsibility to hold OPS accountable for doing its job. I intend to remain vigilant in this area. Our bill includes more resources for the agency. And today public scrutiny on the agency--especially after a report by the General Accounting Office and a report I requested from DOT's inspector general--have put the agency under a microscope. I am confident that OPS today has a renewed commitment to safety. And I am pleased our bill includes the right amount of new resources and tools to make pipelines safer. Let me turn to another assumption that has been made by some. They suggest this bill could be amended significantly this year. That's a long process even under normal circumstances. And this year there are only a few days left. I don't see how it could happen this year. So some critics say--we'll start again next year--we'll do better next year. That means it will be at least a year--maybe longer before the issue is even brought up again. And how can we have so much faith that we'll get anything stronger-- or anything at all--under a new Congress and a new President? Let me ask a simple question: Would you take that bet if your family's safety depended on it? I wouldn't. And I don't think we can shirk our responsibility to protect the public this year. Before I finish, I do want to say something about those who have raised concerns about the Senate bill. They are good people with good motives. In some cases, they have paid too high a price. They want safer pipelines. That is exactly what I want. Unfortunately, here in Congress--their position ends up ``making the perfect the enemy of the good.'' And that means no reform at all. Looking for some ``better bill'' really means no bill at all this year. Rejecting the Senate bill really means accepting the inadequate, unsafe status quo for at least another year. I don't want another American family to look at this Congress and say, ``why did you drop the ball when you were so much closer to improving safety?'' Passing the Senate bill means we will finally get on the road to making pipelines safer. Once we're on that road we can always make course corrections. But we've got to get on that road to start with and that's why I urge my colleagues in the House to pass the Senate bill immediately. We've got a strong bill. Let's put it into law. Let me make it clear: It is critical that the House take up this bill this year. Senator McCain has done an outstanding job. We owe the people in my State, New Mexico, and other States that have had accidents, to do the right thing this year. I encourage this Congress to act. I yield the floor.

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.

Mr. MURRAY

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China. This is about moving China in the right direction, and in the process allowing America's workers to benefit from the massive trade concessions we have won at the negotiating table. This is a critical vote. China is home to one out of every five people on the planet, and our relationship with China is important. This vote can also have a positive impact on regional relationships throughout Asia. That is because Taiwan and Asian nations like Japan support China's accession to the World Trade Organization. They know that China's engagement will be a positive development. If Congress fails to grant PNTR to China, we will hinder our broader relationship with that country, make it harder for us to promote change there, and damage America's workers and industries as they compete with other countries for a place in China's market. The Chinese have agreed to radically open their market to U.S. goods and services. Chinese trade concessions will benefit the United States across all economic sectors in virtually every region of our country. And, the changes China has committed itself to--in order to join the WTO--will further open China to Western ideas. I have come to the floor today to illustrate the ways that PNTR for China will help our families, our industries, and our economy. Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in our Union. The people of my state--from aerospace workers to wheat farmers to longshoremen--have urged me to make sure we take advantage of the concessions we have won from the Chinese. If we do not, good-paying family jobs will be lost, and our industries will be set back for years. Before I elaborate on the ways PNTR for China will help America's workers, I must address many of the concerns we have about China. Over the years, I, like my colleagues, have been frustrated by the actions of the Chinese government on issues like human rights, religious freedom and weapons proliferation. As I have listened to the debate it is clear that we all want the same things: We want the people of China to have more freedom and more opportunities, and we want to bring China into the community of nations as a responsible partner. We all want the same results. The question is: What is the best way to get there? It is not to politicize our trade agreements. It is not to turn a trade vote into a referendum on how we feel about China. That is why I oppose the amendments that my colleagues have offered. These amendments will not solve the problems they highlight. Instead, they will kill the bill for this Congress and perhaps longer and that will have a negative impact on our country. Killing this bill will do serious harm to our efforts to impact change in China on many issues. Killing this bill now will forever handicap U.S. exporters to China. It will punish U.S. workers, and it will give our competitors from Europe and Asia a massive head start as China opens its market to the world. As I have thought about our relationship with China, I think one of the things that really frustrates us is that we are accustomed to quick fixes. In our political culture, we expect to be able to fix problems overnight. China, on the other hand, has a far different culture. Throughout its 4000 year history, China has resisted outside influences. As much as we would like to, we can't change China overnight. But we can change China over time. PNTR gives us the vehicle to help China move into the community of nations and to benefit America's families, industries and economy in the process. Now that I have addressed the expectations and context surrounding our relationship with China, I want to return to the question I posed a moment ago: What is the best way to help China enter the community of nations? The answer is to engage with China. In fact, our own history has shown this to be true. Since 1980, when the United States normalized relations with China, our engagement has helped to change China for the better. I think it is useful to recall the history of how different China is today, than it was just 20 years ago. Before we normalized our relations, the Chinese people lived under the iron fist of their government. They enjoyed virtually no personal freedoms. Their jobs were predetermined. Their housing was assigned to them. Education, medical care, and travel were all dictated by a government-controlled system that rewarded blind loyalty to the state and harshly punished all dissent. Externally, China was closed to the outside world. Internally, China was hemorrhaging from the impact of the Cultural Revolution and other political conflicts. U.S. engagement with China has had a positive impact on that country. Certainly, we all want to see more progress and more changes in Chinese government behavior. I respect the concerns of my colleagues, but I recognize that we are making progress by engaging with China. We should not let our specific concerns override the many advantages that will flow to America's workers by supporting PNTR for China. After considering the cultural and historic issues that have factored into this debate, I would like to focus on what this vote is about. The question before the Senate is really quite simple. The United States negotiated a trade deal with China. The agreement radically opens China's market to American workers, forces China to end its unfair practices, and gives the United States tough mechanisms to hold China accountable. The question before the Senate is: do we want to take this deal? On behalf of my constituents and the American people, I will vote to put these Chinese concessions--literally thousands of market-opening concessions--to work for the benefit of our country. The Chinese concessions are far reaching and will impact every sector of our nation's economy and every region of our country. This agreement radically slashes tariffs. In fact, for some of our most important industries, it eliminates tariffs altogether. It preserves and in some cases strengthens our trade laws on issues like dumping, export controls, and the use of prison labor. China will no longer be able to require firms to transfer technologies and jobs to China in exchange for business. If China violates its commitments, it will have the 135 member countries of the WTO to contend with--rather than just the United States. This is an opportunity to build a strong presence in the world's largest emerging market just as it opens its doors to the world. The people of Washington State have a unique perspective on what this trade agreement will mean for our families, our industries and our economy. One of my predecessors, Senator Warren Magnusson, was one of the first Senators to call for closer U.S.