Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the health care proposals President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union Address last Tuesday. For too long, our working families and our businesses have really struggled with rising costs and shrinking access, and Washington, DC, has virtually ignored that health care crisis.

Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, the President is finally bringing some ideas to the table and saying he wants to be part of the solution. Well, I want to thank him for joining the debate, and I hope he is serious about working with us to address the challenges that have only gotten worse over the past 7 years. There may well be valuable ideas in his proposals. I want to get more details than we heard in just the State of the Union Address because there may be areas on which we can agree.

However, I have to say, from what I have seen of the President's plan so far, I do have some serious concerns that his initiatives will undermine the employer-based health insurance system; may push people into the risky and expensive individual insurance market; may fail to provide coverage for our most vulnerable; and may divert funds for the health care safety net to experimental programs.

My first concern is that the President's proposal will jeopardize the employer-based health insurance system. The most stable form of health insurance for America's working families today is through their employers. Mr. President, 155 million Americans receive health insurance today from their employers.

One of the primary reasons why employers offer health insurance to their workers is because those benefits are

excluded from taxable income. But the President's proposal, as I hear it, would take away that incentive by putting all forms of health insurance on an equal playing field. Even if employers choose not to drop health care coverage, they may be forced to do so in the future as the healthiest employees drop out of their employers' plans. If insurance becomes unaffordable, employers may be forced to stop offering health care benefits. I think many of my colleagues agree with me that we should be strengthening the employer-based health insurance system, not taking steps that will jeopardize it.

Secondly, I am very concerned that the President's proposal will push people into the individual insurance market. Today, when workers cannot get coverage through their employer, they need to purchase health insurance in the individual insurance market. But as any small businessman or self-employed woman will tell you, the individual insurance market today is not a good alternative to employer-provided coverage. In many States, insurers can cherry-pick applicants to avoid enrolling those with high health needs, or insurance companies can sell different policies to high- or low-risk individuals. If you have a chronic disease such as diabetes--or even any health problem--good luck getting reasonably priced, comprehensive coverage in the individual market today. Any proposal to increase access to health insurance should support the ability of Americans to receive affordable and comprehensive coverage, not force people into expensive, barebones insurance plans.

Third, I am troubled that the President's proposal will not increase access to health insurance for the uninsured. We have 46 million uninsured men, women, and children in this country today. That is a staggeringly high number, and those people face daily challenges trying to avoid getting sick and going into debt when something unexpected happens. Every day, I hear from people in my home State of Washington who struggle to pay for their health care costs. Unfortunately, the President's proposal will not help those people because they do not pay enough money in taxes to benefit from this tax deduction he is proposing. That really makes me question whether the President's plan will actually reduce the number of uninsured Americans.

Finally, I am very concerned that the President's plan will further chip away at our health care safety net because it would divert critical Medicaid dollars into an experimental grant program. Now, we do not have a lot of details yet, but it appears he is proposing to use Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments to give States the ability to experiment with health care reform. Those DSH payments keep the doors of our public hospitals open. Public hospitals are the foundations of our communities. They not only provide emergency care, but they train our doctors, they support rural health care, and they are the first lines of defense against pandemic flu or bioterror attacks. I am very concerned that his proposal could seriously jeopardize my State's Medicaid funds and, therefore, undermine those critical services.

I want to give an example of how these proposals could exacerbate the worst parts of our health insurance system.

Last week, I received a letter from my constituents Alice and Michael Counts. They live in Vancouver, WA. Their son Wesley was diagnosed with a kidney condition at age 16. Their family's personal health insurance insisted that his kidney disease was preexisting, and the insurer refused to pay for the medical tests that diagnosed his condition. His parents appealed to our insurance commissioner, and they won, but the insurer raised its rates far beyond the reach of a self-employed individual. So later, when Wesley was going through dialysis and a kidney transplant, his employer dropped insurance coverage because it had become too costly.

Throughout all these medical and financial ups and downs, Wesley has worked and has now graduated from Clark College. Thankfully, his parents have been able to help him navigate a health care system that failed him.

Wesley's parents wrote to me, and they said:

We would rather pay higher taxes that give everyone

affordable health care than live with the fear of losing

everything through catastrophic illness.

Wesley's story shows just how risky the individual market is and how people with serious health problems can be severely affected when an employer is forced to drop coverage. No patient--no one--should have to live in fear that their next dialysis treatment will not be covered by insurance.

What Wesley deserves--and what all Americans deserve--is access to affordable, dependable, comprehensive health care. The President's plan does not guarantee that. It does not even come close. It just makes the health insurance market more unstable and more risky and leaves more people like Wesley vulnerable. He deserves better than that. I think all Americans do.

So, as I said at the beginning of my statement, I welcome the President's attention to the health care crisis we are facing in this country. Last year, on the Senate floor we devoted 3 days--3 days--to health care. The President probably spent even less time talking about health care. So this is an improvement. We desperately need a serious and a very thoughtful debate about how we increase access to health insurance.

My colleagues and I have put forward a number of good ideas about how to increase access to health care. One of the first things we can do is reauthorize and strengthen the State Children's Health Insurance Program--that is the SCHIP program--that provides quality health care to millions of uninsured children. Congress should give States the funding and the flexibility to cover more of our kids.

Secondly, we have to fund community health centers so they can continue to provide quality health care to our uninsured.

Third, I agree with the President, we should help States devise new ways to increase access to health care. My home State of Washington, like a lot of States, is working on innovative initiatives to expand coverage. But we can accomplish this in ways that do not chip away at the foundation of our public hospitals.

Finally, we can expand health insurance for small businesses and the self-employed by creating Federal and State catastrophic cost pools in ways that will help us lower costs and still protect our patients.

I look forward to working with Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Baucus and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the President on real health care reform. There are people like Wesley across the country in every one of our States who are crying out for change, and we owe it to them, in this body, to finally make the progress that is long overdue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish share with the Senate a tribute to Mr. Davis Moriuchi, a leader in the Pacific Northwest who is retiring after 30 years of service with the Army Corps of Engineers. During his tenure with the Corps, Davis has left an indelible mark on the environment, economy, and people of Washington State. His expertise and dedication will be sorely missed.

My work with Davis over the years has served as a reminder of the difference dedicated individuals make in large and complex organizations like the Corps of Engineers. As we all know, the Corps tackles huge projects that have a widespread impact on our Nation. Davis's work has reaffirmed for me the importance of committed individuals on the success of those projects. Our State has been lucky to have been able to rely on his personal touch and expertise for so many years.

In Davis, my staff and I have also found an invaluable resource whose devotion to the region is as great as ours. Time and again, Davis has taken the time to explain even the most detailed aspects of Corps initiatives. His patience, clarity, and honesty have allowed me to be a stronger advocate for programs that will have long-term consequences for the Pacific Northwest.

