Floor Statements

Mr. President, we had a tremendous debate last night, and we are close to a vote today. I am proud of the debate that has occurred, and I hope all Senators will shortly vote on the Levin-Reed amendment to redeploy our troops from Iraq, to refocus our fight on al- Qaida, and to support our men and women who serve us overseas.

It is time for President Bush to finally accept what the American people already know: the war in Iraq is not making us safer, and our troops should not remain in the crossfire of that country's civil war.

Unfortunately, President Bush refuses to listen to the generals, to the commissions, and to the experts. He stubbornly insists that leaving American troops in the middle of a civil war will somehow cause factions that have been fighting for centuries to agree to work together.

We have tried that approach, and we have paid dearly. We have given the Iraqi Government the time to reach the agreements needed to form a stable government. We have done our part. The Iraqi Government has not done its part.

We should not ask more Americans to sacrifice their lives for an Iraqi government that is unwilling to make even the smallest sacrifices for their people and their future.

Because the President refuses to follow a responsible path forward, we in Congress must force a change in our country's policy on Iraq. For months, Democrats have been trying to force that change.

We have been blocked by Republicans who've continued to support the President's ``war without end.'' Now--we are starting to see responsible Senators break ranks with the President and work with us to improve our security.

The upcoming vote on the Reed-Levin amendment is a test for all Senators. Do they stand alone with the President, or do they support redeploying our troops and making. America more secure? That is the choice every Senator will have to make on this vote.

As we look at the challenges in Iraq--and the threats around the world--Democrats want to do four things; redeploy our troops from Iraq; refocuses our fight on al-Qaida; rebuild our military; and respect our veterans.

That is the responsible way to protect our citizens, keep our country safe, and keep our military strong.

We have tried the President's direction, and where had it led us? More than 3,600 American service members have been killed and another 20,000 wounded. We have spent nearly 500 billion taxpayer dollars, and under the President's approach there is not end in sight.

It's time for a new direction, and it begins with redeploying our troops.

Iraq's civil war cannot be solved by our military. It can only be solved when the Iraqis decide for themselves that working together will bring them a better future.

As a foreign military power, we cannot force the Iraqis to set aside their differences and work together. They have to reach that conclusion themselves it Iraq is to ever become a peaceful, stable country.

When I was in Iraq in 2005, I met with the leaders of the various factions. Each of them saw themselves as representing their ``one group--not as people who needed to come together for the greater good.'' Unfortunately, since my visit, those sectarian differences have only gotten stronger.

The Iraqis have not made the progress that only they can make, and I don't think we should keep asking Americans to risk their lives for an Iraqi Government that's not doing its job.

So our first step must be to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. The Reed-Levin amendment sets a firm deadline to begin the redeployment beginning 120 days after enactment, and it sets April 30, 2008, as the date to complete the redeployment.

Now this does not mean that every servicemember will be coming home. As Senator Lugar said, we will need to keep some servicemembers in Iraq for counterterrorism, for training, and to protect American interests. Other troops will be needed in other places around the globe as we stay on the offensive against al-Qaida and other terrorists. But under this amendment, the bulk of U.S. troops will be redeployment from Iraq.

Second, after we redeploy out troops, we need to refocus our energy on defeating al-Qaida.

Today, the Director of National Intelligence released the latest National Intelligence Estimate. The report says al-Qaida has ``Protected and regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability.''

The report also says that al-Qaida has established a safe haven in northwest Pakistan, has operational lieutenants, and still has its top leadership in place. And it is determined to strike us here at home.

So while the President has kept our military tied up in Iraq, al- Qaida has been gaining strength, and we must defeat it.

Third, we need to rebuild our military. According to generals who have testified before Congress, the war in Iraq has weakened our military's readiness, left our equipment destroyed, hurt our ability to respond to disasters at home, and left our troops without fully rounded training.

Today, we are forcing a very tough tempo on our servicemembers. The Pentagon has extended tours of duties for our troops. The administration has deployed troops sooner than planned.

The administration has sent troops without all the training and equipment they could have received.

The administration has deployed troops without the down-time at home that our servicemembers and their families deserve. In fact, 56 members of the U.S. Senate tried to fix that last week with the Webb amendment, but a majority of Republican Senators blocked us.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the strains on our servicemembers, so we can remain the best in the world.

The Iraq war is also impairing our readiness by destroying our equipment. For example, the Army is supposed to have five brigades' worth of equipment pre-positioned overseas. But because of the war in Iraq, the Army is depleting those reserves.

General Peter Schoomaker told the Senate in March, ``It will take us two years to rebuild those stocks.''

Mr. President, our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the strains on equipment and personnel, so we can remain the best in the world.

To meet the President's surge, the Pentagon has been sending some troops to Iraq earlier than planned and keeping other units there longer than planned. That means that troops get less time at home, less time between deployments, and less time to train.

Commanders are forced to shorten the training their troops receive, so they are focusing on the specific training they need for Iraq--but not for other potential conflicts.

Now, that makes sense. If there's limited training time, we want all that time devoted to their most immediate need. However, many military leaders are warning that this fast pace diminishes our ability to respond to other potential conflicts.

Here's how the colonel who commands the 1st Marine Regiment put it:

Our greatest challenge is and will remain available

training time, and because that time is limited, our training

will continue to focus on the specific mission in Iraq. This

has, and will continue to, limit our ability to train for

other operations.

Army COL Michael Beech told the Senate in April that he believes our training strategy is broad enough to support a variety of other events. But he added: ``However, if deployed in support of other emerging contingencies, I would be concerned with the atrophy of some specific tactical skills unique to the higher-intensity conflicts.''

So military commanders are telling us they are concerned that our ability to train for other missions has been limited and certain tactical skills have had to take a backseat to Iraq.

We need to make sure our troops are trained for whatever conflict they might face, and changing direction in Iraq will allow us to do that.

Mr. President, the Iraq war has especially impacted the readiness of our National Guard. The chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Stephen Blum, testified that the readiness of National Guard forces is at an historic low. General Blum said that ``Eighty-eight percent of the forces that are back here in the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard.''

Not only do we rely on our Guard and Reserve members around the world, but we rely on them here at home to respond to natural disasters and emergencies. With fire season upon us on the west coast, I'm very concerned that we don't have all the capabilities at home we should have.

After the horrible tornadoes in Kansas, the Governor of Kansas said that recovery efforts were hampered because there weren't enough personnel or equipment. Those resources were in Iraq, not here at home.

COL Timothy Orr of the U.S. Army National Guard told the Senate that his brigade's homeland security capabilities have been degraded. He testified:

Our ability as a brigade to perform these [homeland]

missions continues to be degraded by continued equipment

shortages, substitutions, and the cross-leveling of equipment

between the state and nation to support our deploying units.

Finally, we need to respect our veterans. That means keeping our promise to meet their needs as a they come home--whether it's for healthcare, benefits, education or support.

Since Democrats have controlled Congress, we have made dramatic progress for our veterans. First we passed a budget that treated our veterans as a priority.

I serve on the Budget Committee and I was pleased to work with Chairman Conrad to pass a budget resolution that provides over $43.1 billion for veterans' care.