-China ties in the 1970s. For more than 20 years, the entire period of China's most recent opening to the outside world, no other state has been as engaged with China and the Chinese people as extensively as my state has. Washington State is the most trade dependent state in the country. Soon, one in three jobs will rely on international trade. Our ports, rail yards, and airports serve as gateways to and from the Pacific Rim for millions of products. My entire state stands to gain a great deal from China's accession to the WTO. I would like to share with my colleagues how increased trade with China will affect three important Washington industries: aerospace, agriculture, and technology. Let me begin by talking about our aerospace industry because Washington state produces the finest commercial airplanes in the world. We are home to the Boeing Company, and thousands of Washington families work for Boeing. As my colleagues know, Boeing competes with Airbus, its European rival. But the playing field isn't level. Airbus is subsidized by European states, and it gets additional financing assistance, allowing Airbus customers to finance aircraft on favorable terms. China is a huge new market for airplanes. Aviation experts predict China will purchase 1,600 new commercial airplanes worth $120 billion in the next 20 years. These sales will be hotly contested. We know that Airbus is a very aggressive competitor in the China market. Passing PNTR will give the workers in my state the chance to compete in that marketplace. Thousands of Washington state jobs--good family jobs, good union jobs--hang in the balance as Boeing and Airbus fight for the China market. That is why organized labor at Boeing, Local 751 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, has publicly endorsed PNTR. The Boeing Machinists know that if we do not compete for aircraft sales in China, we will have ceded the largest marketplace in the world for commercial aircraft outside of the United States. Such an outcome would be disastrous for the future of our aerospace industry, and we're not just talking about one company or one industry. Thousands of small businesses in Washington state subcontract with Boeing. In addition, Boeing subcontracts in every state in the union--creating the jobs that working families rely on. Passage of PNTR will give Boeing and so many other American companies the opportunity to compete freely and fairly in China. I have every confidence that Boeing and the thousands of Americans whose jobs are tied to aerospace will succeed in this new environment. Mr. President, let me turn to another important industry in my state. Washington State is home to some of our country's finest agricultural products from wheat to apples to a host of specialty crops. But we've had trouble opening China's market to our exports. For more than 25 years, Washington wheat has been kept out of China by an unfair trade barrier. This year, as China neared membership in the World Trade Organization, it dropped its unfair trade barrier against wheat from the Pacific Northwest. As a result, this year, Washington's first wheat sale to China in 28 years recently sailed from the Port of Portland. Thanks to PNTR and WTO accession, my constituents will have new opportunities to feed China's population, which equals 20 percent of the world's population. The opportunities are also great for another major crop, Washington state apples. With this agreement, China's market could open to an estimated $75 million a year in business for Washington's apple growers. Overall, agriculture stands to see one-third of its export growth tied to new sales to China. Washington growers and producers will see new opportunities across the board from pork, potatoes and barley to specialty crops like raspberries, hops and asparagus. It is easy to see why the agriculture community has been such a strong voice for this U.S.-China agreement and PNTR. Agriculture has done a great job working to ensure members understand that this agreement, and PNTR is vitally important to American agriculture. Finally I want to turn to America's high-tech industries. I am proud that Washington State is home to Microsoft and other technology companies including Nintendo, Real Networks, and Amazon.com. These companies will benefit from new protections for U.S. intellectual property. They will benefit from the elimination of high tech tariffs, from anti-dumping protections, and from the right to import and distribute goods free from government regulation and interference. The Internet is taking hold in China. It holds immense potential for changing China's society. Thanks to this agreement, Washington State Internet companies will be aggressive competitors in this new market. In addition, America's telecommunications companies will benefit as well, including AT&T Wireless and VoiceStream Wireless, which are both based in Washington State. As I have shown, opening China's markets will help the thousands of people in my state who work in the aerospace, agriculture and technology industries. We should make sure America's workers have access to the many benefits of China's marketplace. After 20 years of normalized relations between the U.S. and China, now is the time to pass PNTR. After 13 years of tough negotiations between the United States and China, now is the time to pass PNTR. And after more than 10 years of congressional consideration of China's trade status, now is the time to pass PNTR. The Senate has just spent two weeks debating PNTR, China's accession to the World Trade Organization, and many other China issues. The heart of the question before us is: Do we want American workers to benefit from the enormous trade concessions we have won from the Chinese? I want America to benefit, and I will vote for PNTR. At the same time, this is not our final China vote. Congress has a very legitimate role to play in helping shape our relationship with China and addressing our concerns. I look forward to those debates and those opportunities to advance our ideals in China. I encourage my colleagues to vote for PNTR, and I urge my colleagues to continue to closely follow the important U.S.-China relationship. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues this evening for passing the much-needed pipeline safety bill. For too long, communities across the country--in tragedy after tragedy--have felt the impact of our Nation's inadequate pipeline safety standards. Today, the Senate has responded with a strong bill that will help make our pipelines safer. As pleased as I am today, I am reminded of another much darker day-- June 10, 1999. On that day, a gasoline pipeline exploded in Bellingham, WA, killing three young people, shattering a community's faith, and setting us on the road of safety reform. I know that we can't undo what happened in Bellingham. We can't restore the loss of those families. But with this bill, we are putting the lessons we learned in Bellingham into law--and taking a first step toward ensuring America's pipelines are safe. Unfortunately, it has taken another fatal pipeline explosion to reach this day. But it is clear that the tragedy in New Mexico raised public awareness and increased the pressure on Congress to pass this bill. This bill will go a long way toward improving pipeline safety. Back in January--when I introduced my own pipeline safety bill--I outlined the areas that needed reform. I am proud that this bill embodies the principles I have been working for. First, this bill will improve the qualifications and training of pipeline personnel. It requires employees to demonstrate an ability to do their job. And it requires periodic reexamination of pipeline personnel. Second, this bill improves pipeline inspections and prevention practices. It requires operators to submit pipeline integrity management plans, which State and local officials can evaluate and recommend changes to. These plans will include: internal inspections, evaluation criteria, measures to prevent and mitigate unintended releases, and other safety activities. Third, and importantly, this bill expands the public's right-to-know about problems with pipelines. It requires operators to make information about the pipelines and their safety practices available to local officials, emergency responders, and the public--including posting information on the Internet. It also requires more pipeline accidents to be reported to the Office of Pipeline Safety, by lowering the reporting threshold from 200 gallons to 5 gallons. Fourth, this bill raises the penalties for safety violators. It doubles the current civil penalties for noncompliance, and it lifts the caps on maximum penalties. Fifth, this bill enables States to expand their safety efforts. This bill allows the Secretary of Transportation to enter into agreements that will allow States to: ``participate in special investigations involving incidents or new construction'' and to ``assume additional inspection or investigatory duties.'' Sixth, this bill invests in new technology to improve safety. It recognizes the need for R&D for new inspection devices and practices, and it authorizes a coordinated research program. Seventh, this bill provides protections for those who blow the whistle on unsafe practices. Eighth, this bill increases funding for safety efforts. It authorizes spending $13 million more on pipeline safety than we spend today. Finally, this bill recognizes State citizen advisory committees and allows for their funding. These State citizen advisory committees would make recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary will be required to respond--in writing--to those recommendations. And, the Secretary would have to detail what actions, if any, will be taken to implement those recommendations. Further, the bill would allow appropriations for these State advisory committees. This is a sound bill. Under this bill, pipelines will be inspected. Operators will be qualified. Whistleblowers will be protected, and violators will be penalized. Pipeline companies will have to develop comprehensive safety and inspection plans, and States will get new authority. Citizen groups will have a role, and the public will have a right to know about the pipelines in their own communities. This bill does not only raise pipeline safety standards. It gives us the tools, the enforcements, and the funding to ensure that pipeline companies reach those standards. I want my constituents and my colleagues to know that I plan on remaining vigilant on this issue and ensuring that future administrations carry out the congressional mandate. I do want to recognize tonight a few people who have helped make this day possible. First are the families of the victims of the Bellingham explosion, Frank and Mary King, Katherine Dalen and Stephen Tsiorvas, Marlene Robinson and Bruce Brabec. They have testified and worked hard. They have been courageous, and they were constant reminders of what has been lost and what this legislation will help protect. Second, I thank the people of Bellingham, especially Mayor Mark Asmundson, who has done more than anyone I know to raise awareness about pipeline hazards. I recognize the work of our great Governor Gary Locke. And third, I thank those in the administration who have supported our efforts; in particular, Vice President Gore, who learned about this issue during a visit to my State and who got the administration's proposal to Congress. I also thank Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater. At my request, he promptly stationed a pipeline inspector in my State after the Bellingham explosion, and he has worked with us on this issue for more than a year. His leadership has been critical to our efforts. I thank him this evening. I also thank DOT's Inspector General Kenneth Mead, Kelly Coyner, who is the administrator of DOT's Office of Research and Special Programs Administration, and the director of the Office of Pipeline Safety, Stacey Gerard, and her predecessor, Richard Felder. I thank Jim Hall, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Many groups played a role in moving this process forward. I thank the National Pipeline Reform Coalition, SAFE Bellingham, and the Cascade Columbia Alliance. I also thank everyone who testified at the numerous hearings, and the many Federal and State officials who have worked on this issue. Finally, I thank my colleagues in the Senate, especially Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, who has been stalwart in his support and has been working with us every step of the way. I thank my colleague Senator Gorton and his staff who have worked with us diligently on this issue; Senator Hollings; Senator Inouye, all the members of the Commerce Committee and their staffs, and Dale Learn from my office. Senator Bingaman should also be thanked for his leadership. He made the bill stronger by adding a needed research and development amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. I thank the many reporters and editorial writers who helped raise public awareness about the need to improve pipeline safety. While we have cleared a major hurdle, our work is not finished. This bill must now pass the House of Representatives and be signed by the President. We don't have much time. Let's use today's passage to energize the efforts of the House so we can improve pipeline safety in communities across America this year.