Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering to the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill--and I am offering it on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Simon, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Robb, Senator Moseley-Braun and Senator Kennedy--is very simple. It strikes language adopted in last year's defense authorization and appropriations bills that would prohibit privately funded abortions from being performed at overseas military hospitals. This ban places women stationed overseas in an unsafe and unfair situation and blatantly restricts their constitutional right to choose. Women in our armed services sacrifice each and every day to serve our country. They should receive our utmost respect, honor, and gratitude. They certainly do not deserve to be told they must check their constitutional rights at the door when they are stationed overseas. My amendment protects their precious rights and ensures their safe access to quality medical services. Mr. President, let me just say a few things about my amendment to clear away any confusion that may exist. First, this amendment simply restores previous DOD policy. From 1973 to 1988, a woman stationed overseas was allowed to obtain an abortion if she paid with private, nondefense funds. Likewise, this was DOD policy from 1993 till 1996. This is not some radical new idea. Quite the contrary, in fact. This law was in place for almost two full terms of the Reagan White House. We have had many debates on the floor of this Senate over the past 2 years about abortion, about Federal funding, about Federal workers, about Medicaid. Let me be very clear, this issue is different. My amendment simply ensures the same rights for women in our armed services enjoyed by every other woman in this country. This amendment is merely an effort to return us to the policy of the past which protected women stationed in a foreign country from having to seek medical care from inexperienced or inadequately trained personnel. It is dangerous and unnecessary and just plain wrong to put these women, who are serving our country overseas, at risk. Furthermore, my amendment does not force anyone to perform an abortion at a military facility. Currently, all departments of the military function under a conscience clause which states that medical personnel do not have to participate in an abortion procedure if they have a religious, moral, or ethical objection. This amendment preserves that important conscience clause. Most importantly, Mr. President, it deals only with an individual's private funds. The 104th Congress has spent almost 2 years trying to return flexibility and authority to States. But under the fiscal year 1996 DOD bill, we have a fundamental inconsistency. We have a problem telling our States how to spend their money, but women in our own military are not afforded that privilege. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that a woman stationed overseas does not always have the luxury of access to safe and quality medical care other than at the military hospital on her base. It is dangerous to force her to seek medical care in the local area. We are sending our women in uniform to the foreign back alley. And that is wrong. My amendment seeks to prevent our women in uniform from having to make a very difficult and potentially dangerous, life-threatening choice. My amendment seeks to restore our women in uniform, women stationed overseas, a right they have had for most of the last 23 years. My amendment seeks to protect the constitutional rights of our women in uniform. They sacrifice every day for every single one of us, and we owe them that much. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I withhold the balance of my time. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maine how much time she desires.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that she would have to ask for leave to come back to the United States in order to have the medical procedure take place.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. With the language as it is currently written in the DOD bill, without my amendment, this will force women in the military overseas--in Bosnia, in Turkey, or in many other places--to go to their supervisor and request a leave. Most likely, they would be asked to tell them why, which would be a very difficult situation for many. They would be subject to their supervisor's decision about whether or not they would be granted leave. That would put women in a very awkward and unfair position. I should add that, if the abortion is delayed, the woman's life becomes more in danger. In many circumstances, that would be delayed if she requested leave. It could be delayed if she traveled to this country. If she is granted leave and traveled to this country, as the Senator has stated, if the complications arise, as they can, she would then be subject to having to go back to that supervisor again and ask for additional leave. This is an extremely unfair situation. It can be rectified very easily by this amendment that would allow a woman to use her own private money. We are not asking for taxpayer dollars. We are saying that a woman can use her own money to go into the military facility where we have excellent personnel overseas to perform a safe medical procedure.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am really glad that the Senator asked about the taxpayers' funds being used to build a military facility. Frankly, I find those arguments very offensive because, as taxpayers in this country, we provide dollars for many facilities across this country. But we have singled out women who are overseas serving us in countries overseas, and have told them that they cannot use their own private dollars to pay for a medical service in those facilities. We pay for many other services in those facilities, but we will not provide an abortion for those women. Yet, the Senator is absolutely correct; she will have to fly back to this country in a military plane paid for by taxpayer dollars. She will eat meals on that plane paid for by taxpayer dollars. All of us use taxpayer dollars when we travel on the roads, when we use our public schools, when we go to our colleges, when we have the police come to our house, or when we have a firetruck come to the House. Why are we singling out women who need a medical procedure and expanding the use of taxpayers' funds in that terminology? I find that very offensive.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield for a question to the Senator from Maine.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I encourage all Members to read these young women's powerful work, and I encourage you all to help all our students strive to be the best. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of Senate Resolution. 