Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague. I will also continue to push for reform. We must take a long hard look at the effectiveness of OSP's oversight activities; review ways to develop new technologies for detecting pipeline defects; consider the effect of aging pipelines on safety; review industry's influence on the regulation of pipelines; and focus on our training and testing procedures for inspectors and maintenance workers. I also intend to look at ways to treat environmentally sensitive and highly populated areas, recognizing the multitude of safety and ecological problems operating pipelines in these places can create. Finally, I will work to strengthen communities' ``right to know,'' so people are aware when there are problems with the pipelines that threaten their neighborhoods.

Mrs. MURRAY. I rise to request a colloquy with my colleague from Washington State, Senator Gorton. On June 10, 1999, 277,000 gallons of gasoline leaded from an underground pipeline in Bellingham, Washington. It ignited and exploded. Three people were killed: an 18-year-old young man and two 10-year-old boys. This is a tragedy. The Office of Pipeline Safety, the National Transportation Safety Board, the FBI, the EPA and State agencies have spent the last four months trying to determine why this happened. We still don't know the direct cause and may not know for some time. I wish I could say this was an isolated instance, but I can't. Recent pipeline accidents have occurred in other places. In Edison, New Jersey, one person died when a natural gas pipeline exploded. In Texas, two people lost their lives when a butane release ignited. In fact, last November the owner of the pipeline that exploded in Bellingham had an accident in another part of my State that took six lives. These pipelines are potential threats. There are some 160,000 miles of pipelines in the U.S. carrying hazardous materials. Many of these pipes run under some of our most densely populated areas; under our schools, our homes, and our businesses. I am disappointed that this year the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee did not adequately fund the Office of Pipeline Safety, the authority governing interstate pipelines. I tried to get the appropriations in this year's bill to the level requested by the President. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so. It is my hope we can increase funding in next year's appropriations. I am also committed to strengthening OSP's oversight of pipelines and commitment to community safety in next year's reauthorization of OPS. I will be working with Senator Gorton, who is on the committee, to ensure greater OPS effectiveness and oversight of the industry. I also want to point out U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater's prompt attention to this issue. Immediately following the accident, he met with me and granted my request to have a full-time OPS inspector stationed in Washington State. He has also been very helpful and informative as we've progressed through the investigation phase. I thank him. I know he will continue to work with us in the future on OPS's appropriations and next year's authorization.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin for his statement and his commitment to education and the tremendous job he is doing to do the right thing, to get education back as the top priority of this Senate and not the last priority. I very much appreciate his strong words and his work, and I look forward to working with him. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues, at the beginning of this year,--as we were discussing budget priorities--virtually every Member of this Chamber--Republican and Democrat--came before you to say how important education is. I was proud to see that the issues that American families talk about around the kitchen table were finally being talked about here on the Senate floor. As the year has progressed, however, we have seen that it was just that--a lot of talk and no action. Members have not matched their talk about education funding with actual funds. For example, earlier this year, the budget chairman indicated he would increase funding for education and training by $5.6 billion. Including yesterday's actions on VA-HUD appropriations, we are now looking at--not an increase of $5.6 billion--but a decrease of more than $15 billion in education funding from last year. How are we going to look the American public in the eye and honestly say that we are doing what we have promised? This Congress has turned its back on the bipartisan commitment we made only last year. Schools in my State--and all across the country-- are using the Federal money we appropriated last year to hire more teachers right now. And it is working. But the current budget process cuts this progress off at the knees. A budget document is a statement of our values. When you look at the budgets that have come out this year, they show that Congress' values don't match Americans' values. How can we say that education is a priority if it receives only 1.6 percent of Federal spending? I cannot in good conscience sit quietly as this Congress goes back on its word and ignores the priorities of the American public. This is the most important discussion we can have right now. School is back in session, and people are talking about improving education. Only Congress is not listening. Sometimes in this Chamber it is hard to hear what our actions sound like across the country. Let me tell you what it sounds like to my constituents. They have told me in no uncertain terms that education funding matters. The people are speaking, but Congress is not listening. The American people have said that our children should not sit in overcrowded classrooms. When a child's hand goes up in the classroom, we all want the teacher to be able to focus on that child's question. What is Congress's reply? The Republican budget will cut education funding by more than 17 percent and guarantee that we keep our children in overcrowded classrooms. The people are speaking, but Congress is not listening. The American people have said that our teachers should be well- trained and have the most recent skills and resources to meet today's complex needs-- including knowing how to use technology to boost student achievement. What is Congress' reply? The Republican budget will cut education funding by more than 17 percent and guarantee that we cannot give our students the well-trained teachers they deserve. The people are speaking; Congress is not listening. The American people have said they want their children to learn in modern schools, not schools where plugging in a computer blows all the electrical circuits. What is Congress' reply? The Republican budget will cut education funding by more than 17 percent and guarantee that we will not be able to modernize our aging schools. The people are speaking; Congress is not listening. Over the past year, one place where our children should be the safest, our schools, has become a home to unspeakable acts of violence. At the end of last school year, we had tragedies in Colorado and Georgia. The American people have told us they want their