Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee position on funding for international family planning programs and against the Helms amendment to cut and restrict family planning aid. The Helms amendment before us today is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It pretends to be antiabortion but in fact it is antifamily planning and does not effect the question of abortion funding at all. In addition, the Helms amendment pretends to address the horrendous problem of forced abortions in the People's Republic of China, ostensibly trying to solve that terrible problem by denying United States support for the U.N. Population Fund. Mr. President, the debate surrounding UNFPA began over a decade ago during the Reagan administration. Foes of UNFPA claimed then, as they do today, that the United States should withdraw support for UNFPA because of the fund's presence in China where there have been persistent reports of government sanctioned forced abortions. There is no question that the Chinese do many things that I abhor. Forcing women to have abortions or forcing individuals to undergo sterilization is a gross violation of human rights and should be condemned by our Government at the highest levels. Likewise, the killing of female infants in China is widespread in the country and appears to often go unpunished by Chinese officials. But it would be illogical--and counterproductive--for the United States to pull out of those international agencies that give aid to children in China because of the horrific practice of female infanticide that plagues that nation. So why should we ask this organization to carry the sins of China on its shoulders when it comes to the question of family planning? The facts have never supported this approach. When the question of UNFPA funding was first debated during the Reagan administration, officials under President Reagan investigated the issue and found, and I quote from an AID document from that time, ``that UNFPA is a benevolent factor in China which works to decrease the incidence of coercive abortion'' in China by providing effective family planning services. That same Reagan administration investigation found absolutely no evidence that the UNFPA participated in or supported in any way China's coercive family planning practices. Sadly, caught up in the pro-life politics of the time, UNFPA was nonetheless defunded by President Reagan. President Clinton has since resumed U.S. support for this agency and therein lie the roots of today's debate. Through all of this, however, the facts have been clear, that UNFPA has been part of the solution in China by helping to reduce the incidence of abortion in that country and others by providing high-quality voluntary family planning services. UNFPA's goal is to eliminate the need for abortions. They do so by providing maternal and child health care and voluntary family planning services. These are the kinds of programs that are unquestionably the most effective means of preventing abortion. And the majority of UNFPA's assistance goes toward projects in these areas. Ironically, by denying support to this most effective international family planning agency, the Helms amendment might well have the unintended effect of increasing the incidence of abortion in China. As has been pointed out by others during this debate, the committee bill before us continues the longstanding policy of banning the use of U.S. funds for abortions overseas. That ban, commonly known as the Helms amendment, has been part of the permanent foreign aid statutes since 1973 and remains unchanged in the committee's bill. In addition, the bill prohibits the use of U.S. funds for abortion lobbying. So the real question facing the Senate today is this: The committee bill is already stringently antiabortion, but by disqualifying one of the most tried and true family planning organizations from receiving U.S. support, do we really want to make this bill antifamily planning as well? Let me take a minute to review for my colleagues the important work that is being done by UNFPA and why U.S. support for this agency is so important. The United States played a key role in establishing the UNFPA in the late 1960's, seeking to form an organization where we could work with other nations to address the problem of overpopulation. Since that time, UNFPA has become a respected and trusted source of safe and effective family planning services for women and families in poor and developing nations. With programs in over 140 countries, UNFPA is the world's largest voluntary family planning program. The guiding philosophy behind UNFPA's work in the developing world is to invest in women. UNFPA recognizes that [[Page S 14040]] by investing in women, we strengthen entire communities as well as national economies. In addition to family planning services, UNFPA provides life-saving maternal health care programs. While childbirth anywhere carries certain risks, in the developing world mothers face grave statistics. In Africa, for example, 1 out of every 21 women will die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth, making the African women 200 times more likely to die as a result of bearing her children than a European woman. The kinds of programs provided by UNFPA can prevent many of these maternal deaths. So when we support UNFPA, we are supporting those women and families across the developing world who seek the means to space their births and avoid high-risk pregnancies. Equally important, when we support UNFPA we are increasing the chances that child survival rates will rise across the developing world. We know that babies born in quick succession to a mother whose body is not yet recovered from her previous birth are the least likely to survive. UNFPA programs seek to support child survival efforts and help women understand the vital link between child survival and family planning. For the record, let me outline UNFPA's position on abortion. UNFPA does not and never has supported abortions or abortion-related services in any country it operates in. According to the UNFPA's governing council, it is ``the policy of the UNFPA not to provide assistance for abortion, abortion services, or abortion-related equipment and supplies as a method of family planning.'' So, as I noted in my earlier remarks, the Helms amendment will do nothing to prevent abortions in China or elsewhere, but it will prevent vital health services from being delivered to women and children in the world's poorest nations. I urge my colleagues to remember what is really at stake here. This is a public health issue and an extremely serious one. Family planning saves lives. Experts estimate that the lives of 5.6 million children and 200,000 women could be saved every year if all the women who wanted to limit their families had access to family planning. I ask my colleagues to really think about those statistics; 5.6 million children and 200,000 women every year. So when we debate this issue of whether to support voluntary family planning programs like UNFPA, let us keep this debate focused squarely where it belongs--on the world's young women who struggle against impossible odds to better their lives and who desperately need reproductive health care services. Let us keep this debate squarely focused on young mothers around the world who have small children or babies and need family planning assistance to ensure that they do not become pregnant again too quickly and endangering their own lives and that of their babies and young children. Let us keep this debate squarely focused on thousands of women in poor nations who, lacking access to reproductive health care, resort to self-induced abortions and too often tragically lose their lives. Experts estimate at least 500,000 women will die from pregnancy-related causes, roughly 200,000 from illegal abortions which are prevented when women have family planning services. The issue of refunding the UNFPA came before Congress again and again when Presidents Bush and Reagan were in office. Congress repeatedly voted for the United States to resume funding. So let us move on to the task of ensuring that women in the developing world have access to the kinds of reproductive health services they deserve, the kinds of services that will save their lives and the lives of their children. In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to remember that this is a public health issue and an extremely serious one. We should reject the Helms amendment and vote in support of women and children across our globe. I thank you and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on our side?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate voted to approve welfare reform legislation by a vote of 87-12 this afternoon. I have spent weeks thinking about my vote on this issue, and today, after listening to people on all sides of this issue, including my family and my colleagues, I reluctantly cast my vote in favor of the Dole bill, as amended. In my brief tenure here in the U.S. Senate, this was one of the most difficult votes I have cast. Mr. President, I would like to explain why. From the beginning of the welfare reform debate, my No. 1 concern has been about finding a way to rebuild American families. I have always believed we can only do that by emphasizing real personal responsibility, providing adequate child care for both working poor and welfare families, and ensuring our children can count on help from adults. It has been my hope that we could achieve some positive changes to the current system. If there is one thing everyone can agree on, it's that the current system is flawed. It needs fixing, and I vowed to support reform. My challenge has been to influence that reform in the most constructive direction possible. As someone who came to the Senate during the 1992 election year, I know we cannot continue to do things the way we always have. We must take a hard look at the sum total of our Government programs, and rework them to accurately reflect society's strengths, weaknesses, and needs. We entered the debate with two bills, the Dole version and the Daschle Work-First bill. I cosponsored and voted in favor of the Daschle bill. I supported it because I felt it was the right place to start. It reflected a genuine commitment to helping poor families move up and into the work force. Unfortunately from my perspective, a majority in the Senate rejected the Daschle bill. But I didn't give up there. I and others began devoting our energies to improving the Dole bill. First, we offered an amendment to require full funding, and full protection for child care and children's programs. It would have provided the full $11 billion estimated by the Department of Health and Human Services to be necessary to meet child-care needs. Again, this amendment was narrowly defeated, 50-48. Given the closeness of this vote, Senators Dole and Daschle were able to reach a compromise that strengthened the Dole bill, but fell short of our original amendment. It includes provisions which: require States to maintain their welfare spending at a minimum of 80 percent of current levels; strike the job training title--which had no business in a welfare bill to begin with, establish a contingency grant fund to take care of States in times of economic downturns, and provide a total of $8 billion for childcare services nationwide. I support this compromise, though I feel ultimately we will have to do more. Following the child-care debate, I cosponsored an amendment to establish greater protection for victims of domestic violence. I believe domestic violence to be the single, most destructive force against families in America today. No one, not the Senate, the President, or anyone else, can place a value on the price paid by mothers and their children attempting to survive an abusive household. This time the Senate agreed, and my amendment was adopted unanimously. Having worked hard to improve the Dole bill, I found myself faced with a very difficult decision. I could either vote against the Dole bill based on its shortcomings for children, or I could vote to affirm the improvements we made to it. I believe the Dole bill to be deeply flawed. I believe it draws into question the welfare of poor children throughout the Nation. But I also believe we have to start somewhere. The current system needs to be changed, and the Dole bill changes it fundamentally. Therefore, I voted yes. Mr. President, change of any kind always involves risk. We will never know how great that risk is until we try something different. What we do know, however, is that change brings new responsibility. We do not know whether this bill will make it into law. If it is enacted, we don't know if it will work. It may prove a fabulous success, or it may only prove to make problems worse for the poor. But today, we have created a grave new responsibility for this Senate: to be watchdogs for our children. More than ever before, all Senators have an obligation to make the law work in favor of poor children, All Senators have a responsibility in the future to consider the successes and failures they have created this day, and to be prepared to make changes later if things don't work out. The most unfortunate part of this debate, in my opinion, is that people don't think of children when they think of welfare. People think of dependency, complacency, poverty, and all the worst stereotypes. This troubles me because it is children who face the most difficult struggles. It is children who are most deserving of our care. The outcome of this debate does not change one iota this basic fact: we need a national commitment to children in this country. I believe this to the very core of my being. Children are under assault every single day in this country. In their homes, in school, on the streets, and yes, in this Congress. We see it in cuts to education and dismantling of crime prevention. We see it in Medicaid cuts, defunding of AmeriCorps, and elimination of student loans. Today, I voted for change, to try something new. But I also took responsibility to live with that change, ad to work even harder promoting a broad, national commitment to our children. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to accept that responsibility with equal sobriety, and with equal vigor. The outcome today was not in doubt. Nor is this the end of the debate. There will be a conference committee. We may even debate a conference report. More likely, we will see this bill again in the budget reconciliation yet to come. I think we can change welfare for the better, and move more people into the work force. I look forward to working with you, Mr. President and all my colleagues, to this end; but also to build a stronger commitment to children. We must do this in welfare reform, and across the whole spectrum of issues we consider this session. The future is simply too important. And unlike before, it is our new responsibility. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, in offering this extremely important amendment. And I commend him on his very eloquent statement and appreciate his work on this very difficult and very important issue of battered individuals. He has committed a lot of time and energy to that. I want him to know how much I appreciate that. We all know that America's poor face many obstacles as they try to get back on their feet and become productive, contributing members of our society. However, the women who have been victims of abuse and the children, frankly, who have witnessed this abuse, or were abused victims themselves, have even more barriers which impede their ability to move on and move up. I would hope that this Senate steps back from the rhetoric of the past few days and the technical terms that we are using, and think for a few minutes about some of the people that this welfare reform bill is going to very directly affect as we pass it, in particular battered women and children. These abused women and children have lasting scars that will take many years to heal, and they are often forced to live in fear that their abuser will find them and hurt them once again. This amendment is important because we must recognize that women on public assistance who were battered confront unique obstacles and circumstances as they make the very difficult move from dependency to self-sufficiency. As we attempt to fix our troubled welfare system and help rebuild America's families, let us not make it harder for these women and their kids to get ahead and put there troubled past behind them. Domestic violence and the impact that it makes on those who suffer this abuse is a very real and a very serious problem. In my State, a survey of [[Page S 13526]] women on public assistance found that over half reported being physically abused by a spouse or a boyfriend. Throughout this debate on welfare, I have come to the floor several times to talk about June, who is a welfare recipient in my State, and who is my partner in the Walk-a-Mile Program. That is a program that began in the State of Washington. It has gone across the country. That matches a welfare recipient with an elected legislator. We have talked on the phone. We have shared experiences. I shared mine with her. She has shared hers with me. So that we have gotten to know what it is like to live in each other's shoes. And I will tell you that hearing her story has really enabled me to better understand the everyday challenges of a young mother trying to make it on her own and to take care of two young kids. It has been difficult for June to share some of her stories with me because she was in a very abusive relationship. Her children witnessed their mother being beaten and verbally abused. In fact, June told me her most vivid memory of that time was hearing her frightened 3-year old daughter's pleading voice saying, ``Daddy, are you going to kill my mommy? Please do not kill my mommy.'' That is what this woman came from. And I can tell you as a mother, and as a former preschool teacher, memories like that have an everlasting and dramatic effect on the lives of children who experienced such pain and torment in addition to the emotional trauma that confronts both the woman who suffered abuse and the children who are exposed to it. There are many practical problems which prevent these women from succeeding that we have to consider as we look at this welfare debate. First, these women who are abused survivors often have problems holding a job. Second, women who have lived with a batterer often lack skills because their abuser did not allow them to go to work or to attend school. And third, a woman who has left her abuser often faces the extreme danger of being stalked. And she may not be able to leave her house to go to job training classes or to work. And the same woman who has finally decided that enough is enough may live in fear that her abuser will come after her and to get their children and to take them away. Do we think that this woman is going to be a productive worker? Do we think she is going to leave her kids out of her sight? I can tell you the answer is no. These are difficult problems that these women have to overcome. This amendment takes those factors into account and offers the flexibility States need to help women who have been abused to successfully improve their lives and that of their children. We cannot ignore these problems that these women will face, and we have to make some exceptions for them. Believe me, and frankly believe June, my Walk-a-Mile partner. It will be hard enough for these families to make it. But let us not make it impossible. As Senator Wellstone has so eloquently stated, we do not want to force these women back into the home of their abuser because welfare is not available for them. I urge my colleagues to send the women and children of our Nation the right message: We care about you. We respect you. We want you to succeed. Please cast your vote in favor of this amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I began listening to this debate several weeks ago with the hope that some positive changes could be made to the current welfare system. Since then, I have spent weeks in my State talking with friends and parents and members of communities about this issue. I must admit, as we continue this debate, I have mixed feelings. I still believe the Senate can achieve real welfare reform that works for families. But I have been disheartened by the Senate's rejection of the work-first amendment, because I believe that amendment reflected a workable, nonpartisan, solution-oriented approach to fixing the welfare system. Now we are considering an amendment that goes to the very heart of the welfare debate: childcare services. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President: childcare is the key to successful welfare reform. Mr. President, I bring a unique perspective to this debate on the Senate floor. I am a mother with school-age children. I have been a preschool teacher, dealing with kids from all economic classes. I have run parent education classes, counseling young parents to help them develop their skills as mothers and fathers in the modern world. I can tell you what it's like to take a phone call from a young single mom at the end of her rope. She is burning the candle at both ends, trying to work, worrying all day long about her kids. For this parent, her paramount concern is childcare; she cannot focus on doing a good job without knowing her kids have adequate nourishment, supervision, and care during the day. Fully 34 percent of current welfare recipients have identified access to childcare as the single barrier between them and reentering the work force. To succeed in reforming welfare, we have to understand the everyday challenges of everyday parents. We have to speak their language, and know their issues. Only by knowing and understanding these challenges can we design a welfare reform proposal that truly gives struggling families a boost to economic stability. That, Mr. President, means we need to address childcare in this bill. For the past 5 months I've been participating in a unique program called Walk-a-Mile. Some of my colleagues, including Senator Simon, have also taken part. Walk-a-Mile started in Washington State as a collaborative effort between the University of Washington and the Northwest Resource [[Page S 13174]] Center for Children, Youth, and Families. The program pairs a welfare recipient with an elected official, and the two speak frequently on the telephone about each others' experiences. I was lucky enough to be paired with June, a single mother of two from a Seattle suburb who survived an abusive relationship. During her time on welfare, June attended school and earned a degree from evergreen State College. Her classroom time was frequently interrupted, however, because her 6-year-old son Jonathan suffers from attention-deficit disorder, a side effect of the abuse suffered in their previous home. Since earning her degree, June was divided her time between looking for work and looking for childcare. She has been told by six different daycare providers that her son could not be cared for, because of his explosive and erratic behavior. Her dilemma is a familiar one: in the absence of childcare, she cannot work; yet she is qualified, and eager, to work today. How does this story related to the Dole bill? the pending legislation glosses over the childcare question, and leaves demand for childcare services unmet. In 1994, there were 3,000 children on waiting lists for childcare in my State. Nearly 23,000 other kids received childcare services that would be eliminated under the Dole bill. That adds up to 26,000 children for whom childcare is thrown into question under this bill. The Dole bill would compel my State to spend $88 million in childcare in order to meet its work requirements. At the same time however, we stand to lose over $500 million in Federal funding over the same period. The bill cuts current services; it severely limits Federal funding; and forces my State to spend more of its own scarce money. Worse, it stands to create an expanded, unaddressed demand for childcare. This is a major unfunded mandate, and a major problem for Washington State. Mr. President, this is not reform; this is reshuffling the chairs on the Titanic. If we want to move people into the work force, we should do it. I think this is a very worthy and important goal. But we should be realistic about what that will take. As a preschool teacher, and parent education counselor, I can tell you--based on firsthand experience--given the choice between work and kids, a parent with limited options will stay on welfare if it's the best childcare option, just for the security of her family. This is why the Dodd-Kennedy amendment is so important. It addresses the need for childcare services, pure and simple. It provides resources in a fiscally prudent, credible way through direct grants to States with only one purpose: to fund childcare needs created by new work requirements. Funding levels would be set according to CBO estimates of the childcare demands created by the underlying Dole bill. What is the purpose of the amendment? It is not to give bureaucrats more money; it is not to place more regulations on States; the sole purpose is to move parents into the work force. I believe this is not only appropriate, but necessary. Think back to my Walk-a-Mile partner, June. For people like her, the Dodd-Kennedy amendment gives them peace of mind to invest themselves in education or training programs that will equip them to move into the work force, without worrying about whether their kids will be looked after during the day. Mr. President, I know what worries parents, and I know what scares the kids. I've seen it firsthand, and I've studied it closely over the past 3 years. We have a unique opportunity to do something concrete for real people in this bill. We can build a foundation for families. We can provide opportunity for children and their parents. Mr. President, 78,000 children in my State live in poverty. Their parents struggle every day to make ends meet. How do we know one of those kids will not be the next Einstein, or the next Cal Ripken, or the next Bill Gates? If we do not do our part to create a foundation to care for children and provide options for parents, our Nation stands to lose in the long run. These are the fears of moms and their children. This is why moms get trapped in dependency, and why their kids look for their solutions on the streets. And unless we do something to remove these fears, we will not accomplish reform. The Dodd-Kennedy amendment provides that foundation. The Senate must adopt this language, or something very close to it, if our reform effort is to succeed. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to look carefully at this language. It is fiscally smart, and I believe it will help welfare parents turn the corner. I urge my colleagues to consult with their States. Do the math. Ask yourselves what happens to children under the Dole bill, in the absence of better childcare provisions. Ask yourself whether the work requirements are realistic in the absence of strong childcare provisions. If you don't know the answer, talk to someone like June, my Walk-a-Mile partner, someone with real experience who understands life on the lower half of the economic ladder in this country. If you do this, I believe you will have no choice but to reach the same conclusions I have: Moving welfare recipients into the work force can work, but only if we do it right. We simply must address critical childcare needs in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate has jumped into the welfare reform debate with both feet. I want to pose a question to the body now, as we enter the process: What is this debate about? I will make it very simple: it is about families. It think all my colleagues will agree that in this country, there can be no substitute for healthy families; they are the bedrock of our society. I hear so much from my constituents about their fears for the American family. In the modern world, the family faces more challenges than ever before, from economic opportunity, to education, to child care. We live in a world where more and more both parents must work to make ends meet. We have also seen an increase in single-parent homes where the challenge to balance work and family can be overwhelming. In my own family, my brothers, sisters, and cousins all share these fears. With this in mind, there is one question I urge my colleagues to keep in mind throughout this debate: what can the Government do--or not do-- to build, and rebuild, families in this country? What can the Government do to ensure economic opportunity? What can the Government do to create a healthy environment for children? What can the Government do to open doors and prevent dependency? What can the Government do--or not do--to foster a sense of security, hope, and confidence for families? During this debate, we will hear a lot about failure. In fact, we already have. We have heard about bad actors who abuse the system. We have heard about systemic failure, about substance abuse, crime, spousal abuse, child abuse, and everything that plagues a family stuck in poverty. We have heard about addicts awaiting the day their checks come in the mail. We have heard about mothers who stay on welfare, rather than accepting work. And we are going to keep hearing these things used to justify radical overhaul of the current welfare system. We may hear about these failures, and we may all agree the current system needs improvement. But let's not lose sight of what this debate is about: families and children. America's children. Mr. President, I bring a unique perspective to this debate on the Senate floor. I am a mother with school-age children. I have been a preschool teacher, dealing with kids from all economic classes. I have taught parent education classes, counseling young parents to help them develop their skills as mothers and fathers in the modern world. I can personally tell you what it is like to take a desperate phone call from a young single mom at the end of her rope. She is burning the candle at both ends, trying to work, worrying all day long about her kids. For school age kids, they face a tough environment at school; for toddlers, access to quality day care is a constant problem. When this mom gets home, the kids need attention, but she is out of energy. They need love, they need nourishment, and she has to summon everything she has got to meet their needs. Take my word for it: in today's world this is hard for any parent. To succeed in reforming welfare, we cannot talk in vagaries about accountability and responsibility, though these concepts are important. We have to understand the everyday challenges of everyday parents. Only by knowing and understanding these challenges can we begin to design [[Page S 11842]] a welfare reform proposal that truly gives struggling families a boost to economic stability. Mr. President, shortly after I was elected to the Senate, I decided I needed a better perspective on the challenges faced by young kids in our cities. I asked friends from Washington State social service agencies, from the juvenile justice system, from the public school system, and kids themselves to come together in a series of forums across my State. In all three cases, I heard the same message over and over again. Kids today feel like adults do not care about them, or their problems. They come home to an empty house because one parent is absentee, or both parents have to work to cover expenses. Or they have dysfunctional parents. They wake up each morning scared, and all they can think about is survival. They do not see anything getting better for themselves, and to them, it adds up to a world in which adults just do not care. More recently, Mr. President, I have tried to learn more about the perspective of typical welfare recipients. I participated in a unique program called Walk-a-Mile which started in Washington State and pairs a welfare recipient with an elected official, and the two speak frequently on the telephone about each others' experiences. I was lucky enough to be paired with June, a single mother of two from a Seattle suburb who survived an abusive relationship. During her time on welfare, June attended school and earned a degree from Evergreen State College. Her classroom time was frequently interrupted, however, because her 6-year-old son Jonathan suffers from attention deficit order, a side effect of the abuse suffered in their previous home. June has been told by six different day care providers that her son could not be cared for, because of his explosive and erratic behavior. During this time June has lived in fear she would lose her credits at school, or have to drop out, because Jonathan could not stay in day care, or in school. Since earning her degree, June has divided her time between looking for work and looking for childcare. Her dilemma is a familiar one: in the absence of child care, she cannot work; yet she is qualified to willing to work today. Mr. President, I know what scared single parents, and I know what scares the kids. I have seen it firsthand, and I have studied it closely over the past 2 years. These are the fears of moms and their children. This is why moms get trapped in dependency, and why their kids look for their solutions on the streets. And unless we do something to remove these fears, we will not accomplish reform. I am concerned about what the Dole plan means for the State of Washington that has quality programs based on current Federal resources. I am concerned about parents and families--like June--who are currently participating in programs that will move them off welfare and into the work force. The Dole plan limits funding to States, and stipulates 2 years of benefits and then you are cut off. This amounts to nothing more than passing one of our biggest headaches off to the States for them to deal with. As a former state legislator, I can tell you that is something my State does not relish. The Senate has already passed a budget proposing to cut Medicare and Medicaid over the next 7 years. Under the dole welfare plan, the same working families will lose another $500 million over the next 7 years. Over 60 percent of my State's budget is public education: There is no way it can maintain any kind of excellence in public education if Congress forces new responsibilities and under-funded block-grants down to the State level. What does this mean in personal terms for June, my Walk-a-Mile partner? Under the Dole plan, there is no certainty she and her son Jonathan will have access to quality child care. In fact, there is a strong possibility they would not, because overall funding is being reduced. This plan will not do anything to improve June's situation, and it will certainly add to the message we send to our kids that we do not care about them. The Daschle bill offers credible reform. It proposes to move welfare recipients into the work force swiftly and decisively. It provides guidance on how to equip recipients to make this move. And, most importantly, it ensures quality childcare will be available during the transition. For people like June, this means they will have the stability and peace of mind to invest themselves in education or training programs that will equip them to move into the work force, without worrying about whether their kids will be looked after during the day. Mr. President, as a preschool teacher, and parent education counselor, I can tell you based on firsthand experience, give the choice between work and kids, the parent, with limited options, will stay at home. I can also tell you that unless we neutralize the fears and challenges of poor families, single parents, and their kids, we will not succeed in reforming welfare. We will simply infuse the underclass with a big new group of have-nots. I will conclude my statement where I began this statement. Welfare reform should be--must be--about rebuilding families in America. In America, we have always taken care of our own. We built the farm program to preserve the family farms. We establish Social Security to make sure Americans live well in retirement. We passed a GI bill to give our men and women in uniform ready access to education. Welfare reform should be no different. The central goal of welfare reform should be to make sure American families at all economic levels have equal access to economic opportunity in the modern world. We cannot legislate morality. Nor can we legislate family values. But we must promote family values. These are intangibles that are up to every family to address in their own homes. All we can do is provide opportunity and a stable environment to let it happen. If we can move people into the work force and create self- sufficiency, we will have succeeded. To do this, we must remove parents' fears about access to child care, and we must remove kids' fears about the future, and we must make skills training and education available; and we must be very firm about our end goals. If we do these things, we will create a stable environment in which families can success in their own right, on their own merits. I thank the Chair, and I yield my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Slade Gorton, in sponsoring the Vancouver National Historic Reserve Partnership Act of 1995. This legislation is the product of years of effort by many people representing public groups and all levels of government, but it would not be before Congress today were it not for the vision, leadership, and hard work of former Congresswoman Jolene Unsoeld, who took on a daunting challenge and came away with a broadly supported plan to preserve and promote several chapters in the colorful history of the Pacific Northwest. Briefly, the act would establish and coordinate the management of the Vancouver National Historic Reserve, which contains a number of contiguous historic sites located on the Columbia River. This area, situated in the heart of the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area, provides a rare opportunity to save and interpret, in one central location, several layers of history. Vancouver's historic area has been referred to as the ``birthplace of history in the Northwest'' since Lewis and Clark explored the areas in 1805-6. The historic reserve is located within an original 1848 military reserve and includes six principal elements: Fort Vancouver National Historic Site--National Park Service; Vancouver Barracks--U.S. Army; Pearson Airpark and museum--city of Vancouver--NPS/City, and Marine Park--City. These publicly-owned sites tell a story of Northwest history beginning with the rich native American culture that flourished along the river, early Euro-American settlement of the area, the American military presence in the Northwest, and more than 80 years of continuous aviation activity at Pearson Airfield, one of the original Army Corps fields and the site of several aviation milestones. In 1990, pursuant to Public Law 101-523, Congress created the Vancouver Historical Study Commission and charged the five-member group with developing a plan to preserve these historic assets and coordinate the management of the area. After careful study and much public involvement, the Commission submitted, through Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, a report that is the basis for this act. It is a carefully crafted plan which provides historic protection, a partnership among the property owners, and an opportunity--with no additional financial obligation to the Federal Government--to highlight some of the most important and interesting history in the Pacific Northwest. I want to commend the city of Vancouver for demonstrating, through their outstanding restoration of Officers Row, that historic preservation can be economically self-sustaining and for working closely with the National Park Service, the U.S. Army, and the State Office of Historic Preservation to develop this plan. The Vancouver National Historic Reserve Partnership Act provides a new standard for historic preservation. It emphasizes a narrative or layered approach to history instead of the single-point-in-time approach, and it demonstrates how--at a time when the Federal Government cannot afford expensive new initiatives to acquire, restore, or maintain historic properties--we can form partnerships to preserve and highlight our heritage. I am proud to be the cosponsor of this act in the Senate and urge that it be given timely and favorable consideration by this body.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Nickles amendment. This amendment discriminates against women in Government by severely limiting their access to abortion services through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Senate just went on record saying that women who are Federal employees have a right to use their medical services in their own way. We should not change that decision now by going back on our word and saying only in very limited cases. I think it is extremely important that we understand this amendment significantly, and I go back to my friend, who I talked about earlier today, who I knew in college some years ago who was date raped and because abortion was illegal in this country was forced to go to a back-alley abortion and because of that procedure, today cannot have children. Under the Nickles language, I have to ask, what would happen to my friend? Would she have to prove that she was raped? Would she have to go through a court process? I think we walk a very slippery slope in this determination, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I have listened carefully to their arguments today, and I have heard some say that we are using taxpayer dollars, taxpayer dollars which are essentially paid to our Federal employees, and we are saying because it is our money, we are going to tell them how their pay is going to have to be used. I suggest to my colleagues that is a very slippery slope to go down. If we begin by saying, because it is our taxpayer dollars we pay you with, you cannot have abortion services, can we then use our prerogative here to determine how else they can use their pay, our taxpayer dollars? Can we tell them they cannot use their pay to buy tobacco products or they have to buy American cars? Are we going to go through our Federal employees' budgets, home budgets line by line to determine how their money is used simply because taxpayers' dollars pay Federal employees? I say to my colleagues this is a very slippery slope, and I urge us to proceed cautiously. I urge us to vote no on the Nickles amendment and retain the language this Senate very thoughtfully voted on just a few moments ago. I yield back the time to my colleague from Maryland.