Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, during the 103d Congress many of us worked very hard to try to enact comprehensive health care reform. Despite our efforts and what felt like endless debate, politics prevailed and we came up emptyhanded. Perhaps we were too optimistic to think we could accomplish such broad and sweeping reforms in 1993; but unfortunately health reform remains a critical high priority issue for every family in this country. Well, political realities are still very real factors in determining the outcome of legislative initiatives here in Congress. And here we are again discussing health care reform, only in a much more limited and focused way. I am encouraged that the dialogue is open once again, and that we are taking positive steps toward addressing the many health-related issues confronting people across our country. If I had it my way, we would not just be talking about health insurance reform today. We would be doing more, especially for our most precious resource, children. We should be doing more, like: ensuring better pre- and post-natal care for women and their babies; boosting rates of immunization even higher for children across our nation; working even harder to reduce adolescent health problems like teen pregnancies, substance abuse and STD's; improving child nutrition programs and strengthening our overall national commitment to children and family health and well-being. But, I recognize the realities of the 104th Congress, and realize that sometimes progress comes one step at a time. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1028, the Health Insurance Reform Act. I believe this is a commonsense measure that will directly benefit working families across our country. I sincerely hope we can pass this bill and send it to the President for his signature. We should not weigh this bill down with amendments that could undo the broad bipartisan support we so rarely see in this Congress. I applaud Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy for their ongoing leadership and commitment to enacting this legislation. S. 1028 was carefully crafted so that we could pass it overwhelmingly and see it enacted into law with the full support of the White House. For this reason, I will join my colleagues in opposing any controversial amendments that are offered, even those which I support in principle. We should learn from the past, Mr. President, and not try to bite off more than we can chew. As I said, this bill is not a cure-all. We need to do more, of course. But, this is a reasonable, sensible first step and will go a significant distance toward guaranteeing coverage for millions of American workers and their families. Mr. President, we owe it to those families to pass this bill, and pass it in its current form. To do anything which could jeopardize the fragile coalition of support for this bill would be irresponsible and bad public policy. I appeal to my colleagues not to try and load up this bill with amendments that will ultimately kill the bill. Let us show our constituents that we can work together and we can put political differences aside for the greater good. Much of what we are discussing here will not be news to people in my State. In 1993, we passed one of the most comprehensive health care measures in the country, and even after serious modification the people in Washington still have many of these same protections. In some areas, like limits on pre-existing conditions, my State actually has a shorter limit of 3 months, which the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill will not preempt. Earlier I said that we owe it to working families to pass this bill. I am talking about people across the country who have to worry about their health care coverage, people who want to work and take care of themselves and their families. People like: The working family of three. Dad wants to change jobs to a higher paying company, but his daughter has multiple sclerosis. Under this bill, he wouldn't have to worry that she will not be able to get coverage under the new employer's plan. He plays by the rules, he pays his premiums--this family will not be confronted with a preexisting condition exclusion period. By requiring insurance companies and employers to credit prior insurance coverage, this bill will give workers with disabled family- members peace of mind and the flexibility to change jobs without fear of losing their insurance. Or a woman who had breast cancer who is starting a new job. Today, she could possibly be denied coverage or charged a higher premium because of her cancer history. But, tomorrow--under S. 1028--because insurance companies and employers would be prohibited from discriminating against workers because of past medical problems, this woman would be treated no differently than anyone else covered under the same plan. And, the new small business owner and her three children. Mom was abused in her former marriage and is trying to start over. A woman in this situation is going to need all the help she can get to provide for herself and her kids. Today, she could be facing not one but two obstacles to starting her new life for herself and her family. First, she could be denied coverage for herself for any preexisting condition that was caused by her years of being abused. Second, she is a new business owner and maybe can't afford to purchase insurance for her handful of employees. S. 1028 will give this woman a chance to succeed. She will not be discriminated against because of her preexisting condition, and under the provisions of this bill--small businesses and individuals are permitted to form cooperatives to purchase insurance and negotiate with providers and health plans. This arrangement will spread administrative costs and empower the participants to negotiate for better prices. In other words, S. 1028 will help this woman and her children put their troubled pasts behind them. Mr. President, the examples are endless. We have heard many stories today, and as Senator Kassebaum pointed out--we all know someone who could be helped by this bill. Even though this bill may not be as comprehensive as I personally would like, I want to reiterate my strong hope that we can pass S. 1028 without any controversial additions and move forward to address the many other issues facing America's families. That's why we're here.