Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor today to talk about the comptime bill or the so-called Family Friendly Workplace Act. I have listened very carefully to this bill. I serve in the committee that it went through, the Labor Committee, and we went through the amendments. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has really outlined the true effects of this bill. Now, I, like everyone, like the stated purpose of this bill. As a mother with a daughter who is in school, working full time, I know the pressures that every single parent faces in this country in trying to manage their job and making sure that they pay the right attention to their young children as well. All of us are in that time crunch where we are trying to figure out how we can do the best job possible for our employer and we can do the best job possible for our children. Unfortunately, the comptime bill that has been presented to us does not offer that flexibility for families. In fact, it will take that flexibility away. Can you imagine a young mother with two young children who has them in preschool or day care, who is told by her employer on Friday that next week you will work 60 hours? Now, how is she going to go to her day care provider and say, excuse me, I need 20 additional hours for my two young children in preschool next week or in day care. Day care facilities are very controlled in the amount of children they can have and the amount of hours they can have. They do not have flextime to allow additional children just whenever an employer says you need to work 60 hours next week. It is critical that we look at this bill from the eyes of those who are the receivers, the employees, the people who go to work every day, the people who are really trying to raise their kids and manage their jobs at the same time. This bill does not give them the flexibility. It will, instead, take that away from them and really cause a lot more family stress than is already needed. I encourage my colleagues to vote against cloture so we can have the opportunity to offer amendments to this bill to really make it do what the proponents want it to do, and that is to give employees time to participate with their children. I will have an amendment called the ``time for schools'' amendment that we will offer on this bill if we are allowed, if cloture is defeated, so we can really give that flexibility back to families. I have spent a great deal of time going around my State talking to parents who are working. Inevitably they say to me, ``You know, I could not get to my child's school conference last week, I could not go participate with my young child. I feel guilty about that. But I went to my employer and I could not take time off.'' When you talk to young children today, far too often they say, ``My parent does not care about my education. They did not come to my school conference last week. They did not participate with me. They do not care whether or not I get a good education. They are never here.'' Kids want their parents at school with them for those teacher conferences and those important dates. Mothers and fathers want to be with their kids on those important dates. My amendment, if I am allowed to offer it, will give employees 24 hours a year. That is 2 hours a month--simply 2 hours a month--of the current family medical leave time; time off to go back and forth to school conferences; to participate with their child in importance activities. What an incredible message that will give to young children across this country--all of us saying to them that we feel it is so important that parents participate with their children that we are willing to give them time off from their jobs to go participate with those kids. I want every young person in this country to say, ``My parents care about my education. They came with me to school last week for an hour to talk with the teachers.'' I want that child to say, ``My education is important. I know because my mother was here yesterday. She took off from her job to be here.'' That is what my amendment does. That is what this bill is all about-- giving parents the ability to participate with their young children when it is vitally important. Let's do the right thing with this bill. Let's stop cloture today and move on to a mandatory process that really does what all of us want to do--deal with that time that every parent feels today, and let their children know that as adults we will care for them. Let's pass the time for schools amendment. Let's put some flexibility in the bill that really allows employees the ability to care for their families and do their jobs right, and let's do it right. So I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture today, and then help us pass amendments that really make this a Family Friendly Workplace Act. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending Feinstein amendment. This amendment is not a creative or imaginative approach, that has been implied but rather conforms to the law of the land. It is an amendment that simply says that the health and life protections extended to all women in Roe versus Wade will not be infringed upon. It goes to the heart of this debate; will we act today to limit the rights and protections afforded all women by the U.S. Supreme Court or will we reaffirm that the life and health of a woman in this country must remain a priority. There seems to be some confusion as to what Roe versus Wade and other courts decisions say and do. When you carefully read the majority opinion issued by the Justices in the Roe versus Wade decision, the limitations are quite clearly spelled out by the Court. The Justices spent a great deal of time and effort making the clear distinction between the rights of the women during the first two trimesters and the rights of the women in the last trimester once the fetus is viable. The courts drew this line and made it clear that the State had an overriding interest in restricting and regulating post viability abortions. As a result, post viability abortions are prohibited, except when necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. The Justices recognized the importance of a woman's health and life and had every confidence that women could make reasonable decisions. I simply do not understand why many of my colleagues refuse to accept the courts decisions and refuse to understand that late term, post viability abortions are only necessary when the life and health of the mother are in serious jeopardy. While the language in this amendment simply reiterates what the courts have said and what many States have enacted because many on the other side have distorted the facts and have waged a public relations campaign against women and against doctors, I felt it was necessary to work on language that will address some of the allegations that have been made. That is why I have worked with the minority leader on his amendment that limits the scope of the health exemption without jeopardizing the guarantees and protections of women in this country. I would argue that this was not necessary, as I have full faith in women to make the right decision, but because of the allegations and misconceptions that have we have heard and seen, I recognize that it is the reasonable course of action. I support the Feinstein amendment as it is consistent with what the States have done and it ensures that women will not be subjected to serious threats to their health and life because some people simply want to turn back the clock. I support this amendment because it goes beyond the pending bill in that it will prohibit all post viability abortions, not just a procedure. As supporters of this amendment, we do not claim to have the medical expertise to pick what procedures physicians are allowed to utilize. Further, we recognize the fact that the U.S. Senate should not be in the room with the physician and his or her patient. I will also be a cosponsor of the Daschle language as I believe that a responsible legislator, I must do everything I can to ensure that the legisation we enact is constitutional and protects all citizens. The Feinstein amendment does not and will not allow a healthy women to terminate a healthy pregnancy simply because she decides she no longer wants to be a mother. That is illegal and will continue to be illegal for a physician to perform any abortion after viability unless the women's health and life are in serious jeopardy. I ask my colleagues to carefully read the language in this amendment and remember that women and doctors know the definition of serious health consequences and to defeat the underlying legislation. I would like to thank the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Feinstein. I know that Senator Feinstein has spent a great deal of time studying this issue and working to ensure that we did not unduly burden physicians and women. I support her with this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the underlying bill that is before us today. I yield my time to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to send a message to parents and educators across this nation. No matter if they are the parents of a disabled child, or the superintendent of a rural or urban school system, each one of them will have something to be pleased about in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. As with most legislation, no one is completely happy with every paragraph and clause. And yet, with issues so complex and needs so great, I find it remarkable that we have before us such a potentially successful bill. It is testament to the work we have done over the past 2 months that we have brought the discussions over the past 20 years of IDEA to a productive next step. I have always believed that we do our best work when we agree to sit down, put differences aside, and work toward the common good, using common sense. This is exactly what the American public expects us to do. The negotiations over the IDEA bill represent this philosophy and put it into action. I want to congratulate Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Lott, Jeffords, and Frist for all the great work they and others have done. I also want to thank the education community for working together through differences, to get to a bill that can pass and will work for students in regular education and special education in schools and communities across the land. The Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act is 20 years old this year. It has represented a major change in the way our society views students with disabilities--and has helped us take concrete, measurable steps toward improving the lives and education of all American students. In this process this year, it is my view that we have preserved the basic civil rights protections that were part of IDEA when it was passed, and that we have granted important flexibility to local schools and parents to work together in the best interest of children. One thing evident from the process of writing this bill--we do a great job here in the Senate in cranking out pieces of legislation, but we must do more to monitor implementation of these laws. Practices in the field of special education have improved dramatically over 20 years; yet our methods of disseminating information--even in the information age--have not kept pace. Much of the disagreement in the classrooms and communities of America between special education folks and regular education folks is because we have let the ball drop on implementation of IDEA. The sad part is