Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Daschle-Harkin amendment restoring funds cut from education. This amendment stands for something; it stands for a continuing commitment to learning for all Americans. One program the amendment would restore is the School-to-Work Program. I would like to tell you how this program has helped one student in my State to turn her life around and avoid the effects of violence. Mr. President, we all hear about the epidemic of violence in America. The people most affected by this epidemic, and the people who sometimes end up contributing to the problem, are our young people. Too frequently, a young American's world of love, tenderness, and growth is replaced by a world of hate, abuse, and death. The homicide death rate in Washington State has more than doubled since 1970, for children between 15 and 19 years old. Significant numbers of younger children are also becoming victims of homicide in recent years. Juvenile drug and alcohol offenses have declined in my State since 1991, but were too high to start with. Violent crimes are on the rise among youth, and more young people are being incarcerated than ever before. Mr. President, I want to make sure we do not misplace the blame for this epidemic, however. Adults are the ones capable of making the changes that will prevent adult violence and child abuse. Adults are also capable of preventing youth violence. Young people tell me: Adults don't seem to care about them; they don't have access to youth activities; they can't get summer jobs; adults don't set a good example for kids; adults don't encourage positive behaviors--so young people get attention by exhibiting bad behavior. This should not be allowed to happen, because it has an immediate effect on the lives and psyches of our young people, and a longer term effect on the economy and social fabric of our Nation. The good news is: Adults can do something about these problems, and adults set good examples every day. Just being willing to talk with, and listen to, young people is a great start. Last week, as part of his ongoing response to this problem for young people, the President hosted a White House Leadership Conference on Youth, Drug Use, and Violence. He brought together people from around the country to talk about problems and solutions for today's youth. Mr. President, one of the people in attendance at the conference was a former high school dropout from Washington State, who has turned her life around through a program in vocational skills training. This young woman is named Jessica Shillander. She spent her young life in a two-parent family, but later experienced a difficult family breakup. After this happened, this soon got very difficult for Jessica, and she had to prove how capable and resilient she really is--a thing we shouldn't ask from any child in America. Jessica was kicked out of her mother's home as a seventh grader. Not surprisingly, she almost immediately got involved with gangs, drugs, and an abusive boyfriend almost twice her age. Jessica dropped out of school, and if it were not for the help of caring adults, and a special program funded with Federal School-to-Work funds, she would not be the success story she is today. However, due to a dropout retrieval program run by the New Market Vocational Skills Center in Tumwater, WA, Jessica started having success in school. At New Market, Jessica felt the support from adults which allowed her to improve her academic and job skills. Thanks to the program, Jessica has almost graduated. She has turned away from violence. She is now working a paying job as a student advocate, and looks forward to a career helping young people. Last week she spoke to applause at the White House Conference, letting adults and youth learn from her story. This dropout retrieval program would not be possible without Federal School-to-Work funds. Run through the vocational skills centers in Washington State, the program is unique in the country. High school dropouts--kids from lower- and middle-class working families--get special assistance to get them involved in instruction which is relevant to their lives. If they need help with transportation, or child care, or just need someone to care enough those first few days back at school to give them a wakeup call or see that they get an alarm clock or work clothes--the help is there. And, like most Americans, these young people respond well to high expectations and a caring attitude--they need less help as they become more confident in their own abilities. These programs have an average placement rate of 90 percent--either in jobs, higher education, or the military. At a time when our world is more complex than ever, when all employees, young or old, are finding the working world more difficult, when all schools need to be more relevant, Congress is about to cut the very School-to-Work funds that make Washington's School-to-Career program possible. Here's Jessica's reaction: ``School-to-work transition needs to begin as early as kindergarten, to help all students find value and self- worth. I want all students to have this opportunity.'' Mr. President, I just held four children's forums in my State, in Yakima, Vancouver, Spokane, and Tacoma. In every one of these meetings, adults and young people came out in the winter weather to confirm that all schools need to be more relevant, and that School-to-Career programs are exactly the kind of thing this country needs more of. But, instead, we are here today debating an amendment to restore these funds after they have been cut. This is folly. We must invest in our future, not bankrupt it. The Daschle-Harkin amendment will restore School-to-Work funds for programs like the one that helped Jessica. I believe, as did President Franklin Roosevelt, that ``The only real capital of a nation is its natural resources and its human beings.'' America cannot continue to act like a business having a fire sale, we must continue the investments which will give our country a future. Education is paramount among these. I want my colleagues to support the Daschle-Harkin amendment in this light.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when I left here in early February for the Senate's recess, I was exasperated. Nothing productive seemed to be happening here in Washington, DC. Budget stalemates had become an accepted way of life, rather than words to bring Members of Congress to work together to reach agreements. The battles of last year all seemed to end in stalemates. And worse, even the air in the District of Columbia seemed charged with negativity and mean-spirited rhetoric. Today, however, I feel invigorated. My trip home to Washington State in early February was hardly relaxing, but it was extremely productive. Today, I want to take a moment to share with my colleagues why I feel a renewed sense of optimism and why I am ready to take on new challenges. Mr. President, like many who work with our young people today, I have become increasingly concerned about what is or, more importantly, what is not happening for our youth today. I have spent my life working with young people as a mother, as a preschool teacher, as a school board member, as a Girl Scout leader, as a PTA member, as a State senator, and today as a U.S. Senator. There is no doubt in my mind that young people today are becoming increasingly disillusioned with their world. They feel that they have no chance--more and more of them know college is out of reach; many people feel unconnected to what is taught in our elementary and secondary schools; far too many have no support from family at home. Increasingly, I hear our young people from all walks of life, from 4.0 students to gang members, say, ``I don't think adults care about me today.'' Indeed, the statistics about our young people are very disturbing. Almost half of Washington State children fail to read at a basic level of competence. The number of young people in my State who are incarcerated is increasing. One in sixteen girls in Washington become teen parents. That, by the way, is a higher rate than many other developed nations. It is important to note there are some encouraging signs. The health of Washington State children, whether measured by infant mortality rates or child mortality rates or access to prenatal care, is an area of improvement. But as I have participated in and listened to the debates and direction of this Congress from welfare reform to Medicaid to education, I have become increasingly concerned that our young people are right. Adults do not care about them. Children seem to have been relegated to the bottom of the priority pile at the exact time they are feeling so left out and alone. It is time to change direction for our young people. Over this last recess, I set out to find what adults need to do to make this Nation a better place for our children to grow up in. I was determined to stay away from partisan battles and inflammatory debates. I wanted to engage people in a conversation about children. I wanted to find goals that we could all agree on. On that basis, I traveled back and forth across my State for 2 weeks and invited people of all ages and backgrounds to join me in a conversation about Washington children. In four cities around the State, people came out in cold and heavy rain to a community center, to a church, a school, or a college auditorium and they talked, not just for a few minutes, but for 3\1/2\ hours. They talked about their own kids or the kid next door or their older or younger brothers or sisters. We began each of these meetings with a short presentation of some objective local data about how kids are doing, followed by a panel discussion between local people who work with kids, followed by breakout discussions to come up with things we could agree to do. We covered three aspects in a child's life: Health, education, and membership in community. People talked about how children have to be healthy so they can learn. They spoke of how children needed a relevant education to face a complex economy. They discussed how we must let young people know we care about them and how only then will young people feel the sense of civic responsibility and pride we all need them to feel. As I said, this was a conversation, and I had one rule: Nobody leaves the room without participating. So we heard answers to one central question: What can we all agree to do for our children? People brought many different voices and perspectives to these conversations. The groups heard from mothers and fathers. We heard from students, as well as kids who dropped out of school. We heard the voices of business leaders and child care workers. We heard from veterans, youth mentors, teachers, and police officers. We heard from Republicans and Democrats and Independents. We heard thoughts from our senior citizens and our seniors in high school. We heard about individual people or government services or business or charitable programs which make a real difference for our kids. We heard about kids who did not get help, who fell through the cracks or who had such a hard time there was hardly a way to start helping them. We did not just hear about children and young people, we heard from them. Young people on our panels