Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman for his hard work on this bill and for his clarification here today. These projects will accomplish a great deal for two communities in southwest Washington state and I appreciate his hard work, as well as that of the subcommittee chairman's.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of great importance to Washington state. I remain deeply concerned about the Administration's lack of progress in working with interested Senators and industry to craft a workable, effective solution for modernizing the United States export controls on products with encryption capabilities. I have been involved in this debate for a long time, too long. We need to take action. I am an original cosponsor of several encryption legislative initiatives introduced by Senator Burns and Senator Leahy. Both of these Senators continue to do extraordinary work on this issue and I commend them for their thoughtful leadership. The Burns and Leahy bills basically say that if strong encryption is generally available or comparable encryption is available from foreign vendors, then our U.S. companies--the ones dominating the computer industry--should be able to sell their products as well. Previously, I also introduced similar legislation on encryption. I simply do not understand the Administration's continued refusal to acknowledge technological and marketplace realities when it has embraced the use of technology in so many ways. Computer users are demanding the ability to communicate securely over the Internet and to store data safely on their personal computers. We have all heard the stories about hackers monitoring our communications and even financial transactions, while at the same time gaining access to our hard drives while we are looking at a certain website. Until consumers have confidence that transactions and communications are secure, I do not believe that we will ever see the full potential of the communication technologies that are currently available and those to be developed in the future. I was hopeful late last year that the Administration had taken a very small, positive step on encryption exports. Instead, the result was basically the status quo. Computer software publishers and hardware manufacturers are still limited to shipping the same old 40-bit encryption unless they agree to design key recovery systems according to a government mandated standard. Ultimately, due to economics and marketing issues in the computer world, most Americans are still limited to this 40-bit strength encryption as well, because our companies develop one product for worldwide distribution. What will it take for the federal government to learn that consumers are opposed to having ``Big Brother'' interfere with their technology choices. We all remember the failed Administration attempts on Clipper I and Clipper II. Yet, the federal government persists in its efforts to peek into the private lives of law-abiding American citizens. The latest salvo by FBI Director Louis Freeh in demanding government mandated encryption for domestic users is the latest example of government obstruction of private decisions by American consumers and business opportunities for American innovators. If Director Freeh gets his way, the federal government will have even greater authority to peer and peek into the private lives of American citizens. ``Big Brother'' as feared by law-abiding Americans has a powerful champion at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While this war of attrition is taking place, we are losing in the trenches. Foreign vendors are happily supplying stronger 128-bit encryption to our foreign purchasers. Some of these vendors have publicly thanked the U.S. government for helping them to develop thriving businesses. Importantly, current U.S. policy represents a surrender of an industry where our innovative workers and companies are technologically superior. We are surrendering jobs and economic opportunities both today and for the long term. There are many examples from my own State of Washington, usually small start-up firms eager to grow, diversify and develop new high-tech applications in computer hardware and software. These firms regularly point out to me the names and business histories of their foreign competitors that have gladly taken business opportunities from Washington firms restricted by ineffective government mandates. It is time for the United States to acknowledge that we no longer exclusively control the pace of technology. Purchasers around the world can download software off of the Internet from any country by simply accessing a website. Foreign purchasers have turned to Russian, German, Swiss and other foreign vendors for their encryption needs. We are truly trying to put the genie back in the bottle--a genie so nimble that it can transfer in seconds from one location to another using a modem over a traditional telephone line. U.S. law enforcement seems to believe that Americans will recapture this market once our industry has developed key recovery systems for 128-bit or stronger encryption technology. This is extremely naive in my opinion. All the world will know that the U.S. government approved export technology will enable U.S. law enforcement to view encrypted information. Most foreigners believe the U.S. government will use this capability to spy on them; for law enforcement, political and economic information. Foreigners will simply buy elsewhere, period. It's pretty simple to me. What foreign entity would want to surrender information to the U.S. government when they can easily avoid this by purchasing someone else's product? Again, I turn to the approach advocated by Senator Burns and Senator Leahy. S. 909 as adopted by the Senate Commerce Committee simply does not go far enough. While it makes some minor modifications to export controls, it also goes in the totally wrong direction by starting down the path of domestic controls on encryption. Washington state and American companies deserve the opportunity to compete free from government restrictions. Their role in the international marketplace should be determined by their ingenuity and creativity rather than an outdated, ineffectual system of export controls. The time to act is now, the longer we wait, the further behind America gets on this issue.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join a number of my colleagues in speaking briefly about one of the most important issues that will come before the Senate next year in the second session of the 105th Congress. In late September, President Clinton submitted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification. The President's transmission statement includes the following: The Conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty is a signal event in the history of arms control. The subject of the treaty is one that has been under consideration by the international community for nearly 40 years, and the significance of the conclusion of negotiations and the signature to date of more than 140 states cannot be overestimated. The Treaty creates an absolute prohibition against the conduct of nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosion anywhere. . . . The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty is of singular significance to the continuing efforts to stem nuclear proliferation and strengthen regional and global stability. Its conclusion marks the achievement of the highest priority item on the international arms control and nonproliferation agenda. I commend the President for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working closely and in a bipartisan fashion to secure prompt ratification of the CTBT. I will do absolutely everything I can to support the passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I expect a spirited debate on the CTBT including vigorous opposition from some who continue to believe in nuclear expansion and experimentation. Several Senate hearings have recently been held and I urge the body to move forward in a timely and deliberative manner early in 1998. As a member of the Appropriations Energy and Water subcommittee with funding responsibility for nuclear weapons activities including stockpile stewardship, I look forward to actively participating in Senate consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Mr. President, at this point, I ask that a brief titled, ``Ten Reasons for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,'' be printed in the Record. This information was prepared by a nongovernmental organization in support of CTBT ratification. The material follows: Ten Reasons for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 1. the ctbt would guard against the renewal of the nuclear arms race The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would limit the ability of nuclear weapons states to build new nuclear weapons by prohibiting ``any nuclear weapon test explosions and all other nuclear explosions.'' The ban on nuclear explosions would severely impede the development of new, sophisticated nuclear weapons by the existing nuclear powers. While countries could build advanced, new types of nuclear weapons designs without nuclear explosive testing, they will lack the high confidence that the weapons will work as designed. Thus, the Treaty can impede a nuclear arms buildup by five declared and three undeclared nuclear weapon states. 