Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the welfare bill recently passed by the Senate provides that families may be denied cash assistance after receiving benefits for a cumulative period of 5 years. States are also required to have 15 percent of welfare recipients involved in work participation. By 2002, this percentage must increase to 50 percent of the people on assistance. The bill as it entered the Senate, however, would clearly have failed to prepare these people for the jobs that they are required to obtain. The facts are clear--you are highly unlikely to get off assistance and into work if you are unable to read. Vocational education under the bill as it came to the floor was limited to no more than 12 months for any individual. Most education and training programs have a 2-year duration, and therefore, cannot be completed within the bill's time allowance. In addition, States are unable to incorporate adult basic education activities into the training programs. This, at a time when we know more than ever about the link between adult education and literacy and dependence on the welfare system. Analysis by the Urban Institute shows that of people who have been AFDC recipients of less than 25 months, 34.8 percent have not obtained a high school degree or a GED. But, among recipients who receive AFDC assistance for 60 months or more, this number jumps to 62.8 percent. The less educated a person is, the longer he or she is likely to remain reliant on the welfare system. A 1995 report released by the Policy Information Center at the Education Testing Service also notes that welfare recipients with higher literacy levels worked more weeks and earned higher average weekly wages in comparison with other recipients during the previous year. All this simply reinforces the importance of education and literacy in helping people get off, and stay off, the welfare system. This bill as it came to the Senate did not provide enough flexibility, and did not allow the necessary education and training required to produce successful employees. In order to correct the inflexibility of this welfare bill, Senators Simon, Jeffords, Kerry, Specter, and I yesterday proposed and passed a literacy amendment that will let states do what is needed. This amendment has three basic provisions. The length of allowable educational training will be extended from 12 to 24 months; extending training period to permit the completion of training programs. The amendment also expands the definition of vocational training to include adult basic education, such as a GED completion course. Without basic educational and literacy levels, people cannot perform job duties nor can they expand their skills through more advanced education. The amendment also allows States to increase people in educational programs from 20 to 30 percent of their participation percentages. States with high unemployment rates might otherwise find it difficult to place workers who have virtually no skills. This amendment provides solutions to get people learning, and building skills. I want to thank Senators Simon and Jeffords for their leadership on these efforts. With the adoption of this amendment, people on public assistance will be able to gain the basic skills they need to become productive workers and remain off the welfare system.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday we debated a welfare bill that will have far-reaching impacts, and I'd like to draw your attention to the words used in the debate, and to a handful of them in particular. One word you heard is the word ``children.'' For quite a while now, I have been amazed at how many debates happen on the Senate floor in which we do not hear this word, and do not spend enough time considering the actual children the word represents. It's ironic to me that so much of our attention in the welfare debate has been focused on children. I know everyone here cares; I know we have all strived, and tried to protect children. I want to be able to say we've done everything we can--and we almost have gotten over that line, but it is with great personal regret that I say I think we could have done just a bit more. The bill we sent out yesterday will change the lives of all children in this country, and could have dire implications for many of them. All of us were children, many of us have children, and some of us are currently raising children--I know this word is not exclusive or partisan. I just hope after today each of us will continue to use this word in other debates, and always keep children in our thoughts. Another word you've heard quite a bit is welfare. I think people in this country have varying levels of understanding about all the services we call ``welfare'' and what they do. But it's obvious from the bill we considered that many Americans these days share a wish to end welfare programs. In my view, the welfare reform debate here in the Senate will officially end with the final passage of this bill. I hope that it will finally be a bill we can all support. However, a whole new discussion must now begin--a discussion about the needs of children in families from any income category, and about how we as adults will create new opportunities for them. I think the welfare reform debate we've been having is really part of a larger discussion about something people often mention here--personal responsibility. I am in favor--and I've said this many times before--of asking Americans to remember not only their rights, but also their responsibilities. What we are asking from people in this country who are on public assistance, is to do every thing they can to contribute to our society and economy, in exchange for the help all other taxpaying citizens are making possible. Whether it's work, or training for work, we need people to end their own dependency on outside assistance and contribute to the work of this great Nation. But when we talk about personal responsibility, all Americans must recall those eloquent words from President John F. Kennedy on this topic. Each of us in this country must think about our own responsibility, whether we are on public assistance, or are calling for its reform. Whether you ask the American public generally, or people on public assistance themselves, you will hear about the problems with welfare. Welfare has created a cycle of dependence. Welfare sets up perverse incentives, which actually discourage work. Welfare has been around long enough for everyone to see its effects, but though it has helped many people, it has not turned around the prospects of thousands of poor people living in a rich Nation. As long as we all know what we mean by welfare, I agree with these statements, and I think we are obligated to change this system to address these problems. When I say we need to agree about what welfare is, I'm thinking of the many stereotypes, attacks and characterizations we hear. I think welfare has become a negative word in this country people use to beat up on poor women and children. And, if this week we have stopped supporting programs that create that kind of thinking, and started to support individual people in ways that will make them more independent, then we've made a good first step. I'm also thinking about the real picture--at least in my State--of who is on welfare. In my State, the most common profile is a single mother, age 29, with two children. Three-fourths of the time she is white, more than half of the time she became a mother as a teenager. Almost 60 percent of the time, her youngest child is more than 3 years old. We know that getting a woman who fits this description into a job is a little easier in my State than many others, but we also know we need different strategies to get many different types of people back into work, or into work for the first time. We know that each of these women has prior experiences that affect their reliance on public assistance. We know their experiences with work are important, as are their experiences with education and skill training, and other factors such as literacy, learning disability, and domestic violence. We need to remember this as localities design different strategies, or it just won't work. Despite all we know about our welfare system and people who are on public assistance, I think most of us still agree that what we have now isn't doing the job. So, the people of this country are demanding new tools that work better, and the demand has been heard here. The will of the Senate is to change, fundamentally, the way public assistance will work. I just worry that we have not adequately protected the ones who are not making the decisions--the kids. The effect of last night's Senate action will be to put the brakes on our current system of public assistance, so we can embark in a new direction. This will be difficult. People will need all of our help making this transition. This is not an ending; it is a beginning. We must remember that previous Senates designed our current system in response to problems of chronic poverty and joblessness in our past. Those problems have not gone away. But we need new solutions. We need to end welfare, or at least the negative welfare debate, as it stands. But the basic health and educational needs of children don't go away, just because of the votes we take here. The Senate debated many amendments, some of which passed, and some of which did not. As we debated these, I was preparing to support the bill. I wanted to amend the bill