that it didn't have to happen-- the information was there. Information about how much more effective it is to use mediation as an option to legal action. Information about what strategies of communication, teaching, and problem-solving can be used to prevent situations from escalating to the point where they need mediation. In places where people have good information, and exercise leadership, you just see fewer problems. It has been obvious for some time to educators and parents alike that--as with other Federal laws--there is a wide variety in what special education means from community to community. Some of this variety is as it should be. Decisions about how educational services are delivered are best made with local flexibility. But basic protections afforded by civil rights law, and effective techniques that improve student learning, should not be subject to the whims of geography. The IDEA reauthorization legislation recognizes this, and makes several changes that will benefit all students and members of their community. First, the new law codifies court decisions, regulations, and other interpretive documents so that the law itself better reflects its current uses. Second, the law improves educator training, methods for sharing information, and improves the process for developing and using the individualized education plan--the key to disabled students getting the services and challenges they need. Third, practices to achieve safe and well-disciplined schools have been improved or more clearly articulated in the bill--so it will be clear that students whose behavior causes disturbance in the classroom will get help if that behavior is part of their disability, and if the behavior is determined not to be part of their disability, they are subject to appropriate disciplinary action. This bill represents improved results for all students in our schools. It ties a student's individualized education plan to the educational goals and assessments for nondisabled students--so we set high expectations and provide clear opportunities for achievement. The bill includes parents in decisions regarding placement, because we recognize that a child's needs are uniquely the concern of her or his parents. This bill will serve as a vehicle to increase funding for IDEA, so the Federal Government can meet its obligations to disabled students. The bill holds outside agencies responsible for their share of the health or other costs of serving disabled students, so we can clarify that local schools do not bear all responsibility for these costs. People from different perspectives will find things to praise in this bill. Perhaps the best thing is that we will reauthorize IDEA this year, so people can predict what the future will hold, and have access to more and better information. The tension in this country between regular education and special education has boiled for too long. This IDEA reauthorization bill will not pit people against one another; it will bring us together in service to all students.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg, Senator Hollings, and Senator Gorton for their assistance and support in addressing this critical program for salmon fishers in the Pacific Northwest. This amendment continues to provide disaster relief for salmon fishers through a salmon fishing permit buy-back program. This buy-back program has proven to be a tremendously effective way to help fishers and fish. Over the last few years, the State of Washington has implemented a salmon fishing permit buy-back program to address the substantial reduction in salmon harvest opportunities that have confronted salmon fishers in recent years. In 1994, when stocks crashed as a result of poor ocean conditions and other factors, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in response to the requests of the Governors of Washington, Oregon, and California, declared a fishery resource disaster and provided funding to implement relief programs. Funding for these programs was continued in 1995. The three programs implemented were a habitat jobs program, a data collection jobs program, and a salmon fishing permit buy-back program in Washington State. These programs provided desperately needed relief to fishers devastated by the collapse of fishing opportunities. While the jobs programs continue, the buy-back program, after two-rounds of buy-backs, has run out of funding. However, the fishery resource disaster continues. Poor ocean conditions and habitat losses have hammered these salmon stocks. The recent floods in the Pacific Northwest have compounded these problems by washing out natural spawning beds, cutting off pristine stream stretches with landslides, and destroying hatchery brood stocks. With the shortest and most severely restricted salmon fishing seasons ever proposed for this summer, this buy-back program is needed more than ever. While the previous buy-backs have only addressed the Columbia River and Coastal Washington fisheries, this program must be expanded to include Puget Sound fisheries as well. Whatcom and Skagit County have declared fishery resource disasters as a result of last year's harvest. The gillnetters, reef netters, and purse seiners of the Sound need relief as well as the gillnetters and trollers on the Columbia and the coast. The $7 million for buy-back included in this amendment will provide much needed assistance to the fishing communities of Washington State. The buy-back program will provide financial help to those who chose to be bought out, reduce competition for those who stay in, and help fish by reducing pressure on dwindling fish stocks. I appreciate the support of my colleagues.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to a pressing problem for legal immigrants in Washington State, that may also soon affect other States around the Nation. I urge you to support passage of amendment No. 134 to S. 672, the 1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act. This amendment simply gives the USDA authority to sell food stamps to States, provided that all Federal costs are fully reimbursed. Under last year's welfare law, certain legal immigrants will soon be excluded from eligibility for the Federal Food Stamp Program. However, Congress granted States the flexibility to provide some assistance to legal immigrants with their own State funds. At the end of last month, Republicans and Democrats in the Washington State Legislature appropriated $66 million to grant food aid to nearly 40,000 legal immigrants, many of them children, who are not covered by Federal programs. By doing so, they issued a mandate for Gov. Gary Locke's administration to provide food assistance to these immigrants. To carry out this mandate, the State wants to purchase food stamps from USDA. The State will pay all costs for administration, printing, shipping, and redeeming of the food stamps. This is State money--they are looking to buy food stamps from the Federal Government, because that program is already in place, and will maximize the use of this State money. Since October, Washington State has been trying to make arrangements with USDA to buy food stamps. Officials at USDA have expressed a willingness to cooperate, but believe technical barriers exist. USDA is concerned that State payments may end up in the general treasury instead of coming back to the Food Stamp Program. USDA is also concerned that it may be violating the Anti-Deficiency Act, at least briefly. This is because USDA would be furnishing food stamps for a non-Federal purpose, although only until the State reimbursement arrives. The State of Washington has made various offers to USDA to provide advance payment for the food stamps. To date, however, USDA has not granted a waiver allowing the State of Washington to purchase food stamps. Time is running short, since these immigrants lose their Federal benefits at the end of August. If USDA does not sell Washington State food stamps, a State scrip program will have to be set up. This will be costly and duplicative. According to estimates by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, this would cost a minimum of $1.5 million--due to the costs associated with printing and distributing the scrip. In addition, the State would have to establish new relationships with all food stamp venders in the State. This has the potential to create many more problems than are necessary--two separate systems for Washington State customers, confusion for small businesses in border towns in Oregon or Idaho, and the added cost for everyone of learning an entirely new system. Of course, this issue is not specific to the Pacific Northwest or to Washington State. Other States may be seeking to buy food stamps in this manner in the future. Massachusetts has already made strides toward this approach, and the California Legislature is looking at similar questions. I urge unanimous support for this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chaplain Kell for his inspired prayer. And I also want to thank our Senate Chaplain for working to ensure Chaplain Kell, a resident of our State of Washington, the opportunity to provide spiritual inspiration today to the Senate. From the shores of Europe to the community of Arlington, WA, Chaplain Kell's record of service to our Nation is impressive. He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II from June 1943 to November 1946 as a gunner with the armed guard, the unit that protected merchant marine ships from enemy attack. He received many service decorations, including medals for the European African Middle Eastern campaign and the Asiatic Pacific campaign. Chaplain Kell was ordained as a minister in 1965 and served as the national chaplain to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States from 1995 to 1996. Born and raised in Skagit Valley, WA, Chaplain Kell is now a resident of Arlington and has been a member of VFW Post 1561 since 1985. Prior to becoming VFW national chaplain, he served as the VFW post, district, department, and western conference chaplain. As a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I am proud that Chaplain Kell has been able to continue his dedicated service to our Nation today as the Senate guest Chaplain. I wish to honor Chaplain Kell's wife, Dorothy, and his daughter, Brenda, who have accompanied him here to Washington, DC. And I would also like to extend my most heartfelt good wishes to them and to you, Chaplain Kell, as you celebrate your birthday today. Thank you, Lyle Kell, for all of your dedicated service to American veterans and to our Nation. Your work to promote our country's freedoms has benefited countless individuals across this Nation and around the world. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of tremendous importance to Washington State and the Nation. The issue is China and specifically, my trip to both Hong Kong and Beijing over the recent Easter recess. My trip to Hong Kong and China was an opportunity for me to discuss candidly the issues to be confronted by the United States Senate; most- favored-nation trade status for China, the World Trade Organization, Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese sovereignty, the trade imbalance between the United States and China, my personal concerns on human rights, and numerous other issues. Additionally, I took this trip intent on raising the profile of Washington State in both Hong Kong and China. In the early 1950's, Senator Warren Magnusson of the State of Washington whose seat I now occupy was the first United States Senator to promote closer ties between the United States and China. Since that time, Washington State has led the way in advancing United States-China relations for both the American and Chinese people. No other State in the country is as engaged and involved in China as my State. We have strong trade and cultural ties to China and indeed to all of Asia. Washington State's involvement in China is much deeper than trade and economics; educators and students, lawyers and judges, adoptive families, religious organizations, military personnel, and many others in my State have relationships across the Pacific with counterparts in China. Several Washington cities including Tacoma, Seattle, Kent, and Spokane all have growing sister city relationships with cities or counties in China. Washingtonians are going to great lengths to foster change in China; participating in local elections, providing resources to counter cultural biases against young girls, and working with the Chinese to create a commercial and a civil legal system for that country. A diverse group of Washington State interests traveled with me to China at their own expense. This group included representatives from agriculture, aviation, high technology, retail, financial services, heavy machinery, and ports. In Hong Kong, we met with officials from the United States Consulate, the American Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong Government and others. On the street and in official meetings, I sought to determine the mood of the people of this British Colony as it speeds toward its new status as a Special Administrative Region of China. Certainly there are concerns about the transition; concerns that we require the careful oversight of the United States and others who care about the Hong Kong way of life. I also found much optimism among Hong Kong's people and its leaders; a certain confidence that the people of Hong Kong will take it upon themselves to preserve the prosperous and beautiful enclave that they created from barren rock and the surrounding waters. I particularly enjoyed a meeting with Ms. Sophie Leung, an appointed member of the Provisional Legislature that will replace the current Legislative Council following the transition. Though I question China's decision to replace the current democratically elected legislature, I was heartened by Ms. Leung's passion for Hong Kong, her background as a civic activist, and her intention to support and participate in upcoming direct elections. Ms. Leung is also a part-time resident of Washington State. Interestingly, a number of the leaders selected to govern Hong Kong following the transition are actually American citizens. Like many in this body, I am following closely the transition and China's handling of the new Special Administrative Region. A heavy handed approach to the transition by the Chinese side will be disastrous for Hong Kong; disastrous for the mainland whose development is largely funded by and through Hong Kong; and disastrous for Pacific oriented States like Washington which utilize Hong Kong as a gateway to China and other parts of Asia. Mindful of the threats to Hong Kong, it is important for all who want to influence change in China to recognize that Hong Kong's transition may be our best opportunity to further influence the mainland in such important areas like the rule of law, respect for individual rights, and the many democratic principles that we cherish in the United States. As I traveled from Hong Kong to Beijing for additional discussions, I couldn't help but wonder which side would have a greater impact following the transition; 1.2 billion Chinese scattered throughout an area the size of the United States or 6 million Hong Kong capitalists occupying land that is similar in size to the Puget Sound area in Washington State. In Beijing, I met with China's Vice Premier, Chinese Trade Ministry officials, and Chinese leaders involved in financial services, transportation, agriculture, electronics, and aviation. United States Ambassador Jim Sasser, our former Senate colleague, was particularly gracious and giving of his time and experiences in China to me and the Washington State delegation. Ambassador Sasser hosted a dinner for me and the Washington delegation, and our group was delighted to be joined for the evening by former Speaker Tom Foley. At my suggestion, Ambassador Sasser invited a number of prominent Chinese women known for their advocacy work within China on issues relating to women and children. In my meeting with Vice Premier Li Lanqing, I focussed on the trade imbalance between the United States and China, my concerns and those of my constituents on human rights, and the importance of China abiding by its commitments on Hong Kong. Washington State exports to China grew by almost 40 percent in 1996 but overall United States exports to China did not grow at a rate comparable to the growth of China's exports to the United States. I stressed to the Vice Premier my hope that the Chinese side would soon agree to allow the International Red Cross access to Chinese prisons and reinforced with him that the United States would continue to push for improvements in human rights. A commitment to human rights is part of our moral fabric; and I was encouraged by Vice Premier's acknowledgment of U.S. interest in this issue and of his offer to engage in a dialog on this issue. Hong Kong's transition will clearly be the international event of 1997. The Chinese are well aware of this; I reminded the Chinese that the United States is watching closely; Taiwan is watching; indeed all of the world is watching China's handling of the Hong Kong transition. In China, I had the opportunity to raise a number of other issues of importance to my State and my constituents. I encouraged the Chinese to increase access to their markets for Washington State goods with particular emphasis on resolving the TCK smut issue which keeps Northwest wheat out of China's marketplace and tariff reductions which would allow our horticultural producers to export significant volumes of apples, cherries, and pears to China. The Chinese have made progress in combating piracy of intellectual property rights; I reminded them of ongoing problems and our continued interest in stopping both the production and export of pirated United States technology. With the People's Bank of China, we discussed the importance of allowing more United States banks and insurance companies the opportunity to operate in China. This will provide new opportunities for small- and medium-sized firms seeking export to China. We also discussed many other important issues including the growth of the Internet in China, the competitive advantages of Washington's ports and transportation infrastructure, the future energy needs of China, food security issues including China's ability to feed its people, problems associated with large, unproductive state-owned enterprises, and growth patterns in coastal and rural parts of China. Numerous other high-profile congressional delegations also traveled throughout China and to Hong Kong during the recess. Vice President Gore visited the region with stops in Beijing and Shanghai. Several of my Senate colleagues including Senators Lieberman, Mack, and Jeffords traveled to China during the recess as did Speaker Gingrich and a large number of House Members. United States policy makers are visiting China and Hong Kong in record numbers. Close to 100 Members of Congress have visited China in the last few months. And more will follow as the Hong Kong return to Chinese sovereignty is now less than 100 days away. I returned from my first visit to China convinced of the importance of engaging the Chinese, with heightened awareness of the difficult issues in the United States-China relationship, and very encouraged by the congressional interest in Asia and China. And I am certain Washington State will continue to be the bellwether State in gauging both the rewards and the pitfalls of the important United States-China relationship. Already there is significant interest in the Nation's Capital in China. It is my hope that this interest will manifest itself in a genuine debate about good U.S. policy rather than good partisan politics. I certainly intend to represent forcefully the interests of my State and our country with a voice for good U.S. policy in the coming months. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, I am pleased that the United States Senate has finally turned its attention to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Before this body today sits the work of President Reagan, President Bush and now President Clinton. The CWC will place a global ban on the manufacture, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons by its signatories. Along with protocols for inspections and sanctions against countries that do not abide by the CWC, it contains a specific timetable for the destruction of existing chemical weapons and production facilities. The United States provided valuable leadership for many years in the effort to outlaw chemical weapons and their use. Our government was the driving force behind the negotiations that produced the Chemical Weapons Convention. The CWC will go into effect next week with or without U.S. participation. Failure to ratify the CWC would be a monumental error for the United States; a symbolic retreat from our traditional role in the world that will likely impede our efforts to further eliminate and combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I do strongly support the immediate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I want to add my personal thanks to my many colleagues who have worked so hard to bring the articles of ratification to the Senate floor. Senator Biden and Senator Lugar have both been champions in this effort. I have great admiration and respect for both of these Senators and I know many thousands of my constituents also appreciate their leadership on the CWC. As a Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, I have been particularly impressed by the support given to the CWC by numerous veterans service organizations. My own state has more than 700,000 veterans and thousands of additional active duty personnel stationed in every corner of my state. The following veterans organization have all called upon the Senate to ratify the CWC; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, the American Ex-Prisoners of War and the Jewish War Veterans of the USA. The National Gulf War Resource Center, a coalition of two dozen Gulf War veterans organizations has also publicly endorsed the CWC. Such distinguished senior US military commanders as General Norman Schwarzkopf, former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Generals John M. Shalikashvili and Colin Powell, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, and former National Security Adviser General Brent Scowcroft have all publicly called for the ratification of the CWC. Colin Powell appeared before the Veterans Affairs Committee last week; he gave the committee his unequivocal support for the CWC. General Powell stated that the treaty will lessen the likelihood that U.S. troops will be safer from chemical attack in the future. Given the problems many of our Gulf War veterans are suffering that many attribute to exposure to chemical weapons, I believe the Senate should give General Powell's comments in support of the CWC special consideration. Also of great importance to me in considering the merits of the CWC is the strong support of the