Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the asset sale scoring prohibition amendment jointly offered by Senators Bumpers, Bradley, and me. The budget resolution before us has been termed an historic document. It certainly is. For the last decade, the Congress of the United States has recognized that our public lands and other Federal assets were too precious to sell or lease unless Congress or the Administration decided that so doing was in the best interest of the public. That is good policy and one that traditionally has enjoyed strong bi-partisan support. But it is a new day. Today, we may well vote to sell our children's heritage to pay our debts. I reject this approach to debt reduction and I reject this approach to disposition of our Federal assets. While this bill only puts up for sale the rights to develop oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, these wilderness lands are only the beginning. Other public lands, national treasures and assets are being proposed for sale in the House budget reconciliation bill and more likely will be targeted next year and the year after. Henceforth, unless this amendment is adopted, any public lands or Federal assets can be sold for the quick cash and political capital gained from balancing the budget in a given year. It is a dangerous, bad precedent. Mr. President, our assets should not be sold simply to reduce the deficit. Instead, our Federal assets should be sold only when, after reasoned debate and a full public airing, we decide their sale is in the best interest not only of our generation--but of every generation that follows. We owe our children much more than a balanced budget. We owe them their heritage. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support our important amendment and thwart efforts to sell our heritage for quick cash.

Mrs. MURRAY. President, we have been debating this budget reconciliation for several days now, and I must say it looks no better now than it did when we were debating the budget resolution 5 months ago. In fact, its details are more troubling than I could have imagined, and, not surprisingly, the concern in my home State is much greater than I ever predicted. What concerns me most is this budget seems to have no core values or principles that mean anything to American families. Its principles seem to be program cuts for the sake of program cuts, and tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts, with little regard for the consequences. I cannot understand the philosophy that prevails here that we have to somehow scorch the Earth in order to balance the budget. Mr. President, I, too, want to balance this Nation's budget. In fact, I am proud to say I supported the 1993 budget package. That plan has this Nation on the right track; since its passage, our annual deficits have declined in each consecutive year. Earlier in this debate, I supported a balanced budget proposal put forth by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. His plan would have balanced our Nation's deficit in a fair and equitable manner. It would have maintained a commitment to education, health care and retirees. It would have brought our spending in line with our national priorities, and it would have postponed the tax breaks until we can afford them. It was a responsible and realistic alternative; most importantly, it had core values and principles that are important to every citizen in this country. And, I, too, want to reduce taxes. Believe me, I know what it takes to raise a family, balance the family books and pay taxes. I know how badly my friends and neighbors want tax relief, and I understand how difficult it can be for families to cope with their tax burdens. I also know how expensive it is for small, family-owned businesses to keep their businesses in the family, and I believe targeted estate tax relief is one example of good tax reform; as is allowing first-time homebuyers to make tax-free IRA withdrawals for the purchase of a new home. But, there is a right way and there is a wrong way to balance the budget, and the plan before us balances our budget the wrong way. We cannot afford to balance this Nation's budget on the backs of our children and the elderly, so that those who are already better off can put more cash in their checking accounts. We cannot afford to give tax breaks to people who don't need them, and then increase taxes on the working poor and health insurance on the elderly. It is interesting to note that many of my colleagues argue on behalf of this budget package by claiming it will benefit our children and grandchildren in the long run. They claim we will give our children a better economy and lower interest rates tomorrow by balancing the budget today. They fail to note that this plan cuts our investments in the future to do so; programs like head Start and WIC and college loans and AmeriCorps. I ask, what good will lower interest rates do for my children and grandchildren if we reduce their access to higher education and vocational training, ultimately limiting their ability to acquire the skills they will need to find a family wage job? Moreover, the proponents argue these tax breaks will enable families to save more for the future. However, current estimates reveal that these tax breaks will increase our Nation's debt by roughly $93 billion. That's $93 billion our children and grandchildren will be paying back through higher taxes later. This sounds like the 1980's all over again. It is imperative that we understand how this budget plan really impacts our children and families. How does it impact average Americans? Does this budget provide hope, or does it tell hardworking Americans they're on their own? Does it provide security and safety for our children and elderly, or does it lead to uncertainty and anxiousness? These are just a few of the important questions I considered when looking at this budget reconciliation. We should be providing hope for the families that are struggling to pay their rent, feed their children and care for their elderly parents. Instead, we are showing these families and their children that the only way to address these difficult issues is to cut the heart out of what they need to survive--education, health care and good jobs. Last month, I held a forum back in Washington State to talk about the varied issues surrounding Medicare. I expected one or two dozen to attend. Instead, over 500 people showed up to express their views. people are concerned. They are anxious, and not quite certain what a $270 billion Medicare cut means to them. How much more money will be taken out of their Social Security check each month? And what are seniors on a fixed income going to get for their sacrifice? I hope it is more than a tax break for somebody else. This budget is not providing certainty or hope. My constituents see difficult times ahead. They are wondering how they will pay for health care. And then there's Medicaid. This program serves the elderly in nursing homes, the adult disabled, pregnant women, and children--the most vulnerable in our society, and the working families that support them and care for them every day. This budget will take $187 billion out of Medicaid, do away with the standards of care, block grant the program, and let States decide who won't have their medical costs covered. The fears that working families have about the Medicaid cuts can best be summed up by a letter I recently received from a worried mother: What will happen to our family when my mother, who has Alzheimer's disease and lives with us, has no more funds and we can no longer care for her at home? My children's education depends on both my husband and me working. If one of us becomes unemployed or must take on full-time care taking responsibilities, we risk grave financial consequences for all of us. The lack of social priorities isn't the only problem in this budget. It fundamentally stalls the best economic development initiatives this country has in order to compete in the global marketplace. There are over 30,000 Boeing employees in my home State on strike as we speak. There No. 1 issue is job security. The global economy and increased competition has made these employees, and many others like them, uncertain about the future. They increasingly look to us for support. They want to know what the Federal Government will do to help them compete in the global marketplace. This budget provides no security or hope. Instead, it proposes deep cuts in trade promotion programs and trade adjustment assistance. It demolishes the Commerce Department at a time when Secretary Brown has maximized [[Page S 16054]] its