children to be safe in school. What is Congress' reply? The Republican budget will cut education funding by more than 17 percent and guarantee that we take away resources for safe and drug-free schools now, when we need them the most. The people are speaking; Congress is not listening. When my colleagues say they are listening to the American people, they must be listening with their hands over their ears because they aren't getting the message. Let me be clear: Cutting education funding by more than 17 percent is not what the American people want. It is not what our students need, and it is not what this Congress said it would do. Why do I feel so strongly about this? Because making sure that we invest in public education and prepare our students and our country for tomorrow is at the core of who I am and why I am a United States Senator. When I was raising my children and my State was about to cut a small but very essential preschool program, I started talking to people around me about how we could keep that program. It wasn't very long before I had 15,000 people behind me making their voices heard in my State capital to save that preschool program. We fought very hard over a very small program, and we prevailed. The program wasn't cut, and today it is still helping students as it has been for the past 40 years. These same parents and parents like them from around my State have responded so deeply to the need to invest in education that they sent me to the school board, the State senate, and now to the United States Senate. I stand before you as a person with a mission--to make sure that policymakers across this country do not walk away from their responsibility to the future of America and that they understand the importance of the Federal education dollar. Since I have been in the Senate, I have noticed a change. Because of the efforts of Members like myself, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, and Republicans such as Senator Jeffords and others, this body is finally talking about education in a way that it never has before. This Chamber's discussion is more reflective of the discussions that go on around kitchen tables all over this country. But you don't get points for talk alone. I am sure that after my remarks today, some Members of this body will come here to say our public schools are failing, and they will paint us all a picture of woe and despair. The truth is, our public schools are doing a good job educating our children, and they are doing that good work in the face of enormous challenges today. I have to say it again because it has never been more clear: Our public schools have not failed us, but if we don't stop this Republican budget, we will be failing our public schools. The American people say education should be the highest priority. This Congress is making it our last priority. The American people say education should be our first priority. This Congress made it the last bill we will debate, after all the dollars have been spent, and there is only a little bit of spare change left. Some of the proposals out there would have you believe that we can solve everything just by making our Federal programs more flexible. We all want our programs to be flexible. But you can have all the flexibility in the world, and it won't solve our education problems. Our schools need resources and our schools need funding. The education budget has been left for the last. When we go home in a month, how will we explain the resulting decisions to our constituents? Which 17 percent of the kids are we going to say are not worth educating? To which 17 percent of the parents and families are we going to say: Sorry, we didn't have enough money to teach your child? Which 17 percent of schools are not worth making safe, secure, and drug free? We cannot waste a single student. Even though it is very late in the game, and there is a lot of work to be done, we can turn this around. We can still decide to keep our word on education and to keep in step with the wishes of the American public. It is not too late. I urge all of my colleagues to act now to increase education funding and do right by our children. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to request a colloquy with my colleague from Washington state, Senator Gorton. On June 10, 1999, 277,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from an underground pipeline in Bellingham, Washington. It ignited and exploded. Three people were killed: an 18-year-old young man and two 10-year old boys. This is a tragedy. The Office of Pipeline Safety, the National Transportation Safety Board, the FBI, the EPA and state agencies have spent the last four months trying to determine why this happened. We still don't know the direct cause and may not know for some time. I wish I could say this was an isolated instance, but I can't. Recent pipeline accidents have occurred in other places. In Edison, New Jersey, one person died when a natural gas pipe exploded. In Texas, two people lost their lives when a butane release ignited. In fact, last November the owner of the pipeline that exploded in Bellingham had an accident in another part of my state that took six lives. These pipelines are potential threats. There are some 160,000 miles of pipelines in the U.S. carrying hazardous materials. Many of these pipes run under some of our most densely populated areas; under our schools, our homes, and our businesses. I am disappointed that this year the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee did not adequately fund the Office of Pipeline Safety, the authority governing interstate pipelines. I tried to get the appropriations in this year's bill to the level requested by the President. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so. It is my hope we can increase funding in next year's appropriations. I am also committed to strengthening OPS's oversight of pipelines and commitment to community safety in next year's reauthorization of OPS. I will be working with Senator Gorton, who is on the committee, to ensure greater OPS effectiveness and oversight of the industry. I also want to point out U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater's prompt attention to this issue. Immediately following the accident, he met with me and granted my request to have a full-time OPS inspector stationed in Washington State. He has also been very helpful and informative as we've progressed through the investigation phase. I thank him. I know he will continue to work with us in the future on OPS's appropriations and next year's authorization.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague. I will also continue to push for reform. We must take a long hard look at the effectiveness of OPS's oversight activities; review ways to develop new technologies for detecting pipeline defects; consider the effect of aging pipelines on safety; review industry's influence on the regulation of pipelines; and focus on our training and testing procedures for inspectors and maintenance workers. I also intend to look at ways to treat environmentally sensitive and highly populated areas, recognizing the multitude of safety and ecological problems operating pipelines in these places can create. Finally, I will work to strengthen communities' ``right to know,'' so people are aware when there are problems with the pipelines that threaten their neighborhoods.