Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will reluctantly vote for this supplemental appropriations bill for three primary reasons: to provide our agricultural producers at least a portion of the support they need; to support our troops in Kosovo; and to assist the desperate Kosovar refugees and Hurricane Mitch victims. I strongly oppose the mining rider added in the middle of the night to this emergency spending bill and am saddened this Congress will not require States to spend of the tobacco settlement funds on actually preventing teen smoking or protecting public health. I very enthusiastically support the $109 million in this bill for direct and guaranteed loans to provide credit for American agricultural producers. This and the other agriculture-related provisions in this bill are vitally important to our growers, providing more than $700 million for important agricultural programs. Every single dollar of this aid is all the more critical because Congress failed to support a funding level that would help producers weather these difficult economic times. I support the Harkin-Dorgan amendment to add $5 billion to this agricultural aid package during the conference committee's consideration of this bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected. Meanwhile, our growers are left waiting for more meaningful assistance as they struggle under the so-called Freedom to Farm Act. This bill also contains vital funding for our military forces in the Balkans. I strongly support the Administration's original request for monies to support the Kosovo effort. I am fully prepared to meet our responsibilities to our troops and personnel involved in this important NATO effort. It is unfortunate the House insisted on adding billions of additional, unrequested funding for defense projects, many of which are unrelated to the NATO action in the Balkans. I also endorse our commitment to assist the millions of refugees, who are victims of this unfortunate conflict. I, too, am pleased this bill provide critical assistance to the victims of Hurricane Mitch. This deadly and destructive hurricane decimated several Central American countries, and has been particularly difficult on families already surviving on subsistence levels. The U.S. should have long ago signaled our commitment to lead the international effort to aid the victims of Hurricane Mitch. These important issues aside, I strongly oppose the rider on mining included in this bill. I do not accept the argument put forth by several of my colleagues on the conference committee that the supplemental appropriations bill was the proper place to address an administrative interpretation of the 1872 Mining Law. Within this bill are two provisions that simply are not emergencies and do not belong. One is the further blockage of the Department of Interior's implementing regulations on hard-rock mining. The other provision is particularly troubling to me for it affects a proposed mine in my State of Washington. Included in this bill is a provision that blocks the Department of Interior from enforcing a recent solicitor's opinion interpreting allowable mill site acerage. That opinion reinterpreted the 1872 mining law and limited the amount of mining waste companies could dump on public lands. For many years, my constituents and people across the nation have been calling for true reform of the 1872 mining law. This late-night change is not what they have been asking us to do. The industry knows these provisions would not win approval in the normal legislative process, so they sought riders on a military and disaster relief appropriations bill. These are issues that deserve to be debated in full and in public, not in a mere 10 minutes, late at night among conferees without the necessary expertise to determine whether this is the correct policy. I want to add that I have spoken with officials at the White House who have shared their concern about these mining provisions. I told them we must not allow this action to be a precedent for how we authorize new open pit mines on our public lands. We should debate reform of the 1872 mining law fully and in the bright spotlight of public review. Protecting the public's interest in their federal lands must be a top priority. They agree. I am also extremely disappointed this bill will allow the states to allocate the federal share of the multi-state agreement (MSA) with the tobacco companies to any program or project they desire. I strongly believe we have missed an historic opportunity to reverse the destruction caused by smoking. It is tragic to think that every day we delay reducing underage smoking, 3,000 children will try this deadly habit. Five million children today will face illness and premature death due to smoking. Yet we are allowing the states to spend the federal share on any program they may chose. I am proud that in Washington state, the state legislature and Governor Locke chose to do the right thing and spend the settlement money working to eliminate the plague of tobacco. However, Washington state is only one of three states using the MSA settlement funds to support public health efforts and smoking cessation. There is some irony in this debate about the role of the federal government in spending so-called settlement monies. The tobacco companies win immunity from future prosecution or liability from the states of federal government and because of states' inaction, the companies will be guaranteed a whole new generation of smokers. By not standing firm and using these monies to eliminate underage smoking and reduce adult rates, the cost of care for these individuals will be the burden of the federal government and federal taxpayers. As members of the Senate, we will have to find the additional funding to pay for increases in Medicare, FEHBP, CHAMPUS, and VA health care costs. I am disappointed that we could not reach an acceptable compromise that would have protected our children, allowed states' reasonable spending discretion, and shielded the federal budget. I am hopeful we can continue to work at the federal level to enact tough, anti-tobacco restrictions, including FDA regulation of tobacco and increased efforts by CDC to help the states reduce the burden of tobacco. Let me address one more topic. This bill transfers the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) program, commonly known as the unmet needs program, from HUD to FEMA. While I do not oppose this transfer, my concerns about it grew as Congress delayed its consideration of this supplemental bill. President Clinton declared two disasters in Washington state during calendar year 1998, including a slow-moving, on-going landslide in the Aldercrest community in Kelso. For a variety of reasons, FEMA public assistance dollars will not reach Aldercrest victims for some time. That makes the unmet needs money--now administered by FEMA--all the more critical. While I am frustrated with the delay in this process, I am pleased we are moving forward once again. This conference report highlights the conferees interest in ensuring Aldercrest victims get this disaster assistance as quickly as is possible. Mr. President, this is a very difficult vote for me. I chose not to sign the conference report, but I support the bill to help our ailing agricultural producers, support our troops, and provide assistance to refugees and disaster victims. effective human rights response to kosovo

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there was yet another tragedy in Atlanta this morning. This is one more violent act that brings America together in sorrow. We hope that it is also an opportunity to bring us together to learn some important lessons. What are people--young people especially--saying to us all when they turn to violence to address their problems? This is an American challenge. We all have to do our part--in partnership. We must each do our job, but we must all work together. We in Congress are trying to do our part--passing bills, appropriating funds. But the Congress, like all of us, will do a better job when it really listens to the American people, and listens to young people. Every young person has the capacity to grow up to be a constructive citizen or a violent criminal. It's our job--all of us--to listen better. When we do listen, we find two issues at the core: working in partnership, and improving the tools to help build the adult/child relationship. How do we work together? There are many people who have answered this problem in communities all over the Nation. They abandon turf issues and special interests, they listen, and they remember that the child is at the center of the work. There are specific things we can learn in Congress from these communities--where to find the money and time and energy to get the work done together. How do we improve the relationships and connections that young people make with adults? It frustrates me that we cannot do some fairly obvious things--for young people, families, teachers, and communities. What can we do for students? Why is it that we can't figure out ways of building meaningful roles for young people in their own education, and in their own community? Why is it that if you are too young to vote, you are not taken seriously or treated as a citizen? Why is that when a child's hand goes up in the classroom, that child can't get the attention he or she needs from a teacher? We can do some simple things. We can ask young people what they think about how to prevent violence. We can reduce class size. We can make sure that when we hire more teachers, we have better and smaller schools in which to put them. We all have a role in making these things happen. What can we do to better support parents and families? We all know that a strong family unit is the engine that drives our economy, and that when it works well, it is the best and cheapest prevention program out there. So why is it so difficult to improve the tools and information available to parents? All parents want to do their best, so why is it off limits to talk about the problems with our economy, to talk about how parents spend too much time at work and not enough time with kids? Why can't we do the simplest things to make life easier for people who work harder and harder to provide for their family and spend less and less time with their kids? We can start with something simple, like making sure parents don't suffer at work just because they want unpaid leave time to go to a school conference, or take care of an emergency at their child's day care. We should improve the Family and Medical Leave Act. Again, there are things we all can do to make these things happen. What can we do for teachers and other educators? Why can't we give them a small enough class so they get to know each child, and can find 5 extra minutes with the child who needs the most help that day? Why do we expect our teachers to deal with every educational and social issue under the Sun, but we can't treat them as professionals? We need to reduce class size. We need to improve teacher training. We need to improve teacher pay and professionalism. And, we need to think about one thing we can each do to act as a resource to that classroom. Is there a phone call we could make? An educational tool we could buy for the class? A day we could give to working for the passage of the school levy? There are things we all can do. What can we do to help communities support the adult-child relationship, and build connections for young people? Why is it that we don't have more adults participating in the lives of young people? Why is it that a student can walk from home to school to the mall to the quickie-mart and back home again and feel invisible and anonymous? Why can't we allow our communities into our public school buildings at nights and on weekends? We should expand community education opportunities, and when we offer tax incentives, they should be the right ones that help communities invest in young people. We should each make sure to smile at young people, to keep an eye on them, to set high expectations, and to give them meaningful opportunities. Again, there are things we all must do. All over America, there is a conversation going on around the kitchen table, and on the school bus, and at the mall, and around the water- cooler. We need to listen carefully to this conversation--to what is being said and asked for, and what is not. We need to act carefully, and invest wisely. But, most importantly, each of us need to keep this conversation going--to find out what to do and do it--until we create the America we want for our children and young people. And you know one of the best, most overlooked resources for building the America we all want? The young people themselves. Let's start by listening to them. The juvenile justice bill fails to fully address these problems. While many amendments have been adopted that focus on the right solutions, we failed to achieve support for most of those that would have focused this legislation on those things that could best solve youth violence. With that said, I will vote for the bill because I believe it has many positive provisions that combat youth violence. The bill provides important block grants to States to assist them in their efforts to address juvenile crime. While I prefer a high percentage of these funds be required for prevention, I know my State of Washington intends to continue to invest in steering kids away from crime through proven community-based prevention programs. The bill also provides for Internet filtering and screening software that will allow parents to regulate what their children are viewing over the Internet. It also made transfers of several types of firearms to children illegal. As I have already said, I agree with many of my colleagues who have said that there is no legislative ``quick fix'' to this terrible problem that is destroying so many young lives. The issue of youth violence involves complex and interrelated factors. From prevention programs that involve parents, teachers and communities, to strong law enforcement measures, there are many different tools we must use to attack the problem from all angles and prevent further tragedies like the one in Littleton. We must punish those who commit crimes, but we must also do all we can to prevent crimes before they happen, to intervene before small problems grow to crisis proportions. We must give schools and law enforcement officers the tools they need to identify the warning signs that lead to juvenile violence and to let youth know that crime is not an acceptable answer. While the bill does contain a ``prevention block grant,'' there is no guarantee the money will be used for prevention. Dollars from these grants could be used to build more prisons or increase enforcement. While these are laudable goals, without a guaranteed set-aside for prevention, a State could fail to attack youth violence before it starts. We must reach out to prevent at-risk youth from starting down a path of crime in the first place. While we were unable to secure specific amounts for prevention, I am hopeful that States will use their discretion and undertake prevention programs. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Some of my colleagues have offered amendments to provide resources for effective violence prevention, and I am disappointed they have not been adopted. Last week, Senator Robb offered an amendment that would have provided funds for schools and law enforcement to identify and effectively respond to juvenile violent behavior. It would have established a National Clearinghouse of School Safety Information and provided an anonymous hotline to report criminal behavior and a support line for schools and communities to call for assistance. In addition, the Robb amendment would have provided treatment programs that identify and address the symptoms of youth violence to steer juveniles away from criminal behavior. It also would have provided authorization for afterschool programs, which have been very effective at keeping high-risk youth off the street and involved in activities that assist in their education and growth. I am hopeful that similar legislation will be offered again and that my colleagues will reconsider and give it their support. In addition to my disappointment at the lack of adequate resources for violence prevention, I have other concerns about this bill. I am very concerned about the fate of our youth serving time in prisons and other detention facilities. While we must certainly punish those who have committed crimes, we must make a serious attempt at rehabilitation and not allow juveniles to turn into hardened criminals in the course of their incarceration. It is well-known that juveniles who have contact with adults in prison are further indoctrinated into a life of crime or worse, assaulted or even killed. Current requirements prohibit juveniles, whether they were tried as adult or juveniles, from being kept in any adult jail or corrections institution where they have regular contact with adult inmates. The Hatch bill weakens that standard by allowing ``incidental'' contact and permitting construction of juvenile facilities on the same site as those for adults. Even convicted juveniles should be protected from hardened criminals. Those youth who are the most successful in a mixed juvenile-adult environment will be the ones we will least want back on the streets once they have served their time. It is my understanding that the Feinstein-Chafee amendment improved this provision, for which I am thankful, increasing protection of our children while they are in state custody. I also feel the Hatch bill critically weakens measures to address disproportionate minority confinement. The legislation replaces references to ``minority'' or ``race'' with the vague phrase ``segments of the juvenile population.'' Further, the Hatch bill is less instructive on what must be done to address the problem of discrimination, essentially making the issue a mere concern rather than a problem we must correct. This is the wrong direction to be heading if we truly seek to achieve fair and unbiased treatment of all people within the judicial system. An amendment to correct this problem was defeated. The Hatch bill also contains very troublesome provisions to allow the prosecution of children as young as 14 as adults, and gives prosecutors--not judges--the discretion to try a juvenile as an adult. Judges make judgments; prosecutors prosecute. It is obvious who is better qualified to render an unbiased decision on whether a 14-year- old should be considered an adult. There is another idea missing from this bill. To solve youth violence we must all talk to the true experts: young people themselves. We need to listen to more than the student body presidents and the class valedictorians. We need to hear from ``regular'' kids. I know that I have learned a tremendous amount from doing that. Two weeks ago, I met with 10th graders in Kent, WA who told me some shocking things. They said that nearly all of them knew where they could get a gun within a day. That is a sad statement abut the lives of our youth. They are afraid and they are thinking about how to defend themselves with a gun. In the end, we were able, through the Lautenberg amendment on gun shows, to close one of the more glaring loopholes that allow young people and children to get guns. After much flip-flop on the issue by Republicans, a handful of their courageous Members lent enough support to this amendment by Senator Lautenberg to close some of these guns show loopholes, but this was not until they had tried two amendments of substance on the issue. Furthermore, it took the Vice President of the United States, acting in his role as the President of the Senate, to cast the final vote to break the tie that will help keep kids and guns separate. Overall, S. 254 does much to tackle the tough questions surrounding juvenile justice. But as I have stated, there are a number of ways we could have improved this bill. We need to focus on preventive measures that bring together parents, kids, counselors and teachers; provide resources to enable people to identify and intervene in potentially dangerous situations; and give law enforcement the tools it needs to deal with the symptoms of youth violence not just the results of the violence. I hope in the future we can pass legislation that will address the remaining problems and can come up with even better solutions. We owe that much to our children.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Community Forestry and Agriculture Conservation Act of 1999.'' Mr. President, all across America we are losing hundreds of thousands of acres of productive forest and agricultural land to urban uses. And with the loss of these lands, we also lose some of our ability to protect watersheds, fish and wildlife, and the rural character and economies of many communities. Local governments and non-profit organizations, including growing numbers of land trusts, are responding to these issues, and to citizen demand that private land provide more public benefit. They have made significant progress by purchasing land outright or protecting it through conservation easements. Unfortunately, communities and non-profits simply do not have the resources to meet public demand for open space protection. And the most traditional means of protection--outright purchase of land or conservation easements--are inadequate to protect larger tracts of forest and agricultural land. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today would give communities a flexible and dynamic tool to protect forest and agricultural land. In fact, some communities, including at least one in the State of Washington, are already mobilizing to take advantage of the legislation I am introducing today. The concept behind this bill is straightforward. Under my bill, a group of community members and leaders who are interested in protecting a tract of forest or farm land would work with one or more landowners to reach a voluntary sale agreement at fair market value. The community group would then form a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation with a diverse board of directors. The board of directors could include landowners, conservationists, financial and business leaders, forestry and agricultural professionals, and others interested in managing the land. The non-profit corporation would develop an agreement on what land would be acquired and at what price. In addition, the corporation would develop a binding management plan. The management plan would provide for continued harvest of trees and crops, but in a manner that exceeds federal and state conservation standards. A local government would then issue tax exempt revenue bonds on behalf of the non-profit corporation to fund the acquisition of the land. The bonds would be held and serviced by the non-profit with revenue raised by the continued harvest of trees or crops in accordance with the management plan. The non-profit corporation would also hold the title to the land. In forming the non-profit corporation, community leaders would be required to meet strict standards before bonds were issued. These standards will ensure that public benefits are achieved and abuse is prevented. First, the non-profit corporation must draft a land management plan that exceeds state and federal law. Second, the corporation must enter the land into a permanent conservation easement. Third, the corporation must secure the commitment of a third party 501(c)3 organization or governmental entity to hold the conservation easement. It must also provide the third party with the financial resources needed to monitor compliance with the easement. Last, the corporation must establish a diverse board of directors. No more than 20 percent of the board members can represent a for-profit entity that does business with the non-profit. Mr. President, let me explain why my bill is necessary to make this new approach possible. Current law allows for the issuance of tax- exempt debt on behalf of non-profit corporations, such as hospitals and higher education facilities that require large amounts of capital. This bill ensures forest and agricultural based non-profits can enjoy the same benefits. Once the interested parties complete the management plan, issue the bonds, acquire the land and place it in trust, landowners, local governments, the environment, and the public all benefit. Mr. President, foresters and agricultural producers are often land- rich and cash-poor. My bill would allow landowners to capitalize some or all of their assets. It would also allow landowners to continue harvesting timber from the land but at a lower harvest level. While the non-profit could manage harvest activities on the land, it is more likely it will contract out for these services. This will allow the original landowner or other interested natural resource businesses to manage and receive economic benefits from the land. In addition, this tool will allow the landowner to escape the management problems that arise when urban growth begins to encroach on forestry or agricultural operations. Local governments benefit by continuing to receive tax dollars that result from economic activities on the land. And the land receives better stewardship because broad-based conservation efforts can be undertaken at a lower cost than under more traditional land acquisition methods. Through these conservation easements, non-profits will have the financial flexibility to apply lighter resource management practices on the land. This is an important point. The lower cost of capital and non-profit land management would allow communities to increase conservation benefits. I know many landowners and companies would prefer to increase conservation practices. However, they also have to meet the demands of the bottom-line and stockholders. By reducing these financial pressures, we can provide a higher level of resource protection on these lands. And the higher levels of resource protection can respond to the greatest environmental needs in that region. For example, in my home state of Washington, the non-profit corporation could increase buffer areas along streams to protect salmon runs and engage in habitat restoration. These steps would help my state respond to salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act. Finally, the American people benefit the most. They will have more environmental protection and recreational opportunities without sacrificing an important part of their community's economic and tax base. This tool will also allow communities to promote local ownership of their land and to better control their destiny. Mr. President, in the last three years, Congress and the Clinton Administration have been discussing more and more the issues of ``sprawl'' and ``livability.'' We are finally starting to see at the national level a recognition that the federal government's actions play an important role in how communities grow. These are not new ideas-- they have been discussed at the local and state levels for decades. I am pleased to see Congress and the Administration joining this discussion. We have heard and seen many good ideas and proposals for improving the quality of life in our communities, from greater open space protection to improved transportation infrastructure. I support many of these efforts. However, my bill addresses one aspect of this discussion that is not drawing as much attention in the press. And that is the destruction of farm and forest economies in many regions that are rapidly urbanizing. In the Puget Sound region, growth has choked the economic viability of forest and agricultural operations in many areas. Concerned citizens and governments are forced to try to save forest and farm land on a smaller, more piecemeal basis. As successful and rewarding as many of these efforts have been, we need to give communities the option to save larger tracts of land that cannot be acquired outright. By doing so, we can maintain viable farm and forest operations near growing urban areas, and help strengthen the connection between rural producers and urban consumers. Today, Representatives Dunn and Tanner are introducing this legislation in the House. I am pleased to join their effort on this important issue by sponsoring companion legislation. In closing, I want to emphasize that this is an approach that every Senator can support. It is bipartisan. It is voluntary. It maintains private land ownership and embraces private landowners. It limits government involvement but establishes proper enforcement to prevent abuse. It protects the environment. It provides local control. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me to pass the Community Forestry and Agriculture Conservation Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Community Forestry and Agriculture Conservation Act of 1999.'' Mr. President, all across America we are losing hundreds of thousands of acres of productive forest and agricultural land to urban uses. And with the loss of these lands, we also lose some of our ability to protect watersheds, fish and wildlife, and the rural character and economies of many communities. Local governments and non-profit organizations, including growing numbers of land trusts, are responding to these issues, and to citizen demand that private land provide more public benefit. They have made significant progress by purchasing land outright or protecting it through conservation easements. Unfortunately, communities and non-profits simply do not have the resources to meet public demand for open space protection. And the most traditional means of protection--outright purchase of land or conservation easements--are inadequate to protect larger tracts of forest and agricultural land. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today would give communities a flexible and dynamic tool to protect forest and agricultural land. In fact, some communities, including at least one in the State of Washington, are already mobilizing to take advantage of the legislation I am introducing today. The concept behind this bill is straightforward. Under my bill, a group of community members and leaders who are interested in protecting a tract of forest or farm land would work with one or more landowners to reach a voluntary sale agreement at fair market value. The community group would then form a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation with a diverse board of directors. The board of directors could include landowners, conservationists, financial and business leaders, forestry and agricultural professionals, and others interested in managing the land. The non-profit corporation would develop an agreement on what land would be acquired and at what price. In addition, the corporation would develop a binding management plan. The management plan would provide for continued harvest of trees and crops, but in a manner that exceeds federal and state conservation standards. A local government would then issue tax exempt revenue bonds on behalf of the non-profit corporation to fund the acquisition of the land. The bonds would be held and serviced by the non-profit with revenue raised by the continued harvest of trees or crops in accordance with the management plan. The non-profit corporation would also hold the title to the land. In forming the non-profit corporation, community leaders would be required to meet strict standards before bonds were issued. These standards will ensure that public benefits are achieved and abuse is prevented. First, the non-profit corporation must draft a land management plan that exceeds state and federal law. Second, the corporation must enter the land into a permanent conservation easement. Third, the corporation must secure the commitment of a third party 501(c)3 organization or governmental entity to hold the conservation easement. It must also provide the third party with the financial resources needed to monitor compliance with the easement. Last, the corporation must establish a diverse board of directors. No more than 20 percent of the board members can represent a for-profit entity that does business with the non-profit. Mr. President, let me explain why my bill is necessary to make this new approach possible. Current law allows for the issuance of tax- exempt debt on behalf of non-profit corporations, such as hospitals and higher education facilities that require large amounts of capital. This bill ensures forest and agricultural based non-profits can enjoy the same benefits. Once the interested parties complete the management plan, issue the bonds, acquire the land and place it in trust, landowners, local governments, the environment, and the public all benefit. Mr. President, foresters and agricultural producers are often land- rich and cash-poor. My bill would allow landowners to capitalize some or all of their assets. It would also allow landowners to continue harvesting timber from the land but at a lower harvest level. While the non-profit could manage harvest activities on the land, it is more likely it will contract out for these services. This will allow the original landowner or other interested natural resource businesses to manage and receive economic benefits from the land. In addition, this tool will allow the landowner to escape the management problems that arise when urban growth begins to encroach on forestry or agricultural operations. Local governments benefit by continuing to receive tax dollars that result from economic activities on the land. And the land receives better stewardship because broad-based conservation efforts can be undertaken at a lower cost than under more traditional land acquisition methods. Through these conservation easements, non-profits will have the financial flexibility to apply lighter resource management practices on the land. This is an important point. The lower cost of capital and non-profit land management would allow communities to increase conservation benefits. I know many landowners and companies would prefer to increase conservation practices. However, they also have to meet the demands of the bottom-line and stockholders. By reducing these financial pressures, we can provide a higher level of resource protection on these lands. And the higher levels of resource protection can respond to the greatest environmental needs in that region. For example, in my home state of Washington, the non-profit corporation could increase buffer areas along streams to protect salmon runs and engage in habitat restoration. These steps would help my state respond to salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act. Finally, the American people benefit the most. They will have more environmental protection and recreational opportunities without sacrificing an important part of their community's economic and tax base. This tool will also allow communities to promote local ownership of their land and to better control their destiny. Mr. President, in the last three years, Congress and the Clinton Administration have been discussing more and more the issues of ``sprawl'' and ``livability.'' We are finally starting to see at the national level a recognition that the federal government's actions play an important role in how communities grow. These are not new ideas-- they have been discussed at the local and state levels for decades. I am pleased to see Congress and the Administration joining this discussion. We have heard and seen many good ideas and proposals for improving the quality of life in our communities, from greater open space protection to improved transportation infrastructure. I support many of these efforts. However, my bill addresses one aspect of this discussion that is not drawing as much attention in the press. And that is the destruction of farm and forest economies in many regions that are rapidly urbanizing. In the Puget Sound region, growth has choked the economic viability of forest and agricultural operations in many areas. Concerned citizens and governments are forced to try to save forest and farm land on a smaller, more piecemeal basis. As successful and rewarding as many of these efforts have been, we need to give communities the option to save larger tracts of land that cannot be acquired outright. By doing so, we can maintain viable farm and forest operations near growing urban areas, and help strengthen the connection between rural producers and urban consumers. Today, Representatives Dunn and Tanner are introducing this legislation in the House. I am pleased to join their effort on this important issue by sponsoring companion legislation. In closing, I want to emphasize that this is an approach that every Senator can support. It is bipartisan. It is voluntary. It maintains private land ownership and embraces private landowners. It limits government involvement but establishes proper enforcement to prevent abuse. It protects the environment. It provides local control. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me to pass the Community Forestry and Agriculture Conservation Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Wellstone to introduce the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This has been a seven year effort and one that I will continue to pursue. I want to thank Senator Wellstone for his efforts on this important legislation. I also need to recognize the leadership of Senator Biden regarding the Violence Against Women Act. Without his work on this historic legislation since 1994, we could not be here today talking about the economic needs of victims of domestic violence. In 1994, we enacted the landmark Violence Against Women Act. For the first time, Congress said violence against women was a national disgrace and a public health threat. We had to act. This was no longer just a family matter or a family dispute, this was and is a serious threat against women and a serious threat to the community. We have had police officers in Washington state killed responding to domestic violence calls. We have seen too many women in the emergency room and too many families devastated by violence. VAWA set in motion a national response to this crisis. We are now in the process of reauthorizing and strengthening VAWA. This is my major priority. Reauthorization of VAWA cements the foundation we need to build the structure that will ultimately end domestic violence and abuse. The Battered Women's Economic Security Act takes the next logical step. As a result of the work that I have done concerning family violence, I have come to understand that the real long-term solution is to tear down the economic barriers that trap women in violent homes and relationships. Our legislation addresses many of the economic barriers that I know force a cycle of violence. I have met with many of the advocates in the state of Washington and heard from them first hand, about how these barriers make long term security for women and their children difficult. From housing to child care to job protection to welfare waivers, our legislation attempts to deal with the long term economic problems. Women should not have to be forced to choose between job security and violence. Each year one million individuals become victims of violent crimes while working on duty. Men are more likely to be attacked at work by a stranger, women are more likely to be attacked by someone they know. One-sixth of all workplace homicides of women are committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. Boyfriends and husbands, both current and former, commit more than 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace every year. This does not include harassment or the threat of violence. Clearly, women face a serious threat in the work place and yet if they leave to avoid harm, they are denied workers compensation. Perhaps even more offensive is the fact that some states require victims of domestic violence to seek employment in order to receive TANF benefits. To have any economic safety net some women are forced to jeopardize their own safety. This is not just an issue that effects victims of domestic violence. We all suffer the economic consequences of violence. it has been estimated that work place violence resulted in $4.2 billion in lost productivity and legal expenses for American businesses. From what I have heard from victims and advocates, this is a very conservative estimate. The health care costs are also equally staggering. Both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Surgeon General have labeled violence against women a public health threat. Violence is the number one reason women ages 19 to 35 end up in the emergency room. One out of every three women can expect to be the victim of violence at some point in her life. Our legislation would also prohibit discriminating against victims of domestic violence in all lines of insurance. If a woman seeks treatment in an Emergency Room and reports this as domestic violence, she should not be denied disability or life insurance. If an estranged husband burns the house to the ground the woman should not be denied compensation simply because it was an act of domestic violence. To say that victims of domestic violence engage in high risk behavior similar to sky diving or race care driving is simply outrageous. It is the ultimate example of blaming the victim. Our legislation is not the final solution, but it begins the process of addressing long term economic needs. I am hopeful that once we have secured reauthorization of VAWA we can begin to focus on these economic problems. Without VAWA we have no foundation. I will be working with Paul and other Members of the Senate towards enactment of key provisions of the bill. I am also committed to continuing my work with Senator Biden in an effort to enact Violence Against Women Reauthorization during this session. I urge all of my colleagues to review the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. I encourage all of you to talk to your advocates and your police, ask them what issues keep women trapped in a violent home or relationship. Ask them what needs to be done to provide long term solutions. I know that after careful review and consideration, you will reach the same conclusions. There are economic barriers that must be torn down. I hope that many of you will join in cosponsoring this legislation and work with me to enact this comprehensive solution to ending the cycle of violence that too many women and children face every day.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is focused on many important issues this week, including youth violence, the important Y2K issue, emergency appropriations for our Nation's farmers, victims of Hurricane Mitch, and funding NATO's efforts in the Balkans. These are all very timely and important debates, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in discussing these important issues. For a moment, though, I would really like to focus the Senate on the recent accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and on the U.S.-China relationship. The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade cannot be trivialized. As President Clinton has repeatedly expressed, the U.S. and NATO accepts full responsibility for this terrible mistake. We all extend our apologies to the Chinese people and the families of those who were killed and injured. I am prepared to accept that this unfortunate accident caused a lot of anger among the Chinese Government and the Chinese people. That is to be expected. Certainly our country would be outraged and saddened if our embassy had been bombed under such circumstances. But our regret and apologies to the Chinese people do not diminish the fact that we cannot accept the deliberate harassment of U.S. citizens and destruction of U.S. property in China. The reports from China--the television images of our embassy targeted by orchestrated mobs--troubled me a great deal. Americans are dismayed at the growing animosity of the Chinese people towards the United States. For the U.S.