Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today, Senator Wellstone and I are introducing the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This legislation was developed in order to address the numerous economic obstacles facing victims of domestic and family violence as they try to escape this violence. I know that Senator Wellstone joins me in applauding Senator Biden's efforts in crafting legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act programs. Senator Biden developed a bipartisan bill to build on the success of VAWA and expand those programs aimed at the immediate needs of victims of domestic violence. The legislation we are introducing today takes the next step. As a result of VAWA and the increased federal commitment to addressing the domestic violence crisis, we now have an infrastructure in place that helps the community respond to this violence. VAWA has been a success in helping local law enforcement, and the courts, prosecute those who batter and abuse women. VAWA provides a strong law enforcement component as well as services to provide immediate and emergency assistance to victims. But, the road to recovery is much longer and much harder because of economic barriers. As I learned last year in my efforts to maintain a safety net for victims of family violence, often times it is basic economics that trap women and children in violent homes and relationships. Economic barriers threaten the success of VAWA and work to maintain the threat of violence. We all know the cost of domestic and family violence. But, there is a much greater cost to the community that is often overlooked. How many police officers have been caught in the cross fire when responding to domestic and family violence calls? How many innocent children grow up in a violent home and bring this violence into the classroom or future relationships? We have made a commitment to ending domestic violence, however, in order to succeed we must tear down the economic barriers. We have insurance policies that discriminate against victims of domestic violence. Some insurance companies think that victims of domestic violence are engaging in high risk behavior similar to a race car driver or sky diver. Life, homeowners, auto and health insurance are essential elements of economic security. Eliminating this protection for victims of domestic violence threatens their ability to achieve economic independence. It also discourages women from coming forward and reporting this violence and abuse for fear that their insurance company will use it against them. Don't let anyone tell you this does not happen. I can give many examples of insurance discrimination faced by victims of domestic violence. Just ask Kaddas Bolduc from Washington, whose estranged husband burned down her home. Her insurance company refused to honor her homeowner's policy as they decided this was not arson, but a violent response to the break up of a relationship. Her husband had been released from jail shortly before the fire. She was told that she had no claim and no way to rebuild her home. I would have to say that this is a serious economic barrier that must come down. I have met with many domestic violence advocates in Washington and have listen to their concerns about finding long term security for victims. I have heard horror stories about the lack of affordable housing or the inability of victims to secure safe housing. Many landlords refuse to rent to a victim for fear that the violence will follow her. Many women do not have a lease or mortgage in their name. They have no real credit history and certainly cannot prove that they were reliable tenants. As a result they have a difficult time finding housing. Shelters are simply temporary solutions and in many communities the need far outweighs the availability of emergency shelter space. We need to expand Section 8 opportunities for victims of domestic violence in order to ensure that they can find long term housing. A safe, affordable home is often a goal that many battered women are unable to achieve. Many women end up back in violent homes or relationships as they have no where else to go. In order to end domestic and family violence we must provide greater housing assistance and opportunities to those who have suffered this violence. Currently, there are many barriers to work for victims of domestic violence. Safe, affordable child care would be the greatest barrier and I believe the bonus provisions included in this bill will provide the incentives to the states to address this problem. We need to expand child care options and benefits for victims of domestic violence, but we cannot do it at the expense of other low income women an families struggling to stay off of welfare. I believe we need to work with the states in addressing the unique needs of victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, the violence can follow women into the work place which jeopardizes their health and safety as well as their job. Many women are unable to take leave to seek relief in the courts. They do not have the luxury of taking time off to file for a restraining order or to testify against their abuser. They cannot take sick leave to seek medical attention or treatment. Many employers simply do not offer or provide the flexibility that these women need. Included in this legislation we are introducing today is the Employment Protection for Battered Women introduced by Senator Wellstone. I believe these provisions will help battered women maintain their jobs without jeopardizing their safety. But when the threat of violence becomes so great as to jeopardize the woman and her coworkers she must be able to leave the job immediately. Unfortunately, many states refuse to allow these women the ability to collect unemployment compensation as they rule that she left on her own accord. However, many women are forced to leave a job and should not be penalized because they are being harassed and have been subjected to abuse in the past. Our legislation includes provisions that would allow a victim of domestic violence to collect unemployment compensation when they are forced to leave their job due to the thereat of continued violence. I have also heard first hand from advocates who have been working with women in an effort to change their Social Security number in order to flee a violent abuser. It is impossible to secure employment without giving out one's Social Security number. It is impossible to rent an apartment or even establish credit without a Social Security number. Yet giving out this number can make it easier for an abusive husband or boyfriend to track a woman down. The ability to change their Social Security number becomes the difference between economic dependency and economic independence. Yet it is easier to change one's number based on superstition than it is because one is trying to flee a violent relationship. The Office of Victims Advocacy at the Washington State AG's office told me that it can take as long as six months to change a Social Security number and that is in a case where there was a clear need to change the victim's identity. But, in most cases it takes more than 12 months and for some it may never happen. The Social Security Administration must work to correct this threat. Included in our legislation is a requirement that the Social Security Administration expedite requests from victims of domestic violence for a change in their Social Security number in order to achieve economic independency faster and safer. The legislation is the result of months of drafting and working with domestic violence advocactes to address the many economic barriers facing victims. In working to strengthen the Family Violence Option in welfare reform, I became painfully aware of the barriers that punitive welfare reform provisions had created. But I realized that this was only one of many barriers. VAWA took the first step in dedicating federal resources to addressing the domestic violence crisis, but its whole focus is law enforcement and emergency response. We need to go to the next level to truly end violence against women. We need to address these economic needs and problems. I believe our legislation meets this test and will eliminate many of the economic barriers that trap women and children in violent homes and relationships. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I really regret the objection and I rise today to really plead with my colleagues to lift the hold on this really simple, bipartisan resolution that simply encourages our children to stay away from gun violence. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Kempthorne, who has been working with me to try to move this resolution. In 2 days it will be October 8, the day this resolution calls upon the President to establish a Day of National Concern for Young People and Gun Violence. In 2 days, the Senate will have missed an opportunity to send a message to our kids that gun violence is the wrong way to solve problems. Fortunately, groups like the National Parent-Teacher Association, Mothers Against Violence in America, the American Medical Association, and others are spreading the word without our help. They are encouraging young people all over this country to sign a pledge and promise they--will never take a gun to school; will never use a gun to settle a dispute; and will use their influence to prevent friends from using guns to settle disputes. That is what this resolution is about. Mr. President, this is exactly the message the United States Senate should be sending to our children. We want them to make a personal commitment against violence. We want them to help convince their friends to do the same. We want them to join together to fight against youth violence. Just like we should be doing. We must pass this resolution. Let me read to you a list of the Senators who have committed themselves to establishing this day of concern and helping steer kids away from violence: Senators Kempthorne, Lautenberg, Smith of Oregon, Kennedy, Baucus, Specter, Robb, Akaka, Sarbanes, Chafee, Lieberman, Faircloth, Jeffords, Gorton, Reid of Nevada, D'Amato, Daschle, Rockefeller, Kerrey of Nebraska, Lugar, Feingold, Bumpers, Abraham, Craig, Collins, Wellstone, Cochran, Grams, Graham of Florida, Durbin, Boxer, Hutchison, Levin, Glenn, Moseley- Braun, Biden, Moynihan, Feinstein, Dodd, Bingaman, Torricelli, Johnson, Breaux, Warner, Frist, Inouye, Landrieu, Burns, Kohl, Kerry