Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tomorrow is a critical date in United States trade relations with the People's Republic of China [PRC]. The United States Trade Representative has found that the PRC is seriously deficient in its protection of intellectual property rights. Talks have broken off, and unless the Chinese change their laws and improve their enforcement at this eleventh hour, the United States will impose steep tariffs on a number of products imported from the PRC, starting tomorrow. I am disappointed that the situation has deteriorated to this point. More than 1 year ago I invited the Chinese Ambassador, United States executives and other Members of the Washington congressional delegation to my office to discuss this issue. I spoke with President Clinton and U.S. Trade Ambassador Michael Kantor as well. I encouraged all sides to get together and work toward a solution to the problem. As a proponent of free trade, I am hopeful talks will be resumed and the Chinese Government will take serious steps to protect intellectual property rights. Hard-working people in the State of Washington are losing too much money to international pirates. This must end, and our relationship with this important trading partner must resume as quickly as possible. It is up to the Clinton administration, and, more importantly, to the Chinese, to show some leadership. If China wants to be a global economic player, they have to play by the global economic rules. And those rules don't allow piracy. Mr. President, as you know, I come from a State which is, per capita, the largest exporting State in the country. Washington State is home to America's single largest exporting company--the Boeing Co. We send the literal fruits of our labors--our apples and wheat--to every corner of the globe. And, we are the site of some of America's most forward-looking, cutting-edge industries. We have big companies like the Microsoft Corp and Nintendo of America as well as small concerns all along the I-5 corridor which specialize in a dazzling array of high technology and biotech products. These companies produce goods rich in intellectual property, the cornerstone of American innovation. Protecting these inventions through intellectual property rights is vital. Enforcing copyrights, patents and trademarks means that when you build a better mousetrap, you can reap the rewards of innovation. That's why we need and have strict laws in this country which protect inventions and punish thievery. I am pleased that intellectual property has been included as a new discipline in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. Accordingly, it is important that all our trading partners uphold and enforce the strongest intellectual property laws possible, especially those countries that wish to join the GATT. That is why the looming deadline is so disheartening. I sincerely hope China will address this situation, and prove they deserve a place in the global economic community.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a thoughtful opinion piece by our colleague, the Senator from Maryland, which appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday, January 22. She presents a road map that I believe can help all Senators, on both sides of the aisle, as we develop our priorities in this new Congress. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski's column be printed in the Record at this point.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Kennewick schools and their community for being recognized by the Center for Workplace Preparation as 1 of 21 most effective national programs working to involve parents in education. We all recognize the vital role parents have in the social, physical, and psychological growth of our children. Unfortunately, whether by choice, due to other commitments or a lack of communication between parents, children, and the school, parents are all too often excluded from school activities. Our schools recognize that if we are going to effectively deal with the problems in our classrooms, we need a higher level of parental involvement. Fortunately, many of our parents realize they have to become more involved in the education of their children and have collaborated with their schools to develop programs which meet the needs of the families, the schools and the community. is drug abuse. We all recognize the toll the drug abuse takes on our families, our communities, and ultimately our economy. Studies reveal that 70 percent of public school students aged 12 through 19 reported in 1989 that drugs are available at their school. Nearly 13 percent of 8th graders, 23 percent of 10th graders, and 30 percent of 12th graders had five or more drinks in a row in a 2-week period during the 1990-91 school year. And, 44 percent of all our teachers reported in 1992 that student misbehavior interfered substantially with their teaching. There is no question that safety and order are necessary in our classrooms if we want learning to take place. Yet, the use of alcohol and other drugs is unacceptably high among our school-age children and the results of this use are increased violence, misbehavior, and little desire to engage in learning. Recognizing the toll drug abuse takes on our schools and communities, the Kennewick School District and community parents came together to develop the Parent Network which aims to curb student substance abuse and increase parent knowledge of their children's activities. To join the Network, parents must sign an agreement that their children will remain substance free for the school year and will set curfews for their children. Family and student activities are arranged by the Network which are guaranteed to be substance free. I also want to stress that while the purpose of the program is to include parents in this process, the Network ensures that students have a voice in all activities. Their involvement is critical to the success of such programs and I am pleased the school and community have sought their inclusion. One of our national goals is to encourage parental involvement in education and I want to commend the Kennewick School District and their community not only for recognizing the importance of parental involvement but for implementing a program that works for our schools and our families. The American College Testing recently released a publication entitled: ``On Target: Effective Parent Involvement Programs'' which discusses the need for parental involvement and describes how the 21 selected programs are supporting this aim. I am very encouraged by the efforts being made by communities throughout our Nation and I hope other will follow the example set by these outstanding programs.