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this Farm Bill Conference Report represents a bold new direction for the future of this Nation's agricultural policy. A direction I do not support. The removal of the safety net for our farmers will prove itself to be a mistake, I think. Undermining the safety net is easy now since prices are relatively high, but when prices drop, and we all know they will, I fear this farm bill may come back to haunt us. In fact, it may well come back regardless of prices. It may come back because of the so-called market- transition payments: guaranteed payments to farmers regardless of market conditions or production. I am truly afraid that the American public will not view these payments as a safety net to maintain a safe and stable food supply. They will view the payments as a give-away. Those of us who understand the importance of farm programs know better than to undermine farm support structures in this way. That is why we think the payments should continue to be tied to production and the marketplace. Many have expressed the sentiment that after the 7 years of Freedom to Farm, we will continue to maintain some kind of farm program. While the preservation of permanent agricultural law in the conference report provides some assurance that this will be the case, I am not so confident. The proponents of ``Freedom to Farm'' have made it explicitly clear that they view the market transition payments as a transition to nothing. Moreover, I am also concerned that public outcry over these direct payments will force us to revisit the farm bill sooner than 7 years. If this occurs, I am not at all convinced that Congress will seek to rectify the situation by reinstating a more traditional safety net, they may well decide just to end the payments, period. Which just goes to the point: we had the opportunity to appropriately address national agricultural policy and we failed. Instead, we chose to let budget priorities drive farm policy. By putting forward policies that could not even make it out of committee, we undermined the process and the result is far from satisfactory. Congress has let our farmers down. The farm bill has traditionally been bipartisan with considerable time provided for debate and discussion. Congress sought to provide all parties a chance to provide their input. That tradition has ended with this bill. Take the dairy provisions for example. There is still a considerable amount of disagreement over these provisions, a compromise has not been achieved. Despite all this, our farmers do need certainty for the 1996 season. I spoke with the wheat growers in my State of Washington yesterday. While they share many of my concerns with this farm bill, they told me they need something for this season. It would be unfair to hold the farmers of America hostage to our disagreements. While in the long term, I have serious concerns about the future of our farms under this bill, in the short term, they need to know what to plant for. I therefore will support this conference report, with serious reservations, in order for my farmers to have the certainty they need this season. I am committed to protecting the ability of our farmers to continue producing a safe and stable food supply for this Nation and the world. I will be watching the impacts of ``Freedom to Farm'' on our Nation's farms closely as the program, or lack of program, moves forward.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I take the floor to oppose the so-called line-item veto legislation before us today. I regret I cannot support this conference report, but unfortunately this report is careless, highly questionable and possibly unconstitutional. Mr. President, I support the line-item veto proposal submitted by Senator Byrd. His expedited rescission proposal was well-written and made good common sense, but unfortunately, it was not accepted by the Senate. I know all too well the abuse that can arise through broad, sweeping line-item veto authority. Mr. President, I served in the Washington State Senate prior to coming to the U.S. Senate. My home State arms its executive with line-item veto authority, and while serving in the State legislature I witnessed, first hand, the horse trading that results by giving the State's executive this authority. In my home State, the line-item veto does not deter spending. Rather, it encourages more spending. It puts legislators in the position of having to accept the Governor's priorities in order to make sure their legislative priorities are not vetoed by the Governor. As you know, Mr. President, this debate essentially was spawned out of our desire to reduce Government waste and balance our Nation's budget deficit. I do not think there is a single Member in this body that does not want to reduce the Nation's budget deficit. However, I have great difficulty turning over my responsibility and Congress' fiscal responsibilities to the executive branch. Mr. President, the line-item veto is a budget gimmick, and it simply passes the power of the purse from Congress to the President. Since 1993, we have cut the Nation's budget deficit in half. This is commendable work. However, it was difficult work that required tough decisions. Congress and the Clinton administration chose to reduce and cut hundreds of Federal programs. This was not easy, but it is what we were elected to do. We will get our fiscal house in order once we set our minds to it. We do not need a line-item veto. We need courage. We should not shrink from our constitutional responsibilities. We should accept the challenge. Mr. President, earlier today I listened to the elegant words of Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd is a great orator, respected legislator and an excellent teacher--especially when it comes to the constitutional issues surrounding the line-item veto. I hope my colleagues listened to his words, because there are some real constitutional issues that need to be addressed because of this legislation. This legislation disrupts the delicate balance of powers laid out by our Founding Fathers. It shifts an enormous amount of power to the President of the United States--directly conflicting with Congress' constitutional duties. And, as written, this legislation gives the President and a one-third minority in one House the power to veto legislation a majority of Congress approved. It turns the idea of checks and balances on its head. Mr. President, I also have grave concerns with the language pertaining to targeted tax benefits. This language is cleverly written in a way that ultimately prohibits the President from vetoing new targeted tax benefits. If we want to grant the President a line-item veto, let us at least do it the right way. Let us at least let the President strike new tax expenditures. Moreover, I urge all my colleagues from small States to read this legislation carefully, because as it is written, the President has the power to strike very specific language including charts and graphs. For instance, the President would have the power to strike funding for a single State if an appropriations bill or report includes a chart breaking out spending per State. We know the President is not going to strike funding from electoral-vote rich States. But, what keeps the President from cutting funds in smaller States? Mr. President, this again reminds me of the horse trading I experienced in my home State legislature. This legislation puts legislators in the awkward position of having to protect congressionally approved legislation from the President's veto pen-- legislation that was debated, considered and eventually agreed to by Congress--agreed to the way our Founding Fathers envisioned the process would work, and the way our constituents expect us to govern. In no way did our Founding Fathers expect the President to unravel legislation that was crafted through compromise by both the majority and the minority. Mr. President, there is a right way to craft this legislation. It should be written clearly and carefully--without ambiguity. We should craft legislation that doesn't exempt specific tax breaks, one that doesn't allow a President to attack entitlements, and one that doesn't hold small States hostage. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. The line-item veto is not the solution to our deficit problems. We know what needs to be done to reduce the deficit, and we have done it here on this floor over the past 3 years. We know the line-item veto is not the tool needed to accomplish that goal, but rather, just a feel-good gimmick that puts off the tough decisions.