of Massachusetts, Wyden, Conrad, Bumpers, Mikulski, McCain, Snowe, Nighthorse Campbell, and Bennett. There are 59 Senators who are cosponsors of this simple resolution to prevent gun violence amongst our youths. We all are convinced the best way to prevent gun violence is by reaching out to individual children and helping them make the right decisions. This resolution gives parents, teachers, government leaders, service clubs, police departments, and others a special day to focus on the problems caused by young people and gun violence. October is National Crime Prevention Month--the perfect time to center our attention on the special needs of our kids and gun violence. A Minnesota homemaker, Mary Lewis Grow, developed this idea for a Day of Concern for Young People and Gun Violence. This will be the third year the Senate has passed a resolution urging kids to take the pledge against gun violence. In 1997, 47,000 students in Washington State signed the pledge card, as did more than 200,000 children in New York City, and tens of thousands more across the country. Just think of the lives we could have saved if all students had signed--and lived up to--such a pledge last year. Consider that in the months between today and the day we demonstrated our concern about youth violence last year, we have had an outbreak of school violence. Eleven students and two teachers have been killed and more than 40 students have been wounded in shootings by children. In addition, we have lost thousands of children in what has become the all-too-common violence of drive-by shootings, drug wars, and other crime and in self- inflicted and unintentional shootings. Last year, Senator Kempthorne and I led the cosponsorship drive of this resolution after his 17-year-old neighbor was murdered by a 19- year-old in a random act of violence in Washington State. Ann Harris' parents vowed to transform their grief into an opportunity to help teach our young people to care about each other and to stop the violence. This month, they are suffering through the trial of her accused killer. We should support them. Mr. President, we must, absolutely must pass this resolution. I urge whomever has a hold on this resolution urging young people to say no to gun violence to drop his or her hold and let us send a message from the United States Senate to every young person in America: Stop gun violence now. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Gorton, I thank the chairman.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chairman. In addition, heavy rains and flooding during February 1996 brought to light some serious problems and omissions in the Mount St. Helens recovery effort that require immediate attention.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is our understanding that both Congressional intent and the recollections of those most intimately involved in crafting the cost-share agreement support the interpretation that these levels of protection are required. Does the distinguished Chairman concur?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Conference Report. I seek clarification from the Chairman on two matters related to flood control measures along the Cowlitz River in Washington state necessary to mitigate impacts from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. That eruption reduced the Cowlitz River channel capacity to one tenth of its pre-eruption level. In 1985, Congress enacted Public Law 99-88 which authorized and directed the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) to construct, operate, and maintain a sediment retention structure with such design features and associated downstream actions as are necessary. An October 1985 Decision Document identified specific levels of protection for Cowlitz River communities, consistent with risk assessments and NED criteria.

Mrs. MURRAY. Does the distinguished chairman agree that the Corps should use available funds in fiscal year 1999 to address this important issues and advance the study outlined by Senator Gorton?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me time. Mr. President, as a member of the conference committee, I wish to express my deep appreciation for the committee's work and its leadership in crafting the higher education reauthorization bill that is so vital to our country's future. This bill is a major victory for students and teachers across America. The committee provided the opportunity to hear from countless witnesses from across the Nation who testified on everything from default rates to job hunting, campus crime to child care. Mr. President, throughout the committee's effort on this bill, I worked to strengthen our Nation's commitment to providing the strongest training possible for schoolteachers. I am most pleased with the bill's focus on teacher training and, in particular, its emphasis on technology training. A year ago, I introduced the Teacher Technology Training Act to add technology to the areas of professional development and teacher training that are included in current law. I thank the chairman and the ranking members of both sides for their cooperation and support in adding these critical pieces to the bill. The work of the committee on the teacher education provisions is really very historic and is a drastic overhaul of the previous teacher training section. Teacher quality grants will institute State level reforms to ensure both current and future teachers will possess the skills and academic knowledge to teach children effectively in their assigned areas. As a member of the Labor Appropriations Subcommittee, I will fight to ensure that this section is finally funded at a level that does make a difference in the classroom. This teacher quality section particularly highlights training in the effective use of technology in our classrooms. All of us have witnessed the tremendous impact that technology now plays in our daily world. It affects the way we communicate, the way we conduct commerce, and the way our children learn in school. Young people today are in the midst of a technology explosion that has opened up limitless opportunities and possibilities in the classroom. In order for students to tap into this potential and be prepared for the 21st century, they have to learn how to use new technologies. But all too often teachers are expected to incorporate technology into their instruction without being given the training to do so. We simply cannot allow students to teach our teachers in the rapidly expanding area of technology. I have toured several teaching schools and found them well supplied with up-to-date equipment. However, teaching students are often not provided adequate instruction in the use of that technology beyond simple communication purposes. It is not enough for a teacher to be able to just e-mail. They must use this education technology to advance their curriculum and to provide their students with resources along the information highway. Last year, amazingly, just 10 percent of new teachers reported that they felt prepared to use technology in their classrooms; and only 13 percent of all public schools reported that technology-related training for teachers was mandated by the school, the district or teacher certification agencies; and only 18 States required preservice technology training. This act will significantly turn those numbers around and provide our teachers with the training so critical to harnessing new technologies. So, again, I thank the conferees for their leadership on this effort. I also thank my colleague, Senator Wellstone, for his work on the TANF amendment. It is so important for literacy instruction and lifelong learning. I know this issue remained unresolved, and I hope my colleagues will listen to Senator Wellstone and will soon see the direct link between educational opportunities and economic self- sufficiency. I believe this first generation of the new millennium will benefit immensely from the efforts put forth over this past year. From increases in financial aid, to campus security improvements, to technology instruction, this legislation will stand as a proud trademark of this Congress. I thank the Chair. I yield my time back to my colleague from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Kennedy amendment and as a cosponsor of the minimum wage increase. I cannot sit idle as I hear of those struggling to live on today's minimum wage. I thought, like many of you, that the minimum wage earner was my daughter or one of her friends: a teenager flipping burgers or taking food orders to earn some extra cash for new clothes or a movie. That is the misperception though. The sad fact is that 71 percent of those workers who benefited from the last increase were adults over the age of 20. This increase will benefit those that need it most--working families at the bottom. A full-time, year-round minimum wage worker in 1997 earned only $10,712, $2,000 less than the $12,803 needed to raise a family of three out of poverty. Some 40 percent of minimum wage workers are the sole income-earners in their families. I am immensely troubled with the fact that 58 percent of those struggling with a minimum wage are women. These millions of women, many of them single mothers, would benefit directly from this increase. These single moms are trying. Trying to raise two kids on a below- poverty income. And how does Congress reward these single parents? By attacking Medicaid that would have paid for her son's asthma medicine. By cutting her child care support that allows her work. By taking away funding for nutrition programs that pay for her kids to eat at school or day care. By eliminating her Head Start Program that gives her kids a chance at starting school ready to learn. By refusing to add one dollar to her hourly wage--a wage that pays for heat, clothing and food. Aren't these the individuals and families we are trying to keep employed and off of federal support? Instead, this Congress has targeted the low-income family through cut after cut and a resistance to move them above the poverty line. This amendment does not eliminate jobs, it barely keeps people working, who otherwise would be completely reliant on public support. Today's minimum wage is 18 percent below the 1979 level. Each year we wait means a loss of $2,000 to that single mother. To that low-income family, that would have meant more than seven months of groceries, four months of rent, a full year of