Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I send an amendment to the desk

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I filed two amendments to this bill, the intent of which were aimed at what I believe is a serious problem with national uniformity. And that is the issue of poison control labeling to prevent unintentional exposure to dangerous over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics by children. During markup of this bill, national uniformity for labeling of over- the-counter drugs and cosmetics was adopted as an amendment. At the time, I raised concerns that I have about the State of Washington's successful Mr. Yuk campaign which simply teaches children and parents about the dangers of many common household products. I was concerned at the time that this program, which I have personal experience with and know how successful it is, would be in jeopardy. This is a Mr. Yuk sticker. It is a small green sticker that parents and teachers can put onto products--toxic household products. And kids across my State are taught if they see a Mr. Yuk sticker they don't swallow what is inside of it. I was concerned that national uniformity would harm my State's ability to continue this very important program. I raised this point during markup, and I was assured that the objective of the amendment on national uniformity was not to impede a State's ability to protect their children. Since the markup, I have become even more concerned about poison control labeling. I am well aware of the fact that Mr. Yuk is voluntary, and there is no State mandate involved. However, this is where I became concerned. Under the uniformity language that is contained in this bill, a State can petition the Secretary for a mandated labeling requirement on OTC's and cosmetics if they meet certain public health and safety standards, and if--and only if--the labeling requirement does not unduly burden interstate commerce. This standard is extremely high and the only way for a State to meet the threshold is for the Secretary to make the requirement a national requirement. What does this mean for Mr. Yuk? If New York, based on a local health concern files a petition with the Secretary for a symbol, like a skull and cross bones to be placed on mouthwash or hair coloring, and they make a strong and sound case, the Secretary can be convinced. However, in order to comply with the act and not unduly burden interstate commerce, she must make this a national labeling requirement. Now Washington State faces a situation where they have a Mr. Yuk Program and must also teach about the skull and cross bones warning. This would be extremely confusing to young children in my State. I can say that as a former teacher. Both of my amendments that I put forward attempted to address this issue. My first amendment would add poison control efforts using symbols in the criteria a State can use to petition the Secretary and change the ``and'' to an ``or'' unduly burdening interstate commerce; giving the Secretary the opportunity to continue to allow States to have their own poison control programs if they decide that a voluntary effort has not worked. Only through a mandate requirement will they be able to protect young children. Simply changing the ``and'' to an ``or'' would give the Secretary the needed flexibility, and would at least guarantee that one State requirement would not become a national requirement if it was not applicable to all 50 States. Mr. President, my amendments have strong opposition by the industry. They simply don't want to have 50 different State legislatures coming forward with 50 different proposals. And I certainly believe there is an argument for preemption in many situations. But I don't believe there is one in this case. I am really at a loss as to why supporters of the uniformity language in one breath talk about the need to reform and revitalize the FDA to prevent unnecessary delays in approving drugs and devices and then in the next breath talk about how States must petition an already overburdened agency for the approval to do what they have been doing for years without any public threat of consumer confusion problems. It is interesting to note that the managers' amendment does exempt one State from uniformity. Our State is going to be treated differently. One State, the State of California, will be allowed to bypass the petition process and have different health and safety labeling cosmetics. Because of the strong opposition to my original amendment and the well-financed national campaign to defeat my amendment, I have revised my language. The new amendment which I am offering today will at least acknowledge the importance of protecting health and safety of children, and will require the FDA to act on a State's petition within 120 days. The new amendment does not address all of my concerns. But because there has been a strong lobby and I am only one Senator that seems to be concerned about poison control, I recognize that my original amendment does not have the votes. But I cannot allow these uniformity provisions to go to conference without some recognition of the health and safety of children. So I thank the chairman for working with me. I am pleased that he has recognized my efforts and has supported the pending underlying amendment which has already been agreed to. I thank the Chair. I yield my time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend a controversial provision in last year's illegal immigration legislation that threatens to stifle legal travel and commerce between the United States and Canada. Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration Reform Act requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop an automated entry and exit system for the purpose of documenting the entry and departure of every alien entering and leaving the United States. The legislation I am introducing today, will amend the illegal immigration legislation to clarify that records of entry and departure are not required for Canadians. This is consistent with long-standing U.S. policy toward Canadian citizens traveling to the United States. My constituents are extremely concerned about the onerous implications of section 110. As a frequent visitor to Bellingham and Whatcom County, I hear again and again from the local community about the importance of unimpeded travel between the United States and Canada. I've visited the border crossings at Blaine, WA. At certain times, travel between the United States and Canada is already subject to lengthy delays and traffic back-ups that sometimes exceed 1 mile in length. Section 110 will further complicate border crossings if it is ever instituted on our northern border. I have been a long proponent of strengthening and promoting the partnership between Washington State and British Columbia, Canada. British Columbia is a billion dollar neighbor for my State, generating jobs and economic activity important to all of Washington. Canadian tourism and commerce is particularly important to Bellingham and northwest Washington where border trade thrives to the benefit of both Americans and Canadians. This legislative initiative follows up on a late 1996 letter I sent to Attorney General Janet Reno inquiring about section 110. The letter expressed my strong opposition to a border fee or other interpretation of section 110 which would inhibit legal tourism and trade between the United States and Canada. I continue to vigorously oppose nuisance measures that will unduly delay legal border crossings. A border tax is the most obvious nuisance measure, however, section 110 if fully implemented will have a potentially disastrous impact on communities in my state. I do not expect section 110 to ever be applied to Canadians. To do so, would be a phenomenal waste of limited resources. We can't neglect our northern Border, but we can certainly be a lot smarter. Exempting Canadians from section 110 is the smart thing, the right thing to do. I encourage my colleagues to review this important legislation and to join me in supporting the passage of this legislative exemption at the earliest opportunity.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, much tribal management of salmon resources in western Washington State is conducted through the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Historically, the Commission received its funding directly from the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty accounts under trust accounts. Beginning five years ago, however, a portion of these monies was re-routed for administrative purposes within the BIA system, passing through the Tribal/Agency Operations, Tribal Priority Allocation line item in the BIA appropriation. This system worked fine for several years, but funding reductions to Tribal/ Agency Operations in recent years have resulted in an approximately 13 percent cut to these accounts. Now these funds are being rerouted back to the original line items of Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty in the trust accounts, but at the reduced level. Since both the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty accounts were only included in the Tribal Priority Allocations system for administrative, pass-through purposes, it is inappropriate for these line items to be continued at only the reduced level. Full funding for these accounts should be restored. Congress did not reduce funding for the trust accounts. In addition, Congress has annually adopted the Pacific Salmon Treaty budget as developed by the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, and at no time has this funding been reduced. Also, within the FY-98 funding levels, Tribal Priority Allocations are being restored, but not the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation or Pacific Salmon Treaty funds. These factors provide significant justification for restoring these subject funds in the FY-98 budget. While the trust account budget is now set, the BIA may utilize appropriate funds from another account, such as Tribal Priority Allocations, to fully fund these important programs of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the House Committee Report (105-163) for the Interior Appropriations bill recommends that within the $3,000,000 provided for the ``jobs in the woods'' initiative under non-recurring programs, Operation of Indian Programs, $400,000 should continue to be used by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for the Wildstock Restoration Initiative. Although the Senate Committee Report does not mention this account, does the Chairman of the Subcommittee, the distinguished Senior Senator from Washington, agree with the guidance of House Committee Report?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his cooperation. kaiparowits coal basin

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate Committee Report on this appropriations measure directs the Bureau of Indian Affairs on page 52 of the report to include a private sector representative on the BIA task force to implement recommendations of an Inspector General's audit of the Wapato Irrigation Project on the Yakama Indian Reservation. In addition to this representative, it was the Chairman's and my intention to also include a representative of the Yakama Indian Nation on the task force.