While the extent of Davis's impact cannot be measured by projects alone, I would be remiss if I did not mention a few of the projects that he has taken on. We in Washington State will particularly miss Davis's leadership on water resource projects. From the new Navigation Lock at the Bonneville Dam to the ongoing Columbia River Channel Improvement Project, Davis's work on the health of our State's critical waterways will have lasting effects.

Davis has also championed interim repairs of the Columbia River jetties. It was a very exciting day last August, when Colonel O'Donavon, Davis, a host of other stakeholders and I stood at the mouth of the Columbia River and saw interim jetty repairs. Davis was instrumental in making that day possible.

Davis is ending his career as the deputy district commander for project management and the chief of Planning, Programs and Project Management Division for the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. It is a title that, while long in syllables, does not begin to grasp at the immensity of his service. But then again, Davis has never worked for titles or credit. His main concern has always been that the work of the Corps is well-executed and timely.

Davis's devotion to the region will be truly missed. I would like to wish him

the best of luck in an enjoyable retirement and thank him for his distinguished service.

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on this side, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the line- item veto. This misguided proposal will hurt the communities we are here to represent. It will strip them of the voice they have today in Congress through each of us, and it will hand even more legislative power to the executive branch.

As I saw in my own experiences, both here in the Senate and in the Washington State Legislature, a line-item veto is subject to abuse, pressure and horse-trading, and it violates the delicate balance of power that the Founders so carefully designed.

Now I recognize that the idea sounds attractive. It suggests that we could cut spending and control the deficit without having to make any tough choices. Well, like a lot of ideas that sound good at first, once you look into it, the painful impact becomes clear.

More importantly, I think all of us need to do the hard work of crafting responsible budgets. We need to legislate and govern and take the needs of the country and our States into consideration. We need to make the tough decisions--not pass the buck to the White House.

I oppose the line-item veto today for the same reasons I opposed it in the 1990s. I voted against this gimmick when Congress handed that power to a Democratic President. And today I fight another attempt to hand that same power to a Republican President.

For me, it is not about the party of the Chief Executive; it is about making sure that the constituents I represent have a voice in the budget decisions that affect their lives. The line-item veto is the wrong approach for three reasons.

First, it would cede a tremendous amount of power from Congress to the executive branch. The Constitution is very clear that Congress has the power of the purse. The Framers of our Constitution carefully divided the powers of our Government between the three branches.

When Congress tried this before, it was ruled unconstitutional. This time around, the sponsors have tweaked the bill to try to address those concerns, but the underlying problem still remains. We should not be handing our legislative power over to the executive branch. I made that argument in 1995--and it is even truer today. We have seen the Bush administration aggressively try to expand Presidential power and limit congressional input and oversight. We should stand our ground as the Founders intended--not surrender our constitutional authority to the executive branch.

Second, the line item veto would hurt the constituents we represent. They rely on us to fight for their needs and priorities. Through the budget and appropriations process, we work to meet the needs in our local communities--needs that the administration would ignore. If we give up our ability to fight for our communities, our constituents will lose their voice because I can tell you, the communities we represent will not get fair consideration from a budget official sitting in Washington, DC.

Last week, a group of constituents came to see me about a local road that needs to be improved. The changes they are seeking will improve safety, support economic development, and provide access to critically needed housing. I represent that community, so I know firsthand those improvements are needed. That community has me fighting for them and pushing for their needs. The administration is not going to do that. They are not going to send someone from Washington, DC to check out the road and see that it is unsafe. In fact, these constituents had just come from a meeting with an administration official who basically told them that, in regard to the continuing resolution, ``Good luck, we will be making the decisions this year.''

That is just wrong. If we hand this power to the administration, we will surrender our voices, and our constituents will lose their voices in advocating for their communities. The families I represent know that if they have a problem, they can come and talk to me. But if you tell them that they have to track down someone at OMB and convince them to care about their local needs, our communities will suffer.

I came to the Senate to represent the people of my home State of Washington. They elected me to be their voice on a wide array of issues affecting everything from their safety to their health, education, and economic well-being. I am not going to transfer my ability to fight for the people of Washington State to this or any other President. That is what this bill proposal would do, and I strongly oppose it.

Third, experience has shown that the line-item veto is subject to abuse and may be applied unfairly by an administration. I have experience with line-item veto authority. I served in my State legislature and saw firsthand the kind of horse-trading that can occur when the Executive has this power.

When President Clinton exercised the line-item veto in 1997, we saw serious problems in the way it was applied. The White House put forward standards for deciding which projects would be targeted. But then it attacked projects that actually met the standards. In 1997, I stood here on the Senate floor and detailed the mistakes the Clinton administration made in unfairly targeting projects for elimination. I don't want to see a repeat of those mistakes.

Mr. President, crafting a responsible budget takes hard work. It requires tough choices. There is no gimmick or trick that will make the hard decisions go away. Handing our power and our constituents' power over to the White House certainly won't do it. So I say, rather than spending our time on a distraction, let's work on a real budget and on the real and difficult choices that are before us.

Let's do the job that voters sent us here to do--without gimmicks and without trampling the Constitution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana be allocated 10 minutes; that following the Senator from Louisiana, I be allocated 10 minutes; and following my comments the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, be allocated 20 minutes.

Mr. President, America's workers deserve a raise, and that is why I rise in strong support of S. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. America's workers have helped our country make tremendous gains in productivity and economic growth, and they deserve to share in the prosperity they have created. I am very proud to represent a State that has a high minimum wage, and I want to share some of the lessons we have learned about providing a living wage in the State of Washington.

We need to do the right thing and pass a clean minimum wage bill now, without any of the antiworker amendments that may be offered on the other side. As we have heard, it has been almost 10 years since this Congress last raised the minimum wage. During that time, the real value of that wage has fallen by more than 21 percent. At the same time, the costs of health care, energy, and housing have all gone up significantly. As a result, many of our middle-class workers have been squeezed. I can only imagine the challenges minimum wage workers face every day while trying to maintain their families and their dignity on $10,000 a year. We can be proud that America's businesses have prospered over the last decade, thanks to a 31-percent increase in worker productivity and a huge 47-percent increase in profits. Now it is time for the least paid of America's workers to share in those gains.

During this debate, we have heard the usual claims that raising the minimum wage hurts businesses. In my State, that has not been the experience. Washington State, in fact, has the highest minimum wage in the country. We are living proof that a livable minimum wage is good for our State economy, good for small businesses, and it is good for our citizens. In 2006, our State's average unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, the lowest since 1999. We created 79,000 new jobs. Our poverty rate is 11.9 percent, which is lower than the national average. And our median household income stands at $49,000, much higher than the national average.