Our budget increases funding for veterans by $3.5 billion over the President's proposal; funds 98 percent of the independent budget, which is devised by veterans service organizations; and it rejects the higher fees and copayments that the President had proposed, which would have forced more than 100,000 veterans to leave the VA health system.

We also passed a supplemental that for the first time since the start of the war provided funding to help met the needs of our veterans.

We provided $1.78 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs to help those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, to reduce the backlog in benefits, and to ensure medical facilities are maintained at the highest level.

And just last week, we added the wounded warriors bill to the Defense authorization bill. This proposal will address any of the problems that came to light from the Walter Reed investigations. It will ensure service members don't fall through the cracks as the move from the Pentagon to the VA. It will help us diagnose, prevent and treat PTSD and traumatic brain injury. And it addresses the problems with unfair disability ratings among other improvements.

Mr. President, it is time to change course in Iraq. So far the President has been unwilling to recognize the reality on the ground.

Here in the Senate, we have an opportunity to force the President to change course in a responsible way.

The Reed-Levin amendment gives every Senator a choice; either you want to stay the course in Iraq and leave Americans in the middle of a violent civil war or you believe it's time for a change.

I urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing for our troops, their families, our military's readiness and the fight against terror by voting for this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank our floor managers, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, for yielding me time at this point to talk about the extremely important legislation that we have before us today.

In these days of global competition, a college education is the gateway to a successful career, to a growing economy, and to a stronger future for our entire country. Today, we have in the Senate an opportunity to help more students attend college and to afford a college education. I am pleased to be here today to speak on the Higher Education Access Act.

Mr. President, when I was growing up, my family didn't have a lot. The only way I was able to attend college was through Pell grants and student loans. In fact, because of Pell grants and student loans, all seven kids in my family were able to go to college and to get an education and to graduate. Today, those seven kids, because of Pell grants and student loans, have become a school teacher, a lawyer, a firefighter, a homemaker, a computer programmer, a sports writer, and a U.S. Senator.

In my book, Mr. President, that was a pretty good investment by our country. I want to make sure now that students today have the same opportunities I had growing up. It is important for them as individuals, and it is critical for our country's future.

In recent years, the deck has become increasingly stacked against our students. College has become more expensive while some of our large lenders have taken advantage of students. Those students who are able to attend college are often graduated and saddled with debt and unable to have the resources to even buy a car or even think about purchasing a home. Other graduates can't pursue public service jobs in areas where our country really needs their help because they can't afford to pay back their loans on a public service salary.

The bill that is before the Senate this afternoon will begin to turn the tide back in favor of our students. It will put our students first and make college more affordable. It will help our recent graduates, and it will encourage public service.

I also worked on this bill to ensure that military servicemembers get more time to defer their student loan payments while they are on active duty, and I was pleased to provide more help for homeless and foster students who often face unique problems when they try to navigate the college process.

Before I turn to some of the details in the bill, I want to take a moment to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in moving these proposals forward and making sure this bill finally does right by those who count the most, our students.

First, this bill raises the maximum Pell grant by 25 percent over 4 years to $5,400 per student. That is going to make a real difference for students in my home State of Washington. In my State of Washington, in 1986, the maximum Pell grant covered 53 percent of the cost of a public 4-year college. Today, it only covers 33 percent of those costs. So those students have gone from having 53 percent of their costs covered down to 33 percent. By raising the maximum Pell grant, this bill is going to help students in Washington State and across the country do what we all want them to do, and that is to go to college.

In Washington State, this bill is going to make another $39.6 million available in need-based grants next year alone, and over 5 years the bill will provide an additional $340.6 million for low-income students.

This bill will also ensure that college graduates are not trapped by high loan payments after college. It will guarantee that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their monthly income in student loan payments. That will help bring immediate relief to our students whom we see burdened with these excessive loans.

Another problem with the high student loan debt is that it limits the career choice of many of our college graduates. Many of them can't afford to take a job in public service and pay back their loans at the same time. This bill will help encourage public service by providing loan forgiveness for graduates who pursue careers in these areas.

As I worked on this bill with my colleagues, I thought it was very important to help out military servicemembers who have student loans. I have worked very hard to allow those who are serving in combat or national emergencies to defer their student loan payments during their deployments and as they transition out of service. Today, under current law, it limits how long servicemembers can defer their payments to only 3 years.

As many of us know, our military members have been on active duty today much longer than that. This bill makes a critical step forward in lifting that 3-year limit and will help make more of our servicemembers eligible. Those who are serving our country have enough to worry about. Financial challenges and worrying about paying back their student loans should not be something they have to worry about as they serve overseas and transition back here to home.

I was also pleased to help improve college access for our homeless and foster students. Those students who are homeless or come from foster homes face tremendous barriers in their education, especially those who do not have a parent or guardian who are able to help guide them through the process. In this bill, I worked to help simplify the student aid application process and made homeless and foster students eligible for higher levels of assistance.

Before I conclude, I do wish to say there is one amendment that may come on this bill about which I am very concerned, and that is because it would tear through this bill and undermine all the progress we have worked so hard to make for our students. That is an amendment that allows higher subsidies for some lenders, including lenders who acted so irresponsibly in the recent student loan scandals. That amendment is going to take money away from our students and take money away from the Pell grants in this bill.

With this bill, we are trying to help more students afford college. The amendment would take money away from our students and away from Pell grants and I do not see any reason why we should change this bill and help fewer students and put that money back into the pockets of lenders. As we move through this bill, I hope we will reject efforts that hurt students so we can pass this strong and effective student aid legislation.

To me, it is simple. If we want our economy to grow, if we want our people to succeed, if we want our country to be strong, we have to help more students today get a college education. This bill that is before the Senate will do that. I urge all our colleagues to support this bill in the strongest measure as it has been brought forward to us by Senator Kennedy.

I will be happy to.

I thank the Senator for his question. I actually became interested in the issue of homeless children, foster children many years ago when I served in our State legislature and found out, quite by accident, that students in our State were being denied access to public schools simply because they didn't have an address. I never thought about it before. Everybody goes and their mom registers them for school and they write their address down and they register and start school with a big smile on their face. In my home State many years ago, not if you were a homeless student. So I passed legislation in our State legislature to make sure that students who did not have an address would be allowed access to any school to which they applied.

I followed that throughout my career and met amazing young people who have tremendous capabilities who, through circumstances that had nothing to do with them, were either homeless or were foster children. A young man I worked with a few years ago had been in over 80 foster homes from the time he was young until he was 18. Once they turn 18, these foster students all of a sudden become independent, and they do not have a parent to take them off to college on that first day that is so important or to send them a check once in a while to help them with their books or even to help them navigate through the paperwork that is required when you try to apply for financial aid.

With the help of Senator Kennedy and others on our committee, we put provisions in this bill, only a few sentences but very significant, helping to simplify the student aid application process for our homeless students and to help both the homeless and foster students be eligible for higher levels of assistance because they do not have anyone to rely on at home once they head off to college.

This is an important investment that will pay off in many ways, I believe, in the future, and give some hope to some young people who truly, in our country today, deserve it.