to improve it the point I could lend my support. As it turned out, each time we were able to pass an amendment, we seemed to lose another that had far-reaching impacts. I will highlight some of these amendments now because they are very important to whether we ultimately send a bill to the President he can sign. Some things that we fought for yesterday we should keep and improve as the bill moves forward: First, I have fought very hard along with my Democratic colleagues to stave off repeal of American's guarantee of health services under Medicaid. In my State, over a third of the people who get medical assistance aren't on welfare--they're in low-income working families. I want all people who are served by Medicaid to work, or be in training, or contribute what they can. We have many people in this country who are not on public assistance, who don't get health insurance where they work. I want to make that easier. All children, regardless of income, should be free from worry about health care coverage. But, in this bill as it came to the floor, the Senate put at risk the health care of hundreds of Washington State citizens, just as they are trying to get into the work force--where they face the prospect of minimal or no health insurance coverage. Fortunately, the Senate supported the Breaux-Chafee-Murray amendment continuing this health coverage. We need to support people, so they can make the transition, and can add to the economy instead of subtracting. Second, when this bill came to the floor, it still had potential to seriously damage the nutrition of many children and families in my State. About 250,000 children in my State now receive some food stamp benefit--and today we passed the Conrad-Murray amendment so that we do not to jeopardize the nutrition of these families while they make the transition from welfare to work. Third, when we think of child nutrition, we frequently think of our important program that helps provide school lunch and breakfast. A related program makes sure kids who need it also have access to meals in the summer--at their community center, at a school, or wherever children and adults gather for summer activities. This is the Summer Food Program. Under this bill, these children faced a 23-cent-per-meal cut to this service, which could have forced 60 percent of the programs in my State to close their doors. We know that children's hunger doesn't stop just because it's summer and they can't get school lunch. Children who rely on school lunch get from one-third to one-half of their daily nutrition from that meal. So, I offered and passed an amendment to seek improvement for the Summer Food Program. My goal is to keep more of the 25,000 children in Washington State in line for a nutritious meal. Fourth, we must provide educational opportunity to people if we are trying to get them off public assistance. To send people who cannot read out looking for jobs that are not there is just too much to expect. We must allow adults to complete their basic education or G.E.D. We must allow people to stay in training for 24 months--that's the length of most training programs. And we must let States have a larger percentage of people in training. The Simon-Murray literacy amendment does these things, and I'm happy the Senate chose to include it. I was also glad we held off amendments and efforts to use lack of education as an excuse to penalize people on public assistance. We've got to get them educated. States know how to do this and will achieve great things. Fifth, we must give parents the peace of mind that when they have taken their daughter or son to the child care center, that at least the minimum health and safety requirements are being followed. Also, parents want quality in child care, not just safety, so I'm glad the Senate bill's deficiencies on these two topics were remedied through amendments. There are other improvements, made by the majority party, made in committee, and made yesterday on the floor. I hope the final bill retains them. I hope I get a chance to support them out of the Senate, so the President can sign a bill that is very close to wide bipartisan agreement. Such a bill won't be overly detrimental to children. Unfortunately, there are other areas where this bill still just did not meet my internal test. With the kids in mind, I simply could not support the following: Item A: We are trying to shift from reliance on cash assistance. In Washington State, 186,000 children receive basic assistance under AFDC. Under a 5-year time limit, 60,203 children would be eliminated from the program, and that number would increase to 118,915 under a 2-year limit. What we do for these children instead of AFDC will make the difference in their well-being, because they are still going to need help after this welfare bill is signed. By rejecting attempts even to allow States to provide non-cash assistance to kids, we made this bill impossible to support. I want the conference committee, when looking to create a bipartisan bill--at a minimum--to include provisions to allow States the flexibility denied them by one vote in the Senate yesterday. Item B: Even with the Conrad-Murray amendment on food stamps, this bill cuts $4 billion deeper than the Senate-passed bill I supported. We've got to get people off public assistance, but the children must have food to eat, especially if the parents are in a struggle to change their entire way of life. The reality is, any deep cut to food stamps directly affects the children. Item C: The bill's effects will fall on women 75 percent of the time. Item D: Even legal immigrants face enormous challenges under this bill, and our communities will face similar challenges in assuring the public health because of it. These are people who are working toward citizenship, like all of our parents or ancestors. We should be firm about what we ask of people striving for American opportunity. But whatever we ask of these adults, we should have made allowances for their children, and so far, we have not. Item E: As many as 300,000 American children with disabilities will lose social security income assistance under this bill. Item F: The administration sent Chairman Roth a letter predicting as many as 1.5 million children could be thrown into poverty under last year's bill. We don't know the exact number for this bill, but we can assume it would be a bit lower and in the same ballpark. I have asked the administration for updated figures. I just could not support doing this when we did not have very clear answers about what will happen for those children whose parents cannot find success under the new system. We need to provide a few more handles for the kids of those Americans struggling to end this dependence. All of these facts are why this Senate must remain vigilant in talks with the House. I go on record saying that provisions in these essential areas--of noncash assistance, of child nutrition, of child health, of child care, of adult education and monitoring are make-or- break issues for ensuring a workable final product. I support welfare reform. I thought yesterday's bill was going to be it. But, I could not, and cannot vote for a bill that fails children in this way. Many of you know that I supported the Senate welfare bill last year, and I wanted to do it yesterday. I am in favor of welfare reform, and I think we are very, very close. Let me emphasize this one more time. We have not debated the merits of limiting the time a person can be on welfare, because we agree there should be strict limits. What we have been debating is what we do while someone is on welfare to prepare that person to enter the work force. At the end of this debate, the answer is not clear one bit. The Senate must remain vigilant about the effects of this bill in the real world outside these walls. The States, localities, and individual people in this country who have asked for this fundamental change must now take on the hard work and the responsibility they have demanded. States and local governments and--best of all--community groups of regular American citizens, are showing that much of the best work of government is done locally, with direct input from the people served. I have no doubt that States will work to get people on the path to success. Just to be sure, I am glad the Senate adopted the amendment Senator Kerry and I worked on, requiring States to take corrective action as soon as indicators show effects from this bill that increase child poverty. I just want to make sure we all understand--inside and outside this building today--exactly what we are doing here as we move ahead with this bill, and what that will mean. This bill today only tells the people what the Federal Government is not going to do any more. In its wake, we will be left with a clear picture of how much work all of us have left to do. Localities are clearly the best places to make many decisions in our Government. The Federal Government should be the place where national standards are set--so that a child in any State in this country gets what she or he needs to grow up healthy, educated, and able to contribute to society as an adult. Every child needs these things, and our country's economy and heritage cannot afford not to make this so. As we sent this bill out of the Senate, we have tried to retain as many national standards as possible, and even though we have had some success, we have failed on others--and we are going to have to come back here in January and get