Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I withdraw my previous point of order, but I want this body to know that I object to the language in this bill that essentially makes Hyde permanent and affects those States whose managed care plans now cover medically necessary abortions. Unfortunately, the way the language was cleverly drafted, my point of order would have unintended consequences. I go back to what my colleague from West Virginia said to all of us a few minutes ago. I think as we move toward final passage, I hope we all understand the severe consequences of the many different arenas in this bill. I withdraw my point of order.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I make a point of order that section 1949(a)(2) of this act violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act. Mr. President, as an appropriator, I object to the language included in this legislation by the Finance Committee that would make permanent a prohibition against Medicaid managed care funds being used for abortion services except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is in danger. This is, for all intents and purposes, a permanent extension of the so-called Hyde amendment that has been included in every Labor-HHS and education appropriations bill since 1987. A reconciliation bill is not the proper vehicle for major abortion policy decisions. This is not how Congress has traditionally dealt with such decisions, and this is not how we should begin to deal with such decisions. I know that some of my colleagues disagree----

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today the Budget Committee is scheduled to report out the budget reconciliation spending bill. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for the final vote, but had I been here I would have voted ``aye.'' Several months ago I made a commitment to the graduating class at North Seattle Community College that I would be honored to be their 1997 commencement speaker. This commitment was extremely important to me and the graduating class, I simply could not back out at the last minute. Today's Budget Committee mark up was not finalized until last night. I am extremely troubled by some of the provisions within the reconciliation package as I believe that they violate the bipartisan balanced budget agreement that was recently adopted. I am also disappointed that the committee will not have final legislative language and final CBO numbers on parts of the Finance Committee sections. It is difficult to understand why the leadership is in such a rush to complete action on major changes to Medicare and Medicaid. This rush to bring this bill to the floor does jeopardize our efforts to enact a balanced budget. As we all know the Budget Committee cannot amend the reconciliation legislation. This will be done on the floor next week. At that time I will be supporting amendments that ensure this package is in compliance with the agreement and that it does not violate our commitment to our Nation's senior citizens and our children. We must seize on this unique opportunity to balance the budget, reform Medicare and expand health benefits for children. Unfortunately, as it stands now it does not appear that the current reconciliation language will achieve these goals. Today's action by the Budget Committee is an important step in the process which is why I would have voted to report the measure to the full Senate. This does not mean that the package is one I will support when it reaches the floor. I am simply acting to move us closer to achieving a balanced budget. I am disappointed that this legislation does violate the agreement that we worked so hard to achieve. But, I am hopeful that significant improvements will be made on the floor and that we can sent to the President a bill that he can sign.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to recognize Bellevue Police Department Officer Bob Oliver for his selection as Washington State D.A.R.E. Officer of the Year. Our children are our greatest resource and our future prosperity depends on them becoming contributing members of the community. Giving them the skills to success is no easy task, yet it is our responsibility as adults to ensure that our children have the best chance possible to succeed. The D.A.R.E. Program gives them that chance. D.A.R.E. equips each participant with the skills to just say no to peer pressure when confronted with the temptation to use drugs. It reinforces the importance of self-esteem and the consequences of one's actions, lessons which will help the children confront problems of any sort their entire lives. Through his active participation in the D.A.R.E. Program, Officer Oliver has demonstrated his special commitment to these children. As a police officer, Officer Oliver has dedicated his career to making his community a safer place to live. Through his participation in the D.A.R.E. Program and with his focus on prevention, his work not only makes a difference today, but will have a lasting impact. Some take measure of a good police officer by the numbers of arrests made or traffic violations ticketed. Officer Oliver can measure his success by the many children whose lives he has touched and positively influenced through the D.A.R.E. Program and the high esteem in which he is held in the community. As his family and colleagues gather to recognize him for this achievement, I want to wish him continued success. Officer Bob Oliver is truly an asset to our community, and we all congratulate him on a job well done.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this weekend the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is going to hold a field hearing in Mattawa, WA. We will discuss S. 200, my legislation to designate the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a wild and scenic river. The Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing stretch of this mighty river. Protecting it for future generations is a top priority for me. In 1995, I convened a group of local citizens, and I asked them to help me find the best way to protect this portion of the Columbia River. They unanimously concluded an act of Congress designating the reach as a wild and scenic river, with a recreational classification, would be the best way to preserve this valuable resource. In fact, a poll of registered voters in central Washington done last year indicated that 76 percent favored designation of the Hanford Reach as a wild and scenic river, while only 11 percent opposed it. So the will of the region is clear: The reach needs the best protection we can give it to make sure it remains accessible to everyone. Protecting the Hanford Reach is not about local versus Federal control. It is about giving a natural treasure the best possible protection that we can. And it is also about promoting jobs in the long term and protecting our heritage. What does the designation do? First, it puts