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to discuss briefly my amendment to alter U.S. Forest Service rules regarding the export of Western Red Cedar logs from Alaska. Today, because there are no Alaskan sawmills that use this cedar, this National Forest timber is exported as raw logs primarily to foreign customers. That is a real problem for our independent mills in Washington and Oregon who have traditionally been dependent on public timber. As we all know--and have discussed in the context of this bill--National Forest timber sales have plummeted since the 1980s. The independent mills that have survived are technologically advanced, with a well- trained workforce, but are always scrambling for reasonably-priced timber. As a rule, National Forest timber must be processed before it can be exported overseas. This Congress imposed that policy nearly 20 years ago. There is almost unanimous agreement that federal timber should be processed in America to create the maximum number of American jobs. One exception to the rule of domestic processing is that where no market for a certain species of tree exists, the Forest Service will deem that species ``surplus.'' A surplus species can be exported in as a raw log. In Region 10, there are currently no Alaskan processors who can use the Western Red Cedar. The Forest Service has, thus, deemed it surplus. But it is definitely not surplus to the domestic needs of sawmills and workers in the Pacific Northwest. I've been approached by several mills who are desperate for this cedar, including Skookum Lumber in Shelton, WA, and Tubafor Mill, in Morton, WA. My amendment requires the Forest Service to offer these national logs at domestic prices to mills in the lower 48 states. It requires the agency to establish a three-tiered policy giving Alaskans first priority, other American companies next priority, and only if no one wants these logs--which is highly unlikely--may they be exported internationally. Mr. President, this is a common-sense amendment. Members of the Washington delegation, including Representative Norm Dicks and former Represemtative Jolene Unsoeld, have worked to make this policy change since 1991. Now is the time to use these Federal resources for the benefit of American working families.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to strongly support and recommend to the Senate this military construction appropriations conference report. The final amount, $9.18 billion, is slightly below the Senate-passed amount, and is about $800 million above the budget request. Nevertheless, it is a frugal bill, some $600 million, or 6 percent below last year's appropriated amount. We have added $800 million to the bill to correct what the subcommittee perceived to be serious shortfalls in quality-of-life initiatives particularly housing and also including child care centers and medical facilities, as well as what has been the annual shortchanging of our guard and reserve forces. In particular, the budget request was for approximately $172 million for our guard and reserve forces, and the conference result was about $460 million, some $290 million over the request. I would point out that the Senate conferees reduced the Senate-passed figure for our guard and reserve forces by over $100 million in order to reach an acceptable compromise with the House. In the housing area, the conferees added some $210 million over the requested amount, for a total of $3.9 billion, or 42 percent of the total bill. Even so, the committee ended up approximately $250 million below last year's appropriated amount. Furthermore, the committee worked to satisfy the request of Senators on both sides of the aisle for worthy projects that were not included in the request, and I believe we ended up with a very balanced recommendation. I do hope that the President will support the bill as passed, and not disturb the balance that we carefully constructed to satisfy the needs of our Nation from coast to coast. Mr. President, I would point out to my colleagues that the conference report protected all the design, minor construction, and reporting initiatives that we included in the Senate report, so my colleagues may be assured that those initiatives which were included in the Senate report have been preserved. Fully 23 percent of the bill is for the base realignment and closure accounts, and we have included $153 million for NATO initiatives. I would point out, however, that the Senate report includes a requirement for a report on future costs of NATO expansion, as well as a burden- sharing report regarding our initiatives in Southwest Asia. The committee expects these requirements to be taken seriously and to have a full report from the Department of Defense on these matters. I am particularly pleased that the conference was able to retain the funding that we included in the Senate-passed bill for new quality-of- life initiatives in Washington, in particular a new library/education center at Fairchild Air Force Base, a barracks replacement at Fort Lewis, health clinics at Fort Lewis and Everett Naval Station, an expansion of an important dining facility and a new child development center at Bremerton Naval Shipyard, and housing at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Burns, for the excellent cooperation that he has extended to me throughout this process. I want to thank him for all of his courtesies and for the congenial and cooperative way that his staff, particularly Ms. Ashworth, has extended to all of us. We have enjoyed working with them and all their staff. And I thank Dick D'Amato, from my staff, and Ben McMakin for a job well done. I commend this product to the Senate and to the President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the following is an article written by Metropolitan King County Councilman Larry Philips of the fourth district and Metropolitan King County Councilwoman Louise Miller of the third district. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Interior appropriations bill. I commend the chairman and ranking member for developing a bill that provides a number of benefits to the people of the Nation and, particularly, the people of the Pacific Northwest. I want to highlight some of the bill's strengths and weaknesses. forest road policy I voted in favor of the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Bryan, on forest road funding and purchaser road credits. I did so in response to the enormous outpouring of public opposition to the current road-building policies of the Forest Service. Everyplace I've gone in recent months, I have been approached by average citizens--not just environmental activists--and urged to slow new road construction and stop subsidies to timber companies. Editorial boards across my State and the Nation have said now is the time for a change in the road building policies of the Forest Service. I agree. However, this has been a difficult decision for me. My top forest priority is full implementation of the President's forest plan, including meeting timber production goals. A severe cut in road construction and reconstruction might have impacted the Forest Service's ability to meet all of the plan's objectives. However, I have been assured by the administration that the Northwest forest plan remains a top priority and it will not be affected by the $10 million cut in road construction proposed by the Bryan amendment. The administration believes it can minimize the impact of these cuts on the timber program throughout the country, but will make the scientifically validated Northwest forest plan a priority. Despite my strong and continuing support for the Northwest forest plan, I am concerned about the Forest Service's policies on roadless areas. The scientific assessment recently completed for the Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project demonstrates the importance of roadless areas for fish, wildlife, water quality, and ecosystem health. Thus, I believe we should only build news roads into large roadless areas infrequently and with great care and full environmental analysis. That said, I continue to be a strong supporter of multiple use, including timber harvest, on our Nation's national forests. I cannot fathom why some want to prohibit harvest of second growth timber of Forest Service land. Timber harvest not only provides needed jobs and wood products, but in some cases it can improve the health of timber stands and reduce the risk of devastating wildfire. I intend to work with the administration to improve our road-building policies, reduce subsidies, protect vital watersheds, and ensure ecologically healthy systems remain strong. I do not support elimination of all new roads, because roads are necessary for timber harvest. But we must stop subsidies and/or the appearance of subsidies by revamping the agency's accounting systems and ensuring our Nation's public lands are managed as economically viably as possible. log exports I want to explain why I believe the provisions in this bill regarding log export restrictions make good environmental and economic policy. As many of my colleagues know, the issue of log exports is very contentious. The battle over log export policy has raged in the Pacific Northwest for years. We first passed a comprehensive log export bill in 1990. Since then Congress has revisited that law in 1992, briefly in 1996, and again this year. The USDA Forest Service issued regulations in 1995 that would have seriously impacted the entire timber economy of the Northwest. Those regulations precipitated a demand by Senator Gorton for those Washington State entities impacted by log export policy to develop legislation they could all support. That was a tall order, but this legislation embodies the best compromise that could be developed. Let met explain what these provisions do. First, this bill imposes a permanent ban on the export of all logs cut from State lands. My home State of Washington has been the biggest exporter of public timber in the Nation. However, under the compromise law Congress passed in 1990, no timber from State land could be exported for the first 5 years of the law. Those 5 years have passed, so the State ban on log export will--on October 1--be lifted and the existing law will prohibit the export of only 400 million board feet, of a total sale program of 650 million board feet. That means without this bill, 250 million board feet will go overseas without domestic processing. That means jobs would be lost in rural America and our region's forests would be cut without gaining their highest economic value. Second, this bill also protects the private property rights and values of both industrial and family tree farmers. Without these provisions, a timber grower whose land was located next to a sawmill that uses Federal timber could not sell his or her trees to that sawmill if that sawmill also used Federal timber. That limitation does not encourage domestic processing of timber--one of the original goals of the 1990, and this, legislation. In addition, the proposed agency regulations that this legislation will correct would have required all private timber owners to brand each and every tree cut on his or her land. It is simply bad policy and does not encourage landowners to keep their lands in timber production instead of selling them off for development. Third, some have objected to the so-called buyer-broker provision saying its guts existing log export law. This provision allows a third party sawmill owner that uses Federal timber also to purchase private timber from another company or individual and export a portion and process a portion of that timber. This allows a timber purchaser both to supply an American sawmill and pay the landowner the highest price for the trees. Currently, the State of Washington has very similar policy instituted in its log export regulations--and the ban on State log export has worked, by all accounts, very well. This provision provides necessary flexibility and will likely lead to more private timber being processed domestically than would otherwise occur. And, let me be clear, under this bill, a private company that grows timber on its own land still cannot export that timber from the same area in which it purchases Federal timber. Finally, this provision will hopefully bring closure to log export policy. I--and the vast majority of the public--support a permanent ban on the export of unprocessed timber from public lands. Most of us would also like