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, included within the Manager's amendment to the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations bill is a technical fix to last year's legislated I-90 Land Exchange. The amendment to the legislation was necessary to address to discovery of nesting marbled murrelets on two parcels of Forest Service land originally set to be exchanged to Plum Creek Timber Company. The language in the amendment is agreeable to both the Forest Service and Plum Creek. Other issues, particularly that of potential landslides on parcels of land being transferred to Plum Creek near the town of Randle, Washington, have recently arisen. Members of the community are fearful that if some of these lands are harvested by Plum Creek that dangerous landslides are possible. I believe this a legitimate concern and have begun discussions with the Forest Service, Plum Creek, Congressman Baird and Senator Gorton as to possible solutions. I believe, however, that the land exchange is a benefit to the people of Washington and should proceed as we continue to work on the issue of concern to Randle residents. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to me from Plum Creek regarding the company's commitment to protecting the welfare of local communities, the forest land it acquires, and willingness to work with all parties to address the issues in Randle. I hope, that if a solution to the issues of concern to Randle residents is found in time, that such a solution be placed into the Interior bill at conference.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for bringing up this headline. I, too, was struck by this new concept of adding a month to our calendar in order to solve the problems of the country. I agree, it has to be humorous; otherwise, we would all be crying. Because, truly, when I go home what my constituents tell me is what I think everyone is hearing: We have priorities in this country, particularly education. They are worried about preschool. They are worried about Head Start. They are worried about whether or not their child is in a class that is small enough that they get the individual attention they need. They are worried about whether or not their teachers have the kind of training they need to teach their children. They certainly are worried about school construction and the ability to send their child to a safe school. We had a whole hearing this morning about school violence. But teachers have not come to me and said: How do we add this to our curriculum, explaining a whole new month that has been added by the Senate? I know my colleague has worked with me on the Budget Committee for the last 7 years. We have worked very hard to reduce the deficit. There was a $300 billion deficit when we arrived here in 1993. We worked hard to be real. Despite the humor we have in this debate today, we need to get real about the budget; we need to get real about our priorities; we need to recognize we cannot put a priority on education verbally and put it at the end of the pile when it comes to the budget and then come up with gimmicks to pay for it. I ask the Senator to comment because we worked on this together for many years.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we all want to solve the problems concerning implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and the so- called ``survey and manage'' requirements. I have long supported and continue to support the plan and believe it should work as written. Unfortunately, section 329 undermines the important protection and scientific credibility of the forest plan and does not solve the current problems. That's why today I supported the Robb/Cleland amendment to strike section 329 from the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill. Recently, a Federal court injunction halted dozens of timber sales in Washington, Oregon, and California. The injunction is not the fault of the timber industry, the environmental community, or the Northwest Forest Plan. The blame rests squarely on the forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). They have failed to undertake the survey and manage requirements of the forest Plan despite having five years in which to do so. The Forest Service and BLM may believe they were meeting the requirements of the forest Plan, but clearly they did not. Unfortunately, the Forest Service and BLM's failure is harming innocent communities and, potentially, species. The Northwest Forest Plan came out of a time of discorded in the Pacific Northwest. In 1992, our timber industry was shut down by the spotted owl. The Forest Plan was designed to provide industry with a greater assurance regarding timber harvest levels, while also protecting the forests and the species they support. The Northwest Forest Plan's survey and manage provision was developed by scientists to help land mangers reduce the potential 9mpact of timber harvests and other activities on a wide variety of currently unlisted species, ranging from fungi, to mollusks, to tree voles. The result should have been a management program for the Pacific Northwest national forest that provided for stable timber harvest levels and protection against another spotted own crisis. That hasn't happened. However, we cannot abandon the Northwest Forest Plan. We especially cannot abandon it without putting in place other ways to protect our forests species and provide a sustainable flow of timber. Section 329, is not a solution to the failure of federal agencies to meet their survey and manage requirements. The solution lies in the forest Service and BLM getting their acts together and doing what they are required to do. If some of the survey and manage requirements are flawed or unnecessary, we need the Federal agencies and the scientific community to tell us. We can then all work to find a balanced solution. I commit to working with the industry, agencies, environmentalists, and my colleagues to find a way to make the Northwest Forest Plan work.