-China relationship to succeed, both countries must take strides to ensure that the presentation of the relationship is balanced and fair. Clearly, this did not happen in the days before or after the tragic embassy bombing. I am heartened that things do seem to have calmed down throughout China. It is encouraging that President Clinton and President Jiang have spoken and resumed high-level discussions over the bombing and other important U.S.-China issues. Some of my colleagues have mentioned the phenomenal work of our Ambassador in China, Jim Sasser, who is our former Senate colleague and a close friend. He has served our country with great honor. I commend him and all of our embassy and consulate officers who are serving in China. Ambassador Sasser has given us great insight as he addressed the tragic bombing of the Chinese Embassy and the demonstrations and violence that followed in Beijing and other Chinese cities. Let me share a few of Ambassador Sasser's comments with my colleagues as I do believe they serve as a reminder that the U.S.-China relationship is, in my opinion, one of our most difficult and most important relationships. Ambassador Sasser said, When all the emotion has drained out of this terrible tragedy, then wiser heads in both China and the United States are going to realize it's in both countries' interest to try and resume constructive ties. . . . When we are all through grieving over this very tragic event that occurred, the United States will still be the economic superpower in the world and China will still be the most populous nation in the world and an emerging power in this region. Once again, our former colleague has offered wise counsel to the Senate that will be very important to future China debates. The unfortunate Embassy bombing should not be used by those in China as a justification for severing or postponing ties with the U.S. Nor should China think that this incident will lessen America's resolve as we address the issues of human rights, weapons proliferation, or the issues related to espionage targeted at U.S. nuclear facilities. One of my hometown papers offered the following in an editorial last week, the editorial reads, ``China is furious and rightly so. The test, however, is whether China plays the incident like the country it wants to be, a world leader that sees events and relationships in a larger context.'' I completely agree and I believe that many in Congress will judge China's ability to play a larger role on the international scene by her handling of this temporary crisis in the relationship with the U.S. The United States, and particularly the Congress, must also demonstrate our commitment to responsible global leadership. We should be cautious as last week's unfortunate events enter the contentious political debates over U.S.-China relations. I continue to believe a mature and stable relationship with China is in our national interest. It is not a goal we should be prepared to abandon. A mature and stable relationship is certainly in the best interest of the American and Chinese people. Though progress toward this goal has been hampered by the events of this last week, it is still a goal we should strive for. We must continue our dialogue with China. China should expect continued U.S. interest and in fact, vigilance, on the variety of issues important to the U.S. government and the American people. There will not be widespread concessions granted by the United States. The Embassy bombing was a tragic mistake, not a propaganda tool to be deployed at the bargaining table. Consistent with admitting the mistake and accepting responsibility, the United States and NATO should be prepared to enter into talks with China about appropriate compensation for individual and government losses. This is not unprecedented. In the late 1980's, Iraq paid compensation to the families of U.S. sailors killed in the accidental bombing of the U.S.S. Stark during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the downing of an Iranian passenger plane, the United States offered to compensate the victims families. And the U.S. is now in the midst of paying compensation for property damage and to the victims' families for last year's cable car accident in Italy. The U.S. and China both stand to gain by closer relations. China has become one of our largest trading partners, creating high-wage jobs for thousands of American families and opening markets for American businesses that depend on overseas trade. While trade is the foundation of the U.S.-China relationship, my home state of Washington's relationship with China clearly illustrates the promise of broader ties between Americans and the Chinese people. Washington's many cultural, educational and commercial ties are fostering dramatic change in China; change led by and on behalf of the Chinese people. With the recent visit to the United States by Chinese Premier Zhu Rongi and the ongoing negotiations between our two governments, the U.S. and China are poised to reach a truly historic agreement, paving the way for China's entry into the World Trade Organization this year. I support China's entry into the WTO on commercially viable terms and I encourage the United States Trade Representative and her Chinese counterparts to resume negotiations at the earliest opportunity. Because of the importance of the U.S.-China relationship, I believe a high-level U.S. delegation to China, headed by Secretary of Defense William Cohen, is warranted as soon as possible. I realize the difficulties of sending the Secretary of Defense half way around the world while the U.S. is prosecuting military action in the Balkans. But the U.S.-China relationship is so important, and we have been struggling with so many difficult issues within the context of that relationship, that I believe the maximum effort must be made to provide the Chinese leadership with a full and complete understanding of the accidental bombing of their embassy. I know that Secretary Cohen is well respected by the Chinese, and a trip by the Secretary to China would have the dual purpose of stressing to the Chinese the great importance we place on having a mature and stable relationship and underscoring the accidental nature of the Embassy bombing. Much progress has been made on the U.S.-China relationship in recent years. The Zhu Rongi visit was important. This followed two Presidential Summits in Washington and Beijing. It is my hope that the recent tragic events do not derail the progress made toward building a strong and comprehensive U.S.-China relationship, based on trust and mutual understanding. The relationship can only exist if both governments and both peoples can deal with each other honestly and forthrightly. Now is the time to address the issues standing in the way of accomplishing this. Now is the time to move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Wellstone to introduce the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This has been a seven year effort and one that I will continue to pursue. I want to thank Senator Wellstone for his efforts on this important legislation. I also need to recognize the leadership of Senator Biden regarding the Violence Against Women Act. Without his work on this historic legislation since 1994, we could not be here today talking about the economic needs of victims of domestic violence. In 1994, we enacted the landmark Violence Against Women Act. For the first time, Congress said violence against women was a national disgrace and a public health threat. We had to act. This was no longer just a family matter or a family dispute, this was and is a serious threat against women and a serious threat to the community. We have had police officers in Washington state killed responding to domestic violence calls. We have seen too many women in the emergency room and too many families devastated by violence. VAWA set in motion a national response to this crisis. We are now in the process of reauthorizing and strengthening VAWA. This is my major priority. Reauthorization of VAWA cements the foundation we need to build the structure that will ultimately end domestic violence and abuse. The Battered Women's Economic Security Act takes the next logical step. As a result of the work that I have done concerning family violence, I have come to understand that the real long-term solution is to tear down the economic barriers that trap women in violent homes and relationships. Our legislation addresses many of the economic barriers that I know force a cycle of violence. I have met with many of the advocates in the state of Washington and heard from them first hand, about how these barriers make long term security for women and their children difficult. From housing to child care to job protection to welfare waivers, our legislation attempts to deal with the long term economic problems. Women should not have to be forced to choose between job security and violence. Each year one million individuals become victims of violent crimes while working on duty. Men are more likely to be attacked at work by a stranger, women are more likely to be attacked by someone they know. One-sixth of all workplace homicides of women are committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. Boyfriends and husbands, both current and former, commit more than 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace every year. This does not include harassment or the threat of violence. Clearly, women face a serious threat in the work place and yet if they leave to avoid harm, they are denied workers compensation. Perhaps even more offensive is the fact that some states require victims of domestic violence to seek employment in order to receive TANF benefits. To have any economic safety net some women are forced to jeopardize their own safety. This is not just an issue that effects victims of domestic violence. We all suffer the economic consequences of violence. it has been estimated that work place violence resulted in $4.2 billion in lost productivity and legal expenses for American businesses. From what I have heard from victims and advocates, this is a very conservative estimate. The health care costs are also equally staggering. Both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Surgeon General have labeled violence against women a public health threat. Violence is the number one reason women ages 19 to 35 end up in the emergency room. One out of every three women can expect to be the victim of violence at some point in her life. Our legislation would also prohibit discriminating against victims of domestic violence in all lines of insurance. If a woman seeks treatment in an Emergency Room and reports this as domestic violence, she should not be denied disability or life insurance. If an estranged husband burns the house to the ground the woman should not be denied compensation simply because it was an act of domestic violence. To say that victims of domestic violence engage in high risk behavior similar to sky diving or race care driving is simply outrageous. It is the ultimate example of blaming the victim. Our legislation is not the final solution, but it begins the process of addressing long term economic needs. I am hopeful that once we have secured reauthorization of VAWA we can begin to focus on these economic problems. Without VAWA we have no foundation. I will be working with Paul and other Members of the Senate towards enactment of key provisions of the bill. I am also committed to continuing my work with Senator Biden in an effort to enact Violence Against Women Reauthorization during this session. I urge all of my colleagues to review the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. I encourage all of you to talk to your advocates and your police, ask them what issues keep women trapped in a violent home or relationship. Ask them what needs to be done to provide long term solutions. I know that after careful review and consideration, you will reach the same conclusions. There are economic barriers that must be torn down. I hope that many of you will join in cosponsoring this legislation and work with me to enact this comprehensive solution to ending the cycle of violence that too many women and children face every day.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I want to turn quickly to a different topic, and that is on the issue of education and class size. I know my colleagues have watched me come to the floor and talk numerous times about how important it is that we reduce class sizes in the grades of 1 through 3. I have talked about the research in this country which has shown that reducing class size makes a difference for our students. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a report from Tennessee that has just come out. It is called the Star Report.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. This is a report about a study that researchers in Tennessee began many years ago in relation to reduced class size in the first through third grades. They followed those young people all the way through to the point where they are now graduating this year. It is a very impressive study. It shows exactly what I have been debating on the floor of the Senate; and that is that students who are in smaller class sizes in the first through third grades are more likely to pursue college, have higher graduation rates, they achieve at higher levels, and it makes a difference in discipline. Mr. President, it seems to me that we have to get back to this issue. I urge all of my colleagues to take a second look and recognize that we can make a difference by continuing our support of class size reduction and teacher training here in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the 23 Senators on the list that I send to the desk be added as cosponsors to my bill, S. 564, the Class Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Act of 1999.