263 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'') Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday, I was privileged to see and hear a dramatic presentation by four high school sophomores from my home State of Washington. They performed a short dramatic work, with choral music, in my office for me and my staff. They had no fancy stage lights or microphones or curtains. They had simple costumes, and no stage make-up. Yet, they created true magic. It was emotional, powerful, and indicative of what young people can do if given half a chance. These four young women, Dallas Milholland, Cynthia Ward, Kristin Allen-Zito, and Malissa Kobbevik, came to Washington, DC, from their home 3,000 miles away in Bellingham, WA, to compete in the National History Day Finals. The presentation they created was entitled ``Focus of Concern: Breaking the Silence Surrounding Battered Women.'' They researched the plight of battered women throughout history. They examined the accounts of women's ill-treatment, and the silence, ignorance, and approval of such treatment. They also looked at the rise of concern about domestic violence and passage and enforcement of laws to protect women against it. These four young women wrote the script, adapted the accompanying music for beautiful three-part harmony, chose the subdued black costumes, and did the understated blocking and choreography. They performed before national judges, and other students from around the country. This morning, they called and told me that they have been chosen as the National Champions of the National History Day Competition. I know the Presiding Officer is as proud of these four young women from Washington State as I am. The teachers and students of Bellingham High School, and those on Vashon Island, in Port Angeles, and Richland, who also brought their terrific History Day projects to the competition, should all be proud. The people of Bellingham, of Washington State, and all Americans should be very proud of these four young women from Bellingham, and all those who made their great victory possible. What their performance teaches every person who sees it is that domestic violence is an overpowering presence in the lives of too many women and children, almost as hard to outlive as his to live through. As these young women point out in their presentation, ``During the 10 minutes of (our) presentation, 66 women have been beaten. Sometime during the next 3 hours, one of these women will die.'' To quote further: ``During the 13 years of the Vietnam war, 58,000 American service personnel died on the battlefield. During the same time period, 54,000 American women were killed by their domestic partners.'' Their performance teaches that with brutality against women, as with all brutality in the human experience, there are times of concern, when actions happen, and there are times of silence, or worse, times when brutality is condoned. Each of us needs to be responsible to call 911 when we hear the sounds of domestic violence in our neighborhoods. Each of us needs to be responsible to value women and their young children. Each of us needs to tell young girls that they deserve and should expect better. We must become aware that every day women are beaten, pushed, and threatened by those they love: and they are too afraid to admit ``someone I love is hurting me.'' This performance also teaches something about the power of a relevant education. Young people learn best when they see relevance to their own lives outside the classroom, relevance to their current interests, and relevance to their future careers. These young women are talented, interested, and powerful. They are not, however, alone, and they are not unique. Behind these four young women are four families, and at least one great teacher who gave them a chance. A chance to do something adults these days don't seem to expect from American students--strive for excellence. Every student can benefit from seeing this performance. Every student can also benefit from being given a chance to work hard for something that they truly care about. Whether it's a book, a social cause, a business idea, a sport or hobby--we must encourage young people to see the connections. These young people from my State are incredible. They can help us solve the problems facing this country, so can all the other children in this country today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the script from the students at Bellingham High School be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me associate my remarks with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. I am delighted that I had the opportunity to be on the floor to hear the very, very important words that the Senator from Illinois has shared with all of us today about this extremely important issue. I am delighted that the citizens of Illinois had the intelligence to send her here so that she could be a leader and a voice that all of us could follow. I am delighted to support the Senator with the resolution, and I am delighted to stand shoulder to shoulder as we pursue this very, very important issue in this country and put to rest the racism that we see.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my displeasure with House Concurrent Resolution 178, the Republican budget resolution, and my disappointment that the budget was not improved during the House- Senate conference. Rather, the budget has grown even more troubling since going into conference. And I want to take a few minutes to discuss some of the provisions that concern me. Two weeks ago, I voted against the Senate Republican budget resolution because it failed to reflect the priorities and values held by most Americans--the belief that we need to ensure our quality of life, educate our children, and care for our elderly and disabled. The majority party could have improved the budget in the House-Senate conference meeting. They could have acknowledged the growing support for the centrist budget and the strong desire to reach a true balanced budget compromise. We should not forget the Chafee-Breaux balanced budget proposal received 46 votes, and I was proud to be among them. It received strong bipartisan support, and it is proof that Congress can get the job done. Mr. President, House Concurrent Resolution 178 took an extreme Senate Republican budget and made it worse. Rather than moving toward the centrist budget, the Republican leadership yielded to some disturbing House positions. Their actions lead me to believe some Republicans want gridlock--they do not want a balanced budget compromise. For instance, House Concurrent Resolution 178 includes a section known as the Government shutdown prevention allowance, or section 307. This section quite simply confirms the Republican strategy not to reward the American people with a balanced budget agreement this year. This section acknowledges the fact that the Republican budget is too extreme to be accepted by mainstream Americans. Section 307 states the Budget Committee chairman can increase appropriation spending caps by $1.3 billion if the appropriators pass a continuing resolution. This language makes it very clear the Republicans intend to pass a long-term CR rather than work toward a comprehensive budget agreement. Mr. President, the American people expect and deserve better. The American people do not want to see us throw the towel in early. The budget conference also reveals the fact that Republicans again wish to give tax breaks to the wealthy by cutting Medicaid coverage for the poor. Mr. President, after last year's budget debate, I would have thought the Republicans learned Americans are not in favor of giving tax breaks to the wealthy by cutting health care coverage to our children, elderly, and