Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today we are offering the Murray-Snowe amendment. It is an amendment which would lift restrictions on privately funded abortions at military facilities overseas. This is the identical amendment we have offered every year since 1995, and I assure my colleagues that we will continue to offer this amendment until we restore this important health care protection for our women who are serving abroad. It is simply outrageous that today we deny military personnel and their dependents access to safe, affordable, and legal reproductive health care services. We ask these women to serve their country and defend our Government, but we deny them basic rights that are afforded all women in this country. I come to the floor year after year during this DOD authorization in an effort to educate my colleagues in the hope of convincing a majority of them to stand up for all military personnel. I also offer this amendment to highlight the record of those who do stand up for women and their right to a safe and legal abortion at their own cost. To be clear, this is not about Federal funding of abortion. Many of our military personnel serve in hostile areas or in countries that do not provide safe and legal abortion services. Military personnel and their families who serve us overseas should not be forced to seek back alley abortions or abortions in facilities that do not meet the same clinical standards we expect and demand in this country. Sadly, that is exactly the case today. Protecting all military personnel and their dependents has always been a priority of the Department of Defense, which is why the Secretary of Defense supports the amendment Senator Snowe and I are offering today. This amendment is also supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists because they recognize the danger that these women face outside this country. Some Members will undoubtedly argue that women are afforded access to a legal and safe abortion with the current restriction in place. They will point out that under the current policy, a woman who needs an abortion can request transportation back to the United States for treatment. It is true that she can request a temporary leave from her commanding officer and will be transported at the expense of our military to a location where she would have access to an abortion. To me, that is unacceptable. It forces a woman to provide detailed medical evidence and records to her superior officer with no guarantee or protection that this information will be kept confidential. Then once she gets the commanding officer's permission, she needs to find transportation home, often on a military plane, such as a C-17. I don't know of any other medical procedure that requires a soldier to have to endure such public scrutiny. If there are Members who believe that these women are protected and have access to a basic right that is guaranteed by our Constitution to a safe and legal abortion, I will tell my colleagues this is not the case. Do not be fooled. The current ban on privately funded abortions at military facilities overseas places the women who serve our country in great danger. This amendment is not about Federal funding of abortions. This amendment does not require direct Federal procurement for abortion services. This amendment would, in fact, require the woman, not the taxpayer, to pay the cost of her care at a military facility. This amendment would simply allow the woman to use existing facilities that are currently operational to provide health care to our active duty personnel and their families. This amendment does not call for providing any additional services. It is simply services that are already available. These clinics and hospitals are already functioning and providing care. There would be no added burden. For those who are concerned about Federal tax dollars being used to provide abortion services, I point out that the current practice results in more direct expenditures of Federal funds than simply allowing a woman to pay for the cost of abortion-related services at a military facility. Current policy requires transportation costs that in some cases could be far more expensive than a privately funded abortion. I also point out that there is a direct, positive impact on our military readiness when a woman is forced to take extended leave to travel for an abortion. As we all know, women are no longer simply support staff in the military. Women command troops and are in key military readiness positions. Their contributions are beyond dispute. While women serve side by side with their male counterparts, they are subjected to an archaic and seemingly mean-spirited health care restriction. Women in our military deserve more respect and better treatment. I think it is also important to remind my colleagues that this amendment will not change the current conscience clause for medical personnel. Health care professionals who object to providing safe and legal health services to women could still refuse to perform an abortion. No one in the military would be forced to perform any procedures that he or she objected to as a matter of conscience. The current policy places our women at risk. Because the current policy is so cumbersome, women could be forced to undergo an abortion later in their pregnancy when risks and complications increase. They can, of course, try to obtain safe and legal abortion services in the host country in which they are serving--if there are no language or cultural barriers that hinder their access. We should not tolerate situations that are occurring, such as what occurred to a woman serving our country in Japan. Because of our current policy, she was denied access to abortion services at the military facility, even at her own expense, and