On the other issue the Senator from Massachusetts talked about, I, similar to many Senators, go home and talk to young men and women who are either going off to war in Iraq or Afghanistan or around the globe or who have returned recently. I tell you, one of the things they constantly struggle with is the issue of paying back their student loans. Similar to many young people today, they have gone to college maybe for a year or two, maybe graduated with a very high student loan they are required to pay back. But they are deployed over to Iraq, trying to manage the paperwork of that or pay for it on a military salary. It is impossible.

Along with our colleagues on the committee--I see Senator Clinton on the floor today too--we put in a provision to make sure that when our men and women are serving overseas, they not have to worry about paying back student loans. I think that is the least of what we should be doing for those men and women we have asked to serve this country.

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for working with us on these two provisions and tell all our colleagues, we have an obligation in this country to the next generation. If you talk to anyone who is struggling through school today or through college or is a graduate, they will tell you the No. 1 worry they have on their mind is paying back that student loan.

We want them to be able to go out and get a job and give back to our economy, purchase a home, be able to invest in themselves and their future. Yet they are worrying about paying back student loans. This is a significant step forward, making sure the next generation has what this generation had and generations have had before them, and that is focusing on hope and opportunity and not on debt and long-term concerns about being able to pay that back.

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and appreciate his work on this bill.

Madam President, it is an honor to me to be here today to speak about the amendment that is currently before the Senate, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors

Act. This is a critically important amendment for the Senate and a critically important action for Congress and for the United States of America in finally making sure that we take care of those who have served this country so honorably, the men and women who are serving us overseas.

Madam President, 4\1/2\ years ago, the President asked Congress to go to war in Iraq. I stood on this floor as one of a handful of Senators, 23 of us who, at that time, said no. I said no because I didn't believe we had a clear mission. I didn't believe we should take our eye off the ball of the war on terror and the al-Qaida threat that was confronting our Nation, and I believed we did not have in place a long-term plan for military action in Iraq. I have never regretted that vote.

But when I spoke on the floor opposing the action of the President, I said once our troops were sent to war, no matter how we voted on it, it was our responsibility to make sure we took care of them when they came home. This country has failed to do that.

I had to sit out here on the Senate floor and fight, literally, vote after vote to get this Senate to pay attention to the fact that we had men and women coming home, waiting in long lines to get their VA benefits, who were not able to get an appointment to see a doctor, who were unemployed, who were being sent back to the front time and time again, whose families were falling through the cracks because of the long deployments, and that we had military facilities that were incapable of dealing with the thousands of men and women who were coming home and who were injured.

Today, finally, we are coming to a point where, through the hard work of our VA Committee, Armed Services, and others, we have brought to the Senate a bipartisan amendment that I hope passes overwhelmingly this afternoon, that begins to address the critical needs which our soldiers are facing.

Since this war began 4\1/2\ years ago, I have taken the time to stop and talk to our men and women when they have come home. I have seen the tears in their eyes as they wait on medical hold not for days, not for months, but for more than a year, fighting the very service they swore to serve, to get their benefits. They were given ratings that were far too low in order to keep them in the military rather than allowing them to get out and get on with their lives. I have talked to men and women on medical hold, who were trying to get through a complex system of ratings for help, whose advocates themselves, advocates to help them get through the system, were soldiers who had post-traumatic stress syndrome and had difficulty themselves dealing with their own lives, let alone advocating for a servicemember who is trying to get through a complex system.

I have talked personally to men and women who, after not once, not twice, but maybe dozens, if not more than 100 times, being close to explosives, came home and couldn't understand why they couldn't remember their children's names or where they put their car keys or even where they lived because they had traumatic brain injury, but no one had diagnosed it correctly.

I have talked to too many parents and spouses and family members who have told me horrific stories of their very proud servicemember who has come home, left the service, and been left at home medically dealing themselves drugs because they have post-traumatic stress syndrome and no one had taken the time to find them or their family to educate them about the services they need.

When we agree to this legislation, this amendment today, we will finally have taken a very direct step in helping the men and women who have served this country so honorably.

Madam President, 4\1/2\ years ago, when the President asked us to go to war in Iraq, he talked about weapons of mass destruction, he talked about al-Qaida, he talked about the mission to fight the war on terror--but what he has never talked about, in my opinion, is taking care of those men and women who have served us honorably. Today, the Senate is going to talk about those men and women who have served us and what we need to do for them.

Several months ago, Bob Woodruff presented an amazing television series to us about traumatic brain injury and its impact on men and women as they make their way through medical hold and finally go out and get into communities and are lost in the system. Traumatic brain injury is not something that can be treated today and you are fine tomorrow. It is a lifelong, debilitating injury. We do not have out in the country today the capability of making sure those men and women are not lost.

We have seen too many times, when men and women who have post- traumatic stress syndrome can't keep a job, and they find themselves at home and, tragically, cases of suicide because of that.

We have to address the costs and the issues that face our men and women, and proudly stand here and make sure we are doing everything we can. This year, with the Democratically controlled majority, we have finally moved forward for the first time to put in place a strong budget to take care of our veterans. We have finally, for the first time when we passed the supplemental war spending, actually added dollars to care for our veterans.

Today the step we are taking has more to do with the policies these men and women fight when they come home. They are in a system in the service that rates them one way, and when they finally get discharged, they go through a veterans system that rates them in an entirely different way. The two systems do not talk to each other. They do not electronically talk to each other. Soldiers lose their medical forms. They are fighting systems. They can't get the benefits they deserve because they are fighting paperwork.

No one should fight for our country overseas and come home and have to fight paperwork. That is what this amendment will do, is make sure, finally, that the VA and the DOD speak in the same language and treat these men and women as a single person and not just a pile of paperwork.

This amendment has teeth. It will require the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs for the very first time to come back to us by January 1 of next year with a series of comprehensive policies that will make sure our rating systems are the same; that their electronic systems that track our men and women speak to each other; that no one gets lost because their advocate is dealing with his or her own health care issues. It will make sure we can go back with pride to the men and women who have served us and say we have made a tremendous effort for them.

We have seen partisan battles through many years on the floor of the Senate. Today we are going to see a time when we come together as Republicans and Democrats to say there is one group of Americans who deserve us to speak with one voice, and that is the men and women who have served us. Regardless of how we feel about this war, regardless of how we want to end it--I want to end it more than anyone--I want to make sure the men and women who served us are taken care of. This amendment makes a dramatic step forward.

I think it is important to know, even if we were able to get enough votes to end this war today, the men and women who have served us will need our help and our support and our dollars for years to come-- whether they have lost a limb, whether they have traumatic brain injury, whether they have post-traumatic stress syndrome. They have borne the burden of this war. It is incumbent upon this country to bear the burden of their care. This amendment takes a major step forward, and I hope today we have 100 percent of the Senators on the floor saying yes to the men and women who served us so honorably.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, our country is home to some of the finest fighting forces in the world, and we can all be very proud of that fact. We need our military to be the best trained, the best equipped, and the most prepared force on the planet. Tragically, however, the President's war in Iraq and his use of extended deployments is undermining our military's readiness today.

The current deployment schedule hurts our ability to respond to threats around the world, it causes our servicemembers to leave the military service early, it weakens our ability to respond to disasters at home, it unfairly burdens family members, and it intensifies the combat stress our servicemembers experience.

We need to rebuild our military, and the first step is giving our fighting men and women the time they need at home to prepare and train for their next mission.