disabled. As written, the Republican budget cuts Medicaid by $72 billion over 6 years. Along with welfare reform, the Medicaid cut will offset $122 billion worth of tax cuts. A year ago, I was opposed to cutting back Medicaid because it provides health care for our poorest children and it ensures quality nursing home standards for our parents. But, after talking to health care experts in Washington State, I concluded my home State could still serve our most vulnerable populations while absorbing a significant cut to Medicaid. I am willing to concede that point, and I know now that if we all give a little, we can reach compromise. However, we should not be cutting Medicaid simply to hand out politically-popular tax breaks. That does not make good sense--that would not fall in line with our recent efforts to become more fiscally responsible. And, Mr. President, let us remember exactly where we are on this road to ending the deficit. Since 1993, we have made great progress toward reducing this Nation's deficit. CBO estimates the 1996 deficit will fall to $130 billion--the fourth straight year the deficit has declined. We have cut the budget deficit in half in less than 4 years, and today's annual deficit is the lowest percent of our gross domestic product since 1980. I'm proud of this fact. I am proud to have been involved in crafting the omnibus budget package of 1993. That deficit reduction package has us on the right track. Our need to do more, however, spawned a bipartisan group of Senators to come together and formulate a well-reasoned, well-balanced budget proposal. I commend Senators Chafee and Breaux for their leadership and hard work on this matter. I voted for their budget alternative because it is exactly the kind of bipartisan teamwork congress needs. Certainly, I would like to see less savings come out of discretionary accounts that include education, job training, trade promotion, and the environment. And the tax cuts may be too generous. The Chafee-Breaux plan may not be perfect, but I believe it is probably the most realistic compromise one could craft. I am hopeful this centrist plan will become the framework for future budget negotiations. Mr. President, this past year has taught us we can reach a balanced budget. We learned we can formulate a balanced budget that uses common sense and reflects America's values and priorities. That is why Senator Kerry and I offered an amendment to restore education and job training funds in the Republican budget. As my colleagues know, this amendment failed despite the fact that the Republican budget will cut education spending 20 percent from current levels. Americans understand how important education and job training investments are for our children, and the future success of this Nation. A recent USA Today poll found that education has become the most important issue for Americans--ranking above crime, the economy, and the quality of one's job. Mr. President, we have a lot of work to do if we are going to reach a balanced budget. But the truth of the matter is that both parties have agreed to enough savings that we could balance the budget today if we really want to. When considering the entire budget, the difference between the two parties amounts to less than 1 percent of the Federal Government's spending. A balanced budget plan is possible. All we need is the courage to find compromise. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations and Budget Committees in order to make sure this Congress' spending priorities are balanced and in line with our constituents' wishes. Unfortunately, today's budget resolution fails to strike a balance. It is simply a replay of last year's failed Republican budget. And I will be fighting to make sure this Congress does not lose sight of what is truly important to our friends and families. We have made tremendous progress in the past 3 years. The 1993 budget reconciliation enabled us to cut the deficit in half, and create over 9 million jobs in the process. This is great news; but that is not all-- last year we narrowed the differences in the competing budget plans to just a few, and a centrist plan to bridge the gap fell short by only five votes. We are close. We are very close to finishing the job. I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan plan and rededicate themselves to reaching a workable compromise. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier today, I voted against House Joint Resolution 1, the so-called balanced budget amendment. Like last year, this amendment was defeated. And, once again, I want to take a minute to tell my colleagues why I voted the way I did. Mr. President, this amendment is nothing more than a feel-good political gimmick. The balanced budget amendment makes for a good political sound bite. But, when looked at closely, one can see this amendment would have serious economic ramifications, tie the hands of our children and trivialize our Nation's constitution. I am disappointed--but not completely surprised--the Senate decided to vote on this amendment during the height of the Presidential campaign season. We should not use the Nation's fiscal policies to create divides between our two parties. Rather, we should be working together to come to agreement on a common-sense balanced-budget plan that reflects American values--the belief we should care for our elderly, educate our children and preserve our quality of life. We have made great progress this past year. The difference between our two parties has narrowed greatly. Everyone agrees we need to balance this Nation's budget, and we are closer than ever to reaching a budget compromise. In fact, just 2 weeks ago, the so-called centrist balanced budget plan came within five votes of passing on this floor. And while I did not like every part of it, I supported it because it was the most credible attempt yet to actually reach a final compromise and get the job done. Mr. President, we simply need to stay focused. We must remember a balanced budget constitutional amendment will not get the job done for us--political courage and tough decisions are the only things that will balance the budget. Let's not forget the progress we have made these past 3 years. Since 1993, we have cut the deficit in half, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates this year's deficit will be as low as $130 billion. That's nothing to cheer about, but it's progress. And it's proof the President's 1993 deficit reduction plan has worked. And I am proud to say I voted for that plan. So, Mr. President, we know we can balance the budget without tying our children's hands in the future. This amendment will make it impossible for future generations to determine our country's spending and revenue priorities. We will do that for them. They will be forced to live within tight spending constraints and they will be paying much higher taxes than we pay today. And proponents of this amendment fail to explain that it will make it much more difficult for our country to deal with recessions. Like any good business, the government must invest today in order to succeed tomorrow. During recessions, the Government's revenue stream decreases and its need to provide unemployment insurance increases. In order to curtail a recession and energize the economy, the Government