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce on behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, ``The Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Act.'' This bill will provide a settlement of the claims of the Spokane Tribe for its contribution to the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam. The Grand Coulee Dam is the largest concrete dam in the world, the largest electricity producer in the United States, and the third largest electricity producer in the world. Grand Coulee is one mile in width; its spillway is twice the height of Niagara Falls. It provides electricity and water to one of the world's largest irrigation projects, the one million acre Columbia Basin Project. The Grand Coulee is the backbone of the Northwest's federal power grid and agricultural economy. To the Spokane Tribe, however, the Grand Coulee Dam brought an end to a way of life. The dam flooded their reservation on two sides. The Spokane River changed from a free flowing waterway that supported plentiful salmon runs, to barren slack water that now erodes the southern lands of the reservation. The benefits that accrued to the nation and the Northwest were made possible by uncompensated injury to the Native Americans of the Columbia and Spokane Rivers. The legislation I am introducing seeks to compensate the Spokane Tribe for its losses. In 1994, Congress enacted similar settlement legislation to compensate the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. That legislation provided a onetime payment of $53 million for past damages and approximately $15 million annually from the proceeds from the sale of hydropower by the Bonneville Power Administration. The Spokane Tribe settlement legislation would provide a settlement proportional to that provided to the Colville Tribes, which was based on the percentage of lands appropriated from the respective tribes for the dam. This translates into 39.4% of the past and future compensation awarded the Colville Tribes. Let me give my colleagues some of the background surrounding this issue. From 1927 to 1931, at the direction of Congress, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investigated the Columbia River and its tributaries. In its report to Congress, the Corps recommended the Grande Coulee site for hydroelectric development. In 1933, the Department of Interior federalized the project under the National Industrial Recovery Act, and in 1935, Congress authorized the project in the Rivers and Harbors Act. In 1940, Congress enacted a statute to authorize the Interior Department to designate whichever Indian lands it deemed necessary for Grand Coulee construction and to receive all rights, title and interest the Indians had in them. In return, the Tribes received compensation in the amount determined by Interior Department appraisals. However, the only land that was appraised and for which Tribes were compensated was the newly flooded land, for which the Spokane Tribe received $4700. There is no evidence that the Department advised or that Congress knew that the Tribes' water rights were not extinguished. Neither was there evidence the Department know the Indian title and trust status for the Tribal land underlying the river beds had not been extinguished. No compensation was included for the power value contributed by the use of the Tribal resources or for the loss of the Tribal fisheries or other damages to Tribal resources. As pointed out in a 1976 Opinion of Lawrence Aschenbrenner, the Acting Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior The 1940 act followed seven years of construction during which farm lands, and timber lands were flooded, and a fishery destroyed, and during which Congress was silent as to the Indian interests affected by the construction. Both the Congress and the Department of Interior appeared to proceed with the Grand Coulee project as if there were no Indians involved there. . . . There is no tangible evidence, currently available, to indicate that the Department ever consulted with the Tribes during the 1993-1940 period concerning the ongoing destruction of their land and resources and proposed compensation therefore. . . . It is our conclusion that the location of the dams on tribal land and the use of the water for power production, without compensation, violated the government's fiduciary duty toward the Tribes. In 1994, the Colville legislation settled the claims of the Colville Tribes to a share of the hydropower revenues from the Grand Coulee Dam. This claim was among the claims which the Colville Tribes filed with the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) under the Act of August 13, 1946, which included a five year statute of limitations. While the Colville Tribes had been formally organized for more than 15 years, the Spokane Tribe did not formally organize until 16 days prior to the ICC statute of limitations deadline. In addition, while the BIA was aware of the potential claims of the Spokane Tribe to a portion of the hydropower revenues generated by Grand Coulee, there is no evidence that the BIA ever advised the Tribe of such claims. The settlement for the Spokane Tribes was not included with that for the Colville Tribes in 1994 because the Colvilles had concerns that the statute of limitations would hold up the legislation. Since the 1970s, Congress and federal agencies have indicated that both the Colville and Spokane Tribes should be compensated. Since 1994, when an agreement was reached to compensate the Colville Tribes, Congress and federal agencies have expressed interest in providing equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe. This legislation will provide for the long overdue settlement to which the Spokane Tribe is entitled. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce on behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, ``The Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Act.'' This bill will provide a settlement of the claims of the Spokane Tribe for its contribution to the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam. The Grand Coulee Dam is the largest concrete dam in the world, the largest electricity producer in the United States, and the third largest electricity producer in the world. Grand Coulee is one mile in width; its spillway is twice the height of Niagara Falls. It provides electricity and water to one of the world's largest irrigation projects, the one million acre Columbia Basin Project. The Grand Coulee is the backbone of the Northwest's federal power grid and agricultural economy. To the Spokane Tribe, however, the Grand Coulee Dam brought an end to a way of life. The dam flooded their reservation on two sides. The Spokane River changed from a free flowing waterway that supported plentiful salmon runs, to barren slack water that now erodes the southern lands of the reservation. The benefits that accrued to the nation and the Northwest were made possible by uncompensated injury to the Native Americans of the Columbia and Spokane Rivers. The legislation I am introducing seeks to compensate the Spokane Tribe for its losses. In 1994, Congress enacted similar settlement legislation to compensate the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. That legislation provided a onetime payment of $53 million for past damages and approximately $15 million annually from the proceeds from the sale of hydropower by the Bonneville Power Administration. The Spokane Tribe settlement legislation would provide a settlement proportional to that provided to the Colville Tribes, which was based on the percentage of lands appropriated from the respective tribes for the dam. This translates into 39.4% of the past and future compensation awarded the Colville Tribes. Let me give my colleagues some of the background surrounding this issue. From 1927 to 1931, at the direction of Congress, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investigated the Columbia River and its tributaries. In its report to Congress, the Corps recommended the Grande Coulee site for hydroelectric development. In 1933, the Department of Interior federalized the project under the National Industrial Recovery