effectiveness on behalf of American businesses. This budget sends the message that the Federal Government will provide no leadership in international competition, and has no role in cultivating good, high- paying jobs that will lead our families into the 21st century. And what about the tax increases in this budget? This budget says working families do not count in the scope of principles governing this budget. Many families will see tax increases because of the proposed cuts to the earned income tax credit. We all know how important the EITC is, and we're all aware of the bipartisan support it has received over the years. As President Reagan once said, ``this credit is one of the most successful profamily, prowork initiatives ever to come out of Congress.'' The budget before us will reduce the EITC by $43.5 billion over 7 years. In my home State, low-income working families with two children will see a $452 tax increase in 2002 and a $522 tax increase in 2005. The worst aspect of this tax proposal is that it increases taxes on approximately 17 million hard-working Americans while the top 13 percent of income earners will reap 40 percent of the tax breaks. Does this provide security and hope for our low- and middle-income taxpayers? It does not. Reducing the EITC simply will drop many working families into poverty, and make it more difficult for families to take care of their children and parents. The environment doesn't escape this budget, either. I am concerned about the impacts this bill will have on public lands and other national assets. For decades, the Congress of the United States has recognized that our public lands and assets are too precious to sell unless their sale is in the best interest of the public. But it appears to be a new day. Today, this committee may vote to sell--or lease--our children's heritage to pay our debts. The leasing of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in particular is not an issue of revenues. It's a question of values. It's a question of whether we are willing to trade off open space, parks, wilderness, and wildlife values--the natural legacy for our children--for a short-term payment toward the bills we have accumulated--or worse, for a tax cut for ourselves. There truly is a right way to balance the budget; a way that provides security and hope and a way that assures average Americans that we are looking out for them. I tried to instill some of this common sense into the budget resolution, and I am pleased the Senate responded to my amendment calling for an appropriate level of Impact Aid funding. I only wish we could have had more cooperation across the board on other education needs like Head Start, School-to-Work, and Safe and Drug Free Schools, and AmeriCorps. Mr. President, given the fundamental disrespect for families in this budget, I am forced to oppose this reconciliation package. It does not have important core principles, and I'm afraid it is leading toward an America far different from the one I grew up in. I am alarmed at its shortsightedness. I fear it was motivated by a desire to balance the budget by a given date, regardless of the consequences. This budget leads us down a new road; a road none of us have traveled. It says the Federal Government is no longer responsible for the welfare of its people. But, yet, who will be? Who will rise to the occasion? Who will pick up the slack? None of us know, but each of us should be prepared. Prepared, because this budget is calling each of us to be more vigilant, more aware of the needs of our families and neighbors, more willing to pay for the health care needs of our parents, children, and friends. Those of us in this room may be able to pick up the slack, but many in our home States will be hard pressed to meet this challenge. This budget is not good public policy. It is not why I was elected, and it's certainly not what the families in Washington State want.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the children of this Nation, about my hope they will not give up hope, and my wish they will look forward to a brighter future. I want to tell the children of this country and of my state--despite what is going on in this current budget fight--there are adults who care about them. I do not want to say the adults in the majority party don't care about our children. This budget plan does make me wonder, however, whether some Members of this austere body remember what it is like to raise children: It makes me wonder whether some Members have ever really had to deal with the modest problems and costs every working family has to deal with: the costs of child care, the costs of medical care, the costs of school lunch. [[Page S 16012]] I would simply remind those Members: caring does have a cost, and the cost is in no way reflected in this budget. Children in this country feel like they have less to look forward to than ever before. Many adults on this floor have decried the state of our children's present and future, and many of us have felt the eyes of these kids upon us as we have cast a vote or made a speech. So, here is what the majority will do for our kids in this budget: they will take away the health care coverage that allows kids to be healthy and ready to learn and grow. They will take away the child care that allows kids' parents to work. And, they will take away the foster care that helps kids in serious need. Well, we have an amendment to this budget reconciliation bill to repair the damage: it will restore current Medicaid coverage for pregnant women and their kids, restore child care, and restore foster care funding. On Medicaid, we need to preserve a basic safety net for children born into families of modest means. Medicaid is not free tummy-tucks for folks who don't need it. Medicaid provides preventive and emergency care for needy kids, and long-term care for disabled children--who could be the children of any American family. We are restoring Medicaid coverage for these children, on a per-capita basis, instead of a block-grant that would cause them to compete against the elderly or other groups. On child care, we cannot say to working mothers, struggling to stay off public assistance, ``Oh, by the way, we are cutting money that allows you to work for a living.'' The Republicans have cut $3.3 billion in title XX child care grants to States at the same time they are promising $3 billion under welfare reform. Do not try and trick anyone. They are cutting child care--our amendment restores the cut. On foster care, the majority is now going after children who do not even have birth-parents to rely upon. This cut is a classic: it tells a child, ``we're really sorry that it's not working out with your folks, and that this is the toughest time in your life, but we cannot afford to pay for your foster care.'' Meanwhile, of course, the Republicans want to give tax breaks to people who can already afford to leave their children in the care of a high paid nanny every day. Mr. President, our children are more important to us than a number on a balance sheet. I understand and agree we must balance the budget. We must preserve a future for our children, by not handing down our debts. But let us keep families alive, and able to work to support and raise their kids. Otherwise, we will shackle future generations with a much worse kind of debt.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for this very important amendment he has brought before us today. It seems, so often when we come out on the Senate floor, we get caught up in the charts and graphs and ``Senatese" terms that we hear so often and we forget what we are doing affects very real people and very real families across this country. I want to talk about one of those very real people. He is a young child. He is 21 months old. He lives in my State. His mother wrote me a desperate letter saying, ``Please do not take away Medicaid.'' Her son, Abe, was born with a severe medical disorder. He needs a modified ventilator to breathe 22 out of every 24 hours. In his short 21 months, he has had many surgeries to help put fingers on his hands, to help him breathe, to help him live. His mother said, without Medicaid, Abe would not be here. This mother is desperate because she knows, as all of us do, that if we change this bill in the way that is being proposed by the Republicans, she will have to fight for Medicaid coverage with everyone else in my State who is desperately going to be looking for help, and it is very likely that Abe will not have his ventilator once this goes to our States. I went out and I talked to hundreds of parents in my State who have children at Children's Orthopedic Hospital in my home State. These are parents who did not expect to have a child with a severe medical disorder. They did not expect to have a child with asthma, who was in the hospital every other week. They did not expect to have a child who had leukemia. And they did not expect that they would have to quit their job to stay home and take care of that child. They did not expect that their own medical insurance would run out within a very short time because of the limits on insurance. And they never expected to have to turn to the Federal Government to ask for help. But I can tell you everyone of those parents needs our help and this amendment will send that assurance back to them. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for this amendment. As I sit here and listen to this debate today, I cannot help but wonder how many of our colleagues depended upon financial aid to advance their education and build the foundation for their careers. This is a highly educated body. And judging from the vast array of degrees that are conferred upon my colleagues, I would have guessed that many were dependent upon Federal assistance to finish their schooling. However, the proposal to eliminate $10.8 billion in student loans forces me to question whether any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ever relied on financial aid to get an education. I can tell you I would not be here today without Federal assistance that made my college education possible. I will also tell you that working families will be the hardest hit by this gutting of our student loan program. These middle-income families often do not qualify for full scholarships and cannot afford to pay full tuition, particularly when $20,000 a year for tuition is today's norm in higher education. Why sacrifice our Nation's future by limiting educational opportunities for young people? This bill could have targeted the student loan industry, but instead 63 percent of the bill's student loan cuts fall directly on students and their parents. Take for example the increased rates on PLUS loans that are taken out by parents. I can tell you as a parent of two children entering the post-secondary world, I am concerned that families across this land will find these new loans out of reach. This aid is particularly important to those families without enough equity in their homes to take out a tax-deductible home equity loan. Mr. President, I am extremely concerned with the proposal to eliminate a small, but very important, element to those entering our work force. All of us realize the difficult challenges facing today's college graduate. The limited prospects of employment, coupled with financial independence, on top of an already mounting educational debt put many of our graduates today in fiscal hardship before they are ever able to contribute back to our society. To help these individuals during this difficult time, we have provided a 6-month grace period on their loan once they finish school. This is not loan forgiveness. It does not lead to increased deficits or defaults. It simply provides a new college graduate a few months to find a job and begin the process of becoming a contributing member of our society. Some say this is a minor provision, appreciated by few students. I will tell you, at the University of Washington, in Seattle alone, 12,000 students will feel the impact of this grace period. It means $2.4 million to those students. Finally, Mr. President, let us discuss a program that is working. The direct loan program is producing enormous benefits for all. In a recent survey, 112 campuses using the direct lending program were polled, and 90 percent reported satisfaction with the program. During this academic year more than 1,350 schools are making borrowing easier for their students through the direct loan program. It is praised by students and college presidents alike for its speed, efficiency, and lack of bureaucracy. Why are we capping this success at 20 percent of total loan volume when we know it works? Let us give direct lending a chance to work for our schools and its students. Mr. President, these cuts in our student loan programs are not economic savings. They are only going to shortchange our country's future. When we sacrifice our next work force for the sake of quick economic savings, we all mortgage our economic prosperity. The cuts in student loans are a direct impact to every single working family who wants to know that their child will be able to go on to college in this country that we are so proud of. Mr. President, I yield back my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to support this motion to recommit. I am deeply concerned about the Republican budget proposal and its all-out assault on rural America. I understand the need to balance the Federal budget. In fact, I've supported balanced budgets. But, I do not think we should do it on the backs of our working families and farming communities. They deserve better treatment than that. Just because the voice of rural Americans is not heard as loudly on Capitol Hill as others does not mean they can be ignored. This Republican budget attacks rural communities in my State of Washington on a number of fronts. Republican cuts to Medicare will force 157,700 older and disabled rural Washingtonians to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles for a weakened second class Medicare Program. The cuts will increase the severe financial pressure on rural hospitals in Washington. The average rural hospital will lose $5 million in Medicare funding over 7 years, forcing some to close their doors. In addition, the American Medical Association has stated that the Medicare cuts ``will unquestionably cause some physicians to leave Medicare''. Rural America is already suffering from a shortage of doctors when compared to the Nation as a whole and it will only become worse under this budget. Rural Americans will be paying more for less, and that is unacceptable. In addition, Medicaid cuts will eliminate coverage for children, nursing home residents, and people in need of long-term care. As many as 2.2 million rural Americans, including 1 million children will be denied medical coverage in 2002 if the Republican plan is adopted. Gordon Lederer, a farmer in Latah, WA, sits on the board of directors of the Tekoa Care Center. Patients pay $90/day at Tekoa, and Mr. Lederer said that the board does not know how the Care Center will continue to provide service to the community if the cuts to Medicaid are enacted. Mr. President, cuts to the earned income tax credit will cripple working families and their ability to provide for their children in rural Washington. The Republican cuts to EITC raise taxes on 49,945 working families in rural Washington by an average of $388 in 2002, imposing a $1.4 billion tax increase on rural Americans overall. And there's more. The 25 percent cut to farm programs will reduce farm spending in my State of Washington by $290 million, drastically reducing support for commodity programs. I am particularly concerned about the reductions in the loan rate for wheat. These reductions could threaten the viability of farms in my State. In fact, I just heard from Mack and June Crow, wheat farmers from Oaksdale, WA. Their son now runs the family farm and they are deeply concerned about the impacts of the farm program cuts on their farm's income and hence, their ability to survive. Farms are a symbol of American bounty recognized worldwide. They are a major part of Washington State's export-based economy. Most importantly, they are a way of life that roots us and grounds us in our history and our land. To balance the budget on the backs of family farmers is not only unfair, it is un-American. Republican cuts to education programs will deny basic and advanced skills education to 937 children in rural Washington. Small town schools in Washington are already having difficulty making ends meet. A 17 percent cut in title I funds will deny these schools crucial assistance as they struggle to adequately prepare our children for the future. In addition, cuts to rural nutrition, housing, and transportation programs as well as cuts to programs designed to protect the environment and public health add insult to injury, and will further undermine our rural Americans attempts to secure a solid future for themselves and their children. Mr. President, this Republican plan to balance the budget unfairly targets rural Americans. It burdens them with far more than their fair share of cuts. I therefore encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care about rural America to support this motion to recommit.