must invest in capital and its people. Quite simply, the balanced budget amendment will stifle the Nation's ability to correct economic downturns. And let's not forget the Government oftentimes is needed to help States and local communities deal with the damage that results from natural disasters. Just last winter, my home State suffered severe flooding. The floods caused millions of dollars worth of damage and upset the local economy. The Federal Government helped Washington State residents cope with this disaster by pitching in $74.5 million. This is an important role the Federal Government must play. But, the balanced budget amendment would make this type of assistance impossible in the future. Mr. President, balancing the budget requires tough choices. We have learned it takes dramatic spending cuts or tax increases or a combination of both. It cannot be done by cutting taxes. Last year, my Republican colleagues proposed $250 billion worth of tax cuts. I ask my colleagues, how would that huge tax cut proposal mesh with the constraints of the balanced budget constitutional amendment? Where would the offsets come from? Does this mean we would balance the budget by cutting important programs to pay for politically popular tax cuts? Mr. President, these questions are important. We have already seen how the Republican majority would balance the budget. They would cut education and job training programs, strip environmental protections, and reduce payments to Medicare beneficiaries. We need to understand the consequences of passing this amendment, and we need to ask whether or not this Nation's most needy will be taken care of appropriately if it is passed. Just as we must watch out for our most needy--those who cannot afford to buy a high-priced lobbyist to speak on their behalf--we need to consider how this amendment will impact small States. When determining how to make the cuts needed to balance the budget, the States with the most representatives will have the most influence over the decisions being made. I fear small States, like Washington State, will take a disproportionate hit when Congress determines how to make the cuts needed to balance the budget. And, Mr. President, our wise Founding Fathers wanted Congress to control the Nation's purse strings because the legislative branch is the closest branch to the people--we understand the needs and priorities of our constituents. The balanced budget amendment could shift fiscal responsibility to the courts. If the President and the Congress disagree on spending and revenue priorities, the courts could be required to step in and decide the appropriate fiscal plan. Mr. President, Supreme Court Justices are not responsible to the people of my home State. They are not elected, and they are not sent to the Nation's Capital to tend to the needs of my constituents. We have amended the Constitution only 17 times since we adopted the Bill of Rights. We have never changed the Constitution lightly. Every previous amendment has expanded personal rights and outlined responsibilities. We have never amended the Constitution to insert an economic belief. And, fortunately, we did not do so today. Mr. President, I voted against this amendment because I value the Constitution. I chose not to trivialize the importance of the U.S. Constitution by making it a forum for our annual fiscal decisions and the politics that accompany those decisions. I have no doubt the Senate will debate this amendment again next year. I look forward to that debate, but I remind my colleagues that between now and then we can make that debate irrelevant. We can work together to find compromise, and we can work together to put together a sensible balanced budget agreement. And, I say, that would be the best thing for our children--that would be the real accomplishment that will truly benefit our children.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to be here again this year, joining my colleagues in the Senate to talk about the National Race for the Cure. This important event underscores the critical need to raise awareness about breast cancer, and the need to support research and education about this frightening disease. We have heard the numbers and seen the statistics. Each year breast cancer strikes 184,000 women, and kills an estimated 45,000. Far too many have died from this disease, and the list includes many of my own friends and relatives. We all can agree that more must be done to educate women about the risks, prevention, and treatment of breast cancer. I can tell you that, as a woman, the mixed messages we receive are frustrating and dangerous. We hear conflicting advice about when to have a mammogram--one year it's at age 40 then next it's at age 50--we need consistent, accurate information or else women will continue to die. Studies show that early detection and proper treatment could save the lives of 9 out of 10 women with breast cancer--that's 90 percent, Mr. President. These numbers are too serious to ignore. We must do all we can to encourage education and awareness about how we can protect ourselves and our daughters from the tragedy of breast cancer. For this reason, the Race for the Cure is so very important; the D.C. race is the largest 5-kilometer race in the country--35,000 participants are expected to run, walk, and roller blade this year. This is a day to draw national attention to this disease; throughout the year races will be taking place in cities across the country to turn the spotlight on this critical women's health issue. Of course 1 day is not enough, but it's a good place to start and it's an important reminder for all of us. I want to encourage my colleagues to participate, as well as people all over the country. As it happens, today and tomorrow are Capitol Hill registration days. I am proud to say my office has put together a team and will be participating in the race. I urge everyone to do the same. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank Senator Bradley for his passionate and personal commitment to addressing women's health issues. I appreciate his leadership and dedication to supporting the National Race for the Cure. I also want to briefly thank Senator Ford for submitting the resolution to designate June 15 ``National Race for the Cure Day.'' I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this resolution and for recognizing the importance of the Race for the Cure in the battle against breast cancer. Breast cancer, while predominantly a woman's health issue, does affect men and it certainly can devastate an entire family. We must do all that we can to protect ourselves and our families from having to endure the tragedy of this disease. The National Race for the Cure is an ideal way to join the fight against breast cancer. I thank my colleagues for recognizing that. No Backsliding on Finding a Cure for Breast Cancer

