Floor Statements

Mr. President, in the coming weeks, we are entering an important crossroad in the future of commercial aerospace. I wish to explain this morning what is at stake for our country and for American workers.

Down one road, American workers will be left to fight for their jobs with one hand tied behind their backs. They will face unfair competition, and our economy and our future could suffer. Down the other road, our Government will make it clear that we will fight for fair trade, and our economy and our workers will win as a result. That is the crossroad we are approaching, and which path we take will be determined by two things: whether Europe decides to provide illegal subsidies to Airbus and EADS and whether the U.S. Government works aggressively to keep that from happening.

For decades, Europe has provided subsidies to prop up Airbus and its parent company EADS. Those subsidies have created an uneven playing field and have led to tens of thousands of layoffs in the United States.

In the past few years, the United States has stood up to Europe, and I have been proud to work with the Bush administration in that effort, first under U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, then under Rob Portman and now, of course, under USTR Susan Schwab. We have demanded that Europe stop the subsidies and play by the rules.

With the threat of a WTO trade case, we got the Europeans to the negotiating table, and I was hopeful that we could make progress. But over the past few months, Airbus and EADS have been in a tailspin over unsuccessful planes, production delays, and management scandals. Airbus is finally beginning to see how difficult it is to compete in the marketplace without the cushion of government subsidies. And it is floundering.

But now, rather than letting Airbus compete on its own in the marketplace, European governments seem poised once again to rescue Airbus with market-distorting subsidies.

If we want to keep a strong aerospace industry in America, we cannot let that happen. Every time the European government underwrites Airbus with subsidies, American workers get pink slips.

If we want to lead the world in commercial aerospace, our message to Europe must be strong and clear: No more illegal subsidies to prop up Airbus. Airbus must compete in the marketplace just like everyone else.

I first sounded the alarm on this important issue in March of 2004 when I spoke about my concerns here on the Senate floor. For those who have not been following the debate, I wish to provide some background.

Only two companies in the world make large passenger airplanes: the Boeing company, with its commercial air operation headquartered in Renton, WA, and Airbus, which is headquartered in Toulouse, France. Airbus is a division of the European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company, known as EADS.

The distance between Airbus and Boeing's headquarters is about as big as the disparity between how the United States and Europe view the commercial aerospace industry.

For us in America, commercial aerospace is a private industry, one that must respond to the needs of the marketplace and the demands of its shareholders. It is a difficult business, and many times manufacturers such as Boeing ``bet the company'' on a new airplane.

In Europe, on the other hand, commercial aerospace is viewed as a job-creation program. Airbus has been shielded from the dangers of the marketplace by decades of government subsidies. In fact, Europe doesn't seem to care if Airbus loses money as long as it produces jobs and those jobs come at the expense of American workers.

The history of Airbus and EADS is a history of government subsidies that have sheltered it from competition and real pressures of the marketplace. It has allowed Airbus to develop new aircraft with virtually no risk. This government assistance takes many forms, including launch subsidies, research subsidies, facilities subsidies, and supplier subsidies. These subsidies create an uneven playing field and allow Airbus to do things that normal private companies cannot afford to do. Because of those subsidies, Airbus has grown to become a market power without assuming any of the financial risk and accountability U.S. firms have to contend with every day.

As a result of this government support, Airbus has been able to erode Boeing's market share. Airbus's market share was once in the teens, but today Airbus claims to supply more than 50 percent of the industry.

But European government support of Airbus doesn't stop there. It includes everything from bribes to threats. There are reports of state airlines being promised landing rights at European airports if they buy Airbus planes, and we have seen countries threatened that they will not be let into the European Union unless they buy Airbus planes. There are reports of Airbus using deep discounts and guaranteeing to airlines that Airbus planes will hold their value.

To date, Airbus has received more than $15 billion in launch aid. But despite this massive infusion of government cash, Airbus and EADS are still hemorrhaging money and are undergoing a crisis in leadership at the highest levels. In fact, if anybody was to scan the newspapers this week, they could read about any number of problems Airbus and EADS have been confronted with. The Airbus A350 model has been widely condemned by major airline purchasers. It requires an expensive redesign, which is estimated to now cost between $9 billion and $10 billion. The A380 mega-jetliner, which Airbus spent more than $13 billion on developing, has secured only a small list of customers. Now it is plagued by delivery delays which could result in canceled orders and financial penalties for Airbus. In fact, according to recent reports, Airbus is facing the possible loss of orders worth more than $5 billion. The delays could reduce Airbus's annual earnings by $630 million between 2007 and 2010.

EADS also has a huge liability on its hands. It needs to buy out BAE Systems' share of Airbus, which is estimated to cost about $4 billion. On top of all of that, the co-chief executive of EADS, Noel Forgeard, is under investigation for insider trading.

By all accounts, Airbus is struggling. It is also losing credibility with its customers. In fact, when news broke about the A380's production delay, Singapore Airlines cast a no-confidence vote in Airbus by ordering 20 Boeing 787 Dreamliners.

One important customer who is taking notice is the U.S. Department of Defense. With Airbus's financial house of cards on the verge of collapse and no current U.S. manufacturing presence, it is becoming clear that EADS will not be able to give the U.S. Air Force the tanker of the future.

I am pleased that the Air Force has asked the right questions. In its request for information for the tanker contract, the Air Force asked potential bidders to provide them with information about launch aid and subsidies, including details about any government support, tax breaks, debt forgiveness, or loans with preferential terms they might have received. The Air Force clearly understands the need for transparency and a level playing field.

Any new subsidies to Airbus for tankers or other programs should end once and for all Airbus's campaign to access the U.S. Treasury.

To protect taxpayers and national security, the Air Force must exercise extreme caution if it continues to consider an Airbus tanker proposal.