chemical industry, including both small and large businesses. It is noteworthy that our business community provided advice to the Reagan and Bush administrations on the treaty provisions affecting this industry. If the United States does not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention it will not have access to the Treaty's tools to help detect rogue states and terrorists who seek to acquire chemical weapons. The United States will not be allowed to participate in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the governing body deciding the terms for the implementation of the Treaty. Therefore, Americans will not be able to serve on inspection teams or influence amendments, and Americans now serving as head of administration, head of industrial inspections, and head of security will be replaced by nationals from countries that have ratified the CWC. Chemical proliferation and terrorism are undoubtedly problems the United States can fight more effectively within the framework of global cooperation. The Chemical Manufacturing Association has stated that the CWC ``does not trump US export control laws.'' Instead, the Treaty will expand and improve the effectiveness of non-proliferation by instituting a strong system of multilateral export controls. No information will be disclosed regarding imports, exports or domestic shipments. The CWC will affect approximately 2,000 companies, not 8,000 as the Treaty's opponents hold. About 1,800 of those 2,000 companies will do nothing more than check a box regarding the range of Discrete Organic Chemicals they produce, without specifying the nature of these chemicals. Of the some 140 companies most likely to be subjected to routine inspections, a large proportion are CMA members, who assisted in writing the provisions of the Treaty. Regardless, it is anticipated that any challenge inspections will more than likely involve military, rather than commercial facilities. Thus, we should not concern ourselves with a potential negative impact of the CWC on the industry, because clearly this is not the case. On the contrary, if the US Senate chooses not to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, American chemical companies risk losing as much as $600 million a year in sales and many well- paying jobs when the mandatory trade sanctions against non-parties are enforced. Critics insist that the CWC will be ineffective because rogue states suspected of possessing or attempting to acquire chemical weapons, such as Syria, Iraq, North Korea and Libya, have not joined the convention. Accordingly, they argue that the United States should hold up ratification until these states join. The reality is that only about 20 states are believed to have or to be seeking a chemical weapons program, more than two-thirds of which have already signed the CWC. For the past 40 years, the United States has led nonproliferation regimes that have established accepted norms of international behavior. Failing to ratify the convention will not persuade the rogue states to join the CWC. Rather, it will legitimize their action and hurt US credibility in the international community. The Treaty ensures that non-party states are isolated and makes it extremely difficult for them to pursue their nefarious objectives. I urge my Senate colleagues to reflect on the measure of American leadership and the indispensability of our nation on nonproliferation issues and to vote for the Chemical Weapons Convention. This Treaty makes sense on political, legal and moral grounds. As officials of both Republican and Democratic administrations assert, the Chemical Weapons Convention will ensure that Americans live in a safer America and a safer world.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, thanks to Take Our Daughters to Work Day, young girls from all over the country will be given the opportunity to accompany adults to the workplace. Today, young girls will be given the opportunity to shadow an adult mentor--and gain experience in a work environment. What better way to enable girls to explore their future and gain exposure to a wide range of career options? The focus of this one day event is to bring awareness to the development and education of young girls. Research suggests that young girls often receive less attention in school and suffer from lower expectations than boys. This difference can affect their self-esteem and self-confidence, particularly during the difficult years of adolescence. Lower expectations and self esteem can later prevent them from achieving their maximum potential. This in turn can hinder their own personal and professional development. Therefore, adolescence is a crucial time period for adults to intervene in the lives of young girls. Adults need to take the time to show girls that they can set high goals and pursue their dreams. Today's events will offer inspiration and encouragement to millions of young girls--and show them that adults are committed to helping them--so they can fully expand their horizons and pursue their dreams. In 1995, women comprised 46 percent of the paid labor force. The composition of the work force has changed significantly, and opportunities have continued to increase for women. Despite these gains, women's wages, on average, still remain below men's. We cannot accept the gap that still exists between men and women. Even though the gap is narrowing--we must continue to work on this issue. Women still experience barriers to non-traditional career roles. A study by the Glass Ceiling Commission found that women occupy only 5 percent of senior level management of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies. Women only comprise 11 percent of the technical workforce. This needs to change. America's future depends on it. Women need to be encouraged to seize opportunities and explore non- traditional careers. This includes developing skills that will prepare them for high wage jobs and management positions that offer higher salaries in the workforce. Women are increasingly becoming responsible for the financial well- being of their families. We need to ensure that young girls are prepared for the workforce--and have the opportunity to live up to their full potential. We can only do this if we have a community effort. Today, more than ever--young girls need role models and mentors--so that they can achieve success.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation to ensure that the Board of Veterans' Appeals errs on behalf of our veterans rather than on the side of the Federal Government. Specifically, my legislation will allow a veteran to correct a rating decision which is a clear and unmistakable error. I am pleased to be joining with Congressman Lane Evans in introducing this legislation. Congressman Evans has been a champion in this cause and he has shepherded clear and unmistakable error legislation through the House of Representatives in the last two Congresses. The House Veterans' Affairs Committee will markup this legislation later this week; again, paving the way for House passage of this legislation. This is the first time that Senate legislation has been introduced on clear and unmistakable error. I look forward to working with my colleagues at the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to raise the profile of this issue in the Senate in the coming days. Since joining the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee in the last Congress, I have made it a priority to work closely with the veterans of my State. This legislative initiative is a direct result of that partnership between my office and the veterans of Washington State. Several veterans service organizations have contacted me in support of this legislation, and I do also know that this issue is a priority for the Disabled American Veterans. For the record, I want to detail a vivid example of a clear and unmistakable error. The Department of Veterans Affairs schedule for rating disabilities prescribes a 40-percent disability rating for an amputation of the leg below the knee and a 60-percent disability rating for an amputation of the leg above the knee. In an instance where a veteran had an above the knee amputation but was assigned a 40-percent rating, the rating decision is indisputably wrong--clear and unmistakably wrong. My legislation would ensure that egregious errors like this at any administrative level of adjudication would be subject to review. In recent months, I've handled several cases with the Department of Veterans Affairs that directly involved clear and unmistakable error. In one case, a veteran with a serious shoulder injury dating back to the Vietnam war was rated incorrectly for more than 20 years. In another case, a veteran with PTSD also dating to service in Vietnam was misdiagnosed for a lengthy period, affecting his disability rating and benefits and the treatment he received. To the VA's credit, some cases of clear and unmistakable error are reversible but it depends on where the veteran is in the VA process. Some cases of clear and unmistakable error no longer offer recourse to the veteran. My legislation seeks to correct this. I believe that we must make available every opportunity to right a wrong on behalf of a veteran. Importantly, this legislation will also allow a veteran who under current law cannot seek to have a clear and unmistakable error claim reviewed the opportunity to request that the Board of Veterans' Appeals review its prior decision. So often we in Congress talk about providing for veterans or about meeting our obligations to veterans. That is what this bill is all about; it gives a veteran the right to request a review rather than subjecting an ailing vet to a sometimes faceless bureaucracy hesitant to correct its mistakes. This issue has been cast by some as arcane and complicated. And it is. But let me break it down to its most basic element for the Members of the Senate. Clear and unmistakable errors are errors that have deprived and continue to deprive veterans of benefits for which their entitlement is undeniable. To deny a veteran due to a bureaucratic mistake is beyond comprehension. When I first heard of this problem, I doubted the severity of the problem. But for a small number of veterans, the problem is real, very real, and it is causing hardships for some in meeting the challenges of everyday life. The Congressional Budget Office determined a previous version of this legislation to be budget neutral. Stated another way, this legislation would not require additional resources for the VA or take needed resources from other VA programs or benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs does have a number of objections to the legislation. I do look forward to working with Secretary Jesse Brown to address these concerns so that this important veterans legislation can go forward. Secretary Brown is the most passionate advocate for veterans within government service. I have every confidence that he will work with me and other concerned Members to ensure that the VA works for the veteran. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to review this legislation and join me as cosponsors of this important initiative on behalf of veterans.