Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the omnibus appropriations bill contains a provision in the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations area that needs clarification. Section 208 prevents the administration and councils from using funds to implement any individual fishing quota [IFQ] programs until fees are expressly authorized for such programs under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This fee authority recently passed both the House and Senate and will soon be signed into law by the President, but there is some confusion about the implication of this appropriations provision on a particular IFQ program designed to regulate bycatch. Section 118 of the Sustainable Fisheries Act amends section 313 of the Magnuson Act to provide authority for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to establish a Vessel Bycatch Accountability [VBA] program under section 313(g)(2). As Senator Stevens made clear during debate on the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the authority to collect a fee under section 304(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Magnuson Act for actual costs directly related to the management and enforcement of IFQ programs applies as well to any VBA program created under section 313(g)(2). Therefore, the express authorization of fees for a VBA program is contained within the express authorization of IFQ fees in section 304(d)(2)(A)(i), except that, as Senator Stevens mentioned during the debate, the fees in the VBA fishery should not exceed one percent of the annual ex-vessel value of the target fish in the fishery. It is therefore clear that once the Sustainable Fisheries Act has been enacted, section 208 will no longer apply to the VBA program I have described. It will in no way prevent the Council from developing and the Secretary from approving and implementing a VBA program, consistent with the requirements of section 313(g)(2) and other provisions of the Magnuson Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Is it a correct interpretation of the language in section 114, that none of the requirements of the Elwha Act are changed if the State of Washington elects not to purchase the projects?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, would the senior Senator from Washington yield for a question on the bill language amending the Elwha Act included in the Interior section of the omnibus appropriations bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to address my colleagues about a matter that concerns the American public deeply--the well-being of their children. I have come to the floor myself several times these past 2 years to talk about our children's future. Since January of last year, when the House voted to cut school lunches and other nutrition programs; to this past spring, when I reported on my children's forums in Washington State; to just a month ago, when the Senate finally voted to require hospitals to allow new mothers to spend at least 48 hours in the hospital when delivering a baby, I have been a frequent and avid speaker on issues affecting children and families. I have always tried to present children's issues in three basic categories: Their health, their education, and their ability to contribute to society in the long term. In my view, those ideas are pretty straightforward: every child has a right to good health; every child has a right to an education; and every child has a right to grow up in strong, nurturing communities. The cycle is simple: a child who is healthy is able to learn; a learned child is able to participate in society; a society of contributing adults is able to uphold its responsibilities to the children. Again, and again, and again. This has been a very strange 2 years for children's policy. There have been great victories, such as health insurance portability and mandatory maternity care. Threats have been turned aside, such as cuts in school lunches, jeopardizing Medicaid services for children, and elimination of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. And there have been defeats--reductions in student loans and direct lending, and a radical welfare bill that leaves millions of poor children in limbo. As we near the end of the 104th Congress, I would like to take a moment to explore some of the highs and lows for children, some of the accomplishments we have made that will help children, and some of the problems we still face, and which will require our continuing attention in the next Congress. After much wrangling, the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act continues our investment in young people's well-being in some important areas: In infant health, the Healthy Start Program has made significant gains against infant mortality in several high-rate communities around the Nation. In spite of initial attempts to cut it, Healthy Start funding was increased from $75 million to $96 million. Healthy Start has proven itself across partisan lines by creating effective models for other communities. And, like many other children's health programs, it is very deserving of an increase. Also, the maternal and child health services block grant was funded at $681 million. The block grant supports local communities in their efforts to provide many essential health services, including prenatal care, newborn screening, and care for children with disabilities. Other health areas, such as funding for the National Institutes for Health, and funding for the Ryan White Act, and for AIDS research, also met at least minimum targets in the bill. Head Start works toward the improvement of the health and education of needy youngsters. Arguably, this program has done more for young children in terms of getting them healthy and ready for school than any other. It demands to be retained and expanded. The level of $3.98 billion in this bill will allow the program to keep pace with inflation. This is good, but this will be an obvious program to expand next year. In the area of education funding, once Head Start has readied children for school, we must make sure they stay on equal footing with their peers. One way to do this is to assure they have access to educational technology. If we do not continue to give students access to the technology of today, they will not be able to get or hold the jobs of tomorrow. I am glad the appropriations bill continues our investments in new education technology and technology challenge grants. We have made other positive efforts this year, such as my legislation which will put surplus government computers in schools. But these efforts will be less effective unless we are also investing in new technology, including networking capability, new hardware and software, and teacher training that schools will need to succeed. The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program also fares better under this bill than I had hoped. This program increased by $56 million, which pays for educational curriculum specifically designed to give students options to the violence and drug use we see young people combat daily in today's society. Every school district in the country gets some of this money, because there is no community in which drugs do not present a threat to the potential of young Americans. Beyond technology, funding the School-to-Work Program is vital. School-to-Work shows students the connection between what they learn in the classroom and what they must know in the workplace. These programs have been funded at $400 million, which is a $50 million improvement over last year's level. There is no better investment we can make for the 75 percent of high school graduates who do not end up with a college degree. When it comes to education, we too often forget adult students. In most areas of this bill, we were only able to hold the line, and to survive. But in at least one area that is supported by Members of both parties, we were able to provide a much-needed increase for adult basic education--adult literacy. The students here are some of the most heroic people in our country. Many adults in this country are unable to read to their own children, or are faced with tests in the workplace that mean the difference between employment and unemployment. It is very difficult for these same adults to go to programs at their local community college, or run by a nonprofit organization, and learn to read. It is truly courageous. As they learn, they get better jobs, they provide better help to their children in school, and they contribute more to our society. This was a great next step; but especially with the welfare bill taking effect now and in the near future, we need to do more. In areas of citizenship, one of our best investments is Americorps. Americorps builds on the best traditions of the Civilian Conservation Corps, the G.I. bill, and the Peace Corps, by rewarding people for working to improve their communities. It was eliminated in the House version of the VA-HUD bill, so I am glad to see that Americorps programs were returned to their 1996 levels. We should have new investments here, but at least we are continuing our investment. There are still several areas of this Appropriations Act that do not meet the test of providing at least the minimum basic standards for all young people in this country. In basic child health, child immunization funding is $20 million lower than the level necessary. To underfund such a vital area, when we have seen outbreaks of measles and other diseases in my State and around the Nation, is a move I do not understand and find