told us how they do not see evidence that adults care about them or their future. They talked about succeeding in school and not realizing any benefit from it. They talked about failing in school because it did not seem relevant or challenging. They spoke of adults designing programs for them but not with them. They spoke from their hearts about the lack of trust and fear that exists between them and the adults that they meet in stores and on the streets. Overwhelmingly, they wanted to break down the walls of mistrust. The one word I heard over and over was ``respect.'' They want real respect, not just the kind kids get from joining a gang. And they want an adult world that cares about them so they can build up their respect for adults. At every one of our meetings, we heard the voices of young people as panelists, as group facilitators, or as group participants. Too many discussions about children from the school board meeting to the State house to the floor of the U.S. Senate happen without real participation by young people. Who better to include on matters concerning laws and policies affecting our children? And what did all these different people with their divergent, independent, unique American voices, and opinions agree to do? Well, we are still writing down all the specifics, but I want to give you a few of the common themes that we heard. On the topic of children's health, we heard from people committed to immunizing more children or to creating more child care slots in their local community. They agreed to meet with other citizens to build local awareness and to tap local resources for these needs. There was a strong consensus everywhere that as adults, we have a responsibility to care for our children and to ensure that they have adequate quality health care. On education, we heard from children who wanted to participate in activities and learning experiences after school but who did not have the $35 sign-up fee for the program. They wanted to work off the fee or to earn good grades so that they could participate. Over and over, I heard that we must make our education system relevant for tomorrow. Young people want curricula in classes that will give them the skills for the job market and focus them for the world they are entering. On involving young people in the community, we heard from business leaders who want to increase their investment in the citizenship of young people. They agreed to donate time for their workers to help children do job shadowing or give kids a place to fit in. There was a strong feeling from both young people and adults that every one of us must begin to take more time to be involved with each other in our neighborhoods and in our communities. In addition to what people wanted to do, there were some trends I noticed that I want to share with you. First, people agreed to have a polite discourse. One reason young people say today that they have a hard time getting along is that they say they have no role models. We disagree all the time in the Senate. We have genuine differences of opinion, and we express them freely. Well, I will tell you right now, we do it too freely. We need to find where we agree. All we talk about are the differences. We have to talk about the shared beliefs as well. We need to set a better example for American children and young people and be better role models ourselves. Second, people seemed to leave their cynicism at home and brought with them a sense of hope. This happened even though we heard some bleak news about children's health, about how they are doing in school, and how they are doing in home and on the streets. People heard that too many children still suffer from preventable health problems. Too many students cannot read or end up dropping out of school. Too many young people see no alternative to violence. Too many have no hope of ever being employed. But despite the bad news, and some good, the people at these meetings never got cynical or depressed; it just made them want to work harder. Third, I noticed that people felt the children were too important not to talk about and to learn about and to work for. People said children are too important to scrimp on. They want us to find somewhere else to save our money. They agreed that communities are the best place to solve most problems for kids, but said you have to involve kids to get good solutions. They agreed the Federal Government should guarantee the minimums for all kids and should encourage local action. Above all, the young people and all participants agreed we should work more on children's issues and less on other things. During these meetings, I promised to put people's ideas up on the walls of my office so every lobbyist who comes in can see what the people of Washington really care about. As people got ready to leave at the end of the evening, I asked them each to take one idea back to their local neighborhood or their community and make it happen. The posters from these meetings are in the mail to my office in the Russell Building, and they contain very specific ideas. I encourage all of you to come by my office next week and read what people have to say. I think you will find, as I have, that it is time to put our young people at the top of our priority list. It is time to find a way at every level to focus our schools on preparing all of our children, not just a few, for tomorrow. You will see, as I have, that people from all walks of life understand as adults we have a responsibility to give our children a strong start in life. There is much we can and much we must do to make this happen in our country today. Not too long ago, at a hearing in Washington, DC, I heard a businessman talk about what he saw in our country today. So often we hear that Government should act more like a business. He said that any business that wants to be here in the future invests in their most important resources. He said America is acting like a business that does not plan to have a future. I agree. It is like we are having a fire sale in our country. Children are our growth capital. They are our new physical plant. They are our inventory. We cannot stop investing in kids now and hope to have any future in this country. This is the strong and loud message I heard from people all over my State, from all political stripes, from all ages, and all walks of life. I was listening, and I will be working over the next months and years to put children back at the top of our Nation's agenda. I hope we can work together as adults to make that happen. Our children are worth it, our communities are worth it, and our country is worth it. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague. I will attempt to do that.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct serious problems with a law passed by this Congress at the beginning of last year. This law was intended to bypass environmental safeguards to speed up tree harvesting in national forests. Mr. President, this law, commonly known as the salvage rider, has not worked. Instead, it has reopened old wounds in the Pacific Northwest, and sparked major controversy throughout the region. It has once again cast political uncertainty over working families, and blatantly cut regular people out of decisions over their own forests. In short, what was billed as a commonsense approach to removing dead trees has turned out to be another case of legislative overkill on the environment. Mr. President, it doesn't have to be this way. My bill will defuse a tense situation, provide certainty for workers, and restore a role for the public in forest management. Let me explain how. The salvage rider has three problems: It allows large, old-growth timber sales previously declared illegal to be harvested without regard to fish and wildlife concerns; it could relegate the Northwest forest plan to the trash heap; and it cuts the public completely out of any final decision to harvest trees in national forests. First, my bill resolves the old-growth issue by suspending timber sales commonly referred to as section 318 sales, and requiring the Forest Service to provide substitute timber volume or buy these sales back from the purchaser. In either case, the purchaser is held harmless, and so are the sensitive old-growth areas. Second, my bill expedites implementation of the Northwest forest plan by making sure resources are available to complete recommended watershed analyses. The primary goal of this provision is to protect the scientific validity of option 9, so that timber sales can move ahead and private land owners can proceed with their habitat conservation plans. This is a very important point: The State of Washington and every major timber land owner in the region are working on comprehensive habitat conservation plans. Every single one of these groups assume full implementation of option 9 as the basis of fish and wildlife protection in their own plans. If option 9 goes belly up, all of these habitat plans are worthless. Third, my bill establishes a permanent, reasonable salvage program. The key work is permanent. I propose moving away from ad hoc forest planning by Congress, switching gears with every swing of the political pendulum. Instead, we should put a long-term program in place, something everyone can plan around, year in and year out. Let me be very clear: This is not about salvage logging; this is about public input and accountability. Salvage logging is appropriate-- and sometimes necessary--is done right. My bill sets up a program that allows the agencies to target salvage logging on an expedited basis when needed, under the full scrutiny of the public eye. If the agencies can defend their proposals, then they will go forward unimpeded. Mr. President, I remember what it was like last spring. There was a new feeling in Congress; the people had called for change, so the leadership was running through bills left and right in the heat of the moment. A lot of things passed that might not have stood up under closer scrutiny, and this was one of them. The irony here is thick: The salvage rider gave the Federal Government more power, and less accountability. As a result, the public has no say in how their own national forests are managed. I don't think the people wanted that kind of change. People say this issue is too controversial to resolve, and that over the years it has become too polarized. To watch the debate, you might think that's true. Any person's idea is immediately rejected by someone else. And that may be the case with my bill. But if we keep rejecting everything, we will be left with nothing, except more chaos. With all the controversy, people ask me, ``why bother?'' I'll tell you why: Because I care deeply about the Northwest. I care deeply about what government is saying to people about tough issues; more often than not, we're telling people that someone, somewhere, has to lose. That's not what I'm about. Most of all, I care deeply about the kind of legacy we're leaving for our children in this world. We simply cannot continue the way of divide and conquer. There are several ideas out there about how to proceed on this issue, from doing nothing at all, to repealing the salvage rider outright. My bill cuts a middle path. It says to workers: Salvage logging