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to explain why I voted against this product liability conference report. All of us in this room have heard horrific stories about people who got hurt when they did stupid or silly things with a product and then recovered tremendous amounts of money from innocent businesses. Those few stories have gotten a lot of mileage. They have gotten us to a conference report that takes power from consumers and gives it to corporations. Mr. President, I am a mother who wants to be responsible for passing laws that improve the chances for my children to live healthy, safe lives. I am glad that victims have used the current State-based product liability laws to force manufacturers to make safe toys, nonflammable pajamas, and cars and trucks that don't explode. The current legal system forced companies to be responsible or face the possibility of significant financial loss. I also want to be responsible for passing laws that provide the hard working men and women of this country an opportunity to be fully compensated for injuries that are a direct result of products they use in the workplace. This conference report makes it much harder for our workers to recover damages from those responsible for their injuries. It is designed to give advantage to corporations and disadvantage to our workers through its limits on joint liability for noneconomic damages, on punitive damages, and on seller liability, as well as its broadly drawn defenses to liability, such as the statute of repose. In addition, I want to support legislation that allows our citizens to trust that the medical devices they are receiving are safe. So many women needlessly suffered when the maker of silicone gel breast implants refused to heed initial warning signs that their product was flawed. Today, there is no dispute that there is a strong correlation between silicone breast implants and serious health disorders, including joint and muscle pain, tremors, and autoimmune diseases. And, unfortunately, not all of the victims of these implants are known. For those who have not yet filed, this bill will block them from seeking redress from this grossly negligent company. That is wrong. Finally, I want to be responsible for legislation that improves our citizens' quality of life. This bill could severely limit lawsuits involving products that damage the environment, such as pesticides and toxic chemicals. In particular, the provision addressing joint and several liability could make it nearly impossible for victims to receive full and fair compensation for harm caused by a mixture of toxic substances where a victim is unable to prove the percentage of damage caused by each chemical. Especially now, when we see efforts to scale back Government's role in environmental protection, the civil justice system is an even more important mechanism for deterring environmental degradation. I know that responsible businesses feel threatened by the current system. I believe we should seek to reform and improve our system. But this approach is too sweeping. We need to take smaller steps and make more incremental reforms. Mr. President, I have voted against this conference report for all of the above reasons. I cannot support a products liability law that shifts power from the States to the Federal Government and takes power away from our children, the elderly and working people and gives it to the companies that produce harmful products.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Senator Bond for his leadership on small business issues, and lend my support to the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act, which will lessen regulatory burdens imposed on small businesses by Federal agencies. Mr. President, I have talked with many small business owners in my home State and one thing they all tell me is how difficult and costly it has become to comply with many of the Federal regulations imposed upon the. Among other things, this legislation will require agencies to publish materials in plain language to help small businesses comply with regulations. The bill will also enhance the small business communities' voice with the Small Business Administration by providing them a role in determining future regulations. When I was growing up, my father ran a small business in Bothell, WA. I know the time and energy small business people put into their companies. And, throughout my term, I have worked to reform a Government that continues to hamper small business owners. I was a cosponsor of the S-Corporation Reform Act of 1993, and returned as a cosponsor of S. 758 last year, which would remove obsolete provisions from the tax code, making it easier for small businesses to raise capital. I cosponsored the Family Health Insurance Protection Act which would provide health insurance market reform for small businesses and families. And, on the first full day of this Congress, I introduced the American Family Business Preservation Act which would reduce the rate of estate tax imposed on a family owned business, encouraging families to keep their businesses intact. And, as many of my colleagues will remember, last Congress, we fixed a problem that has been plaguing small businesses that wanted to refinance their SBA 503 loans. Now, many small businesses in Washington State and across the country will be able to refinance their 503 loans. Mr. President, I strongly believe Government cannot solve every problem in this country, but it can foster a healthy economic environment in which all businesses may prosper. I encourage each of my colleagues to support S. 942. The Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act continues our work by reducing redtape and making it easier for our small businesses to comply with often burdensome Federal regulations. I believe this is the type of reform our small businesses want and deserve.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure and I urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing and vote for our amendment. Since 1980, Congress has prohibited the use of Federal funds appropriated to the District of Columbia for abortion services for low- income women, with the exception for cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. From 1988 to 1993 Congress also prohibited the District from using its own locally raised revenues to provide abortion services to its residents. I am pleased that for fiscal year 1994 and 1995 Congress voted to lift the unfair restriction on the use of locally raised revenues, and allow the District to decide how to spend its own locally raised moneys. There is language in this bill that would coerce the District into returning to the pre-1994 restrictions. This bill is a step backward, and we shouldn't allow it to pass. Congress does not restrict the use of dollars raised by the State of Washington or by New York, Texas, California or any other State--because Congress does not appropriate those funds. Why should our Nation's capital be the solitary exception? It shouldn't be the exception, Mr. President, and our amendment ensures the District of Columbia will have the same rights as every locality--every county and city--to determine how to spend locally-raised revenue. I know why the District is being targeted in this way. And so does every woman, and so should