she was forced to go off base to secure a safe and legal abortion. She had no escort and no help from the military as she went to a foreign facility. She didn't understand the medical questions or the instructions, and she was terrified. I have her letter, and I will read it into the Record later. Our Government should never have forced her, as she was serving us overseas, into that circumstance. Regardless of what some of my colleagues may think about the constitutional ruling guaranteeing a woman the right to a safe abortion without unnecessary burdens or obstacles, this is the law of the land. While some may oppose this right to choose, the Supreme Court and a majority of Americans support this right. It is the law of the land. However, active duty servicewomen stationed overseas surrender this right when they make the decision to volunteer to defend all of us. It is sadly ironic that we send them overseas to protect our rights; yet in the process we rob them of vital constitutional protections. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray-Snowe amendment. Please allow women in the military the right to make their own health care choices without being forced to violate privacy and jeopardize their health and their careers. This is and must remain a personal decision. Women should not be subject to the approval or disapproval of their coworkers. I stress this is not about Federal funding of abortions. This is about protecting women serving overseas and providing privately funded, safe, and legal abortions. I urge my colleagues to support our women in uniform by restoring their right to choose. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is right. Under this amendment, the woman would have to pay for the services in the military hospital on her own.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mrs. MURRAY. I say to the Senator from Illinois, there is a conscience clause that allows any doctor to be excused from the procedure based on religion.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Absolutely.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes, and that when Senator Kennedy speaks, that he also be given 15 minutes in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk about a challenge the people of Washington State face. It is an environmental challenge, a legal challenge, and a moral challenge. That challenge is to rescue a symbol of the Pacific Northwest. That challenge is to recover our wild Pacific salmon. As anyone who lives in Washington State can tell you, the salmon of our region are more than a symbol. They are part of our culture, our heritage, our recreation, and our economy. Unfortunately, the salmon that were once so abundant in our rivers and along our shores are now in danger. In fact, today several species of salmon are threatened with extinction. When it comes to saving salmon, solutions are not easy to find. There are so many different viewpoints to consider. Everyone from recreational and commercial fishermen to Native Americans and conservationists, to State, local, and Federal officials, along with private property owners have a role to play in helping us meet this challenge. In my time here in the Senate, I have always worked to bring people together, and to find solutions that help us meet this challenge while still keeping our economy strong. Today, I have come to the floor to share with my colleagues and the American people some progress we have recently made in meeting this challenge. I am proud to report that just last week, we took a major step forward to save wild salmon. Seven days ago, the President designated a vital salmon spawning ground--known as the Hanford Reach--as a national monument. I was proud to stand on the banks of the Columbia River, beside the Vice President, when this historic announcement was made. It was a dream come true. For a long time, many of us have dreamed of preserving the Reach. There are few places in the world like it. For me and my family, as for many families throughout the region, the Columbia and Snake Rivers hold deep personal meaning. My grandfather settled in the Tri-Cities in 1916. My dad grew up there. He watched his hometown become the home of a secret factory--a factory now known as the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a factory that would give America the tools to win World War II. When my dad came back from his military service in the Pacific theater, he was injured, and he had lost a lot of friends in combat. He wasn't the same. And the place he came back to wasn't the same either. He knew that his hometown--perhaps more than any other--contributed to winning the war by producing the weapon that ended World War II. And he took a lot of pride in that fact. In my own life, I have spent a lot of time in the Tri-Cities. Growing up, I remember during my summer vacation getting in our car and driving to the Tri-Cities to see my Grandma--watching the hydros and swimming in the river with my six brothers and sisters. When I was in college, I spent a great summer working at Sacajawea State Park at the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. I came to respect the history of the area, and the people who lived in the community. The first time I floated down the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, I was with my daughter, Sara. We were so impressed with the beautiful landscape, the fish and the wildlife, and the reminders of the vibrant Native American culture that abounds along the Hanford Reach. As we floated along, we saw the reactors, and I told her about the role the Tri-Cities played in helping America win World War II and about her grandfather's part in that important piece of history. We were both deeply affected by that day on the river, and it is a memory I cherish. When