Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this system needs reform. S. 240 will retain the rights of investors to bring suit if they have been the victims of securities fraud. At the same time, it will clamp down on the abusive suits that prey on investors and small business owners. It is an honest effort to reduce the excessive costs to investors and our economy. It enjoys bipartisan support. It is a good compromise. For those of us concerned about the rights of investors--let me be very clear. It is absolutely critical to me that businesses and entrepreneurs remain bound to their obligations to maximize the return-on- investment--to seniors and average American families who invest in stocks and bonds. I will not support a bill which goes further than this in changing the current system. I will not support a loser pays provision. I will fight efforts to remove the protections for small investors in the bill. I will reject any legislation that takes away the SEC's powers to fight fraud. These are lines I will not cross, and in fact, no Senator should cross. They set my standards publicly for Senators offering amendments today--and Senators who go into conference with the House. As it stands now, S. 240 brings rationality and perspective and common sense to the system. And, I urge its swift adoption.

Mrs. MURRAY. I want to read just a portion of another letter I received. It is from Michael Darling, who wrote: Digital Systems International settled two securities cases in 1993 for payments of cash and stock valued at $7.5 million, not including litigation expenses. The costs of the litigation forced the company to lay off 30 workers--and to ask those remaining to accept pay cuts. Mr. President, I have also heard from the opponents of the legislation. I have listened carefully to every argument against the bill. I have worked to make this legislation good for all the parties involved. In fact, I have studied this issue for more than 2 years with members of both sides of the aisle--in a strong bipartisan fashion--to make this bill work for the American people. As we debate this bill, there are ads running in the papers and inflammatory attack ads being broadcast by both sides in this debate. Given the lengthy debate we have had on this bill, I find these campaigns very disturbing. Let me say to these groups, Mr. President, they are not serving anyone's purpose but their own. They are not helping craft legislation that works for America--they are slugging it out trying to seek advantage. I stand here on the floor today and say clearly to both sides of this issue-- Keep things in perspective. Use some common sense. Stop attacking and start cooperating. Mr. President, I have seen some unfortunate--and inaccurate-- statements made about this bill. Many have referred to an editorial from a Seattle newspaper which overlooked some of the bill's most important provisions. First, their editorial states that high-profile, meritorious cases of securities fraud could not be brought once S. 240 becomes law. That is simply not true. The SEC can always fight fraud, and they do so with vigor and clear purpose. This point is made quite clearly in the committee report: None of the provisions in S. 240 affects the SEC's ability to bring enforcement actions. Second, the editorial stated the bill contains a loser-pays provision. Again, this is untrue. S. 240 does not contain any fee-shifting provisions. It merely modifies rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civilian Procedure. And, rule 11 does not sanction anyone just for losing their case. This provision actually favors the small investor. S. 240 states that the sanction does not apply if it will cause undue financial hardship on the sanctioned party. Mr. President, this editorial has been challenged aggressively by public officials, business people, and many constituents in my State. I now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of letters-to-the-editor to Washington newspapers on this issue.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chair. I thank my colleague. I want to thank Senator Kassebaum for having conducted fair hearings and allowing the process to move forward. I hope that today's vote is one again of fairness. A filibuster on nominations has only occurred 24 times. Twenty-two of those times in this body, the body has said the nomination deserves an up-or-down vote; two of those other times they were nominations made by Democratic Presidents and defeated by Republican filibusters. I hope that fairness prevails as it has 22 times in the past and that this Senate votes today to allow this nomination to come forward so we can finally vote up or down on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster. He deserves that vote, and he deserves our confidence.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my colleague from Illinois 4 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield myself 1 minute, and then I will yield to my colleague. Mr. President, I am appalled and shocked that there would be this kind of display on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Certainly, Dr. Foster has made it very clear, as Senator Mikulski explained to all of us, that he does not support third trimester abortions, that he does not support abortions for sex selection, nor does he support illegal abortions. I think it is really outrageous that guilt by association occurs on the floor of the Senate. I think the American people deserve a debate with dignity. I think Dr. Foster deserves a debate with dignity, and I hope that all of us can remember that. Again, I remind you, Dr. Foster's nomination is in front of us because he is a man with a tremendous history of service--community service--delivering more than 10,000 babies, and I think that is what we should be debating today. I yield my colleague from New Jersey 2 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his outstanding work on this nomination. I remind my colleagues that we should be here debating the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster and what message and tone he can bring to this office. But we are not. We are here debating whether or not Dr. Foster will have the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. I have been working with Dr. Foster for a number of months now. It is extremely disappointing to see this fine man, after all he has been through, being denied a vote on the floor of the Senate. I hope our colleagues across the aisle can step back today and think about the larger message. Think about what will happen if we block this vote today and do not allow this man with great dignity to have the vote that he deserves after the last 5 months. Throughout this debate, I have been focusing on what Dr. Foster brings to this office. Certainly, he brings the issues of women's health care clearly to the forefront of this Nation for the first time in our history, and that is a good thing. Certainly, he brings the ability to send a message to our teenagers, a vision of hope, a vision that they can be somebody. That is something that is needed in this Nation. But I fear, Mr. President, that many of our American viewers today do not realize that that is not what this vote is all about. This vote has become a vote about Presidential politics, and I find that very sad. As we have worked to get to the last three votes, it has