every American. This is just another of the many attempts by some Members of Congress to chip away and take away a woman's right to choose. It sure is ironic. That in this Congress, where the mantra has been ``States know best'' month after month, the majority party now wants to micro manage DC's financial decisions. Mr. President, restricting the ability of the District to determine how it is going to spend its locally raised revenue is the ``Congress knows best'' approach at its worst. I find it so very hypocritical that virtually every debate over the past year has touted local flexibility and vilified Washington, DC's presence in policy making. We should allow the District the same right as all other localities-- to choose how to use their locally raised revenue. We should not single out our Nation's capital. We should pass the Boxer amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the Senate version of H.R. 3019. I do not make this decision lightly, nor do I make it with great comfort. Rather, I support this bill grudgingly, because it is in the interest of my constituents that Congress act to complete the fiscal year 1996 budget process. I am voting in favor of H.R. 3019 for three reasons. First, this bill contains critical Federal relief for flood victims throughout the Northwest; the Government has made promises to help people recover from the damage, and this bill delivers on that promise. Second, the Senate took the high road on funding for several critical programs emphasizing education and the Environmental Protection Agency; I'm pleased we were able to add back $2.7 billion in funding for the Department of Education, and over $700 million for EPA. Third, and finally, this Congress has an obligation to complete the people's business. We are now 6 months into fiscal year 1996, and five appropriations bills remain unsigned. By passing this bill today, we are finally able to move the process forward and see a light at the end of the tunnel on this year's budget. I want to be very clear about the merits of this bill: while it was improved in some respects during the floor debate, it still has many serious problems. The salvage timber provisions are inadequate. The restrictive language on reproductive freedom is a serious problem for women everywhere. The funding levels in general do not even meet fiscal year 1995 levels for critical programs in education and other important children's services. There are riders on fisheries management, tribal appropriations, and endangered species protection that need serious revisions. And, the Columbia Basin ecosystem assessment language, while favorably revised since the original Interior appropriations bill, still must be strengthened. In short, Mr. President, there are still a lot of problems with this bill, and I will continue to attempt to address them as we move in a conference committee. And I want to make one thing very clear right now: I cannot support a conference report that moves significantly toward the House bill. That version of H.R. 3019 is laden with riders that I believe are not remotely in the public interest. In addition, the funding levels on education and other programs are simply unacceptable. If the conference report does not substantially reflect the Senate numbers on education, it will be very difficult for me to support it. In general, Mr. President, I have been deeply concerned about the way this Congress has handled the fiscal year 1996 appropriations process. We have seen too many riders, too many cuts poorly thought out, and too much delay in finishing what should have been done last September. This hasn't been the case with every bill to be sure. But the remaining five bills have been the unfortunate victims of too much politicking. I sincerely hope we can come together in conference, smooth out the remaining rough edges, and finish the people's business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment. Very simply, this amendment will change the name of the Walla Walla Veterans Medical Center in Walla Walla, WA to the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center. General Wainwright was born at Fort Walla Walla and was a member of the 1st cavalry after graduating from West Point. He served in France during World War I and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1945 by President Truman for his service in World War II. He spent nearly 4 years in a prisoner of war camp in the Philippines and was known as the hero of Bataan and Corregidor. General Wainwright was a true war hero and won the praise and respect of all Americans. Mr. President, the people of Walla Walla, WA want this name change to honor a war veteran and local hero. In May, they are dedicating a statue in his honor and would like to dedicate the name change of the hospital at the same time. The entire Washington State congressional delegation supports this change. And all of the veterans service organizations in Washington State support the change. I urge my colleagues to support changing the name of the Walla Walla Veterans Medical Center to the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center, and to allow this war hero the recognition he so rightly deserves. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the amendment to change the name of the Walla Walla Veterans Medical Center in Walla Walla, WA, to the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA Center. General Wainwright was born at Fort Walla Walla and was a member of the 1st Cavalry after graduating from West Point. He served in France during World War I and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1945 by President Truman for his service in World War II. He spent nearly 4 years in a prisoner of war camp in the Philippines and was known as the Hero of Bataan and Corregidor. General Wainwright was a true war hero and won the praise and respect of all Americans. Mr. President, the people of Walla Walla, WA, want this name change to honor a war veteran and local hero. In May, they are dedicating a statue in his honor and would like to dedicate the name change of the hospital at the same time. The entire Washington State congressional delegation supports this change. And all of the veterans service organizations in Washington State support the change. I urge my colleagues to support changing the name of the Walla Walla Veterans Medical Center to the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center, and to allow this war hero the recognition he so rightly deserves.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me again thank Senator Hatfield for his understanding in the offsets of this bill, with our amendment that strikes the portion of section 13 that is found on page 27. We have made an adjustment. If this amendment is agreed to, and I hope it is, we will continue to work with Senator Hatfield and others in conference to assure that this amendment is properly taken care of. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back my time as well.