Act, and in 1935, Congress authorized the project in the Rivers and Harbors Act. In 1940, Congress enacted a statute to authorize the Interior Department to designate whichever Indian lands it deemed necessary for Grand Coulee construction and to receive all rights, title and interest the Indians had in them. In return, the Tribes received compensation in the amount determined by Interior Department appraisals. However, the only land that was appraised and for which Tribes were compensated was the newly flooded land, for which the Spokane Tribe received $4700. There is no evidence that the Department advised or that Congress knew that the Tribes' water rights were not extinguished. Neither was there evidence the Department know the Indian title and trust status for the Tribal land underlying the river beds had not been extinguished. No compensation was included for the power value contributed by the use of the Tribal resources or for the loss of the Tribal fisheries or other damages to Tribal resources. As pointed out in a 1976 Opinion of Lawrence Aschenbrenner, the Acting Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior The 1940 act followed seven years of construction during which farm lands, and timber lands were flooded, and a fishery destroyed, and during which Congress was silent as to the Indian interests affected by the construction. Both the Congress and the Department of Interior appeared to proceed with the Grand Coulee project as if there were no Indians involved there. . . . There is no tangible evidence, currently available, to indicate that the Department ever consulted with the Tribes during the 1993-1940 period concerning the ongoing destruction of their land and resources and proposed compensation therefore. . . . It is our conclusion that the location of the dams on tribal land and the use of the water for power production, without compensation, violated the government's fiduciary duty toward the Tribes. In 1994, the Colville legislation settled the claims of the Colville Tribes to a share of the hydropower revenues from the Grand Coulee Dam. This claim was among the claims which the Colville Tribes filed with the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) under the Act of August 13, 1946, which included a five year statute of limitations. While the Colville Tribes had been formally organized for more than 15 years, the Spokane Tribe did not formally organize until 16 days prior to the ICC statute of limitations deadline. In addition, while the BIA was aware of the potential claims of the Spokane Tribe to a portion of the hydropower revenues generated by Grand Coulee, there is no evidence that the BIA ever advised the Tribe of such claims. The settlement for the Spokane Tribes was not included with that for the Colville Tribes in 1994 because the Colvilles had concerns that the statute of limitations would hold up the legislation. Since the 1970s, Congress and federal agencies have indicated that both the Colville and Spokane Tribes should be compensated. Since 1994, when an agreement was reached to compensate the Colville Tribes, Congress and federal agencies have expressed interest in providing equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe. This legislation will provide for the long overdue settlement to which the Spokane Tribe is entitled. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator. I look forward to continuing to work with you, the Forest Service, Plum Creek, and other interested parties as the legislation is developed.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleague in his remarks about the Plum Creek exchange. We worked very hard last year to enact this exchange. I also share a concern about the implications of the discovery or marbled murrelets on the lands scheduled to be exchanged to Plum Creek. I agree these lands should be left in federal ownership. I would like to ask Senator Gorton does one senator understand legislation is needed to allow the Forest Service to keep the two sections in question?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate this conference report on the fiscal year 2000 military construction appropriations bill--the first of the 13 regular appropriations bills to be completed this year. This is a good bill, leaner than we would wish but sufficient to meet the Services' most pressing military construction needs, particularly in terms of readiness and quality of life projects. The projects funded in this bill will give the men and women of our armed forces--and their families--a wide array of improved facilities in which to work, to train, and to live. In my home state of Washington, for example, this bill provides nearly $129 million in funding for 16 different military construction projects plus $9 million for Army family housing at Fort Lewis. Congress was faced with a difficult situation this year when the Pentagon, in a radical departure from regular procedure, requested incremental funding for the entire slate of fiscal year 2000 military construction projects. Thanks to the cooperation of Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Byrd, and to the efforts of Senator Burns on the Subcommittee, it didn't happen. What's more, we included language in our Committee report directing the Administration to fully fund all military construction requests in future budgets. Unfortunately, this bill reflects a continued decline in the amount of money that is being allocated to military construction. This year's bill is funded at a level of $8.374 billion, which is $76 million less than the fiscal year 1999 bill. And this is at a time when funding for the Defense appropriations bill is heading toward a major increase. Military construction does not have the glamour of some of the gee whiz, high-tech items in the defense bill, but it is an integral part of readiness and quality of life in the military. If military construction is underfunded, we will wind up undercutting our nation's war fighting capability. We must not allow that to occur. We will continue to fight the good fight for military construction dollars, ably led by our chairman, Senator Burns, who is an extremely effective advocate for the needs of the military and a pleasure to work with on the Committee. I thank Senator Burns, and Senators Stevens and Byrd, for their unflagging support, and I also thank the Subcommittee staff for their hard work on this bill. This is a good bipartisan conference report, and I urge my colleagues to accept it so that it can be sent to the President without delay and become the first fiscal year 2000 regular appropriations bills to be signed into law.