Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I had intended to offer this amendment, but in the interest of moving this legislation, I will ask unanimous consent, after I make a brief statement, that my amendment be withdrawn. The amendment I was going to offer would have allowed the President to rescind all unauthorized appropriations. I feel that this goes to the heart of the concerns of the American people about line-item legislation. Mr. President, we need a commonsense solution to cutting out pork, while at the same time, protecting those programs the American people really care about. I want to be able to be here and fight for the people I represent. I believe that the amendment offered at the end of yesterday's session by my good friend, the minority leader, and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], goes a long way in achieving that commonsense solution. Like my amendment, this approach will allow the President to cut all those 11th hour deals in conference committees. It eliminates the back- room wheeling and dealing. Mr. President, without this amendment, the Dole substitute to S. 4 goes too far. It is a radical, unworkable approach to a difficult problem. It gives the President too much power over the American people. It is too complicated. It creates too much bureaucracy. The substitute before us enables the President randomly to veto programs that the people's representatives in Congress debate, and compromise on, and authorize in the name of our constituents. Yesterday I listened very carefully to the debate. I heard the comments of Senator Nunn and I heard the comments of my friend and neighbor, the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield]. Mr. President, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee gave a stirring speech, full of wisdom and common sense about why the line-item legislation is bad public policy. In particular, he noted the unprecedented transfer of power from the people to the White House. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to read the speech made by the Senator from Oregon in the Record. I cannot support the Dole substitute--it is the breeding ground for abuse and political horsetrading. I want to give the President the ability to line-item veto all those portions of appropriations bills that have not been through the hearing and authorization process. All those pork items contribute to our deficit. This is the spending the American people are angry about: the unauthorized buildings, the earmarked research, and the special interest projects. But, Mr. President, the American people are not angry about the programs that have been authorized. These come to life under the full glare of public scrutiny--everyone is given a chance to weigh in. That is why we have public witness hearings in the Appropriations Committee. And, it is our job, Mr. President, to make tough choices and to craft compromises. Just like we do at home. Mr. President, after all the public negotiations, after all the compromises that make up the congressional process--we cannot allow the people's wishes to be subject to the arbitrary veto pen of one person. The Congressional Research Service tells me that it would take them days to compile the list of unauthorized appropriations in the fiscal year 1994 Transportation bill. And, I have another list from the CRS which shows that nearly $1 in $5 in the military construction account was spent on unauthorized appropriations. That is not insignificant. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the line-item legislation proposed by my colleagues from South Dakota and Nebraska. I want to make sure my constituents' wishes are not subject to the arbitrary budget axe of the executive branch. I want to return some rationality to this debate. Mr. President, the American people deserve a balanced budget. When I arrived at the Senate 2 years ago, I faced the daunting task of restoring some fiscal restraint to our budget--it was a budget of runaway spending. It was a budget of misplaced priorities. And, as a member of the Budget Committee, I was tasked by my constituents to correct the way our money is spent. That is the proper role of Congress. We, as the representatives of the people, have the obligation to form a budget. It is not the President's job to appropriate money--it is this branch's duty. I have learned a great deal about our budget over the past 2 years. I have worked with great Senators, like the former chairman, Senator Sasser of Tennessee, and the current ranking member, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon]. Let me say, Mr. President, we are a richer country for the wisdom of my distinguished colleague from Nebraska. I look forward to working with him during the next 18 months, and I will miss his leadership when he retires from this body. Mr. President, my friend from Nebraska knows, as I know, that crafting a budget resolution takes courage. Reducing our deficit takes even more courage. And, I am proud of the record of the Budget Committee and the administration over the past 2 years--as you know, we have reduced the deficit by nearly $100 billion. We did that by leveling with the American people. By making taxes fairer. By cutting more than 300 programs and totally eliminating 100 more. That is the correct way. Trying to attack government spending through a radical, unworkable separate enrollment bill is not. Everyone wants to lower the deficit, which blossomed and grew during the 1980's. And, as I said, we have done a good job of it over the past 2 years. I am afraid some of these proposals might go too far. We need to keep things in perspective. I am afraid as I look at the rescission package--these are the wrong cuts to the wrong people. And, scoring a few political points in a debate will have dire consequences for millions of average Americans. It might sound good in a debate to control the White House, but it won't feel good to the average Americans who sit around the kitchen table in my house. but not the ill-conceived, radical amendment supported by the majority leader. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I believe that to be the case. It is my hope that a remedy to this situation will be considered in the conference on this supplemental appropriations bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to engage the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee in a colloquy on the issue of military school maintenance. As the chairman may know, local education agencies [LEA's] which serve the dependents on active military personnel have a unique and very difficult challenge in meeting the needs of these students. Not the least of these challenges is maintaining a safe and productive learning environment in those educational facilities which are owned by the Federal Government and located on military installations. This situation is particularly acute in several LEA's which were identified in the joint Department of Defense/Department of Education report, the Dole Commission report mandated by Public Law 99-661, as having the most severe problems while serving at least two major military installations. In fact, some of these facilities would not even meet local fire and safety regulations were they not located on Federal property. Congress has addressed this problem several times in the past. In fiscal year 1994 Congress appropriated $10 million to initiate repair problems at the above mentioned installations. This allowed the Department to begin correcting the most severe building deficiencies in advance of ownership transfer to the involved LEA's. In fiscal year 1995 Congress appropriated an additional $20 million to continue and hopefully complete this work and transfer ownership. Though the funds for fiscal year 1995 military school maintenance programs were appropriated almost 6 months ago, I am advised that the Department of Defense has yet to disburse these funds to the appropriate schools.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand that the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has received all the necessary paperwork from the administration for Dr. Henry Foster's nomination for U.S. Surgeon General. I rise today to encourage the committee to move Dr. Foster's nomination expeditiously, and I look forward to his receiving a full and fair hearing. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am very excited about Dr. Foster's nomination. Dr. Foster is an ob/gyn. I appreciate, and want to stress, the importance and relevance of his practice area. For far too long, women's health concerns have been neglected by our Government. Women's health is critical to very family--every man, woman, and child--in this Nation. As a woman, and the mother of a son and a daughter, I find the selection of Dr. Foster reassuring. It is especially important at this time that President Clinton chose to nominate a physician who has dedicated his life to maternal and child health. Dr. Foster is one of the country's leading experts on preventing teen pregnancy and drug abuse, as well as reducing infant mortality. Dr. Foster is a very decent and dedicated physician who has been unfairly maligned. I hope my colleagues and the American public will hear the stories of some of the many people whose lives Dr. Foster has touched. I hope they get a more complete picture of Dr. Foster and the work he has done. For example, Dr. Foster worked tirelessly to help bring Christopher Hight into this world. Jeannette Hight and her husband Charles almost lost their baby twice during her pregnancy, but Dr. Foster helped nurse her through these crises. Earlier this year, Jeannette and Charles Hight wrote to Dr. Foster: Without you, there would not be a Christopher Hight. Your talents and work have brought joy to our lives. You will be proud to know that your extraordinary efforts resulted in us having a son who is excelling at Rice University in architecture. His teachers, who are nationally renown, have told us that he has very special talents. No matter what happens, we are with you. We will always remember your special dedication, caring nature and skills. Cliff and Wilda Denton from Moses Lake in my home State of Washington wrote the following to Dr. Foster: I can say in all humility, without you we could have lost our only daughter and first born grandson. Wilma was so very ill and dehydrated. All I had to do was call you. You would nourish her back to normal. This was thirty some years ago. When you were a doctor in the Air Force at Larson Air Force Base, her husband was away fighting a war. That's when we got acquainted with you. After the birth and both were well and healthy, I wrote you a letter, thanking you for all your good care. You told me I was the first person (white that is) to ever give you a compliment. Greg is now over thirty years old. We were so impressed when we visited you a few years ago and found you had dedicated your entire life to humanity . . . I feel confident you will be confirmed. . . . Mr. President, these are just a few examples for Dr. Foster's great work. He has delivered many thousands of babies, and he has saved hundreds of lives. Some of our colleagues would have the U.S. 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. Abortion is a legal procedure, and every woman in this Nation has a constitutional right to choose whether and when to bear a child. Whether Dr. Foster has performed 1 abortion or 1,000 abortions, he should not be disqualified from consideration. I believe that the majority in this Nation will not allow an extremist minority to criminalize abortion through the Surgeon General nomination process. Furthermore, I believe the women in this Nation will not stand for perfunctory disqualification of candidates based on their practice areas, especially when the physician involved has dedicated his life to women's health. Mr. President, why is no one concerned about the exact number of babies Dr. Foster has delivered in the course of his practice? Why is no one inquiring into exactly how many lives he has saved? I am curious how many teenagers have benefited from his I Have A Future Program? I wonder how many unintended pregnancies he has prevented? How many young people has he empowered and inspired? Why is this man being attacked so viciously when he has dedicated his life to our well-being? Finally, how can a U.S. Senator vow to filibuster Dr. Foster's nomination before the doctor has even had a hearing? Mr. President, I had to speak on Dr. Foster's behalf today because I cannot stand by and watch his nomination be railroaded. Senator Kassebaum has promised Dr. Foster a hearing and I believe she is committed to following through. Luckily, not everyone is rushing to prejudge this nominee. Every day that goes by without a U.S. Surgeon General in place who can provide strong leadership for our Nation's future--is a day in which American lives can be changed. Mr. President, having a Surgeon General in place who can speak to women's health issues is imperative. I urge the committee to move quickly on Dr. Foster's nomination. And, I look forward to consideration of Dr. Foster's nomination by the full Senate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, thank you.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business for approximately 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Kansas. I am most concerned with those that question the administration's authority to issue this Executive order. As the Federal Government's chief executive officer, the President has the responsibility by law to assure that taxpayers receive the goods and services they require from Federal contractors. These contractors must maintain stable and productive labor-management relationships if they are going to produce the products our Nation must depend upon. The Executive order advances cooperative and stable labor-management relations, a central component of this administration's workplace agenda. The use of--or the threat to use--permanent replacement workers destroys the cooperative environment that this relationship must maintain. The Executive order represents a lawful exercise of Presidential authority. The Federal Procurement Act, enacted by Congress in 1949, expressly authorizes the President to prescribe such policies and directives, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, as he shall deem necessary to effectuate the provisions of said act. Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have issued Executive orders addressing the conduct of firms with which the Federal Government does business. Those orders to be challenged have been upheld. In 1941, President Roosevelt issued an Executive order requiring defense contractors to refrain from racial discrimination. In 1951, after enactment of the Procurement Act, President Truman issued an Executive order extending the requirement to all Federal contractors. When both orders were issued, such discrimination was not unlawful antidiscrimination law proposed by President Truman. In 1964, President Johnson issued an Executive order prohibiting Federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of age. At the time, Federal law permitted such age discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 merely directed the President to study the issue. In 1969, the Nixon administration expanded the antidiscrimination Executive order to encompass a requirement that all Federal contractors adopt affirmative action programs. This Executive order was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In 1978, President Carter issued an Executive order requiring all federal contractors to comply with certain guidelines limiting the amount of wage increases. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld President Carter's Executive order. Finally, in 1992 President Bush issued an Executive order requiring unionized Federal contractors to notify their unionized employees of their right to refuse to pay union dues. The National Labor Relations Act contains no such requirement and legislation proposing this in the 101st Congress was not passed. The economical and efficient administration and completion of Federal Government contracts requires a stable and productive labor-management environment. Strikes involving permanent replacements last seven times longer than strikes that do not involve permanent replacements. Mr. President, my personal interest in this amendment is its impact on the most vulnerable and fastest growing segment of our work force-- American women. Over the last decade, women have assumed ever greater economic and family caretaking responsibilities. Everyone in this country should be unsettled by the fact that women and children are most likely to fall deeper into poverty and homelessness. One of three families headed by a women lives to or below the poverty line: Nearly 70 percent of all working women earned less than $20,000 a year, and 40 percent earned less than $10,000 annually. These workers need the ability to raise their standard of living in order to break the cycle of poverty and welfare dependence which many of them endure. These women understand that they cannot bargain effectively unless they are assured that they do not risk losing their jobs permanently. They understand the serious implications of a strike. They understand, as I do, the fear of being one paycheck away from economic disaster. Most of us have home mortgages, car payments, educational and medical needs for ourselves and our families. America's workers know striking is the option of last resort. This action is never taken lightly. I urge my colleagues to maintain the delicate balance of collective bargaining. This Executive order shows that this great society values the individual, that it cares about women, and it recognizes those that built this Nation. Let us defeat this amendment and prove to America that Government does respect the needs of ordinary working people. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I voted against House Joint Resolution 1, the so-called balanced budget amendment. I voted no because this amendment is a 10-second political sound bite with decades of economic implications. It will handcuff future generations to an worst of all, it makes a mockery of the most important document this country has ever produced. I am a member of the Budget Committee. When I came to the Congress 2 years ago, I faced the largest debt ever amassed by any country in the history of civilization. More debt was created during the 12 years of Republican administrations in the 1980's and early 1990's than in the entire 200 years preceding them. I strongly support putting this country's economic house in order. Mr. President, I support a balanced Federal budget. The people of this Nation deserve nothing less. But this amendment does not get us there. Words on a piece of paper cannot balance the budget, only legislators like you and I can. We have to make tough choices as we correct the fiscal mismanagement of the 1980's. We have to balance the budget with surgical cuts; with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. Mr. President, we have made some very tough decisions. I was one Member of this body who voted for a plan--a plan with specific cuts and common sense--which reduces the deficit by $505 billion over 5 years. Program-by-program, cut-by-cut. Most of the Members of the Senate who voted against the deficit reduction plan now support this constitutional amendment. Mr. President, where are the specifics? What will they cut? Which taxes will they raise? Who will be hurt? The American people have a right to know. Under this amendment, we have no idea. For example, will they cut out funding for the Federal Government's obligation to clean-up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my home State of Washington? Will they eliminate the home mortgage deduction? Will they cut Head Start, or WIC, or Ryan White? Will they stop guaranteeing student loans? Will they block further assistance to our depressed timber communities, or job training for laid-off aerospace workers? Mr. President, just this week, we have seen some examples of how careless cuts can be when they are made with a meat cleaver. The rescissions package coming before the Senate soon is a mean-spirited and irrational piece of legislation. As nasty as those cuts are, they still do not get us to a balanced budget. Instead, they damage those we can least afford to harm: our children. If this body is serious about deficit reduction, we should resume the debate on health care reform. Even cutting every discretionary program will not get us to a balanced budget. We must control the growth of health care costs. I find it ironic that many of the same Senators who opposed the health care reform bill last year now support this constitutional amendment. This so-called balanced budget amendment is dangerous. It will remove all our flexibility in dealing with emergencies--economic troubles like recessions, or even natural disasters like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, flooding, hurricanes, and massive fires. My home State has experienced many such disasters recently. If this amendment had been part of the Constitution, how would my friends and neighbors have coped? Mr. President, I believe many of our colleagues would want to help in these emergency situations. That is why the Congress is the proper venue for deciding these issues--our Founding Fathers thought so, too. This constitutional amendment throws our responsibility to the courts. The courts will decide if funding is appropriate. Supreme Court justices are not responsible to the people of my home State; they are not elected by anyone. They are not sent to the Nation's capital to tend to the needs of my constituents. Mr. President, we have amended the Constitution only 17 times since we adopted the Bill of Rights. We have never changed the Constitution lightly. With each previous amendment, the American people voted to expand rights and outline responsibilities--we have never inserted an economic plan into the Constitution. This amendment sets a terrible precedent. I voted in favor of several amendments to the House Joint Resolution 1. I could see that the resolution had considerable support, and I wanted to make sure that if it did indeed pass, we protected our most vulnerable populations; that we maintained the integrity of the Social Security trust fund; that we continued our fight against violent crime; that we respected our veterans; and that we exempt natural disasters from cuts. I also believe that we should display common sense and work to reduce the massive deficit before we enacted sweeping, across-the-board tax cuts. These safeguards all failed--every one of them. All attempts at tempering the resolution, or placing some sensible priorities into the legislation, were killed. Mr. President, this is bad policy, and I cannot support any measure that will handcuff our country's economic policy. When I stand in this Chamber, I remember that I am not only a U.S. Senator but also a mother. It might be popular to vote yes, but I won't worry about my own personal popularity until I know my children's economic future is safe. I do not believe we should trivialize our Constitution in order to give politicians a reason to make the kind of choices they should be making anyway. This resolution will hurt our country and handcuff future generations. Amending the U.S. Constitution is not worth the gamble. For these reasons, Mr. President, I did not support House Joint Resolution 1.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Byrd's amendment to protect Federal outlays for law enforcement, and the reduction and prevention of crime. I am proud of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act we passed last year. It is a comprehensive approach to solving our Nation's crime problem. It includes: funds for 100,000 new police officers across the Nation; a ban on the manufacture, sale, and future possession of 19 semiautomatic assault weapons; and increased penalties for Federal violent crimes and sex crimes. However, passing tougher laws and putting more police on our streets will not stop the violence that is ravaging our Nation. These measures, while effective, are only part of the larger solution. We also must focus on preventive measures if we hope to find permanent solutions to the epidemic of violence. Last year's crime bill does just that. The legislation includes: the Violence Against Women Act, which authorizes funding for rape education and community prevention programs, battered women's shelters, and a national family violence hotline. The crime bill also authorizes local grants for education, after- school safe haven programs, and other initiatives aimed at reducing gang membership among young people. The bill provides for grants to localities for crime prevention measures, including: police partnerships for children, supervised child visitation centers, and partnerships between senior citizens and police. In addition, the legislation provides grants to law enforcement to create partnerships with child and family support agencies to fight crimes committed against children. Madam President, I believe in the value and necessity of these vital programs. As a woman, a mother, and a former teacher I want to make sure we let our children know we care about them, they can trust us to do the right thing, and we will not turn our backs on them. Although I am pleased that Republican proposals to redirect these important prevention dollars do not target the Violence Against Women Act, I am disturbed about the implications for programs aimed at our Nation's youth. Our children are afraid, and sadly, they have every reason to be. Every day, 5,703 teenagers are victims of violent crimes. Every 2 hours, a child is murdered. Every 5 seconds of the schoolday, a student drops out of public school. We, as adults, have a responsibility to care for our children, to teach them to value themselves and their communities, and not to give up on them. It is time for us as adults to address the issue of violence honestly. Violence is a symptom of deeper problems. Lets not restrict our attention to punishing criminals and building more prisons, while ignoring the causes of violence among our children. I have talked with young people throughout the State of Washington. My overwhelming conclusion is that a lot of the youth on our streets have been victims themselves--victims of abusive adults, victims of our overburdened school system, and victims of a juvenile justice system that cannot respond to their real needs. These disaffected kids invariably have kids of their own, and the cycle of violence begins again. Prevention and education are the keys to breaking this dangerous pattern of violence. Madam President, the dollars allocated to fund the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 are extremely important. I applaud Senator Byrd's effort to safeguard these crime fighting dollars. Unanimous-Consent Agreements