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, local elected officials in my home State of Washington have discussed the cost of Federal laws with me since I came to the U.S. Senate. I understand their concerns; I served in my State legislature, and know it can be costly to comply with some Federal laws. For that reason, I cast my vote for this legislation. But, Mr. President, as you and all our colleagues know, I have some serious concerns about this bill. I think, it some senses, it might go too far. Some Senators might wrongly assume that passage of this bill means that they have free rein to gut environmental and labor laws, or health and safety regulations. That is not what the people of my State want. They just want us to be honest in budgeting. They want us to consider the cost of regulations and mandates we consider. They want us to use common sense in legislating. That means clean water, safe streets and neighborhoods--the benefits of Federal mandates. Therefore, Mr. President, I will work within the new constraints of this legislation to ensure that America's environment, health, safety, and labor laws enjoy the highest standards in the world. The passage of this bill just makes me more determined than ever to fight for the well-being of future generations.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for bringing this very important piece of legislation, this amendment, in front of us today, because I think it points out who some of the critical citizens we are representing in this debate are and what attention we need to bring to them. Certainly I, like all of my colleagues, have received letters from mayors and city councilmen and women who are saying you have to pass this unfunded mandates bill. As a former State Senator I certainly was the recipient of mandates from the Federal Government, and I said, ``Who are they to pass this along to me?'' However, I think in the process we have forgotten the people whom we are here to represent. My constituents in the State of Washington sent me back here to represent their interests at the Federal level. Certainly some of the most important people I represent are the people who are spoken to in this amendment: Children, pregnant women, and the elderly. I look at this bill very critically. How will that affect those, the most frail in our society, people who do not have much of a voice here in the U.S. Senate? There certainly are no children here, no pregnant women, and very few elderly. I think it is important we speak out for them and I thank the Senator from California for bringing this to our attention. As we look at this bill in front of us, I look at the charts of the Senator from California that say what we will have to go through in order to pass a bill or amendment in the future, once the unfunded mandates bill comes before us. I have to say, as a mother I have a great concern about what this may do in case of a national crisis in the future. I want to point out an example of an issue I think might be severely impacted by this legislation as it is now in front of us without Senator Boxer's amendment. Last year in my State there was an outbreak of E. coli. E. coli is a bacteria that is in meat, and if the meat is not cooked properly it can cause severe illness and in some cases death. In my State of Washington, some children had hamburgers from a restaurant where the meat was not cooked sufficiently. Several children died, many were ill, several of them still ill, and mother thinking about buying meat and purchasing things. We responded very quickly, putting out new regulations about how long meat should be cooked. Certainly public awareness has become greater on the issue. But I say to all my colleagues, and to people listening, that E. coli is an emerging bacteria. It was not here several decades ago. It is now something we are seeing more and more of, and there may be a time in this country where it is not just isolated to my region. Where we see more of it, we will need to respond quickly and directly with national legislation to ensure that we deal with this crisis. I look back at the charts of my colleague from California that show us the legislative process we have to go through and I ask what would happen if we had to bring an amendment forward to deal with an issue like E. coli. What strikes me very much is it will no longer be our decision about whether or not this is a critical issue to the country and one we will be able to fight for. It will end up at CBO, and CBO will decide whether or not, if they have the manpower or the womanpower to decide how much this is going to cost, how long it will take them to put together the impacts, if they can, of the passage of the legislation. We will have some nonelected bureaucrat sitting in a back room, looking at a stack of paper on his or her desk deciding whether or not they have the time to decide the impacts of my E. coli amendment that is before the U.S. Senate. I have a serious concern with that. I was elected by the people in my State to come back here and to bring to the attention of this Government important issues that we have to address. To know that I would be stymied by somebody who is not elected, who is a CBO bureaucrat in the maze of the Senator from California back there--that I could not react quickly really