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to provide a long overdue honor to a distinguished group of American veterans. The United States Naval Armed Guard made heroic contributions to our naval efforts in World War I and World War II and the time has come for a grateful nation to recognize these brave veterans. The Armed Guard consisted of the officers, gunners, radiomen, signalmen and later medics and radarmen who were placed on cargo ships to protect them from armed assault. The U.S. Navy Armed Guard was first constituted during World War I and armed gunners served on 384 ships. During World War II, the U.S. Navy Armed Guard served on 6,236 merchant ships. 710 of these ships were sunk and many more were damaged in combat. The Armed Guard has 144,970 men assigned to it before the war ended in 1945. 1,810 men were killed during engagements with the enemy. I am here today because the contributions to victories in the two world wars of these fine patriots has never been recognized by our Government or the Navy. I believe the Congress should act to honor these veterans whose recognition is both deserved and long overdue. The wartime contributions of these men were absolutely vital to the safe delivery of cargos that took the war to our enemies. Many times they stayed in the fight even as the decks of their ships were awash and sinking. What is most notable is that other nations that now are free because of the contributing sacrifices of the U.S. Navy Armed Guards, have awarded special medals in recognition of the heroic actions of the members of the U.S. Navy Armed Guard Special Force. Mr. President, It is high time we did the right thing and recognized these fine fighting men for their service. This legislation would honor these men in a very fitting way. It will recognized former members of the U.S. Armed Guard Special Force with a special medal that honors them as American heroes. It will recognize the military character of their service by awarding each of them at least one of the three World War II campaign medals for service in the American, Asiatic-Pacific, and Europe-Africa-Middle East theaters of war. Let's do the right thing for this unrecognized group of American veterans who sacrificed so much for their country. For more than fifty years, members of the Naval Armed Guard have shared their wartime stories of sacrifice and commitment with one another. Now is the time for all Americans to acknowledge their service in a heart felt way. I urge prompt Senate consideration and passage of this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution that has passed the Senate for the past four years unanimously. My resolution, which I am introducing today with Senator Warner and 31 original cosponsors establishes October 17, 2000, as a ``Day of National Concern about Young People and Gun Violence.'' For the last several years, I have sponsored this legislation. I am pleased that Senator Warner has joined me again in leading the cosponsorship drive as we pledge to our young people across the nation that we support their strong efforts to help stop the violence in their own schools and communities. I thank Senator Warner for his help and partnership. Sadly, this resolution has special meaning for all of us after the tragic events that occurred in the last couple of years. School shootings across the nation have paralyzed communities and shocked the country. In recent years, we've seen school shootings from Mississippi to Oregon. In fact, just two weeks ago, a thirteen year old boy in Seattle, Washington, opened fire in a crowded cafeteria at his junior high school. Luckily no one was hurt. These events have touched us all. Adults and young people alike have been horrified by the violence that has occurred in our schools, which should be a safe haven for our children. We are left wondering what we can do to prevent these tragedies. I am again introducing this resolution because I am convinced the best way to prevent gun violence is by reaching out to individual children and helping them make the right decisions. This resolution establishes a special day that gives parents, teachers, government leaders, service clubs, police departments, and others a way to focus on the problems caused by gun violence. It also empowers young people to take affirmative steps to end this violence by encouraging them to take a pledge not to use guns to resolve disputes. A Minnesota homemaker, Mary Lewis Grow, developed the idea of student pledges and for a ``Day of National Concern for Young People and Gun Violence.'' In addition, Mothers Against Violence in America, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of Student Councils, and the American Medical Association have joined the effort to establish a special day to express concern about our children and gun violence and to support a national effort to encourage students to sign a pledge against gun violence. In 1999, more than two million students across the nation signed the pledge card. The Student Pledge Against Gun Violence gives students the chance to make a promise, in writing, that they will do their part to prevent gun violence. The students' pledge promises three things: (1) they will never carry a gun to school; (2) they will never resolve a dispute with a gun; and (3) they will use their influence with friends to discourage them from resolving disputes with guns. Just think of the lives we could have saved if all students had signed--and lived up to--such a pledge last year. Twelve children would have been alive today and 50 people would have escaped injury from a school shooting. The reality is we've lost many children in what has become the all-too-common violence of drive-by shootings, drug wars, and other crime and in self-inflicted and unintentional shootings. We all have been heartened by statistics showing crime in America on the decline. Many factors are involved, including community-based policing, stiffer sentences for those convicted, youth crime prevention programs, and changes in population demographics. None of us intend to rest on our success because we still have far too much crime and violence in our society. So, we must find the solutions that work and focus our limited resources on resources on those. We must get tough on violent criminals--even of they are young--to protect the rest of society from their terrible actions. And we, each and every one of us, must make time to spend with our children, our neighbor's children, and the children who have no one else to care about them. Only when we reach out to our most vulnerable citizens--our kids--will we stop youth violence. I urge all of my colleagues to join in this simple effort to focus attention on gun violence among youth by proclaiming October 17 a ``Day of Concern about Young People and Gun Violence.'' October is National Crime Prevention Month--the perfect time to center our attention of the special needs of our kids and gun violence. We introduce this resolution today in the hopes of getting every Senator to cosponsor it prior to this passage, which we hope will occur in early September. This is an easy step for us to help facilitate the work that must go on in each community across America, as parents, teachers, friends and students try to prevent gun violence before it ruins any more lives.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for several years the people of the Pacific Northwest have been working to save several wild salmon and steelhead runs that are currently threatened with extinction. Today, the administration presented a number of proposals for how we can recover these species. Specifically, the administration released its draft biological opinion for technical review by the four affected States and the region's tribes. The administration also released an updated All-H paper--also known as the Basin-wide Recovery Strategy. This paper details proposals in the areas of hatchery reform, harvest levels, hydroelectric power generation, and habitat recovery. I take this opportunity to talk about how we can work together to restore the threatened and endangers species of the Columbia Basin. From the ancient history of Native Americans to the explorations of Lewis and Clark nearly 200 years ago, the natural bounty of the Pacific Northwest has always been a source of pride. We have been blessed with great rivers--including the Columbia, the Yakima and the Snake. Over the years, we have drawn from these rivers. Dams have provided us with vital hydroelectric power--forever improving the quality of life in our region and providing an engine for our robust economic development. These rivers have helped generations of farmers from Longview to Walla Walla by providing water for irrigation. And, they have provided a watery highway, allowing us to bring our products to market. Clearly, Washington state has benefitted from our rivers and natural resources. I am proud that today we are home to the best airplane manufacturer in the world. We are home to the best software company in the world. We grow the best apples. Mr. President, our future is bright. But Mr. President, this progress has come at a price. Our wild salmon stocks are struggling. In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service has listed 12 wild salmon and steelhead stocks in the Columbia basin as threatened or endangered. In addition, several butt-trout and sturgeon populations are also threatened. Let me be clear. Those listings mean that right now--we are on the path of