is something we should always be able to do. It says to conservationists: You will have an opportunity to hold the administration to its word. It says to large landowners: Your habitat planning efforts will pay off. In my view, people ought to be willing to settle for this as a responsible approach. Mr. President, I intend to pursue this matter on the continuing resolution when it comes before the full Senate. It is my understanding that the CR will contain limited language on this issue, but I do not believe it will solve the problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues. Mr. President, I would also like to explain further some of the concepts contained in this bill. replacement volume for section 2001(k) Sales, Section 102(b) The Secretary and contract holder/sale purchaser should immediately begin negotiations to locate alternative volume agreeable to both parties. Because these purchasers have owned these contracts for half a decade, the Secretary should make every effort to find and plan environmentally sound timber sales or modifications of the existing sale. The Secretary should direct agency personnel to make substitute volume a priority. New sales or modifications of existing sales must comply with all applicable law, forest and regional plans, and standards and guidelines. Specifically, they must comply with the Northwest forest plan and, when developed, the plan--or plans--implementing the Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project. Furthermore, they must comply with Forest Service and BLM standards and guidelines, including PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside screens. bidding rights, section 102(c)(2) This bill contains provisions allowing for purchasers holding timber sale contracts for sales that do not comply with environmental or natural resource laws to exchange the value of those contracts for bidding credits. Such a concept has operated for mineral rights in at least two other natural resource laws--see Public Law 97-466, 96 Stat. 2540; and Public Law 96-401, 94 Stat. 1702. This bill authorizes monetary credits based on the negotiated value of the purchaser's timber sale contract. The bidding credits extend to the purchaser and his or her successors and assigns to use in whole or part payment for future timber sales on Forest Service sales where the credits originated therefrom or on Bureau of Land Management sales, where the credits originated therefrom. salvage sales initiated under the rider, section 103(a) Sales initiated under section 2001 (b) or (d) are all those begun since passage of the Emergency Timber Salvage Act, on July 27, 1995. Title III of this bill applies to sales where its provisions are timely. For example, if a sale has been advertised, this law does not require the agency to host an interdisciplinary team meeting with public participation. All sales that have not been awarded are subject to appeal under the provision of title III. appeal of awarded salvage sales, section 103(b) In section 103(b), I address sales that have been awarded to timber sale purchasers under the salvage and Northwest forest plan provisions of the rescissions bill. I give the public an opportunity to appeal immediately and thereby suspend sales that are causing environmental damage. The administration insists that it is complying with all environmental laws, and I want to give the public an opportunity to prove that is the case. However, the agencies were required by the law at the time these sales were awarded--section 2001 of Public Law 104-19--to take procedural short cuts. I do not believe the purchasers should be denied their contract rights while the public challenges the agencies for obeying the law's procedural timelines. On the other hand, I do not want any sales that cause environmental harm to go forward. Thus, I try to strike a balance between these competing needs by limiting appeals to substantive complaints. I understand that often substantive claims are raised in the context of procedural laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. Some courts have suggested that NEPA is a purely procedural statute. The term ``procedural'' in this bill is not meant to eliminate claims regarding environmental harm, even if they could be characterized as a purely procedural challenge. Let me give some examples. Where an agency had documentation in which a biologist recommended a sale not go forward, but the agency allowed the sale to be awarded to a purchaser, then such documentation could be the basis for an appeal and would not be considered a procedural challenge. Another example would be where the agency went forward with a sale prior to obtaining the concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding whether an activity will or will not jeopardize a species under the Endangered Species Act. This should not be characterized as a procedural challenge. A final example would be that section 2001 of Public Law 109-14 required the agencies to, in their discretion, file only environmental assessments, not environmental impact statements. Because both EA's and EIS's should disclose the effects of a sale on the environment, a challenge could not be made simply because the agency published such information in an EA, rather than an EIS. However, if the documentation, no matter what its title, failed to disclose the effects on the environment, it would be open to challenge. Funding to Implement Title III, Section 304 In this bill, the agencies are given discretion at the forest supervisor's and district manager's levels to combine several funds and accounts to implement this bill. The intent is to provide adequate funds for such activities as salvage timber sales, stewardship programs, watershed restoration, including road decommission, and data inventory and collection. This fund may not be used to carry out any activities that violate the forest plans, agency standards and guidelines, or the intent of this bill. This flexibility of funding will allow the agency to address critical salvage situations, correct an apparent agencywide problem with inadequate inventory of forest resources, and address a backlog of stewardship and restoration projects. Pilot Program for Harvest Contracting, Section 306 The legislation authorizes a pilot program to change the way salvage timber sales are undertaken on Forest Service and BLM lands. The Forest Service currently sells timber by planning and preparing the sale, offering the sale to bidders, and administering the timber harvest. Harvest contracting or stewardship contracting is an alternative to the current method, entailing a two-step process: A timber harvest contract or contracts to cut and remove wood, and log sales from the collected and sorted wood. There are several advantages to harvest contracting, including allowing the agencies to better implement ecosystem management, providing an opportunity to improve tree health without a large component of merchandise timber, eliminating below-cost timber sales, and reducing timber theft. Specifically, harvest contracting would improve ecosystem management by basing contracts on the work performed and the resulting conditions of the forest. This would eliminate incentives for purchasers to inappropriately harvest large, lucrative trees. This pilot project encourages harvest so smaller, less valuable trees that have proliferated in many years of the West due to fire suppression and historic timber practices, such as highgrading. These young, dense stands are expensive to harvest, but many scientists believe it is important to remove them in order to restore health to timber stands. The primary financial benefit is that gross timber sale revenues would be substantially higher because purchasers would not have road construction or logging costs--they would simply buy the wood from the log yard. Because the agencies may not be as efficient as a private enterprise, the agencies should consider contracting the log marketing business to a private business. A secondary financial benefit would be the elimination of many opportunities for timber sale fraud and theft. Under harvest contracting, the scaling system would be eliminated and the contractor would not benefit from cutting trees designated to be left standing because of the fixed contract price and, in fact, might be penalized for not performing to contract specifications. That is why the bill contains a provision limiting the ability of the contractor who performs the contract from also selling the harvested wood. Finally, this pilot project should benefit timber workers in several ways. First, salvage timber sales or thinning sales that were previously uneconomical to harvest would be offered, providing jobs for loggers and other resource experts. Second, timber companies would be purchasing wood after seeing its quality and knowing the exact board footage, rather than hypothesizing about the quantity of wood contained in a standing timber sale and not knowing how weather or timber markets might affect the ability to harvest or make a profit from the wood. Third, companies would not be subject to changes or delays in ability to harvest based on legal or political changes as they held long-term timber sale contracts; they would simply purchase wood. While harvest contracting appears to offer many benefits from many different aspects, it remains untested on a large scale. This bill requires the Forest Service and BLM to establish pilot programs. This should provide guidance as to the feasibility, benefits, and drawbacks of the concept. In addition, Senator Max Baucus has introduced a bill, S. 1259, that also establishes a demonstration program to use stewardship contracting. The concepts contained in this bill were developed by a group of conservationists, forest product industry representatives, and community leaders. This should also offer guidance as how to implement this pilot program. Forest Timber Stand Study Title IV The Forest Service has initiated a similar study to that required in this bill. The Western Forest Health Initiative should be used as a foundation for the requirements of this bill. There is no need for the agencies to be duplicative, rather this bill's provisions should be supplemental to the work done in the WFHI. Collaborative Decisionmaking Early drafts of this bill included use of collaborative decisionmaking. The concept was dropped from the bill because it was too difficult to described in legislative language. However, this decisionmaking process was very effective when it was used to plan and develop timber salvage sales after the wildfires of 1994 on the Wenatchee National Forest. The process was developed by Steve Daniels and Gregg Walker, of Oregon State University, as a tool to support ecosystem-based management of forest. Collaborative learning is a framework designed for natural resource management situations that have the following features: Multiple parties and issues, deeply held values and cultural difference, scientific and technical uncertainty, and legal and jurisdictional constraints. The key notions that define collaborative learning are: Redefining the task away from solving a problem to one of improving a situation; viewing the situation as a set of interrelated systems; defining improvement as desirable and feasible change; recognizing that considerable learning about science, issues and value differences--will have to occur before implementable improvements are possible; and promoting working through the issues and perspectives of the situation. Because of its success on the Wenatchee National Forest, I recommend the agencies consider use of collaborative decisionmaking procedures to increase valuable and productive participation by various interest parties.