troubling. We must move forward, and expand immunization to deal with the needs we know are out there. The prevention we provide, compared to the cost of treating the diseases we allow, is not only cost effective, but also the right thing to do. Additional appropriations would allow us to fund the infrastructure, education, and registries which would get immunizations to the underserved children who need them most. On education, the huge task before us is in the area of teacher training. Goals 2000 was increased in this appropriations bill, but Eisenhower professional development activities were cut this year. If our schools succeed in the next century in teaching job and thinking skills to students, it will be because of our teachers. Our current teaching corps is aging and many will soon be retiring. Research shows that for one teacher to learn one new skill that she or he can reproduce in the classroom, they need to spend several hours practicing that skill under supervision of a master teacher. When I look at the investments we must make to allow young people to be the best possible citizens in our communities, I see that the Senate has again made a mistake. The Summer Youth Employment Program is funded equal to 1996 funding, but here is one area where extra investment truly would pay off with results for our communities. Young people are always telling adults that they do not have anything to do, especially when school is out. Summer Youth Employment helps teach the skills of work and work attitudes that will reduce violence, and improve young people's confidence and self-control. Earlier versions of the bill would have meant 134,000 fewer jobs for young people this summer. When we are all working so hard to keep young people involved and interested in productive activities, this cut is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Children and young people deserve their Senator's very best decisionmaking. I would argue that children and young people need our attention and best efforts more than any other group of people in our country. What we have done here in this Appropriations Act, is to reject the open assaults on children's programs we saw earlier in this Congress. In order to get beyond a survival level, to a place where we can say we are actually investing in the future, we must expand funding in preventive areas: in access to preventive health services, in the improvement of teacher training, and in the expansion of productive activities for youth. This Congress has shown that it can muster the foresight and compassion it takes to deal with issues affecting children. This Congress has also made some decisions I fear may have disturbing effects on countless young people. I have worked hard during this Congress, as have others, to do the very best for all of our children. Let us build upon this fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Act, so our actions will be remembered well by this Nation's children when they are old enough to vote. amtrak

Mrs. MURRAY. Is it a correct interpretation of the language in section 114, that none of the requirements of the Elwha Act are changed if the State of Washington elects not to purchase the projects?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, section 114 of the Interior portion of this omnibus appropriations bill addresses the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act, Public Law 102-495. I would like to reflect on some of the legislative history of that section. While section 114 slightly amends the Elwha Act, it also sustains and confirms the Elwha Act itself. The amendment simply provides for one new option in this restoration process: The State of Washington may purchase the dams for $2 after the Federal Government has bought them for $29.5 million from the current private owner. Should the State wish to acquire two aging dams, it must enter into an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to discharge all of the obligations of the Federal Government, as established in the Elwha Act. Although it is almost impossible to envision a basis on which the State might choose to purchase these projects, this amendment at least makes such a decision possible. It is important to reiterate, the State may acquire the dams only if it agrees to remove the two dams, restore the fisheries, provide numerous tribal obligations, protect the local water quality, and do everything the Federal Government was committed to doing under the original Elwha Act. I specifically want to stress that the State must undertake all of the obligations of the Act, including section 3 (a), (c), and (d), as well as sections 4, 7, and 9. In case my colleagues were not aware of the current State responsibilities for fisheries in Washington, the State manages fishery resources within State waters. It is required to manage these resources in a manner consistent with the Boldt decision regarding tribal treaty rights to fishery resources. The obligations under the Elwha Act are far more expansive. I need to clarify a mistake made this weekend. Senator Gorton and my staff agreed Friday to report language that provided: ``None of the requirements of the Elwha Act are changed unless the State elects to exercise its option to purchase and remove the projects.'' As a colloquy between Senator Gorton and myself at the end of the bill reflects, that is the intent of the managers. This colloquy makes clear an implied intention of the amendment: If the State does not exercise its new option, then the Secretary and the United States remain fully obligated under this act to acquire the dams, remove them, restore the river's ecosystem and fisheries, and deal honorably with the tribes. Until such time as the binding agreement provided for in this amendment is offered by the State and approved by the Federal Government, the Federal Government must continue to carry out its responsibilities under the Elwha Act with all due speed. I do not support the approach taken by this amendment. However, my solace lies in my belief that the State would not--and should not-- accept this option. Restoration of the Elwha ecosystem is a Federal responsibility. It is on Federal land, in one of this nation's most amazing parks and rainforests, the Olympic National Park. Only the Federal Government is responsible, via its trust obligations, to the S'Klallam people who have sacrificed so much as others have destroyed an historic religious and cultural icon, the abundant salmon runs of the Elwha. Despite reservations about this amendment, I am pleased with the true appropriations work done in this bill, that is allocation of funds to acquire these dams. I strongly support the $4 million appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The Congress provided the same amount last year. I look forward to working to ensure the next administration demonstrates its commitment to this project with a substantial increase in its budget request for this important fisheries restoration project. The Elwha River and ecosystem are precious to the tribes, environmentalists, Olympic Peninsula communities, commercial and sport fishers, and other people throughout the region and country. This river system was one of the most productive salmon rearing and spawning resources in the Pacific Northwest. Today, those fisheries are devastated. I appreciate the nearly $300,000 allocated in this bill for emergency measures to provide some relief for species currently imperiled. I am committed to working with Senator Gorton and the next Administration in the 105th Congress to ensure the Elwha ecosystem is fully restored as soon as possible. Elwha Act

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working as a member of the Appropriations Committee--unfortunately, without you-- next year to ensure a comprehensive approach is fully funded.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides many tools with which we, as a nation, can fight crime and drugs. I would like to highlight one area about which many law enforcement officials of my home State of Washington have expressed growing concern: methamphetamines. The Department of Justice, working with other agencies, has developed a comprehensive approach to battling the use and manufacture of methamphetamines entitled ``National Methamphetamine Strategy'', April 1996. Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight the managers' support for interagency and Federal, State, and local law enforcement cooperation in combating this growing menace. It is particularly important to involve the Environmental Protection Agency and other appropriate agencies to provide technical and financial assistance to State and local law enforcement as they remove hazardous chemicals and waste developed in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Another important piece to solving this puzzle in the Pacific Northwest is designation of a high-intensity drug trafficking area. I am happy to announce that contained in this bill is $3 million for the newly created Pacific Northwest HIDTA. This will help enormously as we try to coordinate our efforts among Federal, State, and local law enforcement to fight not only methamphetamines, but all other illegal drugs and drug trafficking in our region. The Department of Justice has also developed the National Methamphetamine Strategy--April 1996. This report is referenced in a colloquy I will have, in conjunction with this omnibus spending bill, with Chairman Hatfield and Senator Hollings about the need to address methamphetamines. This plan, which will be partially implemented when S. 1965 becomes law, lays out a legislative, law enforcement, training, chemical regulation, international cooperation, environmental protection, public awareness, educational, and treatment strategy. The multidisciplinary, multijurisdictional program provides the needed comprehensive approach to this problem. Finally, money is critical. While I do not support simply throwing Federal dollars at this problem, the need for Federal support to help in coordination activities, technical assistance, and training cannot be minimized. In the bill we have before us, we make some major improvements in our war against these and other drugs. The DEA's budget was increased by 23 percent--that's a start. The U.S. Attorneys Office received funding for additional attorney's, which are critically needed. The Office of National Drug Control Policy received new money and additional HIDTA's. So, I believe this budget moves us in the right direction. As I have suggested in the colloquy, I intend to work with my colleagues in Congress and in the administration to develop a funding and technical assistance strategy to address the unique problems posed by methamphetamines and clandestine labs. Our local and State law enforcement officials simply must have adequate money, training, and technical expertise to address the costly and dangerous threats posed by clandestine labs. I will then work to ensure funds are targeted to this vital area in the fiscal year 1998 budget. Mr. President, as with all social and criminal problems, change can only occur if and when we all do our part. I pledge to work with Federal, State and local law enforcement, community leaders, my colleagues, and others to find a way to stop the spread of illegal drugs, including methamphetamines. I am committed to improving the quality of life, safety, and security of our children and communities. I look forward to continuing this important work in the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of S. 1965.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in recent years, there has been been one issue that, perhaps more than any other, has sent waves of fear through our communities--the scourge of illegal drugs and the threat they pose to our children and families. As the 104th Congress comes to a close, I want to reflect on one aspect of this growing threat: the increasing use and manufacture of methamphetamines. The use of this drug is increasing among youth and young adults. According to the most recent Drug Abuse Warning Network, methamphetamine-related deaths increased nationally by 145 percent between 1992 and 1994 and methamphetamine-related emergency room cases are up 256 percent since 1991. In addition, methamphetamine-related hospital visits more than tripled between 1991 and 1994, with the largest increases occurring in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. In case my colleagues are not familiar with this drug, it is commonly called, in its various forms, speed, crank, ice, and meth. It's cheap, easy to get, highly addictive, and very, very dangerous. This drug can be inhaled, injected, ingested, or smoked. Its effects include feelings of alertness, euphoria, self-confidence, and impulsiveness. It can lead to rage, depression, paranoia, delusions,weight loss, abnormal heartbeat, insomnia, confusion, and auditory hallucinations. It has increased its purity in recent years and its effects can be sustained for up to 8 hours. Abusers may remain awake for days or weeks after a binge, then enter the most dangerous phase, know as tweaking, where they as most likely to suffer hallucinations, dramatic mood swings, and extreme violence. While all drugs are cause for concern, the increase of methamphetamines pose unique problems for law enforcement and communities, namely clandestine labs. In recent months, I have met with groups of law enforcement officials including Washington State Patrol Chief Annette Sandberg, U.S. Attorney Kate Pflaumer, and representatives of many local law enforcement agencies, including Shoreline Polices Department, Snohomish County Sheriffs Department, Lynnwood Police Department, Everett Police Department, Marysvill Police Department, and Mukilteo Police Department. Without exception, all mentioned the increasing numbers of clandestine laboratories used to manufacture methamphetamines. These labs are easily assembled in hotel rooms, trailer homes, or other small structures in both rural and urban settings. Using a quick, easy and cheap method, dubbed the Nazi method because of its invention by the Germans to keep soldiers alert in World War II, legal ingredients are harnessed to create a potent form of methamphetamines. Once these labs are located, local law enforcement officers must disassemble them, often at great risk to themselves. The chemicals used to make this synthetic drug include red phosphorous, iodine, hydrochloric acid, and, most importantly, ephedrine. These chemicals or their combination create hazardous waste and can be deadly if officers are overexposed to them. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, the clandestine nature of the manufacturing process and the presence of ignitable, corrosive, reactive, and toxic chemicals have led to explosions, fires, toxic fumes, and irreparable damage to human health and the environment. The so-called cooks or chemists in these clandestine labs simply dump hazardous chemical wastes on the ground, into streams or lakes, into sewage systems or septic tanks, or underground. Law enforcement officials or firefighters require special training in health, safety, and disposal methods to deal with these labs. The cleanup of these dangerous sites is complex, expensive and time consuming. The contaminated materials and evidence can weigh up to several tons. The substances to which these law enforcement officers are exposed present very real health risks. In addition to the danger posed to officers and the environment, unwitting future tenants of the motels, homes, or trailers may be exposed to toxic vapors that have permeated plaster and wood of buildings. Children may play in the soil or water onto which these chemicals have been carelessly or intentionally dumped. Passersby also may inhale these vapors as they pass a clandestine lab. Finally, chemicals may be stored in rental lockers or other semi-public places that lack proper ventilation or temperature controls. These improperly stored chemicals increase the likelihood of fire, explosion, and human exposure. So, Mr. President, what should we do? I am in strong support of S. 1965, the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act passed by the Senate 2 weeks ago and the House this weekend. That bill takes a multifaceted approach to the problem by addressing, among other things, importation of chemicals used to make the drug; increased penalties for manufacturing, possession of manufacturing equipment, and trafficking; higher civil penalties for firms that knowingly supply precursor chemicals; restitution for cleanup of clandestine lab sites; development of an interagency task force; public health monitoring; and public-private education programs. I congratulate Senators Hatch, Biden, and Feinstein on their efforts to help this Congress address the problem. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Senators Hatch and Biden be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, as well as Senator Gorton and Congressman Metcalf, for their work on this bill. We have reached an agreement on the provisions regarding the Northwest Straits of Washington State which I think will serve everyone's best interest. My amendment to the House passed bill deletes language establishing a local advisory committee under the control of NOAA, while retaining the requirement that final designation of a marine sanctuary in the Northwest Straits occur only via congressional authorization. I was concerned that the creation of a NOAA-controlled advisory committee would undermine the very intent of bringing local community members together to consider the resource protection needs of the Northwest Straits in an objective and open forum. Many members of the local communities have serious concerns about the performance of NOAA over the last several years with regard to the proposed sanctuary. To establish a new advisory committee under NOAA's control would only perpetuate those concerns. I think it is much better if such local commissions or committees develop on their own, independent from the NOAA process, much as the Marine Resources Committee in the San Juan Islands has done. It is my understanding that as NOAA continues with its assessment of the resource protection needs of the Northwest Straits, it will provide personnel and technical expertise and information to any local advisory committees or commissions that may develop and will include any recommendations put forward by such committees or commissions in NOAA's assessment. My amendment will allow us to move this important bill forward with bipartisan consensus. I appreciate the significant role the Marine Sanctuaries Program plays in the protection of our Nation's ocean resources. The protection of marine life and marine habitat is a worthy goal. Marine sanctuaries may not only protect the marine environment but may also support regional economies by creating recreational and tourism opportunities and enhancing commercial fisheries and associated industries by providing refuges for fish and other marine life. I fully support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support our agreement.