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. This is a very important amendment that he has offered. Certainly, as we are talking about what the future of our country is going to be, we should be looking at what we are doing to invest in our young children today so they can be economically viable when they graduate from high school and college 15, 20 years from now, making sure that we have the money there for the Head Start Program, Pell grants, early childhood education. These are important investments in our children, and if we follow through on a massive tax cut at this time, as the Senator from New Mexico has said, in the future we will not have the money to make sure that our kids get the kind of education they need to be viable members of our community. This is a very important amendment. As we come to the end of this debate about what we are going to do to invest in our future, let's remember that if we put in place a tax cut such as this, we will harm our young children, we will harm Social Security and Medicare and critical programs for women in this country to make sure they don't live in poverty. We will not be able to pay off our debt, a very important issue that is facing us, which we have not left ourselves room for with a massive tax cut of this size. Most critically, we will not be able to do what we have a responsibility to do, not only as Senators but as parents and as adults in this country, to make sure that those who follow us have the skills they need to make sure this country continues to run well in the future. Investment in Pell grants and in early childhood education, and investment in education, class size reduction, and training of our teachers will make a difference for the future. We have a responsibility to do that. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his work on education, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Florida in urging my colleagues to do the right thing. Our priorities are out of order. We must remember that we have all committed to saving Social Security and Medicare. These should be our priorities. We should be debating reforms that save these essential income security programs instead of deciding how to squander a protected surplus that may never materialize. This tax bill is a serious threat to women. By ignoring the looming crisis facing both Social Security and Medicare, we are jeopardizing the financial security of older women. If we fail to reform both Social Security and Medicare, we will force more older women into poverty. The progressive structure of both programs guarantees that for millions of older women, their golden years are not spent living far below the poverty level. The bottom line is that Social Security and Medicare are women's issues. They are the most important domestic programs for women. By failing to allocate part of the projected surplus to saving these programs and instead acting for short term gratification, we place the issues important to women and families behind the special interests of DC lobbyists. Why am I here today fighting for an amendment that simply says we will not squander the projected surplus until we have reformed Social Security and Medicare for the long term? Because I am here fighting for families and fighting for some economic peace of mind for older women. Without Social Security benefits, the elderly poverty rate among women would be 52.2 percent and among widows would be 60.6 percent. Instead 12 percent of all Social Security recipients live in poverty. While I still cannot accept even 12 percent, I do not want to be part of pushing more than 50 percent of older women into poverty. Women are far more dependent on Social Security for their retirement income than are men. Three-quarters of unmarried and widowed elderly women rely on Social Security for more than half of their income. Fifty-eight percent of all Social Security recipients are women. Tell me women do not have a vital stake in this debate. I am not saying we cannot have tax relief targeted to working families. We could have tax relief targeted to help more Americans save for retirement. However, we cannot jeopardize or gamble with the future economic security of millions of women. We have to tackle Social Security and Medicare reform first. I know such reform will require heavy lifting. It will require us to invest potential surplus funds in the well-being of older Americans. I am committed to this reform. I am willing to sit down and tackle these tough assignments. What I am not willing to do is to watch my colleagues ignore the economic importance of both Social Security and Medicare for women. A tax cut is not what most women are looking for. They want pay equity, economic opportunity, and retirement security. Women currently start out several economic steps behind men. We know that women today earn 74 cents for every dollar men earn. We know that women, on average, take a total of 11.5 years out of the work force to care for their families. We know that women often outlive their retirement savings. And, we know that more women live with chronic and disabling illnesses. This in part explains why women are more than twice as likely as men to live in poverty at age 65. This amendment does not kill a tax cut. It will force us to make the tough decisions and to tackle the difficult job of reforming Social Security and Medicare. But, more important, it will provide greater economic security to women than any instant gratification tax cut ever would. Please do not force elderly women to pay the price for our misguided priorities.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about the tax plan proposed by my Republican colleagues. When I first came to the Senate in 1993, there were projected deficits as far as the eye could see. The United States had not seen a budget surplus in a quarter century. The American people were demanding change after more than a decade of Republicans in the White House, and Republicans in control of this body from 1980 to 1986. We knew we had to make some unpopular decisions to put our fiscal house in order. And working with the Clinton administration, the 103rd Congress made those tough decisions. We reduced the tax burden for the middle class and we restored some degree of tax fairness to our system. We put the Federal Government on the road of less spending, while maintaining commitments to core priorities. Some of my colleagues were defeated in 1994 because they did the right thing for the future of America. In 1997, Congress and the administration reached a bipartisan agreement to balance the budget and provide responsible tax relief to the American people. At that time, we had no idea we would achieve an on-budget surplus so quickly. Wise fiscal and monetary policies and a strong economy have provided a projected surplus that gives us hope we can solve some of the biggest challenges of our time. It is an exciting time to be in the Congress. But in our excitement about the projected surplus, I am afraid we are acting in haste. And in doing so, we could undermine the hard work we have done to get to this point. Let me be clear: I support responsible tax relief for the American people. I support further reform of our nation's estate tax laws so that the small timberland owner in Mason County, Washington, and the small business owner who sells farm equipment in Moses Lake, Washington, can pass their land and livelihoods on to the next generation. I support deductibility of health insurance costs so the self- employed owner of a technology start-up company in Seattle can afford health care. I support reducing the so-called ``marriage penalty'' so that a young married couple in Spokane has more money to purchase their first home or begin