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, in introducing the Victims of Abuse Insurance Protection Act. I believe that every Senator in this Chamber should join in support of this important legislation. The Victims of Abuse Insurance Protection Act will prohibit discrimination by insurance companies against victims of domestic violence. This prohibition will apply to all lines of insurance including health, life, and homeowners. We are all proud of our efforts to increase our commitment to ending domestic violence. The Federal Government has dramatically increased resources to fighting this devastating public health threat. We have worked to strengthen enforcement of domestic violence laws and ensure that victims have access to the resources and assistance necessary to end the cycle of violence. However, the first step for most victims is reporting the violence and removing themselves from the violent situation. But, if a victim of domestic violence knows that by reporting and seeking help they have now accepted the fact that they will face discriminatory practices in when they try to secure any form of insurance, fewer victims will come forward. This is a chilling consequence that we cannot allow. Make no mistake about it, this is a real threat. I have been approached by an insurance agent in Washington State who told me that she cannot sell life insurance to victims of domestic violence. I also know of women who are unable to afford adequate homeowners insurance because of past domestic violence. This is an outrage and runs counter to all that is fair and decent. This is a classic example of blaming the victim. As a strong advocate of ending domestic violence, I cannot sit by and watch insurance companies deny victims insurance or impose such drastic cost barriers that few could overcome. I am appalled by this type of discrimination and extremely concerned about the impact it has on our efforts to combat domestic violence.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President I introduce legislation that would protect our Nation's small children as they travel on aircraft. We currently have Federal regulations that require the safety of passengers on commercial flights. However, neither flight attendants nor an infant's parents can protect unrestrained infants in the event of an airline accident or severe turbulence. A child on a parent's lap will likely break free from the adult's arms as a plane takes emergency action or encounters extreme turbulence. This child then faces two serious hazards. First, the child may be injured as they strike the aircraft interior. Second, the parents may not be able to find the infant after a crash. The United Sioux City, IA, crash provides one dark example. On impact, no parent was able to hold on to her-his child. One child was killed when he flew from his mother's hold. Another child was rescued from an overhead compartment by a stranger. In July 1994, during the fatal crash of a USAir plane in Charlotte, NC, another unrestrained infant was killed when her mother could not hold onto her on impact. The available seat next to the mother survived the crash intact. The National Transportation Safety Board believes that had the baby been secured in the seat, she would have been alive today. In fact, in a FAA study on accident survivability, the agency found that of the last nine infant deaths, five could have survived had they been in child restraint devices. Turbulence creates very serious problems for unrestrained infants. In four separate incidences during the month of June, passengers and flight attendants were injured when their flights hit sudden and violent turbulence. In one of these, a flight attendant reported that a baby seated on a passenger's lap went flying through the air during turbulence and was caught by another passenger. This measure is endorsed by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Aviation Consumer Action Project. We must protect those unable to protect themselves. Just as we require seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, and car seats, we must mandate restraint devices that protect our youngest citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that ensures our kids remain passengers and not victims. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President I introduce legislation that would protect our Nation's small children as they travel on aircraft. We currently have Federal regulations that require the safety of passengers on commercial flights. However, neither flight attendants nor an infant's parents can protect unrestrained infants in the event of an airline accident or severe turbulence. A child on a parent's lap will likely break free from the adult's arms as a plane takes emergency action or encounters extreme turbulence. This child then faces two serious hazards. First, the child may be injured as they strike the aircraft interior. Second, the parents may not be able to find the infant after a crash. The United Sioux City, IA, crash provides one dark example. On impact, no parent was able to hold on to her-his child. One child was killed when he flew from his mother's hold. Another child was rescued from an overhead compartment by a stranger. In July 1994, during the fatal crash of a USAir plane in Charlotte, NC, another unrestrained infant was killed when her mother could not hold onto her on impact. The available seat next to the mother survived the crash intact. The National Transportation Safety Board believes that had the baby been secured in the seat, she would have been alive today. In fact, in a FAA study on accident survivability, the agency found that of the last nine infant deaths, five could have survived had they been in child restraint devices. Turbulence creates very serious problems for unrestrained infants. In four separate incidences during the month of June, passengers and flight attendants were injured when their flights hit sudden and violent turbulence. In one of these, a flight attendant reported that a baby seated on a passenger's lap went flying through the air during turbulence and was caught by another passenger. This measure is endorsed by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Aviation Consumer Action Project. We must protect those unable to protect themselves. Just as we require seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, and car seats, we must mandate restraint devices that protect our youngest citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that ensures our kids remain passengers and not victims. 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 to the pending constitutional amendment. The authors of the amendment have called it the balanced budget amendment. However, our vote today is not about balancing the budget, but rather about jeopardizing the future economic stability of the United States and eliminating the carefully crafted constitutional balance of powers. The amendment simply requires the President to submit a balanced budget; it does not mandate that Congress enact a balanced budget and it establishes no guidelines on enacting a balanced budget. This is not only the most dangerous budget gimmick put before this body, but it sets a dangerous precedent for addressing important issues facing us today and in the future. What the supporters of this amendment fail to point out is that we do not need to amend the U.S. Constitution to balance the budget. The President recently submitted to Congress a budget plan that does balance by the year 2002 and still protects our most vulnerable citizens; children, the disabled, and senior citizens. The President's proposal also continues our investment in education, environmental protection, biomedical research, and criminal justice. Instead of working on this proposal and enacting a budget for fiscal year 1998, we have spent almost a month debating an empty promise. Congress has a statutory requirement to pass a budget resolution by April 15, yet neither body has begun this process. We have spent valuable time debating an amendment that will not get us any closer to a balanced budget. I support a balanced budget; I have supported a balanced budget. What I cannot support is the misuse of the Constitution. The Constitution should only be used to expand rights and protections for citizens excluded from the original document. Our Constitution should not be used to limit the rights of our citizens or the obligations of the Federal Government. When I first came to Congress in 1993, the deficit was close to $300 billion. I made a decision to try and secure a position on the Senate Budget Committee because I realized the most important thing I could do for the families in Washington State was to reduce the deficit. I worked with my colleagues in 1993 and passed a successful deficit reduction package. The deficit reduction proposal enacted in 1993, without one Republican vote, has cut the deficit in half. For 4 straight years in a row the deficit has declined. We reversed the trends of the 1980's and restored fiscal restraint to the Federal budget process. Enacting this landmark deficit reduction package, required tough and difficult choices. But, that is why my constituents sent me to the U.S. Senate. I am willing to make those difficult choices as long as they are fair and balanced. A constitutional amendment to balance the budget does not force us to make those tough choices. Keep in mind that this amendment does not go into effect until the States adopt it. The States will have 7 years to ratify. Seven years is a long time when you are trying to balance the budget. I supported a revision to the amendment that would have shortened from 7 to 3 years that time allowed for the States to ratify. Unfortunately, this change was rejected. We should not wait even 3 years; we should start now. There is no one in this Chamber who will deny that our Constitution has served us well. It established the longest continuous democratic government in the world. This document and the Bill of Rights are the envy of the world. Within this document our Founding Fathers spelled out the role of each branch of government. The responsibilities of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches were all clearly spelled out and a system of checks and balances was added so as to ensure that no one branch unduly influenced the other. One of the most important responsibilities entrusted to the legislative branch was the power to tax and spend. Our Founding Fathers felt very strongly that elected representatives of the people must be responsible for deciding on spending and taxes. As a member of both the Senate Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee, I do not take this responsibility lightly. But, a vote in support of this amendment will forever alter the role of Congress and the courts in deciding on spending priorities for the Federal Government. For the first time in history, the courts could decide how we spend tax dollars and how we raise tax dollars. A group of nine unelected officials could establish budget policy that conflicts with the wishes of the people solely because they believe that receipts will not cover outlays. Every time the Federal Government wishes to spend for Social Security or for a natural disaster, the courts could simply say that this obligation would push spending beyond receipts. One need only look at the current difference between the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. OMB has estimated that the President's budget gets to balance by the year 2002. However, CBO disputes the estimates on revenues and economic growth used by OMB. Who decides? The courts? Who decides what will be cut or what taxes raised to bring the budget into balance if Congress and the White House fail to agree? Judicial oversight of the Federal budget process violates the clear role of Congress and