Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Landfill Technical Improvement Act of 1995. This legislation will allow us to maximize technical advances of the last decade in carrying out our Nation's environmental protection strategy. It will also promote small business and entrepreneurship and help our Nation complete in the global market for new, environment driven technologies. By passing the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste amendments, Congress required the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to issue regulations restricting the disposal of organic absorbents in hazardous waste landfills. In the past decade, however, developments in natural absorbent technologies show more efficiency than traditional sorbents produced for fossil fuels. For example, a company in Bellingham, WA, manufactures organic sorbents from a local paper mill's sludge. Sludge recycled into productive use is kept out of landfills. This small company employs 20 to 30 Washingtonians and, with other similar companies across the country, seeks to expand in the marketplace with this new, recycled product. Normal landfill conditions are anaerobic, and studies have shown that no biodegradtion takes place in the anaerobic environment of landfills. Thus, in this anaerobic environment of RCRA landfills, these sorbents will not degrade. These organic absorbents, made totally from reclaimed materials, may actually outperform current chemical absorbents. However, because of the 1984 amendments and subsequent EPA regulations, these absorbents have been effectively shut out from disposition in landfills. This disposition issue threatens to undermine the existence of these new technologies, since that which cannot be disposed economically will not be [[Page S5422]] used. Moreover, innovative and environmentally conscious technologies, such as those developed by this small company in my State, are discriminated against. The administration has clearly stated its preference for such recycled/reclaimed materials, but this flawed regulation has prejudiced the widespread availability and use of these products. This is to the detriment of our national environmental goals. This bill remedies this situation, allowing the fullest use of environmentally sound landfill technologies.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I must rise today to support a program that some in this body may argue is unnecessary, but that the American people wholeheartedly support. As we debate the very difficult question of eliminating funds to various agencies, it frustrates me that some of my colleagues blindly lump the Corporation for Public Broadcasting into a general pool of rescissions. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a true public service, owned by the American people. What other Government program can we claim reaches 99 percent of all Americans? Since 1967, CPB has developed public telecommunications services of the highest quality to serve the American people. All of us on this floor agonize over what serves the taxpayer most. Certainly, public broadcasting has proven itself as a national asset supporting television and radio stations in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Last year, CPB funded 351 public television stations and 629 public radio stations. Each week NPR touches the lives of 16 million listeners and more than 100 million viewers tune in to PBS weekly. The numbers show that CPB is a Government program that works, and serves the people of this country. It is one program where the American taxpayer is actually seeing a return on their dollar. But is CPB a luxury? In these days of deficit reduction, can we afford this service? In thinking about this question, I have reflected back on my role as a mother and teacher. I am not independently wealthy and have been faced with balancing a checkbook my entire life. When times are tough, everyone suffers, but never have I sacrificed the education of my children. All parents worry about the uncertain future of their sons or daughters. Frankly, that is why I am so committed to continued funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Education is at the heart of what public broadcasting does. CPB reaches almost every home, school, and business in America to make important learning resources available. CPB is dedicated to helping and inspiring learners of all ages, in schools, at colleges and universities, at work, and at home. Public broadcasting is not subsidized television but rather accessible education. More than three-quarters of the country's public television stations offer for-credit adult courses at various levels. Since 1981, 2.8 million people have taken public broadcasting telecourses for college credit. Over 29 million students in over 70,000 schools receive public TV as an educational resource. Of the top 10 television programs used by teachers in the classroom, 6 are from public TV. Sure, some may classify public broadcasting as entertainment. I even admit that I became absorbed in ``The Civil War'' and rushed home to catch ``Baseball.'' But therein lies the secret of public broadcasting. Its ability to education while holding our attention. From ``The Electric Company'' to ``MacNeil-Lehrer,'' from ``Carmen Sandiego'' to ``Great Performances,'' CPB has captivated audiences and provided an educational alternative to network television. Children today need the same educational stimulation my children had access to, if not more so. Changing family