As many of my colleagues know, my home State of Washington has a very proud and long history of aerospace leadership. On July 15, 1916, Bill Boeing started his airplane company in Seattle, WA, and since that day, Boeing and Washington State have shared the ups and downs of the commercial aerospace industry. In fact, just a few years ago, Boeing found itself struggling to keep up with Airbus, but through the sacrifice and hard work of more than 62,000 Boeing employees in Washington State and many more around the country, the company pulled itself up by its bootstraps. It recovered to once again evenly share the marketplace with Airbus, and it did so by producing a plane, the 787, which was just what the marketplace wanted.

Airbus, on the other hand, ignored the market's demand and produced a plane that few people wanted, and now they are being punished by the marketplace for their mistakes. But rather than take their lumps, they are likely to seek an illegal government bailout that would negate the hard work and sacrifice of Boeing employees.

Recently, an EADS spokesman called launch aid ``indispensable'' and said, ``Launch aid is the only available system right now'' to deal with Airbus's floundering market and design problems. How can aerospace workers in America compete with a competitor that never has to face the consequences for its failures?

Last week, President Bush met with EU leaders at a summit. Before his trip, I wrote to the President and urged him to raise the issue with European leaders. Time is running out. We are quickly approaching the Farnborough Airshow on July 17 when European Ministers are expected to decide whether to provide EADS with more launch aid.

I have supported this administration's willingness to go the distance at the World Trade Organization in its fight for fair markets. They stood up

for American aerospace workers after it became clear that negotiations with the Europeans were going nowhere. As a result, the WTO is now considering the subsidies case through its dispute settlement body.

The Senate is on record against Airbus subsidies. On April 11, 2005, the Senate unanimously passed S. Con. Res. 25. That is a resolution which called for European governments to reject launch aid for the A350 and for President Bush to take any action that he ``considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States in fair competition in the large commercial aircraft market.'' The resolution also specifically encouraged the U.S. Trade Representative to file a WTO case unless the EU eliminates launch aid for the A350 and all future models.

The production of large civilian aircraft is now a mature industry in both the United States and Europe. It is now time that market forces-- market forces, not government aid--determine the future course of this industry.

That crossroad I mentioned is coming up on us quickly. One road will leave American workers in a fight for their jobs, with the game stacked against them. The other road will give us a fair playing field where American workers can win through their hard work and American ingenuity. I hope for our country's future that we choose the right course, and it begins by sending a clear message from our government to Europe that the United States will not tolerate another round of illegal subsidies that kill American jobs. The clock is running, and the choice is ours.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today marks the 34th anniversary of title IX. Since 1972, title IX has opened doors to athletics, education and success for millions of young women across our Nation. For 34 years, the program has increased participation under Republican and Democratic administrations, because title IX is not about politics it is about helping young women realize their dreams.

The statistics are amazing--millions of young women breaking down barriers. But behind these numbers, the lives of these women have been improved because of the changes brought about through title IX.

I have seen how title IX has changed the experience of women in my own family. When I went to school 30 years ago, the atmosphere was much different. Back then at Washington State University, I could only participate in a few sports, and women receiving athletic scholarships was unheard of.

The difference between my daughter's generation and my own could not be more stark. Women of my generation never had the chance to go to college on a sports scholarship, even though many deserved them. Some of my daughter's friends have done just that.

I am so proud of my home State of Washington, which is the first State in the Nation to boast two women Senators and a woman Governor. It is also home to WNBA champions the Seattle Storm.

There is no doubt that title IX has opened doors for women over the past

34 years. The challenge for all of us today is to make sure that those doors of opportunity stay open for our granddaughters and great- granddaughters.

As we celebrate the anniversary of this important law, I urge President Bush and Secretary of Education Spellings to protect existing title IX policies and give every young girl in American the chance to experience the roar of a crowd--and not just cheer from the sidelines.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase the minimum wage. Not only is it the right thing to do for working families, but my State has shown that a living wage is compatible with a growing economy.

The facts speak for themselves, and they speak loudly. Let's just take three numbers: 9, 37, and 50.

Nine is the number of years since the minimum wage was last increased. This is the longest time the Nation has gone without raising the minimum wage since it was implemented in 1938. The real value of the current minimum wage is already $4 below what it was in 1968.

Thirty-seven is the millions of Americans--37 million--who are currently living in poverty, including 13 million children.

Fifty is the percent by which poverty has increased in the past generation--freezing out an ever larger portion of our working citizens from the advantages of a higher standard of living that most of us enjoy.

I believe these numbers are a very strong signal that we are long past the time for the Nation, as a whole, to raise the level of the Federal minimum wage. I am proud that my home State of Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country, and it is indexed yearly to ensure that our workers are properly compensated for their hard work.

We in Washington State offer direct proof that a living minimum wage is compatible with a growing economy. May marked our 34th consecutive month of job growth. Our unemployment rate, even with the highest minimum wage in the country, is essentially at the national average. Our poverty rate stands at 11 percent, which is significantly below the national average of 12.5 percent. Our median household income stands at $48,000, much higher than the national average of $43,000. Good labor policies make for good labor productivity and a healthy state economy.

Ever since the Fair Minimum Wage Act was passed in 1938, opponents have kept raising the same baseless arguments. Even 68 years ago, opponents tried to paint a bleak picture of disastrous effects, like ``factories closed,'' ``industries forced into bankruptcy,'' and ``people who will be thrown out of employment.'' It wasn't true then. It is not true today. The fact is that this wage provides more economic opportunities for people to support their families and contribute to their communities.