2. The CTBT would curb nuclear weapons proliferation Under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, ``threshold'' states would be prevented from carrying out the types of tests required to field a modern nuclear arsenal. While a country could develop nuclear weapons for the first time without conducting nuclear explosions, the bomb design would be fare from optimal in size and weight and its nuclear explosive power would remain uncertain. The CTBT is therefore vital to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states, where these weapons could destabilize international security. 3. The CTBT would strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty The conclusion of the CTBT is a key element in the global bargain that led to the signing and the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. in May 1995, non-nuclear states agreed to extend that Treaty in May 1995 with the understanding that Article VI measures in the original treaty--like the CTBT--would be implemented. At the May 1995 NPT extension conference, all nations agreed to ``The completion by the Conference on Disarmament of the negotiations on a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty no later than 1996.'' Ratification of the CTBT would further legitimize U.S. non-proliferation efforts and lay the basis for universal enforcement of the CTBT, even against the few nations that may not sign. 4. Nuclear testing is not necessary to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. arsenal The U.S. has a solid and proven warhead surveillance and maintenance program to preserve the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without nuclear test explosions and this program is being augmented through the Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SBSS). Although some of the projects that are part of the SBSS program are not essential to the maintenance of the stockpile, many objective experts-- both critics and supporters of the program--agree that the program can ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile without resorting to nuclear explosive testing. All operational U.S. nuclear weapons are already ``one- point safe'' against accidental detonation of the warhead's high explosives, making even low-yield nuclear explosions, known as ``hydronuclear'' tests unnecessary. in addition, the nuclear warhead designs of operational U.s. nuclear weapons incorporate additional modern safety features. Since instituting a new annual warhead safety and reliability certification process in 1995, U.S. nuclear weapons have been twice certified without nuclear test explosions. 5. The CTBT is effectively verifiable The CTBT would put into place an extensive, global array of 170 seismic monitoring stations, 80 radionuclide monitoring stations, 11 hydroacoustic monitoring stations, and 60 infrasound monitoring stations to detect and deter possible nuclear test explosions. Monitoring capabilities would be especially sensitive at and around the established nuclear test sites. With this monitoring system, the CTBT would--with high confidence--be able to detect nuclear test explosions that are militarily significant. In addition, the CTBT would provide an additional deterrent against potential test ban violations by establishing on-site inspection (OSI) rights that could allow detection of the radioactive gases leaking from an underground nuclear test. 6. the ctbt would substantially enhance current u.s. monitoring capabilities Whether or not the CTBT is ratified, U.S. intelligence agencies will be tasked with monitoring nuclear weapons programs of the nuclear powers and the efforts of non-nuclear states and groups to attain nuclear weapons. The Treaty will make that task easier by establishing a far-reaching international monitoring system across the globe that would augment existing national intelligence tools. Clearly, U.S. intelligence capabilities to detect nuclear tests and nuclear weapons development programs would be far better with the

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join the Washington World Affairs Council in congratulating Mr. Keith Forest of Decatur High School in Federal Way, Washington, as the very first recipient of the World Educator Award. The World Affairs Council is a 1,200 member nonprofit organization of business and community leaders with more than 40 years of experience bringing the world to Washington State. Through its many programs, including the Global Classroom, the World Affairs Council has been an instrumental force in educating the people of my State about the world around us; our varied and diverse cultures, changing political and security environments, and of course, the importance of international trade. It is appropriate and noteworthy that this widely respected organization would annually recognize a World Educator in our State. On December 6, 1997, Mr. Keith Forest will be presented with the World Educator Award. This award recognizes an outstanding teacher of the world including global cultures, contemporary world issues and world languages. I would like to join the World Affairs Council in acknowledging and recognizing Keith Forest for his invaluable contributions to our children's understanding of the world. Keith Forest has been a teacher for more than 25 years. His own experience as a student of the world has been shared with thousands of students and future leaders. Mr. Forest does not rely on easily outdated texts to teach about the ever changing world, but instead has designed his own curriculum. As a frequent traveler, Mr. Forest brings to his class slides and videos and stories from around the globe. The posters of Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution and the pottery shards used by his archeology students are tangible examples of how Keith Forest's teaching brings world history to life. Mr. Forest has taught social studies at Decatur High School in Washington State for 15 years and his reputation precedes him through the halls. Students line up to take his classes, knowing the hands-on, in-depth exposure they will receive in his class. His passion and enthusiasm for helping his students grasp socio-political concepts and foreign affairs easily transfers to his eager classroom participants. A Fullbright Scholar, Mr. Forest has studied in Japan, Korea and China and has led numerous expeditions and exchange programs. He wrote the Washington State curriculum on the Holocaust after a trip to Israel. Additionally, he authored the Port of Seattle sponsored curriculum on international trade that is used throughout the State. Congratulations to Keith Forest and the World Affairs Council. Your work in the classroom echoes through our State and educates us all.