to work on new ways to improve the standards we have. If you ask any CEO of any company what this country needs to thrive, they will tell you we need more highly skilled, highly educated people making good decisions in the workplace, and we need less people out on the street doing crimes. I met with a high school assistant principal last week who has spent years working with children and young people with behavior problems, who do not do what adults want them to do. He has found successful ways of helping these students to learn how to behave in accordance with our expectations of them. But he said to me, and I think he is absolutely right: ``You can pay me now, or you can pay them later.'' Because our young people would much rather be an asset to our country than a liability, and the vast majority of them are. But, they are bright young people, all of them. And if they do not find success in school and the economy, they will find it by getting really good at breaking into your house. To avoid this, we must keep the Federal Government in the business of assuring standards, and must improve the ones we have today. On top of this, each and every American must invest the time and energy it takes to make sure every child is healthy enough to learn, and educated enough to contribute to her or his community. So, since we have passed this welfare reform proposal, we must be aware that America had problems before we voted yesterday, and we will have problems afterward, and that this is only the first step. If we really want a country where every child's well-being is secure, where every person can be a contributing member of our society and economy, where the world around us is healthy and beautiful and a great place to live--then we must start a discussion in every community and around every dinner table--a discussion that just has not happened lately in this Nation. What is important to us as Americans? What do we hold dear? What do our children mean to us, and what is each of us committed to do about it? Every American must be part of the discussion to determine what we can each do, now, to make things better in this country. What can each person, in front of each television set, or in each car, or in the stands at each sporting event, do to get America on the right track? What can each person who gets any assistance from her or his Government--be it a welfare check or a paved road or a tax incentive or a safe hamburger or a bank that will not one day close its doors--what can each person do today to join us in making this country great? People on this floor often talk about the old days, a simpler time, when things were better. Well, I am here to tell you that Americans today are just as capable of solving problems as any past generation-- it is the American spirit that is going to make this happen. People at home are now watching the Olympics, where the best athletes in our Nation will compete against athletes from the rest of the world. And they will win gold medals for their efforts, and for our Nation. These people are heroes, and we should all rally around them. But we can not forget the other heroism in this great country that we have seen in the old days and that we see today--the heroism of the American spirit. Thousands of people in this country grew their own food during World War II, in victory gardens, to diminish the drain on our resources. They collected every piece of metal they could find, so our brave men and women could have the best tools with which to win the war. They went, especially the women, out of their homes and into the factories to work for this country. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, like my parents and grandparents, gave of themselves, through the Great Depression, through war, through the war on poverty in the sixties, for our shared future. Many of them have not stopped giving. There are senior citizens in my State who go to school every week to help children and to help each other to learn about and work with computers. There are hundreds of young people, sixth-graders and college students, going into the community with hard work and good ideas. There are also kids who are truly heroic for just making it to school each day, or for not letting a bad family situation crush their hopes for the future. I want to caution you all that the American people have spoken and demanded change to public assistance, but they still want Government to play a role in helping people when they need help, and the American people are capable of speaking again, loudly and angrily, if we do not make this work. We have sent a bill out of the Senate. We put the House on notice that this bill needs to be bipartisan, and needs to be the best bill possible under the circumstances, when it comes to children. I have made several attempts to improve this bill, and I will tell you, it can still use improvement. I appreciate that the majority party has sought compromise in some areas, that they have made some improvements. But again, it is the nature of this debate that we are not foreseeing all the possible effects of this bill. We are entering uncharted territory. We must remain vigilant. And we here in this body must call upon every one of our constituents to join the fight to make this work for the people around them. We are leaving the discussion about welfare reform. We are entering a discussion about different ways to make sure all children are healthy, despite the income of their family. Poor health, illiteracy, antisocial behavior--these are not the exclusive domain of the poor--all Americans are subject to the ravages of these problems, especially our children. We are entering a time when we need to focus on creating opportunity for our children, and meeting their basic needs--health, nutrition, education, so as adults they will contribute positively to the economic and social structure of this country. Our country, compared to other industrialized nations does a very shabby job of assuring the basics. If we are no longer going to do it through public assistance in the same way we have done--then we need to find new ways to do it. I do not think this bill brings promise for the people it will affect. We have improved it for sure, but it could be better. But the fact is, the bill will soon be the law of the land. In the face of this, I challenge each American to help us put something in place to protect children, as we tear apart this system that has created such dependency. Especially where children are concerned, this bill cannot be allowed to come back worse from the conference committee. It is our moral obligation to hold the children as harmless as we can, no matter what we are asking of their parents. After yesterday, I expect that all Senators will join in this new discussion--of what we must do to assure basic standards of health, education for children and all Americans.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri provides that a family may not receive welfare assistance for more than 24 months consecutively, unless the adult is working, or the State has an exemption of the adult for hardship. I would support this amendment if the Senator would require States to offer work to parents. There may be many parents who are willing to work and who want to work but cannot find a job, or perhaps they cannot find child care for their children so that they can be at work. The underlying bill says that a mother should not be penalized if she has a child under 11, or if she cannot afford to find child care. This amendment would be inconsistent with the underlying bill. It aims right at the mother. But it hits the child. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It goes too far.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment before us strikes the provision in the bill that cuts the reimbursement rate on the Summer Food Program dramatically. The bill proposes to cut 23 cents from every school lunch provided in this critical summer program. This will have a dramatic effect, especially in our rural areas. I think we have had the debate on this floor. Everyone understands the need to have good, strong nutrition for our children in order for them to learn. The Summer Food Program is especially critical. Children are not bears. They do not hibernate. They need to eat in the summer as much as they do in the school year. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and put back in effect the important Summer Food Program. I understand the majority is willing, perhaps, to accept this on a voice vote. If that is the case, I am more than happy to oblige.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the bill before us takes $75 million from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program to fund the abstinence program. I am sure that everyone here can agree abstinence is important. However, I strongly urge my colleagues not to allow us to rob the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program to fund this abstinence program. The maternal and child health block grant provides critical dollars for prenatal care, newborn screening, and care for children with disabilities. It provides for vital resources like parent education, health screenings and immunization, children preventive dental visits, and sudden infant death syndrome counseling. I am sure my colleagues will agree we should not reduce these vital resources by 13 percent. I have a chart here showing how much that will reduce each State's allocation if you are interested. Let me read quickly to you from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, who say: State health officers object to the new set-aside on the grounds that states, not the federal government, are better able to decide what programs are necessary and effective for their communities. State health officials share the laudable goals of reducing unintended pregnancies and exposure to sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, abstinence education is an integral component of most maternal and child health programs. Ironically, due to the new administrative costs states will incur and the reduction of overall block grant funds, this set-aside will actually do harm to states' overall abstinence promotion efforts. Mr. President, if we agree that abstinence----

