Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tomorrow I will send an amendment to the desk. Mr. President, my amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate that the Federal Government should live up to its responsibility to educate the children of our women and men in uniform through the impact aid program. At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent to add my good friend, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, as well as Senators Pressler, Akaka, Hutchison, Levin, Bingaman, Pell, Dorgan, Baucus and Kerrey of Nebraska as cosponsors. Mr. President, you see, this amendment enjoys strong bipartisan support because the impact aid program is a vital component of the education portfolio of 48 States. It has strong support because Senators on both sides of the aisle know how important this program is to their States and to the country. More than 40 years ago, the Federal Government established the impact aid program. Forty years ago--great, forward-thinking legislators recognized that the Federal Government has a responsibility to communities which have been adversely impacted by Federal activities. Mr. President, this is exactly the underpinning of the legislation we passed earlier in this Congress. The unfunded mandates bill corrected a large-scale shift of costs from the Federal Government to the States and to local communities. Impact aid is a good program for States--it lives up to the true spirit of local control of education. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not been living up to the spirit of the Impact Aid program. Funding levels for impact aid have been so far below authorized levels that we have unfairly shifted a large portion of funding for Federally connected students to local taxpayers. The end result is that, now--in many States--this program covers less than half of the costs to educate each student. The Federal Government has just been shifting its responsibility to the States to make up the difference. Mr. President, when I review the last several years of funding and rescissions, I am outraged with the trend I see developing--we have been abandoning responsibility to our kids by cutting funds for this program. And, there is no question that the importance of this program has increased over its 40 year history. Its importance has increased not just because it directly affects over 2 million students in our Nation--but also because of the tight budgets facing our States today. And, some States--such as my home state of Washington--do not rely upon an income tax for State funding. You see, Mr. President, the loss of property tax revenues makes State and local education funding even more difficult. Mr. President, let me take a moment to tell you about a school district near Tacoma, WA--it's called Clover Park. Fort Lewis is in the Clover Park school district. Women and men in uniform are assigned by the Federal Government to serve our Nation there. And, their kids--like all American children--deserve to be educated. They should not be abandoned because their parents live on Federal property. Impact Aid makes up 7 percent of Clover Park's budget. In Clover Park, this money goes directly to the school district and is free of bureaucracy. It provides basic support to the school district whose local school board determines how to use the funds. Now, Mr. President, if impact aid funds were cut off, school districts would have to increase taxes in the Tacoma community. Or, Clover Park would have to cut teachers and close buildings. Or, the schools would have to double-shift students. That is wrong. That is a total abdication of the Federal responsibility to our kids. Of course, we all recognize the budget constraints facing the Federal Government today. I know tough choices must be made. However, Mr. President, I believe we can achieve meaningful deficit reduction without passing on this huge unfunded mandate. And, without compromising our responsibility to our schools and our communities. Mr. President, I want to be sure that adequate resources are put into impact aid. And, this sense-of-the-Senate reconfirms our commitment--on both sides of the aisle--to making that happen. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support this amendment. children's health insurance

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, of all the pain in this budget, nothing will hurt our Nation more than the draconian cuts to education. Education allows Americans to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. And I know this first hand. I am one of seven children from a family in a small town in Washington State. My parents taught us the most important lessons in life. They taught us that everyone can make a difference. They showed us the bright promise of the American dream. And, they taught us that education was the key to success. That's why my parents--like many--are watching this debate closely. They understand what's at stake--because they know the difference education made in their children's lives. Every one of my brothers and sisters, every one of us went to college. Every one of us has been able to follow our dreams--and one of us--my twin sister--is now a teacher herself. When I stand here in this debate, I think of my sister, Peggy, in her classroom in Bellingham, WA. I know the challenges she faces as a sixth grade teacher. Peggy tells me how class size will grow if these types of cuts are made. If