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise join the Washington World Affairs Council in congratulating Ambassador Booth Gardner on his selection as the 1997 recipient of the World Citizen Award. The World Affairs Council is a 1,200 member nonprofit organization of business and community leaders with more than 40 years of experience bringing the world to Washington State. From the widely popular Public Programs, which includes the annual lecture series to the nationally recognized International Visitors Program, the World Affairs Council has been an instrumental force in bringing together varied and diverse cultures as well as exposing Washington State to changing political environments around the globe and the importance of international trade. Booth Gardner was first elected to public office in 1972 where he served 3 years as a State senator followed by election as Pierce County Executive in 1980. In 1984, Booth Gardner realized his boyhood dream with his election to Washington's governorship. A widely popular Governor, Booth was re-elected to a second term in 1988. As Governor of the most trade dependant State in the Nation, Governor Gardner was exposed on numerous occasions to the importance of international cooperation and negotiation. Trade missions to Europe and Asia allowed Governor Gardner to boost Washington's ties abroad creating new business, cultural, and educational opportunities. After completing his second term, Governor Gardner was appointed by the newly elected President Clinton to become the first U.S. ambassador to the World Trade Organization. Assuming the much deserved title of Ambassador, Booth Gardner played a major role in shaping this important organization and particularly representing U.S. interests. Throughout his service to the WTO, he carefully balanced the needs of the United States with the goals of multilateral cooperation. Ambassador Gardner set the standard for U.S. participation at the WTO. Congratulations Ambassador Booth Gardner. Your public service from Washington State to capital cities throughout the world makes all of Washington very proud.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 1998 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bills, but I am also sadly disappointed in the actions of the other body concerning my amendment to clarify the family violence option. The conference report before us today in the result of a bipartisan effort that focused on the priorities important to American families; education, a safe work place, biomedical research and disease prevention, child care, Headstart, and low-income energy assistance. I was proud to work with my colleagues in producing this conference report. I want to thank Chairman Specter and Senator Harkin for their willingness to work with all of us in negotiating a final bill with the other body. I also want to thank both of them for including many of my priorities in this final legislation. I am pleased that we were able to increase our commitment to the Older Americans Act programs, breast and cervical cancer research, heart disease prevention, literacy, child care, Headstart, and maintain a strong Federal role in education. I know that in a balanced budget framework meeting these priorities was a difficult task and am grateful for the leadership shown by Senators Specter and Harkin. While I worked to ensure the enactment of important increases in our investment in our future, I am sadly disappointed that this final conference report does not include my amendment to protect victims of domestic violence and abuse from the harsh punitive requirements called for in welfare reform. Despite a 98 to 1 vote in the Senate, Republicans on the conference committee from the other body, refused to help victims of family violence from continued abuse. This is a big loss that will come back and haunt us as the States begin full implementation of their welfare reform plans. The Republicans in the other body seemed more concerned about grossly incorrect statements made by the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. It was interesting to see that the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee felt it necessary to attend the final conference meeting to ensure that there was no further effort to give States the flexibility that they need to truly help those victims of domestic violence. In a letter to the conferees, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee concluded that the way to break the cycle of violence was to improve the self esteem of moms; this could only be accomplished through work. This statement in itself explains the difficulty I have had in getting this amendment enacted into law. There appear to be some Members of Congress who firmly believe that domestic violence is the fault of the woman. I will ask that this letter be printed in the Record so that the American public can see how some Members of Congress view family violence and abuse. While I am disappointed in the lack of consensus on my amendment, I am pleased to report that as a result of the courage shown by the Senate and the public debate conducted on my amendment, the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee in the other body has pledged his support for hearings on this important initiative. I am also inserting a copy of his letter to me stating his intention to hold these hearings. I intend to hold him to this commitment and am hopeful that hearings will be held early in 1998. Depending upon the status of these hearings, I intend on maintaining my strategy of offering this amendment to each and every appropriate legislative vehicle. I will not give up until this amendment is adopted. The stakes are simply too high. The lives of too many women and children are at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on October 31, 1997 Washington state Governor Gary Locke declared the month of October ``Bernie Whitebear Month'' and proclaimed Bernie Whitebear as a ``Citizen of the Decade''. I would like to join the Governor, and the whole state of Washington in paying tribute to Bernie Whitebear for his outstanding contributions to the Seattle metropolitan community, the urban Native American community, the state of Washington, and in fact the entire Pacific Northwest. For 30 years, Bernie Whitebear has been a voice and representative of the needs and concerns of the urban Indian community in Seattle and surrounding areas. His commitment to the preservation and edification of Native American culture within a diverse urban environment has never wavered. He established the Minority Executive Director's Coalition of King County, participates in the Northwest Asian American Theater's annual community Show-Off, and through his United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, acts as the Executive Director of the Daybreak Star Cultural and Education Center in Discovery Park, a center he established. In recent years, Bernie has been tireless in his pursuit of his next vision: the People's Lodge. The People's Lodge is the next phase of development for the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation (United Indians) Indian Cultural Center (ICC) which includes the Daybreak Star Center. The United Indians is a well-established organization thanks to Bernie with over 20 years of service in Western Washington. The ICC mission, and Bernie's focus in life, is to improve the social, economic, and cultural well-being of Native Americans living in the metropolitan Seattle area. Bernie and United Indians run a variety of educational, community service, and cultural arts programs serving 4,000 clients and attracting 30,000 visitors a year. The People's Lodge will improve and expand United Indian's desire to preserve and enhance Indian heritage and educate people about Indian cultural diversity. The People's Lodge will include a permanent Hall of Ancestors exhibition, a multiple-use Potlatch House, and an exhibition gallery, the John Kauffman, Jr. Theater, a resource center, and the Sacred Circle of the American Indian Art. The programs and activities envisioned by Bernie in the People's Lodge will be a great benefit to the greater Seattle community and the citizen's of Western Washington. The People's Lodge will create new jobs, serve as a new venue for sales and performances by artists of all kinds, and help preserve and advance the cultural heritage of Native Americans in this region. It has been my pleasure to work with Bernie in seeking federal support of this project. Bernie has been working diligently to secure an Economic Development Administration grant for the People's Lodge. I urge the EDA to give the grant proposal of United Indians for the People's Lodge their utmost consideration. Bernie Whitebear is a true leader for Native Americans in Seattle and a genuine asset to our community in the greater Seattle area. I personally appreciate his efforts. It is always a pleasure to see Bernie's warm face and bright smile come into my office. Bernie truly is a Citizen of the Decade.