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Women's Health Equity Act. I am proud to join my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Mikulski, Feinstein, and Moseley-Braun, in offering this package of 39 legislative initiatives of critical importance to the health of women and their children. Today we are sending a powerful and united message. We are more committed than ever to keeping the spotlight on the important issues surrounding women's health research, treatment and education. There are so many worthy pieces to this bill that I won't go into each and every one separately. This bill underscores the lack of attention that has been paid to women's health issues and the many obstacles we face in getting accurate, vital information about our health, the health of our children and the health care system as it effects us. Women face an array of unique and serious health risks. We must do more to ensure that adequate research and education programs are maintained, supported and enriched. We have much more to learn about diseases like osteoporosis, lupus, and breast cancer that devastate the lives of women across this country. And we need to continue to broaden the scope of current efforts in research into AIDS, cardiovascular disease and alcoholism to better understand how women are impacted. We must enable women to protect themselves and their daughters. Mr. President, our bill recognizes the need for supporting this kind of research and specifically addresses all of these conditions which jeopardize the health of women. We must encourage a coordinated and committed effort from the top level of our government to make sure that women's health issues receive the attention they deserve. For too long, our concerns were ignored or given second-class status. If we continue to allow this to happen--women will die, our children will get sick, and future generations will be shortchanged of valuable information about ways to prevent health-related tragedies. And our bill acknowledges another critical health issue which disproportionately affects women--domestic violence. The Women's Health Equity Act includes a number of provisions which seek to protect women who are victims of violence from being discriminated against when seeking health insurance. Family violence is a public health crisis which tears families apart and often prevents women, especially low- income women, from providing their children with a safe, nurturing environment in which to learn and grow. As you know Mr. President, one of my biggest concerns as a Senator is the well being of our Nation's young people. I am proud that this bill includes provisions which encourage: adolescent health demonstration projects; eating disorders research and education initiatives; fetal alcohol syndrome research and prevention programs; and demonstration projects to prevent smoking in WIC clinics. These efforts are critical and send our young people an important message that we care about them, their health, and their futures. I am particularly pleased that the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act was included in this act. By allowing longer hospital stays after child-birth, we will see improved health for both mother and baby. Women will receive essential information about care for their newborn and if there are any health complications, mother and baby will receive the attention they need. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Snowe for her leadership in coordinating this effort and for all she has done for women's health and health care. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I urge all of my colleagues to join and help move these initiatives forward. Together, we can improve the lives and health of women and children in our Nation, continue the important work we have started and celebrate the great strides we have made. I look forward to this challenge.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I fully support this landmark agreement negotiated by the Sierra Club's Cascade Checkerboard Project, the Weyerhaeuser Company, and the Forest Service. I particularly applaud the Weyerhaeuser Company's donation of approximately 1,900 acres of land, 900 acres of which will become part of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. This exchange will give Weyerhaeuser 7,200 acres of 80- to 100-year- old trees within the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Pierce County, WA, in exchange for 33,000 acres of company's land. Essentially, the company gets timber to cut now, and the public gets much more land upon which future forests will be grown. Both Weyerhaeuser and the Forest Service will also be better able to manage their lands as ecosystems and reduce costs and administrative burdens of checkerboard management. I strongly support such negotiated trades. I believe it is in all of our interests to reduce the checkerboard pattern of ownership--which Congress created through a massive land grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1864. I will continue to encourage cooperation between public and private landowner, and environmental and timber interests. Such agreements provide models for resolution of natural resources disputes and other environmental issues. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to take expeditious action on this bill, which simply alters the boundary of Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The boundary change is needed before the exchange can occur. I thank my colleagues for any support they can give to their bipartisan, non-controversial bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as part of my ongoing commitment to children, I have come to the floor today to draw attention to my efforts to improve the health of American children and young people. It is clear that many people work hard every day for the well-being of children in this country. However, we all can do--and need to do--so much more. Children's health in my home State of Washington is better overall, including lower infant mortality and better prenatal care. However, immunization rates and child nutrition need improvement. Across our Nation, over 10 million children are uninsured. One in four children are covered by Medicaid--more than half in working families. And, nearly 200,000 babies were born in 1993 who had no prenatal care, or none until the last 3 months of pregnancy, despite the fact that we know that averting one low birth-weight baby can prevent as much as $37,000 in initial hospital and doctor fees. Internationally, among industrialized countries, America ranks 16th in the living standards of our poorest children, 18th in the gap between rich and poor children, and 18th in infant mortality. Certainly, we all can do better for our children's well-being. We know it, and the American people know it. When I hear from people in Washington State on the topic of children's health, I hear common themes. People from Vancouver to Yakima to Spokane to Tacoma worry about kids not having access to basic health care. They talk about children going to emergency rooms with preventable illnesses and injuries. Parents talk about feeling like they need more and better information to make decisions affecting their child's health. In response to those concerns, you will continue to see me working in three different areas to improve and protect children's health and well-being: First, keep effective national standards for health care in place for all children, including those with special needs. Second, make prevention the centerpiece of our national children's health policy. Third, increase access to information for families to make the best decisions possible for their children. There are several ways to