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if we agree abstinence programs are vital, fine; let us pay for them. But let us not steal from the critical maternal and child health programs that are so important to so many parents across this country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to waive the Budget Act. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, since last night when I offered this amendment, I have been contacted by a number of Members from both sides of the aisle who would like to work with me to perhaps come to an agreement on this issue. I ask, therefore, unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I offer this amendment that simply strikes provisions relating to the Summer Food Program in the welfare bill that is in front of us. I hope this can be accepted on a voice vote. If not, we will have it be one of our recorded votes tomorrow.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I know there are a number of Senators who want to offer amendments. I heard two arguments, one that there is no offset. It is my understanding that when this Senate struck the Medicaid provisions in this bill, that had a $70 billion impact, without worrying about where the offsets were. So in this provision, it only affects $24 million. I say because it is the right policy that we care for our children and make sure they have nutritious foods, it seems legitimate and like- minded to do what we have done with the Medicaid provision in this bill. Second, the other argument was that the price for these meals is higher than what is offered during the school year. That is, of course, true, because during the school year the volume, the number of children that are served is quite large, is much larger. In the summer, we are serving fewer students, and, therefore, the cost of meals goes up. Second, during the school year, the facility is provided. During the summer, programs have to pay for the sites, and the cost goes up prohibitively because of that. That is why the summer program costs more than the school-year program. It is a very legitimate concern. I will again say that the bill reduces the amount of the program by 23 cents on each lunch. That will have a dramatic impact. We will lose sites, especially in rural areas, and see as much as a 35-percent drop in the number of programs that are able to offer this. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment tomorrow morning. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will simply conclude by saying that we have had this argument about the importance of providing nutritious meals for our kids so they have the ability to learn and learn well. I urge my colleagues to remember those children when we vote on this amendment tomorrow morning. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, the amendment that I have sent to the desk simply strikes the provisions that are related to the Summer Food Program. As all of the Members of the Senate know, we debated the school lunch issue over the last year and a half. Understand, the consensus across this country is people believe we do need to make sure that our children get adequate nutrition. The Summer Food Program is the same argument. The Senate bill that is before us makes an 11-percent cut to the reimbursement rate for lunches provided in the Summer Food Program. This reduction is a 23-cent cut on each lunch that is provided. It will reduce the amount of money that is provided for these lunches from $2.16 to $1.93. That is a substantial cut, Mr. President, and will have a dramatic impact on the programs offered across this country that assure each one of the children of those programs get adequate nutrition. We have heard the arguments many times over the last year how important it is that a child get proper nutrition and, without that nutrition, is unable to learn. That is exactly what these cuts will do. They will dramatically impact the ability of our kids to have a nutritious meal in these summer programs. It also will mean many of these summer programs will not survive. If they have to charge the people in these programs an additional $20 or $30 a month in order to make up the difference, it will mean that many of these programs will be lost, particularly in our rural areas where costs are substantial and it is very difficult for parents to come up with adequate money for these programs to begin with. Estimates vary by State, but a recent report concluded that this cut that is being proposed in this welfare bill will result in a 30- to 35- percent drop in the number of sponsors, most of them in our rural districts. It will result in a 20-percent cut in the number of children who are able to participate, and many of the larger sponsors are going to have to drop their smaller sites. I think it is very critical that this Senate go on record saying that we understand the nutrition needs of young children in this country today, and I urge my colleagues, hopefully by voice vote, to accept this reasonable amendment to assure that young children in this country do get the proper nutrition in the Summer Food Program that is in the welfare bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly the fiscal year 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. This afternoon, the Committee on Appropriations reported the bill unanimously, and I expect it to reach the floor prior to the August recess. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman, Senator Mack, for putting together a solid bill. His leadership on legislative branch issues has been terrific, and I have been excited to work with him on a bipartisan basis to manage the operations of Congress in a responsive-- and responsible--way. He was bold last year, and it paid off. We have been able to reduce our spending by over $200 million--about 10 percent--in the past year. This year, we continue the effort to streamline by reducing our internal budget by nearly $20 million in fiscal year 1997. We have taken testimony from legislative branch agencies affirming that they, under the funding levels in the bill, can maintain a high level of quality services to Members. Senators in turn should be able to provide responsive, high quality service to their constituents. I would like to highlight one provision in the bill for Members of the Senate. With the enthusiastic support of Chairman Mack, I have included language that will enable the Sergeant at Arms to transfer excess or surplus computer equipment to schools. In the past, the Senate sold its computers to employees at bargain prices. Fortunately, this practice has been terminated, and I commend the Sergeant at Arms for doing so. For the past couple years, our computers have simply been transferred to GSA for disposal through the normal surplus process. I think Senators should be aware that the Senate disposes of over 1,500 computers every year. Over the past 3 years, nearly 5,000 computers have been let go. For the most part, these are IBM-compatible, 386, 16- megahertz machines. They are a generation old, but they could be very useful to schools, especially in rural areas, that may not have a big budget to buy fancy new computers. I am fortunate to represent Washington State, which is very aggressive in trying to put computers in the classroom. Our companies have been generous in donating software and hardware, and people are excited about giving kids skills that will help them get an edge in life. But not every school district is moving aggressively on computers. Many don't even know how to go about it, and cannot afford it. I am certain that every Senator is aware of how fast technology is evolving in our economy. I really believe that, in the future, a child's ability to compete in the work force will be measured in part by his or her familiarity with computers. In my view, the earlier they start, the better. The Senate will debate the broad role of Government in education technology, and I look forward to having that debate. For now there is a small, and I think constructive, role for the Senate to play. We can use the bully pulpit. We can lead by example. We can help children by giving our computers to schools that want or need them. By doing this, we can help some kids, and we can show the country we think bringing technology to the classroom is a high priority. Here is how it will work: the Sergeant at Arms will make sure that any excess or surplus computers are in good working order. Then he will make them available to interested schools at the lowest possible cost to both the Senate and the schools. Most likely, he will transfer these computers to the General Services Administration. GSA, in