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Murray amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Idaho for pointing out the concerns he has with the offsets. Let me first say that the money comes from general administration, and we have been assured that much of this can come from belt tightening for travel. I will also tell my colleague from Idaho that the offset has been an item of discussion all week long because of the sequencing of amendments that have come to the floor, and we were not sure which ones would pass or not pass. Senator Hatfield, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has assured us that we can continue to discuss this legislation. It has a long way to go when it gets to conference, where we can reconsider this. A lot of dollar figures will be discussed and changed around. It is an item we will be able to be flexible with once it is passed. The important point of this amendment is that we go back to trees like that in the picture, which are 250 to 300 years old and are coming down because we have a rider in place that says people are not part of the process. That is what we are focusing on. Yes, we are concerned about jobs in the Pacific Northwest. The jobs the Senator has talked about have passed under current policy. My amendment says we are going to deal with jobs in the long term. We are going to put a salvage amendment in place that assures that those jobs will occur when people are in the process, with scientific evidence in place, and in a way that is safe and healthy for all of us. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Montana.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana for supporting the amendment. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Vermont.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Vermont for his excellent statement and his support. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains in debate?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just say at this point that I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, about how difficult this has been, to bring people together to compromise on a very difficult and serious issue. In fact, I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say that this debate is about politics. I say, if this is just about politics, it would be simply an amendment to repeal the rider. This is not about politics. This is about policy. This is about putting in place a timber salvage rider that works, that keeps people working, that uses our timber at its highest economic value, but leaving people in the process. That is what my constituents are so angry about. They have been left out of the process by the rider that this Congress adopted last year, and they want back in. At this time I am very pleased to have printed in the Record a letter from the President, sent to me last night from Jerusalem, with his strong support of the amendment in front of us. His words should be read by all of my colleagues, but let me just read his second paragraph. It says: Judicial interpretation of the timber rider, as it has been applied to old growth forests, has broadened the Act's requirements to the point that it undermines our balanced approach to ensuring continued economic growth and reliable timber supply in concert with responsible management and protection of our natural resources for future generations. The timber rider must be repealed as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as we end this debate, I want to respond to one point again. I heard my colleagues go back to the offset that is in this amendment and threatening our colleagues with loss of their Forest Service funds or loss of jobs. Let me remind all of my colleagues, this money comes from the general administration fund. It can come from general belt tightening, and it will come from travel. But we also have the commitment from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to work within the confines of the conference committee to come up with a reasonable offset. Again, because of the way that the amendments have come forward on this floor, we had to put in the offset the way it is, but it will be worked out in conference. Let me go back to why this issue is so critical at this time. Last year, this Congress passed a rider on the rescissions bill that went too far. It allowed trees, such as shown right here, a tree that is 8 foot in diameter, to be cut down regardless of environmental laws and without public input. This tree is more than 250 years old. This tree will not be replaced in the lifetime of my grandchildren, my great- grandchildren, or my great-great-grandchildren. Mr. President, these are the trees that, without adoption of my amendment, will continue to come down in forests across the Pacific Northwest. That is not what the intent of this Congress was, I hope, last summer, but it is the result and it needs to be stopped. This debate is also about logging that occurs without regard to environmental impact. Without the adoption of my amendment, these types of logging disasters will occur where slides come down, block our rivers and streams and do tremendous damage to our salmon and our trout and our wildlife that inhabit these areas, much less to flooding that occurs in the Northwest because of harvesting such as this. Mr. President, do not just take my word for this. We have received editorials from across the West, and I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have an editorial from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: ``Senator Murray's good `timber rider' plan.'' From the Portland Oregonian: ``Fix the timber rider. Senator Murray's proposal could force needed compromise on old-growth sale provision.'' From the Great Falls Tribune, from the Seattle PI, from the Seattle Times, which talks about the amendment that was adopted last year and calls it a ``cut bait 'n' switch.'' From the Statesman Journal in Salem, OR: ``Limit salvage to dead timber.'' From the Bellingham Herald: ``OK Murray's compromise timber plan.'' And from the Reno Gazette-Journal: ``The assault on our forests must be stopped.'' Mr. President, I have a long heritage in the Pacific Northwest. I was born and raised there. My father was born and raised there, and, in fact, my mother was born and raised in Butte, MT. In fact, my husband's grandfather was born in Seattle back at the end of the last century. We know the people in this region. We know why they are angry today. They are angry because the rider that passed last year through this Congress left them--people, my brothers, my sisters, my friends, the people I have run into in the grocery store and at townhall meetings across my State--it has left those people out of the decisionmaking process when it comes to our Federal force. People in our region want to be involved. They want to have a say, and they do care. They care deeply. Because of the rider that was passed last year, Federal agencies are out in the woods running timber sales today with little or no accountability, and that makes my constituents angry. Under the rider that passed last year, our ordinary citizens have no ability to influence Government decisions. That makes them angry. Under the rider that was passed last year, our timber communities have once again become the center of a political storm. They deserve better than that. My rider directly makes sure that those people in our timber communities do not have a policy that is in place for just a few short months, with timber, like I have shown you before, being cut down. Mr. President, my policy assures that these timber workers will be at work logging dead and dying trees--true salvage, not green trees. It will assure that those jobs are there for the long run. Most important, my amendment puts people back into the process. People have a right to a say