do more for children, and not all of them are difficult. One way to help kids is simply to draw attention to the people, programs, and services that are working and doing a good job for children today. In my home State of Washington, for example, we are helping children to be more healthy in a variety of ways. In Ellensburg and in Coupeville, through a program now running in four counties that I hope one day goes statewide, parents of young children get two important services that help them make the best decisions for their children. First, any parent of a child between birth and age 6 gets special mailings and health information sent to their home, including information on well-baby checkups, immunizations, safety, and normal patterns of growth and development. All at no cost to the parents, and all for a total cost of about $10 per child. Second, parents get reminders and assistance to get the many immunizations their child will need. We know children should be protected from a host of childhood illnesses, from diphtheria and tetanus, and from polio to measles, mumps, and rubella. We also know people are busy, and need reminders, access to affordable vaccines, and lots of information. This program is a good start. There is also a dental health promotion effort underway in my State. In the past, many dentists' advice to parents has been to bring children in for their first visit about the time they start school, at age 4 or 5. The problem is that many children show up to their first dental visit with decay, gum problems--in many cases so serious that they require dental surgery--because of preventable causes. The Access to Baby and Child Dentistry [ABDC] program in Spokane, WA, reaches out to families with young children and encourages early dental visits. ABDC dentists remind them to do things like remove baby bottles at the proper age, and not give babies soft drinks or candy bars. In addition, dentists, apply fluoride varnishes and other treatments to baby teeth, and do other clinical procedures to decrease a baby's chances of developing dental problems. These measum save all of us money in the long run. Sometimes bringing awareness to a problem is not enough. I mentioned that we need to preserve national standards for children's health. This must happen at the national level. This Friday, tomorrow, the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission and Prevention magazine will release Prevention's 1996 report on auto safety in America. I hope we all pay attention to their findings. Last year, the report included information on child safety helmets. This year, their report will focus on the things we can do to make automobile travel safer. Effective national standards for children's health do not have to be some scientific formula. Sometimes it's as easy as retaining a Federal speed limit, or Federal safety regulations. We know that the 55-mile- per-hour speed limit has saved countless children's lives. We know that the automobile industry has made great strides to improve automobile safety. We know air bags improve safety, and that cellular telephone use probably decreases it. When it comes to the basic safety of our children, it should not depend on which line on a map they just crossed on their family vacation. As a final note, I want to remind you all that on June 1, the Children's Defense Fund will host Stand for Children, an event in Washington, DC, that will bring Americans together, to show their shared commitment to children. We spend so much time talking about our differences of opinion. We need to respect our opposing view, but get beyond them to common ground and common sense action for children. I encourage all Americans who can attend this event to do so. It will be a day to rally around our children, and show them how important they are to us all. This will be a day of fun family activies, and togetherness, and of the power of individual action. I have heard from many people around the country who cannot attend the event. I encourage you to support those at the Lincoln Memorial in your thoughts and prayers, I encourage every American to do at least one thing to make a difference in the life of a child, and June 1 would be a great place to start. If anyone wants more information on the Stand for Children event they can call 1-800-233-1200. Anyone who is listening can make it easier for one child to get appropriate health care. Offer to provide child care or a ride to the clinic, so someone's child can go to a medical check-up or get immunized. We all can help prevent health problems to avoid bigger costs later on. Anyone listing can volunteer to distribute information on health screenings, immunizations, or blood drives. Lead a safety committees or fitness day at the local park, school, or community center. Help to find or build affordable housing in your area. You can stay educated and prepared about children's health. Read about childhood illnesses. Make a personal medical history for each member of your family, so you can be ready in the case of illness or trauma. Nothing is more vital to a child than her basic health. A child must be healthy to learn well. She must be educated to participate and contribute to our society. But we must start with making sure we do everything we can for her basic well-being. You will see me doing my best for the health of our children. Please join me in this critical effort.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. Quite simply, this budget resolution does not reflect the priorities and values held by most Americans--the belief that we need to ensure our quality of life, educate our children, and care for our elderly and disabled. I regret that this vote will not be bipartisan, because I believe we have made great progress over the past year. Unfortunately, this Republican budget falls short. It fails to meet us halfway, and it proposes deep cuts in Medicare, education, Medicaid, and the environment while increasing defense spending. These cuts are not necessary to balance the budget; rather, they are punitive and unwise. Mr. President, when discussing the budget, we must step back and look at where we were just a year ago. A year ago, the President's budget was not balanced and the Republican budget called for even deeper cuts in important programs--cuts as big as $250 billion out of Medicare. Since that time, however, the President has submitted a CBO-certified balanced-budget that includes modest, but realistic, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. And Republicans have acknowledged the need to increase funding for Medicare, education, the environment, Cops on the Street and Americorps. A year ago, I was opposed to cutting back Medicaid because it provides health care for our poorest children and it ensures quality nursing home standards for our parents. After working with health care experts in Washington State, I concluded my home State could still serve our most vulnerable populations as long as we don't have drastic cuts to Medicaid. I'm willing to concede that point, and I know now that if we all give a little, we can reach compromise. But Republican cuts still go too far. Republican Medicaid cuts appear to be shrinking, but, unfortunately you are not seeing the whole story. The $72 billion cut mentioned in the bill, by itself, would