turn, will provide information to schools through its regional offices about available inventory. The equipment eligible for transfer will include computers, keyboards, monitors, printers, modems, and other peripheral hardware as described in the bill. I envision schools being able to obtain this equipment on a first- come, first-served basis, for the cost of shipping and handling from GSA regional offices. The language provides the Sergeant at Arms with flexibility to determine the best way to complete the transfers. Earlier this year, President Clinton issued an executive order stating that the GSA should document surplus computers in Federal agencies. And in May, I offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing the view that the Senate should also inventory its computers and create a process of getting Government computers into schools and other educational organizations. The language in the bill before us sets out a specific process so the Senate can play a role in this important effort. Mr. President, I think this is a useful change in policy. I am grateful the committee has acted today in a manner consistent with my amendment as adopted last May. And, I welcome the support of Senator Leahy, who has taken an active and enthusiastic interest in this issue. He has been a big help. Again, I appreciate the help of Chairman Mack on this, and I look forward to working with him and the Sergeant at Arms to make this work.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in cosponsoring the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996, legislation that will correct a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that currently makes it difficult to sell mutual funds outside the United States. I believe Congress has an obligation to implement public policies that encourage investments in U.S. companies. These investments are essential to raising capital, initiating research and development, expanding our Nation's economy and ultimately improving our international competitiveness. Our current Tax Code deters foreign investors from investing in U.S. mutual funds by treating interest income and short-term capital gain as a dividend that is subject to a 30-percent withholding tax. On the other hand, a foreign investor can invest in other foreign funds or directly in U.S. securities without paying this tax. Mr. President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has grown significantly over the past 6-years. Since 1990, U.S. mutual fund assets have grown from $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion. This rapid growth has occurred despite the fact that foreign investment in U.S. funds has stayed roughly the same. Rather than dissuading foreign investment, we should be encouraging foreign investment in U.S. funds and companies. Quite simply, American companies are put at a disadvantage by a Tax Code that encourages foreign investors to invest in other countries and other companies. More importantly, our Tax Code forces U.S. mutual fund companies to set up subsidiary funds overseas in order to reach the world marketplace. For instance, the Frank Russell Co. in Tacoma, WA, is a highly successful and innovative mutual fund company that employs more than 1,000 people. Unfortunately, in order to serve the world market, the company has been forced to move its expertise and some jobs overseas. In doing so, foreign investors can avoid the U.S. withholding tax. Mr. President, it makes no sense to continue a tax policy that both encourages our companies to move jobs overseas and hampers our ability to attract foreign investment and raise capital in the United States. I am pleased to be working with Senators Baucus and Gorton on this important legislation, and I am hopeful Congress can act quickly on this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in full support of teams and yet, must voice my concerns with the proposed TEAM Act. It is very difficult not to support the initial goals of S. 295. Who doesn't want cooperation between employees and their managers? I have met with countless companies from across Washington State who have boasted of increased productivity and efficiency from these teams. Their results have been impressive and have encouraged initiative and employee participation. However, these cooperative partnerships are currently in place and functioning without disruption. Teams today, throughout my State and across American are succeeding and thriving. In fact, 96 percent of large employers and 75 percent of all employers report using such teams and employee involvement programs. These facts lead to my confusion over the need for additional legislation. Employee committees, work teams, and quality circles that discuss questions of efficiency, productivity, quality, and work practices are currently allowed. Nothing prevents these teams from existing today and their growing popularity in corporations everywhere is proof of their strong existence. I am most concerned about the delicate balance between management and employees established by the National Labor Relations Act and enforced by the National Labor Relations Board. This board has been charged with investigating possible section 8(a)(2) violations which have averaged just three violations per year for the last 22 years. In fact 20 years ago, the NLRB ruled against 29 section 8(a)(2) violations. Last year, the NLRB ruled against just 24 violations. There is no growing trend to stop these partnerships. There are no attempts by the NLRB to seek out and prevent these law-abiding employee-employer teams. These cases can be compared to the 7,478 cases in 1995 which forced employers to hire back unlawfully discharged employees and the 8,987 cases last year in which employers had to provide employees back pay. I wholeheartedly support the cooperation fostered through teams in companies both large and small. Washington State has witnessed enormous benefits from these employee committees that discuss issued from efficiency to quality of life. Let's continue this cooperation without tipping the scale and sacrificing workplace democracy. If the employer chooses committee representatives to discuss issues of wages and hours, we will lose the entire management-employee balance. Mr. President, I have spoken with Secretary Reich about this issue after several meetings with concerned Washington State companies. I am confident that the teams now in place will remain in place and continue to prosper. Let's maintain this current system, which is working, without jeopardizing these critical relationships.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in cosponsoring the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996, legislation that will correct a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that currently makes it difficult to sell mutual funds outside the United States. I believe Congress has an obligation to implement public policies that encourage investments in U.S. companies. These investments are essential to raising capital, initiating research and development, expanding our Nation's economy and ultimately improving our international competitiveness. Our current Tax Code deters foreign investors from investing in U.S. mutual funds by treating interest income and short-term capital gain as a dividend that is subject to a 30-percent withholding tax. On the other hand, a foreign investor can invest in other foreign funds or directly in U.S. securities without paying this tax. Mr. President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has grown significantly over the past 6-years. Since 1990, U.S. mutual fund assets have grown from $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion. This rapid growth has occurred despite the fact that foreign investment in U.S. funds has stayed roughly the same. Rather than dissuading foreign investment, we should be encouraging foreign investment in U.S. funds and companies. Quite simply, American companies are put at a disadvantage by a Tax Code that encourages foreign investors to invest in other countries and other companies. More importantly, our Tax Code forces U.S. mutual fund companies to set up subsidiary funds overseas in order to reach the world marketplace. For instance, the Frank Russell Co. in Tacoma, WA, is a highly successful and innovative mutual fund company that employs more than 1,000 people. Unfortunately, in order to serve the world market, the company has been forced to move its expertise and some jobs overseas. In doing so, foreign investors can avoid the U.S. withholding tax. Mr. President, it makes no sense to continue a tax policy that both encourages our companies to move jobs overseas and hampers our ability to attract foreign investment and raise capital in the United States. I am pleased to be working with Senators Baucus and Gorton on this important legislation, and I am hopeful Congress can act quickly on this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate passed the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. However, I am disappointed the Senate rejected the Kennedy amendment to the minimum wage increase. I cannot sit idly by as I hear of those struggling to live on today's minimum wage. I thought, as many of you do, that the typical minimum wage earner was someone like my daughter or one of her friends: a teenager flipping burgers or taking food orders to earn some extra cash for new clothes or a movie. That, however, is a grave misperception. The