been surprising and saddening to hear what some of my colleagues have expressed. They do not feel they can vote for this candidate--not because he is not qualified, not because they think the process should be fair. They tell me they do not want to be seen as giving one Presidential candidate a vote over another Presidential candidate. It has become an issue of winners and losers. Who are the winners? Who is going to win? I can tell you who the losers are. The losers are the American people. The American people will be the losers because not only will they lose a fine candidate for Surgeon General, they will lose because the process has been sullied, and I think that is a sad statement for this Nation. I think the winner--no matter what the outcome of this vote--is Dr. Foster. He is a man of dignity, a man of courage, and he is a man of honor. Every one of us--every one in this Nation--should stand up and give this man a loud round of applause. He deserves it. He has lived through torture--name calling, watching his whole, entire life be put in print--and he has shown all of us, as he sat before the committee, that he is a man of dignity. Dr. Foster certainly is the kind of person that deserves to be in the Surgeon General position, and he is also a man we all want to be like. He is a man of honor, and he should be very proud today that he has shown this Nation how to be a leader and what we should expect of leaders and what we want our Nation's leaders to look like. I hope that all of our colleagues will step back and think about the larger message as they vote today. This man deserves a vote on the floor of the Senate. But above all, he deserves our applause for going through this process and showing us what a leader really looks like. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent last evening, attending the high school graduation of my son, Randy. I would have voted against the Smith amendment lifting penalties against States for not having helmet or seat belt laws. This issue for me, comes down to the simple question of safety. An issue that is bipartisan and noncontroversial. In fact, a recent comprehensive consume survey shows that 82 percent of Americans support a strong Federal role in safety. How can we then support a step backward against the giant gains we have made in highway accident and injury prevention. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, from 1983 to 1993, safety belts saved more than 40,000 lives and prevented $88 billion in economic losses by reducing health care costs and productivity losses. In 1993 alone, motorcycle helmet laws in 25 States saved 515 lives, prevented 2,035 moderate to serious injuries, and saved $513 million in economic losses. As a former State senator, I understand State's rights, but let us legislate on the side of safety and human life.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today we should be debating the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be U.S. Surgeon General. After all, it has been 6 months since this Nation has had a leading public health spokesperson, and the clock is still ticking. I will remind my colleagues that every 59 seconds a baby is born to a teen mother. Every 17 minutes in this country AIDS takes another American life. And this year, 46,000 women will die of breast cancer. We should be debating the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster but we are not. We are debating whether or not to allow a vote on Dr. Foster in this Chamber. This is very unfortunate, particularly in light of the many health care crises in this country. When I first met Dr. Foster, I was very impressed for one very important reason. He is an ob-gyn. I have fought long and hard, as this body knows, for women's health issues. Every wife, every mother, every sister, every daughter understands that women's health issues have been at the bottom of the barrel for too long in this country. I thought finally with an ob-gyn as Surgeon General, our health concerns would be brought to the top of the Nation's agenda. Let me make this very clear. I see a no vote today as a vote to deny women, for the first time and probably for a long time, a voice from the top on women's health issues. I was also impressed by Dr. Henry Foster's devotion to teens in our country. As all of you know, I have two teenagers at home. I listen to them in my living room, and I hear the same message: No one cares about them. Adults go in their houses; they shut the doors; they close the blinds and no one pays attention. Dr. Foster paid attention. He was willing to dedicate his personal time and his life to give children a message of hope, of opportunity and chance. That is what his point of light program, I Have a Future, is all about. This Senate should not go on record dashing that message of hope for our children today. A no vote on cloture does just that. Let us not forget the bigger picture and message in today's vote. For 5 months, Dr. Foster has gone through a very intense process: An FBI check, a search of his entire medical records; every word he has uttered has been magnified, expanded, looked at, and questioned, and he went through the entire committee process. He passed with flying colors. I heard some of my colleagues on the Senate floor say that Dr. Foster was confused, that he was not forthright. Anyone who looks at the record, anyone who watched Dr. Foster before that [[Page S 8737]] committee, feels as I do, that he is a man of dignity, of honor. He is honest and he is forthright. Are we giving him a vote today on his nomination? No. We are arguing whether or not he gets a vote in this Chamber. What does that say to Americans in this country who may at some point be asked to serve their country? If you cast a no vote on cloture today, it says loud and clear: Think twice; think about your entire life being scrutinized by this Senate body, think about giving up months of your personal life, your job, and your security only to hit the end of the line and not even get a vote on your nomination. A no vote today on cloture sends a loud, strong message for future votes on Presidential nominations, and I think the Members of the Senate should think long and hard before they cast their votes today. This vote today will be a vote on fairness. Can this body be fair to a person? And can we be fair to ourselves and the Senate process? I agree with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon, that this is not a vote on Dr. Foster; it is a vote on us. And meanwhile, I will remind my colleagues the clock is ticking. I yield back my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues who have been here on the floor this morning working very hard to bring this nomination to a vote. I remind everyone that the clock is ticking on the health of all Americans. Our Nation has been without a Surgeon General for 6 months. I see this vote very clearly today: We are not voting on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster today. We are voting on the opportunity for Members to vote on that nomination. A ``no'' vote will send a very clear message to women across this country. It denies women the opportunity to have a Surgeon General who specializes in women's health care. A ``no'' vote denies teenagers across the Nation a spokesperson who can give them hope and opportunity and who believes in them. A ``no'' vote sends a message to all Americans that public service is not something they should get involved in. A ``no'' vote denies this country the service of not one man, but many future leaders. A ``yes'' vote says this body is fair and will allow the vote of Dr. Foster to come before this body.