Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second- degree amendments be in order.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 1118.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 1118

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am going to ask shortly for a rollcall vote on this amendment. It is imperative we have a strong rollcall vote on the underlying amendment so we can move it to conference with a very strong message from the U.S. Senate that we are going to support this with our voices, with our votes, and that we are going to watch it in the conference committee so it remains in this time. We are going to send a strong message to the White House that this body is not just doing this as some kind of political maneuver, we are doing it because we mean it and our votes are going to back it up. We are not just going to talk about domestic violence, we are going to be there to make sure the action takes place to take care of the women who are abused and are put in this horrendous situation that each of us hopes never to be in. It is imperative we do this for the women who are being abused. It is also imperative we do it for the neighborhoods and communities they live in. And it is imperative we do it for our police officers across this country who are put in these violent situations far too often today. We need to do our part to prevent that from happening as well. Mr. President, I am ready to yield the remainder of my time if there is no one going to speak in opposition, and to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on September 3, during floor deliberations the senior Senator from Washington presented a story of a most tragic situation on the Yakama Indian Reservation in his call for support of an appropriations rider that would require tribal governments to relinquish their right to sovereign immunity in order to receive Federal funding. In 1994, a tragic accident involving a tribal police officer en route to the scene of an ensuing robbery resulted in the death of 18-year-old Jered Gamache. Before I proceed, I want to express my deepest sympathies to the Gamache family for this devastating loss. As a mother of two, I find it almost unbearable to contemplate such a loss. It is always painful to lose a loved one, but the loss of a child is something no parent should have to face. The issues involved here are very controversial and everyone involved has strong views. In the interest of airing views from all sides regarding section 120 of the Interior appropriations bill, I have agreed to submit a statement on behalf of the Yakama Indian Nation in response to the chairman's comments. I ask that the statement from the Yakama Indian Nation be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Yakama Indian Nation Astonished by Gorton Floor Statement Wherein He Made Analogy of Tribal Police Officer Acting Within Her Scope of Duty and New York Cops Who Brutalized a Haitian Immigrant Toppenish, Washington.--The Yakama Indian Nation today responded with both amazement and sadness to statements made Wednesday on the Senate floor by Senator Slade Gorton (R- Wash.), wherein the Senator made an analogy of a 1994 accidental vehicular death involving a Tribal police officer responding to an emergency call (regarding an urgent armed robbery in progress), to the intentional brutal beating and sodomization recently inflicted by New York City policemen against Haitian immigrant Abner Louima. In what appears to be an attempt to justify a far-reaching amendment he has inserted into an appropriations bill that would eradicate tribal sovereign immunity, the senior Senator from Washington has chosen to exploit the victimization of Abner Louima and a tragic car accident that occurred on our reservation. The facts of the case cited by Gorton should be brought to light as should the point that a close associate of the Senator, Yakima County Prosecutor, Jeff Sullivan, declined to pursue a criminal prosecution (for ``disregarding the safety of others'') against the tribal police officer involved in the accident. On October 25, 1994, Tiffany Martin, a fully trained police officer of the Yakama Indian Nation responded to an emergency call for assistance from the Yakama County Sheriff's office. There was a burglary in progress at a convenience store and the closer police force in the city of Wapato had not responded. Officer Martin proceeded in her police vehicle northbound on Route 97 with both sirens and overhead flashers on. During her response a second call came in indicating that gun shots had been fired and the situation was clearly quite urgent. As the officer approached a particular intersection, where she initially had a green light, she slowed her vehicle down (she estimates to between 30 and 35 miles per hour), noticing a van stopped at the intersection with its turn, signal on. Apparently next to the van and hidden from the officer's line of sight was another vehicle. Confirming that the stopped vehicle was aware of her presence, she accelerated and went through the intersection as the light turned yellow and then red. The van remained stopped but the vehicle next it, being driven by 18 year old Jered Gamache went forward and his vehicle and the police care collided. Gamache died as a result of injuries suffered in the collision. The tribal police force has expressed great remorse to the Gamache family and the officer herself has suffered tremendously and emotionally as a result of the accident. While we have the greatest sympathy for the family of Jered Gamache and can understand their pain we can not understand how a member of the United States Senate could suggest that this accident is somehow analogous to the celebrated Louima beating in New York. Senator Gorton has stated that since Mr. Louima is going to be suing New York City for millions of dollars so too should the Gamache family be able to sue the Yakama Nation for a similar amount. With all due respect, this is not an analogy worthy of a former state Attorney General. The New York policemen who beat Louima broke the law. Our tribal police officer was acting within her scope of duty and following routine procedures. While it is tragic, there are unfortunately a large number of innocent bystanders all across this country who are accidentally hurt or killed by law enforcement officers discharging their duties. The fact remains that police officers and the governments they work for are protected by a sovereign immunity provided they have acted within the line of duty in a non-negligent manner. Would the Senator characterize, as he did on the floor, that a claim against, say, a King County, Washington policeman involved in an accidental vehicular death as ``identical or similar'' to the claim Mr. Louima will be pursuing against New York? Contrary to the Senator's assertions, the Gamache family has not been denied legal recourse due to tribal sovereign immunity. In fact, the Gamache family has a filed civil suit which is currently pending in the Eastern District Federal Court of Washington state, trial is set for December 8, 1997. The Gamache family is pursuing this claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 USC 2671), which is the same statute under which they would pursue a claim if any other federal law enforcement official (FBI, National Park Service ranger, etc.) has been involved in their son's death. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is the statute involved as the Yakama Nation was operating its tribal police department under a contract with the Interior Department pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act and the tribal police officer was acting as a federal agent. United States District Judge Fred Van Sickle will determine whether the officer involved showed contributory negligence which led to the accident and will further determine whether she was properly acting within the scope of her duty. The standards for these terms under FTCA are the standards as they exist within Washington state law. Not only are the Gamache's being given legal recourse, but it is taking place in the ``neutral'' federal court which the Senator wants to direct all cases coming from Indian reservations. Perhaps this is a good example of the dangers of making law based on anecdotal situations, particularly when the facts have not been properly brought to light.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would be happy to enter into a time agreement after the Durbin amendment is disposed of. I would need a half-hour of time. I do not know what the opponents would need.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. I rise in support today of the pending Gorton-Murray amendment. I think, as we are all aware, President Clinton recently signed into law legislation that really calls for the largest expansion of children's health care since the creation of Medicaid in 1965. I worked very hard on this initiative with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Rockefeller. I was really thrilled to be a part of this historic effort to provide real health care security to the most precious and vulnerable children in our Nation. I think that is an accomplishment of which we can all be very proud, and it will not only provide health care security for our children but economic security and peace of mind for millions of hard- working parents as well. I know the benefits of expanding health care benefits for children because my home State of Washington took a similar step back in 1994. The State took the lead because it was concerned about the future of its children and it was expecting us to enact a comprehensive national health security act for Americans at that time. The State of Washington wanted to be sure that our children were the first priority in any health care security efforts, and I applauded the action by the State and am pleased to report that all children through the age of 18 in Washington State who live in families up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level are covered. The State did not have to take that step and expanded their Medicaid program beyond any Federal mandatory level. As a result of that action, 427,000 children are now guaranteed access to quality, affordable health care. This is a fact that I take a great deal of pride in, and I know that our public health system has benefited. In the last Congress, when I started working to expand health care insurance for 10 million children, I was assured that any expansion would benefit all States and that those States that had expanded their programs up to 200 percent of poverty would not be treated differently. I had seen the success in my State and seen the benefits of providing comprehensive health care to uninsured children. As a result, I worked hard to fight for nationwide expansion. During negotiations, I worked with several other Members to ensure that the amount of funding for children's health care was increased. I supported efforts in the Chamber to fund this expansion at $24 billion, providing the greatest amount of resources available that will ensure the greatest number of children are insured. The final budget reconciliation legislation was a major victory for children and families in this country, but unfortunately my State of Washington will not benefit to the degree I had hoped. My State and others that made the commitment to their children previously and provided coverage up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level will not be able to access the $24 billion that was provided for in this bill. The State will have to expand their current program by 50 percent in order to access any of those new funds. I am hopeful that the State will act to cover more children, if the resources are available at our State level, but in the immediate future Washington State will not be able to provide additional coverage, meaning that the intent of the legislation to cover more uninsured children will not be met in my State. We have made great strides in covering uninsured children, but we still have over 300,000 children who have no health insurance. We should be making every effort to encourage our States to expand the number of children covered, not discourage them from doing so. The Gorton amendment would only allow States that have covered children up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level to access the children's health block grant money to cover children from 133 percent to 200 percent of the poverty level, meaning that States could access these funds for new children that are not currently required to be covered. Again, this would apply only to new children as of October 1, 1997. Any child currently enrolled up to 200 percent would remain in the Medicaid Program. We are simply trying to treat new children in Washington State the same as they will be treated in Idaho or Montana or any other State. A new ensured child is a new ensured child regardless of which State they live in. I have heard some of the concerns about this amendment and the impact that it could have on States that are currently at 200 percent. Let me assure my colleagues that, unfortunately, there are not many at this level. I have also heard about the substitution effect. Included in this amendment is a requirement that the State must certify that the child has not been insured in the past. We are only talking about an insured child as of October 1 of this year. Finally, this amendment only applies to those new children that the State made the decision to cover, the optional children. Those below the 133 percent will not be included for any match purposes. My colleagues should also keep in mind that there is already strong maintenance-of-effort requirements in the act which apply to the States as well. I listened to my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Rockefeller. I understand their concerns and I want to remind them that we all share the same goal. I hope we can continue to work on this so that the children in my State are treated as equally as other children across the Nation regarding that $24 billion. Our Governor has told us he needs this amendment to look forward to ensuring new children. I hope we can continue to work together to make sure that happens for the children of Washington State as well as the rest of this country. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Gorton. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send two amendments to the desk, one on behalf of myself and Senator Wellstone regarding family violence option under the temporary assistance to needy families program and another regarding funding for the National Institute for Literacy.