structures and working parents mean more and more children are left home alone. These are the children dependent upon ``Sesame Street'' and ``Barney'' for guidance, education and solace. If there is no one at home to pull the kids away from the set, or to choose programming, can't the Government at least provide an accessible alternative which stimulates learning? The average public television station airs more than 5 hours of quality, noncommercial children's programming every single day and 22.4 million children watch public television each week. The futures of these children can be dramatically shaped by the programs they watch each day. Remember that 1 year of programming from PBS and NPR, costs each U.S. citizen just $1.09. Less than a penny a day. In fact, CPB's entire annual budget equals what the networks make in just 15 minutes of Super Bowl commercials. More than 95 percent of CPB funds go back to communities nationwide as support for their broadcast operations. More importantly, for every $1 of Federal funding directed through CPB, stations raise more than $6 from other sources. I urge my colleagues on their next visit home to tune in a publicly supported station within their State. Radio stations such as KPBX in Spokane and KFAE in Richland and television stations like KCTS in Seattle and KYVE in Yakima will prove to you how far a minimal Federal investment can be stretched. Mr. President, the question here is should there be public television. My answer is a solid, loud yes. Just as we have public schools, public libraries, public roads, and public parks, we should have public television. ``Public'' means we, you, and I, own it. We have a say. We have input. We have access. To only have private television means that those who can afford to own the airwaves will decide what we watch and who can watch. Someone else, someone with the wealth to afford it, will decide what opinions will be aired and whose words will be heard. I believe it is imperative that the public have access and input to the airwaves. Let us not be the Congress that is known as the one who took the public out of television. Let this Congress be remembered for turning the tide on the deficit, but let us do so without sacrificing our children, their education and their future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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. Is it my understanding that the unanimous-consent language will agree that there will be no second-degrees?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that the unanimous consent will include language that says there will be no second-degrees to the Murray amendment?

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. I assume the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, will yield time to the Senator from Montana.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield such time as may be consumed to the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the administration needs to fulfill its commitment to the region. If Congress can help, so much the better. But we must be very careful not to go too far. The Chief of the Forest Service told me last week he is well on his way to providing promised timber sales levels. But he lacks the human resources to do so. My amendment transfers money from road construction programs to need personnel to get these sales out. It does not simply waive the rules. When Judge Dwyer approved option 9, he did so with conditions. He expects full funding for implementation, and he expects monitoring and assessment for compliance with the standards and guidelines. Mr. President, I am concerned that if we do not heed his advice, Judge Dwyer will rule option 9 invalid and once again forbid all harvesting in the Northwest. Our communities simply cannot afford that blow. My amendment provides needed financial resources. Additionally, it says that if the agencies follow the rules set forth in option 9, anyone challenging a timber sale will have to cross a very high legal hurdle to prove that a timber sale is environmentally harmful. Let me say one final word about option 9. If people have a problem with option 9, they have a problem with the laws: National Environmental Policy Act, and National Forest Management Act. If we are going to revisit the merits of option 9, we should instead take a broad look at the laws governing it. We should not take short cuts in a rescissions bill without the benefit of hearings and public involvement. section 318 Finally, my amendment directs the Forest Service to find replacement volume for sales old under fiscal year 1990 appropriations bill, dubbed section 318, that are tied up because they may contain the threatened marbled murrelet. The companies who bought these sales years ago deserve what we promised them: timber. My amendment delivers that. Mr. President, two of the provisions of this bill have only regional effects. The primary provision--salvage of damaged Federal lands--is national in scope and affects the health of forests free rein to cut timber without regard to environmental considerations. My amendment is a moderate, reasonable alternative. It expedites salvage. It expedites option 9. It ensures appropriate levels of environmental protection. And most importantly, it protects communities and workers from burdensome, frustrating litigation. Such litigation is sure to result from the underlying bill. Mr. President, 10 days ago I went to Gray's Harbor in my home State of Washington, and I talked to people who have lived through the nightmare of Congress and the courts deciding their lives. They are just starting to get back on their feet. Hope is beginning to return. They do not want more empty promises. They do not need congressional interference that may backfire. They do need promises kept, and they do need Congress to act with common sense. That is what my amendment does, and I urge my friends here in the Senate to support it. Mr. President, I retain the balance of my time. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent a letter submitted to the Members of Congress from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy be added as an original cosponsor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me briefly discuss the salvage aspects of my amendment. Whereas the underlying bill suspends all environmental laws to allow salvage operations, my amendment does not permit the agencies to operate above the law. Instead, it requires them to expedite compliance with those laws. Second, the underlying bill allows salvage on any Federal lands outside of designated wilderness areas where there is insect- or fire- damaged timber. That allows agencies to build roads in pristine roadless areas and harvest trees along our wild and scenic river corridors. My amendment restricts salvage operations to areas outside of the wilderness, roadless areas, and other congressionally designated areas, like wild and scenic river corridors. Third, like the underlying bill, my amendment would shorten the timelines allowed for appeals, but allow citizens' the right to challenge bad agency decisions. Where the underlying bill prohibits administrative appeals and does not allow temporary injunctions, my bill allows appeals, but dramatically shortens the timelines and procedural requirements. This is a reasonable, responsible approach. It ensures salvage operations will go forward. It protects workers and towns from the tangle of yet more lawsuits and insures that appropriate environmental protections are in place. We do need to work with timber communities; they have been waiting a long time. We also need to protect them from the uncertainties of prolonged litigation. My amendment will do that. Until very recently, the old growth Douglas fir forests in the Pacific Northwest had been shut down because Judge William Dwyer had ruled the agencies were not following the law. When President Clinton held his forest conference in Portland 2 years ago, he promised a scientifically credible, economically sustainable, legally defensible plan to resolve the crisis. Option 9 is the result of that pledge. Let's be clear about this: Everybody dislikes option 9. The timber communities felt it was inadequate. The environmental groups felt it allowed too much harvesting. Whatever people felt about it, option 9 was the first serious attempt to resolve an issue that plagued my region for years. Therefore, I supported it. Judge Dwyer has recently ruled that option 9 satisfies the requirements of Federal law. Today, timber communities are back in the Federal timber harvest business. Unfortunately, they are not back to the degree that they should be. I am very unhappy that the Forest Service has not produced promised volumes. I wrote the President last week to request a schedule for timber sales under option 9. He responded with details on both option 9 and the salvage program. I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record. be printed in the Record, as follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, March 21, 1995. Hon. Bill Clinton, President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I know you are as concerned as I about the seeming inability of the Forest Service to produce a reasonable supply of timber for Pacific Northwest timber communities under Option 9. You and the rest of your Administration worked hard to find a solution to the forest crises we were facing. Despite protestations from all sides, you supported a compromise plan to provide both scientifically sound management of our forests and a sustainable supply of timber to our communities. Now, almost a year after the Record of Decision and 9 months after the lifting of the injunction, fewer than 300 million board feet of timber have been sold in the 17 National Forests managed under Option 9. I'm sure you agree that this is unacceptable. Legislation has passed the House and will soon be considered by the Senate to suspend all federal environmental laws applicable to the Forest Service in order to enable the agency to sell the volume set forth in Option 9 (and to meet salvage and section 318 sale targets). As a rule, I do not support such ``sufficiency'' language because I strongly believe agencies should not be above the law. However, I am very frustrated by the Forest Service's inability to deliver on the Option 9 sale targets. Mr. President, I must have assurances this week that the Forest service will meet its Option 9 target levels by the end of this year. I need to know specific plans, timelines, and changes that the Forest Service intends to take to get this timber out. And I need to know what, if anything, you need from Congress. I believe Option 9 and existing law can produce a sustainable flow of timber. Unfortunately, my belief has been shaken by the facts. Finally, I would appreciate knowing your plans for how the Forest Service will conduct its salvage operations and any problems you foresee in this area. Thank you for your continued interest in finding solutions