Opponents often cite a negative impact on jobs as their prime argument to oppose an increase in the minimum wage. This tired argument is simply not true. In fact, the 4 years following our last minimum wage increase marked the strongest economic growth in three decades, creating almost 12 million new jobs. In contrast, during the past 4 years we have only seen the creation of about 4.7 million new jobs.

As elected representatives, it is our job not only to represent the people in our States, but also to stand up for the millions of Americans whose voices cannot be heard. Just since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by a stunning 5.4 million people. A minimum wage employee, working 52 weeks a year for 40 hours a week, makes almost $6,000 below the Federal poverty guidelines for a family of three. At this rate, it will be a long time before we see significant progress against the scourge of poverty for America's families.

By raising the minimum wage to $7.25, we can put an extra $4,400 a year into the pockets of these workers, enabling them to better support their families. This meager amount can make a world of difference to the poor among us. It could mean 19 months of utilities, 15 months of groceries, 8 months of rent or tuition for a community college degree. These are the basics, not the luxuries, of life today.

It is important to continually remind ourselves who is going to benefit from an increase. Here are some numbers to help set the record straight. This amendment will benefit nearly 15 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are adults, not teenagers trying to earn some extra spending money. In fact, more than one-third of these adults are the sole source of income for their families. And let's not forget the 7 million children of those minimum wage workers who will benefit from this increase.

This Congress has substantially cut the tax rates for the wealthiest people

in this country, saving them millions of dollars over the last 5 years. But so far, this Congress has been unwilling to spend a few cents more to help the poorest of our working citizens.

I have carefully considered all aspects of this amendment and have come to the conclusion that we have no acceptable alternative. I see the growth of the job market and the strong economy in my State. I see how we have worked in Washington State to ensure that low-wage workers share in this success. I know that this is what our Nation needs. We should follow the lead of my State and the other 20 that have already increased their minimum wages and allow all Americans to share in these benefits.

Overall, this slight increase in the minimum wage would allow a significant portion of our Nation, people who are working hard and playing by the rules, to have an increased opportunity to share in the American dream. They will be able to better support their families and will not have to make unacceptable decisions like whether to buy groceries or pay the rent.

If any of my colleagues oppose this amendment, I would like them to consider living on $10,700 a year--and not just living on it, but rather, trying to raise a family of 4 on that low income. That would mean having about $7 a day per person, not adding in all the bills. Now just think about how much you spent on your last meal. If we think of the debate that we are having in these terms, it is clear that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to increase the minimum wage. Let's show them that we have got our priorities straight, and let's finally give low-income workers the raise that they are long overdue. It is the right thing to do for workers and the right thing to do for our economy.

Mr. President, I want the same thing all Americans do, for our troops to complete their mission in Iraq and return home safely and quickly. To accomplish that, the President must define what our current mission is and how that mission serves our Nation's security interests.

The men and women of our military have done everything we have asked them to do. They looked for weapons of mass destruction and found none. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We helped the Iraqis hold elections and set up their government and security forces. So what is our mission today?

Right now, our Nation's policy on Iraq is adrift. Instead of addressing this head on, the administration and this Congress continue to build on the miscalculation and incompetence of the past and are dismissing any serious discussion of the challenge the American people now face.

Instead of working to unite this Nation behind a common purpose in defense of our security and freedom, the President and his aides are using the war as political fodder for the next election cycle. Instead of being honest with the American people about the costs of our effort and the sacrifice necessary to support them, the Congress continues to hand a blank check to the administration to continue the status quo. That approach has left us with heated rhetoric and a long series of bad choices.

True security for the American people depends on an honest assessment of the threats we face, a very clear mission, and an honest discussion about the costs of confronting those threats.

On Iraq we do not have any of those components. Continuing the status quo is unacceptable. We need the President to tell us what the mission in Iraq is so we, as Congress and as a country, can decide if it is worth the continued price we are paying.

Like all of us, I want the troops home as soon as possible. In fact, I think they should start coming home this year. It is absolutely time for a new strategy in Iraq. An arbitrary, specific date for full withdrawal, however, could force us to ignore facts on the ground, facts that have a direct impact on the security of our troops or the interests of our Nation. I appreciate those who ask for a date certain. I, too, am frustrated with where we find ourselves today. But what we do need is change. What we do need is leadership. What we do need is a defined mission. And what we do need is a plan for success.

The troops on the ground, as well as the American people, deserve an honest discussion and a plan for victory and a goal to achieve that. That is why I support the Levin amendment.

This administration, this Congress, and this Nation should be focused like a laser on how we can be successful and bring our troops home safely. Our troops and the American people deserve a plan that brings us all together to accomplish that goal.

I yield my remaining time.

Mr. Presdient, as part of the conference report on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, which is expected to be passed by the Senate shortly, there is a provision in section 416 that amends section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)), which authorizes the Western Pacific Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program for fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BS/AI).

I am familiar with this program, which originated in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in 1992, and I support its goals of providing economic opportunities for rural coastal communities in Western Alaska. It is my understanding that section 416 ensures the CDQ groups will continue to receive the same annual percentage allocations as they do now under existing Federal law, and that it would preserve existing treatment of such allocations--consisting of a directed fishing allowance if that is the current law, i.e., the BS/AI pollock fishery, or including both directed and non-target fishing in fisheries where that is the current practice. Is that correct, Senator Stevens?

No, my concerns relate to Section 416's amendment to

MSA section 305(i)(1)(B), which would increase CDQ group allocations for certain BS/AI groundfish fisheries, including Pacific cod, mackerel, and flatfish species, from 7.5 percent to 10 percent, and treat this allocation as a directed fishing allowance, which does not include incidental catch. All allocations in these fisheries, including the CDQ allocations, are currently-managed as total quotas, not as directed fishing allowances, which obliges all participants to keep both the directed and incidenteal catch within a ``hard cap.'' Did you intend to change the current manner in which the council sets CDQ allocations in these fisheries, from a hard cap allocation to a directed fishing allowance allocation?