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy today as an original cosponsor of the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act. Senator Leahy is truly a leader on this issue, and I've had the pleasure of working on encryption policy with him over the past 3 years. I'm excited to once again join him in this effort to make sense out of our national export control policies, and to promote export opportunities for American software and hardware producers. As many of my colleagues know, with help from Congresswoman Cantwell in the 103d Congress, I was able to persuade the administration to study the extent to which U.S. companies are stymied by our country's current encryption and export control policies. The Department of Commerce released that report last month. And let me just say that there are some findings in this report that we should be aware of, and concerned about. For instance, the report acknowledges there are tremendous international growth opportunities for software exporters in the next 5 to 10 years. Unfortunately, the report also finds that most U.S. companies don't pursue international sales because our export control laws are too cost prohibitive. Mr. President, there are legitimate national security concerns underpinning the Export Administration Act. However, these outdated laws are no longer relevant to the post-cold-war world we now lived in. Today's national security controls should target those items that really need to be controlled in order to maintain national security. Simply, they should make better sense; it doesn't make sense to tell a U.S. software producer they can't export a product that is already widely available on the world market. Senator Leahy's bill seeks a balanced approach to implementing viable, safe, and secure encryption technology on both domestically sold products and exported products. It protects our privacy concerns, and it lays out the appropriate procedures law enforcement officials should use when obtaining encrypted materials. And, most important, it protects industry ingenuity and prohibits mandatory key escrow. Mr. President, I introduced the Commercial Export Administration Act in the 103d Congress. I am pleased Senator Leahy is incorporating my language into his bill. My language reduces regulatory redtape and makes it easier to export generally available mass-marketed commercial software. Washington State is home to some of the most innovative software producers in the world, and they are eager to export their goods. Unfortunately, our export controls keep Washington State's companies from penetrating the world market. Senator Leahy's bill, however will fix this problem. We are hearing a lot on the Presidential campaign trail about the damage that comes from trade--how trade hurts our economy and our workers. That's nonsense. My Washington State friends and neighbors know full-well that trade is essential to our State's success. One out of every five jobs in Washington State is trade related; and these are highly skilled, family wage jobs that pay 15 percent higher than the national average. Moreover, Washington State's small- and mid-sized high-technology companies provided over 98,000 jobs in 1995. Mr. President, I mention this because our bill will increase exports and enable our high-technology companies to grow further. Higher growth means more jobs--plain and simple. A recent study revealed that in 1995 U.S. exporters lost $60 billion in international sales, and it estimates the industry will lose 200,000 potential jobs by the year 2000. Given the increase in international competition, we can no longer afford to persist in holding U.S. companies back from potential world sales. This legislation makes good sense. First and foremost, it ensures every American's right to use any appropriate encryption available on the market. It also sets out necessary guidelines that should accompany any policy regarding the use of key escrow. And finally, it paves the way for new, streamlined export policies. Mr. President, this legislation is badly needed, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy and me in supporting it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct serious problems with a law passed by this Congress at the beginning of last year. This law was intended to bypass environmental safeguards to speed up tree harvesting in national forests. Mr. President, this law, commonly known as the salvage rider, has not worked. Instead, it has reopened old wounds in the Pacific Northwest, and sparked major controversy throughout the region. It has once again cast political uncertainty over working families, and blatantly cut regular people out of decisions over their own forests. In short, what was billed as a commonsense approach to removing dead trees has turned out to be another case of legislative overkill on the environment. Mr. President, it doesn't have to be this way. My bill will defuse a tense situation, provide certainty for workers, and restore a role for the public in forest management. Let me explain how. The salvage rider has three problems: It allows large, old-growth timber sales previously declared illegal to be harvested without regard to fish and wildlife concerns; it could relegate the Northwest forest plan to the trash heap; and it cuts the public completely out of any final decision to harvest trees in national forests. First, my bill resolves the old-growth issue by suspending timber sales commonly referred to as section 318 sales, and requiring the Forest Service to provide substitute timber volume or buy these sales back from the purchaser. In either case, the purchaser is held harmless, and so are the sensitive old-growth areas. Second, my bill expedites implementation of the Northwest forest plan by making sure resources are available to complete recommended watershed analyses. The primary goal of this provision is to protect the scientific validity of option 9, so that timber sales can move ahead and private land owners can proceed with their habitat conservation plans. This is a very important point: The State of Washington and every major timber land owner in the region are working on comprehensive habitat conservation plans. Every single one of these groups assume full implementation of option 9 as the basis of fish and wildlife protection in their own plans. If option 9 goes belly up, all of these habitat plans are worthless. Third, my bill establishes a permanent, reasonable salvage program. The key work is permanent. I propose moving away from ad hoc forest planning by Congress, switching gears with every swing of the political pendulum. Instead, we should put a long-term program in place, something everyone can plan around, year in and year out. Let me be very clear: This is not about salvage logging; this is about public input and accountability. Salvage logging is appropriate-- and sometimes necessary--is done right. My bill sets up a program that allows the agencies to target salvage logging on an expedited basis when needed, under the full scrutiny of the public eye. If the agencies can defend their proposals, then they will go forward unimpeded. Mr. President, I remember what it was like last spring. There was a new feeling in Congress; the people had called for change, so the leadership was running through bills left and right in the heat of the moment. A lot of things passed that might not have stood up under closer scrutiny, and this was one of them. The irony here is thick: The salvage rider gave the Federal Government more power, and less accountability. As a result, the public has no say in how their own national forests are managed. I don't think the people wanted that kind of change. People say this issue is too controversial to resolve, and that over the years it has become too polarized. To watch the debate, you might think that's true. Any person's idea is immediately rejected by someone else. And that may be the case with my bill. But if we keep rejecting everything, we will be left with nothing, except more chaos. With all the controversy, people ask me, ``why bother?'' I'll tell you why: Because I care deeply about the Northwest. I care deeply about what government is saying to people about tough issues; more often than not, we're telling people that someone, somewhere, has to lose. That's not what I'm about. Most of all, I care deeply about the kind of legacy we're leaving for our children in this world. We simply cannot continue the way of divide and conquer. There are several ideas out there about how to proceed on this issue, from doing nothing at all, to repealing the salvage rider outright. My bill cuts a middle path. It says to workers: Salvage logging is something we should always be able to do. It says to conservationists: You will have an opportunity to hold the administration to its word. It says to large landowners: Your habitat planning efforts will pay off. In my view, people ought to be willing to settle for this as a responsible approach. Mr. President, I intend to pursue this matter on the continuing resolution when it comes before the full Senate. It is my understanding that the CR will contain limited language on this issue, but I do not believe it will solve the problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues. Mr. President, I would also like to explain further some of the concepts contained in this bill. replacement volume for section 2001(k) Sales, Section 102(b) The Secretary and contract holder/sale purchaser should immediately begin negotiations to locate alternative volume agreeable to both parties. Because these purchasers have owned these contracts for half a decade, the Secretary should make every effort to find and plan environmentally sound timber sales or modifications of the existing sale. The Secretary should direct agency personnel to make substitute volume a priority. New sales or modifications of existing sales must comply with all applicable law, forest and regional plans, and standards and guidelines. Specifically, they must comply with the Northwest forest plan and, when developed, the plan--or plans--implementing the Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project. Furthermore, they must comply with Forest Service and BLM standards and guidelines, including PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside screens. bidding rights, section 102(c)(2) This bill contains provisions allowing for purchasers holding timber sale contracts for sales that do not comply with environmental or natural resource laws to exchange the value of those contracts for bidding credits. Such a concept has operated for mineral rights in at least two other natural resource laws--see Public Law 97-466, 96 Stat. 2540; and