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.

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.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleagues on the floor discussing this issue over the last several days, and over the last several months, as it has increasingly become an inflammatory issue both here and across this country. I found myself going home last night feeling more and more angry. I asked myself, why is it that I feel so angry listening to this debate? I realized it was because I feel that we have really offended the women and the families who have had to make this decision, and they probably are sitting at home watching this debate in tears. Because none of us were there when they had to face a horrendous decision, women and men, young families, who wanted very much to have a baby, who found themselves at the end of a long pregnancy, after months of people coming up to them and telling them, ``Oh, how exciting. When is your baby due?'' Of planning for that baby, of having the furniture ready in the baby's room. Only at the end of that pregnancy to find out there were tragic circumstances involved, that perhaps their baby's brain was not formed, that their baby would not survive. Not only that, but to be told by their doctor that if this baby were to be delivered at the end of 9 months, the woman's life would be in serious jeopardy, or perhaps her ability to have future children. I feel so sorry for those families who have had to live through this tragic experience, who now have to watch an inflammatory and divisive debate on this floor in this Senate by people who are not medical doctors, who have not been there, who do not know the circumstances surrounding that horrendous decision they had to make, now try to make it a criminal offense for them to go through that. I apologize to those families. I apologize to them for having to listen to this debate. For us to be sitting here second-guessing them and their doctors--I find it offensive. Again, I thought about it--why am I so angry? Mr. President, I am angry at the arrogance of those who sit out here on this floor and describe to us the joys they have had in being with their wives when their babies were born under wonderful circumstances. And I have had that opportunity twice in my life. But there are some on this floor who have had to live through similar experiences, and I think it is arrogant of people to be on this floor talking about it who have not been through the same thing. It is extremely difficult to sit in a doctor's office, when you have been pregnant for many months, and be told that your baby is not going to live. It is a tragic, horrendous experience that no one can understand unless they have been there. Mr. President, I am offended that Members of this body know, or think they know, what that would be like. If you have not lived through it, you do not know. This Senate, this Congress, should not be deciding the lives of those women, their families, or their future. It should be up to the doctor and the husband and the wife, as it has in the past and it better well be in the future, for my daughter and the other women around this country. Mr. President, this is an emotional, distorted debate. We are using the lives of a few women to create divisions across this country. I know that many women are offended, as I am. Again, I extend my apology to the women in this country who have been through this experience and who know. I commend our President for having had the strength and the courage to stand up and say that he will veto this bill. I commend my colleagues who have the courage as well, despite the often offensive comments that we have heard, and the horrendous articles that we have seen written, and the divided doctors' opinions we have read. If we can be smart today and not override this veto and have courage to vote what is right, we will leave it up to women in the future to make their own decisions. That is extremely important for us to do. Mr. President, the New York Times today had an extremely important editorial. I hope my colleagues who are sitting back, thinking about this debate and what their vote will mean, will take the time to read it. It states the case very well, in a very cognizant manner. I remind my colleagues, despite what you hear, if we can save the life of one woman and we can save the tragedy of one family not being able to make the decision that is good for the mother's health, then we have done the right thing today. I urge my colleagues to sustain the veto of the President of the United States, and I yield my time back to Senator Boxer from California.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank the subcommittee for its hard and diligent work on this bill. In particular, I appreciate the earmark of $500,000 for the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program for fiscal year 1997. This program began in 1990 when the 26 tribes and tribal organizations in Washington State came together with a cooperative intergovernmental strategy to accomplish national clean water goals. As a result of Federal court decisions, the State of Washington has recognized the tribes as comanagers of water quality in the State. This program has been an effective tool for leveraging scarce public funds to create viable, watershed-based water quality protection plans. It is my understanding that the $500,000 earmark in the committee report is not intended to preclude the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program from receiving the needed additional $2 million from the Environmental Protection Agency's existing funds under section 104(b)3 of the Clean Water Act.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my senior colleague from the State of Washington, to honor a very special individual from our home State. I want to take a few minutes today to honor Jack Lein, not only for his decades of service to Washington State, but for his tireless dedication and commitment to this Nation's health and education. Mr. President, Jack Lein was born and raised near former House Speaker Tom Foley in Spokane, WA. He served his country bravely during World War II as a medical corpsman atop the mountains of Idaho. Though Jack would tell us he saw very limited military conflict above America's prized potato fields, he did begin a career of medical service that has now spanned generations. After receiving his medical degree in 1955 and spending some time in private practice, he joined the faculty and administration of the University of Washington where he has remained for over 32 years. Being myself a proud alumnus of Washington State University, it is, indeed, difficult to salute a man so entrenched in the success of our rival, the University of Washington. But I am proud to say, Dr. Lein's tenure at the university has helped to produce one of this Nation's premier research and health science facilities. Dr. Lein's career at the University of Washington has encompassed most aspects of modern medicine, medical and health sciences education, university administration and Federal relations. He founded the University of Washington School of Medicine continuing medical education program and was its director for 19 years. He was also assistant dean and then associate dean of the school of medicine. He pioneered regionalized medical education and served as the university's vice president for health sciences, the highest academic administrative position ever achieved by a UW graduate. Dr. Lein's work will be seen by generations to come through his perseverance and foresight which has produced and will continue to produce thousands of America's health professionals. His leadership has been noted by both his peers and the press. In 1993, Dr. Lein was honored with the Recognition Award by the Society for Teachers of Family Medicine. For the third consecutive year, the University of Washington School of Medicine was ranked the best primary care medical school in the Nation. Among medical teaching disciplines, the UW ranked