Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today marks the 23d anniversary of the monumental Supreme Court decision, Roe versus Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide and affirmed the right of all American women to choose safe, legal abortion services. I join Americans across the country in commemorating this important day in our history. Yet this is a bittersweet celebration. We are still fighting to safeguard our rights, and battles are being waged on many fronts. Each year, antichoice forces in Congress use the appropriations process to erode women's abortion rights every chance they get. In 1995, they were successful in denying Federal workers abortion coverage in their health benefit packages. They will try again this year for more victories. On this special anniversary, we must remember those who have suffered and lost their lives because of their commitment to protecting the health of women in our country. Increasingly, the radical minority in the antiabortion crusade has turned to violence to pursue their agenda, with blatant disregard for who is caught in their crossfire. Over the last several years, I, like so many Americans, have been greatly disturbed by images of clinics under siege by vandals and arsonists, and horrified by reports of doctors murdered because they perform abortions--a legal procedure. We cannot let our reproductive rights be taken away because of a threat of violence, nor can we allow the actions of radical fanatics to dictate our Nation's public policy decisions. Just as our clinics are under attack, so too are our personal freedoms. Emboldened by their momentum, Mr. President, antiabortion forces in both Houses of Congress passed H.R. 1833, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. By their own admission, this is the first step in the antichoice movement's strategy to deny women their right to choose -- one procedure at a time. This legislation is an affront to the women of this country, and an unprecedented intrusion into the autonomy of medical professionals to determine the best methods of care for their patients. I am reminded today of the frustration I felt during debate of this bill, of the misinformation and divisive rhetoric infused in the conversation. The antichoice majorities in Congress may have forgotten that most Americans feel abortion should be legal. They may also have forgotten about the days of back-alley abortions and women dying of infection from unsanitary procedures. Well, I haven't forgotten and I will do whatever I can to ensure the days of the back- alley abortion, a virtual death sentence for women, remain a tragic thing of the past. Let today remind us that, for now at least, the law is on our side. I urge President Clinton to join us today in commemorating this landmark anniversary. And I respectfully request that he deliver on his promise to veto H.R. 1833. The women of this country are counting on him to do what is right. I know he will not let us down.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, thank you. First, let me commend the Senator from New York for his tremendous leadership on behalf of the children in the welfare reform bill. welfare: reform; don't renege Mr. President, it is with sadness today I must tell the American people their Congress has failed them in its attempts to reform public assistance in this country. Welfare reform is important, but the bill before us today was written with so little compassion it must be stopped. The American people know we must change welfare. They know welfare must give a hand-up, not a hand-out. But no one I have talked to, not the most conservative welfare-basher, would stand where I am standing and vote to hurt children like this bill will. You have heard the estimates: this bill will throw an additional 1.5 million children into poverty in this country. It will eliminate the guarantee to basic services to children at a time when we should be improving the safety net. Children need the guarantee to assistance. Children need the safety net. I supported a welfare bill out of this Senate, a bill I had fundamental disagreement with, because we were able to make some improvements before it left the floor. I fought hard for child care funding, for money for job training, for domestic violence language. When these improvements had been made, I held my nose and voted for the bill, knowing some people would think I had done something horrible, because I naively thought the majority might be listening. I thought after all our fighting, the majority party might get a hint about what kinds of things we thought were important in a bill to actually reform welfare. I said at the time--if this bill got worse in negotiations with the House, if the majority did not improve this bill dramatically, then it would not have my support. And it will not. This bill is a slap in the face of every person in this country trying to get off public assistance, and I will vote ``no.'' The conference report is so lacking, if I pick out just one thing to focus on, there won't be time to tell you about any others. But let us look at what the conference report proposes to do about child care: First, remember that child care faces major problems today, before this welfare bill sends many new people into the work force. Child care is not always easy to find, you cannot always depend on the quality, you cannot always afford quality when you find it, and sometimes you cannot afford to pay at all, so a relative or friend takes care of your kids. But that's all today. Here's what the conference report will do tomorrow: Over the next 7 years, the work requirements in this conference report will create the need for an additional $14.9 billion worth of child care. But, the report only funds $1.9 billion of new money, leaving a $13 billion shortfall, according to HHS. The result is many people will have no place to leave their child when they go to work. If you are lucky enough to get your child into child care, the conference report cuts funding for child care quality standards more than 50 percent from the Senate bill. This money pays for improvements in quality and access to child care: training providers, inspecting and monitoring facilities, helping parents to find child care, providing grants to buy cribs and other equipment to start child care businesses, and beginning school-age programs. The result is, you as a parent will have to worry about whether your child care worker is well-trained, and whether your child is healthy and safe when you return from work. This conference report also allows welfare recipients to count providing unpaid child care toward meeting the work requirements, essentially, to babysit other people's children without meeting any of the standards of a child care facility or home day care business. There is no money for training or certification for people setting up home child care under this provision. What is worse, the conference report repeals a state's ability to regulate health and safety in child care, including these small in-home child care situations, which is where most of the abuse problems in my state occur. If you are unlucky enough to be a child in a child care situation where there is a problem, this conference report cuts the abuse enforcement that might protect you. It block grants child protection and foster care, and cuts the very functions that allow States to help children who need foster care, to recruit and train parents, to place children, and to monitor quality. The $3.7 billion reduction over seven years will cut Child Protective Services, family preservation money for preventing problems, and money for older youth. Finally, the conference report significantly cuts the child and adult care food program, by as much as $3 billion over seven years. Providers in my state tell me these cuts will effectively close the doors of many small day care businesses, and lead to cost cutting that will affect child nutrition. We will have more people competing for less child care, and nutrition declining in the centers which stay in business. Who here on the floor of the Senate can honestly say they speak for children? We have lobbyists for every issue, but infants and children do not get to vote. If you cut child protection, what constituency will rise up in protest? Not the children themselves; I will guarantee it. This conference report has many problems. One of them is the assault on child care. I will be voting against this report. Mr. President, I speak against the welfare conference report, and I do so as someone who voted for the Senate welfare reform bill, but I did so because I thought the majority would understand that our yes vote meant that we strongly supported child care funding language for domestic violence and job training funds. Those are not in the final bill. It is $13 billion short in child care money. That is not just money; that is children who will be out there on the streets with no one to take care of them. Mr. President, this Congress will not be remembered for passing welfare reform. They will be remembered for endangering the lives of thousands of American children. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this letter shows unity and it demonstrates support for President Clinton in his negotiations on this vital matter. As you heard the eloquent Senator from West Virginia describe yesterday, sometimes we have to look beyond partisanship and do what needs doing as Americans. As you heard our respected colleague say, we need to look beyond partisanship, toward compromise if we want to succeed in creating a balanced budget. This letter is partisan in that it is signed by all Democrats. But it is my feeling that as Americans every Member of the Senate should have an opportunity to endorse the position described in this document. As Americans we all must do our very best for our children in this Nation, and that is what this letter is about. As the Senators from Nebraska and North Dakota discussed yesterday with the release of the Senate Democratic budget, we can balance the budget in 7 years using the most conservative CBO estimates without hurting our children. This letter I hold in my hand reflects just one part of that commitment. I do not think my colleagues across the aisle are advocating the block grants so that we will intentionally hurt children in this country. I will simply tell you the reaction of people at the State and local level who actually provide Medicaid services to children is overwhelmingly negative. They can see from the grassroots level what it will mean to design a Medicaid program, and they do not want drastic funding cuts, and they do not want a block grant, because it fundamentally will not work. Groups representing almost every decisionmaker and provider in this country have come out against the Medicaid block grant proposal. The Conference of Mayors, the National Association of County Officials, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Democratic Governors Association, the American Hospital Association, and most other medical provider organizations, and all child advocacy groups, all have rallied in opposition to this bad idea. I heard yesterday from Mayor Norm Rice of Seattle and the Mayors Association, who are sending a letter of their own to the President. The block grant has been condemned by anyone who has thought about how it will affect this country's children and other vulnerable populations. Tonight there will be a child within a few blocks from this building who will need the help of a caring health care professional, and Medicaid will pay for the care. Marion Wright Edelman uses a phrase that sums up what we are talking about when it comes to Medicaid and children, ``protection of last resort.'' We have to guarantee that protection. It is a moral commitment, and it is within our grasp. We can balance the budget but we can do it without giving in to mindless partisanship and we can do it without sacrificing our basic commitments. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington DC, December 13, 1995. President William J. Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our strong support for the Medicaid per-capita cap structure in your seven-year budget. We have fought against Medicaid block grants and cuts in the Senate, and we are glad you acknowledge the importance of our position. We support a balanced budget. We are glad you agree with us that we can balance the budget without undermining the health of children, pregnant women, the disabled, and the elderly. The savings level of $54 billion over seven years included in your budget will require rigorous efficiencies and economies in the program. However, after consulting with many Medicaid Directors and service providers across the country, we believe a reduction of this level is possible to achieve without dramatic limits on eligibility or cuts to essential services. States will need flexibility to achieve these savings, and you have taken steps toward granting it in your bill. We were encouraged that your Medicaid proposal does not pit Medicaid populations against one another in a fight over a limited pot of federal resources. We were further encouraged to hear Chief of Staff Panetta relay your commitment to veto any budget not containing a fundamental guarantee to Medicaid for eligible Americans. We commend you on the courage you have exercised in making these commitments to Americans eligible for Medicaid. There is a bottom line when it comes to people's health; do not allow the current Congressional leadership to further reduce our commitment to Medicaid beneficiaries. Your current proposal is fair and reasonable, and is consistent with what we have advocated on the Senate floor. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to hold fast to these commitments in further negotiations. We are prepared to offer any assistance you may need in this regard. Sincerely, Bob Graham; John Breaux; Jay Rockefeller; Herb Kohl; Patrick Leahy; Frank R. Lautenberg; Ted Kennedy; Tom Daschle; Patty Murray; Barbara Boxer; David Pryor; Barbara A. Mikulski; Max Baucus; Paul Simon; Kent Conrad; Wendell Ford; Harry Reid; Paul Wellstone; Richard H. Bryan; Ernest Hollings; Dianne Feinstein; Tom Harkin; Byron L. Dorgan; Chris Dodd; J. Bennett Johnston; Joe Lieberman; Paul Sarbanes; Carol Mosely- Braun; John Glenn; Jeff Bingaman; Carl Levin; Bill Bradley; John F. Kerry; Bob Kerrey; Joe Biden; Daniel K. Akaka; Dale Bumpers; Daniel Inouye; Chuck Robb; J. James Exon; Howell Heflin; Claiborne Pell; Russ Feingold; Daniel P. Moynihan; Sam Nunn; Robert C. Byrd. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I hold in my hand today a letter to President Clinton that is signed by all 46 members of the Democratic Caucus. This letter urges him to hold firm to our commitment to basic health care for children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the disabled in this country. This letter supports a per capita cap approach to finding savings in the Medicaid Program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to designate the 50-miles of the mid-Columbia River known as the Hanford Reach--the last free-flowing stretch of the river--a wild and scenic river and to improve fish and wildlife habitat downstream of the reach. Although I have been working for less than a year with the community and members of my Hanford Reach Advisory Panel to develop a broadly- supported means of protecting the river corridor, the effort to save the reach has been underway for 30 years. The Hanford Reach is an issue whose time has come. While most of the Columbia River Basin was being developed during the middle of this century, the Hanford Reach and other buffer areas within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation were kept pristine, ironically, by the same veil of secrecy and security that lead to the notorious nuclear and chemical contamination of the central Hanford site. Today, these relatively undisturbed Hanford buffer areas are wild remnants of a great river and vast shrub-steppe ecosystem that have been tamed by dams, farms, and other economically important development. As the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia between the Canadian border and Bonneville Dam, the significance of the Hanford Reach has only recently become fully appreciated. Mile for mile, it contains some of the most productive and important fish spawning habitat in the lower 48 States. The cool, clear waters of the Columbia River that sweep through the reach have the volume and velocity to produce ideal conditions for spawning and migrating salmon. The reach produces 80 percent of the Columbia Basin's fall chinook salmon, as well as thriving runs of steelhead trout and sturgeon. It is the only truly healthy segment of the mainstem of the Columbia River. At a time when the Pacific Northwest is struggling to restore declining salmon runs--and spending hundreds of millions annually on restoration and enhancement efforts--protecting the Hanford Reach is the most cost-effective step we can take. That is why the Northwest Power Planning Council, Trout Unlimited, conservation groups, tribes, and many other regional interests involved in the salmon controversy support designation of the reach under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The reach is also rich in other natural and cultural resources. Bald eagles, wintering and migrating waterfowl, deer elk, and a diversity of other wildlife depend on the reach. It is home to dozens of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals, some found only in the reach. This part of the Columbia Basin is also of great cultural importance. Native American culture thrived on the shores and islands of the reach for millennia, and there are over 150 archaeological sites in the proposed designation, some dating back more than 10,000 years. The reach's naturally-spawning salmon and cultural sites remain a vital part of the culture and religion of Native American groups in the area. The southern shore of the reach chronicles a different kind of history: the story of the Manhattan project and defense nuclear production during the cold war. Nowhere else in the world is there a higher concentration of nuclear facilities, some of which are on the National Register of Historic Places, than along this stretch of the Columbia River. In stark contrast to the old defense reactors is the section of the reach dominated by the White Bluffs, whose towering but fragile cliffs offer dramatic scenery and opportunities for solitude. Irrigation water flowing through unstable Ringold formation sediments has caused part of the White Bluffs to slide into the River, smothering spawning beds, reducing water quality, and even deflecting the course of the river. This constitutes one of the great threats to the reach. The reach offers residents and visitors recreation of many types-- from hunting, fishing, and hiking to kayaking, waterskiing, and birdwatching--and adds greatly to the quality of life and economy of the area. My legislation builds on a foundation begun in the 100th Congress by Senators Dan Evans and Brock Adams, and Congressman Sid Morrison, who enacted legislation which called for a moratorium on development within the river corridor and a detailed study of policy options. Our bill implements the preferred alternative of the Hanford Reach EIS, which recommended Congress designate the reach a recreational river under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. With the guidance of my Hanford Reach Advisory Panel, the legislation also contains some refinements and protections. For example, the bill explicitly allows current activities, such as agriculture, power generation and transmission, and water withdrawals along the river corridor to continue. It excludes private property, which comprises only about three percent of the study area. The legislation also guarantees that local government and other local interests have a formal role in the management of the river corridor, which will come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The legislation also includes provisions which complement the Wild and Scenic River designation. The Secretary of Interior and relevant Federal agencies are directed to work with local and State sponsors in developing a program of education and interpretation related to the Hanford Reach. The city of Richland and area tribes, among others, have been working with the Department of Energy on a museum and regional visitor center proposal and are eager to make the natural and human history of the reach part of the project. Federal agencies should help coordinate with local sponsors on this initiative. There is also great interest in the tri-cities, and among some government agencies, in improving the habitat value, access, and appearance of the Columbia River shoreline in the area, much of which is lined with high, steep levees that were put into place before the network of Columbia River dams controlled the flow of the River and reduced the need for such flood control structures. Migrating salmon and wildlife now face a sterile gauntlet, populated by predatory fish species, in this part of the River. This bill directs the Army Corps of Engineers, which built, owns, and maintains the levees, to coordinate with local sponsors on demonstration projects to restore the rivershore. In the short-term, the bill directs the corps to undertake some small levee modification projects under their existing Section 1135 Project Restoration Program, assuming the local sponsors meet program requirements for planning and cost-sharing. The cities of Kennewick and Pasco, and the Port of Kennewick, have already indicated an interest and ability to pursue this course of action. In the long-term, the corps is directed to undertake a comprehensive study of the levees and determine if rivershore restoration in the area is feasible and an important Federal priority. I am proud of the way this legislation was developed. It is the product of an open, consensus-building process that heard from virtually every interested group in the community and in the region. The bill was drafted with the assistance of a diverse panel of community leaders from local government, business, labor, and the conservation community. I am deeply grateful to the members of my Hanford Reach Advisory Panel for their public spirited commitment of their valuable time, energy, and creativity. Sue Frost, manager of the Port of Kennewick; Chris Jensen, Pacso City Council; Joe King, Richland City Manager; Rick Leaumont with the Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society; John Lindsay, president of TRIDEC; Kris Watkins with the Tri-Cities' Visitor and Convention Bureau; and Jim Watts with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers did an outstanding job tackling the tough issues associated with this legislation and developing a consensus proposal. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to enact this historic and balanced measure.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to say I am glad this conference report has finally made it to the Senate floor. I know the senior Senator from Washington, Chairman Gorton, has worked very hard to get it to this stage. I also wish to thank Senator Byrd and his staff for their assistance in keeping me informed and helping to move the process forward. My primary concern with this conference report is its authorizing language regarding the Columbia Basin ecosystem project. This important project was instituted by former Speaker Tom Foley and Chairman Hatfield to provide a scientific foundation to guide us in developing sound resource policies, especially regarding fisheries management. In many areas of the Columbia Basin region, our forests are dying due to past timber harvest practices, fire suppression policies, and insect infestation. Our salmon and other fisheries resources are endangered, due in part to land-based activities that impact watersheds, like cattle grazing, forestry, recreation, and development. Unfortunately, this conference report intentionally limits science. It demands that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management study only ``landscape dynamics and conditions for forest and rangeland management, specifically the management of forest and rangeland vegetation structure, composition, density, and related social and economic effects.'' It goes on to say the scientific assessment must not contain any other material than that quoted above. During the second conference, I was unable to convince my colleagues to add a provision allowing for the study of fisheries and watersheds and deleting the clause limiting study. I truly believed my colleagues would support this moderate attempt to allow scientists to provide us information to help guide us in making scientifically based resource management decisions. In this latest round of conference negotiations, Chairman Gorton, too, tried to convince the House to open up the scientific assessment for fisheries and watershed studies. I want to thank him for his efforts, which were unfortunately unsuccessful. Mr. President, the amendment I had offered only addressed one area of concern for me in this bill regarding the Columbia Basin project: that of limiting science. However, I am also very concerned that this report prohibits the agencies from issuing a final environmental impact statement or a record of decision and from selecting a preferred alternative in the draft environmental impact statement. This bill also limits the ability of the Forest Service and BLM to consult or conference as required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The agencies may modify current policies for fish protection and if they have consulted on these policies in the past, they need not do so again--even if the amendment is a drastic modification of current protections. Similarly, the agencies are prohibited from consultation for any projects, such as timber sales, if sales are based on the forest plan amendment. The President has indicated that he intends to veto this bill. One of his reasons for doing so is the authorizing language on the Columbia Basin project. I look forward to working with him and Chairman Gorton to make the necessary improvements in this language so that we can practice ecosystem-based stewardship and provide a steady stream of commodities while also protecting our resources for this and future generations. Let me also add that while I have focused the majority of my remarks on the Columbia Basin project, I am also concerned with several other provisions included in this bill. For example, while an additional $50 million were made available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service during the last conference, the level of funding for these programs is still woefully inadequate. The cuts to tribal priority allocations are particularly disturbing. Tribal priority allocations represent an important component of Federal Indian policy. In addition to recognizing the reduction in bureaucracy that self-governance allows and the shifting of decisionmaking from the Federal to the local level, TPA funds also represent a fundamental recognition of tribal sovereignty. I think it is important that the Federal Government recognize that Indian nations have the capacity, the responsibility, and the right to govern themselves. The Federal Government must also remember its historic obligations to the Indian nations as set out in the many treaties signed by the United States and the sovereign tribes. Furthermore, I continue to oppose the language preventing Washington State tribes, specifically the Lummi Nation, from exercising their water rights. While I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Gorton to remove language that would likely have derailed the ongoing negotiations--negotiations, I might add, that include all affected parties including the non-Indian landholders and appear to be going well--the language still represents a threat to tribal sovereignty and sets an extremely poor precedent for government-to-government relations. Mr. President, to close, I would like to note quickly my concerns about several other provisions contained in this bill, including: First, the severe funding cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities; second, the attempts by this Congress to thwart scientific protocol regarding the methods used to identify the threatened marbled murrelet's nests; and third, the provisions related to the Tongass National Forest. Again, I want to thank Chairman Gorton for the many improvements he has made in this report. I encourage him to continue those efforts should the President veto this appropriations bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes under the time allocated to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to commend the efforts made by Senators Bond and Mikulski to improve the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill. Given the budget constraints, they have done an admirable job of trying to craft appropriate and acceptable language. Unfortunately, I am still frustrated by what this legislation does to this Nation's veterans programs, housing assistance priorities, and environmental protection policies. This bill not only compromises successful programs like AmeriCorps and Youthbuild, it cuts our housing budget by more than 20 percent. Mr. President, we have an obligation to improve each and every American's access to safe and affordable housing. Unfortunately, as I warned last spring, the bill before us weakens our ability to provide adequate housing, and it ultimately cuts valuable programs that work. Mr. President, the HOPE VI Program is designed to replace this Nation's most desperate and distressed housing stock with new, sustainable housing communities that will instill a sense of pride and community. The fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill cuts the HOPE VI Program from $500 million to $280 million. Mr. President, this cut will make it very difficult for current HOPE VI projects to complete their work. Because of this, I want to emphasize how important it will be for the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to comply with the Senate report language that expresses the Senate's intent to give priority funding to already-approved HOPE VI sites. The Senate language allows us to follow through on our commitment to improving housing conditions and opportunities in a time of severe funding constraints. Mr. President, I am also deeply concerned about the funding cuts the conference bill has imposed on the Environmental Protection Agency. While the conference opted to stay with the higher funding levels urged by the Senate, this level of $5.7 billion still results in a 22.5 percent reduction from the President's budget request and a 14 percent cut from 1995. However, I am most worried about the reductions in several important programs, including environmental and public health standards enforcement, drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure projects for States, and hazardous waste site cleanup. Mr. President, we are finally making real progress in environmental protection. Our rivers and lakes are cleaner, our air is more breathable, and our drinking water is safer. Now is not the time to slow that progress. Instead, we should move forward so that we leave our world a safer, healthier place for our children. Mr. President, for these reasons, I must vote against this legislation. But, should the President veto this bill, I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the bill. spelman college outreach

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my qualified support for the deployment of United States military personnel as part of the NATO force to implement the Bosnia peace plan. The President has made a compelling case to the American people in support of U.S. participation in the NATO peacekeeping force. He has said that the NATO military mission will be clear, limited, and achievable; and that the risks to our troops will be minimized. Congress has had the opportunity to go over this plan carefully, through a series of extensive briefings and hearings, which have been held over the last few weeks by at least four committees. Through this process, we have gotten answers to many of our questions, but certainly not all of them. As the polls and phone calls reveal, the public is extremely wary about this operation. They know this is a mission with an uncertain outcome, where American sons and daughters may lose their lives. They are worried that our troops will be dragged into a civil conflict, despite our intentions to the contrary. I have set aside extra time over the last several weeks to meet with and hear from constituents on this issue, many of whom have sons, daughters, husbands and wives likely to be deployed in Bosnia. I have listened to their fears and reservations. They are understandably worried--about landmines, snipers, civil disorder, undisciplined local factions, hostage taking, and other risks inherent in this mission. And like most Americans, my constituents wonder aloud why the nations of Europe have not been able to solve this crisis on their own. Knowing how pressing the needs are here at home, they are weary of the constant need for American leadership abroad. Many resent the U.S. in the role of global policeman--again. I have also met