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue of great importance to Washington State and our country. I know it is an issue the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Washington, shares concern with me. There has been a lot of talk in recent months in the media and on the Senate floor about Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I want to take a few minutes today on the Senate floor and share a few of my thoughts on Microsoft. Recently, Microsoft's competitors and critics have portrayed Microsoft as a serious threat to the technology sector. I can speak from experience about Microsoft. The Microsoft I know is far different than the ruthless company that has been described in newspaper articles. My own professional and political career covers the 20-year period of Microsoft's growth from the first personal computers to today's innovative software programs which have spurred consumers and educators and students and the business community to the reinvention of their daily lives. Almost everyone is familiar with Microsoft and its products. Bill Gates and Paul Allen, the company's founders, had one vision in mind-- that one day every home and family would have a PC. It was an ambitious goal but one that seems more attainable every day. Through the years, the company has developed tremendous innovations in the technology industry, but Microsoft is more than the product it makes. I want to take some time today to talk about the things Microsoft does to make the lives of everyone in our country better. I have spent most of my career as an advocate for education. I have traveled all across my State visiting schools and talking to students, parents, teachers, and local business leaders. I have worked hard to put computers into schools and train teachers in the use of technology and make sure that all children, no matter who they are or where they come from, has access to technology and the opportunities such skills and knowledge bring. If there is one thing I have learned, it is that providing a good education, if we want to do it, takes the involvement of everyone, and that is particularly true of businesses. Microsoft believes one of its most important goals is to build technology to empower teachers and families to make lifelong learning more dynamic, more powerful, and more accessible. To this end, Microsoft contributes more than a half billion dollars annually for education, workforce training, and access to technology programs. Microsoft is a leader in education technology. Through its connected learning community effort, they help students and educators and parents access technology, and through its ``Working Connections'' program, Microsoft supports technology training for underserved populations through the Nation's community college system. If we want our young people to compete for high paying technology jobs, we need to make sure they have the right skills. Microsoft is also a leader in addressing the technological gap in many communities across our country. The Gates Library Foundation grants provide public access to the Internet in underserved areas in both rural and urban settings. Their ongoing financial commitment to this effort is making a real difference for underserved populations and areas. I tell you these things today because I know firsthand of all the great things Microsoft and its employees are doing to bring new inventions and opportunities to American consumers. When a grandfather learns how to e-mail his grandchild and play a larger role in that child's life, I appreciate Microsoft's efforts on behalf of families. When a Washington State family finds work in the technology sector, I appreciate Microsoft's contribution to my State's economy. When a child discovers the Internet as an educational tool for the first time, I see a child filled with excitement, for learning and hope for the future, and I thank Microsoft for helping to make that possible. That is the Microsoft I see and that is the Microsoft I represent in the Senate. Now, we all know that high technology, and particularly the software business, is immensely competitive. Certainly, Microsoft, and all the other Washington high-tech firms, compete vigorously. That is the nature of these industries. Washington State has become a high-tech leader through hard work, a dedicated and creative workforce, and an unmatched quality of life. Microsoft has enjoyed immense success over the years and continues to grow at an impressive rate. This success has been hard fought, however, and has recently drawn the oversight of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has alleged consumer harm, but I have to ask: Where are the consumers who have been hurt? There is no consumer uproar over Microsoft or its business practices. Microsoft's business model--high volume, product sales at low prices--is both successful and proconsumer. Microsoft's consumer benefits are well understood by the American public. A recent nationwide poll conducted by Hart-Teeter found that 73 percent of those polled believe Microsoft has benefited consumers, and 69 percent of those individuals have a favorable impression of Microsoft. While those results do not surprise me, I was surprised to learn that 66 percent of those polled believe that the Government should not be pursuing this case against Microsoft, and more than half of the respondents believe that this case represents a poor use of tax dollars. I have read the complaint filed by the Justice Department and I have followed the court proceedings in this case. I have seen how easy it might be to conclude, based on press reports, that Microsoft is faring poorly in the courtroom. The vigorous courtroom presentations during the trial have led to an aggressive public relations effort outside the courtroom. I think it is time for the parties in this case to move to a more productive dialogue. The judge in this trial has implored both sides to seek a settlement. And I agree. Microsoft and the Justice Department should do all they can to meet the judge's request. Both sides should be free to pursue a settlement in private and free from the influence of the public and their competitors. Settlement of this case will mean that consumers will continue to benefit from Microsoft's innovative products and the antitrust claims will be put to rest. At issue here is more than just the fate of Microsoft. The resolution of this trial will have broad implications on the software industry as a whole. Microsoft employs more than 30,000 people, including 15,000 from my home State. The U.S. software industry employs more than 600,000 people and enjoys an annual growth rate of 10 percent. The industry paid more than $36 billion in wages to U.S. employees in 1996. Software and high-tech companies have been the driving force behind the economic expansion that we continue to experience here in the United States, and much of our economic future lies in these knowledge-based industries. We have to be cautious and thoughtful about Government intervention so that we do not stifle the economic promise that software and high-tech companies offer. Of course, we should not protect companies or guarantee profits and market share. But we--as legislators and as the Federal Government-- must be careful to correctly interpret the state of competition. My own view is competition is alive in this industry. Any tech company that rests on its current product line or stock price risks a quick and decisive downfall. While Microsoft is headquartered in Redmond, WA, my remarks are more than a defense of a constituent company. My concerns should be felt by every Senator on this floor. A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal offered the following passage: Dominant firms are the norm in high tech. TV ads boast that virtually all internet traffic travels on Cisco systems. Quicken has 80 percent of the financial-software market. Netscape once boasted of having 90 percent of the browser business. Intel still has 76 percent of the microprocessor business. America Online, Lotus Notes and Oracle all dominate their respective markets. Executives who work in such glass offices should think twice before encouraging zealous prosecutors and gullible reporters to define monopoly as a large share of an artificially tiny market. The high-tech industry employs 4.5 million workers across this country. According to the American Electronics Association, 47 of the 50 States added high-tech workers between 1994 and 1996. It is not just States such as Washington and California and Texas that are booming as a result of technology jobs. Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, Oregon, Illinois, Virginia, Florida, and Utah are States that are experiencing phenomenal job growth in the tech sector. To maintain this impressive nationwide job growth in the technology sector, the Congress and the Federal Government must be careful. Let's not forget that most of this phenomenal growth occurred over the last decade when technology was not on either the Federal or congressional radar screen. Before yielding, let me reiterate the points that brought me to the floor today. I hope each of my colleagues will give serious consideration to these issues. Microsoft is a true Washington State and American success story that is still unfolding for the benefit of consumers, business and the general public. Microsoft has a particularly impressive record of community activism, and I am especially proud of the company's efforts in the area of education. The ongoing court case is of utmost interest and importance to me in the work I do in the Senate. I implore all parties to give the legal system an opportunity to work. Judge Jackson has urged both parties to seek a settlement, and I strongly encourage them to heed the judge's advice. Finally, the outcome of the Microsoft case will have long-term ramifications on our Nation's economy. Technology is growing rapidly, and we all know many technology jobs are high-paying, family-wage jobs. The United States is a technology superpower. The Federal Government must use its immense powers with care and caution in monitoring the technology sector. When the Federal Government interjects itself in this intensely competitive sector of our economy, it must ensure that it does not do serious damage to our economy. Mr. President, I again urge my colleagues to pay attention to the Microsoft case. I look forward to discussing this issue with my colleagues again on the floor of the Senate.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to discuss passage of the first education legislation of the 106th Congress. My sincere hope is that this is only the first step in bipartisan agreement about the path we are traveling toward improving America's schools. The Education Flexibility Partnership Act itself is not an earth- shaking proposal. Essentially, for a set of provisions under a list of Federal programs, school districts will be able to get waivers from their States instead of having to ask Secretary Riley. Since Secretary Riley grants these waivers fairly routinely, some might ask why we need this bill. There has been so much talk about the great things this bill contains that I just want to clarify what we are talking about. Within the bill, we are not reducing paperwork or bureaucracy or cost or time spent away from the classroom. You will hear from some of my colleagues that this bill does all those things and probably many other claims. To some people, Ed-Flex has become the great tonic that will fix all the ailments of our schools. I want you to notice something that Senator Frist has mentioned that I agree with. Ed-Flex is not a silver bullet or a panacea. It will not solve all the challenges our schools face. The important part of the message that does not always get through is that no effort in the Congress or in your local school is that silver bullet or that panacea. The problems that affect today's schools, as we saw yesterday in Colorado, are never easy to solve. They are always more complex than a sound bite. Always. Each part of the American school community, from classroom to committee room, must do its part. Every student, every family, every educator, every community leader, every local school board, every State government, and every national policymaker--all of us must do what we can. The language of the Ed-Flex bill does not really provide any direct relief to any of these problems. All it really does is say that in addition to asking Secretary Riley for a waiver from a provision of a Federal program, you can now ask your State officials. So why would someone like me, someone who is a parent, a preschool teacher, a former school board member, why would I come to the Senate Chamber and proclaim that we should pass the Ed-Flex bill? Because it can help change thinking, and that is a vital and important goal. Education flexibility is an important idea and concept. If, by passing this expansion of the education flexibility program, we can change the thinking in just one community about what steps they can take to improve their local public school, then that is a major victory. Too many local decisions, things that would directly improve the learning of hundreds of children, are stopped before they get started. The message this Congress needs to say to local communities is, if you have a proven, effective way to improve learning for your students and you have your community behind you and you are willing to be held accountable for the results, we should be doing everything we can to get the obstacles out of your way. Sometimes the obstacle is a Federal law or regulation. Sometimes the obstacle is a State law or a State regulation. Sometimes the obstacle is a local school board policy that needs to be changed. Sometimes the obstacle is the bus schedule or the school lunch schedule or the sports schedule. Sometimes, believe it or not, the obstacle to improvement does not have anything to do with education law or with government at all. Whatever the obstacles are, we all have a responsibility to do what is best for the students by holding the school accountable and helping them get the obstacles out of the way. My belief is that we should all be thanking Senator Wyden and Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords for giving us an opportunity with this bill to help change thinking across this Nation, to remind communities that they have more power than they know to make improvements in their schools, and to say in a meaningful way that their Federal Government is their partner in making their best schools better or in helping their struggling schools to thrive. There are plenty of great schools and plenty of great thinking out there right now without any further action on our part. But this bill will encourage the discussion that is happening at every local school about how to improve student learning and how to get even our best schools performing at higher levels. Great thinking alone will not do it. That brings me back to my statement that although the Ed-Flex bill is the first education bill in this Congress, it cannot be the last, because what local school communities need more than flexibility are the resources and support to do something positive with it. The Ed-Flex bill alone will not give your students more individual attention in the classroom. The Ed-Flex bill alone will not stop up a leak in your school's roof, unless it is a very small one. The Ed-Flex bill alone will not improve teacher training or any number of other