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be set aside for consideration at a later point.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and I send two amendments to the desk.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center recently marked the end of an era with the retirement of its visionary president and director, Dr. Robert W. Day. In 1981, Dr. Day took over leadership of the center from its founding director, Dr. Bill Hutchinson. It was a time of painful transition for the young research facility. In Dr. Day, the center had a new leader who possessed the administrative skills, broad scientific perspective, ambitious vision and fiery passion needed to guide the center through this critical period. During Dr. Day's 16 year tenure, the center transformed from a local medical facility to one of the world's most respected cancer research facilities. There are many legacies of Dr. Day's remarkable leadership. Perhaps the most visible is the magnificent South Lake Union research facility. Other prominent reminders are the many biotechnology firms that have been spawned by research conducted at the Hutchinson Center. Among Dr. Day's most important legacies are his contributions to cancer policy. He is credited with pioneering the integration of public health and cancer research, which had primarily focused on basic and clinical research. He played a key role in launching and expanding the preventive program at the Centers for Disease Control. He is largely responsible for the Hutchinson Center being awarded the Nation's first cancer prevention research unit. Public education was also an important priority for Dr. Day, and he undertook the strengthening of the Cancer Information Service. Because of his tremendous experience, Dr. Day has been widely sought out to fill advisory roles. In addition to his duties at Fred Hutchinson, Dr. Day has served on a number of influential national boards, including the National Cancer Advisory Board, the President's Cancer Advisory Council and countless peer-review committees. He is also a past president of the national Coalition for Cancer Research and of the American Association of Cancer Institutes. Dr. Day has become a much respected figure on Capitol Hill. I appreciate the insight he has given me on legislative matters and his role in educating Members of this body on the issues surrounding cancer research. His influence and respect in the business community has helped to make the business community an important partner in cancer research efforts. Dr. Day is regarded as not only an outstanding administrator and scientist, but as an outstanding human being. There can be no doubt that his passion for fighting cancer comes from the fact that he is a man who genuinely cares about people. Dr. Day's well-deserved retirement will leave him time to devote to other personal interests. However, even in retirement he will continue to lend his considerable talent as a senior adviser to the center. While the war against cancer has yet to be won, thanks to Dr. Day's remarkable efforts, much progress has been made. He has my lasting appreciation for his passionate leadership and his unending faith that one day we will win the battle against this terrible disease. He will continue to be an inspiration to those who seek to make his vision a reality.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement. This compact will help our States throughout the Northwest respond more quickly and efficiently to wildfires. Senators Craig, Wyden, Murkowski, Kempthorne, Gorton, G. Smith, Baucus, and Burns have joined me as original cosponsors because this compact affects all of our States of Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Idaho, and Montana. It establishes an agreement with the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and the Yukon Territory to mutually aid in prevention, pre-suppression and control of forest fires. Mr. State's Commissioner of Public Lands, Jennifer Belcher, brought this compact to my attention. She explained how for the State of Washington, this means the Department of Natural Resources will have access to the excellent firefighting tools of British Columbia, including helicopters and other aircraft stationed close to the border. This will increase her ability to quickly mobilize forces to suppress wildfires that might otherwise get out of control. The Washington DNR has been fighting wildfires since the early 1900's. According to a DNR Forest Fire Study, in the past 25 years, the department has fought 28,000-plus wildfires involving more than 370,000 acres of Washington forest land. In recent years, firefighting budgets have decreased and the intensity of fires has increased, with the terrible fire season of 1994 breaking the record at 79,000 acres burned in Washington. We need this compact to enable our States to better protect the life and property of our citizens. All eight affected States and provinces have agreed to this compact. However, before the States and Provinces can legally enter this agreement, the U.S. Congress must pass enabling legislation. Congress did so in 1952 with the wildfire compact after which this legislation was patterned, which was signed by five northeastern States and eastern Provinces, and remains in effect today. I urge my colleagues to help us move this compact through the process so our States will be poised to quickly and cost-efficiently suppress dangerous wildfires. I would also like to urge colleagues to support another compact introduced by Senator Craig and cosponsored by all Northwest Senators to help us join forces in cases of natural disasters. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2014, The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997. This legislation represents the second part of the historic balanced budget agreement. As a member of the Budget Committee, I was originally concerned about enacting major tax changes which would jeopardize our deficit reduction progress. I did not want to repeat the mistakes of the 1980's. Back then, Congress did the easy thing in dramatically cutting taxes, but put off the tough decisions on spending cuts. As a result, the National debt increased from $1 to $4 trillion, and we've been digging the country out of that hole ever since. I also had to be sure that, if we did any kind of tax cut, it would be targeted, to working families who desperately need relief and that it was responsible. I had to be sure that it did not add to the deficit and would truly serve as an investment in our economic productivity. After months of working with the White House and Republicans, we have produced a tax relief package that is responsible, targeted, and will provide significant investment in our economy. It does not add to the deficit--we borrow nothing to offset these cuts. The tax relief package includes a $500-per-child tax credit that will go to every family earning less than $110,000 per year. This tax credit alone will be available for approximately 27 million families with 45 million children, with 13 million of these children coming from families with incomes below $30,000 a year. This includes children who's