Today I rise to address the readiness challenges that threaten our military strength and ultimately our Nation's security.

More than 4 years into the war in Iraq, our troops are stretched thin, our equipment is deteriorating, and the patience of our Nation is wearing thin. We have seen 3,600 servicemembers die, thousands upon thousands more have been injured, and month after month our fighting men and women are pushing harder and harder. Troops leave loved ones for months and years and put their lives on the line without complaint. We owe them the best treatment and the best training possible.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has fallen short in those areas. One of the major problems for our troops, for their families, and their communities is the growing gap between the time troops spend in battle versus the time they spend at home. This gap is alarming, it is disheartening, and it is a disservice to the brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way each and every day.

Sadly, our forces are being burned out. Many of our troops are on their third or even their fourth tour in Iraq and Afghanistan. Months ago, the Department of Defense announced that their tours would be extended from 12 months to 15 months. And on top of all that, they are not receiving the necessary time at home before they are sent back to battle.

Mr. President, that is not the normal schedule. It is not what our troops signed up for. And we here in Congress should not simply stand by and allow our troops to be pushed beyond their limits. That is why here on the Senate floor today we are debating the Webb amendment, and that is why we need to pass it this week.

Traditionally, Active-Duty troops are deployed for 1 year and then they rest at home for 2 years. National Guard and Reserve troops are deployed for 1 year and then they rest at home for 5 years. Tragically, that is not what is happening today. Today, Active-Duty troops are spending less time at home than they are in battle--less time at home than they are in battle--and our Guard and Reserve forces are receiving less than 3 years' rest for every year in combat.

With that increasing number and length of deployments, this rest time is even more critical for our troops, and they are not receiving the break they need, which is increasing the chances that they will burn out. This administration--the Bush administration--has decided to go the other direction, pushing our troops harder, extending their time abroad, and sending troops back time and again to the battlefield.

In March of this year, a few months ago, Salon.com reported what I hope is an extreme example of the length the military is going to get our soldiers back to the battlefield, and I want to read an excerpt from that story because I think it is really important we all understand what is happening to our troops.

This is from Salon.com:

Last November, Army Specialist Edgar Hernandez, a

communications specialist with a unit of the Army's 3rd

Infantry Division, had surgery on an ankle he had injured

during physical training. After the surgery, doctors put his

leg in a cast and he was supposed to start physical therapy

when the cast came off six weeks later.

But two days after his cast was removed, Army commanders

decided it was more important to send him to a training site

in a remote desert rather than let him stay at Fort Benning,

GA, to rehabilitate. In January, Hernandez was shipped to the

National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA, where his unit,

the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division,

was conducting a month of training in anticipation of leaving

for Iraq in March.

Hernandez says he was in no shape to train for a war so

soon after his injury. ``I could not walk,'' he told Salon in

an interview. He said he was amazed when he learned he was

being sent to California. ``Did they not realize that I'm

hurt and I needed this physical therapy?'' he remembered

thinking. I was told by my doctor and my physical therapist

that this was crazy.

Hernandez had served two tours in Iraq, where he had helped

maintain communications gear in the unit's armored Bradley

Fighting Vehicles. But he could not participate in war

maneuvers conducted on a 1,000-square-mile mock battlefield

located in the harsh Mojave Desert. Instead, when he got to

California, he was led to a large tent where he would be

housed. He was shocked by what he saw inside. There were

dozens of other hurt soldiers. Some were on crutches, and

others had their arms in slings. Some had debilitating back

injuries. And nearby was another tent housing female soldiers

with health issues ranging from injuries to pregnancy.

Hernandez is one of a dozen soldiers who stayed for weeks

in those tents who were interviewed for this report, some of

whose medical records were also reviewed by Salon. All of the

soldiers said they had no business being sent to Fort Irwin

given their physical condition. In some cases, soldiers were

sent there even though their injuries were so severe the

doctors had previously recommended they should be considered

for medical retirement from the Army.

Military experts say they suspect that the deployment to

Fort Irwin of injured soldiers was an effort to pump up

manpower statistics used to show the readiness of Army units.

Clearly, if the military is going to those lengths to pump up readiness statistics, we have a huge problem. But these problems are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the effects of the administration's rotation policy. The current rotation policy not only burns out servicemembers, but it hurts the military's ability to respond to other potential threats.

For the first time in decades, the Army's ``ready brigade,'' which is intended to enter troubled spots within 72 hours, cannot do so. All of its troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The limited period between deployments lessens the time to train for other threats.

Numerous military leaders have spoken to us about this problem. GEN James Conway said:

I think my largest concern, probably, has to do with

training. When we're home for that 7, 8, 9 months, our focus

is going back to Iraq. And as I mentioned in the opening

statement, therefore, we're not doing amphibious training,

we're not doing mountain-warfare training, we're not doing

combined-arm fire maneuver, such as would need to be the

case potentially in another type of contingency.

That is not me, Mr. President; that is General Conway before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of this year.

GEN Barry McCaffrey said that because all ``fully combat ready'' Active-Duty and Reserve combat units are now deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, ``no fully-trained national strategic reserve brigades are now prepared to deploy to new combat operations.''

The current deployment situation is hurting our troops, and it is hurting our troops in another way. It is contributing to a drop in our retention rates. Keeping battle-experienced and capable troops in the military is essential to our ability to respond to future threats. West Point classes of 2000 and 2001 have an attrition rate five times higher than pre-Iraq war levels, with 54 percent of the West Point class of 2000 leaving the Army by the end of last year and 46 percent of the West Point class of 2001 leaving the Army by the end of last year. Marine Corps Active Forces are losing troops, especially critical midgrade noncommissioned officers, and that is despite a bonus for those who reenlist.

Clearly, this policy is not sustainable.

This deployment schedule we have been talking about is also making us less secure here at home. The rotation policy has left our Guard units short of manpower and supplies and severely hindered their ability to respond to disasters that can occur at any time here at home.

The recent tornado that destroyed much of Greensburg, KS, is a terrible example. After their town was destroyed, Greensburg residents needed shelter, they needed food and water, and they needed it fast. But because the Kansas National Guard was stretched so thin, it was hard for them to respond as fast as was necessary for an emergency right here at home. Governor Sebelius and MG Tod Bunting, who is the head of the Kansas National Guard, said not only is Guard equipment being worn out, but so are its troops, some of whom were in their fourth tour in Iraq.

For years, these problems were the exception, not the rule. But I fear that balance is shifting. Last month, USA Today reported that National Guard units in 31 States say 4 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have left them with 60 percent or less of their authorized equipment. And last month, LTG Steven Blum said the National Guard units have 53 percent of the equipment they need to handle State emergencies, and that number falls to 49 percent once Guard equipment needed for war, such as weapons, is factored in.

In fact, Blum said:

Our problem right now is that our equipment is at an all-

time low.

This is deeply concerning to all of us who worry about a national disaster in our States, especially out in the West as we now face fires in our forests that are threatening homes and families and lives, and we fear extreme devastation.