force changes in eligibility and services for Americans on Medicaid. But in addition, this bill would allow States to walk away from paying their fair share in this successful State and Federal partnership. Between State and Federal share reductions, over $250 billion would be cut from health care coverage for poor and working families. The majority party contends their Medicaid provisions would be endorsed by the National Governor's Association. They would not. Among other problems, this bill is a block grant, with no way for States to be reimbursed for extra costs resulting from natural disaster or economic downturn. Even if their were no problems, and there are many, I could not support these cuts. States need flexibility, and the types of flexibility sought by my State are reasonable. But we in Congress are here to assure that every child in this country can get basic health services, no matter which State they live in. On welfare, Republicans cut $53 billion and removes the guarantee to public assistance, but they are not very clear about where the money comes from. We can only assume they will do the same as last year--deep cuts in food aid and nutrition programs. I am interested in real welfare reform--reform that gives people alternatives and assistance to move people off of public assistance in a way that allows them to support themselves. This Republican budget is an attack on poor families, and I cannot support it. Mr. President, let us remember exactly where we are on this road to ending the deficit. Since 1993, we have made great progress toward reducing this Nation's deficit. CBO estimates the 1996 deficit will fall to $130 billion--the fourth straight year the deficit has declined. We have cut the budget deficit in half in less than 4 years, and today's annual deficit stands as the lowest percentage of our gross domestic product since 1980. I'm proud of this fact. I am proud to have been involved in crafting the budget package of 1993. That deficit reduction package has us on the right track. Our need to do more, however, spawned a bipartisan group of Senators, who have come together and formulated a well-reasoned, well-balanced budget proposal. I commend Senators Chafee and Breaux for their leadership and hard work on this matter. I voted for their budget alternative because it is exactly the kind of bipartisan teamwork Congress needs to see more of. Certainly, I would like to see less savings come out of discretionary accounts that include education, job training, trade promotion, and the environment. And the tax cuts may be too generous. The Chafee-Breaux plan may not be perfect, but I believe it is probably the most realistic compromise one could craft. I am hopeful this Centrist plan will become the framework for future budget negotiations. Mr. President, this past year has taught us we can reach a balanced budget. We learned we can formulate a budget that uses common sense and reflects America's values and priorities. That is why Senator Kerry and I offered an amendment to restore education and job training funds in the Republican budget. As my colleagues know, this amendment failed despite the fact that the Republican budget will cut education spending 20 percent from current levels. Americans understand how important education and job training investments are for our children, and the future success of this Nation. A recent USA Today poll found that education has become the most important issue for Americans--ranking above crime, the economy and the quality of one's job. As a former teacher, mother, and PTA member, I know from personal experience the value and importance of Head Start, vocational education and education, technology programs. I have seen these programs work, and I have seen the satisfaction on the faces of children who are finally getting a chance to excel and succeed. And, Mr. President, this Republican budget takes a serious step backwards in our efforts to preserve our environment and ensure our quality of life. Unfortunately, the Senate rejected several amendments that would have softened this budget's impact on the environment. First, I oppose a change in the way sales of Federal assets are treated in this resolution. For the last decade, Congress has recognized that our public lands and other Federal assets were too precious to sell or lease unless Congress or the administration decided that so doing was in the best interest of the public. That is good policy and one that traditionally has enjoyed strong bi-partisan support. I cosponsored the Bumpers-Bradley amendment which would have preserved our national heritage for generations to come, and would have rejected this approach to the disposition of our Federal assets. I also supported the amendment offered by Senators Lautenberg and Kerry that would have increased funding by $7.3 billion over 6 years for Function 300, which funds the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and other environmental programs. This amendment would have restored balance to the budget. It would have provided a stable, strong level of funding to protect our national treasures and clean up our environment. Senator Wyden's Sense of the Senate amendment would have eliminated tax deductions for fines, penalties, and damages arising from a failure to comply with Federal and State environmental or health protection laws. That common sense approach to balancing the budget would have raised up to $100 million annually. The amendment provided an excellent opportunity to express our support for law-abiding companies who do not break environmental and safety laws by closing a tax loophole enjoyed by those who do break our laws. Mr. President, last year's budget debate was painful for all of us. It was especially painful for our constituents--our hard-working friends and neighbors. They didn't know why the budget debate forced the Government to shut down twice--one time for three straight weeks. They didn't see that as progress. Instead, they saw it as just another example of what is wrong with Congress and the Government today. It is my hope this year's budget and appropriations process will be more orderly. It is my hope the American people will not be used as pawns during our budget negotiations. And it is my hope that my colleagues will remember the budget debate requires compromise if we hope to really serve the people. In the end last year, we learned our Government is truly a democracy. We learned any successful budget agreement will need to be as broad and bipartisan as possible. We have a lot of work to do if we are going to reach a balanced budget. But the truth of the matter is that both parties have agreed to enough savings that we could balance the budget today if we really want to. When considering the entire budget, the difference between the two parties amounts to less than 1 percent of the Federal Government's spending. A balanced budget plan is possible. All we need is the courage to find compromise. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations and Budget Committees in order to make sure this Congress' spending priorities are balanced and in line with our constituents' wishes. Unfortunately, today's budget resolution fails to strike a balance. It's simply a replay of last year's failed Republican budget. And I will be fighting to make sure this Congress does not lose sight of what is truly important to our friends and families.