extinction. So the question before us is: Do we have the will to come together and choose a different path--the path of recovery? I believe that we do. I believe that the ingenuity and optimism of the people of Washington State will allow us to meet this challenge. And I am proud of the tough decisions that people all across my State--from farmers and Native Americans to sport fishermen and the fishing industry--have made so far. But it will be difficult. Unfortunately, the current debate about saving salmon makes finding a real solution even more difficult. The debate today is too short-sighted, it is too narrow, and it's too partisan. When I say the debate has been short-sighted, I mean that this isn't an issue that's going to be resolved in one month or one year or even one generation. We are dealing with an issue that has a long history. In the Pacific Northwest, salmon are part of our heritage, our culture and our economy. We know from the oral history of Native Americans the significance that salmon played in the lives of Northwesterners as long as 12,000 years ago. The question before us today is: Will salmon still spawn in these rivers in the next 1,000 years, the next 100 years, or even 10 years from now? Salmon are a link to our past, and if they are going to be part of our future, we will have to find solutions that look beyond the next season or the next election. I am committed to make sure we take the long view when it comes to saving salmon. In addition, the debate has been too narrow. If someone from another part of the country heard the debate, they would think that only one thing affects salmon--dams. We know that dams are just one of four factors that affect salmon. It may help to think of the challenge before us as a table--a table with four legs. Each one of those legs must hold its share of the weight. If one leg is too short, the table will be out of balance. We know that salmon are impacted by four variables. They are hydropower, hatcheries, harvest, and habitat. Let me start with hydropower--or dams. Mr. President, I have long said that we need to develop and implement a comprehensive recovery strategy before we consider the removal of dams. I am pleased that the administration has taken this first step forward and provided the foundation for such a plan. I am also pleased that in doing so the administration is clearly moving us beyond the false debate of dams or no dams. The issue has never been that simple. To be sure, the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite dams have--like other dams throughout the region--hampered the ability of salmon to migrate from their original river homes, to the ocean, and back again to spawn. The reality is that we have 12 listed species throughout the Columbia basin. Four of these stocks are in the Snake River. The other eight are on the Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Removal of the Snake River dams is of minimal value to the recovery of the eight listed Columbia and Willamette runs. Furthermore, while removal of the dams would benefit the Snake runs, NMFS has found removal may not be necessary for recovery and that removal alone would probably not be sufficient. We still have to deal with the issues related to recovering these particular stocks and the hydro system needs to be examined and upgraded to ease fish passage to and from the ocean. We need to address the challenges posed dams pose for fish survival. We must employ a comprehensive, basin-wide approach that, regardless of the ultimate decision regarding the dams, addresses all of the complex issues surrounding salmon recovery. Mr. President, I fear that some who have focused solely on dam removal have failed to consider what will be necessary under a comprehensive recovery approach. We need to, as the administration's draft plan suggests, establish performance standards for recovery, and we need to achieve those goals. Bypassing the dams will remain a subject to this debate if we fail to aggressively tackle the issues related to survival of fish through the hydro system. It is a reality we must deal with. Next I'd like to turn to the second factor that affects salmon recovery--hatcheries. We must minimize the impacts of hatchery practices that present challenges to the wild stocks, namely: the introduction of disease; competition for food; and dilution of the gene pool. Further, as the administration suggests, there is a possibility that we could use hatcheries as a way to bolster weak stocks on a short-term basis by using a little common sense. By choosing to utilize wild, native fish stocks, hatcheries can be transformed from a hindrance to recovery to a help. Mr. President, reform of the hatchery program will be expensive. However, there is a fair amount of agreement on what reform is necessary. The Northwest Power Planning Council's report, Artificial Production Review, has given us a basis for action. It is now an issue of finding the funds and prioritizing where these funds should be spent. The next factor is harvest. This relates to several controversial issues that are subject to both international and tribal treaties. The Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada and the treaties with Northwest tribes clearly obligate us to recover salmon to harvestable levels. Under those treaties we, as Americans, have obligations we must meet. Already, many have sacrificed because of the declines in salmon runs. The tribal fishermen who have depended on the salmon since time immemorial to feed their families and celebrate their culture has sacrificed. The sports fisherman has sacrificed with the virtual elimination of chinook season. The commercial fishing family in Ilwaco has sacrificed. In a couple of years, after completing the buy-back commitments under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, there could be as few as 600 active non- tribal commercial licenses, compared to the roughly 10,000 licenses in the 1970s. As we look forward at the sacrifices we will need to make in the future to help recover the wild stocks, we should never forget those who have already seen their livelihood, tradition, family, and community impacted by the dwindling numbers of returning fish. We need to promote selective fishing that allows the catching of non- listed species while providing for the release of listed ones. We also need to continue to support efforts to reduce the number of federal and state issued fishing licenses by buying back those licenses. The recently signed Pacific Salmon Treaty, which Vice President Gore played such an important role in finalizing, calls for exactly these types of measures. We need to redouble our efforts to prevent overfishing and manage this resource in a responsible way. Finally, as controversial and difficult as the issues related to the hydro system will be, habitat promises to be every bit as thorny and complex an issue to tackle. Mr. President, in this equation, by and large, habitat equals water and impacts to water quality. As anyone familiar with agriculture can tell you, especially in the West, water is gold. It is the stuff of life. It makes or breaks communities, both their ability to maintain what they have and to sustain and manage their growth. Water in the West is both the great opportunity provider and limiter. Our water law dates back to the earliest days of settlement, and it has struggled to meet the demands of the modern era. We need to take steps now to prevent the continued destruction of critical habitat and work to restore habitat that has been degraded over time. Mr. President, the key for fish, as it is for people, is access to cool, clean water. Fish require a sufficient quantity of unpolluted water; that means encouraging land use practices near critical river habitat that are consistent with the needs of the fish. Mr. President, these are the four areas we must address. All four are important and must be part of the debate. Addressing issues related to the hydro system, reforming hatchery practices, managing harvest, and husbanding important habitat will not be easy. But we don't have a choice. Allowing salmon to become extinct is not an option. Mr. President, at the start of my remarks, I said that the debate so far has been too short sighted and too narrow, and I have explained how we can take a longer view and how we can look at the broad range of factors that affect salmon. Before I close I would like to explain why I think that the debate over salmon recovery has been too political to the detriment of saving salmon and doing what needs to be done to keep the families in our region whole. When partisan politics are injected into such a complex issue, it has the effect of dividing people--rather than bringing them together. Unfortunately, we have heard too many people who only say what they don't want to happen, who only seek to place blame, who heighten the rhetoric, who lead by creating fear rather than hope, and who never commit to a plan. That is not going to help us save salmon or the people in the impacted communities of the Pacific Northwest. Saying ``no'' to everything, without offering a constructive plan, is not leadership. And it will take leadership to recover our salmon stocks and keep our commitments to the people of the Northwest. Mr. President, I commit to work in a positive fashion with anyone who is genuinely interested in saving salmon. If you are serious about solutions, I am ready to work together to find them. And I am willing to play my part in our shared responsibility. I will continue to seek Federal funding to support new and continuing projects. I will strive to maintain my own communication with affected communities, individuals, and interest groups. In addition, I will promote better communication between federal agencies and other parties when this communication breaks down. In short, I commit to being a positive partner with all those who understand the need for tough decisions and want to move forward to real recovery. It is time to rise above the current debate, which traps people into false choices while letting the possibility of other solutions slip away from us. Mr. President, this is not an issue that is going to be solved by November 7, 2000. This is an issue that will be with us for years-- perhaps generations--to come. What we need now are public servants and private citizens with both the will and the vision to sit down, roll up their sleeves, and figure out how to move forward. Right now we are on the path to salmon extinction. Anyone who delays progress keeps us on that path. Anyone who divides rather than unites, brings extinction closer. Mr. President, as we proceed on this issue, I wish to state my willingness to work with the next President, with the tribal governments, with