we just shift costs from the Federal to local level in this way, the quality of education in her classroom will decrease. I know she is watching this budget debate--like teachers all across this Nation--and she is expecting us to keep education funding a top priority. Peggy instills the same hopes and dreams in today's children our parents and teachers instilled in us. And, she knows that the priorities in this budget are misguided. Taxes on working families. Drastic cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Slash-and-burn education cuts. It frankly amazes me that we are seriously considering a budget which cuts education so severely. The fundamental goal of any economic policy should be to raise the standard of living, and increase opportunity for all Americans. You achieve this by strengthening education at all levels. Last year, I worked with some of my colleagues from across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to help expand educational opportunities for all Americans. Unfortunately, it seems--in this budget--that spirit has now collapsed. This year, we are taking giant steps backward. In this budget, education is targeted for some of the largest cuts. I have stated many times that I am all for deficit reduction. However, it is irrational to cut investments in our children and in our workers--and then turn around and say these cuts are good for our future. How is cutting education good for our future? The American people have the right to know what's in this budget. Let's look at the specifics: Head Start, one of the most effective early nutrition and education programs, in cut by $3 billion. This draconian cut will deny as many as 100,000 low-income children the benefit of a pre-school education. That makes no sense. K through 12 education programs also take a big hit. This budget would eliminate Goals 2000, which supports the efforts of schools and communities to raise academic standards in their areas. That makes so sense. Training programs are cut. The School-to-Work Program ensures that all young people attain the skills they need to enter the workforce. Some of our colleagues want to eliminate this program. That makes no sense. Finally, I am truly concerned about the absence of student financial aid funds in this budget. Nationally, the costs for higher education have increased at twice the rate of family income over the past decade. Without financial aid, college has simply become unavailable to the middle class. I would have never even thought of college if it were not for financial aid. Neither would any of my six brothers and sisters. This budget says to young Americans ``you have to be rich to go to college.'' Again, that makes no sense. Again, this is the wrong message to our young people who far too often feel today there is no hope and no future for them. We can not expect to retain our position as a leader in innovation, research, and production--unless we continue to invest in education. At a time when Americans are fearful of losing their jobs; when Americans need training; when our high school seniors lack the funds for college; at this time, it makes no sense to turn our backs on them. Every day, I hear my distinguished colleagues--who were captains of industry--talk about what private industry and big business need in this budget. I do listen to leaders in industry. They tell me how important education is to American competitiveness. High tech companies and manufacturing firms need well-trained, high skilled work force. So, I do listen to them. And, I also listen to Americans who do not have rich, powerful lobbyists behind them. Let us listen to America's displaced workers who need to be retrained. Let us listen to America's teachers. Let us listen to America's schoolchildren. Let us remember the common sense our parents taught us. Let us remember how each and every one of us got to this Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and restore these education cuts, restore some hope to our children's faces, and restore some common sense to this budget process.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I was listening to the debate earlier this afternoon about the pending amendment that restores some of the tremendous cuts to Medicare that occurred in this budget. I wanted to come over to the floor to just make a few points. I heard many of my colleagues talk about the tremendous impacts that are going to occur to senior citizens as we cut Medicare in the budget that is pending. I, like many people, have two elderly parents, both of whom have chronic health care problems, and they are very concerned about the Medicare Program and they let me know about it. But I came over today to remind all of us that the impacts on cutting Medicare do not just hit the elderly, they hit the people I also care a lot about in this Nation--working families. What we see happening here is cuts to Medicare that will no doubt cause premiums to be raised or seniors to be shut out of care or will gut quality. The impact of that will not only be felt on our seniors, but it will be felt on everyday working families. I know those families well. I am one of them, raising two kids and taking care of my parents at the same time. I can tell you exactly what is happening in many working families across this Nation today. We get up, we race our kids off to school, we worry about whether or not they are getting a good education, we get to work, we try to do a