Our State minimum wage, which is indexed to inflation, has helped make for good labor productivity and a healthy economy. We have heard from my esteemed colleague, Senator Kennedy, chairman of the HELP Committee, that States with higher minimum wages create more small businesses and more jobs. Last year, the Fiscal Policy Institute reported that States with a higher minimum wage created nearly 10 percent more jobs and 5 percent more small businesses. A May 2006 Gallup Poll found that 86 percent of small business owners thought that raising the minimum wage did not affect their businesses. I could cite statistics like that all day, but I think the best evidence is really what continues to happen in my State compared with a neighboring State that has a much lower minimum wage.

Washington State's minimum wage is $7.39 an hour. Right next door to us, Idaho has a minimum wage at the Federal level of $5.15 per hour. Since 1998, when our voters in Washington State passed our minimum wage law, Washington employers have been flooded with job applicants from Idaho. Now Washington companies can pick the best qualified workers from the entire region. On January 11, the New York Times reported that Washington State businesses have seen great benefits, while Idaho businesses have not.

I ask unanimous consent to print this New York Times article by Timothy Egan in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

This article quotes Don Brunell, president of the Association of Washington Business. He says that raising the Federal minimum wage is ``almost a no-brainer.'' Washington's strong economy is proof that even with the highest minimum wage in the United States, as Mr. Brunell put it--and he is president of the Association of Washington Business--``Washington is a great place to do business.''

Some people predicted that small businesses would be hurt in my State. But instead, as the article notes, they have prospered beyond their expectations. So we have a lot of opportunity to do good here, not just for our workers but for our businesses and for our economy. But to do the most good, we have to pass a clean bill, one that is free from unrelated tax provisions and one that rejects antiworker amendments.

Historically, Congress has not found it necessary to pair a minimum wage increase with a package of tax giveaways. In fact, since 1936, Congress has raised the minimum wage nine times. But only once has such an increase been paired with a tax rollback. We should pass a clean bill that gives workers the raise they are long overdue.

In addition, we should not let this bill be used to weaken the rights of American workers. As the chairman of the HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, I am troubled by a number of the amendments being floated now by our Republican colleagues, proposals to attack the 40-hour workweek, to take away workers' overtime, and to force a pay cut on workers who earn their living from tips. There is also a deeply flawed proposal that would change the treatment of professional employer organizations under the Tax Code.

This week, while we try to raise the wages of one group of workers, we have to fend off the Republican attacks on working families and their right to earn overtime. We all know how the demands of work and family pull two-career parents away from their loved ones all too often. For parents getting their kids to and from school and to afterschool activity is not easy, especially when you are forced to work uncertain hours. The uncertainty of having to work, say, 50 to 60 hours this week and then 20 or 30 hours next week will put incredible strains on many of our overburdened families.

Taking away their workplace rights and their ability to collect overtime would be a cruel and unwarranted double hit on America's working families. The Senate should, once again, reject the Republican comp time and 40-hour work week proposals, because they would force a pay cut on millions of middle-class workers. We know, for those workers who are eligible, overtime can amount to as much as 25 percent of their yearly income. We should not undermine the ability of working parents to balance their lives and share in the American dream.

The Republican comp time proposal would force our workers to take comp time instead of pay. On top of that pay cut, workers would be at the mercy of their employer when it came to asking to use that accumulated comp time. We all know that comp time often disappears under employer pressures of deadlines and other productivity needs.

I believe it is important that this Congress protect the rights of these hard-working families from an erosion of their quality of life and their ability to spend time with their families. We have to stop these attacks on working families and start moving in the right direction, like expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I hope we also work to protect our workers who rely on tips. As we have heard from my female colleagues on this floor already, nearly two- thirds of

our minimum wage workers in this country are women. Many of them are single parents. Raising the minimum wage can give them a small measure of economic security and the ability to better support their families. Many of these low-wage workers are service workers, people such as hairdressers, maids, and waitresses. Many in Washington State rely on tips as a significant part of their livelihood. We should not support amendments that would undermine the tips our workers rely on. In my State of Washington, that would mean a pay cut of some $12,000 annually for over 120,000 of our tipped workers.

Finally, I want to say I am very concerned about the proposed tax changes for professional employer organizations. I fear that this change could undermine the fiscal stability of our State unemployment insurance and worker compensation fund. It would also put more burdens on our employers who are already playing by the rules.

Further, it would reduce worker health and safety protections by undermining incentives for companies to maintain safe and healthy workplaces. By the way, it could also provide an opening for those seeking to change the well-established rules of the employer-employee relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I believe there should be serious thought and debate in the Congress before we make such fundamental changes in our labor laws.

In conclusion, we can do this right by passing a clean bill that finally gives American workers the raise they have earned. Over the last 8 years, Washington State has proven that a minimum wage increase is good for our State's economy and helps our economic development. It increases small business ownership and, of course, it helps our workers maintain their quality of life.

I join my colleagues to urge a vote in favor of this bill to increase the minimum wage so that we can finally, and importantly, give our low- income workers the raise they so richly deserve.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Jan. 11, 2007]

For $7.93 an Hour, It's Worth a Trip Across a State Line

(By Timothy Egan)

Liberty Lake, Wa. Jan. 9.--Just eight miles separate this

town on the Washington side of the state border from Post

Falls on the Idaho side. But the towns are nearly $3 an hour

apart in the required minimum wage. Washington pays the

highest in the nation, just under $8 an hour, and Idaho has

among the lowest, matching 21 states that have not raised the

hourly wage beyond the federal minimum of $5.15.

Nearly a decade ago, when voters in Washington approved a

measure that would give the state's lowest-paid workers a

raise nearly every year, many business leaders predicted that

small towns on this side of the state line would suffer.

But instead of shriveling up, small-business owners in

Washington say they have prospered far beyond their

expectations. In fact, as a significant increase in the

national minimum wage heads toward law, businesses here at

the dividing line between two economies--a real-life

laboratory for the debate--have found that raising prices to

compensate for higher wages does not necessarily lead to

losses in jobs and profits.

Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food

restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54

percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise

their wages to compete.

Business owners say they have had to increase prices

somewhat to keep up. But both states are among the nation's

leaders in the growth of jobs and personal income, suggesting

that an increase in the minimum wage has not hurt the overall

economy.

``We're paying the highest wage we've ever had to pay, and

our business is still up more than 11 percent over last

year,'' said Tom Singleton, who manages a Papa Murphy's

takeout pizza store here, with 13 employees.

His store is flooded with job applicants from Idaho, Mr.

Singleton said. Like other business managers in Washington,

he said he had less turnover because the jobs paid more.