health care costs, or nine months of utility bills. I did not reach my decision to support the minimum wage easily. I have listened carefully to the concerns of small-business owners from across my state, who have highlighted the implications of this increase. I don't want to see prices for the American consumer rise or jobs eliminated. But I don't think an increase to the minimum wage will end employment in small business, either. Now is the time to adjust that inequality and demonstrate a true commitment to our working families. A slight increase in this wage provides those who work hard and play by the rules an increased opportunity and a chance to succeed. If any of my colleagues oppose the minimum wage, I urge them to try living on $10,712 this year and then reconsider their vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to address a bill introduced earlier this week called the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998. This bill takes the best ideas and puts them to work providing Americans with the tools they need to make their families safer, their communities healthier, and their schools freer from violence. I know all of us would like a simple solution to the crime problems facing this great nation. But all of us know, in our hearts, that there is no easy solution. We must come together, join with our neighbors, our police, our leaders, and our children to tackle the terrifying problems facing us. We must be tough on criminals. We need to continue to send the message that if you do the crime, you will be doing time--hard time. No one can accuse the U.S. justice system of coddling criminals. We have among the highest percentage of our population in prison, more than almost any other country in the world. In the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, which I supported, we strengthened penalties for violent, and drug-related crime. We also provided grants to states to build jails and prisons if they required serious violent offenders to serve at least 75 percent of their sentences. We've hired more than 75,000 new police officers to implement to time-tested program of community policing. Our crime bill has worked. Now we need more of the same. We need to extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust fund to pay for these important community-policing and grants to state and local government. We need to extend the Violence Against Women Act. Preventing domestic violence and providing a safe haven for victims of domestic violence has been a top priority for me. I intend to introduce legislation to ensure victims of domestic violence are not further victimized through insurance, job or social security discrimination. Should this bill be considered by the Senate, I would seek to amend it by adding provisions of my Battered Women Economic Security Act to it. Another top priority for me in this bill is reducing crime in our schools. As a parent and former educator, I share America's horror that our children are not safe in their schools. We simply must invest time and resources into solving this fundamental problem. This bill will provide an additional $10 million for the Safe and Drug Free School program and establish partnerships between schools and local law enforcement. Through my Senate Advisory Youth Involvement team, I am learning from students how they believe we can best solve school violence problems. I will be sharing those ideas with my colleagues when we debate this bill. In my meetings with law enforcement officers around my state, I learned we have some critical problems in our juvenile justice system. While I believe juvenile justice is fundamentally an issue for our state legislatures to address, there is a federal role in several areas. First, we often should treat those 16 and 17-year-olds who commit violent federal offenses as adults. This bill gives prosecutors important discretion to prosecute these offenders as adults. In addition to getting tough on our most hardened young criminals, we must replicate successful juvenile crime reduction strategies. There are many efforts in my state of Washington that bring out the best in kids and communities and they are truly making a dent in the juvenile crime problem. Best SELF in Skagit county; Teamchild in King county; community justice in Spokane county and on the Colville Indian Reservation; Safestreets in Seattle; and TOGETHER! in Thurston county are several examples of communities joining together to make a difference with their youth. It's amazing how far just a few thousand dollars can go in these community-based programs; they need our continued support. Mr. President, this bill also targets gangs, illegal drugs, and domestic and international terrorism. It extends a recently-passed bill I strongly supported, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, and provides other safeguards for our law enforcement officers. It reauthorizes the Drug Czar's office, which coordinates the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program that is helping establish a coordinated campaign against drug importation and use while also focusing resources of prevention and treatment of abuse. No bill is perfect and I cannot say I agree with every provision included in this 1220-page bill. However, the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998 continues to move this country in the right direction. Violent crime must continue to drop. With all of us joining together to fight crime and embrace healthy communities and schools, America can again become a safe place to raise and educate all of our children. I thank Senator Leahy for his fine leadership on this bill and encourage all Senators to work to pass comprehensive, bi-partisan legislation to prevent crime and strengthen families and communities.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to in support of the President's veto of the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and urge my Colleagues to join me in defeating this real threat to women's health. Most of what has been said here today in support of this ban is troubling, because some have implied that women make health care decisions in haste without much thought or understanding. Let me assure my Colleagues that women have the ability to make informed health care decisions. We are more than capable of understanding the difference between pre and post viability. We are more than capable of making wise health care decisions in consultation with our physicians and family. We do not need Members of Congress making our health care decisions. I believe that most women would argue that health care decisions are best left to physicians and patients. We argue that patients and doctors should make health care decisions. Not insurance bureaucrats. Yet today many of my Colleagues are trying to make a major health care decision for many women in this country. Not just a health decision but for some women a life or death decision. This is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose this ban. They understand the threat to women. They know first hand the complications that can develop throughout a pregnancy. They have experienced first hand the risk that many women face throughout a pregnancy. They are the one's we should be listening to in this debate. That is the issue. Protecting the life and health of the woman. This is not about choice or even about the Constitution. This is about protecting the life and health of women. Let me point out to my Colleagues, post viability abortions are prohibited except when necessary to save the life and health of the woman. This is the law of the land and I support it. But the legislation that the Administration wisely vetoed would undermine this standard established by the Supreme Court and includes no exception to save the woman's health and the life exception is so narrow that few could meet the test. There is no exception to protect a women's ability to have additional healthy children. There is no exception to give the doctor the ability to do what is right for his or her patient. This is a dangerous precedent that we cannot allow to go forward. I have come to this floor many time to advocate on behalf of women's health. I have had many successes in increasing funding for research and in working to eliminate gender bias in research. I have worked to increase funding for breast cancer research. I have fought to improve and expand mammography coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. I have worked to increase focus on cardiovascular disease, the number one killer of American women. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have always considered women's health one of my top priorities. I am here today for the same reason, to continue my fight for the lives and health of women. I urge my Colleagues to talk to women who have had to make this decision to have this procedure. Listen to what their doctors told them and why they made the decision forced upon them. I know that if you could hear what they have endured and the heartache they have faced you would understand why today's vote is a women's health vote and why this ban is such a danger to women. Let women and their doctors make these difficult decisions. This ban is a serious threat to women and their families. Please do not jeopardize a women's health and threaten her life based on gruesome diagrams that simply do not tell the real story. I would urge all of those who believe that this legislation is necessary to take the time to listen to phyisicans and women who have had this procdure. I can guarantee that this procedure is only done in the final weeks of a pregnancy when it becomes medically necessary to save the women's life or health.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Gorton in introducing legislation to improve access to health insurance for low income children in Washington State. This bill would amend the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to allow our State access to their allotment of federal funds to provide health coverage to an additional 90,000 eligible children. This is not an effort to supplant state funds. This does not take funds from other states. It simply allows Washington to access their allotment of SCHIP funds to cover those children who currently lack any health security. Because of their lack of access to health insurance, these children have little or no access to health care and no access to preventive services. These are children whose parents work hard but do not have access to health insurance or cannot afford the cost of premiums. These parents work hard and pay taxes, unfortunately they have little discretionary income to provide important health security for their children. Last year, this Congress made a commitment to cover the 10 million uninsured children in this country. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included an expansion in children's health insurance benefits as a down payment on meeting the needs of these 10 million vulnerable children. This Congress took the right step in working to achieve the goal of guaranteeing every child in this country a healthy childhood. What we are attempting to do in this legislation that we are introducing today, is to honor this commitment to the children in Washington State. In 1994 Washington State stood up for our vulnerable children. We implemented an expansion in our Medicaid program to cover children up to 200% of poverty. We knew at the time that it was a huge undertaking, but we recognized that investing in our children's health was a wise investment. Because of the final language adopted in the Balanced Budget Act, Washington could not access their SCHIP funds to cover newly enrolled children below the 200% of poverty threshold and above the federal Medicaid requirement. As a result, Washington State was penalized for being a leader in children's health. We are here today proposing a technical fix that rewards Washington State and allows them to cover an additional 60,000 to 90,000 children. This is not done at the expense of other States, but rather by using Washington's existing allotment. I can assure my colleagues that Washington State will honor our commitment to our children. But without access to these funds, enrolling these children will be almost impossible. If we all share the same goal of insuring these 10 million children, we must enact this legislation. The health care needs of low income children in Washington are just as great and just as important as they are for low income children in other states. I am hopeful that we can act on this legislation. This technical remedy will go a long way in meeting our shared goal of guaranteeing access to quality, and affordable health care for all children.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague in the House, Representative Jack Metcalf, to introduce the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act. Mr. President, I have always believed that the best way to solve problems is to bring people together and find consensus on an issue. The Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act is the direct outgrowth of just such an approach. The Northwest Straits include the marine waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the San Juan Islands, and the northern portion of Puget Sound. It is a scenic and unique ecosystem critical to a broad array of sensitive fish and wildlife, including orcas, sea birds, salmon, bottom fish, and bald eagles. Recognizing the importance of this precious marine ecosystem, the Northwest Straits were proposed for inclusion in the National Marine Sanctuaries program in some capacity as far back as 1979 when the National Marine Sanctuary Program was in its infancy. Although the Northwest Straits lie entirely within state waters, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) spent the next seventeen years evaluating the inclusion of this special area into the marine sanctuary program. This process involved substantial public participation. In recent years, it became clear there was insufficient local support to move forward with a Northwest Straits Marine Sanctuary designation for the area. In response to these local concerns, Rep. Metcalf and I included a provision in the 1996 reauthorization of the Marine Sanctuaries program barring final designation of a Northwest Straits Marine Sanctuary without Congressional approval. Having thus put the marine sanctuary process on hold, in the Spring of 1997 we established a Citizen's Advisory Commission (the Commission) to identify the key marine resources and values of the Northwest Straits, as well as the threats to them, and recommend appropriate protective measures and a means of coordinating related federal, state, and local actions. The Commission is broadly representative of local interests including County and Port Commissioners, environmental and conservation groups, shipping interests, academics, and Indian Tribes. The Commission met diligently for eighteen months to fulfill their mission. In addition to the Commission members, a representative of Governor Gary Locke participated in meetings and federal, state, and local agencies provided information and technical assistance. All Commission meetings have been open to the public and interested parties. The Commission has researched and reviewed the issues surrounding the Northwest Straits exhaustively and presented their formal recommendation to Representative Metcalf and myself on August 20. The Commission has concluded that the very fabric of the Northwest Straits is unraveling, manifesting problems and trends that cross geographic and jurisdictional lines. While the ecosystem is complicated, the trends are simple: bottom fish, sea birds, invertebrates, salmon, and even some marine mammals have declined precipitously since 1980. This depletion of marine resources has hurt economies and communities around the Northwest Straits and further degradation portends far more serious impacts in the future. Existing management schemes, while sufficient in terms of legal authority, have failed to achieve the coordination and focus to change these trends. While the Commission has not reached a consensus to endorse or reject any future alternative management scheme, the Commission recommends a set of steps that would not displace current management responsibilities but seek to compliment them by supplying key missing ingredients for success: sound science and broad support for solutions. These steps include the establishment of a network of local, county- based Marine Resources Committees (MRCs) committed to making all possible progress at the local level to protect and conserve the resources of the Northwest Straits using existing state and local authorities, and based on sound scientific information and the overall needs of the Northwest Straits ecosystem. The MRCs will coordinate activities through a Northwest Straits Commission consisting of representatives of the MRCs, Indian Tribes, the scientific community, and state agencies. The Commission will provide technical assistance, integrate science, develop an ecosystem-level coordination, and coordinate funding. In addition, the Commission will assess the performance of the MRCs against a series of benchmarks. These Benchmarks of Performance shall include the assessment and establishment of a scientifically-based regional system of Marine Protected Areas, the assessment and establishment of a scientifically-based regional system to protect nearshore habitat, a net gain in open shellfish harvest areas, and discernable increases in bottom fish and other key marine indicators. Should these benchmarks fail to be met, further consideration of alternative approaches, including a marine sanctuary designation may be resumed. In addition, this bill calls for a review of the effort after 5 years by the National Research Council, with particular emphasis on the achievement of the Benchmarks of Performance. With the authorization for this ``Local Marine Conservation Initiative'' expiring in 6 years, this NRC report will help us assess the accomplishments of this effort to determine whether it should be continued. Mr. President, the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act represents the right way to address environmental challenges. By pulling all of the interested parties together to analyze and research not only the issue, but each other's perspectives, partnerships can be forged that will provide long-term benefits. This pragmatic and achievable proposal will truly improve resource protection in the Northwest Straits. It is an innovative, exciting way to address the marine conservation challenges before us. I am excited about this approach and the way it empowers local communities and local citizens to take the initiative to protect their home waters. In many ways, this approach is a test or experiment. The local leaders have the next several years to demonstrate that a coordinated, informed, and empowered local decision-making process can provide true protection for the Northwest Straits. I believe they can meet this challenge. I look forward to Congress' timely consideration of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of commission members and a letter from Governor Gary Locke be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in calling attention to the celebration of National Hispanic Heritage Month. The Hispanic community in my home state of Washington is the youngest and fastest growing of any ethnic minority group, yet its history is a long one. indeed, Washington was a part of Mexico until 1819. The many Spanish place names that dot the landscape are only part of the legacy of the early Hispanic explorers and settlers. Early Hispanic pioneers helped lay the economic infrastructure of the region, bringing commodities such as wheat and apples and livestock. Today Hispanic Americans continue to play a pivotal role in our state's economy. The contributions of Mexican immigrants has been vital in the growth and continued success of our state's agricultural industry. Hispanic-owned businesses range from the mom-and-pop small business to large corporate concerns. Hispanic citizens, taking advantage of their many ties to Mexico and other Latin American nations, have helped to expand trade, our state's economic lifeblood. The contributions of Hispanic Americans are not limited to economic ones. Hispanic Americans have risen to positions of leadership throughout the state. They occupy elected offices at all levels of government, including our state legislature and judiciary. Hispanic community activists have led the fight for social equality. The Hispanic community has also enhanced our state's cultural life. Spanish language newspaper and radio, Latin American cuisine and Hispanic customs and ceremonies are an integral part of our state's landscape. The Hispanic community has mobilized to meet the challenges facing it. Community-based organizations throughout the state are working to create educational and economic opportunities and meet the need for housing, health and social services. Their efforts benefit not only the Hispanic community but the state as a whole. Washington State's Hispanic community is a dynamic and vibrant one. I salute their many accomplishments and contributions. I encourage my colleagues to join me in celebrating the diversity that makes our country so rich by commemorating National Hispanic Heritage Month.