sad fact is that 73 percent of those earning between $4.25 and $5.14 an hour are over the age of 20. That means that 9 million adults this year will have to try to live on a salary of $8,840. One-third of these same adults are the sole sources of income for their families. If these workers were attempting to support a family of three, they would fall $2,682 below the Federal poverty line. I am extremely concerned that 58 percent of those struggling with a minimum wage are women--5.2 million women, many of these single mothers, would benefit directly from this increase. These single moms are trying. They are trying to raise two kids on a below-poverty income. And how does Congress reward a struggling parent's hard work? By attacking Medicaid that would have paid for her son's asthma medicine. By cutting the child care support that enables her to work. By taking away funding for nutrition programs that pay for her kids to eat at school or day care. By eliminating her Head Start Program that gives her kids a chance at coming to school ready and able to learn. By refusing to add 90 cents to her hourly wage--a wage that pays for heat, clothing and food. Aren't these exactly the same individuals and families we are trying to keep employed and off of Federal support? Instead, this Congress has targeted the low-income family with cut after cut and a resistance to move them above the poverty line. Mr. President, the Kennedy amendment would not have eliminated jobs. It would have barely kept people working--people who otherwise would be completely reliant on public support. If we had only passed this amendment a year ago, it would have meant that the single mother would have earned an additional $2,000 today. To low-income families, that would have meant more than 7 months of groceries, 4 months of rent, a full year of health care costs, or 9 months of utility bills. I did not reach my decision to support the minimum wage hastily. I have listened carefully to the concerns of small business owners from across my State, who have highlighted the implications of this increase. I don't want to see prices for the American consumer rise or jobs eliminated. But I don't think an increase to the minimum wage will end employment in small business, either. It has now been more than 5 years since the last minimum wage increase. We must remember that the value of the current minimum wage has fallen by nearly 50 cents since 1991 and is now 27 percent lower than it was in 1979. Now is the time to adjust that inequality and demonstrate a true commitment to our working families. A slight increase in this wage provides those who work hard and play by the rules an increased opportunity and a chance to succeed. If any of my colleagues opposes the minimum wage, I urge them to live on $8,840 this year and then reconsider their vote. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to express my support for title I of H.R. 3448, the small business provisions. This section incorporates a variety of tax changes, pension simplifications and S corporation reforms that expand business opportunities for America's small businesses. We all know small business is the engine that drives the American economy. As large corporations across the country downsize and consolidate, innovative small businesses expand and add jobs to the work force. In 1995, 22,000 individuals in Washington State were employed by software-related companies--66 percent of these companies are small businesses with less than 11 employees. This legislation will only make it easier for these and other small businesses to invest in research and development, raise capital and spur economic growth. Most importantly, the legislation reinstates several expired tax provisions including the research and development [R&D] tax credit and employer provided educational assistance. The R&D tax credit is vital to small, technology-based companies that need to invest in long-term endeavors in order to stay competitive in rapidly changing business climates. At the same time, the employer- provided educational assistance is essential to maintaining a highly skilled, well-educated work force. The legislation also improves the flexibility subchapter S corporations have when they set out to raise capital. Like S. 758, a bill which I cosponsored, this legislation raises the number of shareholders who can invest in S corporations. It increases the number from 35 to 75, and in doing so, this bill greatly increase an S corporation's ability to raise capital. Mr. President, title I of this bill also incorporates two changes to our pension laws that were introduced in S. 1756, legislation I support that was introduced by Senator Moseley-Braun. First, the Treasury Department will be required to create a clear spousal consent form so that couples can make informed decisions about annuities. Also, Treasury will need to develop a qualified domestic relations order form spelling out how, to whom and when pension plans should be paid upon divorce. These provisions are essential to protecting spousal rights. Finally, H.R. 3448 expands tax deductible IRA contributions to homemakers. This change will make retirement savings opportunities possible for individuals who work at home rather than in the work force. It will encourage greater savings in the United States, and it will improve retirement security for our hard-working homemakers. Mr. President, even without the Kennedy amendment, this legislation still goes a long way to helping over 10 million hard-working Americans. This legislation ultimately raises the minimum wage 90 cents over 2 years. It rewards our working families as they struggle to rise above the poverty line. I am proud the Senate took this important and eagerly awaited step today.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Kennedy amendment and as a cosponsor of the minimum wage increase. I cannot sit idle as I hear of those struggling to live on today's minimum wage. I thought, like many of you, that the minimum wage earner was my daughter or one of her friends: a teenager flipping burgers or taking food orders to earn some extra cash for new clothes or a movie. That is the misperception though. The sad fact is that 73 percent of those earning between $4.25 and $5.14 an hour are over the age of 20. That represents 9 million adults who will attempt to live on $8,840 this year. One-third of these adults are the sole income-earners in their families. If these adults were supporting a family of three, they would fall $2,682 below the Federal poverty line. I am immensely troubled with the fact that 58 percent of those struggling with a minimum wage are women; 5.2 million women, many of these single mothers, would benefit directly from this increase. These single moms are trying. Trying to raise two kids on a below- poverty income. And how does Congress reward these single parents? By attacking Medicaid that would have paid for her son's asthma medicine. By cutting her child care support that allows her to work. By taking away funding for nutrition programs that pay for her kids to eat at school or day care. By eliminating her Head Start Program that gives her kids a chance at starting school ready to learn. By refusing to add 90 cents to her hourly wage--a wage that pays for heat, clothing, and food. Aren't these the individuals and families we are trying to keep employed and off of Federal support? Instead, this Congress has targeted the low-income family through cut after cut and a resistance to move them above the poverty line. This amendment does not eliminate jobs, it barely keeps people working, who otherwise would be completely reliant on public support. If we had only passed this amendment a year ago, it would have meant that the single mother would have earned an additional $2,000 today. To that low-income family, that would have meant more than 7 months of groceries, 4 months of rent, a full year of health care costs, or 9 months of utility bills. I did not reach my decision to support the minimum wage easily. I have listened carefully to the concerns of small business owners from across my State, who have highlighted the implications of this increase. I don't want to see prices for the American consumer rise or jobs eliminated. But I don't think an increase to the minimum wage will end employment in small business, either. It has now been over 5 years since the last minimum wage increase. We must remember that the value of the current minimum wage has fallen by nearly 50 cents since 1991 and is now 27 percent lower than it was in 1979. Now is the time to adjust that inequality and demonstrate a true commitment to our working families. A slight increase in this wage provides those who work hard and play by the rules an increased opportunity and a chance to succeed. If any of my colleagues oppose the minimum wage, I urge them to live on $8,840 this year and then reconsider their vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate PlumCreek Timber Co., headquartered in Seattle, WA. Today, Secretary Babbitt will announce the administration's approval of PlumCreek's Habitat Conservation Plan and Secretary Glickman will announce the administration's commitment to expedite the I-90 land exchange. This HCP is the largest to be approved to date. It covers 170,000 acres of land owned by PlumCreek in Washington's central Cascade Mountains. Under the HCP, PlumCreek has agreed to provide unprecedented habitat protections on an ecosystem wide