We are both justifiably proud of the success of the pollock cooperatives established under the American Fisheries Act, AFA, and particularly their low bycatch rates. However, it is my understanding from speaking with NOAA and council staff that making this directed fishing allowance in statute for the CDQ portion of these other BS/AI groundfish fisheries would deprive the council of its current authority to limit incidental catch associated with these allocations, although it would retain such authority for the non-CDQ allocations. I am concerned that this lack of authority could unintentionally promote increases in incidental catch for CDQ groups. In addition, any unconstrained growth in incidental catch under the legislatively directed fishing allowances could result in less available catch allowance for the non-CDQ groups subject to incidental catch controls, which seems contrary to your intent that each set of groups be subject to the same management controls.

While the pollock fishery has very low incidental catch rates, in 2005 its incidental catch was only 0.16 percent above the directed fishery allowance, the directed fisheries of the BS/AI, other than halibut, sablefish, pollock, and crab, have a relatively higher level of bycatch. The council has taken actions to limit and reduce the amount of incidental catch allowance to all directed fishery participants in order to reduce overall bycatch levels. Prohibiting the council from establishing an incidental catch allowance is antithetical to current public policy and resource management in the BS/AI. Moreover, it is not consistent with provisions included in the Senate's version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, S. 2012. I suggest Section 416 (MSA section 305(i)(1)(B), as amended) be modified to include this explicit authority.

Do you agree with me that the council should retain its ability to set incidental catch allowances for the CDQ groups in the fisheries affected by section 416's amendment to MSA section 305(i)(1)(B)?

In view of our agreement on these points, do you agree to authorize the council and the Secretary to establish incidental catch limits for these fisheries without prohibiting the council from providing the CDQ program with an incidental catch allowance.

Yes, I do agree that we must ensure fair treatment of both groups in these fisheries, and would support including such language in these changes. Do I have your commitment that you will include these changes to Section 416 in the Coast Guard Conference Report before final passage in the Senate, or, if not procedurally possible, in another bill that will be enacted this year, including the final version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization?

I fully support passage of S. 2012, your and Senator Inouye's bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly in view of your commitment to make these changes to section 416 of the Coast Guard Conference Report. Senator Inouye, are you in agreement with Senator Stevens and me on these points?

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

Mr. President, the Senate is going to be considering in just a few minutes the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. I do want to be clear that like most of my colleagues, I will be voting for this bill because it does provide the funding for our troops that is critically needed to carry out their mission and because it supports recovery efforts along the coast. I do wish to express three concerns I have with the conference report.

First, this bill continues the charade that this war should be funded off budget. Instead of including the money our troops need in the regular budget as requested by the President and sent to us, we keep getting sent emergency supplemental requests. It is clear to me, having been here for 13\1/2\ years, that emergency spending bills used to be for emergencies, things we could not foresee such as natural disasters. The need for funding for the war in Iraq is not a surprise. It is not like responding to an earthquake or tornado. By funding the war off budget, I fear we continue to hide the true cost of the war. It is imperative that the Senate and the House get a budget from the President that gives us the true cost of what we need to be funding.

In addition, the administration should not have the sole authority to decide what is worthy of emergency funding and what is not. We have emergencies in our backyard as well as overseas. We should not hand over to the President the final authority on what deserves emergency funding.

The second concern I have is that this bill leaves out very critical funding for areas we considered and adopted in the Senate. They were removed once the bill went to conference. Funding for health care, for port security, emergency transportation assistance in the gulf coast-- much of the progress we made in the Senate was thrown out. Why? To meet an arbitrary limit set by the President. That is going to hurt many of our communities in the coming months.

Part of what we did in the Senate in April was to overwhelmingly pass the Murray-Akaka amendment that ensured our veterans would get the help they need. That amendment had broad bipartisan support on the Senate floor. It was removed in conference in the middle of the night. That is a huge setback for the men and women who are coming home from the war today and entering a VA system that is overwhelmed and underfunded. In March, the VA told us they are seeing 38 percent more Iraqi war veterans than they budgeted for. Veterans now have to wait a year to get the specialty care they deserve. Some are waiting more than 18 months before they get the benefits they have been promised. On top of that, we have waiting lists that are thousands of names long at major VA hospitals. I am frustrated that the

funding we secured for America's veterans is no longer in the bill before us. Our veterans deserve better.

Funding was also removed for emergency transportation relief in the gulf. In the Senate, we passed $200 million in emergency assistance for transit authorities in the gulf region. FEMA, which is helping to fund transit service in New Orleans, is going to stop the funding for that at the end of this month. That is going to force New Orleans to cut back transit service even more. Cutting off transit routes is not going to help our gulf coast cities recover. Throwing busdrivers on unemployment lines is not going to help them recover.

Another item cut from the legislation was tenant-based rental assistance for the gulf. That funding was intended to serve about 44,000 families, including families that received HUD funding prior to Katrina and many homeless families. The bill we passed in the Senate expanded the purposes of that money to include the reconstruction and repair of HUD projects in the afflicted region, many of them damaged considerably. It provided vouchers for about 4,500 needy citizens in the region, particularly the disabled and homeless. That funding is now gone, and we are going to see some pretty vulnerable families in the gulf coast without any ability to stay in the homes in which they currently are trying to stay.

Finally, this bill improperly includes a budget ceiling that is going to affect every single spending bill we do this year. I believe the supplemental emergency spending bill is the wrong place to enact a budget that never passed the Senate floor. It is going to be hard enough to produce appropriations bills this year that will get broad bipartisan support at the levels the Senate approved back in March. It will be almost impossible to do so if we ignore amendments adopted on the Senate floor and impose the spending ceiling proposed by the President that is now included in the bill.