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Gorton and I have been working with the Puyallup Tribe of Washington to establish base funding in the BIA budget for the Medicine Creek Tribal Community College in Tacoma, WA. The Tribe has been working diligently and patiently with the BIA to secure the necessary accreditation to facilitate such base funding. I am happy to report that the tribe has just recently received such accreditation. However, the BIA has recently denied the Puyallup request for funding on the grounds that they had not established their accreditation, even though that was not a requirement of the BIA rules when the initial request for funding was made. On April 8, 1997, I wrote the BIA to express my concern regarding an apparent accreditation ``catch-22''. It seemed that in order to be accredited, the school needed to demonstrate a secure funding base. However, to secure a funding base the college needed to be accredited. I expressed to the BIA my sincere desire to see this apparent conundrum resolved. Over the past several months, it appeared that the BIA was, in fact, moving to address this issue. In a recent meeting the tribe had with Michael Anderson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, they were assured they would receive funding for fiscal year 1998. But we now understand that the BIA has changed its mind and indicated that Medicine Creek Tribal College will not receive funding for fiscal year 1998. This is not acceptable. In the conference report on H.R. 2107, the conferees agreed to increase funding for tribally controlled community colleges by $2,500,000 over the fiscal year 1997 level. Is it the intention of the chairman of the subcommittee that the Medicine Creek Tribal College be eligible for some of this funding?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, would the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee yield for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for this important clarification.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank my many colleagues, who on such short notice, agreed to cosponsor and enact this resolution establishing November 6, 1997, as National Concern about Young People and Gun Violence Day. I know the many volunteers and organizations working to protect our children also offer their thanks. Today, Halloween, is a perfect day to reaffirm our national commitment to stopping youth violence. On this night, children across America will be going trick or treating dressed in all sorts of wonderful costumes. They will enjoy seeing each other, visiting their neighbors, and--best of all--getting mountains of sweets. But in many cities, parents will keep their children inside. There will be no trick or treating because the streets are too dangerous for children. There might be block parties, but there won't be the fun and freedom that comes from frolicking through the streets in search of the good treats. All of us recognize the importance of making our streets and communities safe for children. One person, Mary Lewis Grow, thought something we might do to make our young people safer was to establish a national Day of Concern. So, this Minnesota homemaker, in 1996, persuaded Senators Wellstone, Specter, and Bradley to introduce this resolution. Other groups, such as Mothers Against Violence in America, joined her effort. 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 1996, 32,000 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 November 6 to give students throughout America the chance to make a promise, in writing, that they will do their part to prevent gun violence. The students' pledge promises three things: first, they will never carry a gun to school; second, they will never resolve a dispute with a gun; and third, they will use their influence with friends to discourage them from resolving disputes with guns. Mr. President, just last week I joined several colleagues on the floor of the Senate as we decried the murder of Ann Harris, a 17-year- old Virginian, by a 19-year-old man in Washington State. This random act of violence was apparently precipitated because the car in which Ann was a passenger was going too slowly for the driver of the car in which the murderer was riding. The young man was angry enough and morally numbed enough to fire his gun into Ann's car, killing Ann. What a tragedy. What a waste. In another example, a 14-year-old boy opened fire in a Moses Lake, WA, classroom, killing a teacher and student and wounding others. He has been convicted, but that does little to ease the pain of the loss suffered by that small community. Maybe if he had signed a pledge, maybe if he had heard the message over and over from parents and friends that gun violence was the wrong way to solve problems, maybe if, maybe if. We don't know how we might have stopped this act of violence, but we know we all have to try education, try outreach, try everything. Mr. President, we need to help all of our kids feel a part of this society. Yet often we overlook the young people themselves when trying to develop solutions. Students and other young leaders represent the great untapped resource for improving our communities. As many teachers and police officers have told me, ``if a young person doesn't succeed anywhere else, they can always find success in a gang.'' We need to make sure they have more productive options. The road to creating these options, and to healing our communities, starts with the young people themselves. Young people increasingly grow tired of getting all of the blame for crime in our neighborhoods, and none of the responsibility for solutions. If you ask young people what they think will make a difference for them, you'll find them to be highly creative. Many times their solutions work far better than solutions put forward by adults. Young people in my State and across the country don't like school uniform requirements, curfews, and other policies enacted for young people. Young people with the Seattle Youth Involvement Network decided to do something about it. They opened a dialog with the police department. They shared perspectives. They looked across the lines that separated their cultures. They spoke about ways police see and speak with young people and vice versa. And they found solutions to many problems facing them both. For more than a year now, I've been in a dialog with young people from all over the State of Washington who have joined the Senate Advisory Youth Involvement Team I established. They advise me on issues affecting them, and I help them with local community action. Crime, and how to prevent it, is a large concern with the young people I talk with, whether they are in gifted programs or youth offender programs. This resolution today should be seen as an invitation for young people across the country to tell us what they think about how to solve the problems of crime and gun violence. It should be displayed in every school, community center, and on every street corner in America. Mr. President, let us work with our kids to show them we care. And with our communities to give these young people other options to violence. I again affirm my commitment to work with our young people to let them know we care about them and to help them learn gun violence is not the answer to any problem.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the legislation before the Senate, along with the chairman, Senator Burns, who has done an outstanding job of putting this legislation together. I hope the Senate does disapprove the cancellation of projects which the President made under his line-item veto authority. I do not think it was appropriate to exercise that authority in the case of our bill. The subcommittee worked very hard and successfully to review the many requests that came before us for projects that were not included in the President's budget. We worked very hard to include only those which met very stringent criteria. In all cases, that included the criteria that the project be executable in fiscal year 1998. That is, that contracts could be awarded for construction. It is puzzling to me why the administration concluded that some 38 projects were not executable. That conclusion is wrong. The Pentagon's own paperwork, provided to the subcommittee for each of the proposed projects, plainly states virtually every project we included was capable of execution in fiscal year 1998. The subcommittee added substantial sums for new health facilities, quality of life improvements such as the housing area, and for the National Guard and the Reserves. Despite these additions, the final product was frugal, and represented a 