central Washington on the map as a home to a resource found nowhere else on Earth--a river unique and important enough to become part of the U.S. national wild and scenic river system. Second, it protects the river in its current condition. It allows all of the existing uses to continue, but ensures the river stays forever the way we see it today. In fact, my bill specifically grandfathers in current uses protecting existing economic interests and enhancing the river's future economic value to our region. There is much more at stake here than who manages the river. This issue is much bigger than that. We all know what problem we have with protecting salmon. ESA listings have been made for the Snake River and are being considered for the Columbia. If we ever want to get ahead of the salmon problem, we have to start by protecting the reach. My bill gives us a cheap and easy way to do just that. It simply transfers Federal property from one agency to another; no private lands need to be acquired or jeopardized. Let me reiterate, we simply can't afford to take chances with the one part of the river that works well--and inexpensively--for fish. Compared to drawdowns, dam removal and other suggestions that we have heard for saving salmon, permanent protection of the reach gives ratepayers, river users and irrigators a virtually cost-free way of accomplishing what could be a very expensive recovery effort. We have done a lot of talking about the reach, and I am convinced that we are getting closer. It seems to me when you have a resource that is this important to the State, reasonable people ought to be able to find a way to agree on the best way to protect it. I am committed to bringing people together around that goal and keeping them together until we finish the job. Mr. President, I look forward to hearing the testimony this weekend, and I thank my senior colleague, Senator Gorton, for helping me put this hearing together. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleagues as an original cosponsor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1997. I speak as a strong supporter of this legislation, because I have always believed that every single American deserves fair treatment under the law no matter their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. As one of only a few women to ever serve in the U.S. Senate, and the first ever from Washington State, I understand what it means to be part of a group that seeks fairness and equal opportunity. I have never advocated for any special protection or special class, just equal treatment and protection under the law. Not long ago, many thought it would be impossible for women to serve in the Senate, much less elected office of any kind. It was felt that this was not a suitable occupation for a woman and that by simply being a woman, meant you were incapable of meeting the demands of the job. It was alleged that women would take offense to the unpleasant world of politics and that the presence of women would somehow jeopardize the work done in the U.S. Congress. While these statements may seem impossible to believe today, they do illustrate what many women faced. However, these stereotypes were overcome, and I am confident that none of my colleagues today would deny the tremendous contributions women have made here, in the House, in State and local government, and at every level of public service. People suffer when stereotypes based on fear or ignorance are used to justify discrimination. I do not believe elected leaders serve our country well if they deny any citizen equal opportunities and equal treatment under the law. A person's success or failure must depend on their qualifications, skills, efforts, and even luck. But, no one should be denied opportunities because of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. I am continually disappointed when I hear about cases of economic discrimination based solely on one's sexual orientation. It defies logic that in today's society any employer could refuse to hire an individual, deny them equal pay, or professional advancement and subject them to harassment simply because of their sexual orientation. We have a proud history of ensuring basic civil rights for all Americans. We have enacted landmark legislation that seeks to guarantee equal opportunity, but we have failed to ensure that these protections are extended to all Americans. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act will correct this wrong. As we would all agree, discrimination based on race, gender, ethnic origin, or religion is not just unfair, but illegal as well. ENDA would simply add sexual orientation to this list. It is written even more narrowly than current law, because it does not allow positive corrective actions such as quotas or other preferential treatment. All it says, is a person cannot be treated differently in any decision related to employment, based on their sexuality--whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Mr. President, this is a reasonable expectation and in fact it has been adopted by nine States, many local governments across the country, and many Fortune 500 companies, who recognize that it simply makes good business sense to value each and every one of their employees equally. It is time our laws reflect these values as well. To my colleagues who believe this bill would result in increased litigation, I would ask these questions: Should we then have denied women equal rights, because it would have increased the number of cases in our courts? Should we have allowed segregation to continue because of the threat of litigation? Did the Framers of our Constitution think about caseloads in our courts when they guaranteed religious freedom? My answer to these questions is a strong, clear ``no'', and I am surprised at the arguments against this legislation. They sound hauntingly familiar to the ones we have heard in the past against allowing women, the disabled, religious members, and racial groups equal protection under the law and equal economic opportunity. Mr. President, this is not about one group's protection at another's expense. It is about common sense, common decency and about our fundamental values as Americans. To quote former Senator Barry Goldwater, ``anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this is not about granting special rights, it is about protecting basic rights.'' In the last Congress, we came within one vote of adopting this important, bi-partisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this measure so that we can continue our proud tradition of protecting basic civil rights and opportunity for all Americans. If we do not pass this bill, our sisters and brothers, sons and daughters will remain vulnerable to discrimination. We can do better than that.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution, which puts us on a path to a balanced budget by the year 2002. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am proud to have been a part of the process that created this agreement. While I recognize that it is not perfect and that the real work is still ahead of us, I still believe that it represents a legitimate and fair plan to ensure that we achieve a balanced budget. This agreement builds on the historic and successful deficit reduction package enacted in 1993, which resulted in a real reduction in the Federal deficit. This 1993 package not only brought the deficit down from a high of $290 billion in 1992 to an estimated $70 billion for 1997, but it has achieved real economic growth and expansion. The agreement before us today is another step in making sure that our fiscal house is in order. Developing this agreement was not an easy task, and required some tough choices, but the bipartisan approach succeeded. Throughout the process, significant improvements were made to the original agreement. I believe that some of these improvements are essential to protecting the integrity of the agreement. I am pleased that most of these improvements remained in agreement throughout the conference process. One of these improvements is an amendment that I offered to ensure that in meeting the deficit reduction target for Medicaid, the authorizing committees will not look to a per-capita cap as a mechanism for savings or for controlling future spending. I believe that this was an important message to send; a per-capita cap is not an acceptable mechanism for controlling Medicaid costs and could seriously jeopardize the quality of care for millions of children, senior citizens, and the disabled. Along these same lines, I was pleased to join with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, in support of an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate, that any changes in the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments not jeopardize the ability of hospitals, especially children's hospitals to serve the most neediest and the most vulnerable. We have to be absolutely sure that the numbers do not drive the policy. If savings can be achieved through reforming DSH without jeopardizing access to quality health care for the most needy than these policy changes should be considered. But, if the motive is simply a number and develop the policy around the cut, than this is unacceptable. Working with my good friend from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, we were successful in including the family violence option amendment to the Senate resolution. This amendment simply recognizes the need to properly clarify the ability of the States to include a family violence option as part of their welfare reform plans without facing any penalty. During Senate debate on welfare reform in the 104th Congress, Senator Wellstone and I included this option as guidance to the States. Unfortunately, there is now some dispute as to congressional intent. The family violence option amendment that Mr. Wellstone and I offered to the budget resolution is intended to address this confusion. The amendment is simple: It allows the States to waive work or training requirements for victims of domestic violence and abuse without being forced to count these individuals as part of the 20 percent hardship exemption. Proper implementation of a family violence option guarantees that women who have been victims of domestic violence or abuse do not become victims of welfare reform. Placing barriers to welfare simply means that these women and their children are trapped in a violent and in some cases, life threatening environment. For many, welfare is the only way to escape the violence. While I believe that this agreement is a major step forward, I am deeply concerned that efforts already underway would ignore the agreement. In developing the reconciliation bills, we must adhere to the goals and principles of this agreement. I am hopeful that there will be no effort to ignore the policy assumptions in this agreement. We must also be absolutely sure that any tax cut proposal is fiscally sound and does not explode the deficit. Not only would this be unethical, but it would be economically foolish. I want to thank both Chairman Domenici and Senator Lautenberg for their efforts in bringing this conference report together and for working with me to improve the final agreement. children's health initiative

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Minnesota is correct that during the debate on this bill I have talked consistently about the fact that women do want flexibility in the workplace in order to make sure they can take care of their children when they need to. The concerns we have continuously raised about the bill we are debating is who decides when that woman or man, father or mother, gets to take that time--whether the employer decides or they do. When it is your child's conference time at school, your employer cannot say, or probably will not say to you, ``You can take your conference time next week.'' You need to go to them as an employee and say, ``My child's conference is next Thursday at 10 o'clock. I need to take an hour to go visit with my child's teacher.'' Let me ask the Senator from Minnesota, the option that I am offering that allows 24 hours off a year for parents to participate with their child, in your opinion, would that give employees the ability to have some control over their time and their ability to participate with their families?

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a topic which significantly affects every citizen in America. An issue that has consequences for every child and parent, and tremendous bearing on our Nation's economic status and welfare--early childhood development. Recent research has proven that an infant's brain initially holds approximately 100 billion neurons. However, without the proper care, nurturing, love, stimulation, and involvement of adults--which most of us were lucky enough to receive--these neurons will not make connections essential for healthy development. The amount of brain development which occurs between the ages of zero and 3 has enormous consequences later in a child's life. Children who are rarely touched develop brains 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age. The 2-year-old girl whose mother is too preoccupied with her job to provide the proper care will not be as likely to develop to her potential. This child might feel deprived and angry. The good news is that if parents are given up-to-date information on how to promote brain development, they will be able to raise healthy children. The result will be more productive young adults. Clearly, we must do something as a nation to provide help when help is needed. The most practical, ethical, and cost-effective way to solve such problems as a nation is to increase funding for early childhood development. Mr. President, a person's brain develops the most rapidly between the ages of zero and 3, by 