I am frustrated that the administration keeps funding this war off budget. I am frustrated that critical investments which we approved in the Senate were removed from the bill. I am very frustrated that this bill is now going to result in our hands being tied throughout the appropriations process. I hope in the future we can do much better.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I do want to talk for a minute about Senator Byrd and recognize he has set a record in the Senate, as many of my colleagues have noted on the floor.

He marked his l7,327th day in office yesterday and became the longest serving Senator in history. That is truly a remarkable accomplishment, and I personally have many fond memories of working with Senator Byrd and look forward to many more.

I remember well when I came here as a freshman Senator 13 \1/2\ years ago. Senator Byrd at the time brought in all of us freshmen Senators to sit across from him in his very important office and looked down at us and told us that we would be presiding, as is the Presiding Officer today, and told us about our responsibilities and made it very clear he would be watching from his office, and if we were reading any other material or talking to anyone, it would be noted.

I certainly did remember that during the many hours I spent in the Presiding Officer's chair because I knew he was watching. But I think it was a simple reminder to all of us as to the importance of the office we hold here and the respect we have to have for our colleagues.

I remember as well that he invited me to lunch several months later with the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, a Republican, to sit down and talk with me about the responsibilities I had as a Senator. And I was so impressed sitting in the room with Senator Byrd and Senator Hatfield, never in my life expecting to have that kind of opportunity. At that meeting they impressed upon me the importance of working across the aisle and respect for the minority and how important everybody's voice is here. It was an important lesson and one I think we all should be reminded of more often.

But just that simple act of inviting me to lunch with two incredible leaders in the Senate is a memory I hold dear, and I thank my colleague for doing that.

But, frankly, I think what I most will remember Senator Byrd for--and is a good reminder to all of us, too--is several years ago when my husband came out here to Washington, DC--he lives in Washington State. I go home every weekend. But he came out here because it was our wedding anniversary, and instead of me having to fly home, he flew out here. He was coming up the steps of the Capitol, and I met him as Senator Byrd was walking out to his car.

Senator Byrd saw my husband, and he said: Welcome. Nice to have you here at this end of the country. What brings you here?

And my husband said: Well, it is our wedding anniversary.

And Senator Byrd, who, as we well know, lost his beloved wife just a few short weeks ago, was about to celebrate I think it was his 67th wedding anniversary. He looked at my husband and said: Which anniversary is this?

And my husband said: It is our 32nd.

Senator Byrd paused and said: Well, it is a good start.

I think the message of that is important for all of us in our everyday lives, in our responsibilities as spouses, and as Senators, to remember it is a good start every day, and you can't rest on your laurels and think back: Well, we have done this for 32 years. The next 32 will be easy. Every day you have to come out and work hard at whatever role you are in at the time.

I certainly say to my good friend, Senator Byrd, how much I respect him and admire him. And today, as he marks his l7,328th day in office, I say to him: It is a good start.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Illinois in expressing my deep concern about the nomination of Richard Stickler to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. That is a long title, but it means one thing: This is the person who is going to be in charge of the health and safety of every miner in America.

That is a very serious responsibility, and it requires a serious leader, someone with a strong background in mine safety and a strong commitment to aggressively protect America's mine workers. I sit on the committee that oversees the nomination. I have to tell the Senate, Mr. Stickler offered neither. I believe the President, respectfully, should withdraw his nomination and send us at this time a more suitable nominee.

As we all know, just 6 months ago, 12 miners were killed in the Sago disaster. In the wake of that tragedy, many of us in the Senate worked hard--and I commend the Senator who is sitting in the chair for his work--on this incredibly important issue. We did the right thing. We came together and passed the most comprehensive mine safety update in a generation.

I was honored to work on that historic bill with Senators Kennedy and Enzi, Senator Isakson, who is in the chair, and Senators Rockefeller and Byrd. But we have to do more than just pass a law. We need to make sure we provide the resources, and we need to make sure we provide the leadership to carry this out. That is why it is so disturbing to me that the Senate majority leader is today trying to push an unqualified nominee through to head this agency.

Senator Byrd, who represents the Sago families, has raised some very valid concerns about Mr. Stickler's qualifications and, following Senate tradition, those concerns should be heeded. They should give all of us pause. Indeed, we see the leadership today departing from the usual process and trying now to push this nominee through the Senate. I believe that is the wrong course of action when the lives of our American miners are at stake.

Mr. President, as you well know, I am very passionate about this issue because I have worked on mine safety issues with you and with the Senator who is arriving on the floor as I speak, Senator Kennedy. In fact, at the hearing of this nominee, it was my questioning of his confirmation hearing that revealed to me his business-as-usual approach to miner health and safety.

When Richard Stickler testified at his HELP confirmation hearing in January, he told me he believed the current mine safety laws are adequate. That was before we passed our legislation. He said those current mine safety laws were adequate. I couldn't disagree more, and neither could the House and Senate, which, after that, passed the most significant mine safety improvements in a generation.

I was disappointed in his responses at the hearing, so I asked him further questions in writing. In reply to that, Mr. Stickler could not suggest a single way to improve mine safety--not one single suggestion. Think about that for a minute. We would not put someone in charge of food safety who has no idea about how to make consumers safe. We wouldn't put someone in charge of airline safety who has no idea how to make air traffic safer. And we certainly shouldn't put someone in charge of mine safety who has no idea about how to make our mines safer.

We need a leader now more than ever at the Mine Safety and Health Administration who will not just accept the status quo that has cost miners their lives in this country. It is a wrong turn to have the enforcement of our mine safety laws turned over to a former coal company executive with no background in miner health and safety.