puts greater powers into the hands of unelected, life-time appointed Justices on the Supreme Court. In an effort to clarify any questions about the role of the courts, Senator Kennedy offered an amendment that would prohibit judicial control of the budget process. This amendment was defeated and rejected by the supporters of the constitutional amendment who claimed it was not necessary. Yet many legal and constitutional scholars have made it clear that the way the current amendment is written will allow for court challenges to Federal budget policy and decisions. In 1983, Congress enacted several measures aimed at protecting the long term financial stability of the Social Security trust fund. The intent of these measures was to build a large surplus and reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down when the baby boomers started to retire. The 1983 legislation included tax increases, benefit reductions, and other structural reforms, all with the goal of protecting the system. Those who supported the 1983 legislation did so to protect the greater good, namely Social Security benefits for millions of current and future retirees. As a result, it is estimated that Social Security will not need to draw on these reserves until the year 2019. But, at that point, total spending will outpace receipts into the system. Under the current language in the amendment, we could not pay benefits using the surplus that we have intentionally allowed to accumulate. Regardless of any effort to maintain a surplus over the years, benefits would be in jeopardy, unless we raise payroll taxes or drastically cut spending in other areas, like Medicare, Medicaid, or education. This is not just my opinion. Recently a report from the nonpartisan American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service determined that we would be prohibited from drawing down the surplus in the trust fund in order to pay benefits unless there was a surplus in the remaining portion of the budget. Maintaining a large enough surplus in the remaining portion of the Federal budget would require significant reductions in many other important programs like Medicare, defense, education, environmental protection, and law enforcement. Passage of this amendment violates the current contract with today's workers that if you pay into the system now, Social Security will be there when you retire. There were several attempts to correct this flaw and exclude Social Security from the balanced budget amendment, but all attempts failed as the supporters of the amendment claimed that we did not need to protect Social Security. I have heard that voting for this amendment is the courageous vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. The courageous vote is the vote in support of a plan that actually reduces the deficit and puts us on a real path to balancing the budget by the year 2002. Today's vote is about political rhetoric, not reality. I hope that the political rhetoric is over and that we can begin the real task of balancing the budget.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, technology is changing our world. It affects the way we communicate, the way we conduct commerce, and the way our children learn in school. Young people today are in the midst of a technology explosion that has really opened up limitless possibilities in the classroom. In order for our students to tap into this potential and be prepared for the 21st century, they have to learn how to use technology. But all too often today, teachers are expected to incorporate technology into their instruction without being given the training to do so. A recent study by the Office of Technology Assessment shows that a majority of teachers feel they need additional training in order to adequately use a personal computer. In fact, school districts across the country spend less than 15 percent of their technology budgets on teacher training. Hardware, software, access to the Internet are only helpful to the educational process if teachers are equipped with the knowledge to use that technology. That is why I am introducing today the Teacher Technology Training Act of 1997, which will add technology to the areas of professional development and teacher training on the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act of 1994. My legislation will require States to incorporate technology requirements in teacher training content and performance standards. School districts and local educational agencies that receive Federal funding for professional development have to include technology classes in their programs. In addition, institutions of higher education will be strongly encouraged to include technology in their education programs. There are two parts to providing students access to technology: putting computers into the schools, and training teachers in how to use them. Last year, I authored and we passed two amendments that would allow surplus computers from Government agencies to be made available to educational institutions across this country. In addition, Congress provided the E-rate in the telecommunications legislation we passed last year that will provide Internet connections to schools at discounted rates. I also fought for a fivefold increase in appropriations for new technology and classrooms. These are steps toward ensuring that all schools have computer technology. Now I want work to make sure that teachers are properly trained to use these computers. Recently, the Department of Education reported that only one in five of our Nation's teachers currently use computers in our classrooms--one out of five. Since technology training today focuses primarily on the mechanics of operating equipment, not on integrating technology into the curriculum, this is not surprising. Washington State, my home State, has become a State synonymous with Microsoft, Boeing, and thousands of other leading high-technology companies. The Information Technology Association of America reports that these information technology companies are short 190,000 employees today. These are employees dependent upon a technology curriculum and trained teachers in our schools. When I toured my State of Washington last week, I was astounded by the advances made within our classrooms. At Seattle's Nathan Hale High School, I saw a science class that utilized computers to track weather patterns and charts the effects on their region. They have created their own web pages and are able to hourly tap into the National Weather Service. Their final grade was then based on their ability to produce an accurate 5-day weather forecast. I also saw physically challenged students openly communicate with their teacher through enhanced computer technology. In the city of Bellingham, I spoke with a student-teacher who was concerned that when she and others went out into the field, there would be teachers who did not know how to use the technology. She felt that many of the students are far ahead of the teachers in their ability to use technology. In Grays Harbor County, I toured a facility supported by a public-private partnership. This lifelong learning center takes surplus computers and teaches student how to repair them and maintain their technology. The possibilities for learning are limitless. Having technology available for instructors does not directly change teaching or learning. What matters is how successfully teachers can incorporate technology into their classrooms. We know that technology is only one tool the teachers need to be effective in their jobs. My bill seeks to promote technology training. I have received support for this legislation from the National Education Association, the Washington Software and Digital Alliance, University Presidents and Deans, Washington School Principals, and many corporate and educational institutions. Mr. President, as a former preschool teacher, a parent education instructor, a former school board member, and as a parent, I know the needs of students and teachers have changed dramatically in recent years. My own children have benefit from the use of technology in their classrooms. But a school full of computers is useless if teachers don't have the necessary training to show students how to use them. As a member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I intend to fight for this legislation in Congress. I urge my colleagues' support for this bill so that we can provide teachers with the tools necessary to teach in today's changing classrooms and tomorrow's work force.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 351 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, technology is changing our world. It affects the way we communicate, the way we conduct commerce, and the way our children learn in school. Young people today are in the midst of a technology explosion that has really opened up limitless possibilities in the classroom. In order for our students to tap into this potential and be prepared for the 21st century, they have to learn how to use technology. But all too often today, teachers are expected to incorporate technology into their instruction without being given the training to do so. A recent study by the Office of Technology Assessment shows that a majority of teachers feel they need additional training in order to adequately use a personal computer. In fact, school districts across the country spend less than 15 percent of their technology budgets on teacher training. Hardware, software, access to the Internet are only helpful to the educational process if teachers are equipped with the knowledge to use that technology. That is why I am introducing today the Teacher Technology Training Act of 1997, which will add technology to the areas of professional development and teacher training on the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act of 1994. My legislation will require States to incorporate technology requirements in teacher training content and performance standards. School districts and local educational agencies that receive Federal funding for professional development have to include technology classes in their programs. In addition, institutions of higher education will be strongly encouraged to include technology in their education programs. There are two parts to providing students access to technology: putting computers into the schools, and training teachers in how to use them. Last year, I authored and we passed two amendments that would allow surplus computers from Government agencies to be made available to educational institutions across this country. In addition, Congress provided the E-rate in the telecommunications legislation we passed last year that will provide Internet connections to schools at discounted rates. I also fought for a fivefold increase in appropriations for new technology and classrooms. These are steps toward ensuring that all schools have computer technology. Now I want work to make sure that teachers are properly trained to use these computers. Recently, the Department of Education reported that only one in five of our Nation's teachers currently use computers in our classrooms--one out of five. Since technology training today focuses primarily on the mechanics of operating equipment, not on integrating technology into the curriculum, this is not surprising. Washington State, my home State, has become a State synonymous with Microsoft, Boeing, and thousands of other leading high-technology companies. The Information Technology Association of America reports that these information technology