350 percent. Ironically, we spend the least amount of Federal money on children during this period, only 20 percent of the public expenditures from which they will benefit prior to adulthood. Between the ages of 3 and 18, however, while the brain develops by another 50 percent, public spending on children increases by 800 percent. We need to change this discrepancy. Parents need more and better information about how to best care for their infants. They need the tools to provide this care most easily. With greater attention to early childhood development, we will spend less money on children later in their lives. National studies have found increased violence and crime among youth when they do not receive adequate developmental care as young children. Furthermore, greater attention to early childhood development will help children avoid falling through the cracks. It will help them succeed. They will make important contributions to our country--instead of possibly ending up in jail, institutions, or on welfare. The Early Childhood Development Act makes investments now that will benefit our society later by saving money, keeping us competitive, and preventing needless suffering. I personally know that this is a worthwhile investment. As a preschool teacher 15 years ago, I saw children in need of nurturing. For some children, I was their only source of such care. I knew that my assistance was helping these 2- and 3-year-olds to lead productive adult lives. As a parent educator, I had information to give parents the tools they needed to provide the best possible environment for their children. All parents have something to gain from learning these skills--we just need to make the tools available to everybody. Senator Kerry's early childhood development amendment puts us on the road toward this goal. The amendment gives grants to States to establish State Early Learning Coordinating Boards. These boards give grant funds to community projects for child care improvement, including parent education and involvement in schools. The amendment establishes forgiveable loans for child care workers, who earn a degree in early childhood development and agree to work in early childhood development for 2 years. This will not only increase general awareness for early child care, but it will empower individuals to access quality care. This amendment also expands currently successful programs. The Family and Medical Leave Act is expanded to grant parents time to become involved with school. Early Head Start will also have increased funding, which will improve health and nutrition services for low- income infants and toddlers. In addition, this amendment will fully fund WIC, ensuring that every mother has adequate nutrition--and a healthy baby. This will save taxpayers tremendous amounts of money in health care expenditures avoided. A child learns more from its experiences in the first 3 years of life than at any other time, and the dollars we invest in early childhood now save billions later in welfare, emergency room, and court costs. I have seen a tremendous amount of commitment to children, by many caring adults, in my own experiences teaching preschool. But in order to make a real difference, we need a widespread sense of commitment to improve early childhood development services everywhere. We need a national strategy for informing parents, so they can send their children to the right child care providers, and take an active role in their development. This amendment is a catalyst for all of these desperately-needed improvements. As policymakers, we must encourage and allow America's children to grow into healthy adults. We need to positively influence the lives of young people right now. Let us change the message we are sending to children, by investing in their futures. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Missouri in offering this amendment. I have been extremely concerned about the impact of a $14 billion reduction in the disproportionate share hospital payments. The Bond/Murray amendment sends a strong message to the authorizers that the health care needs of low-income pregnant women and children remain a priority in developing any DSH reform legislation. I am not opposed to reforming the program to ensure that payments are being targeted to those most in need, but we cannot allow reform efforts to threaten the delivery of care to our most vulnerable populations. Massive changes in DSH implemented in order to be a deficit reduction target could jeopardize the ability of many hospitals, especially children's hospitals to serve low-income children, pregnant women, and the disabled. For many hospitals, DSH payments are the difference between solvency and bankruptcy. As we all know, few States would be in a position to off set the loss of Federal DSH payments. Meaning that hospitals would have little choice but to eliminate or reduce services for the most vulnerable in our society. Without the flexibility of DSH, States cannot hope to expand Medicaid coverage for uninsured children or pregnant women. In addition, any efforts to expand Medicaid for HIV positive individuals in order to prevent the onset of full blown AIDS, could be impossible. I am hopeful that the authorizers will carefully craft a reform proposal drive by policy, not just numbers. DSH is too important to allow simple numbers to be the guiding influence. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to send an important message that DSH reform should not result in the loss of health care coverage for children, the disabled and low income pregnant women. We need to use extreme caution to prevent any further eroding of health security for these vulnerable populations. I thank Senator Bond for his efforts in bringing this amendment to the floor and I look forward to working with the authorizing committee in developing a fair and equitable DSH reform legislation. Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Bond's resolution, the sense of the Senate regarding the protection of children's health. While I believe that our children will be best served by a balanced budget, we also must ensure that this agreement sends a strong message that we must preserve the access of low-income children to quality health care. May children's hospitals are designated as disproportionate share hospitals or DSH hospitals because they serve a disproportionate share of low-income children. DSH payments make a vital difference in the ability of hospitals to serve this population. They are a critical part of the health care safety net for vulnerable children. For example, two of the largest children's hospitals in Ohio have informed me that approximately 40 percent of the children they serve are covered by Medicaid. Without the additional DSH payments, the ability of these hospitals to serve low-income children would be seriously impaired. DSH payments are even more important to independent children's teaching hospitals that do not receive Medicare support for graduate medical education, known as DSH dollars. In fact, I'm working on a letter to the Finance Committee about this GME inequity now. But my point here is that if DSH funds are cut from children's hospitals--that already are not receiving dsh funds--then these hospitals will find it very difficult to provide quality care for poor children. Although we must balance the Federal budget, we also want this balanced budget to make children's health and well-being a top priority. Senator Bond's resolution is consistent with that message. It recognizes how important a balanced budget is, and it recognizes that some changes in DSH payments may well be necessary. But, it also recognizes how important--within such a budget--DSH is to children's health. I strongly support the Bond resolution.