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing support for research on breast cancer and the Race for the Cure. This frightening disease has taken the lives of far too many women, and the long list of those who have died include many of my own friends. As has been stated, breast cancer is a growing public health problem in this Nation and a great threat to women's health. Many women are very confused about the mixed messages being sent to us today about breast cancer. One year we are told to have annual mammograms beginning at the age of 40. The next year, after we faithfully comply with that, we are told something else. We remain worried and confused, and it is time for better research on the issue. Clearly, research has to be done. More needs to be done in prevention and treatment of breast cancer, and the Race for the Cure is a way for all of us to express our desire to do better in this and to bring this to the public's attention. I think it is an opportune time also for this Senate to recognize that it has been 6 months without a Surgeon General. Dr. Foster has the ability, if appointed, to bring this issue to the forefront of this Nation, and I hope that the majority leader brings Dr. Foster's nomination to the Senate expeditiously so that we can, again, have another way of making sure that women's health diseases are brought to the Nation's forefront. I will be joining my husband and my children this weekend in the Race for the Cure. I urge all of my colleagues to not only walk the walk but talk the talk and get some good research done on this issue. I thank my colleague from New Jersey.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I, too, today rise to urge the majority leader to bring the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster, Jr., for U.S. Surgeon General to the Senate floor for a vote. I am very excited about the nomination of Dr. Foster to be U.S. Surgeon General. Dr. Foster is an OB-GYN, and I appreciate the importance of his practice area to families and children. For far too long in this Nation, women's health concerns have been neglected by our Government. One example tells a whole story. A National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute study of 22,000 physicians begun in 1981 found that men who took aspirin every other day reduced their incidence of heart attacks. The Institute claimed that women were not included in the study because to do so would have increased the cost. As a result, today we do not know whether this prevention strategy would help women, harm them, or have no effect. Gender equity in medical research has received increased attention over the past few years. We no longer will tolerate a Government-funded heart disease study which includes 22,000 men and excludes women altogether. Given that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, we expect women to be included in clinical trials. We still have a long way to go. Women are the fastest growing demographic group among those diagnosed with HIV. We suffer from clinical depression at rates twice that of men. And we frequently are the victims of domestic violence. It is imperative that the leading public health official in our Nation be a forceful spokesperson on these issues. Everyone agrees we need to reduce teen pregnancy because it is a national priority. We need a Surgeon General who understands the link between sexual abuse, adolescent pregnancy, and building self-esteem among at-risk youth. Dr. Foster has experience in reducing teen pregnancy. His ``I Have a Future'' program was named a ``Point of Light'' by President Bush because of its pioneering work. Dr. Foster has successfully demonstrated his ideas about public health strategies that can greatly benefit our Nation. He has focused not only on preventing teen pregnancy but on preventing drug abuse, reducing infant mortality and ending smoking by children. He is a physician with vision, and he is a caring and honorable man. When I first met with him a few months ago, he mentioned the opening lecture he gives to medical students. He spoke passionately about the importance of obstetrics and gynecology. He told me he reminds new OB- GYN's that without their work there would be no art or architecture; without healthy women and children there would be nothing. Some politicians would have the Senate exclude Dr. Foster from consideration because he has performed abortions. I disagree. Abortion should not be the determining factor in the selection of a Surgeon General. Let us not tolerate the disqualification of this candidate because of his basic practice area. Dr. Foster has dedicated his life to women's health, the welfare of children, and the well-being of families. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Dr. Joycelyn Elders resigned her post, as was stated, on December 9, 1994. This nomination was sent to the Senate on February 2, the nomination papers were filed February 28, and the committee voted this out on May 26, 1995. Our Nation has now gone 6 months without a Surgeon General, and the clock is ticking. Every 15 seconds a woman is battered. And that is not all. Let me share with my colleagues that the clock is ticking and every 59 seconds a baby is born to a teen mother. Every year, alcohol causes the death of nearly 20,000 Americans. Every 17 minutes, AIDS takes another American life. Every year, over 144,000 Americans will suffer a stroke. We need a national public health spokesperson, and we need a Surgeon General. This year alone, 95,400 men will die of lung cancer; 62,000 women will die of lung cancer; 51,000 Americans will die of AIDS; 46,000 women will die of breast cancer; 40,000 men will die of prostate cancer; and 14,500 women will die of ovarian cancer. Mr. President, we need a national public health spokesperson. We need a Surgeon General, and we need a vote in the Chamber of the Senate on the nomination of Surgeon General. I, too, will be back on this floor reminding my colleagues it has been 6 months and the clock keeps ticking. We want a vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be given 7 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to join the President, my House and Senate colleagues, and the American people in expressing my deep relief at the safe return of Air Force Capt. Scott O'Grady, who was shot down over Bosnia 6 days ago while on a NATO mission. It is a tribute to Captain O'Grady and the Air Force that trained him that he was able to survive for so long under such difficult circumstances. And certainly we must all loudly applaud the brave marines who put their own lives on the line and rescued him under the most treacherous circumstances, braving both missile and small-arms fire during their 5-hour rescue mission, to pull one of their own to safety. Captain O'Grady's family has no doubt had a week of anguish and hope, and I celebrate with them this wonderful news and the remarkable strength and courage of Captain O'Grady and the marines who come to his rescue. Scott O'Grady, who is from Spokane, WA, is an inspiration to citizens across my State and this nation, and I am proud to join the many many voices today that are celebrating his safe return.