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is the sixth year I have been a Member of the U.S. Senate. And this is the sixth year I can recall debating campaign finance reform. I have voted to pass campaign reform legislation in 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, and now 1998. We actually passed a good bill in the Senate in 1993. Each time it has been killed off by filibuster. Each time I thought, this is it. This is our chance to make some changes that the people of this country will notice and respect. This is our chance to restore a measure of faith in American democracy. While I've had my share of disappointments, today we are here again with a rare and valuable opportunity to actually get a bill signed into law. Mr. President, it is critically important that we pass campaign reform legislation. The health of our democracy is not good. Yes, the economy is strong, crime is down, and people are generally feeling good about their lives. But there is an undercurrent that I find deeply troubling, and it's been building for the past two decades. People simply do not like government. They do not trust government, and they do not feel like they are part of the process. They are losing faith and I think it would be terrible if we did not do something to re-invigorate peoples' interest in American democracy. If any of my colleagues doubt this, just look at voter turnout rates and voter registration rates. People just are not participating any more, and it gets worse each year. What exactly is the problem? Money, plain and simple. Too much money, having too much influence over our democratic process. The campaign system is so clogged with money, there is hardly room left for the average voter. Political campaigning has become an industry in this country. In the last election, over a billion dollars were spent on federal elections alone. To what end? That money--much of it undisclosed, from dubious sources--flowed into the political arena and dictated the terms of our elections to the people. Like water, it flowed downhill into campaigns all across the country. Some of it came out in the form of national party ads attacking candidates in the abstract; some came out in the form of issue-ads by interest groups trying to influence the outcomes. Some of it came out in the candidates' own TV ads. It reaches the point where you almost cannot hear the voices of the candidates or the people anymore, only the voices of the dueling special interests. We do not know who pays for these ads, where they get their money, or what they stand to gain if their candidate wins. Yet they have found ways to have a huge influence over the election process. Opponents of reform argue against the McCain-Feingold bill on free speech grounds. They argue politicians and political parties should be able to take money in any amount from anyone in order to make the case for their re-election. They believe that having more money entitles one to a greater influence over our campaigns and elections. I find this argument shocking, Mr. President. I find it profoundly un-democratic, and un-American. The last time we debated reform, I told a story of a woman who sent my campaign a small contribution of fifteen dollars. With her check she enclosed a note that said, ``please make sure my voice means as much as those who give thousands.'' With all due respect, Mr. President, this woman is typical of the people who deserve our best representation. Sadly, under the current campaign system, they rarely do. I have tried to live by my word on this issue. My first Senate campaign was a shoe-string affair. I was out spent nearly three-to-one by a congressional incumbent. But because I had a strong, grassroots, people-based effort, I was able to win. Since then, I have worked hard to keep to that standard. I have over 35,000 individual donors. The average contribution to my campaign is 69 dollars. Nearly 75 percent of my contributions come from within Washington state. I firmly believe that's the way campaigns should be run: by the people. We need more disclosure, not less. We need more restrictions on special interest money, not fewer. We need less money in the system, not more. We need to amplify the voices of regular people, instead of allowing them to be shouted down by special interests. Mr. President, the opponents of reform miss the point. In America, money does not equal speech. More money does not entitle one to more speech. The Haves are not entitled to a greater voice in politics than the Have-nots. In America, everyone has an equal say in our government. That is why our Declaration of Independence starts with, ``We, the people.'' When this Congress started, I thought this might really be our chance to pass a bill. The public was paying more attention. The excesses of the last campaign season, brought to light through the good work of the Government Affairs Committee, made campaign reform a front-burner issue in every kitchen in America. More than one million signatures were delivered to the Capitol from people all over America who joined a nationwide call for reform. A bipartisan group of Senators committed to reform worked overtime to craft a reasonable reform measure that makes sense for America. I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Senators McCain and Feingold for their work. They generated public support, made their case to the media, and pushed for the last few votes necessary to pass a bill. Well, the time has come to see if this is our chance to do the right thing. Our like-minded colleagues in the other body did find the votes, and they did pass a good strong bill. The Senate has more than enough votes to pass the same bill on an up-or-down vote. All we need are eight more votes from the majority party to do the right thing for America. Mr. President, who will it be? Who will be the heroes on this vote? And who will let down the millions of American citizens who have grown sick, tired, and alienated from our democratic system? Mr. President, I believe we have made this debate way too complicated. After all the maneuvering, the cloture petitions, the technicalities, the procedural votes, this issue boils down to one basic question: are senators willing to make some modest reforms to reduce the influence of big money in politics and encourage greater voter participation? Or are they more interested in protecting the current system, and the ability of parties and politicians to turn financial advantage into political advantage? Are you for reform, or against it? Are you with the people, or against them on the need for a more healthy democracy? The votes we are taking today will show the answers to these questions.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I stand before the Senate today to fight for the men of our country. I am referring to the cancer that has been most frequently diagnosed, in the last decade, in American men-- prostate cancer. This cancer kills 40,000 American men every year and I am shocked we are even hesitating to appropriate the necessary funding to enable the Department of Defense to win this battle and find a cure. I realize that I often find myself in this same place, fighting for women's health. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have consistently fought to provide the necessary funding for breast cancer research. Just this year, I offered an amendment to the DoD authorization bill that appropriated $175 million for the Breast Cancer Research Program. However, this is a critical time to invest in medical research, all medical research, including prostate cancer. Mr. President, we need to fight for the lives of our husbands, brothers, sons, fathers, and grandfathers of America, as well as their families. Death from cancer is tragic yet even more so knowing that we are on the verge of finding a cure. I have been very pleased with the results of breast cancer research and I know that if we gave the DoD adequate funding, it would produce equally impressive results saving thousands of men who would have otherwise not survived this ravaging disease. I believe we have the science and technology to put an end to unnecessary prostate cancer fatalities. I am fully confident that our medical community can step up and find a cure for prostate cancer. However, it is the duty of my colleagues and I to provide medical researchers the resources they need to do so. Now is the time to have faith in our scientific community and stand behind the DoD. President Clinton got the ball rolling when he funded the first cycle of prostate cancer research grants. However, this is not enough. If the DoD is to maintain its program at its current level, it requires an appropriation in FY99 of $80 million. There is no question in my mind what we need to do. It is a stark reality that one in every six American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime. Most victims of this disease are over the age of 65. Upon entering the Senate, I requested to be put on the Veterans Committee to ensure the veterans of Washington state were getting the recognition and benefits to which they are entitled. Many of the men suffering from prostate cancer are veterans. They fought for our country and our freedom. It is time we returned the favor and find the cure to a disease that threatens them all. Now is the time to tackle prostate cancer with equal vigor as breast cancer. This is not about decreasing statistics, but is about preventing American families from having to deal with this fatal disease. We must act now. To postpone this essential decision is unacceptable. We must have faith in our medical community and allow them to find the cure.