basis. The plan will protect wildlife habitat in 23 watersheds covering over 418,000 acres of mixed public and private lands. Designed to complement the President's forest plan, the HCP will maintain current levels of old growth and ensure that all species will find adequate habitat within the planning area. It also emphasizes protection for streamside habitat and other special areas, such as wetland and caves. The plan will benefit all species, not just those currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. In exchange, PlumCreek will receive a long-term permit that will provide the company with regulatory certainty. Mr. President, one of the primary reasons Secretary Babbitt has taken a special interest in this plan--and why I support it--is that it demonstrates how the Endangered Species Act can and does work on a large scale both to protect species and allow companies to manage actively their forests. It simply take a commitment by the government and by a private entity to work together toward common, realistic goals and respect private rights. I want also to acknowledge that some of the environmental groups who have reviewed this HCP find it unsatisfactory. I agree that this is not a perfect document. But the process has worked and approval of this HCP demonstrates that we need not dismantle the ESA in order to have reasonable management of private timber lands. I want to emphasize that I believe it is time to turn over a new leaf in resource conservation. We must acknowledge that private landowners should be held to a more flexible standard than public resource managers. We must start to trust each other a little more and believe that Federal land managers and our private landowners can be, and generally are, good stewards of the land. This HCP establishes a long- term relationship that we should foster. Mr. President, PlumCreek and the administration are also celebrating their commitment to enter into serious large-scale land exchange negotiations. Under the land exchange agreement acknowledged today, PlumCreek will refrain from entering or harvesting timber for the next 2 years in some roadless areas on its land in order to encourage the Forest Service to expedite land exchange negotiations. The lands at issue are those enmeshed in a checkerboard ownership pattern around Interstate 90 and the central Cascade Mountains. The I-90 corridor is among the most sensitive areas in the region for the northern spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, and the gray wolf, and may be a recovery area for other species. Despite the area's biological importance, the checkboard pattern of ownership is not conducive to coordinated environmental protection. Forrest and timber management of these lands has also been difficult. Public and private landowners are often in conflict because of their differing roles and objectives. A large-scale land exchange would reduce, if not eliminate, these conflicts. It would place valuable wildlife habitat under public management and block-up lands identified by President Clinton as essential to the recovery of spotted owls. The PlumCreek lands to be traded also provide outstanding recreational opportunities for the growing Puget Sound metropolitan community. The lands poised for exchange are located just south of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. The space these lands provide will relieve pressure on Alpine Lakes where overuse might limit future access. And buffers obtained in the exchange will protect the wilderness and pressure scenic vistas. I pledge to work with PlumCreek and the Forest Service as they try to find lands to exchange. This will be a difficult and controversial process. And I must admit to having concerns about one part of the State gaining superb lands, while others are asked to sacrifice their nearby public lands. I am also sensitive to the concerns of National Forest dependent timber producers who fear that they will lose their dwindling land base to PlumCreek, while not receiving lands suitable for timber harvest. Finally, I acknowledge the fear that Kittitas County officials have about losing private, taxable lands in exchange for more Federal lands. Nevertheless, I strongly support this joint Federal-private effort. I look forward to working both with PlumCreek and the Forest Service to facilitate this exchange based on a principal of equity of all interested parties. Again, Mr. President, I offer my heartfelt congratulates to PlumCreek Timber Co. and the Clinton administration for the great strides they have made for environmental protection and economic stability. I ask to include this June 25 editorial from the Seattle Times in the Record. The editorial follows: [From the Seattle Times, June 25, 1996] A Sensible Forest Plan for Snoqualmie Pass For most of a century, Snoqualmie Pass has been both a spectacular gateway to Puget Sound and an environmental battleground. Its proud stands of Douglas fir, cedar and pine have been scattered in a checkerboard pattern of ownership, crisscrossed by railroads and highways, battered by ski areas and some of the ugliest clear-cuts the region has seen. Now, Plum Creek Timber and the federal government, who own most of the land in the pass, have crafted a landmark land- use plan that promises to integrate environmental and economic common sense. The ``habitat conservation plan,'' which will be formally endorsed by the Clinton administration this week, is the result of two years of work by scientists and land managers who studied 418,000 acres of public and private forest and 285 species of wildlife ranging from salamanders to grizzly bear. Their long-term plan moves beyond species-by-species devices such as ``owl circles,'' which obstruct private landowners while producing dubious public benefits. Instead, scientists have crafted a plan that would protect wildlife habitat in some areas while allowing sensible timber harvests in others. Already, that plan has been a target for criticism from environmentalists, who point out that logging will be allowed in certain spotted owl habitat. Critics prefer major land exchanges, assembling large parcels of critical forest under public ownership, then shutting them down. Plum Creek and the government may negotiate such exchanges, but that could take years. Snoqualmie Pass is home to some of the most valuable timber in the nation, making exchanges difficult and costly. The status quo hasn't worked. Since the turn of the century, timber managers have followed the same strategy-- sustained yield, which calls for cutting trees at the same pace that they grow back. That strategy ignored wildlife habitat and led to overcutting of both private and public forest lands. Nobody knows for sure what will work better. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas wants to experiment with a variety of strategies, monitoring the effects over decades to come. The opportunity to try something new explains why the Snoqualmie Pass plan has earned support from key forestry experts and selected environmentalists as well as Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit and the timber industry itself. They see a potential model for resolving resource conflicts without turning biological questions over to federal judges. The breadth of their coalition does not prove the habitat strategy will work, only that it's well worth a try.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss most-favored-nation trade status for the People's Republic of China. The Congress is set to begin the sixth annual review of China's trade status. In my mind, this is one of the most important issues, one of the most important debates the U.S. Senate will undertake this year. This is the first in a series of remarks I will make regarding the importance of United States-China relations. It is my hope that the Congress and this country can begin to view our China relations in the broadest possible terms. Whether we like it or not, our future interests are intertwined with China. And today's choices will greatly influence whether our interests coincide or collide. This month many Americans took time to remember the Tiananmen Square massacre and the horrible events of 7 years ago. Tiananmen Square forever changed the China debate in the Congress and in this country. This year, on June 4, a young woman was dragged from Tiananmen Square by the police for placing a bouquet of yellow chrysanthemums near the Memorial to the People's Heroes. To this day, the Chinese leaders fail to recognize that actions like this only serve to remind the international community of the ongoing struggle for personal and political freedom in China. The promotion of human rights will always be a fundamental element of my work on China, indeed, human rights should always be a priority for United States policymakers. When this issue is considered by the Senate later this summer, I will vote again to renew China's MFN status. I will vote to renew MFN because it is immensely important to every corner of Washington State-- where thousands of current jobs rely on China trade and where thousands of new jobs stand to be created as China integrates into the world economy. Having acknowledged the economic importance of this issue to Washington State, I want to stress and demonstrate that MFN for China is in our national interest. One in five people on Earth live in China. More than 1.5 billion people speak a Chinese dialect. More than one-half of the world's population