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Dr. Henry Foster has been nominated by President Clinton to be the U.S. Surgeon General. I rise today to express my support for Dr. Foster, and to urge my colleagues to give him a full and fair hearing. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Foster, and I am very impressed. Dr. Foster is a physician with vast experience who has dedicated his life to maternal and child health. He is a man who speaks from the heart, a person who cares deeply about the health of families across this Nation. Dr. Foster is one of the country's leading experts on preventing teen pregnancy and drug abuse, as well as reducing infant mortality. He is a public health professional with vision. I urge my colleagues to meet with Dr. Foster, to talk with him, to ask him tough questions. I have. I believe they too will be very impressed. Dr. Foster has tested his ideas about public health interventions that can greatly benefit this Nation. He wants to continue his career- long focus on maternal and child health, on adolescents, and the on prevention of teen pregnancy. He wants to fight AIDS, and combat the epidemic of violence that has taken hold across our Nation. I also want to stress the importance and relevance of Dr. Foster's practice area. For far too long, women's health concerns have been neglected by this Nation. I am heartened that our next Surgeon General can be a physician who has dedicated his life to women's health--an obstetrician/gynecologist. Women's health is critical to every family--every man, woman, and child--in this Nation. As a woman, and a mother with a son and daughter, I find the selection of Dr. Foster reassuring. I urge my colleagues to stop and think about the importance of women's health to families everywhere. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Labor Committee as they prepare hearings for Dr. foster. I believe when my colleagues and the American public get to know Dr. Foster, they will be as excited as I am to have him as our Nation's next Surgeon General. You, too, will recognize his honesty, his passion, and his commitment to children and families. I thank you and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a former colleague, a great legislator and a courageous and loyal friend, Washington State Senator Cal Anderson. I worked with Cal Anderson when I served in the Washington State Senate. He is known throughout my home State as an outstanding legislator. His reputation is one of hard work, of holding true to his beliefs but compromising for the greater good, and of reaching conclusions that work for everyone. Cal is a true believer, as I am, in good government. I was honored to work with him on open record policies in my home State. I was astounded by his ability to be inclusive, to bring everyone into the debate. Cal made sure that our bill was not just legislation that was good to look at but legislation that was good for people. Cal is a Vietnam veteran. He earned two Bronze Stars and four Army Commendation medals for meritorious service in that conflict. He is courageous, Mr. President, and he is honest. He has touched so many lives across this country--his very presence in our State legislature shows young people that no matter who they are or where they come from, everybody has a great deal to offer their communities and our country. His very presence tells us that America will be great when we let everybody participate and be an equal voice in our national dialog. Cal Anderson is one of the highest ranking openly gay elected officials in this country. He continues to break down stereotypes and ignorance. And, he is a champion and a role model for all people. Nobody in the State legislature thought of Cal as the ``gay legislator''; we thought of him as an extraordinary man who just happened to be gay. And, this week, Mr. President, with his characteristic honesty and integrity, Cal Anderson told us he has AIDS. He has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma and is undergoing chemotherapy. I called him today, and was not surprised to find him in his senate office in Olympia. He has a lot of work to do, and is determined to get it done. Mr. President, Cal Anderson's honestly should inspire all of us who shape public policy to take this epidemic seriously. In my own State, more than 5,500 men, women, and children have been diagnosed with AIDS. More than 1,100 cases have been reported over the previous year. Cases are growing in rural areas, and cases are growing among women. A few weeks ago, we learned the sad news that AIDS is now the leading cause of death of Americans between will soon know someone who is infected with HIV. My friends and neighbors in Washington do now: his name is Senator Cal Anderson. Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking Cal for everything he does for my home State, and by wishing him and his partner, Eric, only the best with his therapy and in the future.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from California for sponsoring this amendment, and I am honored to be here today as a strong cosponsor of this amendment, to add my voice of support to those of my distinguished colleagues, Senator Boxer and Senator Leahy. One's decision on this amendment can be made very easily. If any of my colleagues can foresee their state's future forever free of disasters and emergencies, then their opposition to this amendment will be understood. Lacking the powers of Nostradamus, though, all of us must realize the unfortunate certainty of natural disasters and unpredictable emergencies. A balanced budget, we all agree is a goal we must work towards rapidly. I am concerned however, that House Joint Resolution 1 would block the ability of the Federal Government to respond immediately in the event of a national disaster. The current proposal's only exception from the requirement of a three-fifths vote to approve spending above a balanced budget is upon a declaration of war. This flexibility is needed, however not only to defend our national security, it is just as needed to defend our security against natural disasters and unforeseen emergencies that would require an immediate response by Congress and the President. I have come to know the tragedy of natural disasters through the heavy and devastating tolls they have placed upon the residents of Washington State. From the unusual volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens to seasonal fires and floods, Washingtonians have responded to these increasing emergencies through the support of our Federal Government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is the only body prepared to handle disasters of this magnitude. Their ability to quickly respond is the key to emergency management. FEMA's mission is to provide national leadership and support to reduce the loss of life and property. This endeavor serves not only those impacted by the disaster but begins the economic steps of rebuilding the community. I am sure many of my colleagues have toured disaster sites immediately following an emergency. These are the memories we should recall when deciding whether a balanced budget overrides the concerns of our constituents in need. I had the unfortunate opportunity to visit the fire-ravaged lands of my State last summer. Hearing the stories of those left homeless, of firefighters burned while saving others, puts a very real face on the numbers we hear in the news. A few moments ago my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, put up a chart by Air, Risk Engineering, Inc., that predicted that a Seattle earthquake may occur in the very near future of 7.5 magnitude, costing as much as $33-plus billion. I cannot imagine going back to my State in those times of pain and suffering and explaining to my neighbors that a balanced budget amendment prevents them from receiving assistance. Just as we mandate that hospitals can not turn away those in need of medical attention, the Government of the people cannot turn its back on those ravaged by unforeseen natural disasters. Sadly, none of us are immune from nature's wrath. Fires in my State are no different from hurricanes on the gulf, flooding in the Midwest, ice storms in the East, or earthquakes in California. In 1994 alone, FEMA responded to 36 major disasters totaling over $3.6 billion. Remember that 90 percent of all disasters are funded through supplemental appropriations. No budget can prepare for the destruction, the death, or the injury caused by these unforgiving tragedies. All of our hearts are extended to the citizens of Kobe, Japan who have experienced one of the greatest disasters of recent history. If any lesson can be unearthed from that devastation, it is a sign of our feeble attempt to control nature. Technology and preparedness can not combat the unrelenting will of the Earth. At best, in an emergency we can respond and cope. Our ability to aid disaster victims and rebuild fallen communities must not be held hostage by political amendments. I urge my colleagues to support the Boxer-Leahy amendment and remember their constituents who may well be the victims of their State's next natural disaster. I thank my colleague from California and I yield her back the time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this morning in honor of the 75th anniversary of the League of Women Voters of the United States. Founded in 1920, out of the Women's suffrage movement, the leagues has served 75 years educating voters about the most complex public issues of the day. The league has an impressive history. It has a long tradition of providing voters information--from the first national radio broadcast of a candidate forum in 1928, to its Emmy-Award-winning 1976 debates between former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. The league encourages citizen participation in the democratic process. The organization has educated and advocated on issues ranging from--passage of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving women the right to vote--to the passage of the motor-voter law in the last Congress. And, the leagues doe not shy away from taking on the issues. For example, in 1955, the league's president testified against Senator Joseph McCarthy's abuse of congressional investigative powers. Organized in thousands of communities throughout the Nation, the league emphasizes the need for government to be representative, accountable, and responsive. Mr. President, the League of Women Voters is an excellent organization and I am proud to honor the league's 75th anniversary today. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, in reintroducing legislation that will extend indefinitely the restrictions on the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil. Twenty years ago, Congress passed legislation that enabled oil to be produced on the North Slope. That legislation involved a careful balancing of a variety of interests. Foremost was our national energy security. In the face of a heavy reliance on imported oil, Congress determined that any oil produced from the North Slope should be used by American consumers unless the President found and Congress agreed that it was in the national interest to export all or any portion of that oil. Of equal importance, Congress was deeply concerned about the Alaska environmental impacts of North Slope oil production. Knowing that the Alaskan tundra and the wildlife would be endangered by oil pipeline construction and oil production, Congress saw no sense in facing these risks for the sake of supplying oil to foreign nations. By 1977, ANS crude was flowing through the Trans-Alaska pipeline system to the lower 48 States and Hawaii. From the pipeline's terminus at Valdez, AK, it moved by U.S.-flag Jones Act tankers to ports in the States of Washington and California. In both of these States, refineries were either built or modified to handle the surge of oil, which immediately reduced west coast reliance on imported crude. In Oregon, as well as in California and Washington, shipyards expanded to handle the construction and repair of more than 50 ships that carried ANS crude. A pipeline was built across Panama to provide an efficient means of transporting ANS crude that could not be sold on the west coast to gulf coast ports. Shipyards in the gulf benefitted from new tanker construction and repair business. The U.S. merchant marine was also a beneficiary of ANS crude, with the creation of over 2,000 jobs and the maintenance of a U.S. flag tanker capacity that would not have existed if ANS crude had been exported. This merchant marine capability not only created jobs, it helped to bolster our national defense by providing tankers flying the U.S.-flag that could be--and subsequently were used--in times of national emergency. In the early years of ANS crude production, west coast consumers enjoyed lower prices at the pump because of the abundant supply of Alaska oil. Above all, ANS crude reduced our reliance on imported oil and, together with a national energy conservation effort, helped to prevent our reliance on imported oil from being used against us as a foreign policy weapon. Mr. President, we in the State of Washington are directly affected by the congressional policy of restricting exports of Alaska oil. With ANS crude exports, we would have an influx of large foreign-flag tankers offloading crude oil to smaller ships along our coast so our refineries could be supplied with the oil we need. This offloading is an environmental hazard that we can ill afford. Thousands of jobs in refineries and related industries have been created in our State, and many Washingtonians perform ANS tanker repair work in the port of Portland. In this Congress, as they have done many times in the past, my distinguished colleagues from Alaska, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, have proposed legislation that would eliminate the ANS export restrictions. Their goal is understandable. Every barrel of ANS oil that is exported increases that State's severance tax revenues. However, I remind my colleagues that the law says that exports should be permitted only if they are in the national interest, not just the interest of the State of Alaska. Indeed, that question is an important one for the Senate to keep in mind as it considers this issue. Congress has also passed other laws that place nearly identical national interest restrictions in the export of all oil from any State, as well as from offshore areas and the naval petroleum reserves. My distinguished colleagues from Alaska are asking for an exemption from a policy that applies to every other State where oil if produced. At a time when our reliance on imported oil has reached a historic high, and when the Commerce Department has found that the level of oil imports poses a national security threat, Congress should not be permitting exports of ANS crude. Our energy security demands that the national interest restrictions on exports remain in place. Equally compelling is our need to protect the environment. Every barrel of Alaska oil that is exported must be replaced by a barrel of foreign oil that will come to the United States on large foreign-flag tankers. That would amount to a reckless endangerment of our coastal environment. Aside from increasing the tax revenues of the State of Alaska, the primary beneficiary of Alaska oil exports would be British Petroleum, the largest producer of ANS crude. This foreign-owned oil company will be able to reduce its oil transportation costs and, thus, increase its profits. None of us should be lulled into the false belief that British Petroleum's increased profits would mean increased production in Alaska. The North Slope fields are producing at their maximum level today. They are now old fields whose production has inevitably gone into decline, but continue to produce 25 percent of our Nation's oil. Nor will taking ANS crude from its west coast markets increase California oil production. The refineries that process Alaska oil can't handle the additional volumes of heavy grade of oil produced in California. They will replace any lost Alaska oil with foreign oil. In addition, Alaska oil sells on both the west and gulf coasts at world price levels. The only price impact of exports would be to permit British Petroleum to gain the power to set higher prices for the smaller amounts of ANS crude that would remain available to the west coast. If that price is passed through, it will harm consumers. The integrated oil company refineries--including those who are able to use supplies of oil they produce in Alaska--will be able to absorb any price increase. However, west coast independent refiners are in a poor position to absorb increases in the price of their crude oil stocks because their profit margins will not permit it. In addition, these independents do not have the docking facilities to handle large foreign-flag ships, nor do they have the storage tanks to handle supplies of this will endanger the continued existence of independent refineries and the thousands of men and women who depend on these refineries for their livelihood. Finally, Mr. President, there is the issue of ships. The fleet that carries Alaska oil is aging. Within the past few days, the U.S. Coast Guard has launched an investigation to determine if existing regulation of these tankers is adequate. Their action comes on the heels of the discovery of four structural failures in ships that carry ANS crude to the west coast ports within the past month alone. Congress has already dealt with the issue of tanker safety in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which requires the gradual phase-in over the next few years of new, double-hulled tankers that will present far less danger to our environment. The proposal to export Alaska oil stipulates the U.S.-flag ships be used. There is a significant difference between a U.S. flag and a Jones Act ship. Jones Act ships must be built and repaired in the United States, while U.S.-flag ships can be foreign vessels that are placed under U.S. registry. To replace its aging fleet on ANS tankers, British Petroleum would under current law be required to enter into long-term charters ranging from 10 to 15 years in order to guarantee the financing and the construction of these ships. However, if it is permitted to use foreign-built vessels, British Petroleum can engage in short-term hires of existing, single-hulled vessels whose age does not require replacement under OPA90 for several years. British Petroleum should be constructing new Jones Act ships now. That would be the responsible and prudent policy to follow. Instead, they are continuing to use aging ships that pose a threat of structural failures. In addition, British Petroleum and its allies in Congress seek to deprive United States shipyards of much-needed new construction work. Jobs that would have been created by this work will be lost at the same time as our environment is endangered. Mr. President, it is clear that the State of Alaska and British Petroleum will benefit from Alaska oil exports. However, it is equally clear that these are the only beneficiaries of exports. Our national energy security, our environment, and the jobs of U.S. workers will be placed in jeopardy. Maintaining the restrictions on ANS exports is good policy for America. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the legislation I am proud to introduce today.