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my chairman, Senator Burns, in bringing to the Senate our conference report on the 1999 military construction appropriation bill. Favorable action in the Senate today will send this conference report to the President, making it the first of the regular 1999 appropriations bills to be passed by Congress. This is a noteworthy accomplishment, and I hope it will set the stage for swift action on the remaining appropriations bills. We had to make some very tough choices on this bill. Our conference agreement totals $8.4 billion. This is $760 million less than what was appropriated last year. Given the tight budget confines in which we were operating, there were many worthy projects that we could not fund. Not one Senator or one State was exempt from this belt-tightening--not Senator Burns, not me, and not our leadership. Nevertheless, we held ourselves to a high standard of fairness and equity, and our conference report reflects that effort. This report satisfies to the best of our ability the national and international priorities of our military services as well as the regional priorities that our colleagues conveyed to us. Most important, it provides funding for scores of needed projects throughout the United States and overseas that will support America's military personnel, both active and reserve, as they carry out their mission to defend and protect our Nation. The State of our Nation's military readiness continues to be a pressing concern. Although we often equate readiness with equipment or troop strength, it is important to remember that basic military construction--troop barracks, family housing, vehicle maintenance centers, and the like--is at the core of military readiness. This bill is the vehicle through which we provide the basic, essential infrastructure necessary to support our troops and advance military readiness. I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report and speed it to the President for his signature. This is the product of a smooth, fair, and bipartisan process. I commend Chairman Burns for his swift and skillful handling of this bill. I commend his staff, Sid Ashworth, and my staff, Ben McMakin, Christina Evans, and Emelie East, for their diligence and thoroughness in preparing this bill for our consideration. It is a good bill, and I hope that all of my colleagues will be able to join me in supporting its passage. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I stand before the Senate today to express my deep disappointment over the egregious number of low-priority, Congressionally earmarked military construction projects that are contained in the conference report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Military Construction Appropriations Bill. I am dismayed that, at a time when our nation's military is perilously close to becoming a ``hollow force''--due in great part to a decade of declining defense budgets and increased commitments--members of both bodies have once again directed precious funds away from the services' readiness and modernization needs toward their own parochial interests. I am dismayed, but given the long tradition of egregious member adds, I am not surprised. This year's Military Construction Appropriations Bill was crafted under the additional stricture of the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. The agreement established firm funding limits to the National Defense budget. With these constraints in place, one would think that it would be difficult for members to even consider adding projects of questionable merit. Sadly, the sheer volume of unrequested, low- priority projects present in this bill--142 domestic projects in all, at a cost of some $977 million--betrays an attitude of ``business as usual'' by the members of Congress. I was encouraged by the fact that there were no new projects added by the conferees as they crafted this compromise legislation. That display of discipline is laudable. However, it pales in comparison to the gross misuse of critical defense dollars to fund members' pet military construction projects. Recently the Navy announced that its pilot retention rate is at its lowest point since aviation continuation pay was instituted more than a decade ago. The Air Force is currently retaining only 28 percent of its pilots. The pay of service members lags an embarrassing 14 percent behind the civilian sector. We are deploying some of our forces to combat zones that are not meeting established readiness standards. Cannibalization rates are increasing. Mission capable rates are dropping. Nearly 12,000 personnel are eligible for food stamps. The number and scope of training exercises have been curtailed as a result of insufficient funding, resources and manpower. The list indicating the decaying readiness of our armed forces goes on and on. Unfortunately, the congressional response to these critical deficiencies has not been ideal. In this bill alone, there are 45 additional, unrequested Guard and Reserve projects; five control towers at Air Force bases that currently have operational control towers; twelve child development or physical fitness centers; an $8.3 million fence for Fort Bragg; and many more projects of questionable merit--nearly $700 million worth. The fact remains that funds for our national defense are limited. We have a duty to ensure our men and women in uniform are ready to fight and win wars decisively, expeditiously, and with minimum loss of life. Robbing from readiness to pay for unadulterated, member sponsored military construction projects does not contribute to that end. Mr. President, I look forward to the day when the Military Construction Bill will be devoid of low-priority, member-requested pork. I urge my colleagues to exercise the restraint required to make that day a reality. Now, more than ever, the security of our nation depends upon it. I ask unanimous consent that a list of questionable adds be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I submit a resolution that passed the Senate last year unanimously. My resolution, which I am introducing today with Senator Kempthorne and more than 50 original cosponsors, establishes October 8 as the Day of Concern about Young People and Gun Violence. Tragically, this resolution has special meaning for all of us after the events of last Friday. While, thankfully, no children were directly involved in the slayings of Officer Jacob Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson, certainly the officers' children and young people across the nation were hurt and horrified by the violence that occurred in our nation's Capitol. I am once again submitting this resolution because I am convinced the best way to prevent gun violence is by reaching out to individual children and helping them make the right decisions. This resolution gives parents, teachers, government leaders, service clubs, police departments, and others a special day to focus on the problems today of young people and gun violence. October is National Crime Prevention Month--the perfect time to center our attention of the special needs of our kids and gun violence. A Minnesota Homemaker, Mary Lewis Grow, developed this idea for a ``Day of Concern for Young People and Gun Violence''. Other groups, such as Mothers Against Violence in America, the National Parent Teacher Association, and the American Medical Association have joined the effort to establish a special day in which to express our concern about our children and gun violence. The proclamation of a special day of recognition also provided support to a national effort to encourage students to sign a pledge against gun violence. In 1997, 47,000 students in Washington State signed the pledge card, as did more than 200,000 children in New York City, and tens of thousands more across the nation. The Student Pledge Against Gun Violence calls for a national observance on October 8 to give students the chance to make a promise, in writing, that they will do their part to prevent gun violence. The students' pledge promises three things: (1) they will never carry a gun to school; (2) they will never resolve a dispute with a gun; and (3) they will use their influence with friends to discourage them from resolving disputes with guns. Just think of the lives we could have saved if all students had signed--and lived up to-- such a pledge last year. Consider that in the months between today and the day we demonstrated our concern about youth violence last year, we've had an outbreak of school violence. Eleven students and two teachers have been killed and more than 40 students have been wounded in shootings by children. In addition, we've lost thousands of children in what has become the all-too-common violence of drive-by shootings, drug wars, and other crime and in self- inflicted and unintentional shootings. Last year, Senator Kempthorne and I led the cosponsorship drive of this resolution after his 17-year-old neighbor was murdered by a 19- year-old in a random act of violence in Washington state. Ann Harris' parents vowed to transform their grief into an opportunity to help teach our young people to care about each other and to stop the violence. We both pledged our support. We all have been heartened by statistics showing crime in America on the decline. Many factors are involved, including community-based policing, stiffer sentences for those convicted, youth crime prevention programs, and population demographics. None of us intend to rest on our success because we still have far, far too much crime and violence in this society. So, we must find the programs that work and focus our limited resources on those. We must get tough on violent criminals--even if they are young--to protect the rest of society from their terrible actions. And we, each and every one of us, must make time to spend with our children, our neighbor's children, and the children who have no one else to care about them. Only when we reach out to our most vulnerable citizens--our kids--will we drop youth violence to zero. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to join in this simple effort to focus attention on gun violence among youth by proclaiming October 8 the ``Day of Concern about Young People and Gun Violence.'' We introduce this resolution today in the hopes of getting all 100 Senators to cosponsor this resolution prior to its passage, which we hope will occur in September. This is an easy step for us to help facilitate the work that must go on in each community across America, as parents, teachers, friends and students try to prevent gun violence before it continues to ruin countless lives.