lives within 5-hour flight radius of Hong Kong on China's southern border. It is an immense population that impacts us all in so many ways--the world's food supply, pollution problems, and the use of natural resources to name a few. Thanks to technology--in communications and in travel--the world is shrinking. Neither the United States nor China can hide from the fact that we are being drawn closer together each and every day. The United States has the ability to cooperatively influence China's development; we must not shy from this opportunity to aid both the American and the Chinese people. China's military presence in Asia is increasing; as demonstrated in the Taiwan Straits and in the Spratly Islands. China is a nuclear power and maintains a permanent seat on the U.S. Security Council. The prospect of China assuming the leadership role in Asia has the entire region rattled. Most events in Asia--including North Korea, the expansion of ASEAN, and talk of Japan forming an Army--are all related to and impacted by China. Asia is looking for signs that the United States will remain an active and engaged player in the region. The United States role in Asia remains fundamental to United States strategic and economic security; we are a stabilizing force in Asia and we must continue this peaceful role. Some in this country, as a result of China's military expansion and belligerent threats against Taiwan, argue that the United States should take a more adversarial, confrontational approach to China. We borrowed and spent several trillion dollars to win the cold war. I think it is foolish to listen to those who preach another cold war for this country. We owe our children, indeed the children of the world, more than a second cold war confrontation that will take valuable and limited resources away from food and shelter, education, health care, and the opportunity to prosper in peace. Rather than view China as a threat to the United Stats, we must view China as a challenge and an opportunity to shape the world of the 21st century. China's evolution from isolation to world player cannot be stopped or contained, our task is to work with the world to integrate the giant as she awakes. China's economy is now the third largest in the world currently growing at an annual rate of 10 percent. It will become the world's largest economy shortly after the turn of the century. China wants to join the World Trade Organization and is currently negotiating with the United States over accession terms. We have a responsibility to bring China into the global trade community and to ensure that China plays by the accepted rules. I believe the annual congressional MFN exercise for China has outlived its usefulness. The annual review, in my mind, encourages uncertainty and inconsistency and may actually harm, not help, United States interests. Each year, as the MFN debate approaches, the administration and the Chinese engage in a chest thumping nationalistic exercise; each side claims to have coerced and resisted the other. The Result is every summer the United States-China relationship is put on hold or setback for many months. During this period, all constructive engagement with the Chinese is slowed or halted--CD's continue to be pirated, activists continue to be arrested, and United States jobs are lost as trade opportunities go elsewhere. One of my greatest frustrations with the annual MFN exercise is our failure in Congress to realize that we are changing China, we are having an impact on China today. The next generation of Chinese leaders will not be Soviet trained engineers like the current leaders. Rather, they will be American and Western educated; familiar with the United States and receptive to the ideals we preach. Each year, thousands of Chinese university students experience America. Every major university in this country is engaged in a quiet diplomacy that will pay democratic dividends for decades. U.S. law enforcement personnel, judges and legal scholars are aiding in the development of the rule of law in China. United States Customs personnel are assisting the Chinese to implement accepted international trade norms. American students and university professors are scattered throughout China interacting with fellow students and academics, local government leaders, and the business community. Cultural, athletic, military, and scientific exchanges are all quietly opening China up to the world. I recently had a young man from China visit my office. He graduated from a Chinese university in 1980 and was assigned to a work unit as a teacher. As Deng's economic reforms began, this young man was one of the first Chinese nationals to leave his work unit for employment with a foreign investor. Today, he owns an apartment many times the size of his childhood home. When we talked about his 6-year-old daughter, I could see he has aspirations for her that were alien to Chinese thought just a few years ago. These types of successes are difficult for the Congress to factor into the MFN debate because they carry no organized constituency, and they rarely make headlines. But they are happening. As the Senate turns to MFN for China I am encouraged that so many of my colleagues--Democrat and Republican--have indicated their strong support for renewal. Many distinguished Senators from all regions of the country have spoken on the floor and this issue clearly enjoys bipartisan support. In a year filled with partisan Presidential rhetoric, it is truly noteworthy that so many public officials including both Presidential candidates are speaking out in favor of MFN renewal. Next year, I intend to urge the administration and Congress to end the annual MFN renewal debate for China. Some may consider this an optimistic view, but I genuinely believe that we will make more progress on human rights, on trade matters, and on Asia security if we move away from the annual review of MFN. Instead of the annual MFN vote, I intend to urge the administration, regardless of political party, to take China relations to the next important level. This has to include a state visit to China by the President and a reciprocal visit to Washington by China's President Jiang Zemin. A regular dialog between our two leaders can make a significant difference in our efforts to engage China on all of the issues of importance to the United States. I do not suggest that Congress cede all interest in China to the administration. Rather, Congress and the administration have to work together to deploy all of our policy and legal tools to influence Chinese behavior. It is time for the Congress to trade in the annual summer verdict on China for a more activist, longer term approach to China and the important Asia Pacific region. The administration's intellectual property rights dispute with China is one example of United States interests working cooperatively on a specific China problem. Congress backed the administration throughout this process, and as a result we had a widely supported, justifiable response to Chinese piracy. The Chinese knew the seriousness with which the United States viewed this issue, and there is no doubt in the United States resolve. United States negotiators were invited by the Chinese back to the negotiating table, and as a result an agreement was reached. China has taken or agreed to a number of important steps to address our concerns. These Chinese actions include the confirmed closing of 15 factories that were pirating our technologies, a sustained police crackdown in regions where piracy is rampant, and closer cooperation with United States and Hong Kong custom officials to stop these pirated exports. I want to take this opportunity to commend Charlene Barshefsky, our acting U.S. Trade Representative, and her negotiating team. Ambassador Barshefsky, I am convinced, will be a spectacular Trade Representative, and I am anxious for the Senate to begin her confirmation process. I believe the IPR example serves as a useful model to move our China relationship forward. Our relationship with China is our most complex and our most difficult. Our successes are hard to measure and our frustrations with them are difficult and easily recognized. Before concluding, let me restate my purpose in speaking this morning. The United States and China are at a crucial moment in time. Our interests today and into the next century are linked. They cannot be separated or ignored. As policymakers, what we do in this Chamber will go a long way towards determining whether those shared interests coincide to the mutual benefit of the American and the Chinese people or whether those interests collide and create an adversarial relationship clouded by suspicions. I believe we have to engage the Chinese side--on all of the issues of importance to the American people--and in the coming days I look forward to engaging my colleagues in greater discussion about the importance of United States-China relations. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just take this opportunity to extend to the families of the young men and women who lost their lives, and who were injured in Saudi Arabia a few days ago, my heartfelt thoughts and prayers. It is certainly our duty to protect those who we send overseas to protect us, and we cannot allow terrorist activities to threaten the lives of our young Americans. I really want to commend the President this morning for his strong and swift action, and again extend my deepest sympathies to those families.