first in family and rural medicine, third in women's health care and fifth in pediatrics. Although it may be appropriate to call the university's last three decades the ``Lein'' years, that description would be far from accurate. As the director of Federal relations, Dr. Lein has transformed the university into one of the Nation's leading research universities. The University of Washington has been ranked in the top five in receipt of Federal grant and contract dollars, which account for 80 percent of the university's grant funding. If anyone could document the history of Washington State's congressional delegation over the last 50 years, it would be Jack. His wit is legendary around Washington State circles, and he can quickly recount a story about Scoop or Dan Evans. Jack will tell you that Maggie thought ``foreign policy was anything outside Washington State.'' He was always there with either the right information or the right resource to find the answer. Dr. Lein will step down from his position at the university at the end of this year. His absence will be felt by U.S. Senators, congressional staff, college faculty, and students for many years to come. Mr. President, on behalf of the citizens of Washington State, I salute Dr. Jack Lein and his wife, Claire, for a lifetime of dedicated service to his alma mater, his State and his Nation. Jack, we will miss you, but we will always know that you are close by. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the senior Senator from the State of Washington. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate this afternoon is the Sustainable Fishery Act, the Magnuson Act, and is the outcome of a very long and very difficult process. Only great willingness to compromise on everyone's part has enabled this bill to reach the Senate floor this evening. This bill has been almost 4 years in the making, and it has gone through many changes, and improvements have been made along the way. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their willingness to work through the difficult allocation issues in this bill so that the strong conservation provisions of this bill can move forward. Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to thank my senior Senator, Senator Gorton, for his tremendous work on this bill and the opportunity to work with him on an issue of natural resources. His tenacity and perseverance throughout this debate has been very instructive and very much appreciated. I also want to take this opportunity to thank both his staff and my staff, Justin Le Blanc and Jeanne Bumpus, for their tireless work on this bill, as well. Mr. President, we have reached a fair and reasonable compromise on this bill. As we send this bill to the House, I urge them not to undermine this bill by altering it to reflect parochial interests. This bill serves two purposes: to conserve fishery resources and to preserve the fishing industry. It contains new provisions to address overfishing, bycatch, and impacts on fish habitat. These provisions will strengthen our ability to conserve fish resources, and they will allow us to develop long-term, sustainable fisheries. This bill will enable us to turn around depleted fisheries and ensure we have fish for the future. The help of the fishing industry is directly related to the health of the resource. The conservation provisions will, therefore, benefit the fisheries as well. By protecting the fish, the bill also protects jobs. The bill sustains the fishing industry in other ways, as well. Natural standards promoting efficient use of fishing resources and promoting the safety of life at sea will help our fishers continue fishing. New consideration for fishing communities recognizes all fishers, no matter where they live, depend upon the fish. Detailed studies of controversial fishery quota programs will be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. A study of individual fishing quota programs will allow us to evaluate the potential benefits of such programs. A short moratorium on IFQs will allow us to review this study and to evaluate the success of existing programs. We should not prejudge the appropriateness of IFQ's at this time. Let's allow the study to provide us guidance on this important issue. The Academy will also study community development quotas. The impacts of the new mandate for CDQ's on the fishing industry in the North Pacific need to be evaluated. These programs will transfer considerable sums of money from Washington's distant water fleet to Alaskan coastal communities. The study will allow us to discern the effectiveness and appropriateness of this social assistance program. The bill provides authority for fishery disaster relief programs, particularly buy-back programs which will help stabilize fishing fleets. Many fishing fleets are suffering from tremendous harvest reductions as a result of natural disasters or man- made situations. The recent Federal court decision in Washington State awarding native American tribes 50 percent of the shellfish has severely impacted the non-Indian shellfish harvesters. These provisions will provide an opportunity to help these fishers. The temporary extension of Washington State jurisdiction into Federal waters will also allow the State to implement the reduction in non- Indian shellfish harvests fairly and equitably. I thank the junior Senator from Oregon for his willingness to reach an agreement on this issue. In its original form, this bill could well have undermined the fishing industry of Washington State. But thanks to compromise and concession on all sides we have reached an agreement. We are now debating a bill that, in many ways, will benefit the Washington State fishing industry. It keeps options open for Washington State fishers, and it ensures that we will have a strong, vital, sustainable industry long into the future. I support passage of this legislation and look forward to its timely submission to the President for his signature. This bill will reauthorize the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson Act was first passed in 1976 to Americanize the fisheries off the coasts of the United States and to ensure that the bountiful harvests being extracted from these seas were benefiting U.S. citizens and our economy. Over the last 20 years, this goal has by and large been achieved. In 1996, a new challenge faces us: The development of sustainable fishing practices that will guarantee a continued abundance of fish and continued opportunities for U.S. fishers. The Sustainable Fisheries Act will improve the conservation and management of our fishery resources by re-emphasizing both. While the original intent of the Magnuson Act was to Americanize the fisheries and invest the management of the resources in those who know them best, the fishers; the outcome has not always been sound management or longterm conservation. This bill will help improve this situation. With provisions to prevent overfishing, to ensure the rebuilding of overfished stocks, to minimize bycatch, and to consider fish habitat, this bill places a greater degree of focus on the long-term sustainability of both the resource and the fishers harvesting the resource. Strong new measures to reduce bycatch, the catching of unwanted or prohibited fish, and new considerations of essential fish habitat will help to maintain healthy fish stocks. The distant water fleet of the North Pacific, based in my State, is often accused of wasting an incredible amount of fish. Estimates suggest that up to 580 million pounds a year of fish are dumped overboard dead or dying. Federal fishery scientists have determined that the total population of Bering Sea groundfish alone is 44 billion pounds. Of that 44 billion pounds, scientists have determined that the acceptable biological catch, that is, the sustainable harvest level, is nearly 6.6 billion pounds. As an extra precaution, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has established an annual groundfish harvest cap of 4.4 billion pounds, leaving one-third of the allowable