good job, we race home in time to get them to a baseball game, get food on the table and, at the same time, we worry that our parents are going to call and say, ``I need to go to the doctor,'' or, ``I need to go to the hospital,'' or ``I have run out of medication.'' It is an added pressure to many working families in this Nation today. If we cut the Medicare Program as drastically as is proposed, it will add to the pressure of those parents, those working parents, those everyday average working parents, because then they will worry that their parents will not go to the doctor because of the added cost, they will worry that they will not be taking their medication because their out-of-pocket expenses have increased, they will worry that their parents are not eating right because they are having to choose between whether or not to go to the doctor, buy a prescription, or put food on the table. These cuts to Medicare will have a tremendous impact on everyday average working families who are just trying to make it every day raising their own kids and worrying about their parents as well. But it will also have an economic impact because, I assure you, if we just cap the costs of Medicare that we pay out, we are not going to see hospitals reduce their costs, they are going to shift that to somebody else. Guess who that is going to be? People who are going to work every day and paying their taxes and paying their insurance. Working middle- income families will see their insurance rates rise, their out-of- pocket medical care costs rise in order to pay for seniors who go to the hospitals and to the doctors and who no longer are being paid back by the Medicare Program. This will create a tremendous pressure on families and a tremendous cost shift to families. That is why it is absolutely critical that we do not reform health care within this budget by just cutting costs to Medicare and Medicaid, but we go back to understanding that we have to do health care reform in totality, look at the entire picture, figure out how much we are going to spend on health care in this Nation and impact all ends of the age spectrum and life spectrum, or we are going to put tremendous burdens on a few people. I urge my colleagues to remember that Medicare cuts will dramatically impact working families across this Nation. I have heard over and over that these budget cuts to Medicare are being done to save it. I have to tell you that [[Page S6991]] makes no sense to me. If we care about our seniors, if we care about our families who are going to work every day, then we also should care that we have a moral responsibility to ensure the well-being of our citizens, and frankly, this budget says just the opposite to me. It says we care about the rich, it says we care more about the Pentagon than people, but it says we do not care about those working-class families. This budget will have a tremendous impact on working-class families. It will say to them: ``We're going to cut your Medicaid. If your child has cystic fibrosis or severe asthma and you don't have the medical insurance to take care of it, Medicaid will be cut back and you may not be able to rely on that.'' It says to parents, ``Your children may not be taken care of if they are sick,'' a pressure to working-class families. It says to working-class families that ``Your child may not be able to get a loan to go to college.'' It says to middle-class families that ``Your education dollars will be cut,'' and it will mean eventually, as this gets passed on to the States and our local school districts, that class sizes will increase and our good teachers will go elsewhere for jobs that pay enough to keep them going. And it says to low-income families, we are going to take away the earned-income tax credit. The one thing that they have, they go to work every day, they earn less than $28,000 a year and we are going to take away a small bit of cash they have just to help them make it by gutting the earned income tax credit. You bet this is a tax increase on those earning less than $28,000. It is absolutely a tax increase on them. I think it is unfair and wrongheaded. Finally, let me just say, I talk to many teenagers day in and day out as a parent of two teenagers. And they fear, more than anything, that there is no hope for them in this world, that there is no opportunity out there. And this budget, I assure you, does not send a message of hope and opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support the Lautenberg-Rockefeller amendment, to restore some of those cuts to Medicare, to give some hope back to middle-income, working families in this Nation and eventually to defeat the budget that is before us. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when I first came here, the Federal budget deficit stood at nearly $300 billion, and for 3 years in a row, we worked with common sense and clear purpose to reduce that deficit. I was not here when this deficit was run up, but I was not elected to bring home the bacon, and I know that politics as usual will not sell anymore. We must reduce the deficit. But I say to my friends, there is a right way to cut spending, to streamline Government and to reduce the deficit. I think the correct path was the one we started down in 1993. On the other hand, there are radical approaches which might be effective at slashing spending and cutting programs, but we have to ask the question, at what cost? The American people deserve a sound budget. They deserve proposals that meet their urgent needs and reflect their spending priorities. They deserve investments in our future. They deserve security for themselves and for their families, and I firmly believe that taxpayers deserve to get something back from the system that they are paying into. I look carefully and critically at this Nation's budget to make sure that it adequately deals with investments in our basic American quality of life. Our children must be prepared for tomorrow. The health of our citizens must be secure and our neighborhoods and towns must be safe. That is how I begin this process every year, Mr. President. I start from the premise that as Americans we have special rights and responsibilities, and this body must acknowledge them both. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe we must take charge of our own lives and live up to the obligations that citizenship in this country brings with it. But some Americans, some members of our society cannot make it on their own. There is a great deal of insecurity and a bitter loss of self-confidence out there. I saw it in the faces of my friends and neighbors when I was home in the State of Washington. I would hear it around my kitchen table every night: The middle class, average Americans feel that they are not in control of their own destiny. Machinists at the Boeing Co. tell me they feel their jobs are not secure in these days of corporate downsizing, and they feel there is nothing they can do about it. Parents tell me they are worried about their kids' safety and violence in the streets, and they feel powerless. My own two teenagers and their friends, the so-called generation X, our future leaders, talk with me about poor job prospects, about never receiving Social Security, not being able to afford to go to college, and the sad and unyielding spread of AIDS. They feel they cannot make the future brighter. Today, information flows through our society at such a rapid pace, technological innovations seem to be outpacing daily life. Average Americans feel overtaken by it. Bankers and economists warn me that in our interdependent world the dollar falls to record lows and derivative investments threaten our financial security and soundness. They feel the economic solution is beyond their control. Doctors and nurses and administrators in hospitals and community-based clinics tell me that entitlement programs do need reform. But so does the entire health care system. If the severe Medicare and Medicaid cuts are kept in this budget, they will not be able to deal with the growing caseload of those who need help and have no means to pay for their own medical care. Mr. President, imagine the hopelessness of a young family with a newborn baby diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. First, one parent has to quit their job to care for that child and their income drops dramatically; insurance runs out, and the young family is forced to spend down in order to get health care--Medicaid--for their child. That is the family I speak for in this budget process. That is the family I think of when I remember the simple truth our parents taught us: ``There, but for the grace of God, go I.'' That family could easily be mine or yours, Mr. President. I am raising two kids at home. I have elderly parents who are not always in the best of health. Like so many Americans, I am squeezed between my kids and my own parents. That is why I share with many Americans the grave concern about the Medicare cuts. How will the program be reformed? Many people have come to me recently and have told me they are afraid that these cuts will result in higher out-of-pocket payments for seniors who are already struggling. They believe cuts will result in limiting choices for seniors. My parents have had the same doctor for years in Washington State; they do not want to lose their doctor because of a budget plan imposed on them from Washington, DC. From the rural eastern part of my State, I hear the rumbling of concern. Many Medicare beneficiaries live in these communities which often share a single hospital. These cuts to the Medicare program have the potential to cause some of the hospitals to close--or to shift--a great amount of their costs to local taxpayers. Mr. President, this brings me to a major concern. By simply cutting funds to Medicare, we are passing on the cost of care for our seniors-- our parents--to the hospitals around the country, and those hospitals will pass on the costs to working families across this Nation. I refuse to stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and talk about the budget as if it is just a bunch of numbers. There is a senior citizen and a child and an American family behind every number in this budget. I am afraid that in this time of great uncertainty, in this time of anxiety, we will be telling average American families, ``You are on your own.'' We in the Senate have a choice. We can build self-confidence, we can inspire hope, and we can restore trust in our Government and its ability to work for average Americans. And we can do this at the same time we reduce the deficit, if we do it with common sense. That is the right way. (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)