concerns me. It especially concerns me when the issue affects children or pregnant women or the elderly. I think the amendment of the Senator from California is very important for several reasons. It points out very specifically how this can have a dramatic impact on some of our populations, some of our amendments--the process. Kids are small. Their tolerance level is very low. They cannot take a lot. We cannot wait for a bureaucrat to decide whether or not this is an important issue. Maybe they are not a mom and they do not have the kind of feeling I have about it. We need to be able, as elected officials--the people we have--to be able to move legislation quickly. I commend again the Senator from California for bringing this very important amendment before us that will simply say when the issue affects children, pregnant women and elderly, that we can move it through this body quickly and effectively. I believe, as the Senator from Connecticut said, this strengthens the bill. This touches the concern I have, and says we can act as who we were elected be, to be legislators, to make legislation. We can do it responsibly. And it is an important amendment for this body to consider and to move forward. I again thank my colleague, the Senator from California, for bringing this amendment before us and I yield back my time. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss amendments I have filed on S. 1. I came to the floor last week to raise questions about the possible unintended consequences of this bill. I am not certain all my concerns have been addressed, so I want to talk about them a little more today. My first amendment proposes that nuclear waste cleanup by the Department of Energy be exempted from S. 1. I filed this amendment because I am very concerned about the implications of this bill for cleanup of former weapons facilities that now pose environmental cleanup challenges. Mr. President, Hanford Nuclear Reservation is in my State. It has nine shut-down reactors on the Columbia River. It has four processing plants. It has 177 nuclear waste tanks, 45 of which may be leaking. It has numerous waste dumps scattered around the facility. Of all our pollution problems, nuclear weapons plants like Hanford pose the greatest dangers to the environment. They have the greatest potential threats to human health and safety. Mr. President, we won the cold war at this site. Now the bill is due; cleaning up Hanford is serious business. For the community; for the region; and for the country. As many of our colleagues know, there is a process underway at Hanford--and many other DOE facilities--that governs the cleanup schedule. In Washington State, that process is embodied in the tri- party agreement between DOE, the State, and EPA. As a coordinating tool, this agreement works pretty well. It ensures everyone has a seat at the table. It sets cleanup goals. It emphasizes economic transition for the community. It gives people in my State access to DOE decisionmakers. In reality, there are no unfunded mandates at Hanford. It is safe to say my State issues--and enforces--the largest hazardous waste permit in the world using voluntary authority under RCRA. For these activities, the State levies a tax on low-level waste producers. For its responsibilities under the Superfund law, Washington receives direct funding from DOE. But these laws--RCRA, CERCLA, Federal Facilities Compliance Act, and others--do contain some mandates. And some day, Congress must act to reauthorize them. What happens if we reauthorize RCRA? If S. 1 is enacted, even the most modest changes in current law could unravel the triparty agreement. As I understand it, this would be possible because the occupant of the chair--or some bureaucrat at CBO--would have the power to: Bring Senate action to a halt over a point of order; and Force all kinds of studies and delay that would only confuse the cleanup situation. What would happen if CBO intervention stalled consideration of the reauthorization, and the law lapsed? Would the Hanford permit expire, and the cleanup stall? The people of Washington State do not want some unelected CBO bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding the pace of Hanford cleanup in the context of a budget point-of-order on the Senate floor. My amendment is simple. It exempts nuclear waste cleanup from the procedures in S. 1, from points-of-order, from CBO review, and from any procedural wrangling that might jeopardize the orderly process of cleanup--for any reason. When we act to reauthorize RCRA, I want to be able to tell people in Washington State that we will have a law on the books to support cleanup. When we push through a reconciliation, or an appropriations bill, I want my constituents to know their interests will not fall victim to vagaries in new Senate debating procedures. I offered this amendment for one simple reason: Some things are too important to subject to a new set of debating rules that we do not know will function as ordered. The bill acknowledges this in section 4, where it excludes a series of critically important areas of Federal law. It exempts civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. It exempts national security. It exempts emergency relief. These things are critical to the national well-being, and therefore kept out of S. 1. Why not add to this list our most serious environmental challenges? It would seem to me a sensible precaution. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senator from New Mexico [Senator Bingaman] offered an amendment very similar to mine. I want to thank him and commend him for bringing this very important issue to our colleagues' attention. He knows a tremendous amount about these issues. Unfortunately, the Senate defeated his amendment, in spite of the very strong arguments he made. It is clear, therefore, my amendment will probably meet a similar fate. I was disappointed to see the result of last night's vote on Senator Bingaman's amendment. He was raising very real questions about important, sensitive, high-risk areas of Federal law. Both his amendment and mine point out the potential uncertainties in imposing an arbitrary new set of debating rules on the U.S. Senate. At the very least, I am hoping the managers of this bill can provide some clarification of their intentions vis-a-vis defense waste cleanup. I will pose these questions, and then yield the floor in hopes of getting some answers that will allay the concerns of people in my State. First, do the managers intend that S. 1 have any adverse effects on DOE waste cleanup efforts, and the ability of affected States and communities to participate therein? Second, do the managers contemplate that S. 1 will lead to the change, repeal, or substantive alteration of any current law that enables DOE cleanup to move forward? Finally, do the managers believe that consideration of current or prospective mandates pending on the Senate floor should delay consideration provisions in the same bills affecting DOE waste cleanup programs? I assume no such onerous consequences are intended by the managers. But I do not see it written anywhere, and I would like to have verbal clarification of those issues. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying the basic idea of S. 1 is good: That the Federal Government ought to help make Federal laws easier and less costly to implement. I support this basic idea, and I want to work with the managers to pass a good bill. But, like so many other broad-brush solutions we are hearing about these days, it is not as simple as it sounds. I look forward to hearing the answer to those questions and I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question. My question to the managers on this bill is if they see anything in this bill that would cause consideration for us and we do have to reauthorize RCRA, CERCLA, other bills coming up in the future, if at that time a bill has both mandates in it and non-mandates in it and the mandates cause the bill to be stalled in any way because we are waiting for something back from CBO, how will this affect cleanup efforts such as exist in my State and others?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for their responses to these questions and for their obvious concern for continuing cleanup at the Hanford site in my State. It is, indeed, a deep concern to the people of the State of Washington that we do this. We built this facility, used it for a national purpose, and we want to be assured that it is going to continue to be cleaned up and share your concerns about the costs. But we want to know that we are not going to be at some point unable to continue that cleanup. I appreciate your concerns. I understand the managers are willing to prepare a colloquy for the record to respond to my questions, to protect cleanup at Hanford. I will be prepared to withdraw this amendment after I speak to my other amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho, and I look forward to working with the Senator on this very important issue. Mr. President, I will continue speaking to my second amendment, I want to be assured as we go through this debate that we will not be creating a big, new, powerful bureaucracy at the Congressional Budget Office. Mr. President, I believe that most of my concerns were addressed through the adoption of the Levin amendment and through the defeat of the committee amendment that would have severely curtailed the Budget Committee's role in this process. In order to make sure that all my concerns have been thoroughly understood, I do want to make a statement now about what those concerns are. Mr. President, I am troubled by the fact that S. 1 might give CBO tremendous new powers to dictate the Senate's legislative agenda. I have listened very carefully to the debate on this bill and I think it is fair to say that we all agree it is our responsibility, our responsibility as legislators, to act carefully as we set policy for the people we represent. I would like to support a bill on unfunded mandates that is reasonable and reflects common sense. Mr. President, before the adoption of the Levin amendment and several others, this bill went too far. The people of this country should understand exactly what this bill does. Everyone of us here in this Chamber, everyone of the people in the galleries, everyone watching us on C-Span, and everyone in this country has to realize that this bill will create a new bureaucracy at the Congressional Budget Office. It will have wide-ranging powers. The staff of that huge new bureaucracy will not be elected by anyone. They will not be accountable to the American taxpayers but they will have enormous power to control this legislative process. They can bring Senate debate to a halt on amendments or a bill or even dictate legislative schedule. This vast new power should give everyone of us pause. That is why I asked outgoing CBO Director Robert Reischauer about this this morning at the hearing in the Budget Committee. Dr. Reischauer is a fair man, a fine public servant. So I asked him how this bill will affect the operations of CBO. I asked him how the CBO would prioritize requests for cost estimates that will come from the Senate and from the other body. Dr. Reischauer responded that the Congressional Budget Office staff was working ``flat out''--those are his words, not mine--trying to fulfill their obligations to the Congress at this point. Dr. Reischauer said that the CBO would need more resources if we enact this bill. Then, Mr. President, I repeated my question about prioritizing requests. I asked the Director how he would decide which mandate to estimate first. His reply, frankly, troubled me. He said the CBO would rely on the guidance of the bipartisan leadership of the Congress to decide which one to do first. And then he added that the CBO has tried that approach with the health care debate last year, and it was a failure. That should concern every one of us in this country. Dr. Reischauer's response has raised even more questions in my