By contrast, an Idaho restaurant owner, Rob Elder, said he

paid more than the minimum wage because he could not find

anyone to work for the Idaho minimum at his Post Falls

restaurant, the Hot Rod Cafe.

``At $5.15 an hour, I get zero applicants--or maybe a guy

with one leg who wouldn't pass a drug test and wouldn't show

up on Saturday night because he wants to get drunk with his

buddies,'' Mr. Elder said.

For years, economists have debated the effect that raising

the minimum wage would have on business. While the federal

minimum wage has not gone up for 10 years, 29 states have

raised their wage beyond the federal minimum.

These increases, according to critics like Brendan Flanagan

of the National Restaurant Association, are a burden on the

small, mostly family-run businesses in fast food and

agriculture that employ workers at the lowest end of the pay

scale.

``We see the political momentum for this,'' said Mr.

Flanagan, a vice president at the association, ``but we

cannot ignore what our members are telling us, which is that

it will lead to job losses.''

But the state's major business lobby, the Association of

Washington Business, is no longer fighting the minimum-wage

law, which is adjusted every year in line with the consumer

price index.

``You don't see us screaming out loud about this,'' said

Don Brunell, president of the trade group, which represents

6,300 members.

``It's almost a no-brainer,'' Mr. Brunell said, that the

federal minimum should go higher. Association officials say

they would like to see some flexibility for rural and small-

town businesses, however.

Washington's robust economy, which added nearly 90,000 jobs

last year, is proof that even with the country's highest

minimum wage, ``this is a great place to do business,'' Mr.

Brunell said.

During a recession five years ago, the same group had

argued that Washington's high minimum wage law would send

businesses fleeing to Idaho. The group sent out a news

release with a criticism of the law from John Fazzari, who

owns a family-run pizza business in Clarkston, Wash., just

minutes from the Idaho town of Lewiston.

But now Mr. Fazzari says business has never been better,

and he has no desire to move to Idaho.

``To tell you the truth, my business is fantastic,'' he

said in an interview. ``I've never done as much business in

my life.''

Mr. Fazzari employs 42 people at his pizza parlor. New

workers make the Washington minimum, $7.93 an hour, but

veteran employees make more. To compensate for the required

annual increase in the minimum wage, Mr. Fazzari said he

raises prices slightly. But he said most customers barely

notice.

He sells more pizza, he said, because he has a better

product, and because his customers are loyal.

``If you look 10 years down the road, we will probably have

no minimum wage jobs on this side of the border, and lots of

higher-income jobs,'' Mr. Fazzari said.

Job figures from both states tend to support his point.

While Idaho leads the nation in new job growth, it has a far

higher percentage of minimum-wage jobs than Washington.

Minimum-wage positions make up just 2.4 percent of the jobs

in Washington, while about 13 percent of the jobs in Idaho

pay at or less than the proposed federal minimum wage,

according to a study done for the state last year.

Part of the difference could be accounted for by a lower

cost of living in Idaho and the higher percentage of

technology, manufacturing and government jobs in Washington,

economists say. Still, it is hard to find a teenager in Idaho

who lives anywhere near Washington who is willing to work for

$5.15 an hour.

``Are you kidding? There are so many jobs nearby that pay

way more than minimum wage,'' said Jennifer Stadtfeldt, who

is 17 and lives in Coeur d'Alene, which is just a few minutes

from Washington. She pointed out that Taco Bell, McDonald's

and other fast-food outlets in her town were posting signs

trying to entice entry-level workers with a starting pay of

$7 an hour.

The House today passed a bill increasing the minimum wage,

and about 13 million workers would see a pay raise if the

Senate and President Bush approve it. Mr. Bush has said he

would approve the wage increase so long as concerns of small-

business owners were taken into account; the Senate has not

yet taken up the bill.

Several studies have concluded that modest changes in the

minimum wage have little effect on employment. A study two

months ago by an economist at Washington State University

seemed to back the experience of Clarkston and other border

towns in Washington. The economist, David Holland, said job

loss was minimal when higher wages were forced on all

businesses. About 97 percent of all minimum-wage workers were

better off when wages went up, he wrote.

But other business groups argue that an increase would hurt

consumers and workers at the low end.

In a survey released on the eve of the November elections--

in which voters in six states considered raising their

minimum wages--the National Restaurant Association said

restaurants expected to raise their prices and eliminate some

jobs if the voters approved the measures. The initiatives all

passed.

Here on this border, business owners have found small ways

to raise their prices, and customers say they have barely

noticed.

``We used to have a coupon, $3 off on any family-size

pizza, and we changed that to $2 off,'' said Mr. Singleton,

of Papa Murphy's. ``I haven't heard a single complaint.''

I ask unanimous consent that Janice Camp be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of this session of Congress.

Mr. President, I am honored to be here with my Democratic colleague today. I listened to the Senator from New York talk about our top 10 priorities. Senator Reid, our new majority leader, and Senator Durbin before me talked about how we now in this new majority are going to focus on the real issues affecting American families. I congratulate Senators Reid, the new majority leader, and McConnell, the Republican leader, for setting the right tone today by bringing us together this morning and reminding us all that we are here together to work on a very important agenda for the American people. We will have our disagreements, our partisan battles, but at the end of the day we have to move legislation forward because if there was any message to me out of the November election that brought us to the majority now, it was that people want us to get past the partisan rancor on the floor of the Senate. They want us to get past the bickering. They expect debates, they like that, but at the end of the day they want us to move forward.

Across this country today, American families are struggling to send their kids to college, struggling to get health care, struggling with their pensions, struggling with their salaries, and they expect us, the 100 leaders of the Senate, to be here together to solve those issues in a way that moves them forward and gives promise and hope to the next generation.

Mr. President, that is what the top 10 priorities are that our new majority leader set out for us today. They are bills that focus on bringing back hope and opportunity for the thousands of American families that are hoping today that we have heard them and that we will respond and work hard to make sure their lives are better.

I am pleased that we are beginning next week with ethics reform. I think it is important to start with a strong message that we understand we have a responsibility to uphold the honor of this Senate, not just for today but for many years to come. I am very excited that within a few weeks we will be talking about the minimum wage for the families out there who are struggling so hard to make sure they do the right thing for their kids and to send them a message that we understand and we are going to do a little bit to help them.

Senator Schumer talked about the 9/11 Commission and implementing their report--something we should have done long ago. The security of this Nation, people's fear about where we are, is a message that we all need to understand. I am pleased that is part of the top 10 priorities of this new Congress. In dealing with the Medicare prescription drug plan, I have met with many seniors in my home State and they are confused and frustrated. They are angry as they fall into the doughnut hole and realize that the promise we have given them of prescription drugs is not meeting that expectation, and we have a responsibility to do better. I hope that we can.