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin. Madam President, I serve as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, and I take that assignment seriously. The budget process starts in that committee. The deficit reduction starts there. And, Madam President, the tough choices are made there. choices, the deficit is finally going down. This country racked up more debt during the 1980's than we had during the previous two centuries. We can never allow this type of explosive debt to creep into the budget process again. When I was sworn in 2 years ago, I wanted to offer a change in thinking, and help to solve the problem of poor fiscal management. And, we are solving this problem. We are cutting unnecessary and wasteful programs. We are streamlining other projects. This year alone, the President has sent us a budget for fiscal year 1996 that eliminates 130 programs and significantly 270 more. And, because our fiscal house is finally being put in order, the budget deficit has been reduced for 3 years in a row--that is the first time that has happened since Harry Truman was in the White House. Madam President, we finally have seen some commonsense, rational solutions in budgeting. And, we must continue providing leadership with level-headed moderate decisions, even if they are based on tough choices. That is why I support the Feingold amendment. It is common sense. It recognizes that we do not have a lot of money to go around. And, the last thing we should be doing when the deficit is finally being reduced is to engage in a political bidding war to enact broad-based, across- the-board tax breaks. This would only send our deficit soaring again, just like the 1980's. Just like the days when we were told ``you can have it all, and not pay for it.'' Just like the time when we racked up the highest amount of debt in the history of the world. Madam President, let me be clear. Our colleagues should understand that a vote for the Feingold amendment is not a vote against tax relief. Certain Americans need tax relief. Certain tax laws are antiquated and need to be changed. I believe, for example, we need to revise our estate and gift tax laws. But, we need to go through this with common sense. I have seen many of the proposals for tax breaks before us. Who do they really help? My friends and neighbors discuss the Federal budget with me all the time. And Madam President, they tell me time and again that we should reduce the deficit before we discuss broad-based tax breaks. Fighting this deficit is too serious for political game-playing. We clearly cannot push off on our kids an exploding deficit. Sometimes, spending programs are urgent, and, sometimes, tax relief is necessary. But, bidding wars to cut taxes for political popularity are not urgent and not necessary. As I said, Madam President, these proposals might be popular, but they are dangerous. And, Madam President, I will start worrying about my own personal popularity when I know my kids have a secure economic future. This amendment is good common sense. I thank my friend, Senator Feingold, for having the courage to bring it before the Senate. And, I urge its swift adoption.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I rise today in support of the Reid amendment to exclude the receipts and outlays of Social Security from the budget. I want to commend the Senator from Nevada for his work on this important issue. As Senator Reid noted last week, Congress ended the practice of masking our deficit by excluding the Social Security trust fund from the budget in 1990. That was a proper and necessary step then just as this amendment is a proper and necessary step now. The provision in 1990 was taken to ensure that the beneficiaries of the Social Security trust fund could trust that Congress would stop the practice of using the fund to mask the deficit there when people retire. That means simply that everyone of us has a right to know that when our money is taken out of our check today, it is put into a fund that cannot be raided and will be there for us when we retire. Today as we have the serious proposal of passing a balanced budget amendment in front of us, Congress is being called on again to ensure some level of security for the beneficiaries of the trust fund. We have a responsibility to every person in this country who pays Social Security taxes to ensure that their Government required investment in their future will be there when it is supposed to be. I cannot emphasize this enough. We have a real responsibility to our current beneficiaries and to those in the future. The measures this body took in 1990 and before reaffirmed that responsibility, and with consideration of the balanced budget amendment, we once again are being called on to provide greater assurances to Social Security beneficiaries. Given that, how can we in good conscience tell the American people that they do not need to worry about their Social Security when we all know that if this bill passes without this amendment, we cannot promise anything. Social Security will be on the chopping block along with all other programs. I know we have to get our Federal budget in order. I have a commitment to work on that as a member of the Budget Committee. I also know we have to work on Social Security to ensure its long-term solvency. We cannot achieve either of those goals by violating the trust of the American people and going into the Trust Fund to balance the budget. Let me be clear. I believe we must work to balance our budget. I also believe that a constitutional requirement to do so is not sound policy, but if this body is going to impose the constitutional amendment on us, if we are going to admit we are not strong enough to reduce spending without being forced to, then we have to let the American people know at a minimum that our elderly will not have to bear a disproportionate burden in this process. We have to let the American people know that the Federal Government will keep its promises and ensure that the money they put in this system now will be there for them when they retire. This amendment ensures just that and I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important issue in the Pacific Northwest: inland forest health. Earlier today, my colleague form Idaho, Senator Craig, spoke about legislation to address a serious forest health problem plaguing forests throughout the inland west. He very accurately described the problems of disease, insect infestations, and drought that are prevalent in many such forests, and which can lead to serious forest fires. I commend Senator Craig for his work on this issue. He is correct that serious forest health problems exist in many areas, and he is correct that we should try to do something about it. The reasons are very simple. Healthy forests are essential to ensuring long-term economic sustainability in rural communities; they are essential to our standard of living; and they are essential to maintaining a healthy environment. Growing trees provide many benefits. They shade spawning streams, they stabilize soil and prevent erosion, they provide wildlife habitat, they consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. They also provide wood for our home, paper for our schools, shelter for our communities, and recreation for the people. In short, they are many things to many people. If we strengthen our forests, we strengthen our communities. Of course, the reverse is also true. If we weaken our forests, we weaken our society in many ways. So it is important that we do what we can to keep our forests as healthy as possible. I would like to support a forest health bill. Given the passions inflamed when Congress starts legislating forest policy, I believe it is incumbent on us to proceed cautiously if we hope to achieve any results. Above all, we must not go too far. We need a forest health bill that addresses legitimate problems and reflects the public's view regarding management of our public lands. I have already talked about some of these problems. What about the public view? We know the public enjoys its parks and wilderness areas. We know the public appreciates aesthetic, wildlife, roadless, and old growth values. But we also know the public has a voracious appetite for wood products. So, as is so often the case, our challenge and our responsibility as legislators is to strike the right balance. I have a few concerns I hope can be addressed as we enter the forest health debate. I have touched on a few already: We need to make sure we are taking steps to address legitimate, serious problems. We need to avoid costly, catastrophic fires. The fires we saw last summer ravaged thousands of acres, cost a billion dollars to fight, and did no one any good. We need to avoid diseases and inspect problems as well. We also need to keep in mind what's going on downstream. People in the Pacific Northwest have spent the last few years trying to refine the concept of watershed-based management. In Tacoma last year, Representative Norm Dicks any myself convened a conference of nearly a thousand people to discuss watershed issue. Agency managers, fishers, private land owners, wildlife specialists, water users, conservationists, and citizens of all types came together to recognize the importance of watersheds as a resource management unit. We are finding more often than not many land-use questions are becoming aquatic questions. In other words, what happens downstream is quite often affected by what happens upstream. Our entire resource- based economy is connected one way or another by the streams and rivers that criss-cross the region. I believe there is ample room for proactive management of forest health problems and consideration of aquatic issues. The connection between these two issue sets is a concept I would like to introduce in the debate over Senator Craig's upcoming legislation. We also need to make sure management actions are science-based. The good news is that very few people in the scientific community disagree over management prescriptions that can help improve forest health. Just the same, I think it is important to make it clear that the goal of achieving