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Senator from Oklahoma, and in support of civil servants' full access to reproductive health care, including abortion services. The other body has recently taken a major step backward for women throughout this country. In its version of the fiscal year 1996 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, the House denied all civil servants the right to chose health insurance programs that provide abortion services. By reversing previous congressional action providing full access to reproductive health services for women in Government, the House has once again cast a long shadow over a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body. I believe this action was wrong, and I believe the U.S. Senate has a responsibility to take a much more thoughtful approach to making major policy shifts in the appropriations process. Civil servants, like most Americans, obtain their health care services through their employment. Like me and many people I know, they personally pay a part of their insurance premiums, and their employer-- in this case the Government--pays the balance. I believe these people, like most Americans, should be able to choose their own insurance, and use any of the services offered by that insurance. Civil servants are no different than any other American; why should they be treated differently with their health insurance. They are regular people: The air traffic controller, the bridge engineer, the customs agent, secretaries, maintenance workers. These are regular Americans, and probably our neighbors. Mr. President, most private sector working people have ready access to reproductive health services. Major insurers such as Aetna, Kaiser Permanente, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield provide this coverage. I believe women who work in the Government should have the same choices in health coverage enjoyed by women in the private sector. Aside from being a matter of consumer choice, access to reproductive services is the law of the land, and should apply even within Government and without. This is not a shocking or unreasonable position. There is broad support within the Federal work force--and more importantly, within the country--for consumer choice in health insurance. Every union representing Federal employees has endorsed access to abortion services in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. There are 9 million Americans covered by the program, including at least 1.2 million women in the prime of their lives. These women rely on the program; it is their only source of health insurance protection. They, like every other woman in America, are entitled to make their own choices about whether and when to bear a child. As I said, that choice is a fundamental constitutional right. The other body is once again trying to turn the health care choices of women in Government into a political football. This is micromanagement of the worse kind, and it is wrong. The U.S. Congress should not be making reproductive health choices for Federal workers. Nor should it discriminate against Federal workers who choose to have an abortion. By denying women employees health coverage for abortion services, Congress would be doing just that. It would force female workers and their families to purchase separate insurance to cover reproductive health services. This would amount to a major wage reduction, and worse, it would be discriminatory. Mr. President, the suggestion of the Senator from Oklahoma that we reject the committee amendments in this case is not a reasonable one for women, whether they are in Government or not. The action of the House represents a major policy shift. Two years ago, the Congress voted to give civil servants the choice. Millions of workers and thousands of families have since made health care decisions based on that action. If we backtrack now, we will throw these families into uncertainty once again about their options for health care, family planning, and household finances. Haven't we gotten beyond this? I have heard on this floor over and over again this year that people know best; that families know best; that Government needs to get out of people's lives. I could not agree more. Why is it then, that some in this Chamber continue to insist on injecting the Federal Government into people's personal lives, into their bedrooms, and into their health care decisions? Let me conclude with a personal story. My personal awakening to the abortion issue came when I was in college. Back then--and it was not that long ago--abortion was not legal. A friend of mine was date-raped, and she became pregnant. Wracked with fear, she was forced to have a back-alley abortion. The damage done to her during that procedure has prevented her from ever having children. I want to ensure that no other woman in this country, including my own daughter, has that experience. I urge my colleagues to support the committee amendments, and reject a motion to table. I yield my time back to the Senator from Maryland.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this morning I was shocked and saddened to hear of the sudden and tragic death of a very good friend and long- time colleague of mine, State Senator Cal Anderson. Cal passed away last night of a disease that is touching far too many lives. Cal announced that he had been stricken with HIV/AIDS just a short time ago. Cal faced AIDS as he faced every legislative battle we fought together: With courage, with integrity, and with honor. Even though Cal was seriously ill these past months, he continued to do his job for his constituents the best he could, fighting hard for the things he believed in. He worked hard to the end, representing his constituents to the best of his ability. I worked very closely with Cal during my time in the Washington State Senate. He has been known throughout our State as an outstanding legislator. He worked hard, he stayed true to his beliefs, and he had a unique ability to find solutions. I worked with him on an open government committee on which we took steps to make the legislative process more accessible. Cal made sure our bill was not only workable but a big improvement in peoples' ability to participate in government. Cal was a Vietnam combat veteran. He won two Bronze Stars and two Army commendations for meritorious service. He was courageous and he was honest. He served his country, as well as his constituents. Perhaps most importantly, Cal was a passionate advocate for human rights and dignity. Just last month, a home in Seattle was dedicated in his name. The Cal Anderson House is a 24-unit facility that will provide housing, counseling, and other services to low-income families with HIV/AIDS. A month ago, I visited Cal in his hospital room. As usual, he spoke not about himself but what I needed to do. Cal told me, if nothing else, I needed to do as much as I could as a U.S. Senator to ensure that people with serious diseases did not have to fight with their insurance companies for health care at the same time they had to fight the disease for their lives. Cal said he, himself, had excellent coverage as an elected official, but those around him suffered through insensitive insurance companies. He felt that dignity was and is being taken away from seriously ill Americans, and that did not reflect the America he knew and loved. So, today, I rise to simply say good-bye to Cal, to thank him for his years of service to his country and his State, and to say: Cal, your battle is over, but our battle continues, to defeat AIDS so that it will stop taking lives from far too many young Americans. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the amendment offered by the Senator from California. First of all, I want to commend my friend, my colleague from California. She has been aggressive, forthright, and true to her principles on the issue currently pending before the Ethics committee. She has raised very difficult, but I believe very important, questions to which all of us must give very serious thought. This has been a very long and very difficult case for the Ethics Committee. The whole Senate has waited for over 30 months while the committee has pored over the documents, interviewed the witnesses, and attempted to find the right path. In light of this work, I regretfully must express my grave disappointment in the committee's decision not to hold public hearings on this case. Mr. President, this case is a test of the Senate and the Ethics Committee. The U.S. Constitution gives this body the sole responsibility for policing itself. No other agency of Government--not the executive, not the House, not the judicial branch--has authority to ensure that the Senate adheres to high standards of ethics and conduct. I am sure the senior Senator from West Virginia, or any other constitutional scholar, can give us a detailed explanation of this authority. Therefore, this case, like every other considered by the committee, is a test of whether the Senate can demonstrate to the public that it is capable of policing itself. All Senators have gone out of their way to not interfere in this case, to give the committee the time it needs to go through the process. Indeed, we have supported them when they needed the full Senate to support the investigation. We have continued steadfastly to allow the committee to do its job. As individual Senators, this has been our responsibility to the institution and to our constituents. Now, we have a responsibility to conclude this matter in an equally responsible way. If it cannot be done by the Ethics Committee, it cannot be done at all. I urge my colleagues to put aside the emotions of this case and focus carefully on the facts. In May, the committee found substantial, credible evidence of Senate rules violations. I am not a lawyer. I have never tried cases. I know that is a very high standard. In every major case that has come before, public hearings have been held. Why, I ask my colleagues, should this case be any different? That is the key question. Why should this case be any different? I believe a deviation from precedent on this case will cast a long shadow over the Senate's credibility. Specifically, the lack of hearings will shade any subsequent action by the committee on this issue and any issue that comes before the committee in the future. I feel very strongly this will create doubt in a general public that is already skeptical of its public officials. They have a right to know their elected officials are held to high standards. Anything less not only damages this institution, but also our individual credibility. Mr. President, like many Senators, I am already on record in support of public hearings on this issue. I believe this is the only way the committee and the Senate can show the public that it is serious about its responsibilities. I encourage Senators to weigh the facts as we currently know them. I believe we will conclude that the amendment offered by the Senator from California offers the best course of action. I urge its adoption. I yield back the remaining time to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. At this time I would like to outline a few of my concerns as described in the letter with this section. Several arguments have been made in support of this section. For instance, it has been argued that military officers should be treated as their civilian counterparts. However, civilian comparisons are not relevant because of the unique role and mission required of our Nation's Armed Forces. It has been argued that the confirmation of retiring officers increases the administrative workload of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fiscal year 1993, the committee reviewed just six grade 0-10 officers for retirement and less than 20 at grade 0-9. I do not believe that is an unreasonable number. In addition, reviewing military nominations is a constitutional responsibility that helps maintain civilian control and accountability. Most importantly, by removing Senate involvement in the confirmation of retiring officers, we remove congressional oversight. We remove our ability to play a role in the very process that has been so troublesome in recent years. Mr. President, Senator Grassley's amendment would prohibit waiving time in grade requirements if an officer is under investigation for alleged misconduct or if adverse personnel action was pending. While I do not feel this is the ultimate solution to this problem, I do feel it is a move in the right direction toward making this section more acceptable. There is no reason for an officer to receive a promotion while an investigation into alleged misconduct is pending. As I have stated, I still have concerns with the wholesale repeal of congressional oversight as it relates to the confirmation of retiring officers. I believe we have a duty and an obligation to ensure that there are standards of accountability. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Grassley amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Grassley amendment, which seeks to modify section 505 of this bill. Section 505, which is almost identical to S. 635, would eliminate Senate confirmation of retiring three-star and four-star officers. Currently, the President nominates senior officers for retirement and they come before the Senate for confirmation. As we all know, in recent years, there has been great cause for Senate involvement in the confirmation of retiring officers. This new section would allow officers who have served 3 years in grade the ability to retire with their highest grade without action by the Senate. On May 11 of this year, I joined Senators Grassley and Boxer in sending a letter to the Armed Services Committee outlining our concerns with the provisions in S. 635. At a minimum, we asked that public hearings be held before proceeding with this action. Obviously, my concerns with this section have not been alleviated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the letter sent to the Armed Services Committee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this Sunday, July 30 marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Medicare Program. As this 30th anniversary approaches, it is important for us to reflect on the reasons this program was enacted, and its successes. President Truman offered several proposals to Congress, and President Kennedy made health care for seniors an issue in his 1960 campaign. Over and over again, Democrats attempted to pass Medicare legislation. Over and over again, Republicans voted overwhelmingly to defeat it. In 1965, despite a record-setting barrage of advertisements by the American Medical Association and many doctors' threats to boycott elderly patients, President Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law on July 30, 1965. Even then, a majority of Republicans voted against it. The Medicare Program is an important contract the U.S. Government has made with senior citizens. It is a lifeline for our Nation's elderly. It seems as though times have not changed--Republicans are still fighting against the Medicare Program. The same arguments are being used. And, Democrats are still fighting for seniors, and fighting to strengthen the program. During this year's budget debate, Democrats tried to put money back into the Medicare Program by eliminating the tax breaks in the budget. We were defeated, time and time again. I have heard rumors of a Republican plan to save Medicare. I have not seen an official copy of this plan, and this is worrisome. The Senate will be expected to act on the budget reconciliation plan by September 22, which is less than 18 legislative days away. How can we possibly ask our constituents to accept a plan that we have not even debated yet? From the little I have heard, this secret plan relies heavily on a voucher system, which will encourage seniors to buy the least costly health plan. This means losing their family doctor in many instances. If a senior chooses to stay in their current health plan, they will pay more--as high as $1,000 more in premiums, copayments and deductibles. [[Page S 10904]] Seniors simply cannot afford these additional expenses. The average senior citizen makes only $25,000 a year. How can we expect them to pay more, while we give out tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans. I realize the Medicare system of yesterday does not meet the needs of the Medicare population today. It needs improvement. It needs reform. But simply forcing seniors into HMO's and cutting benefits to seniors is not the answer. Seniors will pay more for less. Our aging population is growing, and growing faster than the money put into the Medicare system in the Republican budget. I worry about the families that have elderly parents, like I do. This so-called sandwich generation takes care of their own children and their elderly parents at the same time. They will feel the pain as their parents are unable to pay for their health care. The middle class will feel the squeeze. My question is this: What will this secret plan the Republicans are proposing do to the seniors of this country? Why will they not make the details public? As we near the 30th anniversary of Medicare, let us fix what is broken in the system. Let us get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse in the system. And let us be honest and sincere with the American people. They understand sacrifice. What they do not understand is secret tactics, and bearing an undue portion of that sacrifice. We need to give some hope back to middle-income, working families in this Nation. Let us strengthen the program our predecessors rightly worked so hard for.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on Monday of this week, the Senate unanimously voted to enact strict lobbying reforms. That vote signaled the intent of this body to listen carefully to the concerns of the American people. Today we have an opportunity to act on another reform measure--the gift ban. This bill, which was introduced by Senators Levin, Cohen, and Wellstone, seeks to prohibit Members and staff from receiving gifts. Simply, Members and staff will not have the opportunity to accept meals, privately financed trips, contributions to legal defense funds, or any other gifts from lobbyists. That does not seem like an unreasonable request to me. The American public has called for an end to business as usual in Washington, and this is a big step on the road to reform. In the last Congress, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass a virtually identical gift ban bill. Unfortunately, it was killed by a filibuster. But the need to adopt these reform measures has not diminished. There is strong support from the public. There is strong support from the Congress. And there is an unquestionable need to take this action. Mr. President, this debate is more than banning gifts--which clearly is long overdue. It is about restoring the faith of the American public in the political process. We need to remember that we are here as representatives of our constituents. That we were elected to work for the interests of our neighbors, not receive gifts from special interests. We must put ourselves in the shoes of our neighbors. Would they be asked out for free lunches? Would they be offered all expense paid trips to speak? When we can look our neighbors in the eye, and know that we do not have special privileges, then we are on the correct path to reform. The time has come to pass this long overdue measure. We must have real reform to help preserve the integrity of the process. We must have real reform to help restore the faith of the American people. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the gift reform bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today I am pleased to submit a substitute amendment with my colleagues, Senators Gorton, Hatfield, and Packwood, that I believe will dramatically improve the way business is done at the Hanford Reservation in Washington State. Hanford is the biggest, most toxic defense nuclear facility in the United States. Its recent annual budgets have cost American taxpayers almost $2 billion per year. Hanford is home to 80 percent of this Nation's spent plutonium. Its radioactive and other toxic materials are being stored in dangerous conditions and/or are already seeping into the ground water, toward the Columbia River. In other words, Hanford is a costly mess. Earlier this year, Senators Johnston and Murkowski introduced their vision of how to improve cleanup at Hanford. In S. 871, which this amends, they suggest abandoning the environmental agreement between the Federal Government and the State of Washington and allowing the Department of Energy to establish its own cleanup agenda and environmental standards. We cannot support that approach because we believe the people of the region must have a say in the way cleanup is conducted. The people of the Tri-Cities proudly built Hanford; they deserve a role in restoring Hanford. So, we take a different approach and offer a comprehensive bill addressing many issue impacting the cost and speed of cleanup at Hanford. The most fundamental and sweeping concept of the bill is its emphasis on increasing the role of the State in regulating cleanup. We create a single regulator primarily applying a single law: The State assumes jurisdiction of CERCLA, or Superfund. The amendment also reaffirms the Tri-Party Agreement, ensuring the people of the Tri- Cities and Washington State continue to have a voice in Hanford cleanup and restoration. Anther important aspect of this amendment is its emphasis on the adjacent community and its stability. The people of the Tri-Cities have worked hard to help America win the cold war. They have sacrificed their environment and given of their working lives. This amendment encourages new companies to provide a continuity of benefits and preferential hiring to former site employees. It urges private contracts to be let to companies based in the area. It also encourages greater privatization and commercialization of new technologies in order to attract new businesses to the area--and then keep those companies there after cleanup is completed. The amendment contains several other concepts I would like to emphasize. It streamline decisionmaking by giving a presidentially- appointed site manager significantly more authority to make decisions, transfer money, negotiate contracts, waive duplicative regulations, manage personnel, and select cleanup remedies. The amendment also establishes a land use council to help define cleanup objectives and standards for areas on the Superfund national priorities list. Finally, it urges a stable level of funding for cleanup to allow long-term planning. I want to conclude by saying that this truly is a bipartisan amendment. We elected officials, Democrats and Republicans representing both State and Federal Government, put our energy together to find solutions to the problems facing Hanford. We worked long and hard and none of us got everything we wanted. Had I been the sole author of this amendment, it would have been a different bill. However, I strongly support most of this amendment and believe it will hasten cleanup and benefit the people we represent--and the people who elected us and this Nation's taxpayers. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the Senate and with Representatives Hastings and Dicks, Governor Lowry, and Attorney General Gregoire to push this amendment and make it the law.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 641, the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act of 1995. I am proud to join 63 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in cosponsoring this bill, and I thank our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, for bringing the measure to the floor. The AIDS epidemic is one of the most serious public health crises the world has ever faced. AIDS is now the leading cause of death of Americans between the ages of 25 to 44. Even more startling to me, AIDS is the second highest cause of death among women across our country. In addition, AIDS cases among people of color are on the rise and rural populations are witnessing sharp increases of reported AIDS cases. We all know that AIDS has devastated the gay and hemophiliac communities. Yet, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control show the rates of increases in AIDS cases are highest among women, adolescents, and persons infected through heterosexual contact. In my home State of Washington, 37 of our 39 counties have reported cases of AIDS. The National Center for Health Statistics projects that deaths due to AIDS will increase 100 percent over the next 5 years. Clearly, the epidemic is not abating. Mr. President, I believe the Federal Government has an important role to play in combating the AIDS epidemic. But I also believe we--as parents, neighbors, and human beings--have an obligation to care for those living with HIV/AIDS. As more adolescents, our Nation's children, become infected with the AIDS virus, we must ensure they have access to adequate HIV-related treatment and services. When I see that adolescents are one of the fastest growing populations of people with HIV/AIDS, I get particularly concerned. I am the mother of two teenagers. I know AIDS is an issue they are very worried about. I want to do all I can to assure them that as a nation we are facing up to this crisis, and that perhaps one day they can raise their kids in a world that is no longer threatened by AIDS. One of the first trips I took as a U.S. Senator was to the pediatric AIDS ward at the National Institutes of Health. I was both heartened by the progress made by the researchers, and heartbroken by the unimaginable loss of life that is inevitable in the coming decade. I still have vivid memories of that trip to NIH. I remember the face of a young boy, barely in his teens, although physically he was the size of a 6-year old. His whole young life and that of his family's were consumed with trying to outwit this terrible disease. Tragically, he died a short time later, but I am determined to ensure that we do all we can and not turn our backs on our children. They are our future and they deserve better. The Ryan White CARE Act is one of the best programs to care for people living with HIV-infection. Our constituents have told us how much they have come to rely on the services funded through the Ryan White CARE Act. Maybe we need to reflect for a moment on what these services mean to a person living with AIDS. Because of the lifesaving resources the Ryan White Act provides, people living with HIV/AIDS have access to mental health counseling, transportation to medical appointments, companion care, and the delivery of a nutritional meal. In other words, the Ryan White CARE Act gives people with AIDS a most precious gift--a little peace of mind. I am proud of the people who are fighting on the frontlines of this epidemic in my State. Without