6-percent reduction below last year's milcon spending level. Mr. President, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senators Stevens and Byrd, have rejected the vetoed items as an inappropriate overreaching of authority on the part of the administration. I am gratified that the committee is standing up for the subcommittee's work. It is a substantially better product than the budget submitted by the President, and that is our job. The administration has no exclusive corner on wisdom in making its selection of projects. In fact, the administration has admitted making serious errors in the handling of this matter. I would have thought that the administration would have been far more careful and selective in exercising its new line-item authority, but the reverse was the case. The exercise of power here was sloppy, and rushed--and resulted, as OMB Director Raines wrote to the committee on October 23, in inaccuracies. The administration has taken to writing to individual Senators to indicate it would help restore those projects wrongly vetoed, and put them back in the budget at the earliest opportunity. That tactic makes the situation, if anything, even more confused, since it appears the administration is revising its evaluation of the mix of projects based on new information or criteria and there has certainly been no meeting of the minds on such new acceptable criteria with the committee. Mr. President, I would suggest that Senators look at this disapproval resolution in the narrow framework in which it is written. Senators need not address this position on the constitutionality or wisdom of the line-item veto legislation itself to vote for this resolution. A vote for this resolution is a vote against back-of-the-hand capriciousness, apparently in a hurried manner, after the subcommittee, full committee, and both Houses labored over a period of several months to scrub the budget and add only those projects which are deemed worthy. I hope this measure will receive the strong support of the full Senate, as it did when the conference report was first presented, and that it will be presented to the President before we conclude the first session of this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution proclaiming November 6, 1997, as National Concern about Young People and Gun Violence Day. Last year, Senators Wellstone, Specter, and Bradley introduced this resolution. I am joined by Senator Kempthorne and many other colleagues today in supporting an identical resolution. We have all seen the good that can come from focusing attention on young people and helping organizations across the country mobilize children to stay away from gun violence. The Day of Concern was initiated by Mary Lewis Grow, a Minnesota homemaker, in 1996. Other groups, such as Mothers Against Violence in America, have joined her effort to establish a Day of Concern. 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 1996, 32,000 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 November 6 to give students throughout America the chance to make a promise, in writing, that they will do their part to prevent gun violence. The students' pledge promises three things: first, they will never carry a gun to school; second, they will never resolve a dispute with a gun; and third, they will use their influence with friends to discourage them from resolving disputes with guns. Mr. President, just last week I joined several colleagues on the floor of the Senate as we decried the murder of Ann Harris, a 17-year- old Virginian, by a 19-year-old man in Washington State. This random act of violence was apparently precipitated because the car in which Ann was a passenger was going too slowly for the driver of the car in which the murderer was riding. The young man was angry enough and morally numbed enough to fire his gun into Ann's car, killing Ann. What a tragedy. What a waste. In another example, a 14-year-old boy opened fire in a Moses Lake, WA classroom, killing a teacher and student and wounding others. He has been convicted, but that does little to ease the pain of the loss suffered by that small community. Maybe if he had signed a pledge, maybe if he had heard the message over and over from parents and friends that gun violence was the wrong way to solve problems, maybe if * * * maybe if * * *. We don't know how we might have stopped this act of violence, but we know we all have to try education, try outreach, try everything. We all have been heartened by statistics showing crime in America on the decline. A number of factors are involved, including community- based policing, stiffer sentences for those convicted, youth crime prevention programs, and population demographics. I don't think any of us intend to rest on our successes. Rather, we must review programs that work, and focus our limited resources on those. Legislation passed earlier this year, the Safe and Drug Free Communities Act, will help us do that. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to join in this simple effort to focus attention on gun violence among youth by proclaiming November 6, a ``Day of Concern about Young People and Gun Violence.'' 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.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the conference report (105-252) on Department of Agriculture appropriations includes $34.4 million for resource conservation and development [RC&D]. The conferees note that this increase in funding is not specifically earmarked for any initiative but should be used for approved RC&D Councils waiting for funding. I agree that the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] should prioritize funding for newly approved RC&D Councils. These councils provide much needed assistance to watersheds and conservation districts seeking to maximize the environmental benefits of their conservation programs. RC&D Councils should be funded. RC&D is a very important program for protection and prudent development of our Nation's natural resource base. Working through local RC&D Councils, this program helps enhance our ability to meet economic objectives within the context of a wise and sustainable use of our natural resources. In Washington State, a State rich in natural resources, RC&D offers the chance to meet the challenges of threatened resources in the face of demands for continued economic development.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is a personal pleasure and an honor for me to be here this afternoon as one of Washington's U.S. Senators. My State--my entire State--is immensely proud today as Tom Foley's nomination to be our Ambassador to Japan comes to the Senate floor. Most of my Senate colleagues know Tom Foley personally as a result of working with him on legislation and on maintaining the integrity and authority of the legislative branch. Important for those of us in the Senate, the man who eventually became Speaker began his congressional career in the U.S. Senate as special counsel to the late and revered Washington State Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson. Despite his distinguished service in the other body, Tom Foley is really one of our own. Tom was born and raised in Spokane, WA. The son of Superior Court Judge Ralph and Helen Foley, he is the descendent of a pioneering family that settled in Washington's big bend country. He also learned firsthand the importance of public service from his father, Judge Foley. In addition, he learned firsthand about the crop that has become one of our most successful export commodities, wheat, by working in his uncle's grain elevator business. It was that early introduction to the export dominated economy of our State that led to his unstinting advocacy of American agricultural exports to Japan, most of Asia, and throughout the world. Throughout his long service as a Washington State Representative to Congress and as its Speaker, he was a tireless advocate for American competitiveness in the world market and for its peerless agricultural productivity. As a champion of America's family farmers throughout his service as a member and then chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, he took every opportunity to press, usually successfully, the opening of markets throughout the world to the production of America's farmers. But Speaker Foley always understood that America's national interest would be best served by ensuring that all of its products would have a level playing