I started fighting to protect the Hanford Reach, my dad told me he thought it was great that I was working to give something back to a community that had given so much to our family and to our country. So last Friday, when Vice President Gore announced the designation of the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a national monument, the toughest part of that day for me was that I had lost my father a few years ago and he was not there to see it happen. The national monument designation doesn't just enable us to remember our past, it allows us to capture our future--in large part by saving wild salmon. The Hanford Reach spans only 51 miles of the Columbia River's 1,200 miles, but it spawns 80% of the wild fall Chinook produced in the entire Columbia Basin. Thanks to the designation, this vital breeding ground has been protected. The designation also preserves the unique history of this area. Generations of Americans will be able to learn about the sacrifices that the people of the Tri-Cities made to help America win World War II, and generations more will be able to learn about the long Native American history along the Columbia River. In addition, the designation will ensure that families can use the river for recreation for years into the future. This is the right thing to do. And doing the right thing also means keeping your promises. The people of the Tri-Cities have been given too many broken promises. I do not intend to be another link in that chain. The designation is not the end of the process, but the beginning. As I told the people of the Tri-Cities last week, I will continue to work with local leaders to ensure that their voices are heard. Working together--with an open dialogue--we can reach the best solution. Over the years, a lot of people helped make the designation possible. Mr. President, I want the Congressional Record to forever reflect the tireless work of people like Rick Leaumont, Rich Steele, Bob Wilson, Laura Smith, Mike Lilga, Jim Watts, and Dave Goeke. I thank the person who worked side-by-side with me in the House as we developed legislative solutions for how to protect the Reach, Congressman Norm Dicks, and also Jay Inslee, who has worked hard on this issue. I also thank the members of my advisory committee, the tribes, and so many members of my staff who spent countless hours to save this valuable resource. I thank Governor Gary Locke for his leadership. I thank Secretary Babbitt for recognizing the unique value of the Hanford Reach, and Secretary Richardson for his help over the years on this and other issues related to Hanford. Of course, we owe a debt of thanks to the President and the Vice President. Over the years, we have asked much of the Columbia River, and it has always given generously. It has given us affordable energy, turned a desert into a farming oasis, and provided a highway for international commerce. It is amazing how so very few times in our lives we are given the opportunity to truly give something to future generations. That is what we are doing with the designation of the Hanford Reach as a National Monument. Today, I take a moment to thank a person who deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the progress we have made in the Pacific Northwest. Time and again the Vice President has demonstrated his commitment to protecting our Nation's natural resources while ensuring that we have the strongest economy in our Nation's history. He helped us develop habitat conservation plans that allow us to conserve our environment while providing stability to our economy. He made our salmon treaty with Canada a priority for the U.S. Government, and for the past two years he has led the fight to save struggling salmon runs. To meet the challenges that we will undoubtedly face in the coming years, we will need a strong partnership at every level--from the folks on the ground to local, State, and Federal officials. There is no person--no one--who is better qualified to provide the leadership to bring us together and to help us solve our toughest problems than Al Gore. The people of Washington State are grateful for his leadership and appreciate the gift that this designation is to future generations. Before I close, I believe it is important to address one final point on this subject. I understand Governor Bush plans to visit my State on Monday. I expect he will be impressed by what he sees, and he is always welcome in Washington. I am glad he is making the trip because, unlike President Clinton and Vice President Gore, I do not believe Governor Bush has spent much time there. Governor Bush, the people of Washington want to know three things: First, will you make a commitment to protect the Hanford Reach National Monument? Will you commit to saving salmon? And most importantly, what is your plan for saving salmon? When you come to Washington State, Governor Bush, those are the questions people will be asking. Quite frankly, Mr. President, when it comes to the Hanford Reach, I believe that the Governor needs to know that those in Washington State who are close to him opposed Federal protection of the Hanford Reach--a designation that will save the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River--and the best salmon spawning ground we have. I believe the voters of Washington State deserve to know what Governor Bush's intentions are. And on the issue of preserving salmon on the Snake River, I have heard Governor Bush articulate what he won't do, but I have yet to hear what he would do to protect our region's economy while restoring wild salmon runs. His spokespeople attacked the Vice President on his latest visit to Washington State when the Vice President indicated his personal interest in helping the region solve the tricky issues related to salmon restoration. Bush's