to encourage greater processing of private timber. This provision provides the tools to accomplish these goals. It is the right economic and the right environmental policy. export of forest service alaska red cedar I have offered an amendment that I hope will be accepted under unanimous consent regarding the domestic processing of Alaska red cedar from National Forests in Alaska. Alaska is a unique place. When most of us think of exporting a product, we think of exporting it out of the United States. In Alaska, a product is exported if it leaves Alaska-- even if that product goes to the lower 48 States. Thus, on the Tongass National Forest, Western red cedar is first offered to Alaska timber purchasers. However, there is no market or no capacity to manufacture this species in Alaska, so it has been declared a ``surplus species.'' As a surplus species, these fine, scarce logs can be sold on the long export market to Asian buyers. While American companies are certainly free to purchase these public logs, they must pay the significantly higher prices offered on the export market. In the lower 48 States, Western red cedar is very much in demand. Under my amendment, these national logs must be offered at domestic prices to mills in the lower 48 States. My amendment requires the Forest Service to establish a three-tiered policy giving Alaskans first priority, other American companies next priority, and only if no one wants these logs--which is highly unlikely--may they be exported. The current policy must be remedied. I hope my amendment will be accepted. land and water conservation fund This bill provides critical funding for important land acquisition within the Pacific Northwest. The Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area will receive $8 million to purchase land to protect the ecological and scenic values in the gorge. It includes funds to acquire land and develop a trail along Cape Horn, one of the most beautiful areas on the Washington side of the gorge. Outside of the gorge, we appropriated $1.5 million for vital wetlands along the Black River in Thurston County. This unique, spring-fed river contains lands threatened by the growing population around Olympia and Tacoma. I am very excited by the commitment Chairman Gorton has made to help secure funding to purchase the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams with land and water conservation funds. The acquisition and removal of the Glines Canyon and Elwha dams have been a priority of mine since I was elected in 1992. So far, we have $8 million authorized to purchase both dams from Diashowa Co. for a total of $29.5 million. It appears we can tap some of the $700 million allocated for LWCF purchases this year to acquire both dams and begin the process of removing one dam and restoring the outstanding salmon fisheries in this Olympic National Park River. recreational trails funding I also support the increased funding for trails contained in this bill. Recreational use of our national forests has increased almost every year since the 1950's. This year, we added $3.5 million to the President's already high budget request for Forest Service trails maintenance in Washington and Oregon. These dollars desperately needed to keep our beautiful forests accessible, disperse forest users, and protect the forest system. title vi

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today the Senate has passed the Gorton amendment to the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act. This amendment seeks to block-grant certain Federal education funds and send them directly to school districts across the country. I appreciate my colleague Senator Gorton's intent to pass as much responsibility as possible for making educational and funding decisions to those levels closest to the classroom. This is also a goal of mine. However, with all due respect to my colleague, this is one issue where we fundamentally disagree. His amendment, like many ideas, sounds good in theory because it oversimplifies the practical reality in our schools and communities. As a former school board member, I agree with my Republican colleagues that our local elected school officials and educators are fully capable of deciding what their local needs and priorities are, and directing funds to those areas. But those local school board members and superintendents and principals and educators will tell you that the Federal Government does indeed have a role in education in this country--in setting priorities and assuring equity. Despite the occasional difficulties of writing a grant or filling out a form, Federal programs such as School-to-Work, or Safe and Drug-Free Schools, or STAR schools or other Federal technology programs, have made very real differences in the lives of students in schools across this Nation. They will tell you that equity protection efforts, such as providing funds for magnet schools, funds for Indian education, or funds for bilingual or migrant education, should continue to be uniquely within the purview of the Federal Government. This is because despite the best intentions, we all know that some school districts in this country have not always been able to do best by all the students all of the time. Equity funds must continue to go to the students and school districts which need them, and must not be watered down and spread across all school districts, regardless of need, as it appears the Gorton amendment would require. My problem with the Gorton amendment is that it may cost significantly more to educate one student than another, but this amendment will send them both the same Federal allocation--and ignore the intent of the Federal education program set up to recognize the specific needs associated with the higher cost. Every child deserves an effective, relevant education. Not all children have the same opportunity to get it. This amendment will assure that we increase the disparities between the haves and have-nots