field with all our trading partners. It is my belief that the reason Speaker Foley enjoys such great respect in Japan today is his consistent and candid portrayal of critical issues that have arisen between this country and Japan. The Japanese, like many of my Senate colleagues who have served here longer than I, also know him as a skilled and tireless negotiator. In my opinion, no recent Member of Congress surpasses Speaker Foley in the depth and breadth of his understanding of Japan. It is no exaggeration to say that during the more than 25 years he has traveled regularly to Japan, he has made the acquaintance of virtually every single political and economic leader of note in that country. On those trips, and the many occasions when he received Japanese political and business leaders in this country, he pressed the full range of American trade and vital mutual security concerns. Throughout this period, Speaker Foley also provided counsel and sage advice to Presidents of both parties. This record of understanding, great knowledge, and policy expertise is unparalleled in either Tokyo or Washington. It makes Speaker Foley the natural choice to be our Ambassador to Japan, representing our Nation, its people, and its vital interests. The residents of my State are so proud of Tom Foley's record of public service. Mr. President, I believe it is time once again, to draw from the illustrious alumni ranks of the Senate to fill what is perhaps our most important diplomatic post as we did when we sent Majority Leader Mansfield and Vice President Walter Mondale to Tokyo. Tom Foley will be a fabulous ambassador. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I stand with my colleagues from Idaho today out of anger, sadness, and commitment. A beautiful young woman, Ann Harris, was murdered in my State of Washington. She was murdered by a young man in a random act of violence as she rode in a car with her friends through a Tacoma neighborhood. Her death is an outrage. We all should be furious. But the saddest comment is that to so many young people, Ann is simply another statistic. To too many she's just ``another homicide.'' A 17-year-old girl is murdered by a young college football player. Our eyes just glaze at the headline and move on. This time, her parents, her friends, my colleagues and I, and many individuals and organizations across America are not going to let her murder be only a small blip on the television screen. We will not forget her--or any of the other hundreds of children and young people murdered each year. Her parents, Coleman and Jean, have organized ``Ann's Campaign for a Safer America.'' Even in their tragic loss and profound grief, they pledged to themselves and their lost daughter that they would work to stop violence and stop our national indifference to it. Ann's Campaign's focus will be to encourage, motivate, educate, and help youth and adults alike to live the life Ann radiated--a life that said every day and in every way: smile more, care more, love more, and be more understanding. They will help us all focus on the good and learn to stop violence. Mr. President, this is not about guns. This is about an attitude among too many young people ``on the street'' that violence is an acceptable alternative. We adults, we Members of Congress, must send the message to our kids and young adults that when someone is killed it will not pass by unnoticed. As adults we must let them know killing and maiming is appalling--and totally unacceptable. To too many of them it is a quick news piece and it's gone. To too many of them it is ``just another funeral.'' But to parents and family and friends it is a light gone out, a hope not realized, a life not fulfilled. Mr. President, there is hope that we can make a change in the apathy of our young people. In addition to Ann's parents, a friend of mine from Mercer Island, Pam Eakes, formed an organization called Mothers Against Violence in America. After hearing about one too many children who lost their lives to violence, she resolved to make a difference, to make kids think about their actions, to teach them empathy, to teach them nonviolence. Mothers Against Violence also supports families of victims. There is nothing worse than a parent's loss of a child. They feel helpless, and often guilty, like they somehow are to blame for not giving their child full protection from all danger. They are innocent victims, too, and desperately need the support that only others who have suffered their loss can give. I want to again offer my sincere condolences to Ann's parents. They are so brave to wage this war against apathy and indifference and for love and caring and understanding. Every time they discuss these issues, their own wounds are opened. I thank them and I thank Pam Eakes and a member of my staff, Mary Glenn, and all of the mothers and fathers who have taken their grief and have woven it into a mission to change the world. Mr. President, they cannot fight alone. We all must get involved and teach our children--and each other--that violence is unacceptable. We can make a difference by joining organizations like Mothers Against Violence or Ann's Campaign and working with them to teach and support. And we can start organizations across America to save our children from violence. Young people can no longer believe that an angry action of one moment is only that. It is not just an action. It is murder. It is wrong and it will be punished. It is time to stop the violence. I know that I will continue my personal fight against violence in America. And I urge all of our colleagues to join us in this campaign. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this morning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] presented the 1997 Walter B. Jones Memorial and NOAA Excellence Awards for Coastal and Ocean Resource Management. A number of distinguished citizens, students, and public servants were honored for their commitment to the protection, conservation, and sustainable use of our Nation's precious coastal resources. I would like to offer my praise and admiration to all of the award recipients for their hard work and dedication to this critical area of ecological and economic concern. Over one-half of the U.S. population resides within 50 miles of the coast. All of these people and the associated development and other activities that accompany them place extraordinary pressure on the ecosystems, watersheds, and communities on our coasts. Coastal areas provide incredible commercial, recreational, and aesthetic benefits to the American people. The Walter B. Jones and NOAA awards recognize individuals who have taken on the challenge of protecting these coastal areas and ensuring these benefits are not lost. While I congratulate all of the award recipients, I would like to acknowledge two Washington State recipients in particular. Recipients of the Excellence in Coastal and Marine Graduate Study Award, Lillian Ferguson and John Field, from the University of Washington School of Marine Affairs. I am honored to have these two bright graduate students represent Washington State and our commitment to the protection of coastal areas. Lillian Ferguson's works focuses on management of maritime transportation and marine protected areas. As a summer intern (1996) for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary [OCNMS] she developed a program for documentation and analysis of vessel traffic in the congested entrance and approaches to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Her work formed the basis for recent implementation of the program by the OCNMS this year. This prototype program may be suitable for adoption in many similar situations in the United States and abroad. During the academic year 1996-97, Lillian is the Project Assistant for the Safe Marine Transportation Forum [SMART Forum]. In this capacity she promotes dialogue among more than 20 stakeholder interests on marine safety and transportation on Puget Sound. Lillian has also contributed as a research assistant to the National Coastal Zone Management Effectiveness Study recently completed for OCRM/NOAA. Her thesis work analyzes the development of interjurisditional collaboration in managing marine environments between the NMS Program and the U.S. National Park Service. Lillian has made significant contributions with the work she has already completed. Her thesis should be quite informative and valuable in improving interjurisdictional