saving for retirement. I support expanding the low income housing tax credit so that we increase the availability of affordable housing for low- and middle- income families, especially in rural and urban areas. I support the creation of Farm and Ranch Risk Management Accounts so the apple grower in the Yakima Valley will have one more tool to manage the risk inherent in agriculture. I support the extension of the research and experimentation tax credit so Washington state high-tech and bio-tech companies have the incentive and the ability to invest in their long-term future and the future of our country. I support reforming the individual alternative minimum tax so that families all across Washington state can continue to enjoy the full benefits of the HOPE scholarship and the per child tax credit that we passed in 1997. In principle, I support all of these ideas, and many others that have been proposed. However, we cannot afford to make tax cuts without considering and carefully weighing the consequences. The American people deserve a responsible tax cut. They also deserve an honest debate from this Congress about how the Republican tax bill would affect their lives. The majority's tax plan is based on an assumption. An assumption about what future Presidents and Congresses will do. They assume we will have a projected $964 billion non-Social Security surplus through fiscal year 2009. My colleagues propose to use $792 billion of that projected surplus over the next ten years to reduce taxes. They also assume that three-quarters of the projected surplus will come from unspecified reductions in spending by future Congresses. To all the citizens watching around the country today, let me explain. The 1997 balanced budget agreement called for strict spending caps in discretionary, nondefense spending in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. In other words, the 17 percent of the Federal budget that funds all Government activities besides Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the $5.5 trillion national debt is subject to cuts. That 17 percent funds the federal role in improving education, giving greater access to Head Start, preventing crime, protecting the environment, providing health care to veterans, investing in urban and rural communities, maintaining national parks, creating affordable housing, reducing traffic congestion through highways and mass transit, and many other important functions. The projected surplus uses as its baseline spending targets established for fiscal year 2000. Right now, the Senate Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, is struggling to move forward with bills. Even some of my Republican colleagues have indicated they cannot write appropriations bills within the current spending caps. For example, both the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies spending bill and the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education spending bill have not been reported by their respective subcommittee because of the funding difficulties involved. The American people need to understand that this tax cut will mean massive, unprecedented cuts in important and popular domestic priorities. If we assume that Congress will meet the discretionary spending caps outlined in the Republican plan, then nondefense discretionary programs would have to be cut by 23 percent by 2009. What does this mean for Washington state? It means 23 percent less for Hanford cleanup. It means 23 percent less for salmon recovery. It means 23 percent less for community police officers. It means 23 percent less for highway improvements and mass transit to meet our growing infrastructure demands. It means 23 percent less for Head Start, which serves more than 9,000 children in Washington state. It means 23 percent less for reducing class size. it means 23 percent less for our VA hospitals. It means 23 percent less for the management of Mt. Rainer National Park. But reductions in discretionary spending is far from the only concern with this tax bill. This bill jeopardizes our ability to reduce our national debt. All of my colleagues have worked hard to get our fiscal house in order. We have successfully balanced the budget, provided reasonable tax relief, and contributed to the strong economic environment we have today. One of our priorities must be continuing to reduce publicly held debt. By doing so we can decrease the interest payments on the debt that currently claim 15 percent of the federal budget. And reducing the debt will also help keep our economy moving forward. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has indicated again and again that reducing debt is preferable to a large tax cut. I have saved the most important issue for last: Social Security and Medicare. Throughout the past year, as it appeared we would have a large projected budget surplus over the next ten years, I have said repeatedly that we should not raid the surplus for tax cuts until we protect Social Security and Medicare for the long term. I have listened to many of my colleagues talk about the importance of returning money to taxpayers. Let me tell my colleagues there is no better return on the investment for taxpayers than saving Social Security and Medicare. This must be a top priority. If we fail to enact real reform, we will be judged harshly--and rightly so--by our children and grandchildren. Our Nation's future economic security rests in our hands. Saving Social Security and Medicare is important to all of our Nation's seniors, but let me explain why it is especially critical to women and their families. Women are twice as likely as men to live with a chronic health care condition. Women receive Social Security and Medicare longer than men, and for all women over age 65, 60 percent of their retirement income comes from Social Security. Often, Social Security and Medicare are their only hope for maintaining a reasonable standard of living and some degree of independence and dignity. If we fail to protect the solvency of both of these important safety net programs, my generation will become a burden on our children. Our grandchildren will not have the same economic opportunities that we had simply because their parents will be taking care of us. More and more older Americans would fail deep into poverty, further straining family and government resources, and most important the emotional and physical health of seniors. My Republican colleagues claim they have created a lock box for Social Security and Medicare. However, the Republican proposal simply continues to reserve the Social Security trust fund surplus for Social Security. But, they do not provide any additional resources for either Social Security or Medicare and they do nothing to improve their solvency. Their lockbox is an empty promise. We can argue about the economic threat posed by this package of tax cuts targeted to the more affluent and geared towards increased consumption, but I think we should be talking instead about maintaining the most successful economic stability programs ever implemented by the federal government--Social Security and Medicare. Can you imagine the economic upheaval that the insolvency of