Mrs. MURRAY. Or, Madam President, we can feed into the Social Darwinist thinking of survival of the fittest. Serving the special interests who are up here writing legislation. Giving Goliath an advantage. And that is the wrong way. I am hopeful that we will be able to work on a budget over the coming days, which keeps us on the right path. I look across the aisle to Members of your party, and I see true champions of certain causes, and I have been pleased to support many of them in their efforts. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, has always been a forceful advocate for funding mental health programs, and he has always looked out for Federal workers. Madam President, I am proud to serve on his committee with Senators who have provided real leadership and hope to the American people on many issues. I know that my friend from Maine, who is presiding over the Senate at this moment, has been stalwart on women's health issues. Senator Grassley from Iowa has spent years defending the family farmer. My friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, has displayed real leadership by keeping programs like HOPWA from the rescissions axe. These are my Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee, and I am proud to serve with them. I have supported all of these efforts in the past, and I will continue to do so in this Congress. So I hope that some of our colleagues on your side of the aisle, Madam President, will look with favor on programs that are important to me, especially the education of our children, both in their early years and in gaining access to college and vocational programs. For my State, there are other important budget issues before us: The cleanup of Hanford Nuclear Reservation and the funding of the Eximbank; impact aid for educating the children of our men and women in uniform; help for fishers and timber workers who have been dislocated, and all programs that ease anxiety and restore hope. Madam President, I know firsthand how much hope is needed out there. I know firsthand how much harm this budget will do to average Americans. I am one of the millions of ordinary Americans who is worried about her elderly parents. I am one of the millions of average people who wants her children to be able to go to college. I am one of the people out there driving to work every day and just trying to juggle the pressures of everyday life for myself and my family. But, Madam President, this budget adds to the pressure. It does so much harm to working people--I find it incredible that it cuts the earned income tax credit so severely. I find it incredible that this budget raises the taxes on our working families. Let average Americans make no mistake about it--Republicans are increasing taxes on working families. In Washington State alone, this budget means an average tax increase of $1,400 over 7 years on nearly 180,000 working families. I am a product of the Western United States. I was born in Washington State. I grew up there. I am one of seven children who learned from our parents that we should always pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. But this budget steals our shoelaces. So I plan to offer amendments on the floor, Madam President, that move this budget in restoring some common sense. I will offer one amendment on impact aid, and I will offer another one to protect children from drastic cuts in Medicaid. And, Madam President, let me make this clear, these are not frivolous amendments. They have been drafted carefully and I hope that they do pass. It is not my intention to embarrass anybody. My amendments are sincere attempts to improve this budget, and they reflect my highest priorities, for I believe we have the chance today to outline clearly our priorities for this Nation. Each of us was sent to the Senate to serve the country and to articulate the specific concerns of our friends and neighbors at home. So let me conclude here with just a few words of caution. No one doubts the need to put our fiscal house in order. But what I fear the most is that it will be done with an eye only toward today, without considering the consequences for tomorrow. Deficit reduction is not an economic policy in and of itself. And under today's cut, cut, cut mantra, I cannot allow us to forget the word ``compassion.'' I worry that slash and burn politics will override common sense and fairness, especially for our children. We are looking here today at the Wizard of Oz budget: No heart, no brain, no courage, and no home. And there is too much at stake. At a fast and furious pace these days, polls tell us what Americans believe about an issue before they have even had time to really make up their minds about it. I caution my friends--before you impose draconian Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the most vulnerable members of our society--do not be too hasty to legislate based on the shifting sands of current political popularity. Let us keep things in perspective, Madam President, and let us remember the little guy. Let us talk about priorities and plans, not just cuts and contracts. Let us use this budget process to restore hope, to ease anxiety, and to make the future brighter for average Americans. I look forward to this debate. Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. We have been working this afternoon with the Senators from Alaska on the bill before us. One of our main concerns has been the environmental issues in Puget Sound in my home State of Washington. I appreciate all of the work that the Senator from Alaska has done in helping to meet one of our concerns on this bill. The amendment in front of us requires that a vessel be in Puget Sound that is paid for by the industry so we can assure that the vessels which come into Puget Sound are escorted through the Straits of Juan de Fuca. I thank the Senator from Alaska and his committee for all their work on this and urge its adoption.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am waiting to clear a colloquy with the Senator's staff which should be done very shortly.