Public Law 96-401, 94 Stat. 1702. This bill authorizes monetary credits based on the negotiated value of the purchaser's timber sale contract. The bidding credits extend to the purchaser and his or her successors and assigns to use in whole or part payment for future timber sales on Forest Service sales where the credits originated therefrom or on Bureau of Land Management sales, where the credits originated therefrom. salvage sales initiated under the rider, section 103(a) Sales initiated under section 2001 (b) or (d) are all those begun since passage of the Emergency Timber Salvage Act, on July 27, 1995. Title III of this bill applies to sales where its provisions are timely. For example, if a sale has been advertised, this law does not require the agency to host an interdisciplinary team meeting with public participation. All sales that have not been awarded are subject to appeal under the provision of title III. appeal of awarded salvage sales, section 103(b) In section 103(b), I address sales that have been awarded to timber sale purchasers under the salvage and Northwest forest plan provisions of the rescissions bill. I give the public an opportunity to appeal immediately and thereby suspend sales that are causing environmental damage. The administration insists that it is complying with all environmental laws, and I want to give the public an opportunity to prove that is the case. However, the agencies were required by the law at the time these sales were awarded--section 2001 of Public Law 104-19--to take procedural short cuts. I do not believe the purchasers should be denied their contract rights while the public challenges the agencies for obeying the law's procedural timelines. On the other hand, I do not want any sales that cause environmental harm to go forward. Thus, I try to strike a balance between these competing needs by limiting appeals to substantive complaints. I understand that often substantive claims are raised in the context of procedural laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. Some courts have suggested that NEPA is a purely procedural statute. The term ``procedural'' in this bill is not meant to eliminate claims regarding environmental harm, even if they could be characterized as a purely procedural challenge. Let me give some examples. Where an agency had documentation in which a biologist recommended a sale not go forward, but the agency allowed the sale to be awarded to a purchaser, then such documentation could be the basis for an appeal and would not be considered a procedural challenge. Another example would be where the agency went forward with a sale prior to obtaining the concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding whether an activity will or will not jeopardize a species under the Endangered Species Act. This should not be characterized as a procedural challenge. A final example would be that section 2001 of Public Law 109-14 required the agencies to, in their discretion, file only environmental assessments, not environmental impact statements. Because both EA's and EIS's should disclose the effects of a sale on the environment, a challenge could not be made simply because the agency published such information in an EA, rather than an EIS. However, if the documentation, no matter what its title, failed to disclose the effects on the environment, it would be open to challenge. Funding to Implement Title III, Section 304 In this bill, the agencies are given discretion at the forest supervisor's and district manager's levels to combine several funds and accounts to implement this bill. The intent is to provide adequate funds for such activities as salvage timber sales, stewardship programs, watershed restoration, including road decommission, and data inventory and collection. This fund may not be used to carry out any activities that violate the forest plans, agency standards and guidelines, or the intent of this bill. This flexibility of funding will allow the agency to address critical salvage situations, correct an apparent agencywide problem with inadequate inventory of forest resources, and address a backlog of stewardship and restoration projects. Pilot Program for Harvest Contracting, Section 306 The legislation authorizes a pilot program to change the way salvage timber sales are undertaken on Forest Service and BLM lands. The Forest Service currently sells timber by planning and preparing the sale, offering the sale to bidders, and administering the timber harvest. Harvest contracting or stewardship contracting is an alternative to the current method, entailing a two-step process: A timber harvest contract or contracts to cut and remove wood, and log sales from the collected and sorted wood. There are several advantages to harvest contracting, including allowing the agencies to better implement ecosystem management, providing an opportunity to improve tree health without a large component of merchandise timber, eliminating below-cost timber sales, and reducing timber theft. Specifically, harvest contracting would improve ecosystem management by basing contracts on the work performed and the resulting conditions of the forest. This would eliminate incentives for purchasers to inappropriately harvest large, lucrative trees. This pilot project encourages harvest so smaller, less valuable trees that have proliferated in many years of the West due to fire suppression and historic timber practices, such as highgrading. These young, dense stands are expensive to harvest, but many scientists believe it is important to remove them in order to restore health to timber stands. The primary financial benefit is that gross timber sale revenues would be substantially higher because purchasers would not have road construction or logging costs--they would simply buy the wood from the log yard. Because the agencies may not be as efficient as a private enterprise, the agencies should consider contracting the log marketing business to a private business. A secondary financial benefit would be the elimination of many opportunities for timber sale fraud and theft. Under harvest contracting, the scaling system would be eliminated and the contractor would not benefit from cutting trees designated to be left standing because of the fixed contract price and, in fact, might be penalized for not performing to contract specifications. That is why the bill contains a provision limiting the ability of the contractor who performs the contract from also selling the harvested wood. Finally, this pilot project should benefit timber workers in several ways. First, salvage timber sales or thinning sales that were previously uneconomical to harvest would be offered, providing jobs for loggers and other resource experts. Second, timber companies would be purchasing wood after seeing its quality and knowing the exact board footage, rather than hypothesizing about the quantity of wood contained in a standing timber sale and not knowing how weather or timber markets might affect the ability to harvest or make a profit from the wood. Third, companies would not be subject to changes or delays in ability to harvest based on legal or political changes as they held long-term timber sale contracts; they would simply purchase wood. While harvest contracting appears to offer many benefits from many different aspects, it remains untested on a large scale. This bill requires the Forest Service and BLM to establish pilot programs. This should provide guidance as to the feasibility, benefits, and drawbacks of the concept. In addition, Senator Max Baucus has introduced a bill, S. 1259, that also establishes a demonstration program to use stewardship contracting. The concepts contained in this bill were developed by a group of conservationists, forest product industry representatives, and community leaders. This should also offer guidance as how to implement this pilot program. Forest Timber Stand Study Title IV The Forest Service has initiated a similar study to that required in this bill. The Western Forest Health Initiative should be used as a foundation for the requirements of this bill. There is no need for the agencies to be duplicative, rather this bill's provisions should be supplemental to the work done in the WFHI. Collaborative Decisionmaking Early drafts of this bill included use of collaborative decisionmaking. The concept was dropped from the bill because it was too difficult to described in legislative language. However, this decisionmaking process was very effective when it was used to plan and develop timber salvage sales after the wildfires of 1994 on the Wenatchee National Forest. The process was developed by Steve Daniels and Gregg Walker, of Oregon State University, as a tool to support ecosystem-based management of forest. Collaborative learning is a framework designed for natural resource management situations that have the following features: Multiple parties and issues, deeply held values and cultural difference, scientific and technical uncertainty, and legal and jurisdictional constraints. The key notions that define collaborative learning are: Redefining the task away from solving a problem to one of improving a situation; viewing the situation as a set of interrelated systems; defining improvement as desirable and feasible change; recognizing that considerable learning about science, issues and value differences--will have to occur before implementable improvements are possible; and promoting working through the issues and perspectives of the situation. Because of its success on the Wenatchee National Forest, I recommend the agencies consider use of collaborative decisionmaking procedures to increase valuable and productive participation by various interest parties.