to these thorny forest issues. Sincerely, Patty Murray, Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an alternative to the timber management authorizing language in this bill. I offer my amendment because I believe the language included in the bill by my colleague, the senior Senator from Washington, will backfire. I believe it will hurt--not help--timber communities and workers in the Northwest. The authorizing language contained in this bill is designed to accomplish three things: respond to a timber salvage problem resulting from last year's forest fires; speed up the rate of timber sales under the President's forest plan, option 9; and to release a few timber sales remaining from legislation passed by Congress 4 years ago. These are goals with which I can agree. My problem is with the method. I believe the language proposed by my colleague will cause a blizzard of lawsuits, cause political turmoil within the Northwest, and take us right back to where we were 4 years ago. Our region has been at the center of a war over trees that has taken place in the courtrooms and Congress for almost a decade. There is a history of waiving environmental laws to solve timber problems; that strategy has not worked. It has made the situation worse. Until 1993, the Forest Service was paralyzed by lawsuits, the courts were managing the forests, and acrimony dominated public discourse in the region. Now this bill contains language that will reopen those old wounds. I strongly believe that would not be in the best interest of the region. Let me briefly explain my amendment, and why I think it makes more sense than the underlying bill. There are two distinct issues in question: salvage of dead and dying timber in the arid inland west, and management of the old growth fir forests along the Pacific coast. There is a legitimate salvage issue right now throughout the West. Last year's fire season was one of the worst ever. There are hundreds of thousands of acres with burned trees sitting there. I believe these trees can and should be salvaged and put to good public use. I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct salvage operations on Federal lands. The wrong way is to short cut environmental checks and balances. The wrong way is to cut people out of the process. The wrong way is to invite a mountain of lawsuits. The right way is to expedite compliance with the law. The right way is to make sure the agencies can make correct decisions quickly. The right way is to let people participate in the process--so they do not clog up the courts later. I believe we can offer eastside timber communities hope, not only in the short term--by delivering salvage volume--but in the long term, too. By following the law, we can immediately harvest timber--and sustain it in the future--because we will not be tied up in lawsuits; we conserve our natural environment by not allowing poorly planned clearcuts to slide into salmon-bearing streams; and we protect human hastily built without planning. The Chief of the Forest Service and many firefighters agree with me on this. I ask unanimous consent to have some letters and materials to that effect printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to make two points regarding the efforts made in the Senate to craft meaningful regulatory reform. First, let me say I support the efforts we are making in the Senate to reform Government regulations and I look forward to participating in this bipartisan effort to make Government more effective and meaningful. Everyone has examples of Government regulations that have gone too far, become too onerous, or have otherwise disrupted peoples' lives. This is not the goal of the House-passed regulatory moratorium proposal, however, which brings me to my second point. I have serious objections to any measure that would jeopardize public health and safety by suspending Federal rules on health, safety, or the environment. As a legislative body, our job is not to police the rest of Government; but it is to enable legislation that sets in motion solutions. It would be irresponsible to paralyze the Government process with a regulatory freeze, or by imposing costly, inflexible, and bureaucratic procedures. In yesterday's debate, my colleagues brought to the floor reams of paper representing regulations recently approved by Federal agencies. I was reminded of the piles of paper that Vice President Gore saved through the streamlining of the National Performance Review. It seems we are all working for the same thing--to make Government work better for people. We need to reduce paperwork, and repetitive, unnecessary regulations are a good place to do it, but only so long as we do not compromise public health or safety. Some regulations are necessary and beneficial for the public. In my State of Washington, we saw first hand how dangerous ineffective regulations can be during a deadly outbreak of E. coli contamination in 1993. Tragically, four children died and many more children and adults got sick from eating hamburger contaminated with this virulent pathogen. In the absence of a single clear Federal standard ensuring the safety of the food supply, a host of insufficient regulations offered poor protection at best. Subsequent to this epidemic, USDA proposed reforms of its meat and poultry inspection system to bring these inspections into the 21st century. USDA's proposal would require the Nation's 9,000 slaughter and inspection plants to adopt preventative, science-based inspection systems. A