cooperation between the NMS Program and other Federal and State entities. John Field's work focuses on the initial impacts of regional climate change. For approximately 2 years John has been a Research Assistant in the Integrated Regional Assessment Program for the Pacific Northwest sponsored by NOAA through the Joint Institute for Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean [JISAO, Principal Investigator Ed Miles]. His role and responsibilities have been especially difficult to perform given the scant attention to systematic monitoring of coastal impacts. John has done a superb job of combining disparate data sets, anecdotal information, and informed experience to document key issues and trends relevant to projected Global Climate Change scenarios. His efforts form the stage on which interdisciplinary team-based integration can take place. John coauthored with Marc Hershman a report on this work and is currently completing his thesis documenting and expanding somewhat on the findings. This research should assist the development of coastal impact scenarios under regional climate change assessments elsewhere. Besides this work John has been the coordinator for a very successful joint seminar between the School of Marine Affairs and the fishing industry. In addition, John has been working during the summer on a seabed coring project led by Prof. Robert Francis to obtain Paleo- records of fish and shellfish abundance in the North Pacific. Both of these award recipients have worked hard for the sake of our coastal resources in Washington State. As they move on from graduate work and enter the work force either in public service, nongovernmental organizations, or private industry, I know they will continue in their commitment to the protection, conservation, and sustainable use of our coastal resources. With students such as Lillian and John in our graduate schools, I am confident about the future of our coastal areas as the challenges confronting these areas and those of us who care about them become increasingly complex. And to Lillian and John, congratulations.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the distinguished chairman for this clarification.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank the subcommittee for its hard and diligent work on this bill. In particular, I appreciate the recognition of the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program in Washington State [CTWQP]. The CTWQP is a most important model for demonstrating how tribes can solve their water quality protection problems by coordinating with local, State, and Federal Government agencies. This program began in 1990 when the 26 tribes and tribal organizations in Washington State came together with a cooperative intergovernmental strategy to accomplish national clean water goals and objectives. As a result of Federal court decisions, the State of Washington has recognized the tribes as comanagers of water quality in the State. This program has been an effective tool for leveraging scarce public funds to create viable, watershed-based water quality protection plans. It is my understanding Congress has increased EPA's General Assistance Program [GAP] and other funding mechanisms over the years which includes the base program efforts for the CTWQP in Washington State.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Jonathan Cameron Boster, a fallen firefighter who gave his life in service to his community. While nearly 100 fire service personnel nationwide sacrifice their lives every year, Jon's death is even more poignant because he was just 19 years old. At 10 p.m. on April 8, 1996, Grant County Fire District 5 was responding to a structure fire in Moses Lake, WA. The water tanker Jon was driving rolled off a curved rural road, killing him and injuring one other firefighter. Jon's comrades could not turn back because of their commitment to the community. They did what Jon would have done; they fought the fire. Jon was a fun-loving young man with bright eyes and a charming smile. A Montana State all-star basketball player in high school, Jon also played football and ran track. He enjoyed water and snow skiing, fishing and hunting. Jon delighted in his niece and nephew and his greatest joy was playing with them. His driving desire, however, was firefighting and his world revolved around his ambition. He was a resident firefighter and E.M.S. provider and a State-certified first responder and defibrillator technician. He planned to attend the Washington State Fire Academy. Each October, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation holds a memorial in tribute to the firefighters who died the previous year. On October 5, 1997, Jon will be honored and a plaque listing his name and the names of each fallen firefighter will be unveiled and dedicated. Every fallen firefighter is a hero, and each death a loss to an entire community. While Jon's death is sorrowful, we can take comfort in knowing that Jon gave his life in pursuit of his goal, racing not just to a fire, but toward a dream.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about one provision within the bill before us today. The fiscal year 1998 Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act contains a cost-of-living adjustment--a pay raise--for Members of Congress. This increase represents a major change in policy. It has not been the subject of hearings. It has not been aired in public. The timing and merit are questionable. In light of these concerns, I intend to vote no on the pay raise, and no on the bill. Each year I have been in the Senate, we have acted to suspend cost- of-living adjustments for Congress. In light of our ongoing efforts to balance the Federal budget and restore people's faith in the process, I think this has been the right course. Simply stated, allowing our own pay to increase sends the wrong signal at a time when the budget is out of balance and real wages are stagnant for many workers. Like it or not, we in Federal office have a responsibility to set an example, to set the tone for responsible dialog about the Federal budget. Accepting a pay raise at this time undermines any credibility we might have on budget issues. In July, Congress passed a historic law that will balance the Federal budget. After years of partisan rancor, bickering, disputes, and Government shut-downs, we were able to put aside differences and agree on a compromise that makes sense, and gives the people what they have been asking for. Now, most of us who worked on this package, and made the tough calls over the past few years understandably want to promote the compromise and take credit for finishing the job. And I think we should. But taking a pay raise on the heels of passing a balanced budget sends the wrong signal. It says to the people, ``we didn't really mean it.'' As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is very difficult for me to vote against the Treasury-Postal bill. In fact, it is rare that any of us on the committee opposes one of our own bills. In this case, I have to make an exception, even though there are many worthy programs and projects funded in this bill. I hope my colleagues will hear my reasons and listen to them. As elected leaders, we are held to a different standard. We have a responsibility to set the tone, to earn the respect of our constituents. The public will be watching this vote. To them, it is not about funding the executive branch agencies. Instead, it is about whether we are willing to live up to our own standard of fiscal responsibility in 1997.