good forest health, and the steps taken to reach it, are based in sound science. Finally, I want to say a few words about the broader issue of ecosystem management. This is a concept that has been very popular in recent years. It suggests that active resource management and usage can be reconciled with strong conservation goals. It suggests we can make decisions on a broad basis so we can avoid stumbling into problems on a case-by-case basis. These are goals that I strongly support. But the problem remains that ecosystem management is still just loosely defined. And of course, the devil is always in the detail. Last year, Senator Hatfield introduced legislation that I cosponsored to define the concept of ecosystem management more clearly. The goal is to arrive at a set of principles or standards that can guide long-term resource management decisions. I believe this is still the proper course of action. Until we have a clear goal in sight, it is not necessarily wise to proceed quickly with rifle-shot solutions to short- or intermediate-term problems that may not repeat themselves. So I encourage my colleagues, and people from the region, to consider some of the threshold questions that remain unanswered. Mr. President, there are other issues that I have not touched on but which I hope can be discussed in the context of forest health. Again, I commend the Senator from Idaho for his work. I hope to work with him and other Senators from the region in a bipartisan way to come up with solutions that work for the people. federal lands act forest health amendments of 1995

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about an important bill for Washington State. Today, I join my colleague, the senior Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] introducing legislation to authorize a land exchange between Boise Cascade Corp. and the Bureau of Reclamation. Boise Cascade operates a sawmill adjacent to the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area near Kettle Falls, WA. The land located between the mill and the lake is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. However, it is managed by the National Park Service under its authority over the Lake Roosevelt unit. Unfortunately, the proximity of the mill to the recreation area has led to concerns within the Park Service about potential effects of Boise operation on the public. Mr. President, Boise Cascade has been a stellar corporate citizen in this area. The company has absolutely no desire to adversely affect the recreation area. In fact, given their druthers, they'd like to enhance the area. That's why this bill is so important. If we enact this bill, we will ensure Boise's ability to continue its mill operation. In addition, we will add significant benefit to Lake Roosevelt. That's because this bill seeks to implement a land exchange that will add 132 acres to the national recreation area. Here's how it works: Boise Cascade owns 138 acres along the lake near the Colville River. This land provides excellent wildlife forage habitat. The Bureau owns 26 acres between the mill and the lake. In exchange for 6 of these acres, Boise will deed its 138 to the Government for incorporation into the recreation area. Mr. President, this is a great deal for the taxpayers and the citizens of Kettle Falls: 138 acres for just 6. There are 350 jobs at the Boise mill. Needless to say, it's the major employer in that area. The terms of this exchange have been mutually agreed to by the agencies, the company, the local citizens, and conservation groups concerned with protecting the lake. It's good for the community, and it's good for the resource. I hope all my colleagues will recognize this, and support our efforts to move the bill toward passage.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Dr. Tyson, probably more clearly than anyone I have heard in the past few days, explains how dangerous this resolution is and why the American people have a right to know what our budget will look like before we act on this measure. Mr. President, the staff of the Budget Committee prepared an analysis of the balanced budget amendment which puts the abstract words of this resolution into perspective. Now, as you know, Mr. President, the proponents of this resolution tell us we must have a balanced budget in the year 2002. But, they refuse to tell us how they will achieve that balance. They will not level with the American people about what they will cut and what they will eliminate. And, Mr. President, the American people have a right to know. They have a right to know before we pass this amendment how this will affect them. If we pass this resolution with an exemption for Social Security, defense, and some other sensitive programs and if we still enact all the tax cuts in the Contract With America, and all of that is possible, we will see a 50-percent across-the-board cut in all other programs. Is this responsible budgeting, Mr. President? Is this rational? Is this common sense? If we put this resolution into action, Mr. President, agricultural programs could take a 50-percent cut. So could highway funds. We could lose half of our education and job training money, and we could lose half of our student loans. If the Constitution is amended in this way, and Congress actually acts on it, the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is in jeopardy. This is not the way we return security to our Nation, Mr. President. And, it is not how we restore the glimmer of hope to our children's eyes. The radical cuts this amendment will demand will likely fall squarely on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society--our children, our elderly, our disabled most in need of help. And, Mr. President, at a time of uncertainty for all of our working families we find this resolution will hurt our workers. The economists at Wharton predict Washington State could lose 209,000 jobs the year after this amendment takes effect. They predict my State will experience a 15-percent drop in total personal income. And, they tell me hardest hit will be the manufacturing sector--especially the aerospace industry--which is already experiencing massive job losses. Mr. President, it is time to level with the American people. If we are gong to engage in a discussion of balancing the budget, let's get beyond the 10-second sound bites. Let us tell the American people how this budget will affect our lives, and their children's lives. Because, Mr. President, if we are going to change the Constitution of the United States the American people have a right to know exactly how this will affect their lives, their security, and their future. I retain the balance of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, there is no more important aspect to this debate than the amendment put forward by my good friend from South Dakota, the minority leader. Yesterday, the Budget Committee heard very important testimony from Dr. Laura Tyson, the Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Dr. Tyson explained how risky passing this resolution can be if we do not know exactly what is going to be cut, how much, and when. She outlined for us how dangerous these drastic, irrational cuts can be to the current economic expansion. She described how our fiscal policy will be ``handcuffed,'' that is her word, not mine, if this resolution becomes part of the Constitution. I refer our colleagues, Mr. President, to her testimony before the Budget Committee yesterday. And, I ask unanimous consent that the text of an article by Dr. Tyson in yesterday's Washington Post be made a part of the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to amending our Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. When I came to the Senate 2 years ago, I requested a seat on the Budget Committee. I wanted to learn firsthand how our budget is formed and to help steer this country's spending priorities. It is a big task. As a nation, we accumulated more debt in the decade of the 1980's than we had in the previous two centuries. It is time for common sense, rational solutions. It is time for us to provide leadership with level headed, moderate decisions even if they are based on tough choices. The balanced budget amendment is not common sense, it is not level headed, it is not rational, and it will not achieve what it claims to do. Instead, what we need are real solutions, real cuts, and real decisions that make sense for the American people. For example, we have reduced our deficit in a substantial way in the past 2 years. We have had to make some very tough choices. As an appropriator, I have had to say ``no'' more often than ``yes'' to programs that I support. We all know we just do not have a lot of money to go around. So, Mr. President, no one needs convincing that we need to tighten our belt. What we do need is a workable, responsible solution. This resolution will not achieve what some in the Senate would have you believe, nor what the American people want. It will make a mockery of a document which is the very essence of our democracy. Mr. President, our Constitution is a living document. In the course of history, we have had to change it and when we have amended the Constitution in the past we have acted to expand people's rights, to make this country more equitable for the little guy, to give ordinary Americans a stake in our society. Look how we have amended the Constitution in the past. The first amendment, one