I heard Senator McConnell a short while ago say he didn't want us to tear apart the Medicare prescription drug plan. Nobody does. We want to make it work. I hope we can work together in cooperation and make that happen. Stem cell research: The Senator from Iowa will be speaking in a few minutes. He has been a leader on that issue. It is about promise and hope for so many American families. I hope we can move it quickly through the Senate, through the House, and to the President's desk. If we have to, I hope we have the votes to override. Far too many families struggle today, and we should at least send them the promise of the future as generations before did for us. Energy independence is critical in my State and across the Nation. It is something I hear about everywhere I go.

Strengthening our military: Certainly, that is important today, as we know we face terrorism across the globe, and we have exhausted our forces in Iraq. We have to make sure that we work together in a bipartisan manner to strengthen our military not just for today but for those who come behind us.

Included in that for me is taking care of those who have served us, our veterans, keeping the promise we made to them when they served us overseas, that we will be there when they come home. We cannot tolerate the long lines our men and women are in, the fact that they are coming home and cannot get a job; that the unemployment rate for 18- to 24- year-olds who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is three times the national average. We have a lot of work to do there. I am pleased our leader has put out immigration. This is an issue the Senate has worked through. It is a tough one, but it is one that, if we work together, we can move forward.

Many other issues are coming before us, but one I want to mention, in my last few minutes, is the issue of education. That is the backbone of our country, it always has been: making

sure young people today can grow up and know that if they choose, they can go to college and it is affordable.

I am especially delighted that S. 7, one of the top 10 priorities, addresses the issue of college affordability. It is very disheartening to me to walk into a middle school today and have seventh and eighth graders say to me: Why should I get good grades; I can't afford to go to college. That is not the message we should be sending. We should be sending the message to them that if they work hard and get good grades, they will go to college.

We have to address that issue in the Senate. We all know the jobs of the future depend on our young people today and whether they get the education they need, and the money should not be a barrier.

I know this issue. Money was not a barrier for me when I was growing up. My father was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when I was in high school. There are seven kids in our family. We all thought the door had been shut to us and the ability to go to college. But not so because leaders in the Senate stood up before I ever knew about them and said we need to have Pell grants and student loans and we need to make college affordable.

So all seven kids in my family--despite the fact my dad could no longer work and was confined to a wheelchair, that my mom had to go on welfare, she had to go back to school herself and raise seven kids--we were able to go to college on Pell grants and student loans. All seven of us graduated and went on and one of us became a Senator.

We should not be shutting that door of hope to any young American today. No matter what happens to them personally, no matter what their circumstances, no matter what State, city or community they grow up in, we want them to know the United States of America and leaders in their country know it is important for them to get an education.

So as we move forward in this session of Congress, we are going to focus on college affordability and making sure that the backbone of our country is strong once again.

We have much work ahead of us. We do need to work together. Mr. President, 51 to 49 in the Senate is very close, but we know that the issues in this country are extremely important and the families in this country are counting on us.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to achieve an agenda that sends that promise of hope once again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise, first and foremost, to congratulate Chairman Collins and Senator Carper for getting their postal reform bill to the finish line. This bill has been a gargantuan task for both Senators. It has been a long time coming. Some have observed that it has taken over 30 years for the Congress to pass legislation that fundamentally reforms the Postal Service. This bill is critically important to the long-term fiscal health of our Postal Service. It is equally important to the well-being of all our postal workers as well as the needs of all citizens and businesses, large and small, which use our Postal Service.

As both of the managers are aware, there was an important issue that threatened to derail this legislation at the last minute. Specifically, there is a provision in this final bill that has been interpreted as having the effect of transferring some $200 million in annual costs from the Postal Service to the discretionary budget. More specifically, those costs that previously were covered through mandatory spending would have to be covered within the tight discretionary budget ceiling of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

I currently serve as the ranking member of that subcommittee, and I expect to serve as its chairman when the 110th Congress convenes. Over the course of the 109th Congress, I have spent a great deal of time working with Chairman Kit Bond to put together an appropriations bill that meets all of the disparate needs addressed in our bill. I can tell my colleagues, we do not have an extra $200 million available within our allocation to cover the costs of the Postal Service. When the 110th Congress convenes, we are likely to have to mark up an appropriations bill for the current fiscal year that will be even tighter than the bill our committee reported back in July. As such, I can assure my colleagues that we will not be in a position to take on these costs this year, next year, or in any other year.

It is important to point out that these costs that are proposed to be transferred to the Committee on Appropriations are not new costs to the Postal Service. We are accustomed to the practice of authorizing committees enacting authorizations for new or expanded activities in the hope that the Appropriations Committee will be in a position to fund them. But this situation is something very different. Under the provisions originally included in this bill, the burden of financing the ongoing costs of the Postal Rate Commission, renamed the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the USPS inspector general would have suddenly been shifted to the Appropriations Committee.

My understanding is that the original intent of this provision was to provide both the Commission and the IG's office with an added degree of budget autonomy and independence. However, the original provision had a much more dramatic effect. I make no apology for insisting on changes to this bill to keep it from happening.

I am pleased to say that, through a series of discussions today with my good friend and colleagues, Senators Collins and Carper, we have been able to negotiate some important changes to the original bill. Specifically, the provision that seeks to transfer the funding burden of these activities to the Appropriations Committee will now be delayed until fiscal year 2009. Given the shortness of time and the critical need to pass this important legislation today, before this Congress

adjourns, I agreed to this change rather than insisting that the entire funding transfer be stricken. I wish to make clear that my position on this bill tonight should not be viewed as signaling any intent on my part to fund these activities in 2009 and beyond. To the contrary, I do not anticipate that the Appropriations Committee will be in a position to fund these activities in 2009, 2010, or in any other year. I agreed to this date change to give the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs a full 22 months--almost 2 years--to revisit this legislation and bring the costs of these activities back into the mandatory budget. If not, these activities will go unfunded. And it will not be the fault of the Appropriations Committee if they do go unfunded. My colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee are on notice and the Postmaster General is on notice. The funding transfer included in this bill for 2009 and beyond will need to be fixed. My subcommittee has no intention of absorbing these costs. It will be the responsibility of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to bring them back within the revenues available to the Postal Service.

I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Maryland be recognized.

Mr. President, I am here because families across this country are going to be hurt because this Republican Congress has not done its job. We have all heard that this session of Congress is a do- nothing Congress. It has earned that title. But there is one thing everybody ought to understand. When Congress doesn't do its job, it makes it harder for all Americans to do their jobs, whether it is teaching our children or providing health care or improving transportation or making our communities safer.

This may seem like a debate over process, but it affects you. If you fly on an airplane and are concerned about your safety, it affects you. If you drive on a highway and are concerned about traffic congestion, this affects you. If you want our Government to stop the flow of money to terrorist organizations, this affects you.