mind, questions like: If I offer an amendment that does not have a CBO cost statement, what happens? If a point of order is raised against my amendment, is my understanding correct that the procedure is for the Parliamentarian immediately to seek the advice of the Budget Committee on the cost statement? Am I further correct that the Budget Committee will turn to CBO for its advice on the cost estimate? Of particular importance to me is what sort of timeframe is provided for these cost statements? Does the bill provide for any time limits on the Budget Committee and CBO's preparation of cost statements? If the bill does not impose any time limits on the Budget Committee and, more importantly, CBO, what does the manager envision as reasonable time limits for this work? How long does the manager envision the process taking? How long, for example, does the Budget Committee have to get a reply from CBO? How long does CBO have to reply? More importantly, what happens while the Budget Committee and CBO are trying to prepare a cost statement? Is my amendment laid aside? For how long? Does the Senate keep working on underlying bills? If so, for how long? Mr. President, I want to be able to assure my friends and neighbors that this bill will not take away their voice in setting priorities of the issues this body considers. They do not want unelected bureaucrats to determine which bills or which amendments will be brought up on this floor. For example, the people of my State may feel that education reform should be Congress' top priority. But if the CBO analysts over in the office do not work on that bill, if they do not score it, Congress cannot consider it. The people of my State or your State, Mr. President, might want Congress to consider safeguards for school buses so they know their kids are safe riding on those buses to school everyday. But the bureaucrats at CBO might say, ``Tough, I'm too busy; I don't want to score the bill for''--this Senator or that Senator. I have not gotten any guidance on that one. The people of my State want to know that no matter where they go in this country, they do not have to worry about E. coli, but the budget bureaucrats can say, ``Sorry, Senator Murray, we don't have time to score that amendment of yours which deals with a public health emergency.'' I do believe we need reform. I believe Congress should be honest and up front with the American taxpayers about the cost of the laws it passes. But I do not believe that we should be creating new bureaucracies or putting American families in jeopardy. Mr. President, it is my hope that the Levin amendment will go far in addressing some of the concerns I have raised, but I also hope that we are all taking into account this new bureaucracy that will emerge as a result of this legislation. I thank the Chair, and I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY. May I suggest we add 10 minutes for debate, 5 on each side, in order to clarify this question?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. I have very serious concerns because I heard my colleague from Idaho, the manager of the bill, say that CBO had, indeed, requested, I believe, $4.5 million additional to take care of this bill. It is my understanding--I see the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is in the Chamber; perhaps he can respond--that the legislative branch is going to have to reduce its budget by $200 million, and here we are telling everybody up front that we are going to ask for $4.5 million more for CBO just under a guess estimate of what this might have in the way of an impact on CBO, and I do think that is an important consideration we need to look at. I appreciate the Senator's response that you would go into a colloquy with me and answer some of the questions raised both by myself and Senator Levin. I had intended to withdraw this amendment, but I would like to instead ask the manager--I intend to withdraw my first amendment--if he would agree to let me lay aside this amendment until we have the responses for my questions.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then to lay aside amendment No. 188 and unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 187.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed en bloc to amendments numbered 187 and 188.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just comment that of the two amendments I sent to the desk, one of them assures that we would not be creating a big, new, powerful bureaucracy at the Congressional Budget Office, and the other one relates to the effect of this bill on nuclear waste cleanup efforts. I am especially concerned about some at the Hanford site in my own State. I will be speaking on these amendments later, but I did want to submit them today under the previous unanimous consent. I thank the Chair. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk two amendments.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside in order that I can send two amendments to the desk.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, four Seattle firefighters died in the line of duty: Lt. Walter Kilgore, Lt. Gregory Shoemaker, and firefighters Randall Terlicker and James Brown. They are heroes in the truest sense of the word. Jon Gillis, president of the Seattle Firefighters Union, said these four men gave their lives for the noblest of causes, for the safety and protection of others. I join him in that sentiment. In the midst of this tragedy, the community came together to pay homage to these fallen firefighters. But the pain of this loss extended beyond Seattle: More than 10,000 firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and citizens from across North America and from as far away as Australia, came to Seattle to honor these firefighters. Too often, we fail to say thank you to these brave men and women who serve us as firefighters, police officers, and members of the Armed Forces. The professions they have chosen are full of risk. Seattle Mayor Norm Rice recently reminded