Ms. MURRAY

Ms. MURRAY. Madam. President, I want to thank the sponsor of this important amendment for all his work and effort on behalf of women's health. As a Senator who has long championed women's health issues and fought to protect women's health, I commend him for his efforts. I am pleased to join with him today in support of women's health equity. There has been a great deal of debate lately regarding contraceptive equity. Let me first start by explaining what this amendment does not do. It does not mandate benefits. Let me repeat that, this is not a mandate. If a plan does not have a prescription drug benefit then they do not have to add contraceptives. If a plan has a copy of deductible for prescription benefits, then contraceptives would also have the same copy or deductible. If a plan requires payments or deductibles for surgical services, then family planning benefits would also have the same copayments and deductibles. This is not a mandate. It simply says that plans cannot treat contraceptives any differently than medication to treat high blood pressure or to treat diabetes. This amendment does not increase federal spending. CBO has scored this amendment as having a minimal effect on spending. The cost is such that CBO cannot even estimate as it falls below their threshold for calculating or determining budgetary impact. I would argue that in fact it will have a positive impact on spending. Currently, 50 percent of all pregnancies in this country are unintentional. Increasing access to safe, affordable family planning can only reduce this number. The average cost annually of oral contraceptives is estimated at $400 to $500. The cost of an uncomplicated delivery is close to $4,000, this excludes any prenatal or postnatal care. It does not take a budgetary expert to conclude that there will actually be savings from this amendment. This amendment is also not about abortion. Let me make this very clear. This is not an abortion debate. No part of this amendment would require federal funding of abortions. It simply goes to those contraceptives that are currently approved by the FDA to prevent unintentional pregnancies. RU486 is not currently available in the United States. No plan would be required to cover RU486. If you ask any woman if there is a difference between abortion and contraceptives I can assure you that the answer would be yes. Now let me tell you all what this amendment does. This amendment goes to the heart of women's health. Reproductive health and effective family planning are women's health issues. It is hard to go a week without hearing one of my colleagues talk about the importance of women's health. There are probably well over 500 pieces of legislation pending that impact women's health. Every member strives to have a solid record on women's health issues. Every member claims to be a champion of women's health. Yet denying access to safe, affordable contraceptives for federal employees poses a serious threat to women's health. On average, without effective, safe family planning, most women could expect to endure 12 to 13 pregnancies in her life time. While most women have safe and healthy pregnancies, for some it still can be life threatening. And for most women 12 or 13 pregnancies does pose a serious health threat. In order to protect women's health and reduce infant mortality it is critical to plan for pregnancy. To place economic barriers for women to receive safe family planning services is to place a significant health burden upon us. Many women may not even be aware, but women can expect to pay up to 68 percent more in out of pocket health care costs than men. Ask any woman if she is willing to pay 68 percent more for housing, or food or transportation and I can assure you the answer would be a resounding no. But, for health care this is actually what women face. I stand today to say we must reverse this trend. We already know that women can expect to earn 71 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Now we want to say that they should pay 68 percent more for health care or for any consumer product. This is a basic question of equity and fairness. This is even more evident in the federal work force. By and large the federal work force is younger and paid less than the private sector. Effective family planning is even more essential in a younger work force. Many federal employees who live pay check to pay check. Yet, female federal employees have no guarantee that their insurance will not discriminate against them. If there is a health care benefit program that should offer a wide range of affordable reproductive health benefits, I would argue it must be the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. There are some of my colleagues who will argue it should be up to the plan or even some who will argue that Members of Congress should decide what methods of family planning are covered. It is these very Members of Congress who also argue that only the physician and patient should be making health care decisions. Not health plans or politicians. I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about who they want making life and death health care decisions. I would hope that my colleagues would concur that only physicians and the patient should be making these decisions. This is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorses this amendment. They know how dangerous it is to make life or death decisions based solely on economics or other arbitrary criteria. Economic barriers and discriminatory insurance practices do threaten women's health. The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality determined that ``infant mortality could be reduced by 10 percent if all women not desiring pregnancy used contraceptives.'' With one action we could be reducing our tragic infant mortality rate in this country. The Institutes of Medicine's Committee on Unintended Pregnancy recommended that ``financial barriers to contraception be reduced by increasing the proportion of all health insurance policies that cover contraceptive services and supplies.'' As the largest purchaser of private health insurance in this country, the Federal Government should set the example for the private market. We should listen to the evidence of the medical community and research scientists and tear down economic barriers within the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. I urge my colleagues to let women and their doctors decide, not politicians and certainly not economics. Having access to the most appropriate family planning method without economic sanctions is a women's health issue. Each woman must have the ability to make this decision based on the recommendations of her doctor. To most women, this is a major women's health vote. This is a question of equity and fairness but more importantly it is an issue of access to safe, affordable reproductive health care services. How would any Member of this body feel if we found out that our insurance policies would only provide access to one form of high blood pressure medication, regardless of the side effects? How would we react if a plan operating in the FEHBP said that they would charge a higher copayment for prescription drugs to treat heart ailments? How we would respond to these discriminatory practices that threaten quality, affordable health care for FEHBP participants? I can tell you how this member would respond. I would be on the floor offering amendments to end discriminatory insurance practices that result in nothing more than economic sanctions that diminished access to safe health care services. We owe our federal employees more and we should be a leader on women's health. I urge my colleagues to vote for women's health instead of just talking about it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the DeWine amendment which would prohibit female federal employees from accessing affordable, safe and legal abortion related services as part of their health insurance benefits. I am always tempted to say, ``here we go again.'' Another assault on women's health and another barrier for women to safe, affordable reproductive health services. For some of my colleagues, the 1973 landmark Roe versus Wade decision was not clear enough or they continue to attempt to restrict a women's right guarantee in this decision. Instead of standing up and arguing that a woman should not have choices or that women should not be allowed to access safe, affordable reproductive health services, some of my colleagues hide behind the issue of federal funding. Health benefits have been, and always will be for the benefit of the federal employee. It is a form of compensation. Every worker knows that health insurance is part of their compensation package, not a gift, not a loan, but something that they have earned. Health benefits are part of one's salary. This is no different for a federal employee or an employee of Boeing. We would never see an amendment on the floor of the Senate dictating to federal employees how they spend their salary. As long as the employee spends this compensation on a legal commodity, we cannot restrict his or her decisions. Simply because they are employed by the American taxpayer does not mean that we can dictate how they spend their salary. However, some of my colleagues are proposing to do just that. We are telling female federal employees how they can or cannot spend their health insurance benefits. In addition to denying federal employees the basic constitutional rights afforded every other woman, we are proposing to dictate how they spend their compensation. Not only are health benefits considered employee compensation earned by the employee, federal employees are also responsible for up to 40 percent of the cost of the premiums as well as any deductibles or copays. So in fact we are telling female federal employees how to spend their take home pay as well. If