This problem is more than about equipment, it is more than about retention rates, it is about real people and about real families. We all know military life can be tough on troops and their families. They go for months--sometimes years--without seeing each other. While troops are away fighting for all of us, sons and daughters are born, sons and daughters grow up without their moms and dads present, husbands and wives don't see each other for years, fathers die, mothers die, and family members become sick. Our troops need adequate time at home to see their newborns, to be a part of their children's lives, to spend time with their spouses, and to see their parents. The current rotation policy decreases dramatically the time families are together, and that places a tremendous strain on everyone.

Our troops facing these early deployments and extended tours have spoken out. When the tour extensions and early deployments were announced, our troops themselves expressed their displeasure.

In Georgia, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Soldiers of a Georgia Army National Guard unit were hoping

to return home in April. Instead, they may be spending

another grueling summer in the Iraqi desert. At least 4,000

National Guard soldiers may spend up to four extra months in

Iraq as part of President Bush's troop increase announced

last month. SGT Gary Heffner, spokesman for the 214th, said

news of the extension came as a ``little bit of a shock'' to

the Georgians.

The 1st Cavalry Division, according to the Dallas Morning News:

Eighteen months after their first Iraqi rotation, the 2nd

Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment and the last of the Fort

Hood, Texas-based 1st Cavalry Division returned to Iraq in

mid-November.

Those troops, according to this article, were deeply concerned about that. And here in my home State, in Tacoma, WA, just this past weekend, there was an article from the Tacoma News Tribune of soldiers going once again.

These soldiers are talking about the tremendously difficult time they are having being redeployed.

So, Mr. President, I rise today to speak out for the Webb amendment. It is an amendment that supports our troops. It supports our troops by requiring that regular forces be at home for as long as they are deployed. It requires that our National Guard and Reserve forces be home for at least 3 years for every year deployed. Those seem to me to be basic commonsense requirements.

I applaud our colleague from Virginia for being a champion for our troops and for crafting the bipartisan measure of which he and I think the entire Senate can be proud.

Our troops have sacrificed so much for us. We have to institute a fair policy for the health of our troops, for the health and well-being of their families, and for our Nation's security and the ability to respond to disasters here at home. The Webb amendment does all of that, and I urge the Senate to adopt it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full Salon.com article and the article from the Tacoma News Tribune.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss our efforts to address the energy challenges that are facing our Nation today and the solutions we need for tomorrow. I am pleased that the Senate last night passed a comprehensive energy bill that moves our Nation forward.

We all know how important energy is to our economy, our families, and our quality of life. The high cost of energy is putting a painful squeeze on every sector of my home State: Commuters notice every time they fill up the tank; businesses are struggling with the higher costs of transportation; industry is feeling the impact of higher energy costs, and farmers feel the pain both in the price of fuel and fertilizer.

The question is, what are we going to do about it? It is clear there are no silver bullets.

It is going to take smart policies, carried out consistently over many years, to begin to change the way we use and save energy.

Overall, I believe we must focus on several priorities, including: making America more self-reliant so we are less dependent on foreign sources of energy; using innovation to meet our energy needs in creative ways; supporting conservation to reduce our energy demands; investing in education so we can cultivate the scientists, researchers, and workers of the new energy future; and protecting consumers from unscrupulous energy manipulators.

Before I turn to those specific priorities, I want to share with the Senate some of the innovative things that leaders in Washington State are doing to meet our energy needs.

Washington State is moving forward on renewable sources of energy like wind energy.

In April, I had an opportunity to visit the Hopkins Ridge Wind Farm in Columbia County, WA. This is a Puget Sound energy facility that has 83 wind turbines. When they are running at peak capacity, they can generate enough energy on an average basis to supply about 50,000 homes.

In fact, the Ports of Longview and Vancouver in southwest Washington have become a gateway for bringing wind energy components into the United States. I have been able to support their work through the wind energy tax credit. Last year, I got to visit the Port of Longview and see how our longshoremen expertly handle these massive turbines.

Washington's agriculture community is stepping up and embracing renewable sources of energy. This Spring, I was in Colfax, WA, for a roundtable discussion with farmers, and energy was a big part of the discussion.

I can tell you that Washington State farmers are poised to become active players in the renewable energy market. We talked about ways to help them make the transition into biofuel crops.

And there are other innovative projects. In Gray's Harbor, we are moving forward with a biodiesel plant. It will be a new home for Washington state biofuel production, a new source of jobs for the people of Grays Harbor County, and a new way to combat high gas prices. And in the Tri-Cities, we are moving forward with a new research center on biofuels and bioproducts.

In my home State of Washington, we have also been testing some cutting edge technology that puts information into the hands of consumers so they can make informed decisions about how--and when--they use energy.

With the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and other partners, I helped kick off a GridWise demonstration project to test smart appliances. These appliances give consumers the power to decide when to run them based on the cost of energy. For example, your thermostat could indicate to you when heat costs are at a premium. Or you could set your dryer to run only when energy is a certain price.

We all know that the cost of energy fluctuates throughout the day. Unfortunately, today's consumers don't know the real cost of energy at any given time. So it is hard for them to make informed energy choices.

These innovative appliances were tested for a year in 150 homes, a water-pumping station and a commercial building. The results are impressive. Researchers found that giving consumers these tools helps save energy and reduce demand on the electricity grid. They found that real-time pricing can also alleviate the need to build a new substation.

So I am really proud of the innovative work that is already underway in Washington State, and both Senator Cantwell and I believe it can serve as a model for the progress we can make in the rest of the country.

Now I would like to turn to my energy priorities and some of the positive steps that this bill takes.

My first priority is to help make America more energy self-reliant. Here at home we have tremendous demand for energy and that demand is growing. Unfortunately, today we are still too dependent on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil. That dependence affects our security and our relations with other countries. We need to reduce our dependence, and we can do that through some of the measures in this bill. This bill includes a renewable fuels standard that will increase our use of renewable fuels, including biofuels like cellulosic ethanol and biogas. It also includes tighter CAFE standards for our auto industry, and it increases the number of bioresearch centers focused on biofuel. This bill will also help us diversify our fuel sources by promoting alternative fuels, such as ethanol, biogas, and biodiesel.

I am disappointed that important tax incentives, which would spur the development of renewable electricity, increase the production of alternative transportation fuels, and help homeowners who make their properties more energy efficient, were blocked in a procedural effort by the minority. I am hopeful that these important investments will be restored as this legislation moves forward.

Second, we need to use innovation to help meet our energy needs. This bill will help move forward our innovation agenda by increasing research and development funding for new technologies. It authorizes funding for research in States with low rates of ethanol production. This investment could help Washington get off the ground in the area of cellulosic ethanol. This bill also boosts research in carbon capture and storage. We are doing some interesting work on that at PNNL in my home State, and I am pleased to support further research.

Third, we need to be more aggressive about conserving energy. It is everything from choosing compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy efficient appliances to consolidating errands so you make fewer trips in your car. Through this bill, the Federal Government will lead by example by using energy efficiently and employing conservation practices. It includes, as I mentioned, higher CAFE standards on our vehicles, which will help conserve gasoline. It will promote efficient lighting technologies, efficient vehicles and advanced batteries.

Fourth, we need to expand education so we have the scientists, researchers, and workers to help us reach a new generation of energy innovation.

The existing and new technologies that we will deploy to increase our self-reliance are complicated, and we need to make sure we have a well- trained workforce that is able to implement these forward-thinking technologies. This entails both continuing education for our current workforce, but also training the workers of tomorrow. We must provide these training programs while our young people are still in our educational system.