us these guardians of our society play a special role, and, tragically, sometimes pay the ultimate price for their service. They are extraordinary individuals and make a real difference in our lives and in our communities. They are quiet heroes who deserve our respect, our admiration, and our gratitude. Their families also share the hardships and pain that come along with these jobs. I know because one of my brothers is a firefighter in Tacoma, WA, and I can tell you the danger inherent in his job is felt by his immediate and extended family. I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank the men and women, and their families, who dedicate their lives to protecting our communities. I am deeply saddened by the death of these four firefighters, and want to pay tribute to the sacrifice these extraordinary individuals have made. Lt. Walter Kilgore, Lt. Gregory Shoemaker, and firefighters Randall Terlicker and James Brown truly represent what is best about America.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California, who has been very persistent on this issue and deserves a great deal of gratitude and credit from all of us for insisting that we bring before us this very important sense of the Senate that speaks to the violence that has been occurring at reproductive health care clinics in this Nation. We are all aware of the violence that has ravaged neighborhoods throughout our Nation. And I have to tell you every time kids gather in my kitchen or I talk to my next door neighbors or my parents, the first words out of their mouths is not unfunded mandates or line-item veto, it is: ``What are you going to do about the issue of violence in this country?'' They tell me they fear walking in their neighborhoods, fear going to their schools, and they want to know what we are going to do. Well, the campaign of terror that is being perpetrated against doctors and patients in reproductive health clinics is a frightening example of this violence. The message that this violence sends to our children--that the world is a frightening place--is intolerable. When they see a gunman at a clinic, it reinforces in their minds that this the elected leaders in this Nation to tell our children that we will do all we can to make sure that their world is safe. I read yesterday's Washington Post and was very struck by the article that appeared. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. In the first paragraph it says: Militant antiabortion activists have been waging a protracted campaign of violence against women's health clinics and the people who work in them over the past decade * * * The tally of violence over the pass 12 years includes 123 cases of arson and 37 bombings in 33 States, and more than 1,500 cases of stalking, assault, sabotage and burglary, according to records compiled by the * * * ATF and the clinics themselves. I think it is high time this Senate goes on record that we do not condone these acts of violence. Women's health care providers across the Nation are facing bombings, arson, kidnappings, and assaults. As they go to work each day, these health care providers must contemplate the possibility that an antichoice extremist will try to kill them. The shootings at clinics in Massachusetts and Virginia are only the most recent examples. One doctor in my State of Washington wrote to me recently and said: Every time I walked toward the building, I thought to myself that some antichoice terrorist could have set a bomb and that my life could be on the line. Fortunately, so far I have been able to work unimpeded, but with every assault on a clinic around the country, I worry about the safety of my staff as well as that of my patients. The next time a gun is fired, it could well hit a patient or staff member. The psychological toll all this takes on clinic staff is enormous, as you can well imagine. I ask my colleagues to step back and view this issue as a parent. That is how I view it. I have a young daughter and I cannot express the fear that I have that perhaps some day if the horrible should happen and my daughter is raped, that not only should she have to go through the trauma of an abortion, but she would have to fear for her life when she attempts to get access to safe health care. The same article that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday has an important paragraph that we must also remember. It says: In most cases, the violence has disrupted clinics where a large portion of staff time is devoted not to abortions but to routine women's reproductive health care--pap smears, teaching and supplying birth control methods, and treating sexually transmitted diseases. Let us remember that women go to these clinics for pap smears as well. Their lives have been endangered, and we need to protect them. Last year, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the President signed it into law. The law outlaws clinic violence while protecting lawful picketing and lawful protests not accompanied by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction. Mr. President, I fully support our first amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. However, with the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act we properly acknowledged that violence is not a mode of free speech. It is time for all of us, no matter how we feel about the issue of abortion, to let our Nation know that we will not tolerate violence as a means of protest. I am proud to cosponsor this sense-of-the-Senate resolution urging the Attorney General to fully enforce the law. And I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Again, I thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, and I yield back my time to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the President. I thank my colleague from California for yielding and for bringing this extremely important issue out to the floor of the Senate this morning. The Senator has been diligent in pursuing this and in asking our colleagues to bring this issue