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that grants a Jones Act waiver to the vessel Wolf Gang II. This vessel is owned by Robert L. Wolf, a Washington State resident who, after 30 years of service, retired in 1992 as a colonel in the U.S. Army. After his retirement, Wolf decided to operate a charter boat business on Puget Sound and bought Wolf Gang II, a 1985 Bayliner 4518 motoryacht. Although Wolf can document the boat was built in the United States, he cannot verify all of the boat's previous owners were U.S. citizens. As a result, Wolf's boat fails to meet all of the requirements in the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and he is unable to gain certification for coastwise trade. I understand how frustrating this situation is for Mr. Wolf. He simply wants to run a charter boat business in the beautiful waters of Puget Sound, and he has waited 3 years for an exemption from the unintended consequences of the Jones Act. My bill addresses this complication and waives the Jones Act requirements so that Mr. Wolf can begin operating his charter business this year. I look forward to swift passage of this legislation, and I expect to see Barnacle Bob's Cruises operating soon.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that grants a Jones Act waiver to the vessel Wolf Gang II. This vessel is owned by Robert L. Wolf, a Washington State resident who, after 30 years of service, retired in 1992 as a colonel in the U.S. Army. After his retirement, Wolf decided to operate a charter boat business on Puget Sound and bought Wolf Gang II, a 1985 Bayliner 4518 motoryacht. Although Wolf can document the boat was built in the United States, he cannot verify all of the boat's previous owners were U.S. citizens. As a result, Wolf's boat fails to meet all of the requirements in the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and he is unable to gain certification for coastwise trade. I understand how frustrating this situation is for Mr. Wolf. He simply wants to run a charter boat business in the beautiful waters of Puget Sound, and he has waited 3 years for an exemption from the unintended consequences of the Jones Act. My bill addresses this complication and waives the Jones Act requirements so that Mr. Wolf can begin operating his charter business this year. I look forward to swift passage of this legislation, and I expect to see Barnacle Bob's Cruises operating soon.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 735, the antiterrorism bill. This bill poses serious dilemmas for me, and for this Congress. It requires us to face some of the real dangers that exist in the modern world, and it motivates us to act in the interest of protecting the people. But it also makes us face the cost of freedoms we enjoy as Americans. It is disturbing to me when the Congress is faced with a decision to increase protection for the people by chipping away at the edges of freedom. But in this case, the imperative is clear. We have heard many compelling [[Page S7855]] stories on this floor about the horrors of Oklahoma City, the tragedy of the World Trade Center. These stories are real; they involved real Americans in today's world. I need not repeat these stories here. Let me simply acknowledge what we all feel: These events have shaken every American to the core of their being. To reduce the likelihood of such events occurring in the future, and to preserve a peaceful existence for Americans, we must act. We must empower our law enforcement officials to zero in on terrorist organizations, at home and abroad. This bill does that. We must make these crimes a high priority within the judicial system, and clearly subject terrorist activities to prosecution. This bill does that. We must cripple the ability of terrorists to finance their activities in our own backyard. This bill does that. We must draw on all the expertise of the Government, including the military where appropriate. This bill does that. This bill contains many provisions that will improve our ability as a nation to prevent, combat, and prosecute against terrorist activities. As a result of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, we owe it to the victims to act. As Senators in an increasingly dangerous world, we owe it to all citizens to protect the quality of life unique to the United States of America. Therefore, I will support S. 735. Madam President, having said that, I must add a few concerns. I do not think it is ever a good idea to legislate in the heat of the moment. Cases like this are most susceptible to the laws of unintended consequences. As we broaden the reach of law enforcement, and as we broaden the application of penalties, we as elected officials have an equal obligation to keep from unnerving the people we are trying to protect. We have no idea what kind of mistakes will be made, or whose rights will be infringed, when this bill is implemented. It will be critically important for law enforcement officials of all types to keep in mind the responsibilities to protect the citizens that go along with the kind of broad new powers we are bestowing on them. Likewise, we have to recognize the dangers of internal hatred and anger. If there is one thing we can conclude from recent tragedies, it is this: We must remain vigilant against extremism of all types. These are forces that may be motivated by legitimate feelings of frustration with the Government. But there are very clear lines that we must not cross. Our system of Government is geared toward discourse and debate; if we lose the ability to air out our differences through honest debate, and if we cannot agree to disagree when we have to, the entire country will suffer. We all have a responsibility to zealously defend our collective rights to democratic government. To this end, I feel strongly that all of us--politicians, activists, citizens--have a contribution to make toward maintaining civil discourse. We can improve the environment dramatically by simply toning down the rhetoric. If we are going to protect constitutional democracy and our rights as citizens to express our opinions, we have to learn to respect each other as people. Finally, Madam President, I would like to add a comment regarding the amendment offered by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden. He rightfully pointed out that this legislation takes on an issue that is far too complicated to resolve here: habeas corpus reform. This is the wrong time and the wrong bill on which to attempt to resolve a debate that has raged in this country for years. As I said before, I believe it is unwise to legislate in the heat of the moment. By including the limits on habeas corpus in this bill, the majority is doing just that. I believe the Senate should instead have a thorough, thoughtful debate about habeas corpus independent of this legislation. It is simply too important to run through the Senate on a bill narrowly targeting antiterrorism activities. Therefore, I support the Biden amendment. While it is obvious the votes are not there to postpone the debate over habeas corpus to a later time, at least the point has been made on the Senate floor. Madam President, I hope my remarks are persuasive in pointing out the dilemmas in passing this legislation. While we can take comfort knowing this bill strengthens the hand of law enforcement to aggressively pursue terrorists, none of us should take comfort in what it might mean for innocents caught in the middle as the antiterrorism effort intensifies. I support S. 735 with some reluctance, and sincerely hope that authorities will use their new powers as judiciously as the spirit of freedom implores. Madam President, on Monday, June 5, the Senate adopted by a vote of 90-0 an amendment by the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, to require the use of taggants to mark materials used in the construction of explosives. I was unavoidably detained, and therefore not present for that vote. I apologize to the leaders for my absence; had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Feinstein amendment. If there is one straight-forward thing we can do to help law enforcement investigate bombings, it is requiring the use of taggants.