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will only take 30 seconds.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation of importance to the economy and quality of life in my home State of Washington. The measure I am introducing will help maintain the competitiveness of an industry that makes vital contributions to our State and this Nation. One of my top priorities here in the U.S. Senate is to support policies that promote economic growth for people in Washington State and across the country. To me, this means preserving current jobs and creating new jobs in all sectors of our economy. The K2 Corp., located on Vashon Island in Washington State, makes an important contribution toward achieving this goal. As the last remaining major U.S. manufacturer of skis and just one of three major snowboard makers in this country, K2 employs more than 700 people at its Vashon Island facility. The products made by K2 represent a substantial percentage of the American skis and snowboards sold around the world. Maintaining the competitiveness of K2 helps ensure the United States remains a player in the global ski market. To the extent possible, K2 purchases materials used in the manufacture of skis and snowboards from companies based in Washington State and other regions of our country. However, K2 is unable to find a domestic source that meets its requirements for two key raw materials-- steel edges and polyethylene base material. As a result, K2 must purchase these two commodities abroad and pay customs duties on the imported products. This forces K2 to spend more for these materials, thus diverting resources that could be used to expand business and develop new technologies. My legislation seeks to make these resources available to K2 suspending U.S. customs duty on imports of these two raw materials-- steel edges and polyethylene base material. It helps ensure K2 and America continue to have a role in the international ski industry. Together, these materials comprise a very small portion of all the materials used to produce skis. However, without the ability to acquire them at a reasonable cost, K2's ability to compete on an international scale would be adversely affected. K2 strives to continue as a key player in the increasingly competitive international ski and snowboard market. This duty suspension legislation will help enable K2 to compete and to continue supporting our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which strengthens the U.S. ski and snowboard industry and supports American jobs.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation of importance to the economy and quality of life in my home State of Washington. The measure I am introducing will help maintain the competitiveness of an industry that makes vital contributions to our State and this Nation. One of my top priorities here in the U.S. Senate is to support policies that promote economic growth for people in Washington State and across the country. To me, this means preserving current jobs and creating new jobs in all sectors of our economy. The K2 Corp., located on Vashon Island in Washington State, makes an important contribution toward achieving this goal. As the last remaining major U.S. manufacturer of skis and just one of three major snowboard makers in this country, K2 employs more than 700 people at its Vashon Island facility. The products made by K2 represent a substantial percentage of the American skis and snowboards sold around the world. Maintaining the competitiveness of K2 helps ensure the United States remains a player in the global ski market. To the extent possible, K2 purchases materials used in the manufacture of skis and snowboards from companies based in Washington State and other regions of our country. However, K2 is unable to find a domestic source that meets its requirements for two key raw materials-- steel edges and polyethylene base material. As a result, K2 must purchase these two commodities abroad and pay customs duties on the imported products. This forces K2 to spend more for these materials, thus diverting resources that could be used to expand business and develop new technologies. My legislation seeks to make these resources available to K2 suspending U.S. customs duty on imports of these two raw materials-- steel edges and polyethylene base material. It helps ensure K2 and America continue to have a role in the international ski industry. Together, these materials comprise a very small portion of all the materials used to produce skis. However, without the ability to acquire them at a reasonable cost, K2's ability to compete on an international scale would be adversely affected. K2 strives to continue as a key player in the increasingly competitive international ski and snowboard market. This duty suspension legislation will help enable K2 to compete and to continue supporting our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which strengthens the U.S. ski and snowboard industry and supports American jobs.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun. I want to thank her for her tireless efforts to educate the Senate and the American people about the tremendous problems in our nation's school facilities. People talk about the role of the Federal Government in local school policy. By championing this issue, Senator Moseley-Braun has pointed out quite accurately that the Federal Government does have a role in K- 12 education in this country. That role is not in passing down curriculum or trying to tell teachers how to teach. The role is guaranteeing certain minimum standards for health, safety, and quality--and that is what this proposal is all about. There are schools in our Nation that are rundown, have falling plaster or open holes in floors or ceilings, schools with water leaks or no air-conditioning in hot climates. There are schools, like Lewis and Clark High School in Spokane, WA, an 85-year-old urban high school, that are badly in need of improvements. There are school districts in places like the small town of Raymond, WA, which the General Accounting Office has previously identified as needing help with school construction funding--which cannot renovate all their schools due to local economic factors. This amendment could have as much as a $40 million cumulative impact on my State. This amendment is absolutely critical to the students, parents, and families in our country who think education is of primary national priority. How can we say that we truly care about public education, when our school rooms smell of mildew, or are far too cold or hot or crowded? How can we say that we care about students learning that all Americans are equal under law, if their track meet across town is at a much nicer school? Senator Moseley-Braun showed a cartoon on the Senate floor, in which students were using computers to look at other student's much nicer school buildings. This problem is symbolic. Students in this country deserve decent places to learn. We must make sure that the Moseley- Braun school construction amendment is included in this budget.