in our Nation's schools. Federal education funds leverage State and local money, as they do in my State, in the area of technology funding. Federal programs include caps on administrative expenditures, and maintenance of effort requirements--so we do not allow States to supplant or misuse funds. Federal education efforts safeguard equity concerns important to the Nation, and set important national goals priorities. The Gorton amendment is bad policy. It uses a meat-ax approach to educational reform when what is needed is the precision of a scalpel and a careful ear listening to what local people are really saying. No one likes bureaucracy. Everyone believes our schools can be improved. But educators and tax-payers across the country will grumble more loudly about the potential ill-effects of the Gorton amendment than they ever have over redtape. Local control is the goal; the Gorton amendment is fundamentally the wrong way to go about reaching it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we yield back all time on amendment No. 1118 and set it aside so Senator Wellstone can move forward.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his strong words and his support of this amendment and all of his work on behalf of this as well as that of his wife, Sheila. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Twenty-seven.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, for her excellent statement and for all of her support and her help on this very important piece of legislation. I know that Senator Wellstone also wants to speak on behalf of our amendment today, and I believe he is on his way to the floor. While we are waiting for him, let me read a paragraph or two from a press release put out by the Children's Defense Fund today, who, as I spoke about before, know firsthand what happens to children in violent situations. I quote: Mothers who have been threatened or battered need a safe place for themselves and their children and they need support to reenter the work force. Passage of the family violence amendment makes it possible for States to offer that protection and to help mothers with children. There are studies by the Better Homes Fund and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center and by the Taylor Institute in Chicago that have documented the prevalence of domestic violence in the lives of women and children receiving public assistance. It is important that we pass this amendment today so that we can make sure these women and these children are taken care of in this country and live in safe environments. Mr. President, I am going to yield time now to Senator Wellstone, who has been instrumental in this battle. I thank him for all of his work on behalf of the many women and children across this country who will be able to feel much safer when we finally get this passed and put into the law.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, they know what far too often happens to children who are in abusive situations if there are barriers to that woman getting to work. We want to make sure that there are no barriers. The CDF explicitly outlines this in their statement today, and I thank them for their support. Mr. President, I have worked on this issue for a number of months--in fact, for a number of years. It has become more critical to me in the last few weeks because of events that happened in my home State. About a week ago a young officer in Takoma, WA, was called to a home where a domestic violence situation had occurred. Unfortunately, he was shot and killed. He has a 1-year-old child. He is gone. I heard from many police officers who tell me how risky it is for them to go to homes where domestic violence calls have been placed. We need to make sure that we allow these women to get out of those situations so we don't have the increased numbers that we today have of domestic violence calls. I am amazed at the increased number. In fact, in the Seattle Times just a few days ago was an article, that I will submit in a minute, which says that in Seattle in 1995--which is the latest year for which any data are available--there were over 16,000 calls to 911 related to domestic violence. It was just reported that there is an epidemic, an increase in the violence in Spokane County with more than 6,400 cases reported last year, which is a big increase over prior years. In Tacoma, where a young police officer was just killed, it is reported that during the past 15 years 11 police officers in the Puget Sound area have been killed in the line of duty. Four of those officers were slain while responding to calls to help settle domestic disputes, a huge portion of them. We need to make sure that as a body we do everything we can to help women get out of domestic violence situations in a safe and responsible manner, to get them back to work in a way that economically works, that their health care is taken care of, that their children are taken care of so that they get out of these situations. If the work requirement remains in place, women will be forced to stay at home with their abuser. They will not be able to go out and get themselves economically independent in a responsible way. Mr. President, 27 States have asked for a waiver on family violence. Until we clarify the language here in the Senate and approve it in conference, these States will not be able to move forward without being penalized under the work requirements of the welfare bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment with a recorded vote this time so that we can send it to conference and do the responsible thing that is required of all of us when we care in a humane way about women who are in a situation in which none of us ever wants to be. I see my colleague, Senator Landrieu, a cosponsor of the amendment, is here, and I yield her time to speak.