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was forced to cast my vote against the budget resolution for the upcoming fiscal year. As a member of the Budget Committee, I take seriously my responsibilities to form and oversee our Nation's budget. Accordingly, I believe the budget resolution is one of the most important documents produced by the Congress each year. This resolution is critical legislation because it sets our Nation's priorities. It steers our economic policies. And, it carries weight with the American people. I believe this process should be used to give the American people hope. The American people deserve a sound budget, which reflects their spending priorities. And, they deserve economic security in youth as well as in older years. Unfortunately, Mr. President, this budget fulfills none of these requirements. It is truly the worst of slash and burn politics. It is misguided economic policy. It robs our constituents of hope and our children of their future. Mr. President, our colleagues offered a number of amendments which would have gone a long way to improve this bill. I must say, Mr. President, I was pleased that a strong bipartisan coalition of Senators supported a sense of the Senate measure I offered on impact aid. Impact aid is critical educational assistance for our federally impacted school districts. I hope my amendment will ensure that the Federal Government lives up to its responsibilities to our Nation's schoolchildren who live on Federal property. That is the minimum we owe the children of our women and men in uniform, and I am pleased the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, accepted my amendment as part of his resolution. Unfortunately, many other amendments which would have improved this bill failed to pass on largely party-line votes. I was pleased to support a substitute budget proposed by my friend, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad. His proposal--the fair share plan--reached balance, closed loopholes, excluded Social Security, but smoothed the glidepath of reduced spending. It is my sincere belief that the budget proposed by Senator Conrad would have been a better starting point than the one put forth by my Republican colleagues. The Conrad plan was not perfect, but it would have been better for our children, our elderly, the environment, and the most vulnerable members of our society. My friends, the distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, offered a wise amendment which aimed at restoring the draconian cuts to education. I was pleased to speak in favor of this amendment, and [[Page S7707]] an truly sorry that our Republican friends were unable to join colleagues on this side of the aisle in restoring some hope for our children's future. Similarly, my Budget Committee colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, and my friend from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, offered an important amendment to restore some of the nasty cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. This amendment would have given some much-needed security to our elderly. It would have also loosened the squeeze on the middle class--average Americans like me, who are caught between elderly, frail parents, and kids at home. I was honored to join two of my distinguished colleagues from the Finance Committee, Senator Bradley and Senator Breaux to roll back the tax increase on our country's working families. This budget plan raises the taxes on families earning less than $28,000 per year. I think nearly everyone in this country would agree it is inherently unfair to raise taxes on the lower middle class and give a break to the wealthiest among us. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected on party lines. That is a tragic and sad mistake. Time and again, some of our colleagues attempted to restore common sense to this budget, but we were caught up in the partisanship of this body. One of the worst examples of this came with the defeat of the Murray amendment. My amendment simply would have protected kids from Medicaid cuts. Despite the defeat of my amendment which would have put the Senate on record that children should not be left without insurance, I will continue to fight for the interests of children in this Nation as the Medicaid system is reformed by this Congress. Lastly, I was very disappointed that an amendment offered by my colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, was defeated. The Senator from Delaware correctly called attention to the risks to our environment if oil exploration were to be extended in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This amendment was important for the future of our Nation's environment, and its defeat is shortsighted and ill-advised. Mr. President, without these amendments, without this safety net for our children, without protections of our environment, and without other safeguards for our most vulnerable citizens, this resolution is fatally flawed. And, I cannot support this draconian and risky budget plan.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Roth amendment. We cannot sacrifice the incomparable wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to support our bad spending habits. This refuge is one of the only remaining complete and undisturbed arctic ecosystems in the world. It is home to an abundance of wildlife, including grizzly and polar bears, musk-oxen, wolves, and a host of migratory bird species. It is also home to the magnificent porcupine caribou herd, whose 160,000 members rely on this coastal plain for their calving grounds. ANWR also provides essential habitat for people. The Gwich'in people have inhabited this arctic ecosystem for more than 20,000 years. They are dependent upon the caribou herd for their food source, clothing supply and culture. Mr. President, this body could, today, begin a process that will signal the beginning of the end for many of the people and wildlife of ANWR. With this budget resolution, the doors will be opened wide for oil development in the Refuge. Oil development will likely disrupt the porcupine caribou and force them to change their calving grounds and migratory routes. This, in turn, will affect other wildlife and impact the lifestyle and culture of the Gwich'in people. Proponents of development claim that only 13,000 acres of the Refuge will be impacted. While this may be true, that development will take place in the biological heart of ANWR and have a devastating impact on the wilderness values