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my amendment seeks only to clarify the support of this body for the family violence option, adopted during consideration of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The family violence option allows States to waive victims of domestic violence and abuse from punitive work and education requirements, without being penalized. States would not be required to include these individuals in their 20-percent hardship exemption. The family violence option amendment, which I joined with Senator Wellstone in offering to the welfare reform legislation, was intended to give States the flexibility to ensure that victims of domestic violence and abuse do not become victims of welfare reform. The amendment was adopted and accepted as part of the final conference report. At the time, it was clear to many of us that there is a direct relationship between domestic violence and poverty. Many women and their children become trapped in violent situations based on their economic dependency. For many women and their children, welfare offers the only way out of a violent and dangerous environment. To create arbitrary obstacles to this assistance simply ensures that women and children will be trapped. This was obvious to many of us, but a recent report from the Taylor Institute made our case more solid. This report reviewed previous studies on domestic violence and abuse and made some startling conclusions regarding the number of women who are receiving welfare and who have been abused by their partner. I can tell my colleagues that this number alone could well exceed the 20-percent hardship exemption. Giving States the flexibility that they need to address this crisis is absolutely necessary if the true objective is welfare reform. Any effort to move people from welfare to work must address the obstacles facing those victims of abuse and violence. Many States have attempted to include a family violence option in their welfare reform implementation plans. However, because there appears to be a general lack of congressional intent on this option, my amendment is necessary to assist those States who are trying to do the right thing. The States need to know that they will not be penalized for exempting victims of domestic abuse and violence from the mandatory work and training requirements. For many victims, simply finding a job can place them and their children in great danger. Giving an employer their home phone number or address exposes them to their abuser. Placing their child in unsecured day care exposes the child to the abuser. Victims of domestic violence and abuse cannot simply utilize most day care options. Once they leave their abuser they subject themselves and their child to the risk of retaliation. How can we say to a victim of domestic violence that they must find a job knowing that we are placing them and their children in harms way? Helping and guiding abused women and children off of welfare involves much more than job training. Many of these women are already employed or have been employed in the past; but their abuser is the obstacle that traps them into a life of poverty. States must be able to meet these needs without jeopardizing the overall success of their welfare reform plans. I ask my colleagues for not just their support, but their help as well. Please vote yes on this amendment to prevent women and children from being trapped in a violent situation simply because they cannot meet certain requirements that have nothing to do with improving their lives. I know that none of my colleagues would have supported placing obstacles in the way of women trying to leave a violent home.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment--it is at the desk--No. 291 on domestic violence.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the pending amendment. I am pleased to join with the Senators from Utah and Massachusetts in supporting this bipartisan effort to launch one of the most important health initiatives since the creation of Medicare in 1965. At the start of the 105th Congress both the Democratic and Republican leadership included comprehensive children's health insurance legislation on their agendas for action. I applauded this decision and believe that the amendment before us today moves us closer to enacting universal children's health care legislation. Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee I have been actively involved in the negotiations and difficult decision, that resulted in this bipartisan balanced budget agreement which will control spending, encourage economic development and balance the budget in 2002. And I have been an adamant proponent of Medicaid and the need to maintain the health safety net for millions of children, pregnant women, the disabled, and senior citizens. Because of my role in the development of this agreement I recognize the fact that there is little room in the current confines of the budget to significantly expand Medicaid or other health discretionary programs to serve the 10\1/2\ million children who today lack any health care coverage. We cannot simply turn our backs on these children and their working parents. If children are truly our priority, we must be more creative in finding appropriate solutions. The amendment before us will do just that. It will allow for an increase in the cigarette tax to fund a program that helps working parents purchase health insurance for their children or offset the cost of premiums, copayments or deductible for employer provided health insurance. It does not create a new Federal entitlement program--it relies on the private insurance market as opposed to a Government run plan. In many ways it is very similar to the structure of the Medicare Program which we all know is one of the most successful public/private programs currently administered by the Federal Government. This amendment will not hinder the enactment of a balanced budget plan. It does not