my colleagues in the Congress, with the State and local governments, and with private citizens to address the important issues related to recovering wild salmon. And we can make progress while maintaining our region's economic viability. The opportunity the administration has given us today is to move forward in a constructive way. They have presented a plan that moves beyond the debate about bypassing dams and onto the issues we really need to focus on. While I may disagree with some of the specifics of this plan, it does provide a comprehensive roadmap for how we can resolve these difficult issues. I believe if we take the comprehensive approach, we will save salmon and steelhead runs; we will be able to produce essential power; we will be able to meet the needs of our farmers, and we will keep water healthy for our children's children. Mr. President, as I conclude I want to make one final point. This really isn't just about fish or dams. It is about the type of world we want to live in. We have a choice about the legacy we leave for our grandchildren. The choice I have called for today is the choice to leave future generations clean rivers--full of salmon. The choice I've called for today is the choice to show our grandchildren that no matter how big our difference may appear we can work together and be good stewards of our land. That is the choice I hope we will make. The other path leaves a far different legacy. A legacy that leaves our grandchildren polluted waters--resources divided from nature. and even worse--people divided from each other. Mr. President, that is not the legacy I want to leave. We cannot shrink from this challenge. Let's use today's reports as a tool to help us move forward toward real salmon recovery.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I had to return home to Washington state on Thursday of last week to attend the funeral of Mr. Bernie Whitebear. Unfortunately, I missed a series of roll call votes on H.R. 4461, the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill, and the vote on the Conference Report of H.R. 4810, marriage tax penalty legislation. I wanted to take this opportunity to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present. On Roll Call Vote Number 221, the Harkin Amendment Number 3938, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 222, the Wellstone Amendment Number 3919, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 223, the Specter Amendment Number 3958, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 224, on the question of whether the Durbin Amendment Number 3980 is germane to H.R. 4461, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 225, on final passage of H.R. 4461, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 226, on final passage of the Conference Report of H.R. 4810, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is with great admiration that I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Bernie Whitebear, of Seattle, Washington, who passed away at the age of 62 on Sunday, July 16, 2000. A long-standing advocate and leader in the fight for tribal self- determination, Bernie Whitebear was an outstanding role-model for tribal and non-tribal people alike. Known for his vision, humor and commitment, he lives on in the minds and hearts of everyone who knew him. Bernie Whitebear was born on September 27, 1937 on the Colville Indian Reservation in Eastern Washington. Born into a large family, Bernie grew up confronting many of the barriers facing reservation children, including poverty and discrimination. As an adult, he moved to Seattle, attended the University of Washington and worked as an engineer for Boeing. He later joined the Army as a paratrooper in the 101st Airborne Division and served as a Green Beret. During the activism of the late 1960's, Bernie Whitebear emerged as one of the central tribal leaders in the Pacific Northwest and was a tireless advocate for American Indian recognition and empowerment. We often remember his social action, seen through his leadership in the ``invasion'' of Fort Lawton in Seattle in 1970. Bernie and others occupied the Fort Lawton property after plans were announced to list the Fort as surplus property for the city to designate as a park. He felt local tribes had a historic right to the land, which could be better used as a central service base for Seattle's largely unserved urban Indian population. The 3-month occupation, civil arrests and resulting media attention prompted Congress to order the city of Seattle to negotiate a settlement, which included a 99-year lease on a 20-acre parcel for Whitebear's group. The settlement provided space for construction of the Daybreak Star Art Center, which currently stands in Discovery Park. I want to share with the Senate one of my favorite memories of Bernie Whitebear. Bernie had invited me to attend the Mini-Pow Wow in my state on February 7, 1998. He asked me to stop by to talk about the People's Lodge, to see the artwork, and to have a quick look at some of the traditional dances. I told Bernie I would stop by, but that I only had a short while because I had a lot of events I needed to attend that day. I remember when I arrived at the University of Washington Bernie welcomed me with his big bright smile and an outstretched hand. We watched some of the traditional dances, and then I realized that if I didn't leave soon I would be late for my next event. It was one of those days when I was trying to meet as many people as possible. Well Bernie didn't let me just meet the people at the Mini-Pow Wow, he made me stay and understand them. He started by introducing me to everyone in the room. Then Bernie leaned over to me and explained that it was customary for a visiting United States Senator to move to the front of the dancing group. You know, it was one of the many Native American traditions Bernie told me about that always sounded a little invented to me. Like another old tradition he told me about: That anytime a U.S. Senator stepped foot in Discovery Park he or she had to pay a visit to the Daybreak Star Center. Well there was Bernie asking me to move to the front, and who could say no to Bernie? He had his arm around me. He was leading me to the front. Everyone was watching, and I went along. The next thing I knew, I was leading about 300 people in a tribal dance. Even though I was not born to be a dancer and I certainly didn't know that particular dance, Bernie made it easy. He had such an open, loving, and compassionate nature that you just couldn't help but feel a part of it. As I looked around, people were smiling, and there was a real sense of comradery and respect shared by everyone in the room. About two hours later, as the event was winding down, I said goodbye to Bernie, and I got into my car. As I drove away, I realized what Bernie had really done for me that day. He helped me understand Native American cultures from the inside, not as someone sitting on the sidelines watching, but as someone in the middle of the festivities. I felt the sense of community and respect that Bernie was always so proud of. Anyone can talk about those qualities and traditions, but Bernie let me experience them, and he did it with a big grin on his face. I know I'm better off for that experience. That day shows just how effective Bernie was at getting us to shed our expectations, to realize what we have in common, and to work together. Throughout his life, Bernie used his own unique style and generous heart to accomplish many things. He founded the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, which provides education and counseling resources for the estimated 25,000 American Indians in the Puget Sound area. Along with the Daybreak Center and the United Indians Foundation, he worked to sensitize Seattle police to urban Indian issues. Recognizing the persistent need for American Indian health services, he also helped create the Seattle Indian Health Board and later served as its first executive director. For his many contributions, Bernie Whitebear was awarded numerous honors. In 1997, Governor Gary Locke named him a ``Citizen of the Decade.'' He recently received Seattle's Distinguished Citizen Medal. In 1998, the University of Washington gave him the Distinguished Alumnus of the Year Award. Bernie was a remarkable man with spirit and a warmth that touched everyone he encountered. My thoughts and sympathies are with all of Bernie's family and friends. Bernie Whitebear acted as a beacon for compassion, cultural understanding and tribal sovereignty in the Puget Sound Region. His legacy is left in all of us who have tremendous respect for the history and cultures of the tribes, a history Bernie would draw us into, by his passion, by his words and by his deeds. I will miss him.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Reid for requesting a leave of absence for me for the duration of this week. I am traveling home today to attend and speak at tomorrow's memorial service for Mr. Bernie Whitebear, of Seattle, Washington, who passed away at the age of 62 on Sunday, July 16, 2000. Earlier in the week, I did have a statement for the Congressional Record about Bernie Whitebear and his many contributions to Washington state. He was a special man to my constituents. He was a special man to me. Bernie helped me understand Native American cultures from the inside as a participant not as someone sitting on the sidelines. On many occasions, Bernie exposed me to the sense of community and respect that he was always so proud of. Washington state will miss this great man and clearly, it is appropriate for me to be with my constituents tomorrow to celebrate Bernie Whitebear. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and courtesies and I will have a longer statement next week to discuss Senate floor votes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the sponsors of this amendment. As a Senator from a border State, I recognize the frustrations that have brought us to this point. American consumers must have access to safe, affordable prescription drugs. Mr. President, I intend to vote for this amendment because I believe we must move this debate forward. I know that many Americans are facing serious problems because of the cost of prescription drugs. I hope this amendment will have some impact on the market forces and that we will see some savings as a result. But, Mr. President, while I will support this amendment, I do have two serious concerns. First, we must be careful that we don't weaken the high safety standards for drugs in this country. And second, we should not think for a moment that passing this amendment will mean we have helped senior citizens get access to the drugs they need. We still must pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I'm concerned that this amendment could draw attention away from the much larger issue of providing a prescription drug benefit through Medicare. Mr. President, I've spent a lot of time working on this issue. In fact, back in 1997--as a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--I examined the drug approval process so that we could enact a responsible and balanced FDA reform bill. The one lesson I took away from that process is that, while some of the rules for drug approval in this country can be lengthy, they have been successful in ensuring that America's prescription drugs are safe and effective. We've worked hard to ensure we have safe pharmaceuticals in this country, and I don't know any American who would accept anything less than the safety we have today. Unfortunately, this amendment does not guarantee that those standards will remain as strong as they must be. That's because other countries have lower standards. In fact, a recent hearing in the House Commerce Committee clearly illustrated a number of lapses in safety inspection at facilities outside the United States. I'm concerned that even with ``importation restrictions'' we can't be as confident as we should be of the manufacturing standards used abroad. This amendment gives us no assurance about the conditions under which the products were packaged, stored, handled, or shipped. Consumers have no way to determine the potency of the individual units. We know there are these types of problems with imported drugs today, and I'm concerned that unless this amendment is implemented very carefully, we could magnify those problems. While I am pleased that the sponsors have made significant improvements from the House-passed amendment on drug reimportation, I'm still concerned that implementation could undermine our faith in the safety of all prescription drugs. Mr. President, I'm also concerned that there is no guarantee that consumers would reap the benefits that are being suggested. There is no requirement that the wholesaler or distributor pass the savings on to consumers. Today, each consumer today often pays a different price for a prescription drug depending upon whether or not they have insurance coverage. This amendment could simply enrich drug wholesalers at the expense of consumers. In fact, back in 1999 David Kessler, the former FDA Commissioner, made this point regarding the effect on the consumer when he said: . . . prices to ultimate consumers are generally not lowered. . . . Rather, the profits go to the various middlemen, here and abroad, while consumers bear the risk. Mr. President, the bottom line is that drug re-importation does not guarantee any savings for the consumer. Mr. President, I have heard many of my colleagues talk about the need for a prescription drug benefit for seniors to ensure affordable access to prescription drugs. If any of my colleagues think this amendment will meet this objective, they will be disappointed. This amendment will simply not provide affordable, continuous, comprehensive access to prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. A prescription drug benefit is not just something to be ``tacked-on'' to Medicare. It has to be a fundamental change in how we provide health care to seniors and the disabled. Today, prescription drugs are the doctor's office visits of 20 years ago and that must be considered as we work on adding a prescription drug benefit. Mr. President, I do plan on supporting this amendment with the reservations I've mentioned. I am hopeful that the regulatory process can address some of these risks, and I believe this amendment will--at the least--address some of the issues of fairness that have been raised. I just hope that America's seniors are not fooled by this amendment. No one should claim that--with this amendment--we have addressed the issue of prescription drug costs for seniors. It is still a job we must undertake, and I hope that this amendment strengthens--rather than weakens--the resolve of the Senate to provide a prescription drug benefit through Medicare.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to join with my colleagues in expressing my deep sorrow at the loss of our friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell. During this difficult time, I want to extend my thoughts and prayers to Nancy and all of his family. Paul and I both came to Washington, D.C. in January of 1993. In the years that I've know Paul, I've always been impressed by his thoughtfulness and his work ethic. I always had the upmost respect for him because of his quiet demeanor. He did not seek headlines, and he did not seek credit. Whether it was fighting illegal drugs or working on education or tax policy, he simply did his work with a quiet determination, an open heart, and a kind word for anyone who crossed his path. My predecessor in the Senate, Warren Magnuson, had a phrase for someone like that-- ``a workhorse not a showhorse.'' Paul Coverdell was a workhorse in the finest sense. Paul earned the respect of everyone here because he treated everyone else with respect and dignity. Paul's work here in the United States Senate was really just an extension of a lifetime of service. Whether it was serving his country in the U.S. Army, serving the people of Georgia as a state senator, or helping people around the world through his work as director of the United States Peace Corps, Paul brought his generous spirit and his determination to everything he undertook. Mr. President, the people of Georgia are fortunate to have been served by a person of Paul's character and skills. Those of us who worked with him here in the U.S. Senate were fortunate to have him as a friend and colleague. His passing is a loss to our Senate, to Georgia and to the Nation. I will miss him as a friend and colleague.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, our Nation is blessed with many natural treasures that hold unique scientific or cultural value. That's why in 1906 the Congress passed and the President signed the Antiquities Act to give us a way to protect these unique lands. Since 1906, presidents of all parties have used the act to designate over 100 national monuments--including several which Congress later designated as National Parks including the Grand Canyon, Grand Teton and Olympic National Parks. Each year, more than 50 million visitors enjoy our country's national monuments. Today, there are other unique areas throughout our country that hold similar value. Unfortunately, some of these remarkable areas are threatened by growth, development, and harvesting. I believe we have a responsibility to protect these natural treasures. I believe we have a responsibility to be a good steward of these lands and to pass them on--untarnished--to future generations I'm proud that Washington state is home to the Hanford Reach--which is the last-free flowing stretch of the Columbia River. During World War II and the Cold War, the people of the Tri-Cities made sacrifices that helped our nation end World War II and win the Cold War. Because of the high security around the nuclear facility, for decades this part of the Columbia River and the surrounding land was protected from development. Unfortunately, its future was not certain. The Hanford Reach is a key salmon spawning ground and as many of my colleagues know we are working in the Pacific Northwest to help recover our once-abundant salmon stocks. I was pleased that the President used his authority--under the Antiquities Act--to designate the Hanford Reach as a National Monument. Mr. President, it was the right thing to do. That designation will help us recover salmon stocks, will ensure families can continue to enjoy the Reach, and will share the history of the Tri-Cities with the American public. And of course, the designation will preserve a unique habitat for future generations. I hope that in the future, the Hanford Reach National Monument receives the attention and recognition that it deserves. The Olympic National Park began as a National Monument--one of the first-- designated by President Roosevelt in 1909. Many generations of Americans have enjoyed the natural splendor that the Olympics and the surrounding area offer. I hope that the Hanford Reach will also become a destination for Americans eager to learn more about our past. Unfortunately, the Nickles' amendment would deny the possibility of such protection to other deserving areas around the country. It is clear that supporters of this amendment are unhappy with the President's use of the Antiquities Act. But in the end, the President has legally exercised the authority vested in him by the Act. If this Congress is really unhappy with the Antiquities Act, it could amend the Act itself or override particular designations. But we all know that won't happen. The reason it won't happen is because the majority of Americans believe that the lands protected under the Antiquities Act are deserving of such protection. The Grand Canyon, Devils Tower, Mt. Olympus, Jackson Hole, Death Valley, Joshua Tree--have all been named as national monuments. Few would argue these areas are not worthy of such recognition and protection. The fact is many of these designations have been so popular that Congress later designated them as national parks, often expanding them at the same time. Again, Olympic National Park in my home state is an example of such Congressional action. In 1906, Congress had the wisdom to grant the President the power to protect important natural and historic areas of our country. The need for such power is not at an end. Threats of development and impacts from other activities will continue and in some cases will lead to the recognition that greater protection for certain federal lands is warranted. At that time, the President, who ever she or he may be, should have the ability to act as every President has since 1906. Indeed, since the Antiquities Act was passed 14 of the 17 Presidents have used its powers. If it is indeed the will of Congress to limit this historic power of the Presidency, then let us do so after a full and public legislative process. This amendment is simply a back-door attempt to accomplish what the sponsor and supporters know they cannot do through a stand alone bill. Despite some controversy, the President's designations have had the support of members of Congress and the public. In fact, I--along with many members of my state's delegation in the House--supported the President's recent designation of the Hanford Reach as a national monument. This designation was also supported by many people in the Tri-Cities and across the state. Before I close I remind my colleagues that a similar amendment was included in the House Interior bill as it was reported by the Committee. Fortunately, thanks to the leadership of Congressman Dicks and Congressman Boehlert, that amendment was removed from the House bill. However, before the amendment's removal, the House bill received a veto threat because of this provision. We can certainly expect a similar veto threat from the Administration if this amendment is adopted. For the first time in years, we have the opportunity to pass a free standing Interior Appropriations bill into law. This amendment would seriously compromise that possibility. We should stand up for the people and communities who are eager to share in the benefits of these national monuments. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the estate tax repeal bill before the Senate. Along with eight of my Democratic colleagues, I am a cosponsor of S. 1128, the Kyl-Kerrey repeal bill. Barring the attachment of any egregious amendments, I intend to vote for final passage of H.R. 8. But while I am a cosponsor of S. 1128, I want to take a moment to voice my concern about the debate we have had so far. I believe there are two policy challenges before us. First, Congress needs to ensure the vast majority of Americans-- including those who do not own family business and farm assets--do not need to worry about paying estate taxes or going through burdensome estate tax planning. Current law does a fairly good job in this area. In fact, only two percent of estates actually pay an estate tax each year. The estate tax reform provisions we passed as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 helped take us further in the right direction. But the prosperity we've had in the last seven years has threatened to push more people in the direction of costly estate tax planning. In the spirit of a fairer tax code, Congress needs to take additional action. The second policy challenge we face is more complex. That challenge is to ensure the tax code does not prevent the efficient transfer of family businesses and farms to the next generation. Unfortunately, in its current form, the estate tax can be a major hurdle to the efficient transfer of family business and farm assets. One of the arguments made for the estate tax is it deconcentrates wealth. The problem is family businesses--sometimes as the result of planning for the estate tax or paying the estate tax--have been swept up by large corporations with no ties to the community. We need to recognize changes in the economy have also changed the debate we should be having on the estate tax. I am a cosponsor of S. 1128 because I believe it is the only reasonable vehicle before us that addresses how we transfer family businesses and farms to the next generation. Unfortunately, estate tax repeal is extremely expensive. And at the end of the day, I am still hopeful we can find another solution to the two policy challenges I have outlined. While I will vote to pass H.R. 8, I must express some disappointment with the estate tax debate we've had in Congress. It's as if both sides have dug in so deep with the same arguments for so long that we can't have a thoughtful debate on the merits of the issue. The black and white choice is either to repeal the ``death'' tax or to oppose a tax break that will only benefit America's wealthiest citizens. My friends in the majority could be proposing estate tax reform or repeal in the context of a responsible, long-term fiscal plan. Unfortunately, they have chosen not to do so. It seems the extent of the fiscal planning our majority colleagues have done is to note there were 279 votes in the House for H.R. 8--enough to override an expected veto. I believe the American people deserve more thoughtful deliberation. Meanwhile, many Democrats and the Administration have been slower to react to real and heartfelt concerns people have about the estate tax. H.R. 8 has been criticized by some of my colleagues as a bill that would simply benefit the wealthiest estates. I can tell you that I have not been contacted by the wealthiest individuals in my state. Rather, for the last seven years, I have heard from family business and farm owners who are desperate to get a tax code that effectively allows them to transfer their operations to the children and grandchildren. They want their Washington state businesses to remain Washington state businesses for many years to come. Since I first began working on estate tax reform in 1995, my commitment has been to provide estate tax relief to small family businesses and farmers. I believe the public interest on this issue is to continue to work--as I have done the last five years--to push forward with estate tax reform. Therefore, I supported the Democratic alternative and I will support H.R. 8. It is my sincere hope we can work on a bipartisan basis to craft a compromise that President Clinton will sign before the end of the year. And I hope the compromise will include estate tax relief for small businesses and farms in the next ten years, which H.R. 8 does not do. It is clear H.R. 8 will be vetoed, and likely Congress will sustain the veto. But I'm glad we had the debate. Earlier this week, when we appeared deadlocked on the estate tax bill, I initiated a letter signed by all nine of the Democratic cosponsors of S. 1128. The letter urged the majority leader to allow a reasonable number of Democratic amendments on the estate tax bill. Following my letter, I was pleased we were able to move forward with a unanimous consent agreement to consider the estate tax bill. After this debate, I hope we can move forward to consider the other pressing business before us, including passage of permanent normal trade relations for China. Carryover Basis Provisions

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill is meant to address the needs of our nation's most precious resource, our people. When a Labor, HHS bill is properly funded, it ensures the health of our families, the education of our children and the safety of our workers. Unfortunately, the bill before us falls short and I will vote against it. In March, I expressed my concerns that the Congressional Majority was not sufficiently funding this part of the budget. Today, in June, we can see specifically how those shortcomings will impact the American people. While this bill does make some specific gains in key public health programs, the overall picture is lacking. While I am pleased with some parts of this bill, I am voting against it because it does not make the necessary commitments to public health, worker safety, and reducing class sizes. We have a surplus and we can invest in key programs like education, health care, job training, and work place, but instead we are guided by a spending plan that places a greater emphasis on irresponsible tax cuts. Before I outline the specific reasons for my vote, I do want to thank the Chairman for his hard work on this bill. He has been given an impossible task, and he has still been able to make some key investments in vital health initiatives like the National Institutes of Health, NIH, our efforts to reduce medical mistakes, and efforts to expand medical services in rural areas through the use of telemedicine. When it comes to funding the NIH, the additional $2.7 billion allocated in this bill is clearly a sound and wise investment. Unfortunately, we have not made the same investment in other important health care access and prevention programs, but I am committed to working with the Chairman to maintain this level for NIH. We also need to ensure that all public health agencies receive the same level of commitment and support. Without the work and programs of CDC, HRSA, and FDA, research funded from NIH will never make it to patients. We also need to show the same commitment to prevention programs and health care access programs that we have shown to NIH. What we sometimes forget is the number one killer in this country is cardiovascular disease, a disease that we can do more to prevent. Another highlight of this bill is its support for innovative solutions to prevent medical errors. The $50 million to fund new projects to reduce medical mistakes is essential if we hope to implement effective, constructive solutions. I believe this new funding will provide support to hospitals and clinics to automate drug dispensing to reduce fatal errors from prescription drugs not administered correctly. It will ensure that we utilize ``best practice'' standards when implementing automation into hospitals and will allow the expansion of current efforts at the Veterans Administration to reduce medical mistakes. The Institute of Medicine's report on medical errors clearly illustrated what was wrong in our health care delivery system. Fortunately, this Appropriations bill provides the funding to help us avoid medical mistakes. I also want to thank the Chairman for his support of telemedicine efforts. For rural communities in Washington state, expanding and enhancing telemedicine is an important part of ensuring access to quality, affordable health care. I appreciate the Chairman's support of my request for Children's Hospital in Seattle to support a telemedicine project. I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the Chairman and Ranking member for their efforts on behalf of women's health care. The pending LHHS Appropriations bill does address many of the gender inequities in research and access. The Chairman has also provided an increase for the CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act to expand the Wise Women program to additional states, including Washington state. This important screening program would allow for the screening of breast and cervical cancer as well as heart disease. It builds on the success of the breast and cervical cancer screening program to offer greater access for low income women. Clearly, there are some good elements of this bill. Unfortunately, the lack of overall investment in public health undermines these provisions. The bottom line is that the overall commitment made to the LHHS and Education programs has been short changed in order to provide massive tax cuts for the few. The priorities of the FY01 Budget Resolution simply do not reflect the priorities of working families. Another problem with this bill is it does not protect America's workers. Today, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in our nation's post-war economy. We have jobs that cannot be filled, but we also have workers who cannot find jobs because they lack the training and necessary skills. Dislocated workers are a resource we simply have not tapped and the funding levels in this bill do not allow for the necessary investment in these programs. This bill also does not allow OSHA to issue an ergonomics standard, even though ergonomic injuries are the single-largest occupational