In my home State of Washington, several universities are addressing these needs by offering curriculums in this area. For example, Gonzaga University in Spokane has a transmission line worker training program.

Central Washington University in Ellensburg wants to teach its students how to operate the efficiency technologies of the future. I think we should support these efforts by ensuring funding for programs like these. I am pleased that this legislation calls out this important issue.

In Washington State, we are also working to educate the next generation of energy innovators.

Washington State University, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the State of Washington have worked together to create the Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering Laboratory in Richland.

This is a pioneering research center where researchers will develop technology to turn biomass into energy and products. It will have teaching laboratories and classrooms and is located on WSU's Tri-Cities campus. I have been pleased to support this project from its inception, and I will continue to do so.

Finally, we need to protect consumers from those who would manipulate the price of energy to take advantage of high demand. One of the things that the Enron scandal revealed is that some people were happy to create false shortages of energy in order to drive up the price.

This bill helps us fight energy manipulators through a price-gouging bill that I co-sponsored, which is including in the underlying bill.

We have a lot of challenges in front of us as individuals and as a country when it comes to energy. But we also have the ability to craft responsible, smart legislation that will help move us in the right direction.

I am pleased to be working to make our country more self-reliant, to invest in innovation, conservation and education and to help protect consumers. I am honored to come from a State that is producing some of the most innovative energy ideas anywhere, and I am excited about moving this bill forward so we can use that progress to benefit our entire country.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join my colleague from Massachusetts and thank him for his work. I rise today to voice my support for workers, for their families, and for their right to share in the prosperity the Senator from Massachusetts talked about that they helped create for this country.

As chairwoman of the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee, protecting workers' rights is a critical priority for me.

In last year's election, we all heard the voice of America's voters calling for change. I am very proud to say that Democrats have been working very hard to help working Americans and their families secure a better future, and we are making progress. We recently, in fact, passed legislation to increase the minimum wage--the first increase in a decade. For the first time in 10 years, many Americans now have the opportunity to begin to lift themselves out of poverty. So we are moving in the right direction.

But our work doesn't end there. Now it is time to help workers by ensuring that their voices are heard in the workplace--voices for better benefits, voices for better wages, voices for better health care, and voices for better pensions. As we all know, unfortunately, today in too many of our workplaces workers who do try to exercise their legal rights are blocked by an unbalanced system that can trap them in unacceptable working conditions. I think it is time for Congress to stand with our Nation's workers and give them their voice back by strengthening protections for our workers so they can freely choose to join a union.

The Employee Free Choice Act will make the promise of employee choice a reality, and it will restore the balance of the relationship between our employers and our employees. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this important and balanced legislation.

So why is this bill necessary? Well, because workers should be able to share in the prosperity they helped to create. This bill is an important step in helping millions of working families get their fair share of the economic pie.

Our Nation's greatest asset is our people. American workers drive our economy. Their determination for a better future bolsters our Nation's prosperity. That is why I was so concerned to learn that workers believe the American dream is slipping away from them today. In fact, according to a poll conducted earlier this year by the Change to Win Federation, 82 percent of those surveyed said they believe working families are falling behind. I find that troubling, given that worker productivity has increased 3.1 percent each year between 2000 and 2004, and that corporate profits have more than doubled since 2001.

To me, it doesn't add up that American workers and American families are the ones who are losing. They are working very hard to help our country prosper, but they are not reaping their fair share of the benefits.

Unions can make a very positive difference. They allow our workers to collectively express their voices to employers on working conditions, health care, pensions, and other benefits, and the benefits we are talking about lead to better lives for Americans. Women who belong to a union earn 31 percent more than women workers who are not union members. That is an extra $179 a week and $9,300 more a year in income. Think about it. An extra $179 could help working moms put more food on the table for their family or help to pay for the education of a son or daughter. It could help her put a little more away for retirement, making she and her family less dependent on Social Security.

Workers who are union members are twice as likely to have employer health care coverage. Union families who pay insurance premiums for their coverage pay 36 percent less than their counterparts, saving them almost $1,300 a year.

With the enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act, it is estimated that up to a quarter of a million workers and their families in my home State of Washington alone would participate in their employer's health insurance plan. That is a step in the right direction for the 866,000 Washington State residents who were uninsured in 2005. They are also more likely to have guaranteed pensions. Sixty-eight percent of unionized workers are covered compared to only 14 percent of nonunion workers--68 percent compared to 14 percent.

The AFL-CIO estimates that up to 250,000 Washington State workers would participate in their employer's defined benefit pension plan with the passage of the bill we are talking about today.

Workers recognize the benefits that unions offer them. In fact, 53 percent of U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could.

Clearly unions empower their members to access better benefits and provide a better life for their families.

But what about other workers, those who don't belong to a union? Are unions beneficial for the rest of us? The answer is an emphatic yes.

Unions have forged the way for millions of working families--union and nonunion--to share in the prosperity they helped create.

Progressive employment policies such as the minimum wage, the 8-hour work day, the 40-hour work week, employer-provided health care and pension plans emerged from the labor movement and have become the standard in today's workplace.

I think we can all agree that unions benefit our society as a whole. I am sure the 60 million U.S. workers who say they would join a union if they could think so, too.

Why is union membership declining when so many workers want to join and unions clearly benefit all of us. As it turns out, exercising your right to organize with other workers isn't an easy task under our current system.

The system is broken. We all know that a fair labor market can only exist when employers and employees have a respected voice in the system. I am sorry to say that is not the case today.

Some unscrupulous employers are silencing employees who try to join a union to better their economic situation for their families, and that is not fair.

Under current law, workers who want to join a union use the majority sign up method to let the union know they are interested.

Then, employers have the power to make a choice.

They can choose to recognize their employees' wishes, and many progressive employers do, or they can demand a NLRB election, stalling the process and silencing the voices of their employees.

During the election process, employers have unlimited access to workers in the workplace. They can require workers to attend mass meetings to hear antiunion messages and even require one-on-one meetings between supervisors and employees. And, under our country's labor laws, these practices are perfectly legal.

I think we can all understand how intimidating these tactics can be. More often than not, employers create an unfriendly work environment where employees don't feel comfortable discussing unions or their benefits. In many cases they fear for their livelihood, and rightfully so.

Unlike the peer relationship between coworkers, employers hold a special position of power over their employees. Employers have power over a worker's wages and benefits and, ultimately, they can fire an employee.

A recent analysis from the National Labor Relations Board shows that one in five union supporters are illegally fired for union activity during the organizing campaign.

Too often, workers who clearly voice their desire for representation have been silenced by their employers.

On the other hand unions do not have access to workers while on the job. They are not allowed to enter the workplace at any time to meet with employees. Employees interested in learning about union membership must meet with representatives and employees on their own time.

The Employee Free Choice Act does nothing to change this relationship. It does not limit the access employers have to workers. And, it doesn't expand the union's access to employees on the job.

If employees make it through this obstacle and elect to form a union, the ordeal is not over yet. Bad faith employers can drag out the initial negotiations process, often for years, using the time and their unlimited access to employees on the job to convince them that unions are a bad idea.