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy today as an original cosponsor of the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act. Senator Leahy is truly a leader on this issue, and I've had the pleasure of working on encryption policy with him over the past 3 years. I'm excited to once again join him in this effort to make sense out of our national export control policies, and to promote export opportunities for American software and hardware producers. As many of my colleagues know, with help from Congresswoman Cantwell in the 103d Congress, I was able to persuade the administration to study the extent to which U.S. companies are stymied by our country's current encryption and export control policies. The Department of Commerce released that report last month. And let me just say that there are some findings in this report that we should be aware of, and concerned about. For instance, the report acknowledges there are tremendous international growth opportunities for software exporters in the next 5 to 10 years. Unfortunately, the report also finds that most U.S. companies don't pursue international sales because our export control laws are too cost prohibitive. Mr. President, there are legitimate national security concerns underpinning the Export Administration Act. However, these outdated laws are no longer relevant to the post-cold-war world we now lived in. Today's national security controls should target those items that really need to be controlled in order to maintain national security. Simply, they should make better sense; it doesn't make sense to tell a U.S. software producer they can't export a product that is already widely available on the world market. Senator Leahy's bill seeks a balanced approach to implementing viable, safe, and secure encryption technology on both domestically sold products and exported products. It protects our privacy concerns, and it lays out the appropriate procedures law enforcement officials should use when obtaining encrypted materials. And, most important, it protects industry ingenuity and prohibits mandatory key escrow. Mr. President, I introduced the Commercial Export Administration Act in the 103d Congress. I am pleased Senator Leahy is incorporating my language into his bill. My language reduces regulatory redtape and makes it easier to export generally available mass-marketed commercial software. Washington State is home to some of the most innovative software producers in the world, and they are eager to export their goods. Unfortunately, our export controls keep Washington State's companies from penetrating the world market. Senator Leahy's bill, however will fix this problem. We are hearing a lot on the Presidential campaign trail about the damage that comes from trade--how trade hurts our economy and our workers. That's nonsense. My Washington State friends and neighbors know full-well that trade is essential to our State's success. One out of every five jobs in Washington State is trade related; and these are highly skilled, family wage jobs that pay 15 percent higher than the national average. Moreover, Washington State's small- and mid-sized high-technology companies provided over 98,000 jobs in 1995. Mr. President, I mention this because our bill will increase exports and enable our high-technology companies to grow further. Higher growth means more jobs--plain and simple. A recent study revealed that in 1995 U.S. exporters lost $60 billion in international sales, and it estimates the industry will lose 200,000 potential jobs by the year 2000. Given the increase in international competition, we can no longer afford to persist in holding U.S. companies back from potential world sales. This legislation makes good sense. First and foremost, it ensures every American's right to use any appropriate encryption available on the market. It also sets out necessary guidelines that should accompany any policy regarding the use of key escrow. And finally, it paves the way for new, streamlined export policies. Mr. President, this legislation is badly needed, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy and me in supporting it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join us in assuring that we can go back to the table and pass an appropriate D.C. appropriations bill. There is inappropriate language in this bill on Davis-Bacon, there is inappropriate language in here that puts conditions on a woman's right to choose, and we have heard much over the last hour and a half about the inappropriate language on vouchers that is included in this bill. There have been many eloquent statements by my colleagues in opposition to the vouchers, but let us stop for a minute and ask, who wins under a voucher system? Do the parents? Do they really get a choice? Not really, Mr. President. The private school administrators will have more of a choice in students that they will be able to select for their private schools, but parents, unless they have the money that they will need, will truly not have a choice. And they will not have a choice if school administrators say ``no'' to their child. Will the students win under a voucher system? There is no evidence that students will win. In fact, in Milwaukee, which has had a voucher program for 5 years, test scores of voucher students did not rise. There is no evidence that students do better. Will the public schools win? Hardly. We have heard many arguments about the money that is currently out there that will be taken from our public school system that will not be used for every child in America to assure that we continue to make sure that every child has the opportunity to get a good education in this country. Public schools will clearly not be a winner. Will private schools be a winner under a voucher system? Hardly. Private schools will have taxpayer dollars coming into their schools. They will then have to respond to taxpayers as to how they spend their money. They will have oversight and they will have to respond to all of us who pay our taxes for vouchers if they decide to buy equipment or supplies. They will have to be responsive to taxpayers because it will be taxpayers' money that they are using. I hardly think that the private schools will win under this voucher system. Will the taxpayers win? No, they will not. It is merely moving money around. If we were to pass a voucher system today, we would have to write a check for every student who is currently in a private school, in terms of a voucher. That will amount to billions of dollars. If we do it in a small district like the District of Columbia, just take a look at the number of students who are currently in private schools. If a voucher system passes, do the students who are currently enrolled in private school get a check or do new students coming in get those checks?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 additional seconds. Under the voucher system, no one wins. I think that we need to step back and pass an appropriate D.C. bill and remove these riders. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island 5 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on both sides?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in the last few seconds remaining on this side, let me just say the Senator from Vermont has done an admirable job of trying to get the D.C. appropriations bill through, and I commend him. But I do think, despite the fact that this bill needs to pass, that with the unnecessary riders and messages and political motivations, now is not the correct way to do it. If we defeat cloture today, we can go back and do what the Senate did before and pass a D.C. appropriations bill that is acceptable to all Members of the Senate. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. While the debate continues in Congress over the future of farm policy for our Nation, I wanted to outline some of my priorities for agriculture in 1996. While Congressman Roberts continues to push for his proposal to decouple farm payments, I am committed to maintaining a safety net for our farmers. Coupling payments to both production and the marketplace is a good way to preserve the safety net. Farm payments should occur when prices are low so our farmers can sustain their capacity to produce. When prices are high, the market can and will sustain our farmers. Payments should also be tied to production. Farm payments should be given to those working the land today, not simply to those who have received payments in the past. When Congress authorized the 1990 farm bill it was understood that the program was voluntary. That is to say, you only needed to be farming in order to be eligible to participate. Now the Republican proposal requires participation over the last 5 years in order to continue participating. The farm programs would not longer be open to anyone currently farming, but only to those who had participated between 1990 and 1995, regardless of whether or not they were still farming. I also think we should preserve the permanent authority for farm programs embodied in the 1949 agriculture law. In my opinion, repeal of the 1949 law sends a clear message that our historic commitment to the farmers of our Nation is ending. We must preserve this law as a constant reminder of our ongoing commitment to maintaining a stable food supply for our Nation. Preserving permanent authority for farm programs also recognizes the vital role that agriculture plays, and will continue to play, in this Nation's economy. I am frustrated that Congress has failed to recognize the vital importance of agriculture to our economy. We must maintain our commitment to farmers, and farm programs must be tied to production and marketplace. I am willing to work with my fellow Members to act quickly on a farm bill that provides certainty and security to our farmers, both now and in the future. In addition, I feel the farm bill should not be broken up so that food stamps and conservation programs are not addressed in conjunction with the commodity programs. The simultaneous consideration of these areas of farm policy represent a balanced approach that recognizes the obligations of our Nation not only to our farmers, but also to our poor and our environment. While the farm bill is designed to enhance and ensure the bountiful production of food from our land, it must also address the distribution of that bounty to those of our Nation in need. With all the food we produce, we must make sure it gets to the millions of hungry mouths in our cities and towns. While we help farmers to cultivate their land, we must also encourage them to preserve it when and where appropriate. USDA's Conservation Reserve Program is twice the size of the USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Program. The contributions of this program to the preservation of wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife cannot be understated. As the debate over the farm bill continues, I am committed to working for these principles and to look out for the best interests of the hard working families on the farms of my great State of Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my unqualified support for ratification of the START II Treaty. I am happy that the Senate is finally considering this measure and believe the implementation of this treaty is another step on the road to eliminating the most destabilizing strategic weapons. In January 1993, President George Bush and President Boris Yeltsin signed the treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on further reduction and limitation of strategic arms. Their determination and cooperation helped build upon the progress that was achieved from the START I Treaty. The result of START II will mean greater reductions in strategic nuclear forces. Ratification of this treaty today is critical, as it continues a process begun by START I. This treaty will help enhance U.S. and international security and substantially reduce the number of strategic warheads currently deployed by both countries. In early December, I joined a number of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to the majority leader urging that both START II and the Chemicals Weapons Convention [CWC] be brought before the Senate for action. Shortly thereafter, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted unanimously to approve ratification of START II. This issue has bipartisan support. Today we have an opportunity to act on that. Mr. President, this treaty has many important provisions. It will eliminate around 4,000 strategic nuclear weapons from the arsenal of the former Soviet Union. Specifically, it will eliminate all Russian heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBM's], and all multiple- warhead ICBM's. Eliminating these weapons