important issues that real people across this Nation have to deal with every day, which is why it is important for me and many of my colleagues to start the larger debate about education with this bill. We know we will not have many opportunities this year. This Congress must continue to address the very real needs of school communities. The public school is a powerful engine for social improvement and equity of opportunity. Millions of Americans have created lives that were measurably better in all ways than that of their parents because of something they learned in a public school. As communities continue to update and improve and redesign their own public schools to meet the changing needs of our economy and society, they will need a very real, measurable investment from the other members of this great community we call our Nation. We must continue our important national investment in reducing class size by helping communities to hire 100,000 well-trained, high-quality teachers. We must do everything we can to improve the professional development and ongoing education of our teachers to make sure they are ready for each challenge they face with each student each day they enter the classroom. We must use every tax bill this year as a vehicle to help school communities modernize their school buildings and technology capabilities. None of these, nor the many other important investments we should make, should be seen as a silver bullet or a panacea. But when you give local communities the freedom from regulation that we continue by expanding the education flexibility program today, and then combine that flexibility with the very real investment in the communities' ability to hire good people, to improve school buildings, to pay for improvements to the teaching process, and to choose the very best educational tools possible, then you are doing something really big, then we are talking about a major investment in our Nation's future which will pay off for us in many ways--reduced crime, more economic opportunity for people, the improved well-being of our neediest citizens, better citizenship, stronger communities with an improved quality of life for all of us. That is why I and my colleagues have come to the debate on the Ed- Flex bill and also talked about the other important national investments we must make and continue to make in our schools. In the process, there have arisen some threats to that overall, more important national effort. There was an amendment to this bill that would have undone the very important, vital, bipartisan agreement we all came to last year in helping communities reduce class size. If that amendment had prevailed, we would have seen communities--communities that are now struggling to put together their budgets for next year--we would have seen them forced to make some very ugly choices in school board meetings that already have enough disagreement and contention. The good news is, that amendment which would have forced school districts to pit special education and regular education students against each other has been dropped. In its place, we have bipartisan language which will allow more flexibility to the very small school districts who have already reduced class size. That is progress. This year, we can have the opportunity to debate class size reduction and many other efforts to improve communities' abilities to improve their schools. My hope is that we take that opportunity. My hope is that we have a full discussion and make some compromises and get to further progress. Passing the Ed-Flex bill is a good first step. Continuing with our effort to leverage class size reduction across the Nation will be a good next step because school boards are making those decisions now. Moving forward on school construction this year will be another good move. Increasing funding for special education by at least $500 million will be another step towards progress. Improving the resources communities have to improve teacher training will be progress. We should reauthorize the elementary and secondary school bill this year, just as we are scheduled to do. We must continue talking and working. It is what the American people expect of us. It is our responsibility. We must increase flexibility and resources at the same time. People want their schools to have the freedom to act and the funds to pay for it. Most people are, frankly, shocked by the fact that less than 2 percent of our overall national spending goes to education. We must make that a higher priority. We have started our work. Now let's continue and do our part in the great partnership we call America's public schools. Thank you, Mr. President. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes from the Democratic side.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I came here today to talk about the work we are doing to protect our environment, but first I would just like to express my deep sorrow over yesterday's tragic shooting in Littleton, Colorado and to tell the students, teachers and their families that they are in our thoughts and our hearts. Mr. President, we are here to celebrate the last Earth Day before the 21st century. As a nation, we have made great strides in the last three decades in protecting important ecosystems, cleaning up past mistakes and improving the environmental records of industry and agriculture. I am confident that as we move into the 21st century, our Nation will continue to be a leader in both environmental protection and economic strength. In the Pacific Northwest, one of our most pressing challenges is to restore our dwindling wild salmon stocks. This year, the Puget Sound chinook salmon was listed on the endangered species list, making it one of the first species in the Nation to require protection efforts in an intensely developed metropolitan area. This will give our region an opportunity to highlight again how we can both thrive economically and provide critical protection to other species. Already we have seen examples across our State. Farmers have modified irrigation systems to make them more salmon-friendly. Forest landowners have foregone timber harvest in sensitive areas and replanted along streams with vegetation particularly beneficial to fish. Citizens of our urban areas have taken the first steps toward a comprehensive plan to restore urban salmon and have joined forces to restore devastated wetlands and streams. One of the important lessons we should have learned about environmental protection is it is much easier--and far less costly--to preserve an ecosystem rather than try to repair it once it has been destroyed. That is one of the reasons I am pushing my colleagues so hard to pass my legislation to create a Wild and Scenic River on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. These are the last free-flowing 51 miles of this mighty river and they contain some of the most productive and important fish spawning habitat in the lower 48 States. The reach produces 80 percent of the Columbia Basin's fall chinook salmon, as well as thriving runs of steelhead trout and sturgeon. While most of the Columbia River Basin were being developed during the middle of this century, the Hanford Reach and other buffer areas within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation were kept pristine by the same veil of secrecy and security that lead to the contamination of the central Hanford Site. Mr. President, we have been offered an opportunity to continue to grow the rural economy of central Washington while protecting this vital source of our economic strength that the Columbia River provides. Creating a Wild and Scenic River could help us avoid drastic protection measures, like breaching the dams along the Columbia Snake River systems to save salmon. This simple step will demonstrate our commitment both to protecting wild salmon and to the economic and social structure of the inland West. Today, we also celebrate the introduction of legislation to protect another national treasure: the wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Senator Roth will again introduce, and I will cosponsor, his bill to protect one of the only remaining complete and undisturbed arctic ecosystems in the world. It is home to an abundance of wildlife, including grizzly and polar bears, musk-oxen, wolves, and a host of migratory bird species. It is also home to the magnificent porcupine caribou herd, whose 160,000 members rely on this coastal plain for their calving grounds. This bill will prohibit development of oil within the fragile wilderness of the refuge. Oil development would likely disrupt the porcupine caribou and force them to change their calving grounds and migratory routes. This, in turn, will adversely impact the lifestyle and culture of their neighbors, the Gwich'in people. Proponents of development claim that only 13,000 acres of the refuge will be impacted. While this may be true, that development will take place in the biological heart of ANWR and have a devastating impact on the wilderness values of the area. In this biological heart, developers will create a major industrial complex. They will build hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines, erect housing for thousands of workers, and construct two sea ports and one airport. These developments will lead to mining of enormous amounts of gravel, will require diversion of streams and will result in pollution of fragile tundra. Mr. President, as we celebrate the last earth day before the 21st century, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to support both of these bills in order to hand down to our children and grandchildren a part of America's great natural legacy.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday's tragedy in Littleton, Colorado has brought the nation together in our sense of shock and horror. I want the people of Littleton to know that they are in our thoughts and our hearts. We cannot know the devastation they must feel, and we can only imagine, ``what if that were my child?'' In this time of terrible sorrow, your nation sends its profound sympathy. Yesterday, two heavily-armed students went into Columbine High School in Littleton, in what has been described as a suicide mission, to bring violence and death on their classmates, their teachers, and themselves. One student last night, a girl from another high school who visited Columbine to show her support, made a very important observation: ``People always say `it couldn't happen here; it couldn't happen to me,' well, it did happen here; it did happen to us.'' We must ask ourselves what we can to stop this senseless violence from happening again in another town, another community, another school. As we begin to sort through the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, inevitably we will arrive at the question ``why?'' It is too easy for a young person these days to feel anonymous--to go unseen. Too many young people in America will wake up today, walk through the neighborhood, attend a crowded school, walk through the shopping mall, and return home--without ever getting acknowledgment or recognition or support from even one adult. As a nation, we must make a determined effort to change this unfortunate fact. We have a responsibility to the nation's young people to do better. I have talked to too many young people who say that ``adults just don't seem to care about me.'' Sometimes just a conversation or even a smile can send an important message to a young person--``You matter. I want things to go well for you. If you need help, I'm here.'' Young people today are different in many ways than when we were young, but one thing hasn't changed. They still need our understanding, and our compassion. And they need to know that someone cares about them so that they don't see violence as a solution. Violence is not an option. We cannot tolerate violence in our schools. Tragically, these two students at Columbine High School, who so desperately wanted someone's attention have finally succeeded. In their cry to be heard, they have done irreparable damage to the families and community of Littleton. And as we search for an explanation, we find ourselves struggling to understand who those two boys were and how they could commit such an awful crime. There is not a legislative solution to the problem of violence in our schools. Instead, we must begin a national dialogue about what we all can do to let children know that violence is simply not acceptable. As we all reflect on yesterday, each one of us should ask ourselves what we can do to make a difference. We each must take responsibility to do a better job in letting all children know that adults care about them . . . that there are other ways to make their voice heard . . . that they matter. For the last three years, I have cosponsored, with former Senator Kempthorne, a resolution establishing the Day of Concern About Young People and Gun Violence. Every year we have received dozens of Senate cosponsors--56 last year--and widespread support from the Parent- Teacher Association, Mothers Against Violence in America, the National Association of Student Councils, and others. But more importantly, last year more than a million students signed a pledge promising they would never take a gun to school, would never use a gun to settle a dispute, and would use their influence to prevent friends from using guns to settle disputes. I hope all of my Senate colleagues will join me this year in cosponsoring and passing this important resolution establishing the Day of Concern on October 21, 1999. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the budget we are going to be voting on today. And while I applaud the efforts of the Republican leadership to have a budget resolution, I believe that in the haste to get something out by April, we have put together a budget that really lacks any sense of fiscal responsibility. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. This report before us fails our families and it fails our children. This is the first budget for a new century, but it does very little to prepare us for the challenges we are going to face. It ignores key investments in education, health care, environmental protection, and child care. Regrettably, it ignores our obligation to current retirees and those who will retire within the next 20 years. Mr. President, I have listened to many of my colleagues who talk about returning the people's money to the people, and I could not agree more. We should allocate part of the surplus to saving Social Security and Medicare. Hard-working Americans have paid their FICA and Medicare payroll taxes with the understanding that when they reach the age of 65, or become disabled, they will be guaranteed Social Security benefits and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare allow the elderly independence and dignity in the years spent after a lifetime of work. We must reserve part of today's surplus to honor this commitment, and this budget does not do that. We all know that Medicare is in real crisis. Yet, the only recommendations this budget offers are vague statements about reform. There is no talk about investing in prevention benefits that ultimately will save Medicare dollars. There is no language to improve the program so that senior citizens and the disabled can take advantage of new advances in biomedical research to improve the quality of their lives and their health. The priority of this budget before us appears to be to simply raid the Federal Treasury for an across-the-board tax cut. We need to follow the example of working families. We have a budget surplus for the first time in decades because of tough fiscal discipline and wise economic investment. Just like families, we tightened our belt and restored fiscal soundness to the Federal Government. We should now use this surplus to save for and invest in the future. These are simple choices: Invest in our children and save for our retirement. That is the goal of most families. I also point out to my colleagues the unfortunate fact that the conferees, in the middle of the night, behind closed doors, stripped out important language we had passed in the Senate regarding women and Social Security. Based on my reading of the conference report, it appears that my language was dropped. At the end of the report, there is a listing of all sense-of-the-Senate amendments adopted during consideration of the budget, but there is no explanation from the managers as to the status of these amendments. In addition, these amendments are clearly not part of the conference report pending before us. Mr. President, an amendment I offered in committee and on the floor put every Senator on the record as being committed to protecting the safety net for women and making real change, to pull more older women out of poverty as we move forward with Social Security reform. My amendments were aimed at expressing our support of maintaining a guaranteed inflation-protected benefit for women and working to reform benefit calculations for Social Security. The amendment I offered on the floor made it clear that, through the process of Social Security reform, we would recognize the sacrifices women make to take care of their families. I was proud to offer these amendments and had hoped that instead of just talking about taking care of women in the course of Social Security reform, there would be a solid, bipartisan commitment to addressing the unique economic situation faced by most women today. But it seems that, once again, the needs of women have been ignored or forgotten. With no women on the Senate Finance Committee, I wanted a strong statement from the Senate that the real interest of women who depend on Social Security would not be negotiated away. I wanted to be sure that all Members understood the changing dynamics of the workforce and the difficult choices women must make every single day. Women make decisions in their thirties and forties for the welfare of their families, like raising children, only to find out in their sixties and seventies that this sacrifice has cost them their economic security in old age. A surviving spouse can also face a dramatic change in her standard of living immediately following the loss of her husband. Women, on the average, give 11 and a half years of their working lives to their families. They jeopardize their long-term economic security and retirement income to meet the immediate needs of children or aging parents. A surviving spouse can see a reduction of as much as 50 percent of her Social Security income following the death of her husband. Is this the reward women deserve for caring for their families? Social Security reform gives us the chance to make things right for working women and protect their guaranteed benefit. We owe this to all families. Unfortunately, when given the chance to assure women that their interests and real economic situation would not be forgotten, it would appear that the Republicans have now turned their backs. The failure to include my amendments will only make me work harder to educate women and to fight for women during the debate on Social Security reform. I will not let the administration or Members of the Senate off the hook. There is no greater threat to women and families than a Social Security reform proposal that ignores the economic disadvantages still faced by working women and older women. I hope that all working women and older women are watching the debate on Social Security reform and taking note. Mr. President, I also want to say again how disappointed I am in this budget process. When I decided to serve on the Budget Committee, I wanted to return some common sense to our fiscal policy. I wanted to bring the voice of working families to the table, and I don't think this budget passes the test. It is seriously flawed when it comes to the issue of education. When I talk to my constituents about education and the efforts of Congress, most people are very surprised and angered to learn that less than 2 percent of overall Federal spending goes to education. They think education should be a higher priority, that we should improve and increase education spending, and so do I. Instead, other than an increase for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act--an important $500 million increase that I think we all support--we will see cuts in education funding, and cuts in other important areas in social services and job training. Even with the increase for IDEA, this budget agreement assumes $200 million in other funds--or $700 million if IDEA is included--in cuts below a freeze that would have to come from other discretionary programs in education, social services and job training. Where will the axe fall? The Senate's budget specifically focused on subfunction 501--K-12 education. But after working with the House, this conference proposal now is silent on K-12 education as a specific subfunction. Can we then assume that our public schools will bear the burden of these cuts? Or will the cuts be in other important areas? The list is long. Will it be Head Start or national service, job training or juvenile justice, student aid or nutritional programs? The American people in overwhelming numbers support increased funding for education. The Congress of the United States has not yet heard the message. This budget conference agreement does not place education as a high enough priority. Among other things, this budget completely ignores the pressing need to continue in the national effort to help local school districts hire 100,000 new, well-qualified teachers. In the classroom, when students wonder why their teacher is not prepared to help them learn math and science--they can look to this budget. When they are stuck in an over-crowded classroom, they can look to this budget. When they learn that there will be less student aid this year than last year, they can look to this budget. When the American people see that fewer children are graduating with the skills they need to participate in our fast-changing economy, they can look to this budget and the short-sighted priorities of the 106th Congress. A small bright spot in this otherwise bleak budget is the important expansion to child care funding. The Senate overwhelmingly supported the Dodd child care amendment to the budget resolution. I cosponsored that amendment, and while only part of it was retained, I think we have the beginnings of real, bipartisan progress on child care funding. What the Senate supported yesterday in an overwhelming 66-33 vote, was a historic first step that would have increased child care funding by $12.5 billion over 10 years--nearly doubling our federal investment in quality child care. What the Senate is being asked to support today is not the complete Dodd amendment, but with a $3 billion investment in the child care and development block grant, and $3 billion in tax incentives, we are making a good start. Child care questions are becoming more and more pressing for more parents every day. With concerns about affordability, quality, and access--and with more low-income parents going into the workforce--the needs are changing and increasing. More child care is needed during ``off hours''--such as evenings and weekends. More child care is needed in rural settings, impacting transportation, work schedules, and the amount of licensed family child care providers. It is vital that we make improvements for child care; the provisions of this conference agreement are a beginning to real progress. But Mr. President, the glimmer of hope offered by the language on childcare is not enough reason to support the FY2000 Budget before us and I urge a no vote on the Conference Report. Under the unrealistic limits set under this budget, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know we will be unable to protect the real concerns of working families. Our hands will be tied when it comes time for us to invest in important priorities like education, health care, environmental protection, agriculture, biomedical research, and early childhood development. Mr. President, finally, I commend Senator Lautenberg for his leadership in attempting to work for real progress and for a true fiscal plan that will guide us in the new millennium. I know he shares my disappointment in this resolution. But I thank him for the tremendous amount of work and leadership he has given us on the Budget Committee as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that it be equally divided.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would like 15 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a Wild and Scenic River. Simply stated, this is the best, most cost-effective, and smartest way to protect the Northwest's dwindling wild salmon runs. The Hanford Reach is an extraordinary and unique place. While most of the Columbia River Basin was being developed during the middle of this century, the Hanford Reach and other buffer areas within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation were kept pristine, ironically, by the same veil of secrecy and security that lead to the notorious nuclear and chemical contamination of the central Hanford Site. Today, these relatively undisturbed areas are the last wild remnants of a great river and vast ecological community that have been tamed by dams, farms, and other development elsewhere. As the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River, the significance of the Hanford Reach cannot be overstated. Mile for mile, it contains some of the most productive and important fish spawning habitat in the lower 48 states. The volume and velocity of the cool, clear waters of the Columbia River produce ideal conditions for spawning and migrating salmon. The Reach produces eighty percent of the Columbia Basin's fall chinook salmon, as well as thriving runs of steelhead trout and sturgeon. It is the only truly healthy segment of the mainstem of the Columbia River. The Reach is also rich in other natural and cultural resources. Bald eagles, wintering and migrating waterfowl, deer, elk, and a diversity of other wildlife depend on the Reach. It is home to dozens of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals, some found only in the Reach. Native American culture thrived on the shores and islands of the Reach for millennia, and there are over 150 archeological sites in the proposed designation, some dating back more than 10,000 years. The Reach's naturally spawning salmon and cultural sites remain a vital part of the culture and religion of Native American groups in the area. It is remarkable that the Reach offers so much in such close proximity to the cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, Washington. The Reach offers residents and visitors recreation of many types--from hunting, fishing, and hiking to kayaking, waterskiing, and birdwatching--and adds greatly to the quality of life and economy of the area. Back in 1994, only the locals in and around the Tri-Cities had heard about the last-free flowing stretch of the mighty Columbia River. Several residents had been working more than thirty years to save the Reach and they got me involved to do the same. They showed me what a precious resource the Hanford Reach is, and I promised to do everything in my power to protect it. I convened a Hanford Reach Advisory Panel to develop a consensus plan to protect the river corridor. Their work has been the basis of the bills I have introduced in the past and that I am introducing today, and builds on the foundation begun by Senators Dan Evans and Brock Adams, and Congressman Sid Morrison who enacted legislation imposing a moratorium on development within the river corridor in 1987. I am confident this is the year we will finally achieve our goals and create a new Wild and Scenic River. We cannot wait any longer to save the Reach. Since the recent listing of the Puget Sound chinook, everyone across the Northwest is focused on what we all must do to save our wild salmon. Designating the Hanford Reach as a Wild and Scenic River is the simplest and most effective way to provide real, permanent protection for our wild salmon stocks. Only under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will we get the expertise, resources and permanency that federal management agencies, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provide. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is recognized as the best way to protect endangered rivers across the nation. The Reach deserves no less than the best. And this designation will not cost a penny. The land surrounding the river is already publicly held. The Department of Energy owns land on both sides of the river, so no private lands will be acquired or taken out of production to save this special place. In addition to public ownership, this section of the river is in superb ecological condition. It offers the best salmon spawning grounds on the mainstem of the Columbia. It will not require the millions of dollars for remediation that we've spent on other rivers and streams across the country. All the Hanford Reach requires is our protection, and it will continue to produce salmon runs unsurpassed anyplace in the region. Creating a Wild and Scenic River will help us avoid drastic measures like breaching the dams along the Columbia and Snake River systems to restore salmon. The recent Endangered Species Act listing of nine more northwest salmon runs as threatened, is another indication that we must take immediate action. Protecting the Reach is an insurance policy against the future possibility of expensive clean-up efforts and lawsuits. We must make this investment now to demonstrate we're serious about protecting not only wild salmon, but also the economic and social structure in the inland West. This bill differs from my previous legislation in some important ways. Not only does it create a federally-designated recreational Wild and Scenic River, it also establishes an innovative management approach through the creation of a multi-party commission. The management commission will develop a plan to guide the US Fish and Wildlife Service and will be comprised of three federal representatives from the Departments of Energy, Interior, and Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service); three Washington state representatives from the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Community, Trade and Economic Development; three representatives of local government from the counties of Benton, Grant, and Franklin; three tribal representatives from the Yakama, Umatilla, and Nez Perce peoples; and three local citizen representatives from conservation, recreation, and business interests. This bill also takes us a step closer to consolidating lands on the Hanford reservation itself in order to facilitate economic development, preservation of sacred tribal sites, and protection of important biological resources. It requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Energy to examine the best ways to consolidate BLM lands on the south side of the river on the Hanford site. It establishes the objectives of the study to clear title to lands along the railroad and in the 200 Area for industrial development; to protect wildlife and native plants; and to preserve cultural sites important to Native Americans. This bill does not address the critical and sensitive lands of the North Slope (also known as the Wahluke Slope) because the land is still needed by the Department of Energy for safety reasons. However, I hope to work through the administrative process to ensure these lands are not disturbed in any way that could possibly impact the healthy salmon spawning grounds below the White Bluffs. I remain committed to enlarging the existing Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge because, again, I am convinced we must provide the strongest, surest protection for the North Slope to offer our wild salmon their best hope for survival. At a time when the Pacific Northwest is spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually on restoration and enhancement efforts, and struggling to restore declining salmon runs, protecting the Hanford Reach is the most cost-effective measure we can take. That is why the Northwest Power Planning Council, Trout Unlimited, conservation groups, tribes, and many other regional interests involved in the salmon controversy all support designation of the Reach under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These are some of the many good reasons for this Congress to take up and pass this legislation to ensure the Hanford Reach becomes a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I urge the other members of Congress to join us in demanding the permanent protection of this river. It has given us so very much. The least we can do for the Columbia River is to protect the last fifty-one miles of free-flowing waters and the wild salmon that call it home.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a Wild and Scenic River. Simply stated, this is the best, most cost-effective, and smartest way to protect the Northwest's dwindling wild salmon runs. The Hanford Reach is an extraordinary and unique place. While most of the Columbia River Basin was being developed during the middle of this century, the Hanford Reach and other buffer areas within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation were kept pristine, ironically, by the same veil of secrecy and security that lead to the notorious nuclear and chemical contamination of the central Hanford Site. Today, these relatively undisturbed areas are the last wild remnants of a great river and vast ecological community that have been tamed by dams, farms, and other development elsewhere. As the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River, the significance of the Hanford Reach cannot be overstated. Mile for mile, it contains some of the most productive and important fish spawning habitat in the lower 48 states. The volume and velocity of the cool, clear waters of the Columbia River produce ideal conditions for spawning and migrating salmon. The Reach produces eighty percent of the Columbia Basin's fall chinook salmon, as well as thriving runs of steelhead trout and sturgeon. It is the only truly healthy segment of the mainstem of the Columbia River. The Reach is also rich in other natural and cultural resources. Bald eagles, wintering and migrating waterfowl, deer, elk, and a diversity of other wildlife depend on the Reach. It is home to dozens of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals, some found only in the Reach. Native American culture thrived on the shores and islands of the Reach for millennia, and there are over 150 archeological sites in the proposed designation, some dating back more than 10,000 years. The Reach's naturally spawning salmon and cultural sites remain a vital part of the culture and religion of Native American groups in the area. It is remarkable that the Reach offers so much in such close proximity to the cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, Washington. The Reach offers residents and visitors recreation of many types--from hunting, fishing, and hiking to kayaking, waterskiing, and birdwatching--and adds greatly to the quality of life and economy of the area. Back in 1994, only the locals in and around the Tri-Cities had heard about the last-free flowing stretch of the mighty Columbia River. Several residents had been working more than thirty years to save the Reach and they got me involved to do the same. They showed me what a precious resource the Hanford Reach is, and I promised to do everything in my power to protect it. I convened a Hanford Reach Advisory Panel to develop a consensus plan to protect the river corridor. Their work has been the basis of the bills I have introduced in the past and that I am introducing today, and builds on the foundation begun by Senators Dan Evans and Brock Adams, and Congressman Sid Morrison who enacted legislation imposing a moratorium on development within the river corridor in 1987. I am confident this is the year we will finally achieve our goals and create a new Wild and Scenic River. We cannot wait any longer to save the Reach. Since the recent listing of the Puget Sound chinook, everyone across the Northwest is focused on what we all must do to save our wild salmon. Designating the Hanford Reach as a Wild and Scenic River is the simplest and most effective way to provide real, permanent protection for our wild salmon stocks. Only under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will we get the expertise, resources and permanency that federal management agencies, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provide. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is recognized as the best way to protect endangered rivers across the nation. The Reach deserves no less than the best. And this designation will not cost a penny. The land surrounding the river is already publicly held. The Department of Energy owns land on both sides of the river, so no private lands will be acquired or taken out of production to save this special place. In addition to public ownership, this section of the river is in superb ecological condition. It offers the best salmon spawning grounds on the mainstem of the Columbia. It will not require the millions of dollars for remediation that we've spent on other rivers and streams across the country. All the Hanford Reach requires is our protection, and it will continue to produce salmon runs unsurpassed anyplace in the region. Creating a Wild and Scenic River will help us avoid drastic measures like breaching the dams along the Columbia and Snake River systems to restore salmon. The recent Endangered Species Act listing of nine more northwest salmon runs as threatened, is another indication that we must take immediate action. Protecting the Reach is an insurance policy against the future possibility of expensive clean-up efforts and lawsuits. We must make this investment now to demonstrate we're serious about protecting not only wild salmon, but also the economic and social structure in the inland West. This bill differs from my previous legislation in some important ways. Not only does it create a federally-designated recreational Wild and Scenic River, it also establishes an innovative management approach through the creation of a multi-party commission. The management commission will develop a plan to guide the US Fish and Wildlife Service and will be comprised of three federal representatives from the Departments of Energy, Interior, and Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service); three Washington state representatives from the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Community, Trade and Economic Development; three representatives of local government from the counties of Benton, Grant, and Franklin; three tribal representatives from the Yakama, Umatilla, and Nez Perce peoples; and three local citizen representatives from conservation, recreation, and business interests. This bill also takes us a step closer to consolidating lands on the Hanford reservation itself in order to facilitate economic development, preservation of sacred tribal sites, and protection of important biological resources. It requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Energy to examine the best ways to consolidate BLM lands on the south side of the river on the Hanford site. It establishes the objectives of the study to clear title to lands along the railroad and in the 200 Area for industrial development; to protect wildlife and native plants; and to preserve cultural sites important to Native Americans. This bill does not address the critical and sensitive lands of the North Slope (also known as the Wahluke Slope) because the land is still needed by the Department of Energy for safety reasons. However, I hope to work through the administrative process to ensure these lands are not disturbed in any way that could possibly impact the healthy salmon spawning grounds below the White Bluffs. I remain committed to enlarging the existing Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge because, again, I am convinced we must provide the strongest, surest protection for the North Slope to offer our wild salmon their best hope for survival. At a time when the Pacific Northwest is spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually on restoration and enhancement efforts, and struggling to restore declining salmon runs, protecting the Hanford Reach is the most cost-effective measure we can take. That is why the Northwest Power Planning Council, Trout Unlimited, conservation groups, tribes, and many other regional interests involved in the salmon controversy all support designation of the Reach under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These are some of the many good reasons for this Congress to take up and pass this legislation to ensure the Hanford Reach becomes a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I urge the other members of Congress to join us in demanding the permanent protection of this river. It has given us so very much. The least we can do for the Columbia River is to protect the last fifty-one miles of free-flowing waters and the wild salmon that call it home.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, before the body at this time is an amendment on education. We have heard from this floor many times over the course of this Congress that education is a priority. And that is a fact; it is a priority here in the Senate. I am delighted to say that. It is certainly a priority for thousands of families across the country who have children in school who want them to get a good education. But it is also a priority for many businesses who want to make sure that we are educating young people today in order to give them the skills they need to be able to hire them. It is a priority for our police officers and the community leaders, because they know that investing in education and making sure that young people get what they need in our schools means the safety, the health, and the viability of our country for many years to come. The pending amendment talks about education. But talking about education is not what our constituents are asking for. They are asking for us to invest in education. We can all talk about quality, but unless we provide the resources for those schools out there, we will not be providing them with the kind of education they have to have in order for our country to be strong in the future. The amendment that my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd, have introduced offers us a way to do that. Too often on this floor we have set up challenges between different funding. We can either support IDEA funding for special education, or we can support teacher quality, or class size. The amendment that Senator Kennedy will offer at a later time provides us with the alternative to make sure that we do provide the funds for special education under IDEA and complete the promise we have made to young students and teachers and communities to reduce class size. It simply says that this is an investment we are going to make. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will make a difference in our classrooms across this country. Mr. President, too often we are told that we are providing a tax cut and returning money to the people. I can think of no better way to return money to our constituents than by investing it in education so that our young people get the skills they need, so they can get jobs and become a viable part of our economy in the future. A budget is not just about putting dollars out there today, it is making good investment so that our budgets will be strong in the future. That is why I am going to support the Kennedy amendment, which gives actual real resources to our students, and not just another empty promise and another way of moving bureaucratic paper around. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield my time back to the Senator from Massachusetts.