a federal employee uses his or her own salary to purchase a firearm is this federal funding of handguns? I would argue no. Even though there are federal taxpayers who oppose handguns, we do not restrict the right of federal employees to use their federal salary to purchase one. But, telling female federal employees how they can spend their insurance benefits is just as offensive. Only in this case it is probably more detrimental as it denies female federal employees access to safe, affordable reproductive health service. One could argue that female federal employees should pay out of pocket for certain reproductive health services and not depend on her health benefits to cover or provide this protection. I would like to point out that federal employees by and large are not well paid CEOs. They live pay check to pay check and many are single mothers. Covering a $600 or $1,000 health care bill is just not possible. Economic barriers are just as solid as legal or social barriers. Denying health insurance coverage for a full range of reproductive health services, is denying access to these services for many female federal employees. I urge my colleagues to oppose efforts to make second class citizens of female federal employees. They deserve our support and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Instead of attacking a woman's right to make her own personal health decisions let's work to prevent unintentional pregnancies. I urge my colleagues to support federal family planning programs and contraceptive equity. The Supreme Court has already said that abortion with some restrictions is a legal right afforded all Americans. Let's not force federal employees to pay the price of political football, but rather let's do more to improve access to safe, affordable family planning benefits.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for the Senate version of H.R. 1151. This legislation is important, bipartisan and should be adopted unanimously by my Senate colleagues. I commend the members of the Banking Committee, where I served for four years, for crafting this legislation and moving it to the floor for full Senate consideration. I will vote for the Credit Union Membership Access Act. It is the right thing to do and the Senate is overdue in taking this action. This legislation clarifies credit union membership in a manner that protects consumers and the competitive financial services industry. In the Senate bill, existing credit union members are grand-fathered into their current credit unions and new common bond criteria are established for future growth in the credit union industry. Mr. President, the credit union legislation is widely supported by consumer rights organizations including the Consumer Federation of America and the American Association of Retired Persons. Other key supporters of this legislation include the National Farmers Union, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the National Association of Counties, the Fraternal Order of Police and the American Small Business Association. Perhaps most noteworthy to me is the strong support of my constituents for this legislation. Thousands and thousands of credit union members have contacted me, hundreds have visited my office with personal credit union anecdotes, and numerous others have approached me on my travels through Washington state. This issue has resonated with my constituents who value and want to preserve and protect credit unions and the services they provide. Importantly, with the August recess approaching and the 105th Congress soon to adjourn, we still have time to get this legislation to President Clinton for his signature. That must be the Senate's objective today; to get this legislation to President Clinton so that we may address the field of membership situation created by last February's Supreme Court decision. The Senate did make a number of important changes to the House passed bill. For example, the Senate version of credit union legislation includes new provisions to protect the soundness of credit unions, new capital standards and prompt corrective action for undercapitalized institutions, limitations on commercial lending, new accounting and auditing procedures, and community reinvestment requirements. While I support the Senate Banking Committee's efforts to improve the House adopted bill, the field of membership issue is really what this bill is all about. The Senate should not lose sight of this objective and certainly, the Senate should not let additional issues imperil this bill. Therefore, I will vote against the amendments to this bill; some of which have been described as killer amendments, and others that will complicate final passage of this bill. I urge prompt passage of the credit union legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise humbly to pay tribute to Officers Jacob Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson--and all of their fellow Capitol Police officers and law enforcement officers across the nation and world. As I filed past the bodies of our slain officers in the rotunda this morning, I was overwhelmed by the sacrifice they made to protect us, our families and fellow citizens. So many times, we take law enforcement for granted because we see them every day monitoring entrances, patrolling the Capitol, just being there. And, thankfully, we don't often see events like the tragedy that occurred on Friday. But events like those on Friday do happen. They happen every day across this great nation. Law enforcement officers sacrifice their lives so we can live more safely and freely. Every time that happens, I remember the commitment they have made and I thank them. When such madness strikes at our nation's symbol of democracy, it should remind us even more that freedom comes at a price. Our citizens and people of all lands are welcome to visit our capitol and participate in the democracy that they help sustain. They can watch Members of Congress undertake the people's business from the galleries above the two house chambers. They can visit us in our offices. They can visit sacred monuments and historic sites. Just last Wednesday, at a coffee I held for visiting constituents from Washington State, one tourist exclaimed how impressed she was with the accessibility of the Capitol, with the openness of the process and the ability to meet and see her Senator and Representatives. I agreed that we have a wonderful system and I praised her for taking advantage of that openness and participating in our great democracy. But we have defenders of this democracy and openness. Those men and women are our police officers who try to find that perfect balance of an open society and a safe society. Sometimes that balance means lives are sacrificed to protect those noble goals. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of Officer Chestnut and Special Agent Gibson. This is such a tragedy. As I have read about their lives and families and commitment to their communities, their sacrifice was made even more real. They are true heroes. So, I thank them and I thank the Capitol Police. I honor their service. I will use this tragedy to make sure I remember the tremendous commitment our law enforcement officers have made to us: To keep us as safe and when we are in danger, to lay down their lives for us. Tribute to Slain Officers Chestnut and Gibson

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Head Start program has successfully served hundreds of thousands of children over the past 33 years. These are children who otherwise would have been left behind. Instead, they received an enriching opportunity to get prepared for elementary school. It is critical that we allow local Head Start providers to continue to focus on their mission of serving families and children first. They serve our most vulnerable populations. We need to make sure that we do not saddle Head Start with the additional responsibilities that some members have proposed. Responsibilities such as determining paternity, or enforcing welfare laws by verifying TANF requirements, are duties which are within the realm and expertise of social workers and other professionals. Requiring Head Start to handle these burdensome responsibilities would take their time, energy and focus away from serving families and children first. We are finding that the quality of instruction and programs at Head Start continues to improve. We must continue to improve quality. One major concern is the authority given to private companies in this bill. While for-profits are partners with many Head Start grantees, their profit-making goals are not wholly consistent with the mission of serving the public good. Mr. President, in June, 1995, several respected researchers from Yale University and other universities issued a report comparing the quality and cost outcomes between for-profit and non-profit centers. The research shows that non-profit centers on average have more teachers with Associates of Arts in Early Childhood Education degrees than for- profit centers. Futhermore, for-profit centers on average had lower quality scores but higher costs per child than non-profit centers. Also, for-profit centers make very little use of volunteers from the community. I fear that for-profits are not about quality and community. Mr. President, presently under 50 percent of the eligible population is served by the Head Start program. It is important that Head Start continues to expand and serve a greater number of children. However, during these times of welfare reform, it is also necessary that Head Start provide full-day, full-year programs for working families. In order to achieve both goals, it is important that expansion occurs cautiously. Overall, the bill allows flexibility and focuses on school readiness and should be supported. Head Start is one of the most important investments we can make in our children.