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this amendment that is being offered today by myself, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Landrieu is not unfamiliar to this body. In fact, the U.S. Senate has voted three times on the amendment that is now before us. Three times we have passed this amendment unanimously-- once in the welfare bill, once in the budget bill, and once in the budget reconciliation bill. All three times when this amendment was brought before this body, not one Senator spoke against it. It was voted on and passed and sent to conference committee. Without one single voice of opposition and without one single vote of opposition, this amendment was stripped in the conference. Perhaps it is no surprise when you hear the subject of this amendment. It is regarding domestic violence. Too often women in our country when it is in the light of day have everyone behind them and support them when it comes to domestic abuse. But these women know where abuse occurs. It occurs behind closed doors when no one is watching. This Senate should not approve of that kind of action. This amendment is one that is absolutely vital to the health and welfare of women, their families, and the communities that surround them. The policemen are too often called to situations where a domestic violence incident is occurring, and their lives are then put on the line. The amendment that we are offering today does a simple thing. It allows a temporary waiver of the work requirement for a victim of domestic violence in order for them to take care of their medical needs, to change their Social Security number, to take care to make sure that their children are in a safe place and that their family is secure before they are required to be at work. We know that, if a woman is being abused and she is required to be at work, her abuser will often go there to find her or put up barriers so she can't be there. She knows that her life is insecure if her abuser can find her at a workplace where she has to give her Social Security number, where she has to let them know where she is going to be. Where her children are in day care, she can't take care of them to make sure they are safe and secure. That is why this humane and compassionate Senate three times has passed this amendment. It is a temporary waiver. We are not asking for a permanent waiver of the work requirements. In fact, we want women who are victims of domestic violence to be at work. Being economically able to take care of themselves is the security they need in order to leave a domestic violence situation. But we want to make sure that they aren't at work with bruises and don't show up at work and are afraid to show up at work with bruises. We want to be sure that their children are in a safe place, if they are victims of domestic violence, before we require them to be at work. We want them to be able to change their Social Security number so they can't be followed before we require them to be at work. Too often these things take months. Changing your Social Security number can often take months. We in this Congress don't want to put these women in abusive situations inadvertently. This amendment simply is going to remove a barrier for women so that they can get out of the domestic violence situation. When a woman decides to get out of a situation, she has to know, ``Can I have the money? Can I have the ability to take care of my children, to take care of myself?'' Welfare allows her the ability to get out of that situation, to get herself back on her feet, and to get into the work force, which is exactly what she wants to do so she can be economically secure. The way the welfare bill is written today, it does not allow her to do that. When we passed this temporary waiver, we said to these women that we would give to States the ability to screen for domestic violence so that they will be allowed to help these women get on their feet and get back into the work force. We did that intelligently here in the Senate. In fact, it passed unanimously in the House as well. But when this amendment got behind closed doors, women were once again abused, and it was stripped from the bill. It is absolutely essential that we put this law into the books so that the States across the Nation who are waiting to see what our action is can make sure that women who are abused are taken care of. Today, the Children's Defense Fund has come out in support of this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this body is about to go to a vote that is not one that is unknown to this Senate. It is regarding the welfare bill that was passed a year or so ago, an amendment that we offered at that time that was unanimously approved by this body and sent to the conference committee that merely allows a woman who is a victim of domestic violence a temporary waiver from the work requirements if she needs to get medical care or she needs to change her Social Security number so that she is not pursued by her abuser, or to put her children in a safe place so she is not worried about them and can work without being concerned about what happens to her children while she is at work. It is a temporary waiver. It has been passed by the Senate three times. Not one Senator has spoken against it. Not one Senator has voted against it. But every time it goes behind closed doors in a conference committee it is pulled out. That is what happens to abused women constantly. In the light of day, everyone is there to say, ``I support you,'' but when they go behind closed doors they are abused. I call on the Senate to vote with a strong voice to the members of the conference committee. We want this amendment to remain in so women across this country, children across this country, communities across this country, and police who are required to come to the scenes of domestic violence incidents are safe once again. I yield my remaining time to Senator Wellstone, who has been helpful in this debate and has been very good at working through this.

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