about the forests that we all own. People have a right to know that what they own is cared for and cared for well. That is what the environmental laws are all about that have passed in this Congress over the last four decades. That is what was taken away in the rider that was passed last summer. That is what is corrected in our amendment before us today. Mr. President, I cannot urge my colleagues strongly enough to please vote for the amendment in front of you, the Murray amendment, with the support of Senators Wyden and Baucus and Leahy, and many others, Senator Sam Nunn. The reason is, we have to get our timber areas out of war. We need to reduce anger, and most importantly, we need to put common sense, common sense and rationality, back into our timber policy across this country. That is what my amendment does. That is what your vote for this amendment will do. Help me send a message back to my constituents that this Congress does have the ability to listen when people are angry, this Congress does have the ability to put in place commonsense, practical solutions to problems that are out there, and that this Congress will not make a mistake a second time. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have a modification to my amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to send it to the desk. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to make a case for a commonsense, responsible forest policy. Today, I want to plead with my colleagues to fix a mistake that this Congress made last year and put in place a long-term plan to restore the lawful expeditious salvage of dead and dying timber in our Nation's forests. Today, our national forests are at the center of extreme controversy. My constituents are angry and many believe that the salvage rider from last year went way too far. It is very critical that we address this situation now. Let me remind my colleagues about the course of forest policy in these past few years. I will spend most of my time discussing the Pacific Northwest, because that is where much of the forest controversy is right now about salvage timber and it is where it is currently focused. When I came into office in 1992, the national forests of the Northwest were locked up, they were closed to timber management because the agency had not followed the environmental laws of this Nation. The courts prohibited the agency from selling trees, and Congress was gridlocked. Nothing was moving, and there was war in the woods. Rural communities were hurting, and environmentalists were winning in the courts of law and in the courts of public opinion because the public saw mountainsides ravaged and felt betrayed. President Clinton held a forest conference early in 1993, listened to all sides and eventually endorsed a plan developed by scientists for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management that would provide a sustainable flow of timber while protecting species diversity, watersheds, and other important values. Few people liked the plan, I will admit, but, once again, the forests were finally open for science-based timber harvests. Unfortunately, the timber sales program established under the Northwest forest plan has not produced the volumes many of us had hoped that it would. I, like my opponents, am very frustrated that the Forest Service has been unable to produce a timber-sale level even close to what scientists believe is sustainable under the President's forest plan. Near the end of 1994, delays under the forest plan, combined with a rash of forest fires in the inland West, brought frustration to a boiling point. But instead of working within the plan or trying to reach a compromise on a reasonable approach to salvage logging, this Congress lowered the boom. The rider that passed last year suspended environmental safeguards, it cut the public out of Government decisions, and, under subsequent court rulings, mandated unscientific timber sales. This rider may have sped up the flow of timber to mills marginally, but it also has sparked a war in the woods in my State and my region. Like so many other environmental proposals pushed by this Congress, it just went too far. I, too, want the President's forest plan to deliver and I, too, want dead timber to be salvaged from our Nation's forests. The big difference between my approach today and my opponents is how we move forward. Do we allow the public to be involved? Do we give agencies discretion to follow the law? Do we provide 1-year fixes or establish a long-term approach? I believe that we can salvage trees quickly while still allowing public involvement in sales that comply fully with the laws. I want to take the time to explain my amendment. The first title simply repeals the timber rider whose consequences shocked so many people. How many Senators envisioned this kind of sale when we discussed timber salvaging dead trees, this kind of sale where the result is a tremendous damage to our ecosystem, to our salmon, to our fish, to the wildlife, where we cut without regard to what happens to the environment or what happens to the timber around it? We cause slides, we cause backups, we cause flooding, and we cause tremendous damage to many of our timber areas and to the salmon and the fish that depend so much on it. How many of my colleagues, when we voted last year, thought that we would see a sale like this? My friends, this picture is of a tree that was cut down under the rider from last year. This tree is well over 250 years old. This tree is older than the Constitution of the United States of America. We hear so much today about the fact that we need to take care of our children and our grandchildren, that we want something there for them in the future. This tree will not be replaced for my grandchildren, my great- grandchildren, or my great, great-grandchildren. This is what we did when we passed the rider last year. This is not the type of sale that the public believes should be exempt from scrutiny or statutory safeguards. The second provision of this title addresses how we fix the mess we have made. Even the senior Senators from Washington and Oregon admit that mistakes were made. They agree that the administration needs some flexibility to right the wrongs brought about by these old-growth sales. Unfortunately, the approach they take in this bill does not solve the problem. It allows the Secretaries to negotiate with purchasers for alternative volume, but then it gives the purchasers the final say. Furthermore, it allows buyback of these harmful sales, but only using funds other than timber sales money; apparently, watershed restoration money, trails money, and wildlife funds. I do not agree with that approach. In contrast, my approach provides the administration and the purchaser equal negotiating position but gives the Secretary the final say. It establishes that the priority should be alternative volume. However, if that is unavailable, the Secretary has a whole package of tools available to assist the purchaser. He can offer cash, bidding credits, loan forgiveness, or any other available option under current law. The final provision of this title addresses the problem of salvage timber sales throughout the country. Under the timber rider passed last year, the agencies were not required to follow environmental laws and their decisions were not subject to administrative appeal or substantive legal challenge. The public, you and I, were cut