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Harkin amendment to remove fraud and abuse from Medicare is a giant step in the right direction--saving taxpayer money, urging us toward a balanced budget, and striving for greater efficiency. However, the amendment is based on a concept both necessary and controversial. This amendment would require competitive bidding for Medicare part B items and services. I have heard from owners of numerous medical supply businesses in my State who tell me they will be driven out of business by this amendment provision. They tell me services will be cut to rural areas. They tell me services involved with setting up and instructing about medical equipment is essential for patients, and will be threatened under this amendment. Senator Harkin has made changes to his amendment language, to maintain access to services for rural and underserved areas. He has made changes to assure quality assurance standards, so that large companies are not able to undercut their competition simply by providing shoddy supplies and equipment. He points out the large difference between prices for supplies at Veterans Administration hospitals--which have competitive bidding--and prices from providers under Medicare part B. He makes a good case for solving some of our Medicare cost problems with a clear goal to find efficiency through competitive bidding, rather than just a budget decision. In light of these changes, I will vote for the amendment, but I want to be sure that we are doing everything we can to make this transition survivable for small business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. It is always a pleasure to be working with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley. It is unfortunate, though, today, that what we are trying to do is to fix the Republican budget and attempt to restore the earned income tax credit. Mr. President, this Republican budget will cut $43 billion from the earned income tax credit, and in so doing, this budget will be raising taxes on those earning less than $30,000 a year. I have to tell you, this is totally incomprehensible to me that while the Republicans are touting this budget and all the glory of its tax cuts, they are raising taxes on hard-working American families. Where is the logic in this? As one of my colleagues recently stated, this is nothing more than reverse Robin Hood--taking from the poor in order to pay for tax breaks for the most wealthy in America. The impact of this proposal is astounding. The numbers are staggering. This budget will raise taxes on 17 million families across America. In my home State, low-income working families with two children will see a $452 tax increase in 2002 and a $522 tax increase in 2005. What kind of message does this proposal send to our hard-working families? Does it provide security and hope? Or does it tell them they are on their own? Does it tell these families that are working to stay above the poverty line that we no longer reward hard work and support their efforts? Mr. President, the EITC has always received bipartisan support because it is a commonsense tax credit. It rewards work. It provides a real incentive. It gives people the means to move from the welfare rolls to the work force. As we all know, in 1986, Ronald Reagan praised the EITC. I remember him saying, ``It is the best antipoverty, best profamily, best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' As in President Reagan's day, many of today's hard-working American families are trying to make end's meet, send their kids to school and provide some hope for the future. Average Americans are worried today about their jobs. They are anxious about their cost of education. And there is genuine concern out there about the costs of health care. It is astounding that the other side has chosen this time to reduce the EITC. Mr. President, this tax increase is not a big deal to some of our colleagues here in the Senate, but, believe me, these are real increases to average Americans. As I have said many times throughout this budget process--I will say it again now--this budget has no conscience nor provides any hope. It hurts the little guy, those who need help, those who are struggling to make a living and provide for their children, and it rewards the rich. Taking away this tax credit adds insult to injury. The EITC keeps people off welfare. It offsets other forms of formal assistance. It gives American parents the security they need to enter the work force. We cannot balance the budget on our working poor, our elderly and our children, and we cannot justify cutting taxes for the wealthy while increasing taxes on the poor. We should put things back in perspective and help those who really need our help. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It tells working families we are in their corner. It says we are against increasing their taxes and we are for insuring their financial security. I commend my colleague from New Jersey and urge all of our colleagues to support this sound, commonsense amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. Madam President, I am here today to join my colleague from North Dakota and my colleague from California to express my surprise and outrage at the actions of the Budget Committee today. To have citizens of this country come before us to tell us their personal stories about how this budget would impact their lives, their very fragile lives, and not allow them the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes each to me was very un-American and a very sad moment in this Senate's history. These people represent literally thousands of people across this country who are as concerned as we are about the real life impacts of this budget. We did not hear from the senior citizen. We did not hear from a young man in a wheelchair who uses Medicaid dollars to continue breathing. We did not hear from a young man who is trying to get his education who is fearful that his student loan is going to go away and he will not be given that American dream, that American opportunity to finish his college education. We, in fact, have not heard from that welfare mother, that single mother who is off welfare with two little children in this country. She does not have the time to fly out here. She does not have the ability to pay. We have not heard from them. And this budget is going to impact them throughout America. Madam President, I ran for the Senate in 1992. I moved from my home State 3,000 miles away and brought my family with me to do this terrifically difficult job because I sat at home one day not that long ago, 3 years ago, and I looked across this country, and I said, ``Is anybody on that floor addressing the real issues that affect people like me?'' I am that sandwich generation. I have two kids at home. I have two parents who are seriously ill who rely on Medicare to continue living. And I know what it is like to worry about whether or not my kids will have the ability to go to college because of money. I know what it is like to get that phone call from a parent who says, ``I do not have enough money to go to the doctor.'' I know what it is like for my husband and I to both work every single day to pay our mortgage, to put food on the table, and who do not have time, like thousands of American citizens, to know what is in this budget. Yet, we are to know what is in that budget when it came before us before the Budget Committee in a stack this high, and we were told we had to vote on it in that minute. This budget will impact the lives of every single American working family in a dramatic and difficult way. It will mean that our kids will not have preschool education and Head Start. It will mean that there will be kids without immunization. It will mean kids who cannot go to college. It will mean Medicaid recipients--one out of five children in my State--who will not have health care coverage. It means senior citizens who will not have health care in this country anymore. And it means that those of us who will have to make a difficult decision about whether or not our parents need to go into a nursing home will not be able to know what the standard of care is there for them when they need it. This budget is what I came back here to fight for. As a U.S. Senator, we deserve the time, both as citizens in this country who come here to testify and as citizens on the floor of this Senate and as U.S. Senators, to have the opportunity to tell the American people what is in this budget.