Ryan White funding, organizations like the Northwest AIDS Foundation and the Chicken Soup Brigade would not be able to continue their life-sustaining work. Let me repeat that. Without funding from the Ryan White Act, people who [[Page S 10750]] are too sick to leave their homes could not count on a home-delivered meal, nor would they have access to HIV-related counseling and treatment services. It seems to me that ensuring the value of dignity in someone's last days is not too much to ask for in this greatest of countries on Earth. And, let us not forget, the Ryan White CARE Act saves us money. Ryan White-supported volunteer programs and case management programs are cost-effective alternatives to hospitalization and institutional care. Early intervention care services keep people living with HIV healthy and working far longer. And Ryan White services help prevent the spread of HIV by increasing people's awareness and understanding of the disease. Sooner or later, every Member of this Chamber will be personally touched by the shadow of AIDS. I already know what it feels like to have a good friend call and sadly confirm he has been diagnosed with HIV. My very good friend and former colleague in the Washington State Senate, Cal Anderson, has been living with AIDS for several months. I served with Cal before coming to this body, and I feel honored to be able to call him my friend. Cal is one of the most determined, respected, and strongest people I know. He has not let his health get in the way of his drive and commitment to serving the people of our State, and I want to let him know how much I admire his courage and his wisdom. This is a disease that affects us all, Mr. President. Finger-pointing and moralizing have no place in this debate. The AIDS virus does not choose its victims, and it does not seek to punish them either. None of us shall tolerate the suggestion that people who get AIDS are disgusting and reprehensible. All I know is that people with AIDS are sick--and they need our help and our compassion. Mr. President, the time to act is now. I urge all of my colleagues to support swift and final passage of the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes in opposition. I do rise today in opposition to S. 21, which directs the President of the United States to unilaterally lift the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Like many of my colleagues, I, too, want to do something, anything, to stop further atrocities from occurring in Bosnia. The situation grows more horrid everyday. We have all said it in a hundred different ways: There are no good options to choose from when trying to determine how best to respond to the tragedies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Compelling, sound, and thoughtful arguments have been made on both sides of this debate. In the words of one young Dutch peacekeeper just freed from Srebrenica: ``You wish the war would stop, but it's only a wish. It will be a miracle if this war ever stops.'' He had come to that conclusion after witnessing first hand the hatred that has fueled this conflict for generations, a hatred so deep as to seem endless, passed on for centuries from parent to child. At home, most Americans wonder aloud why the nations of Europe have not been able to come together around this crisis. Knowing how pressing the needs are in our own country, many Americans voice frustration at the unending calls for one form or another of United States involvement in Bosnia. Many resent the United States. in the role of global policeman again, and still many others are horrified by the pictures they see of refugees, of Bosnia's senseless dead, of ethnic cleansing and genocide, of a young woman hanging from a tree in desperate pursuit of escape. It is this profound sense of frustration that brings us to this debate today. Proponents of S. 21 argue that this approach gives us the best of both worlds--allowing the United States to do something to resolve the conflict while doing nothing to further our own national involvement. But I believe, Mr. President, that the promises of this approach may well prove to be false and that the consequences of Senator Dole's bill are not well understood. It is those consequences that concern me the most. It is those questions that have not been answered as we go through this debate. Despite those who have dismissed his comments during the course of this debate, I agree with Secretary of Defense William Perry when he says that unilaterally lifting the embargo greatly risks Americanizing the war in the Balkans. Let me make it clear that I agree with those who argue that the arms embargo should be lifted, because it is the Bosnians' right as an independent nation to defend themselves. U.N. Resolution 713, agreed to in 1991 and imposing an arms embargo on all states formed from former Yugoslavia, has frozen a military imbalance in place, because Bosnian Serbs inherited most of the arms and troop strength from Tito's Yugoslavia. But I continue to have very strong concerns about the United States going it alone and lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia unilaterally-- against the better judgment of our European allies who have troops on the ground, and who have far more at stake than we do at this point. We have spent little time during this debate discussing the actual details of the plan before us. But it is those details that will determine the success or failure of this approach. For example, if the goal of lifting this embargo is to get arms to the Bosnians, how exactly will that be accomplished? Who will be supplying the arms? The language of the bill suggests that we can somehow preclude U.S. participation, but I am unclear as to how that can be achieved. If we act unilaterally, we may then be in a position of supplying not just arms, but also trainers and other U.S. military support personnel. Or, if we simply provide funds for the Bosnians to purchase arms, will we be supportive if they use United States funds to purchase arms from Russia--or Iran? How do we keep United States supplied arms from falling into the wrong hands? This may be a particularly difficult problem if Russian arms are purchased--given that Russia has remained very close to the Serbs during this conflict. More broadly, if we view the Bosnian crisis as a potential threat to European stability, then I believe we must approach the problem in concert with our European allies, despite how difficult this has been. They are strongly opposed to lifting the embargo, and have made it clear that if the United States lifts the Bosnian embargo, they will remove their peacekeepers. That will no doubt lead to a new wave of refugees in Europe. It is the Europeans who will have to deal with the immediate effects of any U.S. action. It will be their soldiers who are on the ground in Bosnia, and whose lives will be on the line. Other questions remain. Currently, the United States works with our allies to enforce the embargo. If we break it unilaterally, will our allies continue to try and enforce it, and if so, how will we deal with such conflicts? The Croatians, too, have lost territory to the Serbs and would like to reclaim it. If we lift the embargo against Bosnia, why will we not be asked to do the same for Croatia? And, if the United States acts unilaterally, this could lead some nations to question their commitment to other embargoes, such as the economic boycott of Iraq currently in place. Mr. President, I am not prepared today to bury the multilateralism we have worked so hard to develop over the last 50 years with our allies. And finally, if the U.N. peacekeepers are removed, the United States may find itself in a position of having to deploy our own troops to help in that evacuation. Have the American people been adequately prepared for the loss of life that may occur under those circumstances? On that question, Mr. President, I strongly believe we should take the matter to a vote of the House and Senate if a wider role for U.S. troops is requested, so that the American people are involved. Let me make it clear that although I do not support the resolution before us today, I agree that the status quo is totally unacceptable. The handwringing of the West has been endless. Our actions have been irresolute and irresponsible. It has been a mistake from the beginning to deploy U.N. peacekeepers in a situation where no peace exists. It is not the mission of U.N. peacekeepers to make peace. Their role is to try to keep the peace once a settlement to the conflict has been agreed upon. That is not the situation in the former Yugoslavia. In the words of the Secretary General, the West has delivered to the United Nations a ``mission impossible.'' Scores of peacekeepers have been killed--and countless wounded. They have been deployed as soldiers into a war zone, but without the arms and means to protect even themselves. The peacekeepers have done their best under these horrid circumstances. They have saved countless thousands of lives. They have delivered vital humanitarian relief supplies. But they cannot be expected to resolve this war. As I said in the beginning of my statement, we have come to this debate out of a deep sense of frustration. This past weekend's ministerial level meetings in Europe produced a refinement of current allied strategy, but the current allied position remains tenuous and untested. We know that NATO's pinprick airstrikes are to be replaced by a NATO air campaign. We have been promised significant improvements in the duel-key command and control system, but confusion on this critical issue remains. Overall, the agreement between the United States and our allies is extremely fragile, with important questions remaining about its implementation. Will, for example, the plan to protect Goradze become a policy and extend to other U.N. safehavens if they come under attack? Fundamentally, is there a policy of resoluteness behind this site specific plan? If so, I have yet to hear it. And will the military officers on the ground finally be in control of military decisions, as opposed to the current situation where civilian U.N. officials can veto a military recommendation to initiate airstrikes. It is that situation which has led the Serbs to conclude that the West is nothing more than a paper tiger. Rightfully frustrated by what appears to be yet more allied indecisivness, Senators voting today in support of the unilateral lifting of the embargo believe their action will contribute to a solution in Bosnia. For the sake of the Bosnians, and for the sake of the entire civilian population throughout the former Yugoslavia, I hope that they are right, and that this action brings the conflicting parties closer to the peace table. But we have no way of knowing that will be the case. Let me state clearly that I oppose unilaterally lifting the embargo for two basic reasons: At the core, this is a European issue. Our European allies are on the frontline, and they do not want us to act unilaterally. We have 50 years of solid NATO relations at stake, and I have strong concerns about the United States going it alone against our European allies who have troops on the ground and who have more at stake than we do as we go into this debate. Second, and more important, if we do this, we have to be prepared to accept the consequences--we, the Senators of the U.S. Senate. The moment we lift the embargo, there is a strong chance the allies will leave and an all-out war will follow. If that is our choice, we will have to live with the resulting carnage. It is for those two reasons that I oppose this proposition before the Senate. Mr. President, this is a debate with endless questions and few answers, but in my view history will far better be served if the United States continues to try to forge a consensus approach to this tragic situation, rather than adopt a go-it-alone strategy that may well have the unforeseen consequence of widening the war and escalating our own national involvement. It is with a great deal of reluctance and sadness that I vote today in opposition to the amendment before the Senate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would that time then be divided for both sides fully?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S. 956, a bill to divide the ninth judicial circuit into two circuits. This is the fourth time since 1983 that a bill to split the ninth circuit has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. The proposal has failed to become law because the ninth circuit is operating well and providing uniform and consistent interpretation of Federal laws across the nine Western States, and the territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The courts of the ninth circuit are functioning well, and, in many instances, serve as models for the rest of the country. The ninth circuit has prided itself on its experiments in judicial administration, and has been a national leader in developing innovative caseload management and court administration techniques. The vast majority of judges, lawyers, and bar organizations in the ninth circuit have voted on several occasions against the division of the circuit. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and to resist the temptation to meddle with an institution that is successfully administering justice in the American West. Just 4 years ago, a comprehensive subcommittee hearing was held in the Senate on nearly identical legislation, and the proposal failed to emerge from committee. The proponents of S. 956 have identified no new reasons or change of circumstances to justify reopening this issue. Mr. President, the ninth judicial circuit has prepared a detailed position paper opposing S. 956. I agree with the circuit's reasoning, and I commend this paper to my colleagues. I also urge them to join me in opposing this bill which is both unwise and unnecessary. I ask that the complete text of the ``Position Paper in Opposition to S. 956--Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1995'' be printed in the Record. The material follows: Position Paper in Opposition to S. 956--Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1995 (6/22/95) Prepared by: The Office of the Circuit Executive for the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, P.O. Box 193846, San Francisco, California 94119-3486; Tel: 415-744-6150/Fax: 415-744-6179. [6/30/95] Proposed legislation: S. 956 would divide the present Ninth Circuit into two unequal-sized circuits. The new Twelfth Circuit would consist of the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington (6 districts), with 9 active circuit judges. The new Ninth Circuit would consist of the states of Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada, and the territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands (9 districts), with 19 active circuit judges. The Ninth Circuit opposes S. 956. The Ninth Circuit is functioning well and has devised innovative ways of managing its caseload that are models for other circuits. As the nation's largest circuit, it benefits from significant advantages because of its size and believes division of the circuit is unnecessary and unwise. The Circuit Executive's Office for the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit has prepared the following information in ``question and answer'' format to assist decisionmakers to understand the circuit's position on S. 956. 1. what would the proposed legislation do? S. 956 would create two courts--one 19-judge court and one 9-judge court--in place of a single 28-judge court. A basic problem with this proposal is that it creates more administrative problems than it solves. Quantitatively, such a circuit court would have a very small caseload. The aggregate number of cases in such a circuit based on the most recent statistics would be 1935,\1\ making it the circuit court with the second smallest caseload in the country,\2\ with only the First Circuit court having fewer cases. Of the 11 regional circuits, the circuit court with the median volume is the Second, with 3,986 cases; the proposed northern circuit would be less than half that number. Take away the northern states, and the Ninth Circuit court would still have the largest volume in the country. In short, such a proposal creates a very small circuit and gives not much relief. In general, S. 956 presumes that two smaller circuits will do a better job of maintaining consistency and deciding cases promptly than the present circuit. The proposal ignores the central fact of appellate dockets: caseloads are constantly growing and dividing the circuit would simply create two courts with increasing caseloads without dealing with the fundamental problems resulting from expanding caseloads with no increase in judicial resources. 2. how does this bill differ from earlier proposed legislation? This is the ninth legislative proposal to split the Ninth Circuit since 1940. It is nearly identical (except for the alignment of Hawaii and the Territories) to measures introduced by Senator Gorton in 1983, 1989, and 1991. Each of those measures failed to emerge from committee and died at the conclusion of the legislative session. The Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary conducted a legislative hearing on the 1989 bill (S. 948) on March 6, 1990. The sponsors of the current bill have advanced no reason for dividing the circuit that was not fully considered and rejected in 1990. They have pointed to no change in circumstances that would justify yet another examination of this issue. 3. are there drawbacks to the proposed bill? The Ninth Circuit has functioned successfully in its present configuration for over 100 years. Any effort to abolish a successful, established institution should be cautiously examined. The proposed bill could create serious legal and administrative problems and costs that do not now exist: (1) the potential for inconsistent law relating to admiralty, commercial trade, and utilities along the Western seaboard, including Alaska, Hawaii, and the Territories; (2) the opportunity for litigants to forum shop by filing their cases in whichever circuit, northern or southern, they feel is most sympathetic to their cause; (3) the substantial cost of setting up duplicative administrative structures; (4) the loss of advantages of size (see Question #4, below); (5) the rejection of the expressed will of the vast majority of the judges and lawyers in the circuit who oppose its division. Common sense suggests the inadvisability of creating a new regional circuit that would require duplication of functions that are already being satisfactorily performed in a larger circuit. Administratively, the creation of a new circuit would require duplicative offices of clerk of court, circuit executive, staff attorneys, settlement attorneys, and library, as well as courtrooms, mail and computer facilities. In addition, approximately 40,000 square feet or new headquarters space would be required, all of which would duplicate offices and space in San Francisco. Further, a small circuit, with its concomitant small caseload, would underutilize judicial resources and reduce the opportunities for efficiencies available to a larger circuit. Lawyers expressed particular concern that dividing the extended coastline in the West between two circuits would create inconsistent and conflicting application of maritime, commercial, and utility law in the two circuits, making commerce more difficult and costly, and requiring them to research the law of two circuits for every potential cross- circuit transaction. Potential inconsistencies would be especially troubling in the application of utility rates along the entire Pacific seaboard by the Bonneville Power Administration. These rate and administrative disputes should remain in a single service area, the Ninth Circuit. On four occasions in the past 15 years, the federal judges in the Ninth Circuit and elected representatives of practicing lawyers who participate in the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference have voted overwhelmingly in opposition to splitting the circuit. The current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, Vol. 2, based on extensive polling, reports that the lawyers ``almost unanimously praise'' the court, and, with regard to circuit splitting, ``all seem to agree that such a division would be difficult and probably unsatisfactory.'' (1995-1, 9th Cir.) 4. are there advantages to a large circuit? A single court of appeals serving a large geographic region promotes uniformity and consistency in the law and facilitates trade and commerce by contributing to stability and orderly progress. In many respects, the size of the Ninth Circuit is an asset that has improved both decisionmaking and judicial administration. The court of appeals is strengthened and enriched, and the inevitable tendency to regional parochialism is weakened, by the variety and diversity of backgrounds of its judges drawn from the nine states comprising the circuit. The size of the circuit has also allowed the circuit to draw upon a large pool of district and bankruptcy judges for temporary assignment to neighboring districts with a temporary but acute need for judicial assistance. The Ninth Circuit is a national leader in developing innovative solutions to caseload and administrative challenges. The ABA Appellate Practice Committee's Report applauded three specific operational efficiencies: . . .issue classification, aggressive use of staff attorneys, and a limited en banc-[that] were developed by the Ninth Circuit precisely to address the issues of caseload and judgeship growth that the Subcommittee identified, and hold promise for other circuits as they continue to grow. (at p. 10). The Ninth Circuit has served as a laboratory for experimentation in a host of other areas--from decentralized budgeting to cameras in the courts, from block case designations to improved state-federal judicial relations, from alternative dispute resolution to appellate commissioners, from improved tribal court relations to alternative forms of capital case representation. The results have inured to the benefit of the entire Judiciary. As the congressionally-mandated Federal Courts Study Committee noted in 1990, ``Perhaps the Ninth Circuit presents a workable alternative to the traditional model.'' Final Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee (1990). 5. what is the position of the sponsors? In remarks introducing S. 853 (the immediate predecessor of S. 956\3\), Senator Gorton of Washington asserted the following grounds for the proposal: (1) a decrease in consistency of decisions due to size; (2) unmanageable caseloads; (3) inability to appreciate the interests of the Northwest; and (4) a decline in the performance of the circuit. 141 Cong. Rec. S7504 (daily ed. May 25, 1995) (statement of Sen. Gorton). Senator Burns of Montana echoed his colleague's concerns and suggested employment and local economic stability are threatened by delays in resolving lawsuits affecting timbering, mining, and water development. Delays in criminal appeals, especially those involving the death penalty, also are of concern to the Senators. 141 Cong. Rec. S7504 (daily ed. May 25, 1995) (statement of Sen. Burns) The circuit's specific responses to these contentions are set forth in the following sections. 6. has the size of the circuit adversely affected consistency? Consistency of court of appeals decisions is important to provide coherent guidance to lower courts and litigants. The Ninth Circuit has instituted case management devices that have effectively reduced conflicts between panels and maintained a high level of consistency in its decisions. Since 1980, the use of a limited en banc panel to resolve intracircuit conflicts has proven highly effective. All 28 active judges participate in determining whether a case will be heard en banc. Each call for an en banc vote leads to careful evaluation of the development of the law of the circuit in that area. If a majority of the judges votes to hear a case en banc (which happens less than a dozen times a year), ten members of the court chosen at random plus the chief judge serve as the limited en banc court. Judges and lawyers have expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the limited en banc process; only a handful of requests have been made for a full court rehearing after the limited en banc panel has issued a decision, and none have been granted. An objective, highly-praised scholarly study of consistency of the law in the Ninth Circuit concluded ``the pattern of [multiple relevant precedents] exemplified by high visibility issues. . . is not characteristic of Ninth Circuit jurisprudence generally. Nor is intracircuit conflict.'' Restructuring Justice: The Innovations of the Ninth Circuit and The Future of the Federal Courts (1990). A recent FJC study reached a similar conclusion: In sum, despite concerns about the proliferation of precedent as the courts of appeals grow, there is currently little evidence that intracircuit inconsistency is a significant problem. Also, there is little evidence that whatever intracircuit conflict exists is strongly correlated with circuit size. Structural and Other Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals (1993). Of greater concern is the potential for increased Intercircuit conflicts that would be spawned by the division of circuits. Dividing the Ninth Circuit would place an additional burden on the United States Supreme Court to resolve conflicts that are now handled internally within the circuit. Nor is keeping abreast of the decisions of the Ninth Circuit a significant problem. For the past seven years, the number of published opinions issued by the circuit has remained relatively constant. In large part due to efficiencies and innovative case management methods pioneered in the circuit, the court has been able to accurately identify those selected precedential cases that truly merit publication and those routine cases which are most appropriately disposed of by a written decision sent only to the parties. 7. Is the Ninth Circuit's Caseload Excessive When Compared to Other Circuits? While the caseload for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the highest in the nation in absolute numbers, the caseload level is clearly not excessive when compared to other circuits, using either of two standard measurement approaches. Because federal statutes require that nearly all of the work of an appellate court be conducted by three-judge panels, the most accurate measure of a court's ability to manage its caseload is the number of appeals filed and terminated per panel. In 1994, the Ninth Circuit stood at 868 appeals filed per panel, very close to the median of 832 and substantially below the numbers for the two circuits that emerged from the split of the Fifth Circuit in 1980. For the same year, the Ninth Circuit stood at 914 appeals terminated per panel, slightly above the median of 866. Caseload levels may also be measured by case terminations per judge. The current Ninth Circuit rate of merit case terminations per judge is 446, a number which is exactly the national median. By either measure, the caseload levels in the Ninth Circuit approach the middle range for federal appellate judges. In contrast, under the proposed bill, the new Twelfth Circuit, with nine judges, would seriously underutilize its judicial resources and create huge disparities between the two circuits. Using projected Twelfth Circuit filings of 1935, a nine-judge court would have 645 filings per panel. The new Ninth Circuit, with 19 judges and filings of 6391, would have 1014 filings per panel, or 57% more cases per panel when compared to the judges in the Twelfth Circuit and the third highest per panel filings figure in the nation. 