parents are teachers, farmers, factory workers, police officers, and nurses--the real working families of this country. When I first came to the U.S. Senate, I made a commitment to the many small, familyowned businesses and farms in the State, that I would work to reduce the estate tax. I had talked to many people with concerns that their business or farm would have to be sold if they died, rather than being passed on to their children. Because the estate tax is so high, younger generations cannot afford to keep the business or farm in the family. I introduced legislation to reform the inheritance tax last Congress for two simple reasons. First, the current tax code hits my home State of Washington very hard, because we have a very high percentage of family farms, and tree farms in particular, as well as many entrepreneurial small, high tech businesses. Second, the impact of the current structure of the estate tax had to be changed in order to allow family owned businesses to stay family owned. I am pleased the bill included estate tax relief that is similar to my legislation. I am also pleased that included within this tax relief package is the accelerated phase-in of self-employed health insurance deduction from 40 per cent up to 80 percent. This is a major victory for small business, farms, and their families. It will also allow more small business owners to purchase quality health care for their children. I have long argued that small businesses should be given the same tax allowance for health insurance as afforded large corporations. This accelerated phase-in will provide this equity and expand access to health insurance coverage for many children who's parents are self- employed. Perhaps the greatest expense facing many families is that of a college education. I know many middle-class families in Washington State who are struggling to pay for their children's college education. I have also heard from many hard-working adults who cannot afford to upgrade their skills or further their education. We all know the value of investing in the education of our children and investing in our own skills and education. Yet, for many families a college education was becoming unreachable. The tax relief package before us today will give middle-class families that extra help to meet the ever escalating cost of a post secondary education. The legislation calls for a total of $35 billion in education tax credits and incentives. This represents the biggest single investment in the education of our children since 1965. It will give those families who are struggling to pay for a college education the help that they need. As we move in to the next century, it means our children have the skills and education to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Our work force will need to be one of the most technologically advanced in the world in order to maintain our competitive edge and our high standard of living. Investing in today's children is not just an investment in their future, but it is an investment that will maintain our position as a global, economic power. This bill also contains reductions in the capital gains tax. I am pleased that we have been able to craft this part of the bill so that it targets regular, middle-class families. Many middle-class families have been burdened with heavy capital gains when they sold a home or even sold stocks for retirement savings. In addition, the legislation drops the capital gains tax from the 20 percent called for in the bill to 10 percent for joint filers with incomes less than $41,200 who sell or transfer an asset held for at least 18 months. For higher income earners the top rate will be 20 percent for investments held for at least 18 months. Carefully crafted and targeted, a capital gains tax cut will encourage economic expansion and will provide equal relief to the middle class. This legislation meets this test. In 1993 our deficit was close to $300 billion annually. New estimates for 1997 by the Congressional Budget Office indicate that the deficit for this year could be as low as $67 billion. We have far exceeded even my expectations for deficit reduction. The spending plan just adopted by this body will eliminate this deficit by 2002. Now is the time to give working families their share of the deficit reduction dividend. This legislation will guarantee that middle class, working families benefit equally from the economic gains we have seen as a result of the Democratic deficit reduction plan of 1993. I know that this tax relief package and the balanced budget spending plan would not have been possible without a honest, bipartisan approach. While I know that many on the other side do not think that this tax relief package is big enough, any further attempt to cut taxes would have all but wiped out the $223 billion in deficit reduction that we witnessed since 1993. This legislation is fair and equitable, but fiscally responsible as well. For the sake of our grandchildren and continued economic growth, we cannot enact deep tax cuts that force us to only borrow more to pay for these cuts. Balancing the budget must remain our No. 1 goal and priority. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is a good day for regular people. Today, we are putting our differences aside, making smart compromises, and getting the peoples' work done. After 3 years of strife, partisanship, and government shutdowns, I am glad to see that this Congress is finally coming together for the good of the people. As I listen to the debate on the historic balanced budget reconciliation bill, I can't help but remember the first budget that I helped draft as a new Member of the Budget Committee, the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It was a 5-year deficit reduction plan that reduced the deficit from nearly $300 billion in 1993 to about $60 billion for 1997. The 1993 plan had deep spending reductions and ambitious goals for reducing the deficit. But it also contained important new investments in our economy, our work force, and our children. That plan passed without one vote from the other side, which I think is unfortunate. I stood on the floor of the Senate and listened to speech after speech from my colleagues on the other side claiming the plan would force the economy into recession and explode the deficit. I am proud to stand here today and say that the exact opposite happened. Our economy is strong and growing at a steady rate, and the deficit has declined each year since. Balancing the budget is no longer an insurmountable goal. The 1993 plan brought us within reach. A lot of Members had the courage to make the tough calls back then. Some of them are no longer here in the Senate. But the state of the Nation today-- the low deficit and the booming economy--has vindicated the 1993 plan. The Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act before us today finishes the job. We will balance the budget by 2002; we have protected the solvency of the Medicare Program without draconian cuts; we have expanded our investment in education; and we have created a new children's health insurance program to cover an additional 5 million children who have no health security; and we have provided moderate tax relief. This is a balanced and fair plan. The real winners