with relief workers who have been working on the ground in Bosnia, to learn from their perspective how much rebuilding lies ahead for the people of this war-torn nation. This is an extremely important issue, because the success of NATO's military mission will be measured against the gains made in the civilian sector to reestablish a viable economic and political life throughout Bosnia. While it is important to point out that NATO's implementation force, or IFOR, will not be responsible for the conduct of humanitarian operations, the two operations will work to complement one another. But the IFOR will not be a police force, and it will not conduct nation- building. Nor will the IFOR address the numerous issues surrounding the return of refugees. Rather, IFOR's mission is simple and straightforward --to keep the peace so that civilian and political leaders have an opportunity to rebuild Bosnian society. Our military leadership has repeatedly reassured Congress that the limited nature of this mission can be accomplished in 1 year's time, with most of the military tasks contained in the agreement accomplished in the first 6 months. After that, IFOR's role will be to maintain a climate of stability so that the civil tasks outlined in the peace agreement can take root. In the words of Secretary Perry, the goal is to ``break the cycle of violence'' so that the civilian efforts--economic development, free elections, and the return of refugees--can have an opportunity to take hold. But regardless of what the situation looks like 1 year from now, the Secretary has said that ``we must not be drawn into a posture of indefinite garrison.'' Mr. President, it is this very limited mission that I am agreeing to with my vote today. I want to be clear--my support for this mission is qualified. I will be following developments closely in the weeks and months ahead. While I believe it is in our national interests to participate in a limited way in this operation, I feel very strongly that once we have paved the way for the Bosnian people to make peace, our role will be over and we should leave. Yes, we can provide the opportunity for peace. But if, after a year's time, the Bosnian people themselves have not seized this chance, we should and must leave. Having said that, I do believe that what we are about to do is incredibly important. Certainly this deployment carries risks. But I believe those risks must be measured against the promise for peace this agreement contains. The conditions are right for peace in Bosnia. And like Secretary Perry, I have concluded that the risks to the United States of allowing the war to continue are greater than the risks of enforcing the peace. I agree with the President, our Secretaries of Defense and State, and our Nation's top military leaders. The United States has critical political, economic and security interests in Europe, and the war in Bosnia threatens those interests. The Dayton peace plan is the first opportunity we have had to end the war, and I believe we have to give it a chance. In implementing the peace agreement, NATO will be embarking on its first land operation in history. Every NATO country with the exception of Iceland will be committing troops to this operation. The United States will contribute one-third of the necessary troops for IFOR. The British will provide 13,000 troops, the French 8,000. In addition, more than a dozen non-NATO nations have indicated a willingness to participate. Our troops will be headquartered in Tuzla, where they will also have with them a Nordic brigade of close to 4,500 troops. 1,000 of those Nordic troops have been stationed in the Tuzla area for over a year, and will be able to provide our troops with important information on the region and its risks. Perhaps most astonishingly, there will be a Russian brigade that will be a part of the American division, numbering several thousand troops. The NATO mission, while carefully planned and trained for by our Nation's best military leaders, faces many uncertainties. We owe our troops no less than the finest training and equipment possible, and in this regard we can take great reassurance. We know that the troops we are sending to Bosnia are strong, capable and ready. They have undergone thorough and intensive training over the past several months. They have endured very rigorous and specific exercises, unique to the situation they will face in Bosnia, including mine training and basic combat proficiencies. American troops will be heavily armed, and will have the authority to respond with decisive force to any threat to their own safety. Our troops will take their orders from the American General who commands NATO, General George Joulwan. For his part, General Joulwan has insisted that the daily training scenarios that our troops are subjected to be increasingly demanding, so that, in his words, ``the scrimmage should be harder than the game''. Mr. President, one thing we do know for certain is that the nations of Europe have not been able to solve this crisis over the last 4 years. In absence of any clear leadership, day after day the war deepened, becoming a festering wound in the center of Europe. A quarter of a million lives have been lost to war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. A generation of children has been terrorized and traumatized. Thousands of elderly have been cast from their homes and turned into refugees with no place to go. It has been American leadership that finally made a difference. American leadership generated a cease fire. American leadership brought the parties to the peace table. And now it will take American leadership to ensure that NATO remains strong enough to prevent the peace from collapsing. Many Americans--including my own constituents--question the need for NATO as we approach the next century. The Soviet Union has collapsed. Why, they ask, should America pay the money and put our troops on the line in support of an alliance whose time--in the eyes of some--has passed. I believe we have a very direct national interest in ensuring that NATO remains an effective and credible security arrangement for the United States and our European allies. Ours is an alliance in support of democracy and freedom, and we are the leader of that alliance. Now is not the time in history for America to question our leadership role in the world. Continued American global leadership is in our national interest, not only in the matter before us regarding Bosnia, but more generally in this post-cold war era. Nations around the world are watching. If the aggression that has taken place in the Balkans over the past 4 years were to go without challenge, other nations will take a lesson. Congress gathered just yesterday to hear the moving speech of Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who faces the daunting task of keeping his Nation on the path toward peace in the wake of former Prime Minister Rabin's assassination. Mr. Peres reminded us gently of the role America has played in this century, and the responsibilities we carry into the next. He urged us to accept what history has laid on our national shoulders. He reminded us that there are some things that only America can do. America alone, he reminded us, can keep the world free. We do not know who will be in charge in Russia, China, or Iran 10 years from now. Those nations may be moving closer to democracy, or they may be led by repressive regimes with nuclear capabilities. We simply do not know today. Because of the uncertainties we face in the world, we in the United States can not afford to fall back to the approach we took after World War I, when a weary nation said ``enough''. The vacuum was filled promptly, in that case with the most horrendous outcome. Mindful of such history, I would echo the sentiments of President Clinton when he says, ``My fellow Americans, in this new era there are still times when America and America alone can and should make the difference for peace.'' To my own constituents, and to Americans across this great Nation of ours, I want to say: I know you are weary. But in my view, we do not have the luxury of wishing away the world and tending our own garden as if events around the world have no effect on us. We must continue to lead, and in doing so, we are most certainly serving our own national interests. But you are right. This will be a difficult mission to undertake. The climate in Bosnia at this time of year is brutal, the terrain difficult, and the risks many. Even if all goes extremely well, we must be prepared for casualties. This is an inevitable fact of life that accompanies every deployment. We should remember, for example, that during Desert Shield, the staging phase before the Persian Gulf war began, we lost 84 American troops before even a single shot was fired. And although the situation we are entering in Bosnia is vastly different, it is tragically unavoidable that accidents and mishaps will claim the lives of some of those deployed. And so we must prepare ourselves as a Nation for this consequence. But we must remember that throughout this ``American century'', as it has been called by some, the United States alone has set the standard to which so many nations now aspire. And in keeping with our vision as a people, since the end of the cold war we have led the international community in breaking new ground on behalf of democracy and the rule of law. In situations ranging from Cambodia to Haiti to Bosnia, we have helped to secure peace and freedom. I think we have to acknowledge up front that as we undertake these endeavors, we do not fully know yet what model works, and under what circumstances. And that is what makes votes like today's so difficult. But this is no excuse for this Nation or any other major world power to throw up our hands and walk away from the difficult problems and challenges we face in this post-cold war era. On this point, I think the observations of Lakhdar Brahimi, who heads the U.N. operation in Haiti, are relevant. When asked what we have learned in Haiti that may be relevant to Bosnia, he said: . . . With operations like these (in Bosnia and Haiti), he said, the international community is embarking on something completely new for itself, and for which it does not yet have all the skills. It isn't even sure what it wants an certainly doesn't have all the money it needs to do it. So we take a country by the hand and accompany it a little bit, while it tries to stand on its own two feet. We don't do it perfectly, but it's still useful, even if it doesn't create paradise. But no one should kid themselves. It's a constant uphill struggle. And so we should sober our expectations, but not dampen our resolve. For the sake of our own national interests and those of our allies, we have to move forward--with prayer and conviction. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as an American, and the daughter of a disabled veteran, I take deep pride in our great Nation. To me, the flag symbolizes our strength, our democracy, and our unprecedented freedoms--freedoms that set us apart from every other country in the world. Our Constitution guarantees all of us this freedom, including the right to free speech. I believe we should be very cautious about altering this document, because to do so alters the fundamental ideals on which our country was built. I am deeply troubled by the implications of this proposal; namely, that some people believe it is now necessary to force Americans to respect their flag by enacting legislation demanding they do so. That is wrong and unnecessary. I do not believe this constitutional amendment will result in Americans having greater respect for authority, for our Government, or for our flag. Rather, I believe this amendment reinforces the idea that reverence for one's country and the symbols of one's nation must be imposed by law. And, I do not think that is what the American people need, nor do I believe this principle is consistent with our Nation's history of uncoerced respect for our country and flag. Instead, I hope parents will instill in their children, just as I have in mine, a deep respect for the flag. I also pray our Nation will never again be so divided that burning the flag becomes popular or acceptable. But it is my father who spoke most directly to my heart on this issue. In World War II, my father fought for this Nation in the Pacific theater. He was wounded in battle and some doctors believe that the shrapnel in his leg may even be the cause of the multiple sclerosis from which he has suffered for the last 30 years. When I asked him his feelings about this constitutional amendment, he was saddened and offended. He explained that he had not fought for the U.S. flag; he had fought and suffers still for the freedom that our flag symbolizes. That freedom is what this Congress may vote to limit. Mr. President, for the ideals embodied in our Constitution, for the respect I have for all our flag represents, and most personally, for my father's sacrifices, I will vote against this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just say at the outset that I think it is incredible that we are here today debating this bill. There are unfinished appropriations bills, and an unresolved Federal budget situation that demand our full attention. I believe the American people would prefer us to address the real issues of the day--issues that affect our hard-working families--and not this kind of divisive, inflammatory legislation. Of course, the reality is that we are here and we are considering this so-called partial-birth abortion ban, and there are a few things that I want to say regarding the bill, and also to talk briefly about the amendment offered by my friend, Senator Boxer. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to this debate and I am increasingly convinced that it is far from being a clear and narrowly defined piece of legislation, as the proponents of the bill keep claiming it to be. I find it to be a vaguely written and dangerous attempt to ban not just a single procedure. Rather, I see it as a way to instill fear and confusion in the doctors who perform abortions, and to deter them from performing a procedure that may help save a woman whose life is in danger. It seems clear to me this bill is about families who are faced with a terrible tragedy, and it is about the doctors who must make an expert decision based on what they believe to be in the best interest of the mother. Frankly, this bill is about Congress muscling its way into the doctor's office. It is not only presumptuous, it is unprecedented and it is dangerous. We are proposing to criminalize doctors, and I want to caution each and every one of my colleagues to stop this legislation. Like Senator Boxer has said, this is a slippery slope we do not want to start down. But, unfortunately, it looks like there are Senators who are intent on pressing on with this bill, and so we, at least, have to try and do what our colleagues in the House failed to do--to include an exception for cases to save the life and health of the mother. Mr. President. The Senator from New Hampshire has offered an amendment which he claims provides a life of the mother exception. Well, I will vote for his amendment, because it is at least a step in the right direction. But let's be honest. The amendment makes no room for instances where, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the procedure would be necessary to avert serious health consequences to the woman-- consequences such as severe hemorrhaging or paralysis. Only the Boxer amendment can be considered a true life exception. Only the Boxer amendment takes the health of women into account. Only the Boxer amendment sends the right message to the families of this Nation, to the women who are faced with an unimaginable tragedy. We hear, over and over again, graphic depictions of this procedure, but what of the vivid descriptions of the pain and torment these mothers have gone through? Of the horror of losing a much wanted child? Of the fear that she will never again have a chance to have a baby? Is there anyone here who honestly believes these women are choosing to have a late-term abortion? This insinuation is an affront to the women of this Nation. The small number of women who have late-term abortions do so because their doctors have determined it to be medically necessary to save their lives and their health. End of story. The Boxer amendment says: We respect you and will leave this difficult decision where it belongs--between you, your doctor, and your God. We think it is important to allow families to choose the procedure that is best for them, to best protect the health of the woman and to best safeguard her chances of being able to conceive again. Without this amendment we send the women of this country the message: ``We don't care about you, we don't respect your or your doctors. The U.S. Congress and the Federal Government know best. Well, I don't believe Congress know best. We should leave this difficult decision to the experts and to the families who are faced with this tragedy. Congress has no place telling doctors what procedures they can and cannot perform--we have never even considered getting involved in the lives of physicians, and we shouldn't start now. Not this way. There is too much at stake, and I appeal to the common sense and humanity of each Member of this Chamber: If you must pass this reprehensible bill, at least vote to include this critical modification, and allow for exceptions in cases where women's health and lives are at stake.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I am pleased to come to the Senate floor today to express my support for a bill I cosponsored, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. I commend Chairman D'Amato and Senators Dodd and Domenici for their work on this bill. They have done a fine job of crafting a strong bipartisan measure and then guiding it successfully through conference--and I have been pleased to work with them on this issue over the past 3 years. Madam President, this is an important day for many of the small investors in Washington State and throughout the country. This bill takes the power out of the hands of a few lawyers and puts the power back in the hands of the investors. We all know that in many of these class action lawsuits, the investor often recovers as little as 10 percent of the damages caused by fraudulent activity while their lawyer takes millions. Madam President, I recently heard from a constituent who received a settlement in a suit against a high technology firm in Washington State. This particular investor received a prorata share of the damages amounting to 3 cents per share, or just $30, while the lawyer in that suit walked away with the rest. The individual in this suit told me, ``my investment was hurt much more by my lawyer's actions, and his extortion of $1 million from the firm, than by any alleged actions on the part of the company's management.'' Madam President, this is neither what our investors want nor expect. It is outrageous and needs to be corrected. The legislation before us will reform our securities law so that investors will have more of a say in the outcome of their suit. It will restore the plaintiff's role and enable them to exercise traditional plaintiff functions--including the selection of lead counsel, negotiating fees, and determining the distribution of settlements. Quite simply, it puts some common sense back into our legal system. Madam President, I've seen the ads denouncing this legislation, and I've heard the arguments opposing this legislation. This bill has inspired some very intense, focused, and well-funded opposition. The bill's opponents claim this legislation will harm small and elderly investors. Well, I believe that assertion is completely false. In no way does this bill take away one's ability to file suit. Nor does it undermine the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to sue for damages in securities fraud. In fact, the legislation enhances the SEC's ability to do so. Madam President, Americans have a right to know their investments are secure--that our money has been invested in good faith. Today, investors are denied valuable information because companies are reluctant to disclose forecasts in fear of litigation. This serves nobody well; and it especially hurts investors that are trying to make sound, well-educated investments. I am pleased to note that the SEC has endorsed the safe harbor provision in this bill. SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt has written, ``the current version represents a workable balance that we can support since it should encourage companies to provide valuable forward-looking information to investors while, at the same time, it limits the opportunity for abuse.'' I agree with Chairman Levitt and I value his opinion. This safe harbor provision will be good for both investors and corporations. Ultimately, if an investor has been the victim of fraud--no matter how big or how little--they have a right to equal treatment under the law. This legislation ensures that will happen, better than under today's laws. And, Madam President, Congress has a unique role in promoting investor confidence. We must encourage investments; investments that are needed for capital formation, economic growth, and job creation. This is especially true in Washington State--which is home to many high technology and biotech companies. And investors in Washington State like to invest in these companies. Unfortunately, Washington State's investors are well aware of the damage that is caused by unwarranted court cases. They know these cases inhibit job creation and slow economic growth. They know how companies are forced to waste resources and settle suits with capital that could have been used for the research and development of a new product. I have heard from many of these companies in my home State. Companies such as these--new, growing, forward-looking--are a point of pride in the Pacific Northwest. They reflect the high technology, high wage economy of the future. [[Page S 17981]] Nobody likes to see these companies attacked by a few overzealous lawyers. These companies lose millions of dollars each year fighting the allegations of fraud--while the actual investor receives just pennies on the dollar when a settlement is finally reached. Madam President, this system needs reform, and Congress is obligated to correct the situation. And, I want to make it very clear--this bill retains an investor's right to bring suit if they are victims of securities fraud. At the same time, it will clamp down on the abusive suits they prey on investors and small business owners. It is honest effort to reduce the excessive costs that burden our investors and our economy. Madam President, let me conclude by recalling the first Senate vote on this bill. When I voted for this bill in June, I said I would not support a conference report if it contained some of the more onerous provisions in the House bill. Well, not only is this conference report almost identical to the Senate bill, it is even stronger in some respects. It is a good compromise and it restores some common sense to our legal system. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the bill we have before us provides an excellent example of how good people, working together, can find a way to balance safety and cost concerns. I commend the bipartisan effort that developed the Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995. I also rise to thank these same chairmen and ranking members for agreeing to the amendment that Senator Gorton and I proposed regarding the city of Seattle's water supply that was approved earlier today. Safe drinking water is probably the single most important thing a government can supply its people. This bill, S. 1316, accomplishes that task by giving the Environmental Protection Agency flexibility to set drinking water standards based on peer-reviewed science. It encourages State and local governments to become full partners in the development, implementation, and enforcement of drinking water regulations. It targets our scarce public resources toward greater health risks and away from more trivial risks. S. 1316 will be particularly helpful for small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. These small systems will be eligible for variances that allow them to use affordable treatment technology. While regulators may grant variances, S. 1316 also authorizes consumers to participate in the decision to grant a variance and requires variance renewals every 5 years. I have heard from many small communities about how burdensome the current Safe Drinking Water Act requirements are. I share their enthusiasm for the flexibility and innovation contained in this bill. I also want to draw my colleagues' attention to the amendment Senator Gorton and I proposed regarding the city of Seattle water supply. With our amendment, Seattle will be able to provide its customers safer water, at a lower cost, and with a better taste than it could have under current filtration requirements. Our amendment will allow local governments that have undeveloped watersheds with a consolidated ownership to use a process other than filtration if that alternative ensures significantly greater removal of pathogens. The Seattle Water Department has concluded that ozonation, a process commonly used in Europe, may provide 100 times more protection from Cryptosporidium and other pathogens than would a filtration system. Should ozonation deliver as much protection as it promises, the people of Seattle will have safer water and will pay $130 million less for that safety than they would have had to pay for a Cedar River watershed filtration system. Mr. President, like all bills that pass through the process of compromise and negotiation, S. 1316 is not perfect. However, it is a good bill that goes a long way toward solving some of the more troublesome aspects of the current Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill offers responsible reform, flexibility, and balance. I have heard from a number of local governments urging my full support of this bill. I intend to offer that support, while at the same time voting in favor of stronger right-to-know provisions. Again, I thank the chairmen and ranking members for their hard work on this bill and for accepting Sen. Gorton's and my amendment. Seattle's Water Supply Mr. President, I rise in support of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995 and commend the managers on their excellent work. In addition, I would like to address the amendment that Senator Gorton and I proposed, which was accepted as a managers' amendment, that will provide the people of the city of Seattle with quality drinking water at an affordable price. Like this bill before us, our amendment seeks to protect our citizens from unnecessary costs while providing safe, high quality drinking water. Our amendment requires the EPA to amend its drinking water protection criteria to allow a State to establish treatment requirements other than filtration where a watershed is uninhabited, has consolidated ownership and has controlled access. Our amendment allows an alternative to filtration where EPA determines that the quality of the source water and alternative treatment requirements established by the State ensure significantly greater pathogen removal efficiencies than would a combination of filtration and chlorine disinfection. Mr. President, the Cedar River watershed is unique. The city of Seattle will own 100 percent of this 90,490 acre watershed by the end of the year. The city controls access to and activity in this watershed. It practices model land stewardship, supplying a wide variety of public values, including healthy populations of wildlife. In short, it is a crown jewel. It is the type of water supply all major cities should aspire to have. The watershed met all of the criteria for remaining an unfiltered supplier for the first 18 months after passage of the SDWA amendments of 1986. However, because of a severe drought and an abundance of wildlife, the watershed exceeded one of the unfiltered water criteria, that of fecal coliform. After receiving notification of noncompliance, the Seattle Water Department began investigating filtration and non- filtration systems to ensure it would satisfy requirements of the SDWA. The water department discovered that a process widely used in Europe, called ozonation, would reliably remove more cryptosporidium and giardia--the pathogens of most concern--than would filtration. An ozonation facility would inactivate 99.999 percent of cryptosporidium, while filtration would inactivate only 99.9 percent. In simple terms, ozonation can be economically designed to provide two orders of magnitude, or 100 times greater protection than filtration. Not only is ozonation more effective against the most serious threats to the Seattle water supply, but it costs less and makes the water taste better. The Seattle Water Department's studies indicate that an ozonation plant would cost its customers $68 million, while a filtration plant would cost $198 million. While Seattle water officials believe that the Cedar River water may require filtration sometime in the future, the system has a number of other more pressing needs--such as covering open, in-city reservoirs and installing a filtration plant in the Tolt River watershed--that make ozonation the best course for today. The ozonation plant will be built in such a way as to be compatible with a filtration plant should the need for one arise in the future. Mr. President, this amendment offers the city of Seattle needed flexibility so that it can provide its customers the safest water at the lowest cost in the very near future. It is worth re-stating that this filtration flexibility may be given only where a watershed is undeveloped and, most importantly, the alternative to filtration proves to ensure significantly greater pathogen removal efficiencies. Delivering safe drinking water is the fundamental goal of this amendment and this bill. Again, I thank the bill's managers for their assistance and support on our amendment and in developing the comprehensive, balanced Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the National Highway System Designation Act. I add my support to this conference report though, with serious concerns. Concerns over the safety provisions I originally voted for in the Senate legislation have now been replaced by changes to the bill that could threaten the safety of our Nation's highways. Of foremost concern is the Senate provision to require a national maximum speed limit for trucks and buses. This important mandate was dropped from the conference report and will not only increase speeds for the oversized vehicles, but also increase their stopping distances. I am also concerned over a House provision that could exempt trucks weighing 10,000 to 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating from Federal safety rules including driver hours-of-service restrictions, driver medical qualifications, safety equipment and maintenance requirements, and roadside driver and equipment safety inspections. Mr. President, I am hopeful that our State legislatures will step up and seek solutions to these shortcomings in an otherwise well intentioned piece of legislation. I was hesitant to support a conference report that retreats on issues of safety such as these, however the passage of this national highway system designation is essential to our Nation's very livelihood. A delay of implementation of this act will begin to cost my State of Washington approximately $120 million over 2 years. The time to move this bill is long overdue. We can not lose this valuable opportunity to support 4 percent for the Nation's four million miles of public roads. This National Highway System will carry 40 percent of the Nation's highway traffic and 70 percent of the truck freight traffic. One behalf of my State's Governor and secretary of transportation, I urge my colleagues to pass this conference report and continue our Nation's strong commitment to interstate commerce and mobility. Flexibility for Amtrak

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. ten thanksgiving stories