companies are short 190,000 employees today. These are employees dependent upon a technology curriculum and trained teachers in our schools. When I toured my State of Washington last week, I was astounded by the advances made within our classrooms. At Seattle's Nathan Hale High School, I saw a science class that utilized computers to track weather patterns and charts the effects on their region. They have created their own web pages and are able to hourly tap into the National Weather Service. Their final grade was then based on their ability to produce an accurate 5-day weather forecast. I also saw physically challenged students openly communicate with their teacher through enhanced computer technology. In the city of Bellingham, I spoke with a student-teacher who was concerned that when she and others went out into the field, there would be teachers who did not know how to use the technology. She felt that many of the students are far ahead of the teachers in their ability to use technology. In Grays Harbor County, I toured a facility supported by a public-private partnership. This lifelong learning center takes surplus computers and teaches student how to repair them and maintain their technology. The possibilities for learning are limitless. Having technology available for instructors does not directly change teaching or learning. What matters is how successfully teachers can incorporate technology into their classrooms. We know that technology is only one tool the teachers need to be effective in their jobs. My bill seeks to promote technology training. I have received support for this legislation from the National Education Association, the Washington Software and Digital Alliance, University Presidents and Deans, Washington School Principals, and many corporate and educational institutions. Mr. President, as a former preschool teacher, a parent education instructor, a former school board member, and as a parent, I know the needs of students and teachers have changed dramatically in recent years. My own children have benefit from the use of technology in their classrooms. But a school full of computers is useless if teachers don't have the necessary training to show students how to use them. As a member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I intend to fight for this legislation in Congress. I urge my colleagues' support for this bill so that we can provide teachers with the tools necessary to teach in today's changing classrooms and tomorrow's work force.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, I come to the floor today to introduce a common sense piece of legislation of great importance to the veterans of our country. Let me begin by thanking the veterans of my State for bringing this important issue to my attention. I particularly want to thank Mr. Fran Agnes, past national chairman, with the Former Prisoners of War veterans service organization. Fran is a champion for the veterans of my State and he never lets an opportunity pass to share with me the views of Washington State veterans. My State is home to nearly 700,000 veterans, and one of the few States with a growing veterans population. Washington State vets are active; virtually every veterans service organization has chapters, posts, and members all across my State. At the State level, Washington veterans are also blessed with a team of dedicated veterans' advocates. For me, this means I have a statewide ``unofficial'' advisory team to provide me with regular information about the issues of importance to veterans. I hear from Washington vets in the classroom, in the grocery store, at VA facilities, on the street, in my office and through the mail. My service on the Veterans' Affairs Committee is a genuine partnership with the veterans of my State. The bill I am introducing today is a direct result of this partnership. Simply stated, my bill proposes to allow the performance of honor guard functions by members of the National Guard at funerals for veterans. It may shock my colleagues to know why this legislation is so important. Sadly, decorated U.S. veterans are being laid to rest all across this country without the appropriate military honors. For years, military installations trained personnel to provide color guard services at the funerals of veterans. Oftentimes, as many as 10 active duty personnel were made available by local military installations to provide funeral services for a compatriot and his or her grieving family. These services were immensely important to the veterans community. It allowed veterans to see fellow veterans treated with the appropriate respect and admiration they deserved, and to know that they would also be afforded a dignified service. As the military has downsized in recent years, many installations are no longer able to provide personnel to perform color guard services and aid the veteran's family. Some installations do provide limited assistance if the deceased served in that branch of the military. In my State, that means very little to the Navy family who loses a loved one near the Air Force or Army installations nearby. And we all know, when a family member passes away there is little time or emotional capacity to plan a funeral. Too often, the result for a veteran is a funeral service without the requested and the deserved military honors. This must change. Veterans' service organizations have stepped in and tried to provide the color guard services for fellow deceased veterans. By most accounts, they do a very good job. But VSO's cannot meet the need for color guard services. By their own admission, they often lack the crispness and the precision of trained military personnel. Our veterans population is getting older, and we cannot expect a group of older veterans to provide these services day in and day out for their military peers. We are simply asking too much of a generation that has already given so much. My bill is an important first step toward ensuring that every veteran receives a funeral worthy of the valiant service he or she has given to our country. I believe every single Member of Congress believes our veterans deserve to be remembered with the appropriate military honors during a funeral service. By passing my legislation, the Congress can send a message to veterans that their service to us all will never be forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to pass this legislation at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I also want to thank Senator and Korean war veteran Ben Nighthorse Campbell for joining me in this effort. Senator Campbell also serves on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I know personally of his great commitment to the veterans of our country. And I'd also like to thank Congressman Paul Kanjorski, who has previously introduced this legislation on the House side. As I understand it, his constituents in Pennsylvania originally asked him to get involved in this effort. I look forward to working closely with both Senator Campbell and Congressman Kanjorski in support of this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 324 are located in today's record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on January 31 Proctor Jones spent his last day of service in the UU.S. Senate. I join many of my colleagues in thanking him publicly for his work. Proctor Jones has been an incredible asset to the Senate and to me. When I became a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in January, 1992, Proctor became my and my staff's mentor on the workings of this important subcommittee. He led us through the complex and confusing maze of numbers, agencies, and appropriations politics. Proctor was invaluable. My State of Washington is a major beneficiary of public investments coordinated under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, such as the Hanford Reservation, the Bonneville Power Administration, and numerous ports and waterways. These entities and projects are sometimes controversial, often complex, and usually expensive. Proctor knew what could be accomplished and what was doomed to failure. He had an answer to every question. Of course, that ability to divine the realm of the possible was both a source of joy and frustration. When the answer to a request was ``yes,'' I knew my request was a done deal and I could count on the funding or report language. When the answer was ``no,'' convincing Proctor about the error of his views was, shall we say, a daunting task. But he never let me down. If something could not be done the way I had originally envisioned it, he would explain why it would not, and suggest alternative ways to arrive at a similar outcome. Mr. President, I wish Proctor the best as he starts a new career as a partner with his former boss and one of the most effective Senators I have had the pleasure to serve with, former Senator J. Bennett Johnston. I will sorely miss Proctor's guidance and expertise, but know he is ready for a change and new challenges. Congratulations, Proctor, on your more than three decades of service to the greatest deliberative body on Earth. And thank you for your guidance to first term Senators like me.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would like to thank my friends, Senators Snowe and Mikulski, for offering their resolution in support of regular mammograms for women over 40. While I certainly respect the National Cancer Institute and its work, I, too, am very concerned about their recent conclusion that standard mammography guidelines for women ages 40 to 49 are unnecessary. At a time when there is still so much we do not know about breast cancer, I believe it is particularly important that we take the best science available and advise women based on its conclusions. More and more, we are learning that preventive care is the best way to catch breast cancer in time to save a woman's life. With that knowledge, we fought hard for Medicare coverage of mammography screening, and now President Clinton is proposing we expand that coverage. We all know that mammographies save not only lives, but Federal dollars as well. The cost of annual mammographies is far less than the cost of mastectomies, radiation, or other treatments. M. President, I believe we are headed in the right direction with these policies, and stepping back from encouraging annual check ups is not sending a consistent message to women. Instead, we should be making the same commitment to women between the ages of 40 and 50 as we have to those who are older. Evidence shows that this is the age when the risk of breast cancer increases for many women--and continues to climb in later years. According to the American Cancer Society, the incidence of breast cancer in the United States has leveled off in recent years. That is very good news. Even still, in my home State an estimated 3,500 women will learn that they have breast cancer this year. An estimated 850 will die from this disease in the same year. And, breast cancer is the No. 1 cancer killer among women ages 15 to 54. Like many here, I have seen the devastation breast cancer leaves in its path and the children it has left motherless. It is heartbreaking to think that with earlier detection they may not have lost their lives. I think we can all agree that--as with any other cancer--if we believe we can prevent women from suffering from this disease, we must do everything in our power to do so. The American Cancer Society also tells us that in the last decade, the average breast lump size--the first indicator of cancer in most