It is easy to see who holds most of the cards in this relationship. Workers shouldn't have to risk their livelihoods to exercise their right to form a union. But it happens all the time.

Hardworking Americans shouldn't have to go through such an ordeal to form a union. The Employee Free Choice Act can help eliminate some of the unfair barriers that workers face and make it easier for them to organize.

How does this bill address the problem?

The Employee Free Choice Act can make a difference. It can help workers gain a respected voice in the conversation with employers, and it can penalize bad faith actors who break the law.

First, the bill ensures that employees who want to organize can do so without interference. By allowing employees to choose majority sign up, the Employee Free Choice Act gives workers their voice back.

Second, this bill ensures there's time for reasonable negotiations, but it does not allow one side to act in bad faith and string employees along in a never-ending process that is designed to block their ability to self-organize.

Third, this bill will hold bad actors accountable if they break the law. According to ``American Rights at Work,'' every 23 minutes in America, an employer fires or retaliates against a worker for their union activity.

We shouldn't tolerate illegal discrimination and retaliation against workers who are just trying to exercise their rights. If an employer violates the rights of its employees and is charged by the National Labor Relations Board, this bill will impose stricter penalties.

It balances the playing field by requiring that the NLRB stop bad faith employers from interfering in a union campaign or contract negotiations.

It puts teeth in the current law by making employers who break the law pay three times back pay and imposes civil penalties for unfairly discriminating against pro-union workers.

This will ensure that breaking the law doesn't just become part of ``the cost of doing business.''

Some would have us believe that the Employee Free Choice Act radically changes the rules of the game or takes away employers' rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, it does not eliminate the secret ballot. I am pleased that this bill gives employees the opportunity to vote by secret ballot if they so choose. For too long, some employers have had control over the balloting process, and this bill gets the balance right by making sure employees have the free choice to use a secret ballot or majority sign up.

Second, it does not create a new process. Some would have us believe this bill upsets the current system by creating a new process for forming a union. But majority sign up has always been allowable under the law. Today, some progressive employers voluntarily recognize their employees' choice to organize.

Third, it does not trap employees into union membership. Opponents of this bill would also have us believe that allowing employees to choose majority sign up as their preferred method for choosing a union would lead to union coercion or would trap other workers into union contracts against their will. That is not true.

Let's look at the facts about coercion and intimidation.

American Rights at Work found that antiunion behavior is widespread among some employers. Among those employers faced with a union campaign, 30 percent of employers fire prounion workers; 49 percent of employers threaten to close a worksite when workers attempt to form a union, although only 2 percent actually do; 51 percent of employers coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism--both are illegal; 82 percent of employers faced with an organizing campaign hire union-busting consultants to stop union campaigns; 91 percent of employers force employees to

attend one-on-one antiunion meetings with their supervisors.

Some would have us believe that unions can be just as bad, but the data doesn't back that up.

In her testimony before a House committee earlier this year, Nancy Schiffer, an attorney with AFL-CIO, told that they had reviewed 113 cases cited by the HR Policy Association as ``involving'' fraud coercion.

It found that only 42 decisions actually identified coercion, fraud or misrepresentation in the signing of union authorization forms--and that's since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. That is less than one case per year.

Compare that one case a year with the more than 31,000 cases filed in 2005 alone of employers engaging in illegal firings and other discrimination against workers for exercising their right to form a union. Clearly, unions have proven to be good faith actors in this process.

Fourth, it does not change an employer's free speech or property rights. One thing this bill does not change is the access to employees that exists today. Currently, employers have full access to employees during the workday. Unions do not. This bill leaves that relationship unchanged.

Finally, it does not bankrupt or harm businesses. Opponents to this bill would also have us believe allowing workers the free choice of forming a union would be bad for business or would bankrupt employers. Again nothing could be further from the truth.

We know that majority sign up can work for employers and employees because it is already happening for some progressive employers. Take Cingular Wireless, now known as AT&T, for example.

In my home State of Washington, we have seen proof that companies can remain competitive and profitable and still follow the law and respect worker rights.

Cingular Wireless gave its workers in Bothell, WA, the free choice they are entitled to. As a result, nearly 1,000 workers in my hometown decided to organize, and Cingular won praise for its responsible, respectful approach to employee choice.

Today, the company continues to be one of the top wireless providers in the country. Choosing to respect their employees' choice to unionize did not bankrupt them or make them any less competitive.

This bill helps us find the right balance in relationship between workers and management. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in raising our voices in support of workers and their families by voting yes on this bill.

Thank you Mr. President,

I wish to speak to amendment No. 1614 sponsored by Senators Byrd, Landrieu, Webb, Rockefeller, Salazar, and Tester.

The energy bill we have been debating this week is going to bring us greater energy independence and clean up our energy supply to help combat climate change.

The bill is clean and green and will make great strides in developing clean energy sources, and increasing efficiency.

But we must admit that we have done little in this bill to address America's largest energy resource and also one of our largest polluters--coal.

Coal supplies over half of our electricity generation, it drives our industry and manufacturing and can be turned into a liquid transportation fuel to replace foreign oil.

Coal is relatively cheap and easily accessible.

We have enough coal for 250 years if we keep using it at the same rate that we are now.

Not only are we going to keep using coal, but most energy experts predict we are going to use more of it in the future.

But we have to start doing better when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions from coal.

I do not believe that government has been providing the right incentives to move the coal industry in the right direction.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 231 and the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Crystal Bridgeman, a fellow on my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

Mr. President, I would like to inquire of Chairman Kennedy regarding the State advisory councils on early childhood education and care included in S. 556, the Head Start for School Readiness Act.

I thank the chairman for his explanation of these provisions. I am concerned, however, that it may not be practical for States with existing advisory councils to reconfigure their membership to reflect all of the individuals mentioned in the Head Start bill. In my home State of Washington, we are leading the way on early childhood coordination and reform with the establishment in 2005 of Governor Gregoire's cabinet-level Department of Early Learning and the Early Learning Council, which became the Early Learning Advisory Council. The council is working hard to make sure early learning programs in my State are aligned and are providing high quality services. However, I want to make sure that the council is not unduly burdened for being a leader, and that it will not have to reconstitute its membership. I ask the chairman for his commitment to work with me as this bill is considered in conference with the House, to further resolve this issue.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Todd Beuke, a great contributor to the education community in the State of Washington. Mr. Beuke is an exceptional teacher who has been honored this year as a finalist for the Richard T. Farrell Teacher of Merit Award for his outstanding success in teaching history.

As a teacher at Sequim Middle School, Mr. Beuke has been able to create excitement in the classroom by using creative teaching methods that resonate with his students. Students and teachers alike have praised Mr. Beuke for his supportive teaching style and the comfortable environment he has created in which students can explore history.

Mr. Beuke is an innovator in Washington State education, an inspiration to his students, and a teacher capable of making history lessons relevant and accessible. Mr. Beuke's work extends beyond the classroom as well. He has helped expand the National History Day program throughout Washington State.

The National History Day program is a national education organization that encourages professional development and active student learning. The program provides publications and education programs that help guide teachers in methods to engage students and bring history to life. Washington State teachers and students have benefited from the effort Mr. Beuke has made to share information about the History Day program. The National History Day awards are a valuable way to highlight positive role models in our education system. I am proud Mr. Beuke has been nominated for this award.