forward so that we can get a vote and move quickly forward to let the people of this Nation know that the highest elected officials in this country do not condone violence. We will do everything we can to protect all of our citizens in this country. Before us we have the unfunded mandate issue. It is an extremely important and extremely complex issue that we deal with today. However, it does raise a number of questions. It will take Members some time to move through that issue. Certainly we have to ask what is the outcome of this issue and make sure that, as we pass unfunded mandates, we do it in a way that will not bring about consequences that we have not asked for. The Senator from California is bringing forward an issue that the consequences are clear. The consequences are the safety of individuals in this country, one of the highest priorities that we have. The issue of unfunded mandates is critical. But the issue of violence is just as important, if not more important. The issue of violence is one that every child in this country, unfortunately, understands and talks about. The issue of violence is one that we have to deal with at all levels. I think it is extremely important that this body go on record in this Nation, now, to say to our kids that we will not condone violence in any way, shape, or form. No matter how we feel about the issue of choice, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, we have to let people know in this country that we will not accept violence as a means of showing how we feel about an issue. We have to protect our citizens. I commend the Senator from California for bringing this issue before the Senate. I sincerely ask all of our colleagues to list their objections so that we can move quickly to send a strong message to this country that we will back the rights of every citizen and we will not condone violence in this country. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California. I yield back to her at this time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a former State senator, I appreciate how important this bill is. I have been there, and I have had to trudge through, and try to figure out how to pay for Federal programs. Two years ago, I came to this city as a reformer. Mr. President I know this legislation speaks to the whole relationship between the Federal Government and the States. It is about our very rights and obligations as Americans. And, for that reason, I am concerned, Mr. President. This bill is very broad. It is a 10-second sound bite with years of implications. In some cases, it might go too far. In some cases, it might not go far enough. But, I wonder, how many of my friends and neighbors understand it? How many ordinary Americans have even heard of it? How many of us truly understand the long-term implications? This legislation will affect just about everything we do in the Senate, and it will essentially affect the lives of every American. So, Mr. President, why are we rushing through this? We need a lengthy discussion of this bill. The American people need to understand the very real implications of this bill. Ordinary Americans should be part of the dialog. In this debate, and in every debate in this Congress, we should be prudent. We need to realize that every action we take here affects millions of Americans' lives and rights. And, I have to say, Mr. President, I am worried about the implications of this bill. It seems to me that Senators have very different goals. Some want to use this bill to gut environmental protection laws. Some want to gut laws which protect people with disabilities. Some want to eliminate labor laws, like workplace fairness. And, the laws which combat crime, And, laws that go after child abusers. These laws--which I guess we're just going to call mandates from now on--these laws protect the rights of ordinary Americans. That is why I think we need to keep some balance here. I want to make sure before I cast my vote that we are not acting rashly, and we are not ignoring people's very rights. Mr. President, perspective and balance are two important concepts I think we need to keep in mind as we go through this debate. I commend the work of our colleagues, Senator Glenn and Senator Kempthorne. They have provided real leadership here by educating us on the issue of unfunded mandates. They have certainly put that issue in perspective. And, so has my friend from Michigan, Senator Levin. I firmly believe Congress has to assume the responsibility of ensuring a quality of life for the people we represent. That is why we are here. And, we also have the responsibility to tell people that this quality of life costs something. Every American wants to go through the day knowing they are secure, because we live in a country where we have basic protections. I want to be sure when I wake up in the morning and make oatmeal for my kids, the water that comes out of the faucet is safe to drink. Every parent wants the assurance that the school bus their children are on has been built under tough safety standards, so it will not fall apart on the way to school. Every American worker wants to be assured they will not get cancer from a video display terminal, that they will be protected by labor laws, and by OSHA laws. All of that can happen in this country because of Federal mandates--the laws we pass--laws that say, ``as an American, you can be sure there are basic protections and assurances you will have.'' Last year, we passed the National Child Protection Act. This bill requires a State to report child abuse crime information to a national criminal background check system. That is a Federal mandate, and it is keeping our children safe from abusers. Last year, my good friend and colleague--the senior Senator from the State of Washington--worked hard to include in the crime bill a very important provision on sexual predators. States will now register the addresses prison. That is a Federal mandate, and it's making our streets safer. Several years ago, the Congress