Mrs. MURRAY. I withhold that request.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska and would just like to notify him that I am working on one more statement for the Record, a few more words to say, and I appreciate all of the work and help he has been in working toward this agreement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I also ask the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee if he can also assure me that he will do everything in his power to assure that adequate supplies of Alaskan North Slope crude continue to be made available to the Tosco refinery.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the chairman of the committee who has worked diligently with me this afternoon. One of my main concerns regarding this proposal to export ANS relates to the supply of Alaskan crude to the Tosco refinery at Ferndale. As I understand it, Tosco has 3 years and 8 months remaining on a supply agreement with BP. I want assurance that BP will honor the contract. I have asked BP to provide me with that assurance, and today I received a letter from the president of BP Oil Shipping Co., Steve Benz, promising to honor the existing contract with Tosco's refinery at Ferndale. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the letter in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as you know, I have very strong reservations about the exports of Alaskan North Slope oil. I am concerned about jobs in my State, the price of oil to consumers across our Nation, and the environmental impact lifting this ban may produce. However, after a day of negotiation, I am pleased to offer several amendments en bloc to the bill that the chairman has agreed to. These en bloc amendments will ensure a full review of export impacts. They mandate that the President, along with the Attorney General and the Department of Commerce, will review environmental impacts, consumer price increases, and anticompetitive practices that would hurt independent refineries and shipyards who employ thousands in my region. I believe we have come far to negotiate this agreement that now speaks first for the people of the Pacific Northwest before the exporting of this oil begins. I thank the chairman for his work in moving toward this amendment. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY. One of my main concerns is vessel safety. I want to make certain all vessels transporting oil through the strait of Juan de Fuca or Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary are properly escorted. Under my amendment, the Oil Pollution Control Act would be modified to require response plans for such vessels to provide emergency response within at least 6 hours. This would be a vast improvement over the status quo. However, my State including the Office of Marine Safety, conservation groups, and the Makah Indian nation, would like to see an even shorter response time. It is my understanding that under this amendment, the State and other parties would have the flexibility to negotiate an arrangement that would ensure a response time of 4 hours or fewer. Specifically, the State would be able to arrange stationing an emergency response tug boat at Neah Bay. If the State, tribe, and tanker operators agree, the Coast Guard under my amendment, should modify the response plans accordingly. Does the chairman concur in this interpretation?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Gorton, in being perplexed at the reasons for not accepting this amendment. I go back to the fact that my colleagues from Connecticut, Florida, Virginia, Delaware, and Vermont have come to the committee with specific concerns from their States that have been worked out to this point in this debate and in this bill. The concerns from Washington State are just as needy. I was in our State senate back in 1989 when we passed the Waste Not Washington Act. We were ahead of this country in how to deal with our waste management. It is a very effective piece of legislation. We do not want it undermined now by actions on this Senate floor. We have offered to the committee words that will deal with their concerns about being prospective. We have offered to put in language that makes it Washington State specific by referencing the Waste Not Washington Act. I assure my colleagues there is no intent to open loopholes. The intent is to allow the waste management in our State of Washington to work well, as it is currently doing. I invite any of my colleagues to my hometown of Seattle and to take a look at the curbside recycling program that exists there. We recycle everything. We put out our pop bottles. We put out our plastic. We put out our newspaper. We separate our paper into different colors. It is done on every street in the city of Seattle. We do not want to see it undermined. People are very proud of that program there. I think it is absolutely critical that this Senate does not go on record undermining a very progressive recycling program in the State of Washington. I assure you that I did not know the rest of the Nation was so far behind us until I moved here 2\1/2\ years ago, and my children said, ``What is with the garbage cans here that are so full?'' They could not believe what was not recycled here on this coast. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at this legislation, to allow Washington State to continue to be progressive, to be an example for the rest of the Nation, and to not undermine us by exempting us within the legislation that is before us. Our amendment very simply allows the State of Washington to continue doing what it is doing. I ask and encourage all of our colleagues to allow local control to exist on this very serious problem in my home State of Washington. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this morning I rise with my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, to offer an amendment to the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995. Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the attempts the managers of this bill have made to accommodate the wide array of waste management systems there are around the country. My colleagues from Connecticut, Florida, Virginia, Delaware, and most recently, from Vermont have found ways to amend this legislation so that the uniqueness of their local systems is recognized within the scope of this legislation. Senator Gorton and I want to ensure that Washington's communities have the same latitude to continue progressively implementing solid waste management systems. Washington's municipal solid waste management system is a good one. All municipal waste systems comply with the States' comprehensive waste management plan. This plan delegates authority over solid waste management to the State's counties, cities, and towns. These entities, in turn, manage public systems or contract with private industries to handle all municipal solid waste and recycling. The specifics of each system differ, from county to county, and from county to city, and from city to town; but all share the common elements of minimizing costs and adhering to the State's mandated recycling goals. In Washington, according to our State plan, local governments manage solid waste, including recyclables, by way of an integrated system of facilities. The city of Seattle, King County, Spokane County, Snohomish County, Clark County, and Okanogan County, and other jurisdictions use flow control authority in their systems. In this arrangement, the interplay between county ordinances, town and city ordinances, health district regulations, local agreements, and private contracts all play a role. Although the Supreme Court's decision sent a new wave of insecurity about the future rippling through the public sectors of waste management, Washington State actually began thinking about these issues long ago. We have set a progressive waste management agenda for ourselves that has been nationally heralded and emulated. In 1989, while I was a State senator, we embraced the growing crisis over solid waste management when we passed the Waste Not Washington Act. Among other things, this plan established the statewide goal of 50 percent recycling. Now, we have the lowest cost recycling systems in the country and the lowest cost disposal systems in the Pacific Northwest. In Washington State, we are on the cutting edge of recycling. Let me give a few examples of what this means in terms of the waste stream. Statewide, we recycle 56 percent of all newspaper, 57 percent of high grade paper, 52 percent of cardboard, 50 percent of all yard waste, and about 73 percent of all metals. The city of Seattle's residential recycling rate was 48 percent in 1993. The commercial recycling rate was 45 percent. Eighty-three percent of all newspapers are recycled in Seattle, as is 70 percent of all cardboard, 77 percent of all high grade paper, 68 percent mixed paper, 70 percent of all aluminum, and over 50 percent of all glass recycled. Curbside programs are currently available to over 70 percent of Washington State's population; and in urban counties and cities, there is almost 100 percent available curbside recycling. The city of Seattle has had a curbside recycling program since 1987. Not only does Washington State exceed current national standards, it is well beyond the targets of this bill. The ways we got there were by allowing local communities the flexibility to establish the waste systems they needed. In the future, attaining our recycling goal of 50 percent will depend on the ability to continue managing our waste systems as well as we do now. Our amendment is for Washington. It would ensure that Washington's counties, towns, and cities will be able to meet the commitments they made when they understood that flow control was a legitimate power. Millions of dollars' worth of bonds, issued for facility development, could be defaulted upon if Washington's local communities lose the ability to service their waste management debts due to the loss of flexibility to guarantee a reliable waste stream. In Washington, many communities have issued municipal bonds to pay for the construction of solid waste facilities. These bonds are outstanding. The committee's substitute only partially protects the commitments in communities like these. In Snohomish County, for instance, improvements to the system were financed through a combination of revenue bonds and general obligation bonds. These debts were assumed with the expectation that solid waste revenues would be