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today we debate an amendment to the fiscal year 1998 District of Columbia Appropriations Act that would provide publicly-funded vouchers to low-income students so they can attend private and religious schools in the District and surrounding areas. The bill would authorize $7 million in the first year and a total of $45 million over 5 years. My colleagues have pointed out that this $7 million would only serve 3 percent of the students in the Washington, DC school district, and that we should instead be looking at investments that will help 100 percent of the students. How much would $7 million buy for all the students in Washington, DC schools? How much real help--that would improve their ability to learn and succeed? How many teachers, reading assistants, school counselors, nurses, or volunteer coordinators would $7 million buy? How many computers, video systems, wireless communications systems, computer-assisted drafting systems, technology labs and other tools could $7 million buy? How many different ways could we help the parents--through parent involvement programs or family literacy services--to help their children succeed in school, with $7 million? My colleagues have in this debate asserted or intimated that defense of the public school is essentially defending the status quo, and being afraid of change. Well, when it comes to using public school funds to pay for students to attend private, sectarian schools, the status quo is actually set in the U.S. and many State constitutions. Our country has a rich history, since Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, that keeps a line of separation between our public tax dollars and the checking account at the local house of worship. These debates are further informed by public votes and public polls. As far as the American public is concerned, this particular ground has been gone over. The argument is moot; the law is clear. The experiences of the State of Washington also have bearing on this issue. I stand before you as a former school board member from a State where the law allows school boards to change anything not otherwise prohibited by law--to help students learn. Washington State allows wide flexibility in carrying out existing school law--and the Washington State Legislature has held many open public debates on laws that seem too stifling. In every school in my State, like those in many other States, there are teachers, students, parents, and community members thinking about how to make schools better, and taking actions to make them better. I want to be very clear about this--fear of change is not the obstacle here. My State also has a public school choice law that allows any student to attend school in any public school they choose. One thing we ve learned from this Washington State law is that the biggest frustration occurs when a school determines, as it is allowed, to say when the school is full, and closes the door to new students--who then must choose another school. The voters of Washington had a choice last fall, to allow private school vouchers. And they overwhelmingly rejected the idea at the polls. As you have heard, this has happened in other States around the country. Today, if you are worried about the educational crisis affecting any student in a public school anywhere in this country --you have two choices. You can play ``let's talk about vouchers,'' or you can go help a school. You can work at a think tank, or write a column for a newspaper, or become a Member of Congress. And you can spend a good portion of your career, countless hours of debate, and millions of dollars breaking your pick in the ground of the school voucher issue. You can impose your will on the only people in the contiguous United States without representative government. You can play games with a community that faces enough challenges already. You can strive to further denigrate the D.C. schools by luring away to private religious schools the 2,000 students who are most likely to want to become leaders in a revitalized public school. Or, you can do something productive. This $7 million could do some good. Your time devoted to a public school could help make needed changes. Your fund-raising on behalf of a public school foundation could make the difference for many students. Your tutoring or advocacy on behalf of a student or family could be the symbol that drives much more volunteer time and public awareness. It all comes down to one parent wanting to get the very best for his or her son or daughter, and how we can help that parent. We can dangle the possibility of a religious school voucher, or we can help the student and his or her school. For that one student, this $7 million voucher system could be far less meaningful than the help and attention of one caring adult. If any nationally-recognized voucher advocate went to that one student's school and offered to mediate a discussion, hold a fund- raiser, or work with a family--that student could find real solutions in a real school. Or, we can continue to talk about vouchers and other things that will not, and in this case, should not happen. People have been talking about the crisis in schools for many years. The research shows we are doing better in many areas, but are not living up to the expectations of a new century. I fear that these kinds of discussions just create a crisis of a different kind--a crisis that saps our sense of volunteer spirit and voluntary support of public education. The students deserve better.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. As a new member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee I have spent the last 8 months coming up to speed on the FDA, reform proposals and the impact of these proposals. I have met with groups representing all sides on these issues--from the biotech industry to groups representing patients. I have tried to keep an open mind and work to find acceptable solutions to the many problems pointed out by industry and the patient groups. There appears to be a general mistrust among all interested parties. As a result each side is concerned about going too far--industry is concerned about burdensome and unnecessary regulation by FDA and the patients are concerned about effective regulation of the industry. It appears that this general mistrust is based on past experiences and each side can give numerous examples. My objective was to revitalize the FDA to give it the regulatory flexibility to effectively regulate the pharmaceutical and medical device industry without jeopardizing timely approval of safe and effective lifesaving drugs and devices. At the same time, I am well aware of the prominent public health role played by the FDA--it is after all, a public health agency, not a drug or device manufacturer. My support for real reforms by no means says that I did not support an aggressive public health agency role for the FDA. Several weeks ago, I met directly with several biotech companies in the State of Washington. As I sat at the table listening to their concerns I was struck by the amount of experience at the table and level of integrity that many of the companies are known for. I am proud to represent these companies that are on the cutting edge of medical technology and have contributed significantly to improving health care for all Americans. I knew that those companies would not market a dangerous, life threatening drug or device; that none of these companies deliberately act to falsify clinical data or would refuse to complete clinical trials. I knew that these companies were more concerned with getting their lifesaving technologies to patients than simply making a profit. They know the value of one's reputation and are truly proud of the lifesaving work they have done. Sadly, however, not all companies have the same commitment to the patient's health and are allowing stockholders, not scientists, to make decisions. Because of this, I am asking for the Chairman's commitment that the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee will retain a strong and aggressive oversight role. We are making some sweeping and some may argue dramatic changes in the way the FDA operates. We need to be sure that these changes are positive and that FDA has the resources and ability to remain an effective public health agency. If we detect future problems or conflicts, I need your commitment and support for swift and thorough hearings. I need to know that we will continue to monitor the FDA, and if legislative revisions are necessary to protect the public health, we will act with great speed. There is probably no other Member more hopeful that some of these reforms will means that patients get access to safe and effective drugs and devices sooner, but I also know that we cannot forget the past. There are certainly many examples of situations where the public health was put into jeopardy by unscrupulous pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. I need your assurances that if problems arise we will act to address any potential threat to the public health.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chairman for his support and commitment to a strong FDA and am grateful for his leadership on this legislation. pharmacy compounding

Mrs. MURRAY

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