and President Bush made life better for people living with disabilities. The Americans With Disabilities Act has improved the quality of life for people across the country. And, the ADA directly helps many people important to me--like the women and men who have served our country in uniform, and were injured in war. The ADA is a Federal mandate. And, it is making life better for our disabled and paralyzed veterans. And, in my corner of the country, look at all the progress we have made because of the Federal Government's involvement. Lake Washington has been cleaned up and so will be Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. And, that is because of a Federal mandate. Mr. President, I am the first one to agree that Congress should not require local jurisdictions to conduct unnecessary and costly studies. And, I strongly believe in streamlining and eliminating the bureaucracy. But, Mr. President, if we did not require environmental impact studies, could the Government just come in and string a thousand megawatt powerline over your house? Could the Government just bulldoze a superhighway around your neighborhood? Could the Government just place a landfill at the end of your road? What would that do to private property values? It would devastate them. And, that would be wrong. It is certainly not what the American people want. These are all examples of why we need to go slowly; why we should take our time and really have a serious discussion of this issue; why we cannot rush through this process. Mr. President, this bill might be too sweeping. As I said, it might go too far. And, on other hand, it might not go far enough. For example, the State of Washington is home to Indian reservations and many military installations. And, in Washington, there are more than 60,000 students enrolled in schools on reservations and military bases. As we have heard here many times, Mr. President, the tax bases of local jurisdictions are seriously affected by all sorts of Federal activity. That is certainly true of educating these children. And, Congress recognized that. In order to compensate for his influx of the Federal Government into local school districts, we established the Impact Aid Program. It is a good program. It acknowledges our society's responsibility to educating all American children and the Federal Government's responsibility to local school districts. It is a good program--in theory. But, in reality, it does not work out so well. Unfortunately, local taxpayers--not the Federal Government--have to pick up about 60 percent of the cost of educating these children. Local jurisdictions cannot tax these Federal facilities. Local jurisdictions are forced to pay for the education of children on Federal lands. The Federal Government has not been picking up the tab. The Federal Government brings kids to bases all over the country, and then tells local neighborhoods, ``you have to pay.'' My State also contains the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. We have been struggling for years to clean up nuclear waste at this site. So, Mr. President, you see, I understand the concern of some Senators about inadequate Federal support. But, if we are discussing the State and Federal relationship, if we are discussing the philosophy of taxation, if we are discussing our rights and obligations, why are we not discussing the Federal obligation to educate American children of military parents and native American children? Why are we not discussing the education of the children in public housing? And, why are we not discussing the cleanup of Hanford? Lets' not assume that just because we are reformers--and I assure my newly elected Republican colleagues they are joining many reformers here in the Senate--let us not assume that everything we are doing in the name of reform in flawless; let us keep things in perspective. Let us stop talking about theory, and start talk about reality. Let us talk about how this bill affects ordinary Americans. The people in America's neighborhoods. Mr. President, I must say, I am very concerned about how this bill will work out in the long-run. And, so, Mr. President, I will listen carefully to this discussion. I am still undecided on this bill. And, I will want to see a great deal of balance and a great deal of common sense before I cast my vote. And, I will have to know that the interests of the people in Washington State are protected. I know we need reform. But, this approach is like a meat cleaver. It is very broad--and it seems to me sometimes clumsy. It hacks at everything, without regard for the substance of the laws it affects. I know we need reform, But, when I stand in this body, I cannot forget my responsibilities as a mother. And, I am not convinced this type of legislation will protect our families and children. I know we need reform. But, I will not stand here and allow this bill to create a new bureaucracy of unelected analysts and political appointees at the Congressional Budget Office. Who will decide which bill to score first? How long will these cost estimates take? And, what about the costs contained in amendments pending on the floor? The American people do not want to see a new monster bureaucracy in this city. Mr. President, I know we need reform. So, I would suggest some balance--like returning this to the committees; like holding more public hearings so every American citizen can really understand how this bill might impact their life, their community, their neighborhood; like considering mandates on a case-by-case basis. Last year, for example, the Senate reached consensus on the need to review and changes mandates in the Safe Drinking Water Act. And, we passed a reauthorization bill that had fairly broad support. That is a more delicate approach. That is a commonsense approach. That is the proper role of legislation. That is good, solid bipartisan work on behalf of all of our constituents. And I believe that is what the American people want. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.