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, next Thursday, families from Forks, WA to Fort Lauderdale, FL will be coming together to enjoy each other's company and to celebrate a holiday unique to the history and heritage of our country. The tables will be heaped with food, prepared in many kitchens and brought together at the house of one family. For some families in our country, who do not necessarily have all that much to be thankful for, this may be the best meal of the year. If your family is at all like mine, there will be turkey and gravy and some kind of Jello salad. At dinner, there will be a card table for the little kids, and a couple of bigger kids who will not want to sit with them. After dinner, there will be games of Pinochle. There will be teenagers standing around, wishing something exciting would happen. There will be people in the living room, just starting to get sleepy. The television will be on, and the Detroit Lions will be losing again. And best of all, throughout the day, there will be many stories. The people in my life tell stories about many things. Stories about family members who could not come this year or family members who have died. Stories about war. Stories about work or friends or sports. Stories about a new birth, or an impending marriage. In most years, there is not much talk about government--unless something really bad is about to happen. I have a feeling I am going to hear a lot of talk about government this year. Right now, I can almost hear 10 stories that might be told around the tables at Thanksgiving this year, across this great land. Ten things people wish they did not have to talk about, but they will: First, there will be the story about Medicare. The elders always tell stories best, remember the bad times clearest, and complain about the Government loudest. Next Thursday, after grace has been said, an old man is going to pause, with the mashed potato spoon still in his hand, and say ``You hear what they're going to do to Medicare?'' This story, like the rest, is a sad one. The man knows that the budget needs to be balanced for the generations he can see around the table. He has heard that there has been fraud and abuse in Medicare billing. He knows that he is going to have to sacrifice for the betterment of the country. He just is not going to understand why Congress is going to take more money out of his Social Security check to give a tax break to people who do not need it. Second, there will be the story about Medicaid. The family is together, but they have to arrange to visit grandma at the nursing home. The family will go visit, but they will now have to worry about whether Congress is going to allow States to gut nursing home standards that protect grandma's health, safety, and financial security. They will have to worry about whether grandma will be the lucky one to get Medicaid funding when their State has to choose between paying for pregnant women, children, the elderly, or the disabled, because Congress gave them less money to meet the growing needs they face. Third, there will be the story of the adult children in the family, who never before had to worry about being held responsible for the costs of grandma's nursing home care, but now will. They have worked hard to raise their own family, save money for their kid's education, and for their own retirement. Now they will have to deal with extra costs from every angle. If they are working but low income, they will not get the $500 per child tax credit that the Congress is touting, because they will not pay enough taxes to get the deduction. If they do not have children yet, they will face the fact that Congress will be taking away the earned income tax credit they have counted on. If they do have kids, and do get the tax credit, they are going to need the money. Because when grandma cannot stay in the nursing home because Congress cut Medicaid, the family is going to have to build a new room onto the house. Fourth, there will be the college-age students and their story. They want to prepare themselves for a world where they know they will have to be qualified to compete. They are willing to swallow their pride and ask their parents for help; they are willing to work; and they are willing to pay off loans after college. But none of that will matter. The Congress is going to take $5 billion out of their student loan programs, and give it to the banks. Congress is going to decimate the Direct Lending Program, which gives students their money more efficiently, and eliminates bureaucracy and the middle man. In addition the budget eliminates Perkins loan funding and drops 280,000 students from Pell grants. Fifth, there will be the story of the younger students, who need to have a relevant public education to get them ready to go on to college, into some other form of training, or directly into work. For these students, the Congress is going to cut almost $4 billion from discretionary but vital education programs, including title I basic skills instruction for 500,000 additional students, State student incentive grants, school reform, Head Start, and AmeriCorps. Sixth, there will be one of the most tragic stories of all--the story of what will happen to all the children in the great country of ours. Services to help children, from Medicaid to pay their medical bills, to school lunch and day-care nutrition programs, to childhood immunizations are all going under the ax in what the majority party is painting as some kind of epic and heroic moment in American history. These cuts will certainly be historic. This is probably the first time in history that the American Government declared war on its own children, when it knew better. If the Congress wants to balance the budget, American families are all for it. But Americans are pretty steadfast when their own family is threatened, and this is a battle that the majority party in Congress should lose. Seventh, there will be the story of the welfare mom. This member of the [[Page S 17290]] family may not be sitting at your table this year, but she comes to many homes for Thanksgiving, and her sisters may one day come to your table or mine. Her story is one of tragedy piled on top of tragedy. Maybe she came from an abusive marriage, where she took beating after beating, and only got out after her abuser started hitting her kids. She probably did not have the benefit of education and training. She most likely had all kinds of things stacked against her. Invest in her life now, with child care and training, and she'll be a tax-paying citizen for years to come. But this Congress is going to cut child care, nutrition services, and kick this woman off public assistance as fast as possible, without the support that would allow her to join the work force. She does not have much to be thankful for with the passage of this budget. Eighth, there will be a story about the environment. A 12-year-old may ask why the Government wants to sell her heritage to big companies. She wonders about the polar bears and caribou that now live in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She asks whether the Native people she has read about, or whether her family, if she happens to be a member of Gwich'n tribe, will be able to continue to live where they have lived for 20,000 years--on the lands they love, subsisting on a now-abundant supply of wildlife. She sighs and asks her elders not to sell America's lands, our national forests, our national refugees, our national treasures--her heritage. Ninth, there will be the story of the family farm. The wheat farmer from eastern Washington, who has seen congressional Republicans adopt a Freedom to Farm Proposal that couldn't even be approved by the House or the Senate. The wheat farmer, who has seen the safety net for farmers eliminated, the safety net that has existed for almost 60 years. Farmers do not need this safety net when prices are good, but when prices are bad, these farmers, who supply the staple foods of our society, need our support. They deserve our support. The family farmer, who works to grow the food that provides the bounty for Thanksgiving dinners for families across our Nation--this farmer is forgotten in the Republican budget. Tenth, the last story, will be a story of real thanks. After all these other stories, after the eyes roll skyward, after the anger, after the frustration, they will all join hands and give thanks. The members of this family will thank their God that they are all together for the holiday. They will be thankful for the good food and warmth of family, but mostly, they will be very thankful that the Members of Congress are also home with their families, and not doing more damage from the floors of the House and Senate. Mr. President, I continue to worry about the priorities in this budget. We all know this budget will be vetoed; for that I am thankful. When it is returned, I intend to work very hard with my colleagues to ensure we will then pass a budget that is good for our children, our families, and our future.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Federal Government is now in its third day of shutdown, and just like 3 days ago, there certainly is no end in sight and it seems like we in Congress are destined to flounder for a couple of more days because the majority is insisting on debating a continuing resolution that the President has vowed he will veto. Listening to the rhetoric of the last hour it seems to me this is more about putting somebody into somebody's face than it is about solving problems. It seems like it is more about drawing lines in the sand and calling names than it is in making sure that this country gets moving again. I have to ask the question, why are we doing this? Why are we not putting together a proposal that we can all agree on, that will get the Government running again, restore public services, and put people back to work? I heard my colleague from Vermont a short time ago say it does not take 15 pages of paper with a lot of additions. It only takes one sentence to get us back to work again. I have to remind my colleagues the American people are tired and impatient. They want solutions, not politics and rhetoric. They want to know that Government works for them. They want to feel secure and have faith in their elected officials. Unfortunately today they are probably watching us in disbelief. They cannot believe we are unable to solve the country's problems. That concerns me. I want to move forward. I want Congress to get its act together and balance this budget. And the longer we take to do so, the more disaffected our constituents become. We just reinforce in their minds the belief that Congress is unaware of their real needs and concerns. They look at us and they say, ``How can those people really understand how difficult it is for me to pay the rent, put food on the table for my kids, or take care of my elderly parents? All they can do in DC is whine and squabble about where they sat on an airplane.'' As we muse about Presidential politics and other hi-jinks, we better not forget what this Government shutdown really means. We have all heard the numbers. We know that 30,000 people a day are unable to apply for Medicare. And we know this Government shutdown is costing us $200 million a day in lost productivity. But the shutdown comes a little closer to home when we put human faces on those numbers. One woman, an attorney from Seattle, called my office yesterday. She is trying to adopt a child in China. For months she has been filling out paperwork and dealing with bureaucratic redtape. She finally got her plane ticket but because the United States Consulate in China is closed, she cannot get her baby's visa. So she was forced to postpone her trip. She has no idea when she will finally be united with her new baby daughter. She is a real person. And she is hurting because of what we are doing on this floor. Last weekend I was in central Washington for the opening of the Yakima Valley Veterans Center. Many of the people I talked to wanted to celebrate the opening of the new center, but because of the pending Government shutdown they were too worried about whether or not they were going to receive their veterans benefits. Today's Spokesman-Review paper ran an article about a young man in Spokane, WA, who quit a