Here is how the head of the United Mine Workers of America put it in a letter to President Bush. He said:

The Nation's miners cannot tolerate having another mine

executive running the agency responsible for protecting their

health and their safety. For too many years, miners have

endured an agency directed by coal mining executives. Too

often these mining executives place a priority on

productivity, but fail to focus on miners' health and safety.

Too many times MSHA has not done all it is charged with doing

to promote miners' health and safety.

Clearly, we need a new direction at that agency and, clearly, Mr. Stickler does not provide a new kind of direction.

The words that I just quoted are the words of Cecil Roberts, international president of the United Mine Workers of America. He and the AFL-CIO oppose this nomination and with good reason.

With America's miners risking their lives every day, as we all know-- and a new law in place, thankfully, because of the leadership of the Presiding Officer, that has to be vigorously enforced--we cannot entrust our mine safety to someone who has not shown the background or the passion or the desire to make sure those laws work well and will fight for the health and safety of American miners.

When it comes to mine safety, we know now that we cannot tolerate business as usual. I believe the Senate should reject this nominee and demand a leader, someone who will stand up for our miners.

Yes, I will.

Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts through the Acting President pro tempore, I couldn't agree more. I think the country sat at its dinner tables and watched the mine accidents that have occurred increasingly over the past year. So we understand what it takes in this country is leadership at an agency. Just look back at what happened with Katrina with the head of FEMA. It takes leadership in an agency. It takes all of us to put laws in place. But if there is not someone at the head of that agency who is sending a direction down through the ranks that our miners' safety and health has to come first, any law we pass will just be something written in a book.

Mr. President, I would answer the Senator in saying, that is absolutely correct. Prior to any action by this body and the House in passing tougher laws, this nominee said no changes were needed.

Mr. President, I would just say to the Senator from Massachusetts, I want in charge of this agency someone who will stand up and say, We are going to make the mines safer for the families who send a loved one there every day.

I went to that hearing, and all of what the Senator from Massachusetts just presented and the attitude this nominee presented-- to me, this is not someone, despite his background, who is going to stand up and lead. I believe that we need to send this nominee back and we need to have somebody who we can proudly say is going to lead this agency at a most critical time.

Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, every Senator on this floor should take a few minutes to read those letters from the families who have been impacted by mining disasters. I would say to my colleagues and to the President that we ought to be thinking we have to put someone in place in this agency who is going to wake up every single day he is on the job and say, What am I doing to make sure that in my responsibility of taking care of hundreds of miners every single day, I am moving the ball forward.

I have to say to the Senator from Massachusetts, there was no passion when I saw the presentation. I did not see someone in front of me who understood the tremendous responsibility that he was being given and who would wake up every single day and say, What am I doing to improve mine safety? That is my responsibility.

That is the kind of person I want in charge of this agency, I say to my friend from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk about the supplemental bill before us. And I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his remarks on agricultural disaster spending. I agree with him how critical this is for his State, and for many others, including mine. And I was deeply disappointed that the administration opposed the Senate's agricultural assistance proposal that was in our bill.

Their letter to us said they opposed it on principle because the 2002 farm bill was designed, when combined with crop insurance, to eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Unfortunately, that policy has really harmed us in many of our States. I hope to work with the Senator from Minnesota and others to make sure we recognize these disasters that occurred to our agricultural communities. And I, too, am deeply disappointed it is not part of the supplemental.

Mr. President, I do want to speak for a few minutes this afternoon about funding for the war in Iraq and hurricane recovery and other national priorities.

I want to share with my colleagues that I have three real concerns with the bill. First, really, is that it continues the charade we have had that this war be funded off-budget. And, second, this bill leaves out critical funding for areas such as veterans health care, port security, and emergency transportation assistance on the gulf coast.

Much of the progress we made on the Senate floor, through many hours of debate, was thrown out because of an arbitrary limit that was set by the President that is really going to hurt a lot of our communities.

Finally, I want to talk about how this bill improperly included a budget ceiling that is going to affect every single spending bill and many of the decisions we need to make in the coming months. I believe the supplemental is the wrong place to be enacting a budget that was never passed by this entire Senate. I want to talk about each of these concerns.

I will, like all of my colleagues, vote for this bill in the end because it is important that we provide the funding for our troops to carry out their mission as we have asked them to do and because, of course, it supports the recovery efforts along the gulf coast.

My first concern is that the administration keeps trying to fund this war outside of the regular budget process. Instead of including the money our troops need in the annual budget, they keep sending us supplemental emergency requests. This may seem like a very small issue, but it has two real large impacts. First, every dollar we spend through emergency funding adds a dollar to our national debt. With every supplemental, we are burdening our children and grandchildren with more debt. It used to be that emergency spending bills were for emergencies, things we couldn't foresee such as natural disasters. The need for the funding for the war in Iraq is not a surprise. It is not like responding to an earthquake that no one could predict. We should not hand over to the President the final authority on what deserves emergency funding.

I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing concern about this because this administration's approach is going to burden future generations. I don't think we should hide the true cost of the war from the American public, which we do through this supplemental process.

Communities at home today are sacrificing because of the cuts that this administration and Congress have imposed on the annual budget. If the administration had to fund the war in the annual budget, those cuts at home would be a lot more painful. By funding the war off-budget, Republicans are hiding the true cost of the war and the real tradeoffs that we have to make because of it. I hope the administration will be honest with all of us about how much this war is costing and the investments that we are being denied at home because of the way this administration has chosen to fund the war.

I believe the administration should not have the sole authority to decide what is worthy of emergency funding and what is not because we do have emergencies in our backyard as well as overseas.