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California. I just want to point out, because I think this is the family who has been forgotten--we talked about them in the welfare debate. We said their mother has to go to work in this country. We passed that bill out of the Senate. It is passed out of the House. This is the single mother with two children who earns $12,000 a year. This is how this budget will impact this mother. She is going to lose her earned income tax credit. She is going to lose $373 a year under this budget. This mother is going to lose $300 a year on food stamps. This mother is going to lose $2,400 a year that pays for Medicaid and health care coverage for her children. And she is going to have to pay $480 to her State in order to collect child support from her missing husband. This budget will cost this single mother with two young children $3,553. As my colleagues have pointed out, she is going to lose. And who is going to win? The richest 1 percent of Americans will get a tax break every single year. I ask my colleagues. Who do we value in this country? Do we value a young mother who is working and trying to raise her kids? Are we going to ignore her in this budget process? I think it is critical that we take the time to evaluate it, and it is critical that we listen to the people across this country about the priorities that we are going to set in the future. I join my colleagues on the Budget Committee in expressing our outrage at what is occurring. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam President. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in offering this important resolution to designate October 19, 1995 as ``National Mammography Day.'' I am pleased to support this effort to set aside 1 day in the midst of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to increase awareness about the best method of reducing the breast cancer mortality rate--early detection by mammography. This frightening disease has taken the lives of far too many women, including many of my own friends. It is one of the leading killers of women--claiming the lives of more than 46,000 women each year. Breast cancer is a growing public health problem in this Nation, and a great threat to women's health. We can all agree that more must be done to educate us about the risks, prevention and treatment of breast cancer. I also believe we must be vigilant in supporting continued research on breast cancer, and clear up the mixed messages that women receive about ways to protect themselves from this disease. But, there is one indisputable fact that is very clear: early detection by mammography saves women's lives. Mammograms can detect 90 to 95 percent of all breast cancers and is the most reliable method of detection. In addition, and perhaps the most tragic feature of this disease--9 out of 10 women could survive breast cancer if detected early and treated properly. Mr. President, there is no question that education and awareness are some of our best tools for fighting this disease; combined with continued research and treatment breakthroughs. This day is critical in our efforts to win the battle against breast cancer. We owe it to our mothers; our daughters; our sisters; our neighbors and our friends to get the word out--early detection can save your life. And we must not let our efforts diminish; every month should be Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I would like to thank my colleagues for expressing their commitment to saving women's lives, and for paying particular attention to raising awareness about the importance of mammography. I encourage all of you to support this resolution, and help us protect women from the tragedy of breast cancer.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleagues in exposing to the light of day the real lasting affects of the deep, reckless cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that are being rushed through this Congress. I want to focus specifically on the massive proposed scaling back of Medicaid and how it completely ignores the values of average, middle-income families today. Let me focus for a minute on one of the hidden surprises in the Medicaid block grant proposal--one that is going to devastate the so- called sandwich generation--my generation. The sandwich generation is those of us who are raising our kids at home, and who are also responsible for the health and safety of our aging parents. Today, under current Medicaid laws that have been in effect since 1965, adult children are not held legally or financially liable for their parents' [[Page S 15274]] health care. If the parents' health deteriorates and they enter a nursing home, Medicaid helps with the costs if they personally meet financial requirements. Republicans, however, today are proposing to repeal this protection, which will allow States to go after the life savings of adult children before Medicaid kicks in for their parents. In fact, if this law is repealed, working families in 29 States will immediately be subject to State laws requiring them to bear astronomical long-term care costs now covered by Medicaid. What does this mean in pocketbook terms? Caring for an elder in a nursing home costs an average of $36,000 to $40,000 a year. By the way, the cost of caring for a medically fragile child on a ventilator can easily cost as much as $86,000 a year, or more. This could be catastrophic to the average family budget. It is prejudicial, and it is unfair. Let us not forget, these are families already under stress trying to put food on the table, paying for their childrens' education, and trying to save for their own retirement. Some of these 29 States whose laws will go into effect if Medicaid is rolled back have general duty-to-support laws. These laws assume that since parents take care of children, children must later take care of the costs of their parents. Other States require reimbursement of nursing home and goods and services, similar to child support laws. Some States will actually impose criminal penalties for adults who do not contribute to the cost of their parent or family member in a nursing home. This means that working families will have to make new choices. They will have to choose between allowing their mom to be cared for in a facility where she will have access to medical attention and assistance, or quitting a job to take care of her at home. They will have to choose between paying for one family member's medical costs, or for the cost of another family member's education. Or paying for groceries. Or saving for retirement. Working families should not be forced to make such untenable choices. No one wants to make choices between the future of their own children, and the health of their parents. They should not have to. So why are these cuts being suggested? We have no crisis, financial or otherwise, that could merit these draconian measures. Any money that may be needed to continue our commitment to Medicare is not an issue with Medicaid. Under the guise of saving money, this cut will actually pit our citizens against one another. There are 36 million financially strapped Americans on Medicaid: 4 million elderly Americans, 6 million disabled Americans, 8 million American women, and most important, 18 million American children. Under the Republican proposal, over the next 7 years nearly one in every four Medicaid recipients will lose their coverage. Who will suffer when our State governments run out of money? Who will be turned down for benefits? An elderly woman waiting for vital nursing assistance? A disabled adult needing new sterile suction tubes for a ventilator? A medically fragile child whose body needs an essential mineral or amino acid to process food? I can tell you this; I would not want to be the one making that choice. This is real. It is going to be felt by real families, with real problems in my State and across this Nation. I got a letter recently from a mother who is scared about how this assault on Medicaid might affect her son Patrick, who is a 45-year-old man with infantile autism, which among other things, means that he has no verbal language. During Patrick's early life, no insurance company would cover the costs of his treatment or therapy, so it was no surprise that by age 16 he had deteriorated to the point where he was also afflicted with epileptic seizures. When Patrick's parents finally learned, on their own, that their son qualified for Medicaid coupons when he was 22, Patrick's life changed. He could receive treatment at any doctor, dentist, or pharmacy he needed to see, even though his parents sometimes had to remind people who tried to refuse the coupons that the medical schools they had attended had received Medicaid funding. Today, Patrick lives freely in the