people offered no plan, they just attacked the Vice President for having one. The people of Washington want to hear plans for saving salmon--not just attacks, but credible, responsible plans. Let me be clear: When it comes to helping the people of Washington State meet environmental challenges, just saying ``no'' doesn't cut it. The people of my State deserve to know what the President would do to save salmon. When the Vice President was in Washington State recently he met this challenge head-on. He very clearly committed to saving salmon. He said that extinction was not an option. And he indicated that in his administration, he would call a summit to bring together diverse views so we can work together to save salmon. He faced the issue in a thoughtful, responsible way. In fact, many of my constituents came up to me after the Vice President spoke to tell me how impressed they were with the Vice President's understanding of the issue and his commitment to protecting our natural resources, and to thank me for his leadership on this critical challenge. Mr. President, the ball is clearly in Governor Bush's court, and it is time for him to provide his own answers and vision. When Governor Bush enters the State of Washington, residents will be listening for his commitment to the Hanford Reach National Monument, listening for his commitment to saving salmon, and listening for his plan to save salmon. The people of my State care about this issue. They deserve to hear specific answers. I suggest that if Governor Bush leaves Washington State without addressing the concerns of Washington State voters on the issue of salmon recovery, it would suggest that his trip was more about politics and photo-ops than addressing the concerns of Washington State voters. I urge Governor Bush to respect the concerns of the people of my State, to address their concerns and to answer their questions. I pledge to work with the next President to implement a plan that will save salmon while keeping our economy sound. My hope is for a President who is willing to work with me and the other citizens of Washington State in a constructive fashion to address the complex issues related to recovering the once might runs of wild salmon on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. I believe the people of Washington State deserve nothing less.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1128, the Estate Tax Elimination Act. Mr. President, I came to understand the impact of the federal estate tax during my first campaign for election to the U.S. Senate. As I met with hundreds of small businessmen and women, timber lot owners, and farmers and ranchers, I consistently heard the federal estate tax was a major road-block to the long-term success of their family operations. But when I came to the Senate in 1993, it appeared it would be a long time before Congress could take action on the estate tax, or any other tax issue for that matter. We faced deficits as far as the eye could see. We had to make hard choices about spending cuts and tax relief for the neediest families. I'm pleased that my colleagues and I on the Democratic side made those tough choices in 1993 and in subsequent years. Combined with a strong economy, those tough choices gave us the opportunity to be in the position we are in today. The effort to roll back the federal estate tax, and provide relief for farms and small businesses, started slowly. In 1995, I joined those efforts by introducing S. 161, the American Family Business Preservation Act. Senator Bob Dole was the prime Republican cosponsor of this measure. With respect to the estate tax, the Murray-Dole bill would have reduced the maximum estate tax rate from 55 percent to 15 percent if the heirs continued to own and operate a business for ten years after the death of the primary owner. Given the limited resources we had, I believed this modest bill was a good step forward. In 1997, Congress passed the Taxpayer Relief Act, a bipartisan effort to reduce taxes for working Americans. The bill provided for an increase in the estate tax exemption over ten years, and created an additional exemption for small business and farm assets. I supported this bipartisan initiative to provide estate tax relief to my constituents. As it is phased in, this law will help to ensure the very small percentage of estates subject to the estate tax bill grow even smaller. But we should all recognize the environment has changed. As projected surpluses have grown, the debate about the estate tax has turned from increasing the exemption to outright repeal. Estate tax opponents have made their case for elimination, and it's compelling. The question for me is no longer whether the estate tax will or should be repealed, but how and when it will be repealed. I believe one of the appropriate roles for Democrats in this debate--the same Democrats who helped balance the budget--is to ensure that we promote as progressive an end to the estate tax as possible. At this moment in time, I believe S. 1128 is the most progressive estate tax repeal vehicle that is under consideration. Instead of taxing an estate when it is transferred to the next generation, it would require heirs to pay a capital gains tax on appreciated value when the asset is sold. This provides an effective mechanism for transferring farm and business assets, while still maintaining a reasonably progressive tax structure. I understand there is some debate about whether S. 1128 or similar proposals will increase the tax code's complexity. Now that the House has overwhelmingly passed estate tax repeal, we have an ideal opportunity to engage in a serious, thoughtful debate about the current effects of the estate tax and the possible implications of various repeal proposals. I believe by the end of this