regulatory freeze such as that imposed by the House or by S. 219 as passed out of committee would have prevented USDA from responding to this public health emergency. Moreover, I have concerns that the proposal passed by the House would tie the hands of the fisheries management councils around the country. I commend the amendment approved in committee by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens. Without such a provision, the recently enacted halibut and sablefish ITQ Program would be negated. Furthermore, the National marine Fisheries Service would not be able to manage the opening or closing of fishing seasons, thereby gutting the oversight authority of a very credible agency. Our deliberation about this moratorium proposal is just the beginning of the broader debate about regulatory reform. In fact, the alternative proposal offered by Senator Reid and Senator Nickles, allowing Congress to veto new regulations, has generated support, having passed the Senate Government Affairs Committee unanimously. I am confident that this body can address the need for regulatory reform without resorting to a heavy-handed moratorium, which could threaten the public good. I support the Nickles-Reid amendment and hope that we can reach a compromise with the House in conference.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by new information reported in the New York Times and elsewhere linking the CIA to those responsible for the murders of United States citizen Michael DeVine and Efrain Bamaca Velasquez, the Guatemalan husband of United States citizen Jennifer Harbury. At this point, we do not have all the facts necessary to get a full picture of what occurred, but these preliminary reports raise serious questions. For most of the last 30 years, systematic human rights violations have been committed with impunity against Guatemalan civilians. The political repression and deplorable practices of the Guatemalan military--extrajudicial killings, political kidnappings, and death threats--have taken the lives of at least 100,000 citizens since the early 1980's. It is because of Guatemala's miserable human rights record that I have closely followed the cases involving U.S. citizens, including the case of Jennifer Harbury's husband and Michael Devine. Over the last 2 years, I have taken several steps to find information regarding the whereabouts and status of Mr. Bamaca, Mr. DeVine and others who have disappeared or been murdered in Guatemala. I have written letters or inquiry to the President, the National Security Council, and to the President of Guatemala, Ramiro De Leon Carpio, expressing my concern with these cases. Last year, I also introduced legislation urging the need for greater protection of human rights in Guatemala. Throughout these efforts, and specifically on the case of Jennifer Harbury, I have been told that every attempt was being made to investigate her case, so that she could finally know the fate of her husband. Likewise, Congress has pressed time and again to resolve the questions surrounding the killing of Michael DeVine, an American innkeeper who was brutally murdered in Guatemala in 1990. And now it is being reported that a Guatemalan Army colonel linked to the deaths of Michael Devine and Jennifer Harbury's husband was, in fact, employed by the CIA and twice trained by the United States Army. According to Thomas Stroock, who served as United States Ambassador to Guatemala from 1989 til 1992, our Embassy, having investigated Mr. DeVine's murder, came to the conclusion that Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez was behind it. Reportedly, Ambassador Stroock then told his staff at the Embassy that they were to have nothing more to do with the colonel. Nonetheless, reports indicate that the CIA station chief in Guatemala keep Col. Alpirez on the payroll for nearly 2 more years. The reports go on to indicate that much later the CIA, in 1992, paid Alpirez a lump sum of $44,000 for intelligence work done for the Agency, nearly 46 times the average yearly income in Guatemala. If these reports are true, it is difficult to understand how and why the policy carried out by the CIA was so clearly at odds with the policy established years earlier by the U.S. Ambassador. How could the CIA justify providing U.S. taxpayer dollars to this criminal? And whom did the CIA station chief answer to, if not the U.S. Ambassador? The Clinton administration must continue to push the Guatemalan Government to prosecute Alpirez and any others who were involved in these murders. And if the reports I have described here are true, the CIA must be held accountable for their deeply troubling involvement. It is equally of concern to me that Col. Alpirez evidently oversaw the killing of Michael DeVine just 6 months after Alpirez had graduated from an elite course for senior officers at the School of the Americas, a U.S. Army School in Fort Benning, GA. It was the second time that U.S. taxpayers paid to train Col. Alpirez, who evidently then went on to thank this country by ordering the murder of one of our own citizens. CIA knew information related to the fate of Jennifer Harbury's husband, and withheld it from those within the administration who had explicitly sought it. Serious questions have been raised about the CIA's involvement in both of these cases, and a full accounting is in order. Congressman Torricelli, in making information related to these cases public, has said, ``This is the single worst example of the intelligence community being beyond civilian control and operating against our national interest.'' A central United States objective in Guatemala is to contribute to an improved human rights environment in that troubled nation. If the reports of recent days are true, then clearly the CIA has failed to embrace this goal and may, in fact, be part of the problem in Guatemala. Mr. President, Congress and the taxpayers deserve answers to all of these questions.