community, in his mother's words ``only because of the federally mandated program, Medicaid.'' Republicans in Congress would make Patrick and his family compete at the State level against pregnant mothers, severely mentally ill teenagers, elderly stroke victims in nursing homes, and medically fragile infants. All to be able to provide a tax break no one wants, to people who do not need it. This is nothing more than the legislative pursuit of political dogma, without regard for the consequences to real people. The core principals in these proposals are all wrong. This is not the America I grew up in, the country I believe cares about all of its citizens, no matter who they are or where they come from, or how much they are worth in financial terms. Let is look at the real problem. If this Congress is serious, it will focus on the $89 billion financial hole in Medicare, and will find a way to make these programs work better for families. We cannot just toss people on the street and hope things turn out OK. We hear so much about family values today. Well, I agree: it is time to start valuing our families. It is time to recognize that many many families are struggling today. Their real needs are family wage jobs and economic security; a good education for their kids and health care that is affordable. These draconian cuts, so hastily thrown together, will only increase economic insecurity of American families. I hope this Congress will have the integrity and the intelligence to stop these unnecessary cuts now, before it is too late.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to join so many of my colleagues [[Page S 15043]] in submitting this important resolution, to proclaim the week of October 15, 1995 through October 21, 1995 as the ``Week Without Violence.'' As a mother and as a woman, I am deeply troubled about the epidemic of violence in our Nation. And I have devoted myself to doing all I can, as a Senator, to make our streets, our neighborhoods, and our homes safe for our children and families. The numbers are shocking. But, often the real story gets lost in the statistics. Let us take a moment to reflect about what we mean when we say that violence is ever-present in our society. We are referring to senseless crimes committed among strangers; husbands physically and emotionally battering their wives; parents at the end of their ropes driven to abuse and neglect their own children; and young people with guns on the playground who have lost hope about their futures. I believe that education and public awareness are some of our best tools in bringing about an end to violence in our country. And that is why this ``Week Without Violence'' is so important. We must lead by example, and send a message to all Americans that we are committed to ending the cycle of pain, hurt, and fear destroying America's families and society as a whole. We need to work together with our neighbors, and local and national groups to communicate loud and clear the message that ``violence is unacceptable, abuse is wrong, and it's got to stop.'' But, education is not enough. We must maintain the Federal Government's commitment to preventing and reducing violent crimes. I am pleased the Senate recently restored funding for the Violence Against Women Act, and I encourage my colleagues to continue to support important programs like VAWA which are critical to ensuring the safety of our citizens. I also would like to commend the YWCA, the oldest womens' membership movement in the United States, for its ongoing efforts to resolve societal ills through nonviolent means, and for helping to reduce violence through prevention and education initiatives. And I also would like to recognize the invaluable services the YWCA provides to survivors of violence through job training programs, shelters, child care, and support groups for rape and assault victims. Together, we can make our country a safer place to live and raise our families. This ``Week Without Violence'' is an important step in that direction, and I am proud of our commitment to creating a safer tomorrow for all Americans.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the Simon- Specter amendment to the Workforce Development Act, which seeks to save one of America's most important programs--Job Corps. For over three decades, the Job Corps has received bipartisan support and has created a tradition of success. In this time, Job Corps has empowered 1.6 million of America's disadvantaged youth to become responsible, tax-paying citizens. Job Corps has proved its worth as a time-tested national program for at-risk youth. it is the only program offering a unique combination of residential education, support services, job training, and placement services. This amendment reflects inspector general and Department of Labor testimony and General Accounting Office data that do not suggest or recommend State block granting as a means to improve Job Corps accountability. The Workforce Development Act, as it currently exists, would close 25 Job Corps centers, one-fourth of the total Job Corps network. This represents an abandonment of $500 million in Federal facilities and the loss of thousands of jobs. The act would also currently end universal access to Job Corps for students and creates State restrictions for Job Corps programs. The Specter-Simon amendment takes a much more rational approach to Job Corps consolidation. The amendment would simply close 10 Job Corps centers--5 by 1997 and 5 more by the year 2000, providing weaker performing centers time to improve. It would preserve Job Corps as a national program and protects national partnerships that provide essential support, training and job placement services along with universal access to Job Corps for all eligible at-risk youth, regardless where they reside. Last year, 73 percent of Job Corps students found jobs with an average wage of $5.50 or returned to higher education after leaving the program. These numbers speak volumes about the success of the Job Corps Program. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to seek out Federal programs within each of their States that have proven track records. This is clearly one of those programs that has year-in and year-out provided the necessary direction of millions of disadvantaged young Americans. I applaud the work of my colleagues--Senators Simon and Specter, for their leadership, which strives to maintain a program so vital in each of our States. I believe this amendment will improve a Job Corps Program already demonstrating continued success.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Glenn amendment to the Workforce Development Act. Although, the Senator from Ohio and I may be at odds this week over baseball's American League Championship, I could not agree more with his amendment that includes displaced homemakers and single parents in workforce education programs. It is difficult to understand why these individuals, displaced homemakers, and single parents, are not currently included in this act. Congress has long mandated that these women had access to the job training and vocational education services needed to become and remain economically self-sufficient. Without including these single parents, we are severely penalizing women who choose to raise families and are then forced to cope without income due to the loss of their husbands or divorce. I must emphasize that this amendment is not a set-aside, with no mandated funding and it adds no cost to the bill. Further, the amendment preserves State flexibility and only clarifies that these services are permissible and not required by the State. The decision about how to serve displaced homemakers and single parents and at what level remains with the State. The amendment's definition of ``displaced homemaker'' is the same as under Federal legislation under JTPA, Perkins, the Displaced Homemakers Self-Sufficiency Act, and the Higher Education Act. When displaced homemakers are defined as dislocated workers, they are simply not served through workforce training programs. We cannot ignore this important segment of our population. These single parents are as deserving of career training as any other segment of our dislocated worker population. Further, this amendment continues the theme of the recently-passed welfare reform legislation that moves citizens from public assistance to payrolls through education. Let us come together on this amendment that truly supports family values. If we are to prioritize the working family in our society, we cannot forget those parents that have sacrificed economic gain for the growth of their children. When those single parents are left without a monthly paycheck, we must at least be willing to provide educational assistance that puts their family back on the road to self-sufficiency.