sentence long, ensures our freedom of speech. The second amendment, just one sentence long, maintains our right to bear arms. The 13th amendment, one short sentence, abolishes slavery. The 19th amendment, again one sentence, gives women the right to vote. The 24th amendment, one sentence long, abolishes the poll tax. And the last time the American people amended the Constitution was in 1971 with the 26th amendment--and we did so with one sentence--we gave all Americans over the age of 18 the right to vote. Mr. President, clearly when we have amended our Constitution in the past we did so to expand people's rights. This document, this Constitution and its Bill of Rights, is too important to attach pieces of legislation to it. The so-called balanced budget amendment does not fit the profile of previous amendments and, even worse, Mr. President, it is a promise to the American people that is too good to be true. Mr. President, words on a piece of paper cannot balance our budget. Legislators, like those of us here, can and should. And let us think about what will happen if we take the flexibility out of our economic decisionmaking. I ask unanimous consent that the text of an article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. This article describes the thoughts of my friend the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Laura Tyson, and those of the Director of the OMB, Dr. Alice Rivlin, who tells us that with this amendment: ``Fiscal policy would exaggerate * * * swings in the economy. Recessions would tend to be deeper and longer.'' ``Recessions would be deeper and longer.'' Mr. President, everyone I speak to these days--whether it is grocery store clerks or attorneys, farmers or Boeing machinists--everyone tells me their biggest fear is losing their job. Everyone fears the return of the dark days of recession. So why are we adding to the anxiety that is already out there? Budget cuts mean job cuts. If we handle our fiscal policy with common sense, I believe we can reduce our deficit in a sensible way that minimizes job loss. But if Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rivlin are correct--and I believe they are--this radical approach will throw millions of Americans out of work and at the same time cut job training programs. Mr. President, we do indeed face some tough challenges today, and one is to ease the feeling of insecurity among our Nation's work force. It seems pretty clear to me that this resolution will only make those fears a reality. Another challenge we face is to return hope to America's youth. When I talk with kids who belong to gangs, they tell me they join these groups because at least there someone cares about them. They believe they will have no opportunity in this country. Mr. President, I hear the same pessimism from teenagers around my own kitchen table. So how will a wildly fluctuating, uncontrollable economy be in the interest of our youth? And yet, Mr. President, I have sat here and listened to the proponents of this resolution talk about how amending our Constitution in this way will help our children. What will help our children is reducing our deficit, and everyone agrees with that. But, again, this resolution alone does not get us there. It will not help our children. It will not tell them that they will have a job. It will not tell them they will have food on their table. And it will not tell them that they have parents who care. It will provide no sense of security. And, in fact, I believe it will teach our children a dangerous lesson. There is nothing wrong with responsible borrowing. That is the backbone of our financial service industry--savings and investing. After all, how many American families could afford to buy their homes without a mortgage or send their kids to college without a student loan? This resolution destroys the American dream. It tells our kids, if they come from a family that cannot afford to pay cash for a home, they should not try. It teaches them that investment--even if it means borrowing for education--is not an option. Mr. President, let us think about the effect of this resolution on the little guy. Let us talk a little bit about how this resolution will affect the average Americans in neighborhoods across their country. I heard the ranking member of the Budget Committee, my good friend, Senator Exon, on the floor a few days ago. The Senator from Nebraska supports this resolution and that is why I really appreciated his speech earlier this week. My friend from Nebraska outlined some important points for all of us to consider. He went through an economic analysis the staff of the Budget Committee prepared, and this analysis puts the abstract words of this resolution into perspective. Now, as you know, Mr. President, the proponents of this resolution tell us we must have a balanced budget in the year 2002, but they refuse to tell us how we will achieve that balance. They will not level with the American people about what they are going to cut and what they will eliminate. And, Mr. President, the American people do have a right to know. Two days ago Senator Exon explained how the politics and the economics of this issue join to make a very scary situation possible. If we pass this resolution with an exemption for Social Security, defense, and some other sensitive programs, and if we still enact all the tax cuts in the Contract With America--and all of that is possible--we will see a 50 percent across-the-board cut in all other programs. Is this responsible budgeting? Is this rational? Is this common sense? If we put this resolution into action, Mr. President, agricultural programs could take a 50-percent cut. So would highway funds. We would lose half of our education and job training money and we would lose half of our student loans. If the Constitution is amended in this way and Congress actually acts on it, the cleanup of Hanford nuclear reservation in my home State is in jeopardy. That is not the way we return security to this Nation, Mr. President. And it is not how we restore hope to our children. Mr. President, I read yesterday morning's paper about the Washington, DC, budget crisis. Clearly the leaders in the District must work to balance their budget. But look where the first cuts were made: On programs affecting our children and their access to valuable educational resources. We will see the same thing here. The radical cuts this amendment will demand will fall squarely on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society--our children, our elderly, our disabled, and those in most need of our help. Just in my corner of the country alone, this amendment and the other provisions of the Contract With America will mean that by the year 2002, education programs will be cut by $474 million each year. Transportation will be shortchanged by $161 million. Federal Medicaid reimbursements in the State of Washington will be reduced by $1 billion. Federal economic development assistance will be reduced by $27 million. These are not just numbers. Behind the statistics are millions of dollars, are the faces of millions of Americans: My elderly next-door neighbor with a heart problem who depends on Medicaid; my friends who sit in traffic jams daily on I-95 in Washington, commuting to their jobs; the kids in my sister's sixth grade classroom in Bellingham, WA; the people who are just getting back on their feet in our hard-hit timber communities. Taken as a whole, the plans before us will total a reduction to my home State of $6.7 billion. That, Mr. President, is real money, real people, and real needs. Mr. President, at a time of uncertainty for all of our working families, we find this resolution will hurt our workers. The economists at Wharton predict Washington State will lose 209,000 jobs the year after this amendment takes effect. They predict my State will experience a 15-percent drop in total personal income. They tell me the hardest hit will be the manufacturing sector, especially those in the aerospace industry, which is already experiencing massive job losses. Again, I ask, is this common sense? Is this responsible budgeting? One last word, Mr. President. I have heard many people in this body talk about the need for fiscal self-discipline. Many Americans understand that need and indeed practice it in their own daily lives. That is what Congress needs to do. I know what it is like to sacrifice. I know how it feels to tell my kids no. And I know what tough choices are. I come from a family which is used to sacrifice and financial discipline. Mine is just like every ordinary American family. My grandparents fought a world war and survived the Great Depression. My family has ridden out nasty recessions, and now after we have survived all this, we are telling future generations, ``You have no say in determining your future. The United States is going to decide the budget of the 21st century in 1995.'' We need to keep things in perspective, Mr. President. We need to remember where we have come from when we violence, and the health of our Nation. But solutions to those challenges are not found in this so-called balanced budget amendment or, frankly, in any 10-second sound bite. We do not need to amend our Constitution this way and put the future of our Nation in a precarious position. We do need to be sensible legislators by proposing real solutions that bring fiscal responsibility to our budgets. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.