7. is regionalism appropriate for an appellate court? Sponsors of the legislation to divide the circuit cite the need for a court free from domination by California judges and California judicial philosophy. They assert that the Northwest states confront emerging issues that are unique to that region and that cannot be fully appreciated or addressed from a California perspective. The premise that a judge's place of residence prejudices his or her determination of cases was rejected as completely unacceptable by former Chief Justice Warren Burger in his remarks concerning an earlier version of the sponsor's legislation: ``I find it a very offensive statement to be made that a United States judge, having taken the oath of office, is going to be biased because of the economic conditions of his own jurisdiction.'' (Record, August 2, 1991, S 12277) Calling an earlier version of legislation to split the circuit ``environmental gerrymandering,'' then- Senator Pete Wilson of California echoed Justice Burger's concerns, stating: The judges of the Circuit are there to apply the law, not make it. Second, even in their application of the law, it is not intended that federal courts abide by a sense of localism. That is the role of the state and local courts. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1989: Hearings on S. 948 Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Administrative Practice of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 286 (1990) (written statement of Hon. Pete Wilson, U.S. Senate). Similarly, the ABA Appellate Practice Committee's Subcommittee To Study Circuit Size reported that ``a majority of the Subcommittee questions whether regional differences should be a criterion in determining circuit size. * * * The role of circuit courts is primarily to apply federal law--a law that with few exceptions is to be applied uniformly across the land.'' (at p. 3). 8. What Is THE Ninth Circuit's Record of Performance? One measure of the efficiency of an appellate court is the average amount of time required to decide a case from the period between filing a notice of appeal and rendering of a final decision. In 1983, when an earlier version of legislation to split the circuit was proposed, the court had 4583 new filings and the average length of time from filing the notice of appeal to final decision was 10.5 months. In late 1989, the court of appeals headquarter (where cases are processed) was badly damaged and closed by the Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco. Court staff was scattered among six different temporary buildings until late 1991. During this period, the court has 7257 new filings and the average length of time from filing the notice of appeal to final decision role to 15.6 months. Since the court was consolidated in a single location in 1991, processing times have substantially improved. In 1994, the most recent period for which figures are available, the court received 8092 new filings, and, despite vacancies, had reduced the average length of time from filing the notice of appeal to final decision to 14.5 months, slightly less than the time required in the Eleventh Circuit. The average time from filing to disposition, however, does not accurately reflect the time the cases are actually in the judges' hands. In the Ninth Circuit, the average time from oral argument submission to disposition--that is, the actual time the judges have the cases in their hands--is 1.9 months, or .5 months less than the national average. In short, what the court needs to reduce disposition times is more judges. Hundreds of cases are available to be heard by judges; there simply are not enough judges to hear them. This is the ``swell'' in pending cases referred to when S. 853 was introduced. 141 Cong. Rec. S7504 (daily ed. May 25. 1995) For this reason, in 1992 the Ninth Circuit requested additional judgeships. The Judicial Conference of the United States endorsed the request which is now pending before Congress. With four current vacancies on the court, the average time to disposition is unlikely to improve substantially until new judges come on board. Obviously this central problem would not be alleviated by dividing the circuit and the proposed split would materially increase the caseload of judges in the remaining Ninth Circuit. 9. is circuit division the solution to growing caseloads? The presumption that increasing the number of circuits would solve the problem of expanding federal court caseloads is the underlying fallacy of S. 956. Cases are resolved by judges, not circuits, and increasing the number of circuits without increasing the number of judges would only exacerbate the problem. Even with the proposed division of the Ninth Circuit, the population shift and growth that is increasing litigation in the West would continue to increase the workload of the two new circuits. The old Fifth Circuit encountered the same situation when it was divided into the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits in 1980. Before the split, the Fifth Circuit had 4914 filings and 27 judgeships, compared to the Ninth Circuit's 4262 filings and 23 judgeships. By 1994, the combined Fifth and Eleventh Circuits' filings had increased 241% to 11,858, while the Ninth Circuit's had increased 190% to 8115. Dividing the Fifth Circuit had no effect on the growth of the caseload, which is at the root of the size issue. In its study on circuit size, the ABA Appellate Practice Committee's Subcommittee to Study Circuit Size ``found no compelling reasons why circuit courts of various sizes-- ranging from a few judges to fifty--cannot effectively meet the caseload challenge. Indeed for every argument in favor of smaller circuits, there is an equally compelling argument for larger circuits.'' Report (October 1992), as p. 5. The Federal Judicial Center's recent analysis of structural alternatives in response to the mandate of the Federal Court Study Committee concluded: [T]here can be no doubt that the system and its judges are under stress. That stress derives primarily from the continuing expansion of federal jurisdiction without a concomitant increase in resources. It does not appear to be a stress that would be significantly relieved by structural change to the appellate system at this time. Structural and other Alternatives for the Federal Course of appeals (1993), at p. 155. The Ninth Circuit is functioning well and is handling its caseload in a timely and responsible manner. It is a leader in innovative case management techniques and its size offers numerous advantages, including: the application of a uniform body of law to wide geographic area, economies of scale in case processing, the ability to serve as a laboratory for experimentation in judicial administration and adjudication, and the diversity of background of its members. The vast majority of judges and lawyers in the circuit support retention of the circuit in its present form and reject circuit division as a response to the caseload crisis. Further Information Relating to the Issue of Splitting the Ninth Circuit: ABA Appellate practice Committee, subcommittee to Study Circuit Size, Report (October 1992). Baker, Thomas, ``On Redrawing Circuit Boundaries--Why the Proposal to Divide the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Is Not Such a Good Idea,'' 22 Ariz. S.L.J. 917 (1900). Federal Judicial Center, J. McKenna, Structural and Other Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals (1993). Final Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee (1990). Fourth Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of Section 6 of the Omnibus Judgeship Act of 1978 (1989). Hellman, A. ed., Restructuring Justice: The innovations of the Ninth Circuit and The Future of the Federal Courts (1990). Ninth Circuit Position Paper--1991. Ninth Circuit Position Paper--1989. Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts (1995). U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1989: hearings on S. 948 Before the Subcomm. on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990). 1. The caseload figures for the proposed new Ninth and new Twelfth Circuits are based upon internal court statistics for

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. In summary, I believe this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. The Senate has passed its own balanced budget resolution, and recently passed the conference report. The cuts in this rescissions bill are paltry by comparison. And the timber salvage provisions go too far without adequate safeguards and public participation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary, harmful bill. Exhibit 1

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my serious concerns about H.R. 1944, the fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill. I'll get right to the point: this is a bad bill. Its relevance to the budget process in Washington, DC, is minimal, and its relevance to the American people is marginal. This bill cuts $16 billion from the Federal budget. We recently passed a resolution that cut over $1 trillion; what's the logic in even debating this bill? We have only a few days left in the fiscal year, and yet we are proposing to go back and cut already-appropriated funds for virtually no good policy reason. This bill cuts commitments and goes back on promises made by this Senate less than 1 year ago. This bill has another problem. I believe the language about timber salvage included in the bill by my colleague, the senior Senator from Washington, will backfire. I believe it will hurt--not help--timber communities and workers in the Northwest. Mr. President, this timber salvage authorizing language is designed to accomplish three things: respond to a timber salvage problem resulting from last year's forest fires and recent insect infestations; speed the rate of timber sales under the President's forest plan, option 9; and release a few timber sales remaining from legislation passed by Congress 4 years ago. These are goals with which I agree. My problem is with the method. I believe the language contained in this bill will cause a blizzard of lawsuits, cause political turmoil within the Northwest, and take us right back to where we were 4 years ago. Our region has been at the center of a war over trees fought in the courtrooms and Congress for almost a decade. We have a history of waiving environmental laws to try and solve timber problems; that strategy has not worked. In fact, that strategy has made the situation worse. Until 1993, the Forest Service was paralyzed by lawsuits, the courts were managing the forests, and public discourse in the region was dominated by acrimony. The language in this bill will reopen those old wounds. Mr. President, I strongly believe that would not be in the best interest of the region. During floor consideration of this bill last spring, I offered an amendment that would have taken a more moderate approach to salvage operations. My amendment was narrowly defeated 46-48. I respect the will of the Senate in that regard. However, when the rescissions bill reached the President's desk, he vetoed it, citing among other things problems with the timber language. Mr. President, I learned before the July recess that a deal was being worked out on this issue. Despite my obvious interest in and concern about the salvage issue, I was not involved in the negotiations. I was not consulted during the process. Had I been, I would have been more than willing to work out a compromise in good faith. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I have reviewed the language, and frankly, I still have very serious concerns. The language in the bill before us is almost exactly the same as was contained in the conference report vetoed by the President, with three minor changes. While these changes may add flexibility, the fundamental problems in the bill remain: it rolls over current laws governing land management, and it cuts the public completely out of the process. Therefore, I cannot support it. Mr. President, there is a legitimate salvage issue right now throughout the West. Last year's fire season was one of the worst ever. There are hundreds of thousands of acres with burned trees rotting where they burned. I believe that many of these trees can and should be salvaged and put to good public use. I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to salvage damaged timber on Federal lands. The wrong way is to short-cut environmental checks and balances. The wrong way is to cut people out of the process. The wrong way is to invite a mountain of lawsuits. The right way is to expedite compliance with the law. The right way is to ensure that agencies work together and make correct decisions quickly. The right way is to let people participate in the process--so they don't clog up the courts later. My amendment, and my approach to the negotiations, would have focused on these points. Mr. President, there is a reasonable, responsible approach to ensuring salvage operations move forward. Unfortunately, the bill before us doesn't take it. Instead, it recklessly goes too far, too fast. Attaching a major harvesting amendment to an appropriations bill like this--worked out at the last minute, behind closed doors--is no way to make good public policy. Instead, the timber language should be developed through the normal authorizing process. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], has a bill pending in his committee that would establish a forest health program. There have been some hearings on that bill, and I have already stated my interest in working with him on his bill. Mr. President, there have been numerous editorials and articles written about this provision, most of which have urged the President and the Congress to reject these sweeping changes. In addition, recent statistics on employment and growth rates within the timber industry indicate the picture of the industry is not as bleak as some have predicted. I ask unanimous consent to insert some of these materials in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.