stable computer-based job to take his dream job. He was going to become a physical fitness director aboard a cruise ship. The young man was offered the job unexpectedly on November 4. He scrambled to get his paperwork taken care of and a passport in time to sail by November 25. Unfortunately, this Government is shut down. He cannot get his passport and time is growing short. I want to read that young man's words into the Record. They could not be more to the point. He said: This is a dream in my heart that finally manifested. The Government is getting in the way of people's dreams. I've got airplane tickets. Everything is settled. Everything but this last hurdle. These few people provide just a few examples of what a Government shutdown really means. They are angry and concerned. They have bills to pay, families to care for, business to conduct, and dreams to fulfill. Instead, we are telling them, ``not now.'' So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to act wisely. Let us move on. Let us put together an honest and reasonable continuing resolution that will get this country back on track. My view is pretty straightforward. As a Member of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee I know I have a job to do. The job is to pass a budget plan and 13 appropriations bills. So far, this Congress has done neither. In fact, just yesterday the House failed to pass the Interior bill for the third time. There are five other bills that have not even made it to this floor yet. Instead of getting our work done, we are debating a bill we know will be vetoed. It will be vetoed because it stacks the deck against working families and senior citizens in favor of unneeded tax breaks. We are not moving the process forward one bit; we are ensuring that it will go nowhere. I say it is time to get our work done. We can balance the budget. We can stay true to our priorities. And we can do it without interrupting the lives of regular, everyday people in our States. All we need to do is pass a clean interim spending bill and then get on with our business of finishing the overall budget. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on the Department of Defense appropriations bill, and I would like to take this opportunity to outline several of my concerns. In the coming year, American families across this country will begin to feel the very real effects of the budget cuts this Congress has made in most of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. Programs across the spectrum are being deeply cut or eliminated in an attempt to eliminate this country's spiraling national debt. Unfortunately, while the Republican spending bills make deep cuts in programs for children, the poor, veterans, and the elderly, defense spending has been insulated from cuts and, in fact, increased dramatically. The bill before us increases defense spending by $7 billion above the President's request, at a time when we are cutting $270 billion from Medicare, $170 billion from Medicaid, $114 billion from welfare, $36 billion from nutrition programs, and $5 billion from student loans. Mr. President, I have a deep and strong respect for our Nation's military, which is second to none in the world. Our Armed Forces deserve the gratitude of this Nation for the protection and security they provide to the American people. Congress has an obligation to ensure that our military personnel are adequately compensated for their work, and that they have the best tools possible to work with as they undertake their many and difficult missions. But in this era of shared sacrifice where no one is spared the budget ax--not children, seniors, nor veterans--I cannot support a bill that goes so far beyond the Pentagon's request for defense spending and fails to cancel even a single major weapons program. This bill is a bad deal for the taxpayer and a bad deal for our military, who will have to live with unrequested and unneeded weapons systems provided for them from a Congress that refuses to take no for an answer. During the cold war, Americans made sacrifices here at home so that our national resources could be used to defeat communism around the globe. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and with it, the Warsaw Pack. The Soviet Union officially dissolved in 1991. We fought the war, and we won. In the aftermath of the cold war, I believe American families deserve to live in a safer and more stable world. They deserve to know that more of their tax dollars are going to educate their children and police their streets. Time and again when this body has debated domestic spending bills my Republican colleagues have urged us to have the courage to cut funding for this program or that program--saying they have outlived their usefulness. So why, Mr. President, does the bill we are voting on today continue funding for several cold war-era programs that have clearly outlived their usefulness? And where, Mr. President, are the calls for courage to terminate programs we cannot afford? For example, the conference report provides $700 million as a downpayment on a third Seawolf nuclear-powered attack submarine. Nearly everyone acknowledges that this third Seawolf is not necessary to meet force structure requirements. This program, as my colleagues know, was designed to combat the ``great Soviet Navy''--a Navy that is now in port and in serious need of repair. Supporters of this program claim that construction of this third Seawolf is needed to preserve the submarine industrial base. But Mr. President, overall the Seawolf program has cost the taxpayers of this Nation $12.9 billion. In this budget climate, it is inexcusable to continue funding the Seawolf, especially given the lack of mission for this submarine. Likewise, it is simply unforgivable that the bill before us resurrects funding for the B-2 bomber program, providing $493 million to keep that program alive. This, despite the fact that several years ago Congress agreed to terminate this program after 20 planes had been built, because Congress recognized that in the aftermath of the cold war, this aircraft lacks a realistic mission. Nonetheless, it appears that Congress is on a path to fund yet another 20 planes which, according to the Pentagon, will cost $31.5 billion in the coming years. The Pentagon does not want this program, and clearly cannot afford it. The Pentagon does not want to take on the immense financial obligations of further B-2 procurement--knowing that this unneeded system will take precious and scarce dollars away from other priorities. Let's keep these issues in perspective. The unmasked for and unneeded funding this bill provides for the B-2 bomber--the $493 million--is more than enough money to pay the tuition, room and board, and book costs of all the undergraduates at the University of Washington for their entire 4 years. That's 20,500 students. And as I've noted, the money provided this year is just a downpayment on the $31.5 billion that will ultimately be needed to build 20 more planes. For that amount, 1.3 million Washington State residents could get a 4-year education at the University of Washington. Ironically, the conference report we are considering today fails to fund one program that I believe is a real cost saver for the Pentagon and the taxpayer, and provides an effective response to our Nation's airlift problems. The Non-Developmental Airlift Aircraft Program [NDAA], designated as a pilot program under the Federal Acquisition and Streamlining Act of 1994, is an ideal model that demonstrates how commercial products can support military missions. I am disappointed that the conference committee failed to provide funding for NDAA, which stands to improve our current airlift shortfall and provide several billion dollars in budgetary cost savings. So, Mr. President, as we ask teachers and students to accept dramatic cuts in education spending, worker training programs, and student loan programs, so too must we find ways to trim our defense budget. And as we ask preschoolers and their parents to accept deep cuts in Head Start funding, we must find ways to trim our defense budget. And as we ask rural Americans to accept cuts in mandatory agriculture spending, we must find ways to trim our defense spending. And as we ask children and the elderly to shoulder billions in Medicare and Medicaid cuts, we must find ways to trim our defense budget. In America today, one in four children, and one in three infants, are covered by Medicaid. And as we ask our Nation's scientific community to accept millions in cuts for basic research, we must find ways to cut our defense spending. In the coming years, the Republican budget blueprint increases the veterans' contribution for GI bill education benefits, and freezes funding for the VA's medical system at the 1995 level for the next 7 years, cutting access to health care for veterans around the Nation. Under the Republican proposal, the VA will be forced to close the equivalent of 35 of its 170 hospitals and deny care to over 1 million of our Nation's vets. Proponents of this bill point to recent declines in defense spending with alarm. While spending for our military is down from the mid-1980's level, we must keep this trend in perspective. The United States today has the largest military budget and the most powerful military force in the world. The combined military budgets of Russia, Iraq, China, North Korea, [[Page S 17164]] Libya, Iran, Syria, and Cuba total $95 billion annually. That is one- third the level of U.S. defense spending. Each year, the United States spends more than the next nine of the world's biggest military spenders combined. In fact, this country spends so much for defense, even the Pentagon can't keep track of it all. According to the GAO and the Pentagon's inspector general, as well as the Pentagon's Controller John Hamre, billions of defense dollars are lost year after year due to poor recordkeeping and lax accounting practices at the Department of Defense. At the very least, Congress should hold defense spending to the President's level until the Pentagon can fix their payment procedures and bring some accountability to the system. We owe that much to the Nation's taxpayers. But most of all, in order to project strength abroad, we must gain strength here at home. Our national security, in my view, will not be strengthened by yet more guns and missiles. We need to restore global economic leadership. We must invest in our children and their future-- in their education and their health. We must rebuild our cities and our infrastructure, and invest in technology and scientific research. We must ensure that the economy our children inherit in the next century is sound and growing. So, in closing, Mr. President, it is with regret and disappointment that I must vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2 additional minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Does the Senator from Alaska wish to take some time?

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left on both sides?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 minute.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from North Dakota.