Social Security or Medicare would cause? I can assure my colleagues that hard working Americans want economic security in their retirement years, not tax breaks they may never even see or benefit from. That's an important point, Mr. President. This tax bill, which would do nothing for Federal initiatives--from Social Security to Medicare, from transportation infrastructure to education, from Section 8 housing to clean air and water--that raise the quality of life of low and middle income Americans would then give three-fourths of the benefits in return to the top one-fifth of income earners. The average tax cut for the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers--with incomes of $38,200 and below--would be $139 per year. And in return for that tax cut, that same family will have to worry even more about taking care of elderly parents, about where they will find money to help their kids go to college since there are fewer Pell Grants, and about how they get to spend some time with their kids when they are on congested highways for hours each day. And to top it all off, when the family goes on vacation to see our nation's national parks, the gates will be closed. I will support the alternative drafted by my Democratic friends on the Finance Committee. The alternative would meet many of our priorities for any tax bill we send to the President. The Democratic alternative would provide broad-based relief to the more than 70 percent of taxpayers claiming the standard deduction. It would remove three million taxpayers from the tax rolls. It would also provide marriage penalty relief. These are real benefits targeted to precisely the lower and middle Americans that need it the most. The Democratic alternative would allow 100 percent deductibility of health insurance costs for self-employed individuals and include a 30 percent tax credit for individuals without employer-sponsored plans. Since the Senate failed to pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights, the least we can do is make health insurance more accessible to all Americans. The Democratic alternative would make public school modernization a high priority. It would provide $24 billion in modernization bonds. Mr. President, this would send a strong message to students, parents and administrators that this Congress cares about providing the education infrastructure we desperately need. The Democratic alternative would provide tax relief for our nation's struggling farmers and ranchers. It would establish Farm and Ranch Risk Management FARRM, accounts so that producers could better manage their income to reduce risk. Given that it is unlikely Congress will act to improve the long-term safety net for growers this year, FARRM accounts are the least we can do. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative. A vote for the Democratic alternative is a vote for responsible tax relief and responsible government. At a time when most Americans do not have much faith in Congress, let us not compound that sentiment with responsible tax politics. We have worked so hard to correct the misguided policies of the past. As we move forward into the next century, let's learn the lessons of the past and reject the Republican tax plan in front of us.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Well, the Senator from Illinois is correct. Currently, there are 500,000 more abandoned mines in this country today, and the cleanup for that is estimated to be between $32 billion and $72 billion. That is our money.

Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the Senator yielding for a question because the Senator has a second-degree to my amendment that strikes the language. I understand the Senator from Nevada would like to find a compromise, but the language of the second-degree says that: . . .any operation or property for which a plan of operations has been previously approved; any operation or property for which a plan of operations has been submitted to the Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service prior to October 1, 2000; or any subsequent amendment or modification to such approved or submitted plans. To me, it says that leaves the door open for any future, not just current, mine.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the comments from the Senator from California. There are mines in her State as well as many other States where this amendment will simply allow acres and acres of mill site waste to be dumped, with nothing back to the taxpayers. I hope my colleagues will support me when I offer the amendment to strike the language in this bill, and I hope, as a Congress, we do what we should have done so long ago, which is to look at the 1872 mining law. If the mining companies, indeed, do need more dump sites, ask what we get in return. We should have a fair debate on the mining law. It should not just be in this Interior bill which comes to us at 5 o'clock, when we need to pass a tax bill that we want to start on tomorrow and everybody wants to finish tomorrow, forcing a bill to pass with a huge giveaway. Let's give something back, make sure we have responsible mining reform, and make sure we do it right for the taxpayers who deserve a lot better. I appreciate the questions from the Senator from California. I will be offering my amendment in a short while. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of the environment, on behalf of the taxpayers, on behalf of what is right and fair for people who pay their taxes every day, for other industries to pay their royalties, to pay a fair share. Let's do the mining reform law correctly. I thank my colleagues. I know the Senator from Illinois wants to discuss this, and I see the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California gives a very accurate description. Yes, maybe we need gold. We all know there are reasons to have gold. But if the mining companies are going to extract that rock and use cyanide leach, and need more acreage for the dumped rock with cyanide on it, they should pay something back. We should not give it away in the bill. That is what we have done.

Mrs. MURRAY. I say to my colleague, what has occurred is that the technology for taking rock out and getting just a little bit of gold has changed dramatically. The mining companies who used to be able to get by on five acres can no longer get by on five acres. They want a lot more. Instead of negotiating with Congress to pay something back for additional shares, they are saying, no, in this provision in this bill, we have given it away to them for nothing else.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am only suggesting, I say to my colleague, that if in this bill we are blatantly going to give them use of our public lands far in addition to what they have had before, they give the public something back. Maybe we should negotiate that in terms of royalties; maybe it should be in a higher percentage that they pay the public; maybe it should be in the requirement that they clean up the land that they have left behind. Certainly we should get something back for our public lands rather than what we have done in this bill, which is to just give them more of our land.