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, in introducing the James P. Grant World Summit for Children Implementation Act of 1995. I take this opportunity to commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to be associated with this effort. Because the nations of the world have become so interdependent, there can be no doubt that the well-being of children around the globe affects us here in the United States. Children are the foundation of our society, of our economy, of our future. It seems obvious, then, that we would provide adequately for the world's children, but sadly we do not. According to UNICEF, every week, more than 250,000 children die of easily preventable illness and malnutrition. Every day, measles, whooping cough, and tetanus--all of which can be prevented by an inexpensive course of vaccines--kill nearly 8,000 children. Every day, diarrheal dehydration--preventable at almost no cost-- kills almost 7,000 children. Every day, pneumonia--fully treatable by low-cost antibiotics--kills more than 6,000 children. And for every child that dies, several more live on with poor growth, ill health, and diminished potential. The world's political leadership can ill-afford to ignore these statistics. We are all in this together. The success or failure of economies thousands of miles away can directly affect us here at home. This is especially true in my trade-dependent home State of Washington. As the old saying goes, we are only as strong as our weakest link. If our trading partners in Asia or Latin America cannot provide the necessary education or health care for their children, we will not have strong partners to trade poverty promotes economic development, which serves us all. So it is extremely important that we continue to work to implement the plan of action adopted at the 1990 U.N. World Summit for Children, which rightly placed the needs of children at the top of the world's development agenda. That is why Senator Jeffords and I are introducing the James P. Grant World Summit for Children Implementation Act of 1995, legislation that supports life-saving, cost-effective programs to protect the health and well-being of children worldwide. The world's children have a right to adequate nutrition, full immunization, education, and health care. The United States must continue to lead the world in promoting that message. To reach children, of course, we must reach out to the world's women--who are often overlooked in traditional development programs. Fortunately, the World Summit for Children recognized that to improve the lot of the world's children, the status of the world's women also had to improve. For example, recognizing the important link between child survival and family planning, the world summit for children called for universal access to family planning education and services by the end of this decade. Family planning saves the lives of both women and children. We know that babies born in quick succession, to a mother whose body has not yet recovered from a previous birth, are the least likely to survive. Increasing funds in this area has been a top priority for me in my work in the U.S. Senate, and is addressed in the legislation we are introducing today. I realize that in this current political climate, foreign aid is often under attack and misunderstood. While foreign aid has never been popular, it has always served our Nation well. The money needed to support the kinds of programs we are concerned about in this bill is not large in the scope of our budget--indeed, our total foreign aid program represents less than 1 percent of our entire Federal budget. In my view, our foreign aid dollars are best spent when we are investing in programs that strengthen families around the globe, and give a special helping hand to women and children. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Jeffords and me in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about my deep concern over the House proposal on the child nutrition program and stand before you today to speak about the questions that I have asked and the answers I have looked to to find out whether this is the right road for this body to go down. National School Lunch Program, as we all know, began in 1946 in response to concerns that our national security was jeopardized because many of our incoming military personnel suffered from nutrition-related illness. The Federal Government made a decision that it is in the national security interest of this country to feed and nourish our youth to ensure a strong population and a strong nation. If we take the time to review this program's record, we will clearly find that it has been successful in boosting health and achievement among our children. This program touches every family in America. Its elimination will shake the very foundation of the family: health, nutrition, education, and opportunity. Here is why: Every single school day, more than 25 million children in 93,000 schools across America eat a lunch provided through the National School Lunch Program. More than half of