My second concern with this bill is that it leaves out many of the critical investments we fought to add right here on the Senate floor to the supplemental. Here in the Senate we worked very well on a bipartisan basis to make sure the bill funds priorities such as veterans health care. I commend Senator Cochran for his work in trying to get this bill through the Senate and working with all of us to make sure our needs were addressed. But, unfortunately, the President set an arbitrary limit for the size of this bill and said he wouldn't sign a bill that cost a penny more. What happened? The leadership rolled over, agreed to the President's limit, and now that is going to hurt our communities at home.

One of the groups of people it is going to hurt the most is America's veterans. In April, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Murray-Akaka amendment to ensure that our veterans get the help they need. Our amendment had broad bipartisan support. We worked with Chairman Hutchison and others to make this funding emergency spending. But what happened? That amendment was removed from this bill. That is a huge setback for the men and women coming home from the war today and entering a VA system that is now overwhelmed and underfunded. This funding would have allowed us to provide soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with timely access to the health care they earned.

We know today that the VA is facing funding challenges. In March, the

Mr. President, I do want to talk for a minute about Senator Byrd and recognize he has set a record in the Senate, as many of my colleagues have noted on the floor.

He marked his 17,327th day in office yesterday and became the longest serving Senator in history. That is truly a remarkable accomplishment, and I personally have many fond memories of working with Senator Byrd and look forward to many more.

I remember well when I came here as a freshman Senator 13\1/2\ years ago. Senator Byrd at the time brought in all of us freshmen Senators to sit across from him in his very important office and looked down at us and told us that we would be presiding, as is the Presiding Officer today, and told us about our responsibilities and made it very clear he would be watching from his office, and if we were reading any other material or talking to anyone it would be noted.

I certainly did remember that during the many hours I spent in the Presiding Officer's chair because I knew he was watching. But I think it was a simple reminder to all of us as to the importance of the office we hold here and the respect we have to have for our colleagues.

I remember as well that he invited me to lunch several months later with the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, a Republican, to sit down and talk with me about the responsibilities I had as a Senator. And I was so impressed sitting in the room with Senator Byrd and Senator Hatfield, never in my life expecting to have that kind of opportunity. And at that meeting they impressed upon me the importance of working across the aisle and respect for the minority and how important everybody's voice is here. It was an important lesson and one I think we all should be reminded of more often.

But just that simple act of inviting me to lunch with two incredible leaders in the Senate is a memory I hold dear, and I thank my colleague for doing that.

But, frankly, I think what I most will remember Senator Byrd for--and is a good reminder to all of us, too--is several years ago when my husband came out here to Washington, DC--he lives in Washington State. I go home every weekend. But he came out here because it was our wedding anniversary, and instead of me having to fly home, he flew out here. He was coming up the steps of the Capitol, and I met him as Senator Byrd was walking out to his car.

Senator Byrd saw my husband, and he said: Welcome. Nice to have you

here at this end of the country. What brings you here?

And my husband said: Well, it is our wedding anniversary.

And Senator Byrd, who, as we well know, lost his beloved wife just a few short weeks ago, was about to celebrate I think it was his 67th wedding anniversary. He looked at my husband and said: Which anniversary is this?

And my husband said: It is our 32nd.

Senator Byrd paused and said: Well, it is a good start.

I think the message of that is important for all of us in our everyday lives, in our responsibilities as spouses, and as Senators, to remember it is a good start every day, and you can't rest on your laurels and think back: Well, we have done this for 32 years. The next 32 will be easy. Every day you have to come out and work hard at whatever role you are in at the time.

I certainly say to my good friend, Senator Byrd, how much I respect him and admire him. And today, as he marks his 17,328th day in office, I say to him: It is a good start.

How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, last week our country celebrated a very important event--Memorial Day. Every Member of the Senate went home to services where we heard about the sacrifices of men and women who served in conflicts throughout this Nation's history, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan where we have now lost close to 2,500 of our Nation's best and brightest.

I listened to those speeches, and I heard about the sacrifices these men and women have made. I heard the rhetoric about making sure we take care of their families, making sure we take care of those who are wounded when they come home, making sure we have the ability to care for those we ask to serve this country so honorably as we celebrated Memorial Day last week. I went throughout my State. I listened to people wanting to make sure we did not forget those people who served us. I came back to the Senate last night confident that we should be talking about those issues.

It is deeply disconcerting to me that we are not talking about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, we are not talking about the sacrifices our soldiers have made, we are not talking about the tremendous responsibility we have as the Senate and Congress to make sure we have the funds for those men and women who have served us, both while they are overseas and when they come home. We are here instead on a completely different priority, and I have to ask the question of this Senate: Why are we spending time on political games when we have soldiers in harm's way who are serving us honorably around the world? Don't they deserve better than this? Why is the Senate bringing up divisive issues when we need right now more than ever to come together as a country and address the challenges that confront us? Maybe it is because those people who are in charge, those people who make a decision about what issues we discuss here, just have the wrong priorities. And I see the wrong priorities being debated in the Senate not just for this week but for apparently the coming weeks.

Last week, I traveled through communities in my home State of Washington. Everywhere I went, I heard a growing anger and frustration that American troops are being wounded and dying in Iraq, and my constituents want to know why. They want to know where we are going. They want to know what they are doing. They want to know why we are there. They want to know what will make us successful and how we can bring our troops home successfully. But here we are in Washington, DC, where the Bush administration doesn't have a plan they have outlined for success, and here we are in Congress not demanding answers.