out of the process. While I believe that the vast majority of sales comply with environmental laws, as the administration promised they would, some of the salvage sales likely would not withstand administrative or judicial scrutiny. Some people have raised concerns that my amendment will allow frivolous appeals to gridlock reasonable agency decisions to award timber sale contracts. Let me be very clear; this is not the case at all. My amendment allows judicial review of awarded sales and gives a judge discretion to provide injunctive relief when necessary. The goal is twofold: First, to allow one check on sales that have received no checks at all, and second, to allow legally awarded sales to move forward. Title II, I admit, is a bit parochial. As I complained about earlier, we simply must make the Northwest forest plan work. The way we make it work is to get the scientific underpinnings in place by finishing the watershed analyses as soon as possible. In this amendment, we direct the agencies to expedite sales under the plan and use available funds first and road construction funds as a backup to complete these important watershed analyses. The Northwest forest plan has to work. We have too much riding on it. Both the States of Washington and Oregon and many private companies either have developed or are in the process of developing habitat conservation plans to protect threatened and endangered species. These State and private lands supply the vast majority of timber available for harvest in Washington State. Without a sound Federal policy underpinning, these HCP's may no longer provide sufficient habitat protection. This will put our timber workers and our communities in jeopardy once again. Title III of my amendment is the most comprehensive. It is a section that sets forth in a number of ways, I believe, that reasonable timber salvage can be expedited on Federal lands without cutting people out of the process. Unlike the rider from last year, it limits the definition of ``salvage'' to true salvage: dead and dying trees. It establishes an expedited process for getting at those trees because the trees are dead or dying, so they must be harvested quickly in order to get any economic value from them. Maybe it is our puritan heritage, but most Americans do not like to see deadwood going to waste. Why not get some economic value out of the devastation caused by wildfires or insect epidemics or blowdowns? I agree and I try to expedite that often cumbersome process. Both the timber interests and conservationists have criticized this title. That tells me I must be in the middle. Some people say it will establish a whole new bureaucracy. That is not correct. One provision does require agencies to work together to shorten the time required for consultation under the Endangered Species Act. At first, I wanted to codify the memorandum of understanding that is working in the Pacific Northwest to reduce the amount of time it takes for the regulatory agencies to approve Forest Service and BLM sales. However, that document is quite cumbersome, so I simply adopted the streamlined consultation methods that it contained. In other words, this system is already in place. It was put there to expedite salvage under the timber rider, and it is working. Timber interests are also concerned that this more limited definition of salvage is unscientific and alters current law. I have two answers for that. First, the current definition, whose eligibility requirements include such sweeping phrases as trees ``imminently susceptible to fire or insect attack'' is too broad for the widespread use to which salvage sales are now being offered. A few years ago the Forest Service had a very small timber salvage program and, because of its relatively small scale, was not under public scrutiny. Second, while my definition is narrower, it does not prohibit the use of the other definition. That is an important point. My bill does not limit the agencies' ability to perform salvage under the older definition. What my bill does is this: It says, where we need to get in to harvest timber quickly because it will lose its economic value if we do not, we need expedited procedures. On the other hand, in situations where the timber is not dead or rotting, the agencies can take the longer route of compliance with lengthier documents and lengthier appeals. The old salvage program would be better suited to forest rehabilitation activities such as thinning of overstock stands or establishing multilayered canopies to mimic old-growth forests. Some people have expressed concern that the new NEPA regulations will not be completed for at least a year. That is true. However, I want to emphasize that we are putting in place a new long-term policy to allow salvage logging. The agencies and the Council on Environmental Quality will develop that process within a year, which is very fast for the Federal bureaucracy, and it will remain in place as long as this Congress wishes it to be there. Let me turn to the issues raised by conservationists. They are greatly concerned about the ``salvage'' definition contained in the old rider that we passed last year because it is too broad and it encompasses virtually any standing tree. They want only dead trees to be cut, and they do not want any new roads to be built. My amendment narrows the definition to focus directly on dead trees and minimizes the risks of subjecting healthy trees to harvest under the moniker of ``salvage.'' In addition, my amendment limits new road construction under the salvage program to quarter-mile spurs. My definition does not go nearly as far as they wanted, but it does represent a responsible, sensible compromise. They want all sales prohibited if arson is committed and believe the burden of proving someone committed arson to create a salvage sale is too onerous. They want this bill's expedited provisions to apply to sales located outside of any wilderness areas, not just those wilderness areas in which timber harvest is currently precluded. Others expressed reservations about the provision that gives the agency more discretion to provide guidelines for purchasers regarding tree marking. They believe that too many trees are mismarked, and they do not trust the agency to develop reasonable guidelines. However, my language comes directly from feedback received by people on the ground that I talked with, and it is designed to save time in laying out these sales. Some environmentalists have raised concerns about provisions limiting the time to appeal sales. They feel their rights have already been reduced by the provisions included in the 1992 appropriations bill establishing a time of 45 days. My amendment reduces it to 30 days. My theory was that the bill gives the public more access up front in the process by allowing them to participate in interdisciplinary team meetings. They will then hear agency experts discussing timber sales and may be better able to suggest helpful changes early, thus reducing the likelihood of bad sales and the need to appeal at all. Again, this is a reasonable approach. The amendment facilitates up-front public involvement, public involvement in a second way. It waives some Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements if the agency feels public involvement would be facilitated by doing so. As we saw in the Applegate project in Oregon, FACA thwarted a particularly useful community-based effort to manage