year, Congress, the Administration, and the American public will have a better understanding of the complex choices we face. I would like to make it clear that I do not believe estate tax repeal should be the only tax priority of this or future Congresses. There are many inequities, complexities, and inefficiencies in the tax code, many of which affect low- and middle-income working families who need tax relief the most. In the spirit of helping those who need it the most, I have cosponsored legislation to address the alternative minimum tax and the marriage penalty. In addition, I have cosponsored tax legislation to expand health insurance, improve the infrastructure of our nation's public schools, encourage alternative energy sources, enhance the safety net for farmers and ranchers, and increase the availability of child care and long-term care. Last year, I sponsored tax legislation to protect forest and agricultural land, which passed the Senate in July. Estate tax relief should certainly be an important component in any agenda to provide relief and economic opportunities to working families and family-owned businesses. Therefore, I support estate tax repeal in the context of a modest, targeted tax cut benefitting working families. Before the end of the year, Congress and the Administration will likely reach agreement on a reconciliation package. Further reform--if not repeal--of the estate tax should be a part of that package. While repeal may not be possible this year, I look forward to strongly supporting increased exemptions for small business and farm assets. At the very least, we should guarantee a brighter and less complicated future for those families that need estate tax reform the most. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor S. 1128, and to work toward meaningful action on the estate tax issue before Congress adjourns this fall.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for yielding me this time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a solemn occasion in the lives of the people of my home State of Washington. Many of my colleagues have heard me talk on the Senate floor about pipeline safety. Today I want to remind everyone of the reason I have become such a strong advocate for improving pipeline safety. June 10--one year ago, coming up this Saturday--will be the first anniversary of a horrible pipeline accident in Bellingham, WA. In that accident, a gasoline pipeline ruptured and released more than 275,000 gallons of gasoline into Whatcom Creek. That gasoline caught fire and sent a fireball racing 1\1/2\ miles down the creek side. It created a plume of black smoke that rose more than 20,000 feet into the air. Two 10-year-old boys and a young man were enjoying the outdoors on that quiet summer afternoon. Tragically, they died as a result of that pipeline rupture. Three families in Bellingham, WA, will never be the same because of the events that took place on June 10, 1999. As we mark this anniversary, we can never forget the lives that were lost. For just a moment I want to ask my colleagues and the American people to pay tribute to those young lives; Wade King, Stephen Tsiorvas, and Liam Wood. I also want to honor their parents--who have endured a loss that no family should have to experience. They have shown such strength and courage. They have led the charge for safer pipelines, and their advocacy has made a difference. Their courage was clear to everyone who attended the Senate Commerce Committee field hearing in Bellingham on March 13 and to everyone who heard them testify just last month here in Washington, DC, before the Commerce Committee. They came to Washington, DC, to ask for one thing. They want this Congress to improve pipeline standards this year. This Congress--this year. I believe we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to meet the parents' wishes and to protect everyone else from pipeline hazards. That is why I have been working to raise the safety standards for oil and gas pipelines. There are 2.2 million miles of pipelines running across the country. They run near our schools, our homes, and our communities. They perform a vital service. They bring us the energy we need to fuel our cars and heat our homes. But at the same time, they are not as safe as they could be. We have a responsibility to pass a bill this year that will protect families from the dangers of unsafe pipelines. To be honest, I--like many Americans--was not aware of those dangers until the accident in my State. But as I spent months learning about pipelines, I found that the accident in my State was not a rare event. Since 1986, there have been more than 5,700 pipeline accidents in this country, 325 deaths, 1,500 injuries, and almost $1 billion in environmental damage. On average there is one pipeline accident every day in this country, and 6 million hazardous gallons are spilled into our environment every year. That is why back in January I introduced my own pipeline safety bill--the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000. I want to thank the Members who have signed on as cosponsors--Senators Inouye, Gorton, Wyden, Lautenberg, and Bayh. I want my colleagues to know, in the 4 months since I introduced my pipeline safety bill, at least 20 States have experienced pipeline accidents. In addition to my bill, pipeline safety measures have been offered by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain and by the administration. I am pleased that all of the current proposals touch on five key areas of pipeline safety. First, all of these bills recognize the need to improve pipeline inspection and accident prevention practices, second, they recognize the need to develop and invest in new safety and inspection technology, third--and importantly--they expand the