health crisis faced by men and women in our work force today. I am also disappointed that this bill does not fund the President's efforts to ensure pay equity. This bill does not give the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the tools it needs to enforce wage discrimination rules. In addition, this bill does not guarantee that classrooms across America will be less crowded next year. While I appreciate the Chairman's efforts, the funding level is not adequate to meet our goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce classroom overcrowding. In addition, the structure of the funding does not guarantee that the funds will be used to reduce classroom overcrowding. This is a national priority, and we should direct this investment to reducing class size. If we do not continue to honor our commitment to classroom overcrowding, we will have failed to give students the tools to learn the basics in disciplined environment. I also am concerned that we have doomed this bill to failure if we reject the President's education agenda, which includes a targeted class size reduction program. Not simply throwing more money at the problem, but using limited resources to invest in our children. I will continue to work with the Chairman as I do believe he is trying to work with difficult spending limitations, but we need to improve our commitment to reducing class sizes. This bill does not get the job done. Finally, Mr. President, I want to express my strong opposition to the Helms Amendment, which would override the choices of thousands of communities and would endanger America's students. Currently, 23 states allow minors access to confidential family planning and contraceptives. The Helms amendment would override those laws and--in effect--create a new federal parental consent law. Access to safe, confidential reproductive health care services for minors is a major health concern, and various communities have found their own ways to address it. This is not just about preventing pregnancy. It's about preventing fatalities. AIDS and HIV threaten students today. Unfortunately, this amendment jeopardizes a public health effort to protect these students. I do want to mention that I was surprised to hear the sponsor of this amendment talk about access to RU-486 in school-based clinics. I would remind my colleague that RU-486 has still not been approved for use in this country. The real issue here is our ability to protect the health of students across America, and the Helms amendment stands in the way of that important priority. When I look at the Labor, HHS bill, I see a bill that fails America's workers and students. Because this bill does not make the necessary investments in public health, worker safety and education, I am voting against it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased and relieved that after weeks of uncertainty we have finally reached this point, and that we are ready to act on the Military Construction Bill. As always, I thank Senator Burns, the Chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee for his leadership and bipartisan cooperation. I also want to thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd for their work in producing this bill. They set an excellent example for all of us to follow. The FY 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Bill provides $8.8 billion dollars in spending. This agreement also represents a tremendous amount of work and a great deal of cooperation between the House and Senate. We went into conference with very different recommendations for projects, and simply not enough money to go around. We came out with a bipartisan package that is fair and balanced and, most importantly, addresses some of our most pressing military construction needs. I wish we could have done more because the needs are so significant. As our nation continues to tally up ever-larger budget surpluses, I hope that the Defense Department will channel more resources into military construction. We simply cannot continue to balance the best military in the world on the back of a crumbling infrastructure. We ask tremendous sacrifices from our military families, and this bill is an opportunity to address their pressing needs. Mr. President, I would also like to acknowledge the excellent contributions of the Military Construction Subcommittee staff for their many hours of hard work in crafting this agreement. I also want to make a few brief comments regarding the supplemental appropriations that have been attached to this legislation. I will vote for the conference report but I do so with serious reservations about numerous provisions in the supplemental. It is important to note that the package before the Senate today does not represent the work of the entire conference committee. The conference committee did not meet to consider the supplemental items. This has not been an ideal process. While this bill provides funding for needed projects and disaster relief, many needs were left unaddressed. Other projects were added that were not part of either the President's supplemental request or the Senate's supplemental provisions. I am particularly disappointed that this conference report does not include the Senate's language to provide Seattle and other local governments in Washington state with the needed reimbursement funding for last year's WTO meeting. The federal government has not been a true partner is sharing the costs for this event. I am particularly disappointed with the Congressional Majority, which promised to include this language. Unfortunately, when they met behind closed doors, they chose to neglect our obligation to Seattle. I will demand that the Senate act on this matter before we adjourn this year. In addition, I continue to have serious reservations about the assistance package to Columbia for counter narcotics activities. I have worked with Senator Leahy to strengthen the human rights provisions within the bill, and I did vote for both amendments to limit funding to Columbia during the Senate's consideration of the issue. If the Columbia funding were attached to a bill other than Military Construction where I serve as ranking member, I would give serious consideration to voting against the bill. I also want to note for my colleagues that this legislation provides significant disaster assistance for New Mexico to aid the Los Alamos area in dealing with the recent devastating fire. Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman have been very diligent in working with the Senate on this issue. At this moment, fire crews in Washington state have finally gotten control of another significant fire near one of our country's nuclear weapons facilities. More than 200,000 acres were destroyed by a fast- moving fire on and around the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Secretary Richardson is at Hanford today to assess the damage. I have been in contact with Governor Gary Locke and various federal officials to follow the fire developments. While it is too soon to know the extent of the damage, I do want my colleagues to be aware of this serious situation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Daschle amendment to prohibit genetic discrimination in employment. I commend the Senator for his leadership in this area, and I thank him for bringing this amendment to the floor. The issue of genetic discrimination is a timely debate in light of the recent announcement that science has conquered the genetic code. This is a major milestone that brings us closer to finding cure for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinsons, M.S., and a whole host of other tragic diseases. The science is moving ahead rapidly, and our standards for the use of that science must not lag behind. We must ensure that genetic information is not used in discriminatory ways. If we do not take a stand prohibiting discrimination based on one's genetic make up, we could jeopardize the benefits offered by science. We must ensure that our genetic finger print is used only for good, and not as a tool to discriminate. I've talked to many women in my state who are concerned about breast cancer. They know they should undergo genetic testing to find out if they are predisposed to breast cancer, but they don't. They avoid getting tested because they are afraid that the results could be used against them and could adversely affect their employment or insurance coverage. They are concerned that if they use the science, it will be used against them. Enacting a tough federal ban on genetic discrimination will give these women, along with thousands of other people across the country, the peace of mind that they can take advantage of the latest tools of medicine without being taken advantage of in the process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment now. We have made a significant investment in genetic research. Let's make sure that we all benefit from this investment. If we act now, we will ensure this information is used to treat patients and not to penalize them.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment we are now going to vote on simply continues our commitment to reduce class sizes for the first through the third grades across this country. Because of the work we have done in the past day, 1.7 million children are in smaller class sizes. We have a commitment. We should keep our commitment to continue to reduce class size. The underlying bill simply block grants the money. That will hurt our neediest and most disadvantaged students who will lose under that kind of proposal. School boards are meeting today to determine who they will keep as teachers and whether they will be able to make a commitment in the hiring of teachers. We should make this decision now so those school boards can make the decisions for the coming school year rather than once again negotiating this in October when the President has said he will veto a bill that does not keep the commitment to reduce class size. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment today and prevent school boards across the country from having to wonder all summer long if we are going to keep our commitment.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely correct. We hear from teachers, students, and parents: Smaller class sizes are critical, schools need to be safe, up to date, up to code, and teachers who are trained and qualified and able to be in the classroom. Those are the top three changes parents request. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues how critical this issue is, and I ask for their help and support when this issue comes up. Amendment No. 3631

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

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