I thank Todd Beuke for his work in the classroom and for his commitment to education in my home State. I am sure he will continue to be successful in inspiring students to enjoy the study of history.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I commend the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his tremendous work and advocacy that has gotten us to this place today, a very important day that he talked about, where the House of Representatives voted to pass the embryonic stem cell research bill, joining the Senate. That bill is now on its way to the President's desk.

It is because of the work of Senator Harkin over the years and his advocacy and his not giving up that we are here today. I am very proud to join him on the floor to urge the President, now, to do the right thing.

The House of Representatives today, in voting for this bill, offered hope to millions of Americans in supporting embryonic stem cell research. There is now one person who can make this decision for millions of Americans and that is the President of the United States. He has a choice. He can stand with so many people who are looking for that desperately needed cure or he will stand against them. I hope, similar to my colleague from Iowa, the President pauses, thinks about the lives he holds in his hands and makes the right choice and signs the bill for embryonic stem cell research.

This is an issue I know personally. I grew up in a family of nine. My dad was a wonderful, physically active human being. He served our Nation in World War II; raising his children. He was a strong man. In my eyes when I was growing up, he was indestructible, but when I turned 15 years old, things changed dramatically in my life and my dad's life. My dad was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. That is a horrific disease, for anyone who is not familiar with it. It wasn't long until he could no longer walk, he was in a wheelchair and required my mother to take care of him full time.

It was a very difficult time for my family. We had to watch my dad deteriorate physically. We had to watch as my mom returned to work. She was on welfare for a while and finally was able to get some schooling and get a job. But she had to work, take care of my dad, and raise all seven kids.

We all hoped a cure one day would be found for my dad and people like him. You never lose hope when something such as this happens to you. It is essential to dealing with what you have been handed. But we were also realistic. Scientists didn't have any promising leads, doctors said there wasn't much they could do, there was no cure on the horizon, there was nothing to hinge our hope on when I was growing up. But now we have a chance finally to offer families across this country hope, opportunity, a chance for a cure.

It is time for President Bush to stop his obstruction and to stop saying no to cures and to stop saying no to hope for families such as mine.

Unfortunately, we know since being elected, President Bush has blocked robust federally funded research on embryonic stem cells. Originally, he told us there would be 78 stem cell lines available for study. In truth, there were only 21, far fewer than scientists say are needed for this research.

Even the Director of the National Institutes of Health, as Senator Harkin talked about, who was appointed by President Bush, said: ``It is clear today that American science would be better served, and the Nation would be better served, if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines. . . .''

The President refused to heed that advice from the scientific community

or his own Director of the National Institutes of Health. He did so-- why? To pacify the ideological views of a few in his political base. What he did by blocking that was to force millions of Americans who suffer from many ailments to put their hope on hold and to stand idly by and watch as a family member's condition worsened.

Besides putting the hopes of millions of people on hold, the President's action actually pushed stem cell research overseas. Our country, which has been known as the world leader in medicine and in scientific research, is now falling behind other countries in this field.

Reuters recently reported that British scientists, with funding from an American who was upset with President Bush's actions, were using embryonic stem cell research to cure some forms of blindness.

Our country must remain at the forefront of innovation. Institutions such as the University of Washington, in my home State, have to have the ability to compete with organizations in other countries. This President has denied that.

The bill that has been sent to the President today is on its way to his desk. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 allows the Department of Health and Human Services to finally begin robust research on embryonic stem cells from frozen embryos, embryos, it is important to note, that would otherwise be discarded.

That bill also promotes research into funding alternative ways to derive stem cells from embryos, and it does these things while it imposes strict ethical guidelines, as all of us have insisted upon. In fact, the standards in the legislation that is on its way to the President's desk today are more stringent than even the President's own policy.

Most important, though, the legislation we want this President to sign takes hope off hold for millions of Americans. We all know the President has threatened to once again veto this legislation, as he did last year. I am here today, and I hope he hears me, to say: Please don't do that.

There are millions of sick Americans and their families who are watching and waiting and praying and hoping he signs this bill. If he vetoes this bill, he will likely claim, as he did last year, the legislation is unnecessary since researching adult stem cells, which he supports, is as promising as studying embryonic stem cells.

Similar to last year, he would be wrong. Scientists say embryonic cells, which can be used to grow any type of human or cell tissue, show the most promise. They offer the most hope.

I have lived with someone with a serious illness. I have seen the suffering that happens, personally, to their families, and to everyone around them. I know how hard it can be. We must not block the discovery of cures for these people. We must not block their hope. Today, at least 17 million Americans suffer from diabetes. At least 500,000 Americans suffer from Parkinson's, 250,000 Americans suffer from multiple sclerosis, and 250,000 have spinal cord injuries, including, I would add, many veterans of the Iraq war. All these Americans, and many others who suffer from a variety of conditions, will stand to benefit from embryonic stem cell research.

Finally, today, in sending this bill to the President, this Congress is offering a chance to families across the country to have hope, to have an opportunity, to have a chance for a cure. I hope President Bush hears their calls, picks up that pen, stops his obstruction, stops saying no to cures, and signs his name to the legislation. We are all watching.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, last night, the State of Wyoming lost a fine statesman and a true gentleman with the passing of Senator Craig Thomas. Senator Thomas was a strong advocate for his State and its interests. He fought hard for his priorities, and I especially admired his tireless advocacy for our Nation's beautiful parks and wilderness. He also worked hard for the priorities of rural Wyoming and indeed all of rural America, fighting hard to improve health care infrastructure.

Senator Thomas dedicated his life to serving his country and his State. After graduating from the University of Wyoming, he joined the Marines and began his long career of service. Even when faced with his final battle with cancer, he continued to fight on for Wyoming and serve with distinction.

But the Senate lost not only an outstanding advocate but a wonderful person. More than anything, I will remember Senator Thomas as a man who carried himself with dignity and who treated all of his colleagues with respect, despite party differences. More than any debate, committee hearing or piece of legislation, it is his warm smile that I will remember most. I know he did a fantastic job representing the State of Wyoming, and I am honored to have known and worked with him.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this difficult time.

Madam President, today I celebrate the life and service of Norm Maleng, a deeply respected leader in my home State of Washington who served as King County Prosecutor since 1978.

Seattle, King County, and in fact the entire Pacific Northwest, lost one of our finest statesmen ever with his passing. Norm was known by everyone for his fairness and honesty. He was a thoughtful leader who helped guide our community through difficult times. Over the years, our community was rattled by the Wah Mee Massacre, the murder of the Goldmark family, and the Green River Cases. We all breathed easier knowing that Norm Maleng would handle the cases and that justice would be served.

To me, Norm Maleng was always the King County prosecutor. Norm held the position so long, and did his job so well, that it is hard for me to remember anyone else who held the job before him.

For all of us in public office, Norm was an icon. For me, despite our party differences, he was always a voice of reason and even-handedness. For everyone in King County, we knew that whatever issue came before him, he would handle it with integrity.

As an elected official, Norm Maleng was the best role model for all of us. He treated everyone equally and fairly. He approached every case and every challenge with wisdom and dignity. His voice will be missed. For me, he will always be the King County prosecutor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.