Today I want to share with the Senate a few examples of how it is going to hurt because the Senate Republican leadership has not done its job. I want to point out how it is going to hurt the priorities in my State of Washington, from their fight against drugs and gangs to the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. This Republican Congress's failure is going to make it harder for all of us to do our jobs next year, and that is a terrible legacy for the Republican leadership to leave our country.

Every year Congress has to pass its annual spending bills. They fund our Government. We work very hard on those bills. We craft them so they meet the needs that our constituents tell us about, on everything from health care to transportation to education. Sometimes it takes a while to finish those bills, but we get them done. Then the country is able to move forward. This year it has been very different. We did our work on the Appropriations Committee, but then the Senate Republican leadership blocked our progress. I serve on that Appropriations Committee. We did our job on time in a bipartisan manner back in July, under the leadership of Senators Cochran and Byrd. We completed work on 11 appropriations bills and sent them to the Senate floor.

Here is what is impressive. Every single Senator on the committee voted to report each and every bill. But since then, the Senate Republican leadership blocked our progress. They decided to only let 3 of those 11 bills move forward. Those bills cover extremely important functions--defense, homeland security, and military construction--but they are just 3 of the 11 bills. What about the needs of our communities? What about the needs of our schools

and colleges and universities? What about the support of health research or investing in infrastructure or meeting the needs of our farmers or ranchers or law enforcement? Those are critical needs. The Senate Republican leadership decided this past summer that they could go on the back burner.

Never in my 14 years in the Senate have we started a new fiscal year with so little progress in the Senate in passing the appropriations bills and funding the critical functions of Government. Nine weeks ago we entered a new fiscal year. I came to the floor at the time to complain about the unfinished business of the Senate and expressed my disappointment that we were recessing for the elections without moving these bills. I always thought we would come back and the Republican leadership would finish its work this session. But they have made a different choice. It is now December 7. We have not seen one additional funding bill clear the Senate. And we are now hearing talk that the Republican leadership may formally adjourn the Senate by the end of this week, with most of the 11 appropriations bills never being sent to the President.

I think it is worth remembering that when this happened last time, there was a major shift of power back in November of 2002. I was serving at the time as chair of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. After the election, just as now, the appropriations process was not complete. But Democrats still worked to fulfill our responsibility by moving bills on the floor and sending them to conference. Unfortunately, we were blocked from completing our job. The Republican leadership that was due to come into the majority in January of 2003 prohibited us from moving those bills forward. They decided they wanted to complete the appropriations process when they were in control.

This year Democrats are taking a different approach. We should complete the appropriations process now, because it is important to America's families and communities. We are already 2 months into this fiscal year. The American people are paying a price for these delays. Democrats are willing to complete this process now, even under Republican control, because we believe the American people have waited long enough. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership didn't get the message. Now American families are going to pay the price of this negligence.

Some Senators have been suggesting that we simply pass a continuing resolution for the next entire fiscal year and everything will be fine, claiming there is no real difference between passing these bills we have worked so hard to put together and putting Government on auto pilot for a full year. There is a big difference. This country will pay a price under that scenario for airline safety.

Under a full year's CR, my colleagues should know we will only be able to hire half of the air traffic controllers we need, and we will not be able to hire the air traffic safety inspectors who are desperately needed. We are going to pay a price in highway safety because we are not going to be able to reverse the recent increase in traffic fatalities. We are going to pay a price in the fight against terrorism, because we are not going to be able to fund the Treasury Department's efforts to stop terrorist financing. And we are going to pay a price in educating our kids and improving our communities and training our workforce. Everywhere you look, we will pay a price if we fail to do our job.

The Republican mismanagement will hurt my State of Washington, from the fight against drugs and gangs to the cleanup effort at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. If you sit down with law enforcement officers in my home State, as I have, they will tell you they are facing a methamphetamine epidemic. It is destroying families and communities, and law enforcement needs help to deal with it. Over the past few years I have worked to provide funding each year for the Washington State meth initiative. It is a coordinated Statewide effort that focuses on cleanup, treatment, prevention, and law enforcement, and it is a great model for other States. Again, this year in the Senate bill, I got a commitment to support my State's meth initiative. But now this funding is going to be delayed and put in jeopardy because Senate Republicans have refused to do their job and pass the Commerce-Justice-State spending bill. Because Republican Senators are not going to do their job, they are going to make it harder for police in my State to do their job, and that is wrong.

This failure to act will also delay and put at risk support for an antigang program in Yakima Valley. Back on October 16, I was in Yakima at the police department for a meeting with two dozen local officials, law enforcement, and prosecutors. They told me about the tremendous challenges they were facing, and the top issues on their list were meth and gangs. I heard their message, and I have fought for a commitment in the Senate to support a community-based gang task force. That funding is needed immediately. Now I have to go back to Yakima and tell those hard-working leaders that the funding I got was delayed and put at risk because Republicans don't want to do their jobs and pass the annual spending bills. People in my State deserve better than that.

Let me offer another example of how the Republicans' failure to do their jobs is hurting my State. Our Government has an obligation to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, WA. As I speak, that community is working hard to clean up nuclear waste, protect the community, and the environment. Here in the Senate I have fought for the funding we need to keep that cleanup moving forward. But now the Republicans are refusing to move the Energy and water bill. As a result, funding for Hanford cleanup is going to be delayed. That means it is going to take longer, and it will cost more money. The Republican leadership is going to have to explain to the people I represent in the Tri-Cities and throughout my State why Hanford funding is being delayed. They are going to have to answer for their failure to act on these and other priorities.

It doesn't have to be this way. Rather than spending the month of July and September debating unrelated bills for political reasons, we could have been debating these appropriations bills that are critically needed for our Nation's safety and security.

We could have been fighting for the people we represent. We could have been meeting their basic needs and protecting their livelihoods and ensuring their safety. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership said ``no,'' and now our families are going to pay a price.

I think this Senate deserves better, but more important, the people we represent deserve a lot better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to make my colleagues aware of inflammatory breast cancer, IBC, the least common but most aggressive type of breast cancer. Although IBC accounts for 1 to 5 percent of all breast cancer cases in the United States, it is an especially aggressive and rare form of breast cancer.

The unique symptoms of IBC can result in misdiagnoses or late diagnoses. IBC often presents with similar symptoms as mastitis, a type of breast infection. The disease also occurs more frequently in younger women. Physicians may believe these young women are at lower risk for breast cancer and might misdiagnose their symptoms. Unfortunately, these delays in correct diagnosis result in the sad fact that IBC is more likely to have metastasized at the time of diagnosis than non-

IBC cases. IBC is also an especially aggressive form of breast cancer. As a result, the survival rate for patients with IBC is significantly lower than those with non-IBC breast cancer.