add one dime to the deficit, as it is entirely funded through the cigarette tax. It is fiscally responsible and does not violate any part of the bipartisan balanced budget agreement. Some are arguing that we do not need to enact this act as the agreement will provide an additional coverage for 5 million children. While this is an important first step, who wants to tell those other 5\1/2\ million children that they will lose in this agreement? These are real children who are in our classrooms, in our homes, in our streets, and in our communities. Today, we have the chance to provide real security for working families and to make a positive step forward for all children in our country. I believe we have a moral obligation as adults to address the growing health care crisis facing these 10\1/2\ million children, children who have no direct access to quality comprehensive health care, children whose only exposure to health care is the emergency room. In town hall meetings and community meetings across my State, the people I represent have told me that children and their future must be our priority. Mr. President, I think it is important for us to realize that, if enacted, this proposal would actually have a more positive impact on the deficit than will ever be scored by CBO. A sick child cannot succeed in the classroom and becomes an unhealthy adult with few economic opportunities. As we learned a long time ago from the WIC Program, a little prevention goes a long way. Providing affordable comprehensive health insurance coverage for millions of children will pay huge dividends in the future. It does little good to help communities develop the classroom of the 21st century when children are suffering from diseases and illnesses of the 19th century. I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment so that we can move one step closer to ensuring that no child goes without necessary medical treatment and that every parent who works hard can provide health security for their children. Today, let us make the same commitment to our children that we have made to senior citizens by protecting the solvency of the Medicare system. I urge adoption of this important amendment. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express deep regret at the passage of H.R. 1122, the so-called partial birth abortion bill. I find it appalling that the U.S. Senate will enact legislation that is not just an attack on choice, but more importantly an assault on a woman's reproductive health. I had hoped that the Daschle amendment, which I cosponsored, would address the alleged concerns about unnecessary abortions being performed after viability. This amendment was a reasonable approach and would have met the State objective of preventing late-term abortions on healthy fetuses when there was no serious threat to the life or health of the mother. However, it has become obvious what the real agenda is; to chip away at the guarantees and protections afforded to all women by the Supreme Court. Those on the other side have now solicited the American Medical Association [AMA] in their efforts to undermine Roe versus Wade and to jeopardize the health of women. The AMA has simply cut a deal which unfortunately does not include women's reproductive health. They have acted in such a way to protect their interests and not the interest of their patients. Their announcement does not in any way change the intent of this legislation nor does it do anything to address the concerns about women's health. It is simply a political, calculated decision. During the 104th Congress, there were 53 floor votes attacking reproductive health. Today's vote is simply a continuation of this attack. In the 104th Congress we witnessed attacks on title X, international family planning, and access to save and legal abortion coverage for Federal employees and military personnel. This is not about preventing late-term abortions, this is about preventing a women's and physician's right to determine their own health care needs. They will not stop here. This attack will continue until all abortions, regardless of viability or the life and health of the mother are illegal. Today, we have taken a huge step backward. Since joining the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I have heard from numerous groups representing physicians and from numerous doctors from Washington State. I have been told repeatedly that Congress must act to prevent the further eroding of the patient-doctor relationship currently taking place in the managed care delivery system. I have heard numerous stories about physicians who are unable to prescribe the appropriate treatment for their patients because insurance companies have determined this treatment too costly or not necessary. I have always agreed that doctors should be making health care decisions, not insurance companies. I now am baffled as to why the AMA would want the U.S. Congress to dictate what treatment options physicians can use to save the life and health of their female patients. Today's action invites the U.S. Congress into the operating room and appears to have the blessing of the AMA. I am grateful that there is one last line of defense; the President's veto. I am hopeful that the President will act swiftly to veto this offensive and threatening legislation and that we will do the right thing and sustain this veto. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Five minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, thank you. We are at a historic time in our Nation's history where we have before this body a balanced budget agreement that purports to balance this budget by the year 2002. I think many of my colleagues feel, as I do, that we have worked long and hard to reduce the deficit and we are finally getting there and we feel good about it. But what we also know is that this economy is doing very well. We know that unemployment is down. We know that those people on Wall Street are doing well. We know that our college graduates are getting jobs that were not available to them 5 or 10 years ago. And there is a lot of hope and opportunity out there. Madam President, it seems to me that this is the right time to take a look and say, Who are we missing in this budget? And when we know that one out of four children in this country live in poverty, despite the fact that our economy is doing well and that things are looking really good, we ought to take this opportunity now, as we put this balanced budget agreement together, to make sure that this country focuses its resources on a place where it can really make a difference. I come to you today as a mother, as a preschool teacher before I was in the Senate, and as a U.S. Senator to tell you that I can think of no place that we can invest money better than in the young children of this country. I want to thank Senator Dodd for his work on this issue over many years and for all the time and energy he has put