today are our working families; senior citizens; and our children. Not only do they benefit from the largest investment in education since 1965; the largest investment in children's health since 1965; and the fiscal soundness of the Medicare Program, but we all win when we reduce the deficit and balance the budget. We are already seeing the fiscal and economic dividends from reducing the deficit, and this will only continue. Let me say now I was deeply concerned when this legislation originally passed the Senate. So concerned, in fact, that I had to vote no on the Senate bill. The changes in the Medicare Program that were included would have seriously altered the program and threatened the health care security for millions of senior citizens. Immediately following that vote, I began working to ensure that these changes were removed from the final conference agreement. I could not and would not support anything that would result in more individuals being un-insured. Increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 would have only added to the 47 million Americans with no health insurance. The means testing of the part B premium was not just an administrative nightmare, but a short-term solution that would have only forced higher premiums on all seniors regardless of income. The $5 copayment for home health care would have fallen disproportionately on low-income women. Well over two-thirds of women over 65 earn less than $13,000 a year. A $5 copayment for each home health care visit could have added hundreds of dollars a year to the cost of health care for millions of low-income senior citizens. I could not have supported the final agreement if these provisions had remained. Because I was committed to a balanced budget, I knew I had to work hard to ensure that these provisions were dropped. I spoke with the White House, with the conferees, and with many of my colleagues and constituents about this, and I am pleased our hard work paid off. The final agreement slows the growth of Medicare without forcing more seniors into poverty and does not jeopardize the level of care that we have guaranteed to our senior citizens. I know many families in Washington State who are struggling to pay for college or who are worried about the financial burden of a college education for their child. Included in today's agreement are real tax incentives to help families invest in their child's education and to provide relief to today's students who are struggling under a huge burden of debt. As I said earlier, families are the winners today. This agreement will help those families who are struggling to help their child and will keep a college education within reach. In 1993, I worked with many of my colleagues in Congress and with the Clinton administration in an effort to enact comprehensive health care reform that would guarantee health care coverage for all Americans. Lack of affordable, quality health insurance coverage was and still is a major problem for many individuals. Unfortunately, our plan was too ambitious and the American people told us that they wanted smaller, targeted reforms. In 1996 we enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Kennedy/Kassebaum, which expands health care access for workers between jobs and provides protections for those with pre-existing conditions. This legislation was an important step in improving health care access for all Americans. Today's agreement takes another big step by providing $24 billion to improve access to health insurance for the 10\1/2\ million children who lack any direct access to quality, comprehensive health care. This new health insurance program that will improve the quality of life for millions of children and families, is the real crown jewel of this agreement. I have spent a great deal of time and energy pushing for expanded health care coverage for children. I have always considered this to be one of my top priorities and feel some relief today knowing that we have succeeded. In Washington State, we made a similar commitment to our children back in 1993, today's agreement will give us the opportunity to build on this commitment and reach out to more children. While I feel a great sense of accomplishment today, there is one group of individuals who will not be celebrating. Despite the fact that my family violence option clarification amendment was adopted on three separate occasions, the budget conferees chose to once again try and sweep domestic violence under the rug. Victims of domestic violence were forgotten in this agreement. My amendment, adopted three times by the U.S. Senate, would have given States the ability to waive victims of domestic violence from the work requirements and time limitations called for in the new welfare reform law. It was not a secret way to allow women to stay on welfare, as many claim, but rather a way to protect victims of domestic violence and help them get out of poverty. There is no good reason--no excuse whatsoever--why this provision should have been taken out of the agreement. This is perhaps the greatest disappointment for me in this whole process. I am committed to moving this amendment again and again until my colleagues understand how violence and abuse can be life threatening barriers to work. I will keep making my colleagues vote on this amendment until we have succeeded. Those who oppose this amendment need to understand that when they vote ``no'' they will be voting against victims of domestic violence and abuse. Looking back over the past 4 years, I am amazed at the progress we have made on reducing the deficit and yet I know that it was not an easy task. I always believed we could balance the budget and still maintain important investment programs, but it does take a great deal of work and many, many tough decisions. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee I have had to make those decisions and choices. But, I always knew that it could be done. Today's agreement is my proof.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Washington State lost a visionary leader, a passionate advocate, and a remarkable woman with the passing of Jerline Ware. As a citizen activist and as a public servant, Jeri Ware worked tirelessly for social justice and to ensure a brighter future for our community's children. Jeri Ware may best be remembered as the chairwoman of the Seattle Human Rights Commission. This position gave her the opportunity to do in an official capacity what she had done her entire life: fight against discrimination and for equality and human rights. She never gave up believing in a just society and never shied away from speaking out for those who had been wronged. Just last December, the Seattle Human Rights Commission honored Jeri for her tireless commitment and dedication. Jeri's other passion was our community's young people. She recognized that the future well-being of our community depended on our having a shared sense of responsibility for all our children and giving them the best possible start in life. She put this conviction into action by working in the tutorial program at the University of Washington and as a parent coordinator at Seattle's Leschi School. We will miss not only Jeri Ware the activist and community leader, but also Jeri Ware the friend. She was a woman who was always willing to open her heart and home. Jeri leaves her husband of 49 years, John, sons Anthony Muhammed and John Ware, daughters Joan Ware and Falicia Green, six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren; to whom our thoughts go out. Jeri Ware's passing at the all-too-young age of 73 leaves a great void. However, her courage, commitment and unending faith in a just society will continue to be an inspiration to all those who share her vision.