these children receive the meal free or at a reduced price. I doubt my colleagues know what it is like to sit in a classroom as a small child and try to concentrate on learning when you have not had a meal for several hours. I doubt that many know what it is like to teach these children. As a mother and a pre-school teacher, I can assure you that for hungry children, learning is not a priority. It cannot be. Often, the meals they get at school are their only meals for the day. Often, these lunches are the only nutritious meal they get. I can tell you from first-hand experience that food makes a child--any child--happy and healthy and willing to learn. Teachers are overburdened as it is. The last thing we need to do is to put more hungry children in our classrooms and then ask our teachers to teach them. The Women, Infants, and Children Program [WIC], another nutrition program targeted for block granting, is one of the most successful forms of health care cost containment that we have today. It has an outstanding record of reducing the incidence of low-birth-weight babies born to poor women, and saving lives. This program serves nearly 7 million mothers and children each month at a cost of less than $1.50 a day for each participating child. The Medicaid savings this program produces outweigh the costs by a 3 to 1 ratio. It is a model program which should not be lost in the welfare reform debate but rather one we can and should learn from. I think it is important to point out that these programs have rightfully enjoyed bipartisan support in this body. The Senate has affirmed the issue of nutrition as one of health for our children. It is one of economics too. This Nation will pay so much more later if growing children do not get the nutrition they need now and if women do not get the parental care they need now. Let me touch on a few other aspects of this legislation. One of the reasons these nutrition programs have been so successful is because of national nutrition standards. Where do you think the campaign for the five basic food groups came from? The House proposal would eliminate these and ask each State to set their own. So, instead of one proven, workable national program, we will have 50 individual bureaucracies experimenting on our children. But that is not all. If we look further into the legislation, we realize that despite what the House would have us believe, their proposal will cut nutrition funds to many States. The claim that the school lunch program will see a 4.5-percent increase cannot be found in this legislation. What you can say is that the school nutrition block grant would provide 2.5-percent more funding in fiscal year 1996 than schools will receive in fiscal year 1995. However, this does not take into account food price inflation or increases in participation. Under current law, these programs would see a 5-percent increase in order to keep pace with food costs and participation. Because block grants do not take these into account, the bill will actually provide $170 million less in fiscal year 1996 than would be provided under current law. By fiscal year 2000, the block grant would provide $760 million less than the levels needed to keep pace with inflation and participation. Over a 5-year period, the block grant would provide $2.3 billion less than current law. These are not block grants; they are block cuts. The House proposal shifts these funds to discretionary spending. Once this happens, 1996 is the only year funds can be guaranteed. Afterward, State nutrition programs would be subject to arbitrary spending caps, across-the-board cuts, and other money savings gimmicks without regard to the impact on children. The House proposal does not take into account the possibility of a recession. Nor does it compensate for any increases in population or poverty. It puts our States in a position of setting nutrition standards they may not be able to afford. It caps administrative costs which will limit each State's ability to establish the new State regulations. What does this mean? When States run out of funds--and believe me, they will--The children will not eat. The end result will be devastating to our children, our schools, our families, our communities, and our economies. I have talked with many people since the introduction of this proposal. I know that my State of Washington will lose under the current block grant formula. I know that hard working parents who need WIC or school lunches are afraid of what the future holds for their children. I know that children are worried about their families. I understand and share their fears and I urge all of my colleagues to get out and talk with those people who participate in these programs. Talk to parents, to teachers, and to children so that when the Senate takes up this issue you have a clear and deep understanding of just what you will be doing if you support this effort. Mr. President, one last issue I want to touch on in regard to this whole block grant effort is the issue of welfare and how it has become associated with abuse and irresponsibility. I share the view that the programs I just discussed are investments in our future. The overwhelming majority of those people involved are using these programs as a last resort and not because they choose to. They are necessary for survival. Mr. President, I have several letters from families in the Washington WIC programs which I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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