Public's right to know about problems with pipelines in their neighborhoods, fourth, they recognize that States can be better partners in improving pipeline safety. Finally, these bills increase funding for new State and Federal pipeline safety programs. I thank Senator McCain for the strong personal interest he has taken in this issue. I thank him for the very effective way he has worked to move this legislation forward. The Senate Commerce Committee has tentatively scheduled a markup session for June 15. Senator Gorton and I are working with both the majority and minority members of the Senate Commerce Committee to come up with a manager's package that will meet the standards we have outlined and will be acceptable to as many members as possible. As we work here in the Senate on this important legislation, I want to encourage my colleagues in the House of Representatives to move forward quickly on their legislation so this Congress can pass a bill this year. One of the things that has been so important over the past year is that so many people have come together to improve pipeline safety. And while I don't have time to thank them all, I do want to mention a few. First among them is Bellingham's Mayor Mark Asmundson, who has done more to educate the public and legislators about pipeline safety than anyone I know. I also want to recognize Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater who stationed a pipeline inspector in my State after the accident, and DOT Inspector General Kenneth Mead, who issued a report at my request on the Office of Pipeline Safety. I also thank the President and the Vice President for their leadership. In particular, the Vice President took the time to learn about this issue when he was in my State. He recognizes its importance, and he sent the administration's pipeline safety bill to the Senate. I also thank the rest of the Washington State delegation--which has come together across party lines to address this issue--particularly my colleague Senator Gorton, along with Representatives from our delegtion. And of course, I want to recognize Washington State Governor, Gary Locke, for the work he has done to raise pipeline standards in our State. Mr. President, one year has passed since the accident in Bellingham, WA, that you can see on the chart behind me. We have made some progress, but we need to finish the job. We need to pass a strong pipeline safety bill this year. We owe it to the people of Bellingham, the victim's families, and to the American people. As we mark the 1-year anniversary of the Bellingham explosion, we must answer the call of the families with a strong bill. Nothing can ease the pain of this anniversary for so many people in my State, but we can and we must use this occasion to enact stronger pipeline safety standards. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd from West Virginia be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes and Senator Reed from Rhode Island to speak for up to 5 minutes following the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Georgia.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act of 2000 and to thank my fellow colleague from Washington state, Senator Gorton, for his work on this important legislation. The Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act is critical for Medicare beneficiaries who suffer from chronic and debilitating diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. As many of you know, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis most often affect women. Until recently, few treatments existed. But advances in biotechnology products have given hope to thousands of individuals. Self-injectable biologic therapies have proven highly effective in reducing the daily, chronic pain that accompanies these devastating diseases. Patients have reported amazing results from self- injectable biologic therapies such as Enbrel in clinical trials. However, before the Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act, no legislation existed that addressed adequate Medicare coverage of these therapies. Currently, Medicare only covers physician-administered therapies and most Medicare prescription drug coverage proposals do not address this issue at all or they place restrictive coverage caps on the use of self-injectable biologic therapies. Beneficiaries should not be denied access to the most effective and convenient therapies for their condition. Ultimately, coverage of self-injectable biologic therapies could save Medicare money in reducing costly, prolonged hospital stays and reducing the number of care provider visits. Most importantly, this legislation will improve the lives of Medicare beneficiaries who suffer from these diseases. Congress must ensure that seniors and the disabled receive the best possible medical treatment and therapies through the Medicare program. Finally, on a more personal note, my family has had first-hand experience with the constant pain and frustration caused by multiple sclerosis. My father suffered from this devastating disease, and I witnessed his daily fight to overcome the pain that accompanied it. I know that self-injectable biologic therapy may have made his fight much easier. We cannot allow Medicare beneficiaries to suffer from preventable, overwhelming pain. In the past, we worked to eliminate barriers to care and research. Today, we seek to tear down Medicare's barriers to self-injectable biologic therapies. Seniors and the disabled should not be denied these life-saving, treatments simply because they are self-injected. Therefore, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Gorton, Mikulski, Cochran, Stevens, and Chafee in introducing the Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act. This legislation would: provide access to innovative therapies that are now on the market and making enormous improvements in the life and care of Medicare beneficiaries; allow physicians to prescribe the most appropriate therapy for their patients; make a common-sense, responsible change in Medicare; and eliminate the current bias against biotechnology therapies inherent in the Medicare program and many of the prescription drug proposals. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. I come to the floor for a brief moment to pay tribute to the victims of gun violence who were killed one year ago today. We are all familiar with the incidents of gun violence in our schools; from Columbine to Springfield, OR, to Paducah, KY, and unfortunately to so many other schools and communities. Gun violence is particularly disturbing when it happens in a school. But gun violence happens everywhere. A member of my staff lost a son to gun violence. Her son was simply stopping at a convenience store when he was robbed and killed. How many families have to suffer unnecessarily before this Congress passes commonsense gun control legislation? The U.S. Conference of Mayors has maintained a list of the thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire since the Columbine tragedy. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year. We will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session until this Republican Congress acts on sensible gun control legislation. Here are the names of a few Americans who died due to gun violence one year ago today: Antwan Brooks, 26, Pittsburgh, PA; James A Brown, 22, Chicago, IL; Kenneth Cork, 46, Houston, TX; Marsha Cress, 32, Fort Worth, TX; Kenneth L. Mack, 49, Chicago, IL; Michael Powers, 29, Atlanta, GA; Howard Rice, 31, Baltimore, MD; Fernando Rojas, 17, Chicago, IL; Rodney Wayne Smith, 33, Washington, DC; Rolando Williams, 17, Pittsburgh, PA; and Earlwin Wright, 22, Chicago, IL.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for her leadership and for her fine statement on this important issue that is before the Senate today. I am very proud to join my many colleagues who are here to commend the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police Force. Day in and day out, these fine officers risk their lives to protect all of us who work in the legislative branch. They also protect the millions of people who travel from across the country to the Capitol every year. They deserve our respect and they deserve our thanks. They certainly do not deserve pink slips. Unfortunately, that is what the budget that was recently passed by the House Republicans would give them. In fact, in the budget that was passed by the House Appropriations Committee, if it were to take effect, 438 members of the Capitol Police Force would be relieved of duty. That is no way to thank some of the hardest working and most dedicated people I have ever encountered. At the same time that security experts are recommending to us we hire additional officers so we can station two officers at every entrance, the House majority's proposal goes in the opposite direction and requires us to fire officers. Many people who are visiting the Nation's Capitol often turn to our Capitol Police Force for help in finding their representatives' offices or to get tour information. While our officers are always very gracious and helpful to everyone, the public really does not get a chance to see the many other things they do. Every day, these officers interact with thousands of people, constantly assessing potential threats and stopping problems before they ever have a chance to start. In fact, in recent days, there have been two potential instances of violence in this Capitol complex. Thanks to the quick work of the Capitol Police, and others, those situations were quickly controlled and no one was injured. In a world where the number of threats seem to be growing, in an age when you never know when someone will act violently, and in a time when the memories of the two officers who died protecting Members of this Congress are still fresh in our minds, we are all better off with a strong, professional, and well-trained Capitol Police. I think it is fair to say that through their work they help all of us carry out the democratic process. They do not just protect elected officials; they protect everyone who visits and works near the Capitol Building. I have been very disappointed to hear what some of the House Republicans have said about the Capitol Police. I do not think those comments reflect accurately on the work of the Capitol Police. I certainly do not want the officers to think that those few Members reflect the way the rest of us feel about the work that you do. I encourage my colleagues to do three things to honor these fine men and women. First, I hope Members, as they go about their daily work, take a moment to say thank you to the men and women of the Capitol Police Force, and let them know how much you appreciate the fine work they do. Secondly, don't let the House Republican budget slap these officers in the face. Instead, let's give them the tools and the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. Finally, I hope all Members of the Senate will vote for the sense-of- the-Senate resolution and show that you stand with us in supporting our Capitol Police. I join the Senator from Maryland in commending Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein for doing an outstanding job. I hope we can adopt this resolution with a very strong vote so that we can maintain the numbers that they have worked to put into this budget. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Burns and all of our staff for doing an excellent job on this bill. I urge its passage. I thank you all for your support.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.