biological catch unharvested. With a total groundfish harvest of 4.4 billion pounds, 580 million pounds of discards suggests a bycatch rate of approximately 13 percent. The largest fishery in the United States, the North Pacific pollack fishery, is one of the cleanest fisheries in the world, with a bycatch rate of only 2 percent according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. Compare these numbers with the average discard rate in world fisheries of 30 percent. It is also important to note that the discarded fish in the North Pacific are quantified by Federal Fishery Observers and are counted against to the total allowable catch levels of the various species. To reduce bycatch is to make more efficient and responsible use of fishery resources. That is why this bill seeks to reduce bycatch in our Nation's fisheries. And that is why participants in the North Pacific groundfish fisheries have proposed requiring all fishers to retain all pollack and cod caught, regardless of what species the fishers are targeting. This step alone should reduce the amount of fish discarded in the North Pacific by one-half. The amount of bycatch in the North Pacific is still very high. While the participants in those fisheries are beginning to address the problem, this bill will create new and stronger incentives to fish more cleanly. I strongly support the conservation provisions of this bill. I look forward to the improvement management of our fishery resources they will allow. This bill also recognizes that the health and sustainability of fish stocks are more than just conservation issues, they are also economic and social issues. The people who take part in U.S. fisheries, the fishers, processors, and supporting industries, are all vitally dependent upon the fishery resources, their abundance and sustainability. This bill recognizes that dependence by requiring new considerations of the impacts of fishery management decisions on fishing communities. The definition of fishing communities in this bill will work well. Fishing communities are those communities ``substantially dependent upon or substantially engaged in the harvest of fishery resources.'' This definition recognizes that fishers are fishers no matter where they live. An individual fisher and his or her family, whether they work on a big boat and or a small boat, are equally dependent upon the fish for their livelihoods no matter where they live. The fisher from a small New England port, an Alaska coastal town, or a metropolitan area like Seattle all make their living from the sea, their lives are all tied to the health and abundance of the fish they catch. They all deserve to be considered when difficult and painful fishery management practices need to be implemented. Under this bill, they will be. In addition, this bill preserves the National Standard to promote efficiency in fishery management plans. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], an efficient fishery harvests fish with a minimal use of labor capital, interest, and fuel. Management regimes that allow a fishery to operate at the lowest possible cost are considered efficient. In encouraging efficient use of fishery resources, this National Standard highlights one way that a fishery can contribute to the Nation's benefit with the least cost to society. To weaken the efficiency standard would be to suggest that overcapitalization, too many boats fishing for too few fish, is acceptable when we all know it is not. It is in the Nation's best interest to promote efficient and sustainable use of our natural resources. Methods of efficiently harvesting fish within acceptable conservation limits should be the norm if the United States wants to continue to be competitive in the growing global market for fish products. This bill places a 4-year moratorium on a somewhat controversial fishery management tool, individual fishing quotas or IFQ's. IFQ's allocate percentages of the total allowable catch of a fishery to individual participants. If they are transferable, they can be bought and sold either among participants or in a larger market. While opponents of IFQ's feel they are a privatization of a public resource and will result in large corporations owning the bulk of U.S. fisheries, proponents view IFQ's as an important fishery management tool that can address a number of the problems plaguing U.S. fisheries today. Under current open access systems, there is a race for fish. Those who fish fast and furious win. This management style leads participants to fish inefficiently, catching as much fish as they can as quickly as they can without consideration for high bycatch rates or the harvest of lower value target fish. It creates incentives to invest in excess harvesting and processing capacity--bigger and better boats, bigger nets, more gear, and larger plants--than are needed to efficiently and sustainably harvest and process the allowable catch. This overcapitalization, while not creating huge conservation issues, weakens the economic viability of the fleet, threatening participants with bankruptcy and ruin. While it hasn't been much of an issue in the North Pacific, overcapitalization can create enormous pressure to increase harvest levels beyond acceptable limits. In addition, this race for fish creates serious safety considerations in many fisheries. Under this race, fishers feel compelled to keep fishing even when the weather or the conditions of the vessel or the health of the captain or crew would suggest otherwise. Unless fishery management plans provide opportunities and incentives for fishers to sit out storms and return to port for repairs or medical attention, lives will continue to be lost. The crab fishery in the North Pacific is the most dangerous occupation in the Nation. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, the 1990-94 average annual fatality rate in the crab fishery is 350 deaths per 100,000 workers, with a 1990-94 annual average of 7 deaths among 2,000 crabbers. The fatality rate for all U.S. fisheries over the same time is only 71 deaths per 100,000 workers. The all occupations rate is only 7 deaths per 100,000 workers. For this very reason we included the promotion of safety of life at sea in the National Standards of the Magnuson Act. This provision remains in the bill. Fishery management plans will now be required to promote safe fishery practices. The Fishery Management Councils will not only have to consider safety, they will have to promote it to extent practicable. There are many ways to promote safety, and IFQ's may be one way. When the halibut fishery in the North Pacific was conducted under open access, the fatality rate was almost as bad as crab, with 250 deaths per 100,000 workers. Under the IFQ plan of the last two seasons, the halibut fishery fatality rate dropped to zero. While two seasons of data is certainly not proof, it does suggest that IFQ's can address the safety issue by eliminating the race for fish. Because of their potential to address issues such as waste, overcapitalization, and safety, IFQ's are considered by fishery managers in academia and State and Federal Government agencies, as well as environmental groups such as the Center for Marine Conservation, Environmental Defense Fund, and the World Wildlife Fund, as a promising fishery management tool that should be available to the Fishery Management Councils for their consideration. I agree. I believe that IFQ's should remain in the Councils' toolbox. Many of the concerns raised by opponents of IFQ's can be addressed within the design of any given IFQ system, much as they have been in the halibut/sablefish IFQ program. Issues such as entry-level quota share opportunities, ownership requirements, and caps on consolidation of shares can and have been incorporated into IFQ plans at the Council level. Despite all this, I understand a fair degree of controversy remains over IFQ's. Because of that, I have agreed to a short moratorium on the implementation of IFQ's while the Councils consider, discuss, and develop potential IFQ plans. However, I objected to provisions that prejudged the appropriateness of IFQ's as a management tool and created undue hurdles for IFQ's plans to overcome. This bill includes a comprehensive study of IFQ's by the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]. The assessment of IFQ's by the NAS will allow us, if it is determined necessary, to develop a broadly supported national policy on IFQ's during the next reauthorization of the Magnuson Act in 1999. This study should provide us the guidance we need in our assessment of IFQ's as a fishery management tool. We should withhold from determining their fate now, before we have the insights of the NAS study. However, there are a number of issues regarding IFQ's on which there is currently agreement and these have been included in the bill. IFQ's may be revoked or limited at any time in accordance with procedures under the Magnuson Act. They shall not confer the right of compensation to the holder if revoked or limited. They shall not create a private property right to the fish before the fish are harvested. IFQ allocations should be fair and equitable and opportunities should be provided for small vessel owners and entry-level fishers. These are broadly-supported provisions on IFQ's and have appropriately been included in the bill Unresolved issues regarding IFQ's will be assessed by the NAS. Issues such as transferability, duration, corresponding processor quotas, conservation impacts, fishery characteristics, and potential social and economic costs and benefits to the Nation and to participants in the fishery all will be analyzed by the NAS. The NAS will also study mechanisms to prevent foreign control of our Nations fishery resources and should investigate foreign ownership in both the harvesting and processing sectors. In addition, the NAS is required to study the appropriate level of U.S. ownership of fishery vessels with particular reference to a relatively high U.S. ownership threshold. The NAS should consider this threshold in light of existing requirements for participation in U.S. fisheries. I look forward to the outcome of this study of IFQ's by the NAS and to the discussion with my colleagues that will undoubtedly ensue upon the report's release. While this bill imposes a moratorium on IFQ's, it mandates the development of another quota program: Community Development Quotas or CDQ's. CDQ's are guaranteed allocations of Bering Sea fishery resources to Native Alaskan coastal communities. It is argued that these communities have had a historical and traditional participation in these fisheries and were excluded from the Americanization of the fisheries during the late 1970's and the 1980's. While these communities certainly engaged in the harvest of near-shore fish species, it is less clear that they participated in the Deep Ocean fisheries of the North Pacific. The existing CDQ program in pollock has transferred approximately $25 million from the participants in the fishery, predominantly the distant water fleet from Washington state, to the CDQ communities. The mandated expansion of CDQ's will increase this cash transfer almost 5 times to $117 million. CDQ's were originally proposed as a temporary program to provide these communities with the capital and expertise to venture into the fisheries on their own. Under this bill, the CDQ program has been turned into a permanent entitlement. I want to make myself clear on this issue. I think it is laudable to empower these impoverished communities to develop independent business ventures and sustainable economies. The question arises as to whom should bear the burden of such efforts. Unfortunately, under the CDQ programs mandated under this bill, the participants in the Bering Sea fisheries, Washington State fishers fishing in Federal waters, bear the entire burden alone. A burden that should be borne by society at large, and particularly by the neighbors of those communities, other Alaskans. However, this bill contains a study of CDQ's, again by the NAS, to investigate the implications of these programs for the Native Alaskan communities and fishery participants. The study will evaluate the effectiveness of the program in meeting the stated objectives of developing self-sustaining commercial fishing activities in the communities and employing community residents in commercial fishing operations. The study shall evaluate the social and economic conditions in the communities. I think it is important for this evaluation to include an assessment of what other types of assistance programs are or could be made available to these communities. This study will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and appropriateness of the CDQ program. In addition, this bill recognizes that not all of the Bering Sea fisheries can bear the full burden of the proposed CDQ programs at this time. The Bering Sea crab fishery is in a serious state of decline at this time and the crabbers are suffering under the strain of reduced catches. This bill recognizes the state of affairs in the crab fishery by phasing in the CDQ percentage allocation over the next several years, to ease the crab fishery into the larger CDQ allocations. This bill contains important provisions that will enable Washington State to mitigate the impacts on shellfish harvesters of the recent Federal court decision allocating 50 percent of shellfish to the treaty tribes of Washington State in their usual and accustomed areas. These provisions include a limited extension of State management authority into the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] for Dungeness crab. This extension, although rather limited in scope and time, provides the State of Washington the authority it must have to effectively implement the court order to comanage the shellfish resources such that the tribes may harvest 50 percent of the resource. In addition, this bill contains authority to implement fishing capacity reduction programs, or buy-back programs. These programs will allow fishing fleets severely impacted by a natural disaster or some man-made decision beyond the control of fishery managers, such as the recent Federal court order regarding tribal shellfish harvests, to mitigate the impacts of such situations by buying people out of the fishery in order to restore viability to the fleet. It is anticipated that the state of Washington could use such authority to develop a buy- back program for the Inner Sound Dungeness crab fleet so severely impacted by the recent shellfish decision. We have all come a long way on this bill. I reiterate my support for passage of this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY. Approximately 10 minutes or less.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Lautenberg amendment to the Treasury-postal appropriations bill, taking guns away from individuals convicted of domestic violence. I am a cosponsor of his original bill, and want to congratulate Senator Lautenberg on offering this important legislation in the form of an amendment today. Just getting the gun out of the home would make the difference in so many of these horrible stories we hear about domestic violence, in the news, or from people on the street. I don't know how many people on the floor of the Senate have heard the cries of a family in crisis; I don't know if you have ever had to dial 911 out of worry for a neighbor. But, I have. If this amendment makes a difference for one victim of domestic violence, it will have done its job. One woman I know told me the story of her abusive ex-husband. He was physically abusive, and had been convicted of misdemeanors. What is more, he knew he was prone to violence against his family, and did not trust himself. He purposely separated the gun and the bullets at two different ends of their house, so he would not be able to shoot her in the heat of the moment. But the measures he took were not quite enough, when he came home one night, drunk, and yelling that the house wasn't clean enough for him. Because he was able to find the bullets, find the