resources. Where communities can resolve these thorny natural resource issues, I want to do everything I can to endorse and encourage those solutions. Finally, conservationists are nervous about the increased flexibility allowed under the pilot program for stewardship contracts. Senators Mack and Baucus and Representative Pat Williams introduced legislation this session that encourages this type of contracting that allows the agency's flexibility to design sales to foster stewardship goals, rather than necessarily producing a high financial return to the Treasury. I have spoken to timber workers, and they believe this program holds great promise. I share their enthusiasm, and I am certain it can be implemented in a constructive and beneficial way for our workers. Let me conclude this with a note about the final title that is simply an effort to increase our knowledge about forest health and healthy timber stands. This title is primarily directed at tree health. As conservationists have repeatedly pointed out to me as I discussed this topic, forest health is not just about tree health; it is about watersheds and soils and other vegetation, wildlife, and a whole host of noncommodities. I agree. However, I also agree that in some areas of our Nation, our timber stands are unhealthy. We need to use science to figure out a way to help restore them. This title asks the agencies to identify unhealthy stands and prioritize those that would benefit from rehabilitation. I know that Senator Craig and others, including Senator Daschle, have been very interested in this approach. The bill directs the agencies to prioritize areas based on their health, their ease of access, and their probability of arousing controversy. Why not rehabilitate areas that we can most easily reach with the least amount of outcry and treat those first? Finally, the bill concludes with a study recommended in Senator Bradley's timber salvage repeal bill. It directs the National Academy of Sciences to study the ecological health of forests. It should provide us information with which, if necessary, we can modify our approach to forest health in the years to come. This has been a rather lengthy explanation of my amendment. However, I think it is important to discuss so that my colleagues can understand the reasons for the decisions I made in this amendment. This amendment is not perfect, but it does provide us with a real opportunity to do the things that the vast majority of Americans can agree on. We should harvest dead and dying timber quickly on our national forests while giving people--people--the power to influence agency decisions. It is also critical to point out that this bill is not a referendum on how the administration has handled this issue. Opponents are going to argue that the administration has changed its position or sent us mixed signals. This is not about the executive branch. This amendment is about people. Under the rider, Federal agencies are out in the woods running timber sales with little or no accountability. Under the rider that we passed last year, ordinary citizens--you and I--have little or no ability to influence Government decisions. Under that rider, timber communities have once again been dragged into a political storm. My amendment puts the public--us--back in the process and implements a long-term salvage program. Mr. President, this Congress reignited a war in the woods in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. The rider passed last year was legislative overkill on the environment. I do not want to have to face my constituents and tell them that this Congress did not want them involved in management decisions about the forests they own. I want my constituents to know they have a place in our Government and in our forests. Likewise, I want our timber communities and families to know that we value the services that they provide to this Nation. They have borne a lot of criticism for supplying us with wood and paper products. That criticism is shortsighted and hypocritical. I want to make it very clear: One of the messages of this amendment is that timber salvage is good if it is done correctly and wisely. It is a beneficial activity that should be encouraged where it is scientifically sound. We should stop the pendulum from swinging so wildly--from no cutting to no accountability. Mr. President, through this amendment we can show the American people that this Congress can pass a piece of legislation that gives neither side everything but both sides something. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that repeals the timber rider and replaces it with reasonable, a long-term, expedited timber salvage program providing commodities for this country and protection for our forests. One more note, Mr. President. This amendment is fully paid for from Forest Service accounts. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I withhold the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the McConnell amendment. This amendment would continue the assault on our International Family Planning Assistance Program, and leave millions of families worldwide without these vital services. In January, in hopes of averting another Government shutdown, the Senate attached the foreign operations appropriations bill to the continuing resolution. As a member of this subcommittee, I was happy to see these programs receive much needed funding. Unfortunately, the continuing resolution contained a provision that drastically cut funding for our international family planning programs. Essentially, this language said that none of the appropriated funds can be spent until July 1. After that, money can only be spent on a month-to-month basis at a rate of 6.7 percent a month until the new fiscal year begins on October 1. The result of this is that funding for U.S. population assistance will be reduced by about 85 percent from last year's level. This is a disastrous situation that will severely hamper this program. Mr. President, shortly after the last continuing resolution passed, Senator Hatfield vowed to fix this problem. I want to commend him for his leadership and action on this issue. Senator Hatfield's solution states: ``If the restrictions in current law will result in significantly more abortions as well as a greater unmet need for family planning services, the restrictions will be nullified.'' I think this is a responsible and direct approach. Without the Hatfield language, millions of couples will lose access to these valuable services. There will be a higher incidence of unplanned pregnancies, an increase in infant deaths, and more women dying from unsafe conditions. Ironically, by denying support to international family planning assistance, a vote for the McConnell amendment may well have the unintended effect of increasing the incidence of abortion. Mr. President, the United States has been a leader in international population assistance since 1965. During that time, we have made significant progress in increasing access to health care, improving women's health worldwide, and providing family planning services. But this progress will stop if we don't fund the programs. This last year, the Senate continually showed its support for international family planning and its funding. Now we have an opportunity to rectify a very troubling situation. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the McConnell amendment and support the Hatfield language.