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the appropriation measure before us includes $363 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service. In addition, the Committee recommendation allows for the administration's proposed increased of 58 full-time equivalents [FTE's] for the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. The Committee directs the NMFS to use as many available FTE's as are needed to ensure the full and timely implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized in the 104th Congress after a long and difficult process of negotiation and compromise. It includes many new provisions to improve the conservation and management of this Nation's fishery resources. I appreciate the tremendous task the NMFS faces in fully implementing all of the new provisions and requirements we placed on the NMFS and share the committee's desire to see adequate FTE's allocated to this important task. I am also concerned, however, about the very real need for FTE's to implement the requirements of the Endangered Species Act [ESA], particularly in the Pacific Northwest. With several salmon species already listed under the ESA and an elaborate recovery plant currently being implemented with a critical decision point rapidly approaching, with habitat conservation plans being negotiated with public utility districts in central Washington, and additional ESA listings likely coming in the future, the NMFS is in desperate need of both resources and personnel to meet its obligations. I appreciate the committee's willingness to fund NMFS efforts in these areas at or above the President's requested levels. These funds will go along way toward salmon recovery efforts throughout the entire Pacific coast. I would like to emphasize the need for adequate FTE's to be provided to this important effort. While the committee has correctly directed FTE's to the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, this allocation should not come at the expense of the agency's ability to undertake salmon recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Both of these responsibilities of the NMFS are vitally important to Washington State and the Pacific Northwest. I urge the NMFS to meet the real need for FTE's in both of these areas.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd resolution. I will vote for this resolution, first, because the concerns of American workers and industry must be considered in any treaty into which this country enters. This resolution unequivocally sends that message. Second, it should be without dispute that developing nations must control their emissions if we are to reduce greenhouse gas. This resolution strengthens our bargaining position to ensure real, attainable standards are established for developing countries, too. I want to make it clear, however, that I support a negotiated global warming treaty. I believe science and common sense mandate that we work to reduce emissions and increase forest conservation to offset emissions. Regarding the developed-developing nation debate, I believe it is also clear that we developed nations have historically emitted more greenhouse gases per capita than have developing countries. In addition, we are economically more able to absorb whatever increased costs occur based on the need to reduce emissions. Therefore, we should assist our neighbors through technology transfer, economic assistance, and joint ventures in meeting whatever emissions goals are established. I offer my strong support to the administration as it continues negotiations to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide. I thank Senator Byrd for strengthening the American bargaining position with this resolution.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee for their support and interest.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Feinstein amendment. We simply should not--must not--divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on an appropriations bill. It is an irresponsible way to proceed with such a fundamentally important question about how we best administer justice in the West. I want to remind my colleagues that this body, the Senate, in the 104th Congress twice approved a study commission bill. In June, the House of Representatives sent us a bill, H.R. 908, establishing a similar commission. That bill is waiting at the desk for our action. House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde has voiced his dismay at this end run around his authorizing committee. Tuesday he wrote to Chairman Hatch, saying: ``As you well know, altering the structure of the Federal judicial system is a serious matter. It is something that Congress does rarely, and only after careful consideration.'' Mr. President, I am not necessarily opposed to a split of the ninth circuit, but I am adamantly opposed to an appropriation's rider mandating such a gerrymandered split. As Chairman Hyde suggested, we need judicial experts thoroughly analyzing the courts and advising us on what makes sense from a national perspective. With so many of those who work directly in the ninth circuit opposed to this split, it seems clear we need guidance before we act. The White House opposes this split, the majority of judges on the ninth circuit oppose this split, and the majority of bar associations of the affected States oppose this split. Simply put, this is not the right way to proceed. We need answers to some important questions first. How much will this cost? Should we create a virtual one-state court? Should Arizona become a part of the tenth circuit? Where should we place a new circuit's courthouse? How many judges should serve in each circuit and from which States should they come? Should we break the ninth circuit into three circuits? How will our Pacific maritime law be affected? Before I participate in breaking up an institution that is more than 100 years old, I want those--and many more questions--answered. Mr. President, I also have another concern. I find it interesting that supporters of this rider so often refer to the pace at which the ninth circuit does its business. Yet, these same Senators have done little or nothing to fill the many vacancies plaguing the ninth circuit. An outstanding member of the Washington State legal community, Margaret McKeown, has been languishing for nearly 2 years in this body. She has yet to receive a hearing. This is unconscionable and this has real impact on the administration of justice. To make the ninth circuit--or any circuit--work, we must have judges. Let's get the confirmation process moving, and that will stop the glacial pace that people are concerned about. Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that we have passed almost every fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill without contentious riders. We should have learned from the disaster relief bill what can happen when these riders dominate the process. I believe we should maintain the bipartisan approach we've used so far and avoid letting this important bill get bogged down with riders. Let's do our appropriations job right and let's do the very serious job of reconfiguring the judiciary right. I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment establishing a commission to guide the Congress on how best to resolve any real or perceived difficulties in the administration of justice in the ninth circuit. I yield my time back to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to urge the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce, State Justice Appropriations Subcommittee to join me in directing the National Marine Fisheries Service, through the Information and Analyses, Resource Information account, to provide $250,000 to the Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center in Seattle, WA. The Odyssey Center is a new educational learning center opening in July, 1998. This Center will establish an educational link between the everyday maritime, fishing, trade, and environmental activities that occur in the waters of Puget Sound and Alaska, and the lessons students learn in the classroom. Through high-tech and interactive exhibits, over 300,000 children and adults per year will discover that what happens in our waters, on our coast lines, at our ports affects our State's and Nation's economic livelihood, environmental well-being, and international competitiveness. The Center wishes to establish an exhibits and lecture series to link the public, particularly school children, with the maritime, fishing, trade, and environmental industries. Named in honor of the great Senator of Washington, Warren G. Magnuson, this series would begin in 1998 and would serve as an educational resource on the sustainable development, uses, and protection of our seas and coastal waters. This series would provide a fitting tribute to Senator Magnuson, the founder of this Nation's Federal fisheries policies and the namesake of our principal fisheries management law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I have come this morning to join my colleagues in talking about the issue of tax fairness that this Congress is now working toward in the conference committee between the Senate and House, working with the White House, to move us toward the final parts of the budget reconciliation and tax package. First of all, I want to say it is really incredible to me that I stand here today in the summer of 1997 talking about a tax cut. When I came to the Senate, back in 1992, I came at a time when we had a $300 billion deficit. And I remember campaigning back in that year, when Ross Perot was running around the country showing us his charts of the exploding deficit, and for all of us who were elected in that year and since that time our No. 1 goal has been to come here to balance the budget. As one of those people who came here in 1992, with a $300 billion deficit, I have continually told my constituents, the families that I represent, the people that I work for, that my No. 1 goal here is to get to a balanced budget, and that although I agree that tax cuts are a good thing to have, that we need to do it in a rational way and we should not do it until we get to a balanced budget. I remember back in 1993, when we passed our first budget here, it was a budget that we all remember well, that passed by one vote here in the Senate, that began us on the road today to where we are now in the summer of 1997 able to talk about a tax cut because we made a tough decision 4 years ago to work us toward that balanced budget. We now have a deficit that is less than $70 billion. And in fact, some predict that without Congress doing anything, we will be at a balanced budget within a year because of the tough votes that we have taken over the last 5 years. Because of the Members here who were willing to say no to many of the special interests who came to us and wanted more and more, we were able to say no. And we have worked very, very hard to get ourselves to this point. Having said that, I am a member of the Budget Committee. I have worked very hard since the beginning of this year to put together the budget reconciliation package, to work with my fellow members on the Budget Committee, to work with the White House, to work through the conference, to get to the point of having a balanced budget to present to this country. As part of that agreement, we do have a tax cut package. Because I have worked hard on that, because I am committed to the reconciliation package that the Budget Committee agreed to, I did vote for the tax cut package that came out of the Senate. That tax cut is now being debated by the conference committee again between the Senate and the House and the President, the White House, and I think the most important thing we can do at this point as we work to the final negotiation of this package is make sure we do the right thing for this country. When I fly home to my State of Washington 2,500 miles away from here, every weekend I spend time attending town hall meetings, going around to small communities in my State. Where I get the best input is when I go to the grocery store on Sunday afternoons with my family and people walk up to me and talk to me about what they are hearing about what is happening in Congress. Time and time again I have young people coming to me--a young teacher this past Sunday, a policeman, a young family-- and their question is the same as every other American: What am I going to get out of the tax cut? What will I get? I hear the Members of this Senate and this body asking the same question as well: What am I going to get out of this tax cut? I think the important question is not what am I going to get out of this tax cut, but what will this tax cut do to strengthen the America that we all worked so hard here for, and what can we do so that 10, 15, 20 years from now we are not having another Ross Perot run around the country with charts and graphs showing a deficit that is out of control. As I talk to my constituents around my State, what I hear most often is that if we invest in our young people, invest in our children, we will do the right thing for the country's future. When I look at this tax package, those are the questions I ask. Are we doing the right thing so that young children, as they grow up and get out and start their own families, have the money they need to make sure that their children get a good education, that they have access to health care, that they are able to send their children to college. That is how we are going to make our country strong. So when I look at this tax package that we are now debating, I see that the President's tax package will actually do the most for those young families, for that young teacher, for that young policeman, for that young law clerk, for that family that is just starting out, for those families who are earning less than $30,000 or $40,000 a year. That is why I believe so strongly that the refundable tax credit has to be part of this package. I see my colleague on the floor, Senator Landrieu, who is new here, from Louisiana, who has worked very hard