of the area. In this biological heart, developers will create a major industrial complex. They will build hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines, erect housing for thousands of workers, and construct two sea ports and one airport. These developments will lead to mining of enormous amounts of gravel, will require diversion of streams and will result in pollution of fragile tundra. In addition to harming this precious piece of our heritage, I am skeptical about the revenue assumptions made in the budget resolution. The resolution assumes an intake of $1.4 billion from ANWR oil leases. This assumption is based on a split between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska of 60/40. While the Federal Government may push for this division, the state of Alaska has historically received 90 percent of the money from Arctic leases. It is likely that Alaska would file lawsuits to ensure that 10/90 split continues. Leasing ANWR will not result in a balanced budget. Leasing ANWR will result in an imbalanced ecosystem in one of our greatest wilderness areas. I urge this body to protect the Refuge for future generations of Americans. Support the Roth amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Lautenberg and Rockefeller, to restore funding to veterans' programs by closing the ex-patriots tax loophole. This provision, which allows billionaires to renounce their citizenship to avoid paying taxes, has been quite popular this year. On two occasions, the Senate has resoundingly supported changing this tax loophole. Unfortunately, final legislation to close this loophole has not yet passed. Today we have an important opportunity to close this unfair loophole once and for all and to help those individuals who must now face personal battles each and every day because they sacrificed for their country. The Lautenberg-Rockefeller amendment provides that money saved from repealing this tax loophole will be used to restore funds for critical veterans' programs. These individuals have been unfairly and continually targeted as a means to help balance the budget. During the balanced budget amendment debate earlier this year, I supported an amendment by Senator Rockefeller that exempted current veterans' benefits from cuts. That amendment failed 33 to 62, signaling the intent to further cut the benefits of these individuals. This budget resolution seeks to cut $15.4 billion in funding for veterans' programs through 2002. This will result in denying care to almost 1 million veterans, and closing the equivalent of 35 of its hospitals. Clearly, this is not an effective or responsible way to care for the needs of our Nation's veterans. We should be working on ways to improve care for veterans, not diminish it. Mr. President, I understand the need to make difficult choices about which programs to cut in our push to balance the budget, and that certain sacrifices must be made. However, we must not lose sight of the promises made to those men and women who fought to help preserve democracy in our country and around the world. We cannot revoke the very care and benefits that were promised to these individuals when they put their lives on the line and served their country. As the daughter of a disabled veteran, I understand the toll debilitating diseases take on a family. I understand the value of the VA health system and the critical research being done to help improve patient care. This amendment seeks to right a serious wrong. It will help restore funding for veterans programs that provide medical care and medical research for the true patriots of this country, and stop an egregious abuse of a tax loophole by those individuals who wish to be ex-patriots. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help maintain the promises made to the veterans of this country.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tomorrow I will send an amendment to the desk. My amendment is very straightforward. It allows the Senate to think twice before we pass reforms to the Medicaid system that would result in more uninsured American children. This amendment does not call for one dime of new spending. It is, by definition, revenue neutral. This amendment simply creates a point of order against any legislation which would cause children currently eligible to receive Medicaid to lose their health care benefits. And, that point of order is easily waived by a simple majority vote. Mr. President, as you know, this year, the Medicaid program covers health care services for over 36 million low-income Americans. Close to half of those Americans are children. Children who have no access to health care insurance on their own. Children with complex health care needs. And, children, I will say, Mr. President, who don't have well financed lobbyists up here fighting for their interest. Most of the children covered by Medicaid live in low-income, working families. Mr. President, we are talking about families who have to choose between putting food on the table, or getting health care treatment for their child. I have visited Children's Hospital in Seattle many times. Mr. President, I have witnessed first-hand the decisions these parents face. A typical family on Medicaid is a young, happy family, whose life is suddenly disrupted when they find out their child has been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis or leukemia or severe asthma or cancer. One parent has to quit his or her job to stay home and take care of the child. On just one income, family finances become increasingly difficult. Soon the health insurance runs out, and the family is forced to spend down to be able to receive Medicaid, just so their child can receive critical medical attention. The cost of care for the child will be passed along to the American taxpayer. Doctor and hospitals will simply raise their rates. Insurance companies will do the same. Everyone agrees that there are problems with the Medicaid system that need fixing, and everyone agrees with the need to reduce the Federal deficit. But, I am concerned that we don't become lulled by the mantra of cut, cut, cut. [[Page S7223]] As the Congress cuts spending, I just want to make sure we raise a red flag when children's health care is concerned. Medicaid is every child's health insurance safety net. My amendment just makes us think twice before we yank that safety net away. You will hear some arguments against my amendment today, arguments that--frankly--make little sense. You will hear that this amendment is impeding deficit reduction, and impeding the actions of the Senate. On the contrary, the point of order in this amendment can be waived by a simple majority vote--just 50 votes. We have points of order against the mandates of environmental laws--I just want to make sure we have a point of order to protect the most vulnerable of our population--our children. You will also hear that this amendment says that we do not trust our Governors to protect children when Medicaid is block granted. Trust? Block grants, by definition, shift all responsibility to the States. If any kind of emergency or disaster happens in a State, such as an earthquake in California or flooding in the Midwest. I just want to make sure our overburdened Governors do not allow health care for our children to go by the wayside. This amendment simply makes us think twice about children. This is not a question of