These sobering facts tell us that education and awareness about this rare cancer are desperately needed so that women are quickly and properly diagnosed. My home State of Washington is making important strides in this direction. In fact, Washington State recently celebrated Inflammatory Breast Cancer Awareness Week, thanks to the foresight of Governor Christine Gregoire and the hard work of Washington's IBC advocates. This special observance goes a long way in raising awareness about IBC in my home State.

Efforts such as Washington State's awareness week are a good start, but more education and awareness are needed for both patients and their physicians. We also must increase access to screening, especially for low-income women. One important step that Congress can take to increase these efforts is to pass S. 1687, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Reauthorization Act of 2005. For all types of breast cancer--but especially for IBC--early detection is critical to catching cancer early before it spreads. I am working with Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy to bring this bill up for a vote in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and it is my hope that we can pass this bill before the end of the 109th Congress.

In closing, I commend the efforts of Governor Gregoire and the IBC advocates in Washington State. I am committed to making the Federal Government a strong partner in these efforts by increasing awareness and access to screening. Together, we can help ensure that every woman gets screened for breast cancer and that she and her doctor have access to the latest medical research.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the proclamation from Washington State to which I referred.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous-consent that the majority leader, with the concurrence of the Democratic leader, may at any time turn to the consideration of S. 3678; that it be considered under the following limitations: that the managers' amendment be withdrawn and a managers' amendment that has been agreed to by both managers and both leaders be agreed to for purposes of the original text; that the first-degree amendments deal with similar subject matter as contained in the text of the bill, except where noted; and that relevant second-degree amendments be in order thereto. The amendments are as follows: Durbin, single food agency; Conrad, national emergency telehealth task force; Lieberman, at-risk populations; Lautenberg, mass-transit preparedness; Wyden, FOIA; Leahy, compensation fund; Dorgan, one amendment; Leahy, two amendments; Obama, one amendment; Levin, one amendment; that in addition to any time limits on amendments, there be 6 hours of debate on the bill--

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous-consent to modify the request of the Senator from North Carolina with another unanimous-consent request.

I believe the other Senator will have to object to my request.

That is correct.

I ask consent to modify the unanimous-consent request of the Senator from North Carolina to the extent I just outlined, and also I add that there be 6 hours for debate on the bill to be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and that upon the disposition of these amendments and the use or yielding back of time, the Senate bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

I ask unanimous-consent that the Senator from North Carolina modify his request to include this consent.

Knowing they would object to our asking for a number of our Senators to be allowed to have amendments, I object to the Senator's request as well.

Mr. President, if I could ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Idaho--I believe right now the Senator from California is to be followed by the Senator from Idaho--I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Idaho, I be allowed 15 minutes, and that following me, the Senator from Massachusetts be allocated 15 minutes.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, the Senator from Idaho is next, but he is not on the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed next in line.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon as we go into the last hours of this session, before we are apparently going to adjourn for an entire 5 or 6 weeks, until after the election, to join with my leader on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, who spoke earlier today, and explain how the Republicans' failure to act on the annual funding bills is going to hurt all of our communities.

As Senators, we have a job to do in passing the annual spending bills that fund essentially all of our Government. It is one of the most basic responsibilities we have. On the Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd, we have done our job. But on the Senate floor, the Senate Republican leadership has blocked our progress.

American families are going to pay the price. When I go home and talk to constituents in my State of Washington, they tell me they want our country to be strong again. The way that we can be strong again is to invest at home. That is what I have been fighting to do on the Appropriations Committee. But now the Republican leadership is refusing to allow us to move forward on the investments that we have agreed on in a bipartisan way in the Appropriations Committee. In fact, they are not even allowing us to debate making those investments. That is how wrong I see the priorities by this leadership.

Some people may suggest that if we pass this continuing resolution, everything is going to be fine. I hear the claims that there is no real difference between passing the bills we have worked so hard to put together and just putting our Government on autopilot for a couple of months. Nobody should believe that. It is simply not true.

There is a real cost to failing to act on the appropriations bills. This country is going to pay a price in airline safety. We are not going to be able to rapidly hire the air traffic controllers or safety inspectors we need. We are going to pay a price in highway safety because we are not going to be able to rapidly reverse the high increase in traffic fatalities. We are going to pay a price in the fight against terrorism. We are not going to be able to fund the Treasury Department's efforts to stop terrorist financing. We are going to pay a price in educating our kids, improving our communities, and training our workforce.

Almost everywhere you look, we are going to pay a price if the Republican leadership succeeds in blocking action on the annual appropriations bills.

I want to share some specific examples. First, I will say a word about why this is happening. It is not because of partisan gridlock or because we have not had enough time to act. All of our bills have been ready to go since August. It is because this Republican leadership does not want to have a public debate about America's priorities just weeks before an election. I suspect it is because they realize their priorities are out of step with the American people.

There may be another reason to stall these bills. It hides the true cost of their wrong priorities. When we bring these bills up on the floor, we have a chance--all of us in America--to see what is funded and what is not. We have a chance to offer amendments and debate about priorities that deserve more support. By blocking that debate,

the Republican leadership is hiding the true cost of their policies. Just as they have used supplemental spending bills to hide the true cost of the war, they are failing to act on the annual spending bills to hide the cost of their misplaced priorities. They prefer to mask from the voters the tough funding choices their policies will require.

They prefer to deny almost three-quarters of this Senate the opportunity to have any input on the appropriations bills by sending these bills directly from the committee to a conference. They prefer to set up an end-of-the-year train wreck that will require a massive Omnibus appropriations bill that will shortchange America's needs with a minimum amount of debate.

I personally thank Senator Byrd for taking the time this morning to call this issue to the attention of the entire Senate, as well as to the entire Nation. I thank our committee chairman, Senator Cochran, for his very capable leadership of our committee. I only wish Senator Cochran was in power to control the floor schedule and not just the committee schedule.

Last year, Senator Cochran surprised many of us and earned the respect of all of us in doing what seemed impossible: he succeeded in sending 11 appropriations bills to the White House for signature. He showed us how it should be done.

This year, when it came to the management of our committee, Senator Cochran actually improved on last year's record. Last year, the Appropriations Committee reported all but one appropriations bill to the Senate floor before the August recess. This year, Chairman Cochran saw to it that each and every one of our appropriations bills was reported to the Senate floor before the August recess. That involved a lot of very hard work and some very long markups. No one worked harder than Chairman Cochran himself.

Unfortunately, this year, the Senate Republican leadership didn't share Chairman Cochran's commitment. That is a change from last year. Last year, the Senate Republican leadership saw to it that all 12 appropriations bills were considered on the floor prior to adjournment. Today, we are just a few hours away from the beginning of a very long fall recess, and yet the Senate Republican leadership has seen fit to call up only 2 of our 12 appropriations bills that the committee reported back in June and July. That record is shameful.