would greatly reduce the threat of first strike in the event of renewed hostilities with the former Soviet Union. By eliminating this capability, United States-Russian strategic relations will be strengthened. Another important aspect of START II is that it strengthens our ability to verify information, conduct on-site inspections, and deter possible violations of the treaty. This will help ensure compliance and allow monitoring of the progress being made to reduce these weapons. Under this treaty, reduction of arms will take place over a 5- to 7- year period. When these reductions are completed, the United States and Russia will each be limited to between 3,000 and 3,500 deployed strategic warheads. It is my hope that ratification of this treaty today will help encourage Russia to complete its own START II ratification efforts. Mr. President, since the end of the cold war, our world has undergone a tremendous transformation. There is less fear and worry about nuclear war. We have made substantial efforts to reduce nuclear weapons. President Clinton has made nonproliferation and arms reduction a major priority. But the weapons are still here. Ratification of this treaty clearly represents significant progress with regard to reducing nuclear arms. However, there is still work yet to be done. Last year 187 nations voted to indefinitely extend the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty [NPT] with a commitment to work on a Comprehensive Test Ban [CTB] Treaty. I am extremely encouraged by this action and believe that we must work to reach an agreement on a CTB in the near future. In addition, the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] is also awaiting ratification by the United States. The CWC bans the development, production, stockpiling, and use of toxic chemicals as a weapon. Clearly, we must eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. By addressing these issues, it is my hope that other countries will be more likely to follow the U.S. example and end their reliance on a nuclear deterrent. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to ratify a treaty that is vital to U.S. strategic interests. We have an opportunity to help make the world a safer place to live--a safer place for our children. START II has strong support from the American public, the national security community and many Members of this body. We must continue with our efforts to reduce these weapons of mass destruction, and ratification of START II is a critical step toward this end. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership on this critical issue of making sure that our children across this country have adequate funding for the education they so desperately need for the world they are being handed. Recently a poll showed that 92 percent of the American public say that we should fund education at either the same or increased levels for Federal education. Why this continuing resolution speaks only about 8 percent of the population makes no sense to me. But before I address that, let me also express my frustration and my increasing anger at this Congress and the way it is governing this country today by passing continuing resolutions for 30 days, 25 days, 45 days, and on and on. What we are doing to this country is wrong. We have the responsibility to govern in a way that gives security to everyone that we represent and give the ability to people out there across this country who serve our constituents' needs the security they have to put in place their ability to make sure that their programs work effectively. And we are really undermining that effort today. I speak to you as a former school board member who knows well what the impacts of these 35- and 45-day continuing resolutions are and this $3.1 billion reduction in funding. What it means to those poor school board members is that in a few short weeks, they are going to be facing angry parents across this country telling them that their class size will be reduced, that they will have to let teachers go, that textbooks will not be available, that security guards will not be in their schools next year because they simply do not know what this Government is going to do for them in the coming year. That is not right. Every Member should know that the real answer here is, we are asked to pass a budget. The numbers are on the table. There are budgets that balance the budget by the year 2002. That is what we should be doing instead of these continuing resolutions. Mr. President, as we do this, every one of us is going to have to go home and face our constituents. I assure all of my colleagues they will meet a young woman like I met just a few short weeks ago in a grocery store who looked at me and told me she is trying to go to college next year, and the only way she will be able to go is if she has a student loan or a grant or gets Federal help. Yet the college she is applying to told her they cannot tell her what is going to happen because they do not know what we are going to do. That is not fair to that young girl, it is not fair to her family, and it is certainly not right for the future of this country. Mr. President, my colleagues have done a good job of outlining how important this education amendment is, but let me make it even more clear for you. For the State of Washington, we will lose $24 million. That is about $24 or $25 per student in my State. That translates to a textbook. That translates to a few less hours with a teacher. That translates to actually losing real dollars for every one of our kids. Yes, it speaks to specific programs but school boards are going to have to go back into their budgets and transfer dollars around in order to make up the funding that we are taking away. And every single one of our children in this country is going to lose. It seems crazy to me that we are going to sacrifice our children and America's future for the sake of political ego. We have the good fortune in this country of changing political leadership every few years in our democracy, but we do not have the fortune of reversing an uneducated and unprepared generation. For our kids, for our future, for this country's ability to compete in the worldwide technological society that we have today, let us support this resolution. Let us send a message to our kids that we do care about them, we understand their needs, and we are not going to neglect them in this Nation's Capital. Just last week, headlines across America rang out. Education is our top priority. Polls throughout our Nation strongly show that Americans support an investment in education; 92 percent would like the same or increased levels of Federal funding for education. Apparently some of my colleagues are listening to that 8 percent of our population. They are forcing upon the American people a continuing resolution that would cut $3.1 billion from education through this year. This would be coupled with the $600 million in rescissions in education already enacted for fiscal year 1995. This would represent the largest setback to education in the history of the United States. Why? It is very easy to target a group that has no vote, no political action committee, no lobbying dollars to create a political voice--our children. These are the same kids who are already giving up. They are faced with overcrowded classrooms, outdated textbooks, and frustrated teachers. They lack purpose knowing they cannot afford or gain entrance to an institution of higher education and wonder if the skills they learn today will ever lead to a job tomorrow. Certainly, throwing money at a problem is not the answer. But eliminating programs that have been proven to provide long-term educational skills and enhance school-to-work training are essential to our society. Last week in hearings before a joint House-Senate committee, we heard from Dr. Milton Goldberg who emphasized that the need for skilled labor from the business community has never been greater. NYNEX recently interviewed 60,000 applicants to fill 3,000 jobs and Motorola found less than 10 percent of job applicants are qualified for their entry level jobs. Yet, the existing continuing resolution would deny millions of America's children and young adults valuable educational opportunities. Already, a third of the fiscal year has elapsed with no funding levels for education and school districts are facing an 18-percent increase in enrollments over the next decade. These cuts would deny 1.1 million students crucial help in reading, writing, math, and advanced reasoning; 100,000 would lose English assistance and hundreds of thousands more would be denied vocational training; 14,000 school districts would have to cut back their safe and drug-free school programs and many would jeopardize their disabled education programs. We will continue to debate the role of our Federal Government in the education process. Michael DiRaimo of the Pittsburgh public schools told us last week, however, that though Federal funds account for a small portion of the district's budget, the services provided with those funds are vital to the district's ability to serve needy and at- risk children. My own State of Washington will lose over $24 million for education under this continuing resolution. Washington State has been a national leader in the school-to-work field and will lose $3 million in vocational education dollars because we are unable to reach agreement on the budget. Additionally, the State will lose $16 million in title I funds that greatly aid our classrooms in basic educational skills. At the very least, we cannot cut education programs beyond fiscal year 1995 levels. Let us not sacrifice our children and America's future for the sake of political ego. We have the fortune of changing political leadership every few years in this democracy. We do not have the fortune of reversing an uneducated and unprepared generation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there are proposals afoot-- generated by foreign-flag shipping interests and foreign corporations-- to repeal the Jones Act. This 1920 Act, named for Senator Wesley Jones of my State, mandates the use of U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-flagged vessels for voyages between two U.S. ports and on our Nation's inland waterways. Similar laws have been on the books since the 1790's, and nearly 50 nations have similar requirements for shipping in their own domestic commerce. This law should not be repealed. Mr. President, the domestic waterborne trades of the United States contribute more than $15 billion to the American economy, including more than $4 billion in direct wages to U.S. citizens. The economic impact of that income is multiplied by the thousands of additional jobs in cabotage-related businesses, the Jones Act employers and employees pay $1.4 billion in State and Federal taxes. The Jones Act is critical to the State of Washington and other coastal and inland waterways' States, and indirectly, it generates American jobs, tax revenues, and economic activity, in all 50 States. Unlike our international waterborne trades which are also the shipping lanes of our trading partners, the Jones Act trades are strictly a family trade--the commodities and the vessels move exclusively between American ports. So our trading partners have no reciprocal economic interest at stake in these trades. Indeed, our trading partners understandably have no interest in furthering the national interest objectives which the Jones Act is intended to enhance--jobs for Americans and a fourth arm of defense in times of national emergency. It seems to me that it makes no more sense to invite foreign shipping interests into our domestic trades, than it does to invite a stranger to intervene in a family matter. In either case, there is no necessity for doing so, and the results can be disastrous. Nevertheless, Mr. President, that is precisely what those who advocate repeal of the Jones Act would do, have outsiders intrude in the family's business. The needless risk of permitting this was recently detailed by Stanley H. Barer in his remarks before the American Association of Port Authorities. Mr. Barer is cochairman and CEO of Totem Resources Corp., a Jones Act operator which is headquartered in Seattle, WA, and which runs high- speed, roll-on, roll-off liner vessels between the lower 48 contiguous States and Alaska. At one time, he was also the Merchant Marine Counsel to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. So his considerable knowledge and expertise have been acquired in the real world of ocean shipping and regulation. What Mr. Barer had to say to the AAPA is, in my view, very instructive and illuminating because it offers a realistic view of the worth and importance of the Jones Act to our economy and national security. Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Barer's remarks be inserted in the Record. Remarks of Stanley H. Barer Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here at this convention. I hope I can set the record straight for you about the U.S. merchant marine and, in particular, the Jones Act. The Jones Act requires that America's domestic waterborne trade must be reserved for carriers owned by Americans, aboard vessels that fly the U.S. flag and were built in this country, and that are crewed by American citizens. Reserving U.S. water transport for American companies and crews is what our cabotage system is all about. And it's a pretty easy idea to understand. With its extraordinary land mass and diversity, the United States is in substantial part bound together as one nation because of our ability to travel from place to place, thus assuring that all parts and all people of our nation have access to the goods and services that give us the highest standard of living in the world. We would be quite foolish, with a nation of our size, diversity and transportation requirements, to turn our domestic transportation over to the mercy of foreign carriers. Let us never forget that when you talk about the Jones Act, you are talking about transportation services that take place within the United States involving only the movement of goods or people from one part of the country to another. This national policy of self-sufficiency in domestic transportation is also reflected in rail, trucking and aviation. It has been a consistent policy of our nation and nearly every other advanced nation on the face of this earth. And, when you think about it, it is not unusual to have such a transportation policy. Under our immigration laws, work in virtually every industry of our country is reserved for our own citizens. It is the rule, not the exception, that nations reserve the job opportunities inside their own borders to their own citizens, so long as their own citizens have the capacity to do the work. Thanks to this policy, today the U.S. has a Jones Act fleet of over 44,000 vessels, which provides direct employment for 124,000 American workers. And those workers earn more than $3.3 billion in wages a year. Opponents of the Jones Act point out that U.S. labor costs on our ships, tugboats, barges and shipyards run two to three times the so-called ``world labor rate.'' This is true. Of course, you could make the same statement about virtually any industry in this country. And, in fact, the merchant seafarers of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Holland and Japan all earn higher net wages than their American counterparts. Jones Act opponents say that, by bringing foreign ships and foreign crews into our coastal and intercoastal trades we can lower wage operating costs by up to 50 percent. Let's look at those world wage rates. Under the International Transport Federation standard, the average wage for the captain of a tanker or large container ship is $12 an hour, and the other officers are just slightly above the U.S. minimum wage of $5.25 an hour. The entire rest of a ship's crew under the ITF guidelines would be paid less than the U.S. minimum wage. And the ITF requires no payments for health, pension or other benefits. Ultimately, I believe, the issue is not whether Jones Act maritime workers carrying our domestic cargo make more than the ``world standard,'' the real issue is whether those workers are being paid a fair American wage, with respect to the other transportation modes. Each of our domestic transportation modes--water, rail, trucking and air cargo--employs Americans at American wage levels and none of them faces domestic competition from foreigners. For example, a tanker captain earns about $80,000 a year, which is $30,000 less than a pilot flying a domestic cargo plane. A tugboat captain might earn $50,000, about the same as a railroad engineer. A deck hand on a Jones Act ship makes about the same pay as a domestic flight attendant, about 25,000 to 30,000 a year. Compare that to a long-distance, line-haul truck driver, who might make as much as $75,000 a year. And it is also important to keep in mind the hours worked by our merchant mariners. While the air cargo pilot averages 83 hours in flight time, or about 20 hours a week, a tanker or tugboat captain works at least 12 hours a day and is on duty 24 hours a day on the vessel. This goes on seven days a week, sometimes for weeks and sometimes for months. Our captains on our big roll-on, roll-off liner vessels to Alaska are on their vessels 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months at a time. They are away from their families, and their work is dangerous. Now, Jones Act opponents are arguing for getting rid of our domestic maritime workers and bringing in foreign ships with foreign crews. Let's think about what would happen if that came true. I assume that the truckers who compete directly against water carriers would come storming to Congress and say: ``You have upset the competitive balance between water, rail, truck and air cargo. We can't compete against the water carriers with our high-priced U.S. truck drivers.'' Truckers will say, to keep the balance fair we need to bring in foreign, below- minimum-wage truck drivers. And they would have a good argument--what would Congress say? And if you let the water carriers and truckers use foreign labor, the railroads and then the air cargo carriers are going to demand the same ability. At this point, we have thrown hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. What would happen next? I have an idea. Companies outside domestic transportation, companies that compete on a daily basis in the global economy, will demand the right to fire Americans and bring in low-cost, below- U.S.-minimum-wage foreign workers. After all, if we are going to do this for domestic transportation, which is currently immune from foreign competition, why shouldn't we do this for those American companies who face foreign competition for their products and services every day in the marketplace? I want to point out a few more things about what Jones Act opponents are proposing. Their draft legislation assumes that the foreign workers brought into our maritime coastal trades will pay no federal or state income taxes, nor will the owners of those vessels under foreign flag pay any U.S. taxes. And that would be the case. As I read the proposal, these companies under foreign flag and their crew members are not only exempt from U.S. taxes and U.S. minimum wage laws, but also the National Labor Relations Act, federal hours-of-service regulations, child labor laws, Coast Guard safety regulations, the U.S. civil rights laws, our national laws relating to health insurance, pensions and other benefits, and all other state and federal legal requirements. Jones Act opponents say these foreign vessels and crew members should meet ``international standards.'' Does that mean that the navigation and safety crew members must be able to speak English, so they can communicate with environmental and rescue workers, or Coast Guard authorities? I guess not. And nothing in the proposal talks about how our nation would deal with all those Americans left unemployed by the repeal of the Jones Act, or how we would compensate American vessel owners whose investment in modern, U.S.-built ships would be destroyed. Let me tell you a little about my own situation. I am management. I am an owner. I risked capital to be in this business. I have negotiated with labor unions. My company has more than 2,000 employees whose fathers and grandfathers and uncles have all worked for our tug and barge company over the 106 years it has been in business. We don't want to fire these people. Who wants us to do this? Is this what America is about? If we can do this in the transportation sector, I guess we can do it anywhere--manufacturing, communications, health care, education, and I guess we could even fire all of our government workers and bring in low-cost people to work in government and man our armed forces. I submit this is not a sound idea. I was very curious as to who was financing these people who are calling for repeal of the Jones Act, and who was supporting them. I was pleased that not one of our customers in Alaska or the West Coast was among their supporters. But I did find that over 90 percent of those supporting him were trade associations representing wheat or grain producers. I would just like to note that, while Jones Act carriers receive not a dollar in federal subsidies or handouts, $5.5 billion in federal subsidies goes to wheat and feed-grain farmers each year. I am not here to argue against the farm program but I think it should be recognized that the people who want to get rid of U.S. citizens in domestic transport are the same people who are taking $5.5 billion dollars a year for their own industry from the taxpayers, but they are not advocating that foreign grain companies and foreign grain workers come in and take over their jobs and companies in the United States. All these farm executives and their corporate staffs and trade organizations and employees make good wages. I think that's fine--I am not against that. I am not even against the farm program. But I do have a problem with that industry trying to destroy my industry without first getting their own financial house in order. So, please, in considering these public policy issues, think about those you represent--the taxpaying American citizens. If you do that, I think you will have no trouble telling the Jones Act Reform Committee that they should go out of business rather that telling my industry that we should go out of business.