trust--it is a question of insurance. That is all. Finally, Mr. President, you will hear that this issue will be dealt with in the Finance Committee after the budget resolution is passed. We listened to a prolonged debate this morning on the EITC--which will also be a topic in the Finance Committee's deliberations. If today is a good day to talk about EITC, today is a good time to talk about children's health insurance. Let me conclude with a few words about priorities. When I offered this amendment in the Budget Committee, we were immediately subjected to a lengthy diatribe by the other side that sounded more like Presidential campaign speeches than a statement about our children's health insurance. That happens all too often. As soon as we talk about children, the debate is trivialized. The discussion is kidnapped. And, so, I stand here again today and ask--what better time is there to talk about the future of our children than during this historic debate? We need to know if actions we take here today will hurt our children. My sincere goal with this amendment is to look out for the most vulnerable of our population. I know they do not vote. I know they do not give money to political campaigns. But they continue to get sick because their parents cannot afford to get them vaccinated. Congress cannot turn its back on its children. My amendment simply ensures that before Congress makes any changes to the Medicaid system, we will take a hard, thoughtful look at the possible damage these changes will cause. Let us put a little bit of conscience back into this budget. Let us protect our future. Let us protect our children. I urge all my colleagues to join Budget Committee members on my side of the aisle and agree to this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas. The budget resolution before us has been termed an historic document. It certainly is. For the last decade, the Congress of the United States has recognized that our public lands are too precious to sell unless their sale is in the best interest of the public. That is good policy and one that has enjoyed strong bi-partisan support. But it is a new day. Today, we may well vote to sell our children's heritage to pay our debts. I reject that approach [[Page S7222]] to debt reduction and I reject that approach to disposition of our Federal assets. What is at risk? Potentially on the sale block are assets ranging from oil supplies beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; to battlefields reminding us of the pain and sacrifice of the Civil War; to Power Marketing Associations that provide hydroelectric energy, transportation, and resource protection; to endangered wildlife living in our National Wilderness Preservation System; to toll-free interstate highways present in every State in the Nation; to public timber sold primarily to small businesses dependent upon National Forests for their wood supply. These assets should not be sold to reduce the deficit. And they, certainly, should not be sold to provide a tax cut to wealthy Americans. Instead, our Federal assets should be sold only when, after reasoned debate and a full public airing, we decide their sale is in the best interest not only of this generation--but of every generation that follows. We owe our children much more than a balanced budget. We owe them their heritage. I urge my colleagues to vote first for Senator Bumper's amendment precluding scoring of the sale of all Federal assets. While I have the floor I want to just mention two other amendments I will be offering tomorrow that my colleagues will be voting on. sense of the senate resolution on impact aid

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Thurmond-McCain amendment, which seeks to increase defense spending by $68 billion over the next 7 years, and pay for that increase by making further cuts in domestic programs. In this era of shared sacrifice where no one is spared the budget ax--not children, seniors, nor veterans--I fear that those who would now ask the Senate to increase the level of defense spending simply do not understand the true war this country is fighting. Mr. President, it is America's families who are on the front lines today, fighting to find a safe place to live, a sound education for their children, affordable health care, and job security. It is the war against crime, poverty, ignorance, and AIDS that needs to be this country's priorities as we approach the next century. During the cold war, Americans made sacrifices here at home so that our national resources could be used to defeat communism around the globe. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and with it, the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Union officially dissolved in 1991. We fought the war, and we won. In the aftermath of the cold war, I believe American families deserve to live in a safer and more stable world. They deserve to know that more of their tax dollars are going to educate their children and police their streets. The Republican budget before us today, which outlines their spending priorities for the next 7 years, makes deep cuts in programs for children, the poor, veterans, and the elderly, while insulating defense spending from cuts. And now we are asked to support an amendment which would add $68 billion more in defense spending, and to pay for that increase, American families would have to accept yet deeper cuts in domestic programs. Even without this amendment, let us remember what the Republican budget is asking of American families. Teachers and students are asked to accept dramatic cuts in education spending, worker training programs, and student loan assistance. Preschoolers and their parents must accept a 30-percent cut in Head Start funding, which will deny as many as 100,000 low-income children the benefit of a preschool education. Rural Americans will be asked to accept 20-percent cuts in mandatory agriculture spending. Children and the elderly will be asked to shoulder $400 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts. In America today, one in four children, and one in three infants, are covered by Medicaid. The earned income tax credit, a program to help keep working families off welfare, will be cut by 11 percent. Our Nation's scientific community must accept $25 billion in cuts for basic research. The budget blueprint before us increases the veterans' contribution for GI bill education benefits, and freezes funding for the VA's medical system at the 1995 level for the next 7 years, cutting access to health care for veterans around the Nation. Under the Republican proposal, the VA will be forced to close the equivalent of 35 of its 170 hospitals and deny care to over 1 million of our Nation's vets. And if we accept the amendment now pending before the Senate, American families would be asked to accept even deeper cuts in education funding, crime control, and other important domestic programs. Proponents of this amendment point to recent declines in defense spending with alarm. While spending for our military is down from the mid-1980's level, we must keep this trend in perspective. The United States today has the largest military budget and the most powerful military force in the world. The combined military budgets of Russia, Iraq, China, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Syria, and Cuba total $95 billion annually. That is one- third the