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend Senators Chafee and Breaux for the work they did in putting together a true budget compromise. These two distinguished Senators successfully coordinated a group of 11 Democrats and 11 Republicans in a good-faith effort to balance our Nation's budget in a fair and responsible way. And, their work should not go unnoticed. As the people of this country know all too well, Congress has been wrangling with the budget issue for more than a year. The debate has been bitter and, at times, downright rancorous. But, if we step back and look beyond all the huffing and puffing, we find that Congress and the President have learned we can balance the budget. It is not an impossible mission. And it is not an idea that must get bogged down along party lines. We all agree the budget must be balanced. We all understand the need to get our fiscal house in order. The difficult part, however, is making sure the budget plan uses good common sense and reflects America's core values--the belief we should ensure our quality of life, educate our children, and maintain adequate health security for our parents and disabled. Unfortunately, the Senate rejected the centrist budget today. However, the awareness of this plan is just building, and I am pleased to note support is growing for this plan. I believe the Chafee-Breaux budget lays the groundwork and sets out the parameters that could be used to strike a final compromise on a comprehensive 6-year balanced budget plan. The centrist budget plan is not perfect. It requires serious savings in programs I believe in and my friends and family depend on. It asks each and every one of us to give a little in order balance the budget. It cuts Medicare, Medicaid; it curtails welfare programs; and it cuts taxes all a little bit more than I would like. But the proposals in this plan are workable. It calls for realistic savings. Savings that can be achieved without risking the safety and security of our friends and families--without stripping away the safety net that catches our most needy. Mr. President, let me just say, last year I was opposed to cutting back Medicaid because it provides health care for our poorest children and it ensures quality nursing home standards for our parents. But, after talking to health care experts in Washington State, I concluded my home State could still serve our most vulnerable populations as long as we do not have drastic cuts to Medicaid. I am willing to concede that point, and I know now that if we all give a little, we can reach compromise. The key to any balanced budget proposal is making sure the numbers fit the policy decisions. In other words, we cannot just arbitrarily slash important programs simply to balance the budget. We need to make sure we can reform the programs in a way that saves money while still serving the public. The Chafee-Breaux plan will accomplish that goal-- it proposes realistic numbers that can be achieved. Given this, let me say that I will work to make sure the Chafee- Breaux plan is balanced and reflects America's priorities. While I support the overall effort to put aside partisan differences and find common ground, there are very important matters we cannot afford to overlook. I just want to remind my colleagues and our State legislators who seem to be clamoring for more State control of Medicaid and Welfare, that our children's needs do not change with shifting political winds. We need a balanced budget. Saying that is the easy part. But we must compromise to get one, and that is the hard part. The American people clearly are willing to sacrifice to make this happen. And, I voted today in support of a bipartisan budget agreement that asks for shared sacrifice. The numbers in the Breaux-Chafee proposal are reasonable. How the proposal gets to the numbers still raises large concerns for me, and should for all of us. On welfare, there will be cuts. People will see reduced services from their Government. There will be new requirements on adults to do more in order to get help, and if this breaks down the disincentives in our current welfare system, then I support it. That is one reason I voted for this amendment. But how we achieve savings is a very important question, as is whether we want to penalize people. And I think this amendment and every other welfare proposal goes the wrong way when it comes to removing national standards for a basic guarantee of service. According to CBO, removing entitlement status for cash assistance does not save money in this proposal. I can understand saving money and making programs run more efficiently. I can see why people in this country want to impose work requirements on those getting public assistance. I just do not understand why children have to suffer because their parents are poor. The Breaux-Chafee proposal cuts food stamps, SSI eligibility, and many other things that will make our children's lives harder, day to day. I do not think this is wise. But in the interest of getting a budget agreement, and in the spirit of shared sacrifice, some of these proposals are reasonable. But, block-granting and capping welfare payments to States is not reasonable. When the economy in Wisconsin or Washington turns sour, we will see how fast the States want help from the Federal Treasury. Removing the guarantee to a basic hand-up in need--this is not reasonable, and Congress should not be doing it in this budget or any other. On Medicaid, the Breaux-Chafee plan will change early health treatment for kids under EPSDT, which will hinder our long-term preventative health efforts for children. We will be less likely to stop easy ailments before they become serious and costly illnesses. We know this is going in. The trick will be to find a way to make sure that does not happen. There are many other concerns I have with this section of the budget. The overall funding level looks reasonable, but we need to watch Medicaid for its impact on children. I am also deeply concerned about the proposals included in this budget that would target our federal and postal employees. These people who serve our country have already been hit hard through Government shutdowns and delayed COLA's. This budget also adjusts contributions and collections from the CSRS and FERS retirement plans, and it increase retirement ages--improperly placing a large burden on the backs of Federal workers. We must end the continued 3-month delay in retiree COLA's and honor the contract our Nation formed with our valued Federal workers. Mr. President, I will not forget the concerns I just raised. As we reform these programs, we must remember what works and what needs to be changed. Last year, we learned the American people do not want reckless changes. They want wise decisionmaking. They want us to craft budgets that reflect their priorities. And I am confident that with good common sense we can meet their expectations.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me just take this opportunity to also thank the ranking member of our Budget Committee, Senator Exon, for the excellent job he has done over the past several days managing the budget and being a spokesperson for all of us. Amendment No. 3991