used to service them. As of 1995, Snohomish County has issued $26.7 million in general obligation bonds, scheduled to be paid back by 2007. As the bill is currently written, only the revenue bonds of Snohomish could be paid back. The burdens of these debts will fall on the users of the system--the taxpayers. As we at the Federal level of Government are shifting more and more financial responsibility on local governments, restricting the ability of local governments to manage their solid waste systems is not a good solution. As it is written, this bill steps all over the jurisdictions of our local authorities. It will raise taxes. It will ruin one of the most effective recycling programs in the Nation, and it will throw many communities in our State into financial jeopardy. This one-size-fits- all approach will not work. Our amendment is within the scope of this bill--it only grandfathers existing systems and facilities. We do not ask for any extension of the sunset of flow control. I encourage the passage of this amendment, and in turn, the passage of this legislation. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that I sent to the desk is slightly modified and has been worked out with the committee.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Minor Crop Protection Assistance Act. This legislation will provide much needed relief to the food and horticultural industries so important to the economy of my State and the Nation. This purpose of this legislation is simple: It is all about economics. This legislation seeks to provide some relief to producers of minor crops who face the imminent threat of losing access to vital, and safe crop protection tools due to market forces. Currently, registration of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] with EPA is an intensive process, involving as many as 120 data requirements. Chemical manufacturers are forced to make the decision to cancel, or not reregister, crop protection tools for use on minor crops because the resulting reregistration. The result is that many safe minor crop protection chemicals have been dropped from production, despite the essential role they play for our minor crop growers. The production of the minor commodities, as they are called, is in fact of major importance to Washington State. In Washington, 90 percent of our agricultural industry is in minor crops. Most notable are hops, apples, small fruits, vegetables, and hay. Washington alone produces 77 percent of all commercially consumed hops in the United States. Hops growers have five pesticides available to them, and four of these are in danger of being lost due to the high cost of reregistration. If only one pesticide is available, pests will quickly develop their resistance and this compound will become obsolete as a tool for crop protection. Another example comes from the hay producers in Washington. The hay we grow makes up one-third of the world's hay market. We export 75 percent of our product. One particular pesticide which is essential to the growth cycle is in danger of not being reregistered. If it goes, with it will go our global market share. This purpose of this bill is not an issue of public health or public safety, this is an issue of economics. It is designed to preserve safe minor use pesticides and to encourage the development of environmentally sound pest management tools. We need to provide the economic incentive for pesticide manufacturers to pursue the costly reregistration of products with limited market potential. The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognize this situation. They have worked with a coalition of minor crop producers and my colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Inouye, on this legislation. Accordingly, this bill streamlines the registration and reregistration process, and provides new incentives to the pesticide industry to pursue minor crop registrations. Most importantly, this bill reinforces EPA's authority to deny reregistration of minor use pesticides out of concern for public safety. In the Administrator's judgment, if a pesticide puts the public at too great a risk, the incentives for development, registration, or reregistration can be revoked. A safe food supply is very important to me. Minor crops, which in large part are fruits and vegetables, are staples in the diets of infants and children, and they also receive large applications of pesticides. In its 1993 report, ``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children,'' the National Academy of Sciences found that current pesticide standards may be inadequate to protect infants and children from pesticide exposure and recommends policies to increase protection. While this legislation addresses a market issue, it leaves us with the responsibility of addressing the complex issue of food safety and the adequacy of the current pesticide regulatory system. In no way are we relieved of dealing with pesticide issues in a comprehensive manner. I am very interested in promoting the development of newer, safer pesticides, and encouraging farmers to decrease their use of dangerous pesticides. Our efforts in this bill should go hand in hand with incentive-based approaches that encourage integrated pest management, and even organic production practices. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the shortcomings of our current pesticide regulatory system, and to encourage innovative approaches for the future.