level of U.S. defense spending. Each year, the United States spends more than the next nine of the world's biggest military spenders combined. In fact, this country spends so much for defense, even the Pentagon can't keep track of it all. According to the GAO and the Pentagon's inspector general, as well as the Pentagon's Controller John Hamre, billions of defense dollars are lost year after year due to poor recordkeeping and lax accounting practices at the Department of Defense. According to GAO, each year the pentagon pays private contractors up to $750 million it does not owe them--with businesses often paid twice for the work they have done. And at this point, according to the Pentagon, there is really no way to retrieve these lost funds, or to stop the massive overpayments. Billions of dollars simply lost in the system, Mr. President, in an era when we are saying no to university scientists looking for cures to devastating diseases. Billions of dollars lost in the system when we are saying no to preschoolers who need HeadStart programs. Billions of dollars lost in the system, when we are saying no to our Nation's elderly, who thought they could rely on Medicare in their final years. Billions of lost dollars when we are saying no to basic scientific research, which has fueled our economy for decades. At the very least, Congress should hold defense spending to the President's level until the Pentagon can fix their payment procedures and bring some accountability to the system. We owe that much to the Nation's taxpayers. Our debate today is about deficit reduction--which requires hard choices. Under the Senate budget plan, the United States will continue to maintain the strongest military in the world. Today the military's share of the gross domestic product is 4.6 percent, which is higher than the entire Federal domestic discretionary budget combined 3.7 percent. And in the current international climate, where the United States remains the only military superpower, we are also the dominant economic and political actor on the stage. In this role, we must increasingly emphasize nonmilitary solutions to global conflicts--diplomatic negotiations, multilateral efforts, and regional responses. But most of all, in order to project strength abroad, we must gain strength here at home. Our national security, in my view, will not be strengthened by yet more guns and missiles. We need to restore global economic leadership. We must invest in our children and their future-- in their education and their health. We must rebuild our cities and our infrastructure, and invest in technology and scientific research. We must ensure that the economy our children inherit in the next century is sound and growing. Mr. President, I will end with a quote from Dwight Eisenhower, who observed in 1953, Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. General Eisenhower had it right. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Thurmond-McCain amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. And I thank my colleagues, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], and many other Senators who are submitting this amendment to help correct one of the troubling aspects of the budget resolution before us, the tax increases on working American families. By cutting the earned income tax credit, by taking away a tax break for working families, this resolution will raise taxes an average of $270 for low-income families next year. That is wrong. Mr. President, frankly, I am amazed by this Republican proposal. The EITC has always received bipartisan support because it is a commonsense tax credit. It rewards work. It provides a real incentive, and it gives people the means to move from the welfare rolls to the work force. In 1986, Ronald Reagan praised the earned income tax credit. As you know, I was not here in 1986. I was at home serving on my local school board in the State of Washington, but I remember watching the debate surrounding the Tax Reform Act of 1986. We might forget sometimes under all these television lights that the actions we take and the words we say matter a great [[Page S7141]] deal to average Americans across this country. I cannot forget that because I remember when Congress approved the tax reform package that included an expansion of the EITC, and I remember President Reagan signing that bill into law, saying the EITC is the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress. These were important words then, and they are important words today. Mr. President, many hard-working American families are just trying to make ends meet, send their kids to school and provide some hope for the future. Average Americans are worried about their jobs. They are anxious about the cost of education. And, there is genuine concern out there about the costs of health care. So, how does this budget respond to these legitimate and real concerns? It creates more fear and more insecurity. It takes away hope. And taking away this tax credit adds insult to injury. Mr. President, the EITC keeps people off welfare. It offsets other forms of Federal assistance. It gives American parents the security they need to enter the work force. It is astounding that the other side has chosen this time to cut the EITC. Cuts to Medicaid; cuts to education; taxes on working Americans who can least afford them. In my home State of Washington, more than 224,000 families earned the tax credit in 1993. This budget resolution will raise taxes on those families in my State by $1,468 over the next 7 years. Maybe this increase is not a big deal to some of our colleagues here in the Senate, Mr. President. But, believe me, these are real increases to average Americans. I know what it is like to drive to work every day, worrying about doctors' bills and school clothes. I know how it feels to be squeezed between caring for elderly parents and young kids. Maybe that is why I understand how nasty this cut is. Mr. President, recently, there has been a lot of talk about tax cuts on Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives has already passed a tax plan that cuts taxes on capital gains and expands IRA deductions, and I expect we will hear a debate on a tax cut this week in the Senate. A tax cut is a great idea as long as we pay for it in a sensible way, but a tax cut is a terrible idea if we pay for it by raising taxes on low-income Americans, or by raising the Medicare payments of our Nation's elderly. Mr. President, we cannot balance the budget on our working poor, our elderly or our children. And, we cannot justify cutting taxes for the wealthy while increasing taxes on our poor. Mr. President, I have said it many times in the past 2 weeks and I will say it again now, this budget has no conscience. This budget hurts the little guy--those who need help, those who are struggling to make a living and provide for their children, and, it rewards the rich. This budget gives Goliath an advantage. Let us put things back in perspective. Let us help those who really need our help. Let us not go back to the days of the Industrial Revolution; Back to survival of the fittest. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It tells working families that we are fighting in their corner. It says we are against increasing their taxes and we for ensuring their financial security. I urge all our colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.