to ensure that the tax cut is refundable. Yet, I hear this being debated, I hear it characterized as the people who are on earned income tax credit, those who are earning less than $25,000 or $30,000 a year, if we give them a tax credit, it is giving tax credits to people who are on welfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are working families. They go to work every day. They are struggling to make ends meet. They are paying for day care. They are working to make sure they have nutritious food on the table. They are trying to save a few dollars for their children to go on to higher education so they can contribute to our economy. Those are the people we need to help. Those are the people that the President's tax cut really goes to, and that is what we have an obligation as a Senate and a Congress today to make sure that we take care of in the future. We will do the wrong thing if we pass a tax cut that merely inflates the income of those at the top, that gives away tax dollars to people who are already able to send their children to college, who are already able to take vacations in exotic places, who are already able to ensure that their family has a good home and a safe neighborhood to live in. We will do the right thing if we make sure that the tax cuts we pass help those young families who are struggling today, because if we lift them up and make sure that their children are healthy and well-educated and secure and that they have a good quality of life, then this country will be stronger in the future. I urge my colleagues to step back from this big debate about who is going to benefit and how the tax package will be put together, and say, what do I want this country to look like 10, 15, 20 years from now? Do I want to see it strong? Do I want to see a lot of young people with hope in their eyes who know they will be able to go to college? Do I want to see young families who are saying, I can save enough to buy a home and feel secure? Do I want to see a country where children have the nutrition that they need, that have the health care that they need? If that is the country we want, we will ensure that we move toward the President's tax cut, that we have a refundable tax credit in here, that we put our tax cuts where they will make the most difference. That is why I support the President's tax cut plan and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to once again join my colleague from Vermont, Senator James Jeffords, in introducing the James P. Grant World Summit for Children Implementation Act. I particularly want to pay tribute to Senator Jeffords for his continuing leadership in the effort to aid all children. The World Summit for Children Implementation Act is our effort to ensure that the United States implements the plan of action adopted at the 1990 United Nations World Summit for Children. Our legislation proposes a series of life-saving, cost-effective programs to protect the health and well-being of children worldwide. Importantly, while this legislation proposes several increases in individual foreign assistance programs, it does not call for an increase in overall foreign aid levels. Specifically, the Jeffords-Murray bill increases funding allocations for child survival, basic education, vitamin A and other micronutrients, UNICEF, AIDS prevention and care, refugee assistance, and family planning. Our bill also calls for an increase in funding for two important domestic programs: WIC and Head Start. The world's children have a right to adequate nutrition, full immunization, a decent education, and health care. The United States has traditionally led the way in promoting the well-being of children. Because the nations of the world are more interdependent than ever before, the well-being of children around the globe affects us here in the United States. Children are not just the foundation of our society and our future; they are truly the foundation of the future of the world. According to UNICEF, more than 33,000 children die each and every day; most from easily preventable diseases. The under 5 mortality rate for children in the least developed countries is 20 times greater than that of the United States and other industrialized nations. More than 2 million children under age 5 die each year from vaccine preventable diseases like diphtheria, measles, pertussis, polio, tuberculosis, and tetanus. Diarrhoeal diseases, often caused by a total lack of clean sanitation facilities and clean water, kill an additional 3 million children per year. And for every child that dies, several more live on with stunted growth, ill health, and diminished potential. The world's political leadership can ill-afford to ignore these statistics. These are just the mortality statistics for young children. Equally disturbing figures are available regarding access to education, the treatment of young girls, nutrition, and child labor. Clearly, our work on behalf of children is far from completed. While we have much to celebrate, we have much more to do. And I am delighted to be joining Senator Jeffords to unequivocally state our belief that the United States must continue to champion the future health, education, and economic well-being of children everywhere. Importantly, to reach children, we must reach out to the world's women including young mothers, family providers, and elders. Women are often overlooked in tradition development programs. Fortunately, the World Summit for Children recognized to improve the lot of children, the status of women also had to improve. For example, recognizing the important link between child survival and family planning, the World Summit for Children called for universal access to family planning education and services by the end of this decade. Family planning saves the lives of both women and children. We know that babies born in quick succession to a mother whose body has not yet recovered from a previous birth are the least likely to survive. Increasing funds in this area has been a top priority for me in my work in the Senate, and is addressed positively in the legislation we are introducing today. Basic education is another important component of this legislation. Of the 143 million children in the developing world not attending school, 56 percent are girls. Of the world's 900 million illiterate adults, nearly two thirds are women. World Bank studies have estimated that each additional year of education for a young girl results in a 10-percent decrease in birth rates and child death rates, and a 10 to 20 percent increase in wages earned. Foreign aid is never a popular item. I applaud Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for her advocacy work in support of foreign aid and U.S. assistance abroad. And I am pleased that the both bodies of the Congress have voted to provide additional moneys for foreign assistance in fiscal year 1998. In my view, our foreign aid dollars are best spent when we are investing in programs that strengthen families around the globe, and give a special hand to women and children. That is exactly what Senator Jeffords and I propose to do with the James P. Grant World's Summit for Children Implementation Act. I urge my colleagues to review and support this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, it has.