in to make sure that that group of people who do not have a voice do have a voice on the Senate floor. His amendment before us today, that I am delighted to be a cosponsor of, addresses the current needs of today's young children in a way that this budget does not and should. I can tell you from personal experience that Head Start makes a difference, and it makes a dramatic difference for those kids who are not in Head Start today. I taught preschool. I know that when you have a child in your classroom and when they are 3, 4 years old and they learn cognitive skills and they learn, in their beginning time, to get along with other children and they learn child development in a healthy way with a good teacher and with good equipment and with good adults around them, they will enter our schools ready to learn. It makes an incredible difference. But it makes an incredible difference in those families as well because that mother or father has to bring that child to your classroom every day, and as a result they begin to learn how to deal better with their own young children. The result is a rippling tide. You have the child in your classroom, you have the siblings of that child, and you have the parents of that child really focusing on family. This is about creating good, strong families in this country. There is nothing we can do better than to devote our resources to Head Start for the families across this country and for the children in this country. The child care development block grants have been spoken eloquently to. We know, as welfare reform goes into effect, that as women and men on welfare go into the work force, who is going to be left behind at home is their children. If we do not do everything we can to provide child care at those odd hours when a mother is working the night shift at the grocery store, that we are going to have infants and children who are not well cared for. The results of that are going to be dramatic on those young children as they are not paid good attention to. But it will have an even more dramatic impact on those welfare moms when they are at work, because I can assure you that just like every other parent today, if I know that my child is being taken care of, whether they are at school or whether they are in child care, I do a better job when I am at work. We need to make sure that the child care is available out there so that every working adult can be the best and most competent they can be at work and so that those children grow up feeling secure. I am tired of having young children say to me today that they do not think adults care about them in this country. If we leave them home alone without child care, it sends that message strongly. Those children end up on our streets, they end up in gangs, and they end up disillusioned as American citizens. We have to invest time and money and energy into child care through the child care development block grant so that we can raise a healthy generation of adults. Finally, on the Healthy Start, we know when we take care of children and their health when they are young, that it will pay dividends in the future. One out of four children live in poverty. One out of four children are not getting the health care they need, not being taken care of. Guess where they will be when they grow up? Madam President, it is essential that as adults on the floor of the Senate, we take the time and the energy and the resources to send our country in the right direction when we have the time and energy to do that. And that is now. I applaud the Senator from Connecticut and the other cosponsors, and I urge this body to do what needs to be done. Those children were not in on the budget agreement. They were not there. They were not available to be there for the handshakes. We have to be on this floor to speak for them and speak loudly. I urge your support of this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Daschle amendment that is before us. I want to take a minute to thank and applaud the Democratic leader for the amount of work that he has put into this very difficult and divisive issue, to try to find common ground that not only Members of the Senate can agree on but people across this country can find common sense in. The majority of Americans do support Roe versus Wade and want to protect a woman's right to choose previability. The Daschle amendment does that. The vast majority of Americans want to ensure that if there is a healthy baby in a healthy woman, that that baby is born in this country, and the Daschle amendment does that. The vast majority of Americans also want to ensure that, if a woman's life is at risk, she is not forced to keep a pregnancy and lose her life herself or have a grievous injury as a result of that. The Daschle bill protects a woman's health. I know we have heard a lot of arguments about this. We have listened to this debate all day long. For my colleagues, I want us to remember this is not about choice or termination of unwanted pregnancy. This debate right now is about women's health. The Santorum bill that is pending before the Senate today does not and will not end late-term, postviability abortions. As the Democratic leader has pointed out, there are other alternatives out there. What this bill does do is subject women to more dangerous procedures that could render them infertile. What the Santorum bill will do is forever eliminate the ability of a physician to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the health of his or her patient. If the Santorum legislation is enacted over the objections of the President, doctors who try to provide the best care possible for their patients will be arrested. I can tell my colleagues that I have more faith in a physician to make these decisions than I do in the U.S. Senate. This debate is about the health of a woman. This is about women across this country and their ability to make sure that their health is protected. That is what the Daschle amendment does. I listened to my colleagues time and again on this floor, come to the floor to say they are protecting women's health. We have had many debates about women's health, with many champions of women's health on this floor. I hope those Senators who so quickly rush to this floor to be those champions will be here to vote for the Daschle amendment. I ask all of my colleagues to think of your wife or your daughter or your sister. If they are faced with a threatening, serious and grievous illness like cancer, would you not want their doctor to have every option available to save their life? We should remember this is about protecting the women. I urge my colleagues to seriously think about the grievous consequences of the decision that this body is making today. I urge them to support the thoughtful, commonsense solution that Senator Daschle and others have put forward and to reject the Santorum bill. I thank the Senator from South Dakota and yield my time back to him.