gun, load it, and point it at his wife. That she is alive today is a miracle. This man was not the sort of law-abiding citizen we so frequently hear about from the NRA. He had a record. He did not even trust himself. This man should not have had a gun. If he did not have a gun, the man in the story may have used some other weapon. But we know from the research that nearly 65 percent of all murder victims known to have been killed by intimates were shot to death. We have seen that firearms-associated family and intimate assaults are 12 times more likely to be fatal than those not associated with firearms. A California study showed when a domestic violence incident is fatal, 68 percent of the time the homicide was done with a firearm. Again, the gun is the key ingredient most likely to turn a domestic violence incident into a homicide. But the people this amendment would take guns away from--these people have already broken the law, and in a very relevant way. In the face of the reality of domestic violence and the role guns play in homicides in such situations, the Senate cannot allow convicted abusers to have guns. Unfortunately, this amendment will not make life better for many women who are abused, even when guns are present in the home. We know that most domestic violence is not even reported, and of the cases that are reported, many do not lead to a conviction. This is a problem associated with the horrible effects of victimization, and has a different set of solutions. But, for thousands of women and men in this country, this amendment would mean immediate results. To get the gun out of the home will mean the difference between life and death. I urge the Senate to pass the Lautenberg amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the motion by the Senator from Ohio, and in support of full access to reproductive health care, including abortion services, for civil servants. Last year, as my colleagues know, this Congress denied women who are civil servants from participating in health insurance plans which cover abortion services. This overturned previous policy, which allowed these women--like millions of women employed in the private sector--access to complete reproductive health care. Mr. President, major health insurers such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield provide this coverage for women in private sector jobs across the country. It is approved of by a majority of the American public. By denying the same options for Federal employees, we set a different standard for millions of women. Nine million Americans are covered by the Federal Health Benefits Program, and none of them should be denied access to complete reproductive health care services. It sends the message that public servants do not have the same rights as private sector workers, and that is wrong. Civil servants are no different that any other American. They are regular people: secretaries, engineers, maintenance workers, and caseworkers. Why should they be treated any differently than other workers? They pay for their premiums and deductibles like everyone else, and they should be allowed the same options as other women in this country. Civil servants are being asked to do tougher and tougher jobs with the downsizing of our Federal government--and are stepping up to the task. They should not be required to make further sacrifices simply because they are an easy target for those in Congress who would outlaw abortions all together. Mr. President, we have all heard the stories of women who were forced into very difficult situations as soon as this policy was enacted this year. We heard about Susan Alexander who wanted to have the child she was carrying, but found out gross fetal deformities made her child's development ``incompatible'' with life, and threatened her life as well. Her doctors all recommended terminating her pregnancy for medical reasons. Unfortunately, she and her husband were shocked to find that her insurance policy no longer covered what turned out to be a very complicated and expensive procedure, performed to protect her life. Mr. President, we know there are other women out there like Susan Alexander who have been directly affected by the decision made in this body last year. We know that to continue this policy will have a serious and tangible impact on women's health. Therefore, it is irresponsible to continue to deny women access to a full range of health care services because Congress has turned the health care choices of women into a political football. Make no mistake about it, we are once again confronted with an attempt to deny women the rights they now hold. Women have the legal right of choice in this country, and the majority in this country support that right. This policy is micro-management of the worst kind, and it is wrong. The U.S. Congress should not be making reproductive health choices for Federal workers. Nor should it discriminate against Federal workers who choose to have an abortion. By denying civil servants health coverage for abortion services, Congress does just that. It continues to force Federal employees and their families to purchase separate insurance to cover reproductive health services. It continues to add financial considerations to a very time-sensitive, personal decision. And, above all, it reinforces the message to civil servants that the same rules do not apply to them. Their health is subject to the political winds of Congress. Mr. President, this is not reasonable to expect of people who are dedicated to serving the public good. I commend Senator Boxer for her vigilance and dedication on behalf of women everywhere, and thank her for her leadership in protecting the rights of civil servants. Once again, I urge my colleagues to reject this motion.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment in the outcome of the House and Senate conference on the Department of Defense authorization legislation. The Senate's version of this legislation contained an amendment offered by myself and Senator Snowe to allow women servicemembers stationed abroad to obtain privately funded abortions at military facilities. It was very unfortunate that this provision was dropped from the final version of this legislation during negotiations between the Senate and the House. Mr. President, my amendment simply restored a policy which responds to the unique needs of women serving overseas in our armed services. This policy, which was in place between 1973 and 1988 and between 1993 and 1996, allowed women to use private resources for medical abortion services at military hospitals. This policy is necessary to ensure the health and safety of women servicemembers because overseas health care facilities often do not provide comparable and safe care. Women serving our country in the Armed Forces deserve the same quality of care as women in the United States and to put them at risk is dangerous, unnecessary, and plain wrong. Further, as I have said before, requiring a woman to travel to the United States to perform this procedure only delays a very time- sensitive procedure and increases the cost--both for the individual and the taxpayer--when a woman is stationed abroad. We have had many debates in the 104th Congress about a woman's right to choose. My amendment simply guaranteed that women who serve in our Armed Forces have the same rights as women in the United States. It is a right women service personnel have held for most of the last 23 years. Dropping my amendment is yet another in a long series of actions taken by this Congress to eliminate a woman's right to choose. From the first days of the 104th Congress to the closing hours of this second session, women have seen the new majority seek to undermine their rights at every opportunity. It saddens me to see the will of the Senate and the health care options of women serving in the Armed Forces traded away to the voices of extremism. This Congress must know that the women and men of this country are awake and aware of these actions. We will be back. I assure you.