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to a politician whose record refutes every negative interpretation of that word and whose life personifies the true meaning of the words ``public service.'' In Everett, WA, Liz McLaughlin--affectionately known as Ms. Liz--has announced she will retire this year after nearly a decade on the Snohomish County Council and a lifetime of citizen activism-- although the latter will no doubt continue. Liz was appointed to the Snohomish County Council in 1986, and it is no surprise that in her first special election and two subsequent reelections to this office, she never had a challenger. She was unbeatable because citizens knew and trusted her. Liz started to meet community needs many years ago by working in the Family Life Program at Everett Community College, showing early promise of her future accomplishments and leadership in children's and family issues. In 1979 she went to work for Congressman Al Swift where, as the full-time representative of the Congressman, she worked closely with people and federal agencies, as well as local and government projects which affected the whole community. And the people who met Liz throughout those years attest to the fact that beyond her official and professional duties there was always the warm, personal, and caring quality that made her a true public servant. After election to the county council, Liz focused on legislation which would affect families' and children's lives. She is proudest of her work in human services and was instrumental in establishing innovative programs like Dispute Resolution Centers; Family Support Centers; the Public Housing Trust Fund, which sets aside city and county funds for low-income seniors and people with special needs; and the North Sound Regional Support Network, a five-county association bringing mental health dollars to the local community to keep consumers close to their families. Legislation she authored was passed state-wide to provide a permanent funding source for family and dispute resolution centers. As might be expected, she chairs the county council's health and human services committee, and also serves on the public works utilities committee. She is vice president of the Washington State Association of Counties Western Region, serves on the WSAC legislative steering committee, the Snohomish County Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board, the Board of Health, and the National Association of Counties Education and Labor Committee. In addition to her council boards, she has served as board president for Everett Community College Foundation. Board member for Providence General Medical Center, and co-chair of the Human Services Council Partnership Forum. She has served as a director or [[Page S 14943]] member of numerous social service organizations and committees. The daughter of Swedish immigrants, Liz was born and raised in Monroe, WA, and has lived in Everett for 45 years. Liz and her husband, Don, who is retired from Weyerhauser, have two grown sons and two grandchildren. Liz's announcement of retirement was met with expressions of regret and loss from her colleagues and constituents, but they understand that she deserves more private time with her own family and, I am sure, some new challenges. I believe Liz chose politics as a way to accomplish community good on a larger scale than was possible as a lone caring individual. A strong believer in the two party system, she has long been active in her own Democratic Party, but always respected and was respected by her friends in the Republican Party. She did not lose her civility nor her sensitivity to other points of view. And she never forgot her personal responsibility to her constituents. A fellow councilwoman, Karen Miller, says: ``She always looked at how what we did would affect people in their day-to-day living.'' Ms. Liz, I salute you. In these days of intense cynicism about politics and politicians, your career stands out as a shining example of what a politician can accomplish and can be. You provide a model, in your motivation and in your performance, for all who seek to be entrusted with the public trust.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the level of funding for EPA and the legislative riders contained in this bill mean one thing for the citizens of our Nation: a lower quality of life. To a large degree, the quality of our lives depends on the integrity of our environment; the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil we farm and live on. For the last 25 years EPA has set out to improve and guarantee the quality of life for all Americans by cleaning up our air, water, and soil and keeping them clean. But with inadequate funding and congressionally mandated caveats and barriers, our people and our environment will no longer be adequately protected. We all need water to live. We are, in fact, 60 percent water ourselves. Clean water is essential to our survival. But riders in this bill would prevent EPA from protecting Americans from drinking water contaminants that are known to be harmful. Because of this bill, the public will continue to be exposed to contaminants like arsenic, radon, and the microbe cryptosporidium. Arsenic is a known carcinogen. The current arsenic rule, implemented in 1942, poses a 1 in 50 cancer risk--10,000 times worse than is generally considered acceptable. By preventing EPA from issuing a final arsenic rule, this bill will allow over 30 million Americans to continue to drink arsenic-laced drinking water every day. The same is true of radon. Drinking water containing radioactive radon is known to cause cancer. Controlling radon in drinking water will prevent hundreds of cancers. Over 40 million people will continue to drink radon-contaminated water unless EPA is allowed to act. In 1994, a cryptosporidium outbreak in a contaminated well in Walla Walla, WA, sickened or hospitalized dozens of people. A groundwater disinfection rule would likely have prevented this outbreak. But this bill would prohibit EPA from requiring any groundwater to be treated to kill parasites. We also need clean air to breathe. But this bill requires EPA to reevaluate the standards it has imposed on the oil refinery industry to utilize the Most Available Control Technology [MACT] to control emissions from valves and pumps. These leaks account for as much as one-half of total refinery emissions. Industry requested this rider because they believe that emissions have been overestimated. However, the estimated emissions of toxic pollutants from a medium-sized refinery are 240 tons per year, almost 10 times greater than the minimum statutory definition of a ``major source'' of toxic air pollution subject to the same control measures. It seems unlikely that EPA has made such a tremendous overestimation of emissions. Finally, Mr. President, the report accompanying this bill contains a provision that will certainly delay cleanup of a Superfund landfill in my State of Washington. This landfill is located on the Tulalip Indian Reservation in an estuary of Puget Sound and is disgorging contaminants directly into the sound. The language in this report directs EPA to do more studies and engage in more discussion in the hopes the agency will not implement its presumptive remedy of capping the site. While I agree that the cost to these powerful PRP's might be high, the cost to the people who live around the sound, or eat fish from the sound, or recreate in the Sound is much higher. I have tried to get the committee or the provision's sponsor to insert language that forced the PRP's and EPA to act quickly to stop this seeping mess, but I was not entirely successful. The sponsor promises this will not delay cleanup and that these studies and discussions will be completed within fiscal year 1996. I, and the people who want a clean Puget Sound, can only hope that is the case. Mr. President, we must remain committed to improving and protecting the quality of life for the citizens of our Nation. This means protecting the environment. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to increase funding for EPA and to strip the legislative riders from this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, community development financial institutions [CDFI] play an important role in my home State, and I join my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in expressing my strong support for the CDFI fund. Community Development Financial Institutions are essential to serving communities that often find it difficult to cultivate financial support. CDFI's prove that private sector, locally controlled financial institutions can combine rigorous fiscal management with a commitment to improving communities by offering capital access along with related training and technical services when other institutions may not. CDFI's provide capital to distressed communities, as well as increase the number of joint venture loans between Federal, State, and private entities. Mr. President, Cascadia Revolving Fund, of Seattle, is a prime example of how CDFI's can complement traditional financial institutions. Cascadia is a nonprofit community development loan fund which makes loans and provides technical assistance to low-income, minority- and women-owned businesses in addition to businesses in economically distressed areas. Over the past 10 years, Cascadia has lent over $3 million, and 90 percent of the businesses they have assisted are still in business today. The Community Development Banking Act of 1994, which created the CDFI fund, received broad bipartisan support in the 103d Congress. The legislation passed the Senate unanimously, and was approved by a 410 to 12 vote in the House. Today, there are roughly 310 CDFI's operating in 45 States that manage more than $1 billion in primarily private sector money. Mr. President, it would be a shame to terminate this program designed to revitalize economically distressed communities before even giving it a chance to succeed. If the Senate has the opportunity to revisit this bill during the appropriations process, I urge my colleagues to restore funding to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my friend, Senator Sarbanes, for his leadership on this issue, and lend my support to his amendment which would restore funding for homeless assistance. Mr. President, homelessness is a problem that the American people want solved. The number of homeless Americans has grown steadily over the last three decades and it will continue to grow until we responsibly address the issue of homelessness. Studies put the number of homeless at more than 600,000 people on any given night. It is even more shocking to find that children are now the fastest growing portion of this homeless population. As a caring Nation, we must no longer ignore this growing and often overlooked part of our population. I firmly believe that every citizen deserves not only a place to sleep at night, but a real opportunity to improve their lives. Our national efforts must focus on helping these families. Senator Sarbanes' amendment restores $360 million for homeless assistance funding to the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill, bringing the funding level back up to fiscal year 1995 levels. These funds will enable local governments, communities, and nonprofits to form comprehensive, flexible and coordinated strategies for ending homelessness. These funds will help local agencies leverage additional money needed to aid homeless people with disabilities, create more housing and provide the services and facilities needed to move people into situations where they can live independently. Restoring homeless assistance funding to 1995 levels is also an important part of the authorizing committee's effort to reform HUD in general and specifically to reform our delivery of homeless assistance. Last year's Senate Banking Committee bill created a single formula grant program which would replace the seven different categorical grant programs at HUD. This formula grant will allow better coordination of homeless services at the local level and facilitate better planning as funding levels become more predictable. The VA-HUD bill allows for this formula but does not provide adequate funding. The funds restored in this amendment will raise homeless assistance funding to a level that will allow a formula approach to make sense. Unfortunately, no matter how we restructure HUD, during the transition some people are going to fall through the cracks. The homeless programs are the safety net that catches them. Mr. President, earlier this year I had a chance to meet with Lucie McKinney and she reminded me of her late husband's tireless efforts and determination to end the cycle of homelessness. We must do all we can to continue Stewart McKinney's work.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of my colleagues from Maryland's amendment that would restore funding to AmeriCorps. I stand behind this program not from reading the glossy brochures that highlight its achievements. I believe in the work that AmeriCorps does from seeing young adults in my State coming together for a common goal. I have met these students and witnessed their accomplishments, and must tell you that communities throughout my State are praising their work. From AmeriCorps members providing gang intervention in Olympia schools to rehabilitating damaged watersheds in Lacey to providing emergency assistance to disabled elderly in Pasco to delivering meals to HIV-positive patients in Tacoma, Americorps is working across my State. Let's put the partisan politics behind us. This is not anyone's program. It is America's program serving our Nation by making our streets safer, our environment cleaner, our children healthier, and our schools better. Certainly, cries of deficit reduction have wrapped themselves around this debate. However, the return on America's Federal dollar has been proven to be quite substantial in recent studies. A research report conducted last year by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory looked at two Washington State Americorps projects in Hoquiam and Lake Chelan. For every Federal dollar spent on these two AmeriCorps projects, a $2.40 return can be expected. Even beyond the many direct skills and experiences derived from AmeriCorps participants that cannot be measured in dollars and cents, monetary benefits were still found to substantially exceed costs. Mr. President, I wonder how my colleagues can look these young people in the eye and tell them that Congress has pulled the plug on an opportunity that shapes their future while improving our communities. I strongly urge [[Page S 14262]] my fellow Members to think critically about what we fund that truly makes a difference in the lives of our next generation. Americorps is the answer that provides a cost-effective solution to meeting many of our Nation's concerns.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the conference agreement on H.R. 1854, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. Compromises between the House and Senate version of this bill were necessary in order to reach this agreement, and I am pleased that we were able to work out our differences cooperatively. The appropriations made in the conference report total $2,184,856,000. This is a $205,698,700 below the 1995 level, and roughly $5 million below the Senate-passed bill. I want to at this time express my appreciation and respect for Senator Mack, the subcommittee chairman. He handled this bill in a very open, nonpartisan manner. He took his responsibility seriously and he did a very excellent job, and he was really good to work with. I thank him publicly for the hard work he has done on this bill. We did not agree on every issue. I am particularly concerned about the elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment. However, Senator Mack made sure all views on this subject were fully aired in conference before we settled this issue. In the end, we were able to get some protection for OTA workers to ensure that they are not thrown out on the street the moment this bill passes. I [[Page S 14118]] want to thank our chairman for his help with that matter, as well. I also want to take a moment to express a few personal thoughts about this bill. This bill cuts over $200 million out of the congressional budget. That is about a 10-percent cut. In this time of fiscal deficits, and the need to reduce spending, I believe we did it the way it should be done--line by line, program by program, bill by bill. We thought this through and made tough, but sensible, decisions. Most importantly, we are showing we can lead by example in the battle to reduce Federal spending by cutting Congress first. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the conference report. It makes sense, and it sets the right tone in the broader effort to reduce spending. (Mr. CAMPBELL assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. And on behalf of Senator Simon, I yield back his time as well.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Vermont yield 10 minutes? I thank the Senator.