cases--has decreased substantially. In 1991, the average size of detected tumors was down to 2.1 centimeters--that is about the size of a nickel. What this tells us is that potentially malignant tumors are being found in earlier and earlier stages of development. Consequently, women have the opportunity to start treatment earlier, and have a higher chance of survival or avoiding drastic options like mastectomies. Mortality rates for Caucasian women have leveled off and even started dropping in recent years. Unfortunately, however, the statistics for women of color are not as good, but at least we know screening helps--now we have to make sure that these women have access to screening. I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber would deem regular mammographies for a woman over 40 as frivolous. On the contrary, I believe the Members of this body, including myself, now understand better than ever the importance of regular screening for many forms of cancer. I am not a doctor, nor do I pretend to know more than the participants of the NCI's breast cancer screening consensus panel. However, I do know enough to understand the value of preventive screening for breast cancer. And, I also know that we have been fighting an uphill battle to get women--or men, for that matter--into their doctors' offices to have annual check ups. Therefore, I am very concerned about the consequence of continued confusion over recommendations for how often a woman should have a mammography and mixed signals from leading officials. I look forward to the results of the American Cancer Society's review of the data used by the consensus panel. In the meantime, I support Senator Snowe and Mikulski's efforts to send a strong, clear signal to women that until we have conclusive evidence to the contrary, we know there is a benefit to regular screening. Along with my colleagues, I encourage all women over 40 to follow the American Cancer Society's recommendation of mammographies every 1 to 2 years. Again, I thank my friends from Maine and Maryland for their work on this issue and their dedication to women's health. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to a young man, a member of my staff, who was taken from us before his time by cancer last week: Pat Ormsby of Spokane, WA. Pat taught me and everyone he touched a most important lesson--how to live life to the fullest with courage, and how to die with dignity. Pat came to my office just a few years ago, but he was no stranger to Northwest politics. For 10 years he served on the staff of former Speaker Tom Foley. A schoolteacher, Pat started in Mr. Foley's office as a constituent caseworker and eventually moved to the Nation's Capital to become his adviser for agriculture issues. His reputation was one of someone who was hardworking, down to earth, never caught in the insider beltway thinking. He was always remembering to do what was right for the people he knew so well--the people of Spokane and eastern Washington. Two years ago, Pat wanted to return home to Washington State to raise his family. As it happened, we crossed paths at an opportune time: he was job-hunting just when I was looking for an eastern Washington director. Pat fit the bill perfectly, and I could not have asked for a better hire. For the past 2 years, Pat ran my Spokane office. He worked diligently for the people: he was always there to take cases and advise my D.C. staff on issues like agriculture and business that so intimately affected the lives of the people around him. He was known across the countryside, and everyone to a person, loved him. Pat was the guy we counted on. Quiet. Unassuming. But always honest, forthright, and clear. His advice on the farm bill, taxes, even welfare reform was always on target, because Pat always knew we worked for the people--and we were there to serve them first. He was rare in political circles. He brought a certain generosity and good humor to the job that is not seen too often in politics any more. He loved it, he worked tirelessly, he loved being in the thick of things, but he never let it go to his head. And though he was a committed Democrat, he took pains to avoid bringing any partisan edge to his work. He never forgot who he was--a dad and husband first, a public servant, and a devoted community member. Last spring Pat shared with us that he and his wife Janet were expecting a second child in November, as his first son, Miles, was just turning 3. A happier man, you could not find. But July of this year brought tough news. Pat was diagnosed with liver cancer. The news of his illness was tough on all of us who knew him. There was universal disbelief. Everyone I talked to wanted to help, to change the course of his illness, to do something. Inevitably, these conversations would bring out a funny story about Pat, about his tireless work on some project like housing, or commodity programs, or taking extra time to help a constituent who was upset and feeling frustrated with a bureaucracy. And the more I heard from people, the more clear it became just how special a person Pat was. Despite chemotherapy and exhaustive treatment, Pat determinedly came to the office each day, after taking time to go to church and put his faith in God. He continued to be the one to encourage all of us, and to let us know he was going to be all right no matter what happened. Recently it became clear his battle was coming to an end. Pat in his quiet way prepared all of us. He maintained what I can only call a relentless optimism. He reminded us of his deep faith, and said his greatest joy was seeing his new son, Paul, come into the world at the end of September. He even had the audacity to apologize when it became clear he could no longer work, but quickly added that he didn't mind because he never liked the commute. Somehow, amazingly, he always emphasized the positives. He took care of his family and prepared for their future. Again, with great humor, he reminded us it was actually a blessing that he had time to do everything necessary to chart a path for them. He took the time to tell each of us who knew him that it was OK, not an end, just a new beginning for him. A week and a half ago in Spokane, friends, family, and coworkers gathered together to honor Pat. Mayor Jack Geraghty declared it Pat Ormsby Appreciation Day in Spokane. We gathered with Pat to share feelings and stories about him and his endless contributions. Pat again thanked us all and said his goodbyes. Last Thursday, we lost Pat. Our staff came together and shared a quiet moment. It was hard to believe he was gone, and it still is. He had become such an important part of our lives, as an example of a true public servant and family man--who always put others before himself and gave something of his life to so many. It is not fair that children so young should be denied their father, or Janet her husband. But the steps he took to prepare near the end, and the way he lived his life, will be there to show how much he loved them. And because of the example he set, those children will carry something of their father with them always. We are grateful we knew him, and we are especially grateful to his family for sharing him. We are comforted now only in knowing that a bit of Pat lives on in each of us who knew him: his courage, his common sense, and his pride in community, State, and country. Pat, in his short life, did what each of us should--gave much more than he received. We will miss him.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 4 years ago today, thanks to the hard work of Senator Dodd, we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. It was one of the first things I did as a newly elected Senator. And I am proud of its success. In fact, it is probably the single most effective law passed by Congress this decade. Now I want to expand the scope of FMLA to apply to participation in our schools. The Time for Schools Act of 1997 will allow parents 24 hours per year to participate in activities in their child's school. As the mother of two children--one a teenager in high school--I know how difficult and how important it is to participate in their education. I have been lucky to have had the opportunity to be involved in their lives. But many parents do not have the time it takes to do those little things that will assure their child's success in school. By expanding the uses of one of the most successful laws in years, I want to give parents something they don't have enough of--time. When I tour schools in my home State of Washington, I often hear young people say, ``Adults don't seem to care about me.'' We know that's not true, but we need to show them that adults do care. And one of the best places to start is to reaffirm the importance of their education by taking steps to help their families get more involved in schools. These days we have many dual-income families and single parents struggling to work to make ends meet. All of these families know how important it is to be involved in their children's learning. However, a recent study, Parents as School Partners research initiative, sponsored by the National Council of Jewish Women's Center for the Child, found that a basic lack of time was one of the main barriers to more parental involvement at schools. Educational studies have shown that family involvement is more important to student success than family income or education. In fact, things parents control, such as limiting excess television watching and providing a variety of reading materials in the home, account for almost all the differences --nearly 90 percent--in average student achievement across States. All sectors of our communities want more time for young people. Students, teachers, parents and businesses feel something must be done to improve family involvement. In fact, 89 percent of company executives identified the biggest obstacle to school reform as the lack of parental involvement. And, a 1996 postelection poll commissioned by the national PTA and other organizations found that 86 percent of people favor legislation that would allow workers unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher conferences, or to take other actions to improve learning for their children. A commitment to our children is a commitment to the future. I want to make sure all young people receive the attention they need to succeed. My legislation will allow parents time to: First, attend a parent/ teacher conference; second, interview a new school for their child; and third, participate in family literacy training. Just last week, I talked to a woman from Bellevue who has an 11-year- old special needs daughter in school. Both she and her husband work during the day, but he cannot get away for school activities. She told me my legislation would allow her husband to attend school conferences and participate in their child's education for the first time. I look at the Family and Medical Leave Act--which has helped one in six American employees take time to deal with serious family health problems, and which 90 percent of businesses had little or no cost implementing--and I see success. People in my State have been able to deal with urgent family needs, without having to give up their jobs. My bill expands the uses of Family and Medical Leave to another urgent need families face--the need to help their children learn. Now we need to grant employees the same peace of mind about preventing problems in school that can lead to bigger problems for their children later on. The time is right for the Time for Schools Act.