The full Senate has only debated two funding bills this year--Defense and Homeland Security. They are certainly really important, but they are just 2 of the 12 bills that we are charged with passing.

The others are critically important as well. Those bills ensure that the care of our veterans returning home from Iraq is met. They ensure that we educate our children, that we meet the housing needs of the people we represent, and that we deal with the health care of all of our families, particularly our seniors. Those bills support our efforts to fight crime and drug abuse, provide disaster assistance to struggling family farmers, and invest in our roads, our bridges, and our rail system.

It seems, as far as the Republican leadership is concerned, that those issues this year can rot on the vine. According to their plan, these functions of Government will be subjected to a continuing resolution that guarantees them only the lowest possible funding level.

I have had the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee for every one of my 14 years in the Senate, and I am certainly aware that Congress does not have a great track record when it comes to finishing all the appropriations work before the beginning of a fiscal year. But in my 14 years, I cannot remember a time when the Senate has made so little progress in executing its most basic responsibilities. The new fiscal year starts this coming Saturday, tomorrow. I had my staff go back and check the record, and I can tell my colleagues that in the last 14 years, we have never begun a new fiscal year having passed as few as two of the appropriations bills out of the Senate. This year, we have a deplorable record.

Looking forward, we are now hearing rumors that the other 10 appropriations bills are never going to come to the Senate floor for debate. We are hearing rumors they are going to be sent straight to a conference with the House of Representatives to put together some kind of massive omnibus appropriations bill. I hope that is not the case. That approach, frankly, is an insult to the 72 Members of this Senate who do not serve on the Appropriations Committee. As a member of that committee, I had the opportunity to review each of those bills the committee reported. I had an opportunity to offer amendments in committee and full committee markups, but 72 of my Senate colleagues never had that opportunity.

Those 72 Senators were elected by the people of their State to oversee and influence decisions regarding the way their tax dollars are spent. By denying these 72 Senators the opportunity to debate these important bills, the Senate Republican leadership is denying those Senators' constituents the right to be heard. That is not the way this Senate ought to be doing its business.

Our country will pay a high price if we fail to act on these appropriations bills.

Some people are claiming it doesn't matter when we get around to actually finalizing the appropriations process. Mr. President, as the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, and HUD, I want to tell my colleagues that it does matter. I will give a couple of examples.

Last month, we experienced a tragic plane crash in Lexington, KY. The NTSB has not yet reported to us on the actual cause of that crash, but it was revealed that the air traffic control tower at Lexington had only one controller on duty--one controller on duty--contrary to the FAA's own policy. When this incident occurred, it was discovered that several other towers were also operating with only one air traffic controller.

Everyone involved in aviation policy knows the FAA needs to hire more controllers. They have to fill the vacancies, and they have to replace a growing number of retirees. There is money in the FAA budget to hire more controllers. We put the money in the House and Senate appropriations bills to hire those controllers. But until the FAA Administrator gets a final budget, she won't know how many controllers she can hire or how quickly she can hire them. This is a basic issue of safety and people's lives. But it is the safety issue that the Senate Republican leadership is now happy to have wait on the back burner for a few more months.

A similar situation existed in the hiring of more air traffic safety inspectors. We desperately need more safety inspectors to ensure that our financially strapped airlines are operating safely. An increasing amount of airline maintenance for U.S.-flagged airlines is now being conducted overseas. We need inspectors to visit those foreign repair stations to make sure all of the appropriate procedures are being followed.

Just this week, the National Academy of Sciences reported that the FAA needs to modernize its system for determining how many inspectors they need and whom to hire. But the FAA cannot address any of those deficiencies until it gets its final budget for the year. This is just another safety issue that the Senate Republican leadership is now happy to have wait on the back burner for a few more months.

The Republican leadership's failure to act could also hurt our efforts to fight terrorism. The Treasury Department has a critical role in combating terrorist financing. They are on the job morning, noon, and night trying to interrupt the cashflow between the terrorists and those who fund them.

Ever since 9/11, the Treasury Department has been seeking increased resources from our subcommittee to fight terrorist funding. Our subcommittee has provided every dollar the Treasury Department has requested, including the funding for increased personnel and infrastructure for fiscal year 2007.

The Treasury Department is now being told that the increased funding they had asked for will have to wait a few more months. Why? Because the Senate Republican leadership doesn't want us to debate the Transportation-Treasury bill before the election.

One of the issues being discussed in the closing days of this session is the

security of our courts and our judges. An effort is being made to provide authorization for additional court security in the Department of Defense authorization bill. The brutal murder of a father and mother of a Federal judge in Chicago showed us the urgent need for better security.

The Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, as passed by the House and Senate committees, included sizable increases for that court security. We are not talking about an authorization; we are talking about cold, hard cash that will go out to better protect our judges. But you know what. That money can't go out until our appropriations bill is signed into law, and that can't happen if the Senate Republican leadership slows this appropriations process to a crawl.

Finally, I want to talk about the critical need for improved safety on our highways. One month ago, our Nation received a wake-up call from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

For many years, our country was making steady progress in reducing the overall fatality rate. But last month, the fatality rate on our highways started to move back up. Deaths from motor vehicle crashes jumped up 1.4 percent over the level in 2004. We had 43,443 deaths on America's highways in 2005. That is the highest number since 1990.

We also have begun to see a number of road fatalities involving large trucks head back up. We made progress between 1998 and 2002, but since that time, the number of large truck fatalities is moving in the wrong direction.

More and more people are dying on our highways, and Congress is working to respond. There are increased levels of funding, consistent with the SAFETEA-LU authorization law--both for highway safety and motor carrier safety in both the House and Senate appropriations bills. But those additional resources that save lives on our highways have to wait. Why? Because the Senate Republican leadership didn't want to debate this Transportation appropriations bill before this election.

These decisions by the Senate Republican leadership to stall the appropriations process can and are having very real consequences.

I want to state today my deep disappointment that the Senate Republican leadership has done such an abysmal job in fulfilling its most basic responsibility to fund our Government.

I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, it doesn't have to be this way. Rather than spending the month of July and September debating bills for political reasons, we could have been debating these appropriations bills that are critically needed for the Nation's safety and security. We could have been fighting for the people we represent. We could have been meeting their basic needs, protecting their livelihoods, and ensuring their safety. But our leadership said no, and now our families are paying a price.

I think the Senate deserves better, but more importantly, the people we represent deserve better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would modify the request to suggest that following myself and a Republican Senator to be recognized, and a Republican Senator between Senator Harkin and Senator Menendez if they so request.