My constituents are very frustrated, and they have good reason to be so. They, like all of us, are watching what is happening in Iraq on their TVs every night. They see personally what these deployments are doing to their communities at home, their friends, their neighbors, their coworkers, being called up not just once but twice, three times, to head to Iraq and come back. They see the terrible consequences for families who are left behind, and they see these veterans, when they go to get the treatment they need, being told they have to wait in line because we haven't adequately funded our Veterans' Administration.

And by the way, many of these same veterans just in the last week were told

that because of lack of oversight at the VA, 26.5 million of these veterans who served our country honorably have now lost their identities, and we are not dealing with that in the Senate right now? How are we going to make sure every one of these veterans gets the care they need, and how are we going to make sure now that 26.5 million veterans get the help they need as their identities have been stolen? That is going to cost money. It is not free. We have a responsibility to help every single one of them. They should not be treated like this as veterans in the United States today.

I see what these deployments are doing in our communities, just as my constituents do, and they see the challenges these veterans are facing when they come home and their families while they are deployed. They don't see a plan about how we are going forward in Iraq today. And what they importantly don't see is us in Congress on the Senate floor standing up and talking about what is going on, demanding answers from the Bush administration and the Pentagon.

We can only make the good decisions about how we go forward if we have a discussion in the Senate about what is happening on the ground, what the impacts are, what our choices are, how we can help both the Pentagon and the Bush administration and our constituents make a good decision about whether our troops should come home or whether they should stay or what is happening. We need to demand answers in the Senate from this administration and the Pentagon about what is happening on the ground. That is the discussion I wish we were having in the Senate today. That has meaning to every single one of my constituents. They want to know what we are doing, where we are going, how we are going to pay for it, and how we can be successful so we can know when our troops are coming home.

I have watched now for 3 years as our soldiers went to war in Iraq, and at every possible juncture in this war, the Bush administration has chosen the wrong path. When they were advised to build a stronger multinational coalition, they decided to go it alone. When the Army's Chief of Staff said it would take several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq after the war, they ignored his advice and they fired him. When sectarian violence started boiling over and undermining the stability of Iraq and the safety of our troops, they pronounced the insurgency was in its last throes. Well, they were wrong.

We can't continue to watch what is happening in Iraq without answering questions in the Senate. For too long, we have watched decisions being made that have sent us in the wrong direction, and for too long, I say to my colleagues in the Senate, we have given them a pass on these monumental failures, and that has to change.

Families I represent want Congress to demand accountability, and they want us to get to the bottom of this. But that is not what they are getting here. Instead, we see the Republican leadership playing politics with debates on gay marriage and flag burning. What are we not doing while we spend our time on this issue? We are not having hearings on Iraq. We are not having discussions about what is happening on the ground. We are not hearing from our generals so that we can make good decisions about when and how our troops can come home successfully. Instead, we are seeing political distractions that are simply meant to divide our country at a time when we ought to be together, Republicans and Democrats, having serious discussions about what we can do as leaders of this Nation to bring us success, if it is possible, in Iraq.

Back home, people want us to talk about Iraq. They want answers. But in the Senate, the Iraq war is the proverbial elephant in the room. It is right there, everyone can see it, but no one talks about it. No one talks about it in the Senate of America. No one is talking about the Iraq war. I will tell my colleagues, we are not going to get better results in Iraq if we ignore it in Congress.

In all the time I have served in the Senate, I believe this is the weakest oversight I have ever seen from a Congress during military conflict. We were not sent here to just rubberstamp this administration or any administration. I served under the Clinton administration during the war in Bosnia when we required generals to come up here almost on a daily basis, to obtain answers from them about what was happening on the ground, how we were proceeding forward, what we needed to do; and yes, at the time, there were calls to bring our troops home, no boots on the ground, all the different points we are hearing today, but we at least had generals in front of us so we could ask questions and go home and respond to our constituents and feel confident in whatever decision we made in how we were to move forward.

We were sent here as Senators to develop policy to help our country move forward. And in this time, this place, this war, I can't think of a more important time that as Republicans and Democrats we should sit down together and put our cards on the table and say: How should we move forward and how can we do it safely and how can we do it effectively? Yet here we are in the Senate talking about gay marriage and flag burning. We are not talking about a conflict that has consumed our Nation, that has sent our youngest, best, and brightest to a war where we have almost 2,500 military families that have suffered the loss of a loved one, where we have thousands and thousands of young men and women who have lost limbs, have had head injuries, and are now being serviced in our veterans hospitals for years to come, and yet we haven't talked about how we are going to pay for that.

There is a huge disconnect between the families at home and what is happening on the Senate floor. There is no surprise they are frustrated and angry and demanding answers. They are surprised and shocked that we are talking about gay marriage and flag burning because the discussion they have at their dinner tables when they are home at night is what is happening in our world; how can we protect our children; how can we make sure our families are safe; how can we make sure our loved ones who are serving us overseas are protected while they are there; how can we make sure we win a war in Iraq, if that is possible; how can we make sure that those people we send to serve us overseas have the services they need when they come home.

I was shocked to see an article in the ``Psychiatric News'' just a few weeks ago that says our veterans are not getting the help they need for mental health care and substance abuse. I wish to quote Frances Murphy, M.D., Under Secretary for Health Policy Coordination at our Department of Veterans Affairs, who said that the growing number of veterans seeking mental health care has put emphasis on areas in which improvement is needed, and she noted that some VA clinics do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do----

Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

She says, ``waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible.''

Our soldiers who are serving in a 24/7 war in Iraq deserve to have mental health care when they come home. They are not getting it today, and the Senate is not dealing with that issue. I think we can do a lot better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with their latest tax plan, Republicans are showing once again that they care more about giving tax breaks to millionaires than helping working families.

Republicans said this week would be health care week. While it is insulting to devote only 1 week to such a critical issue, it's even more troubling that Republicans pulled the plug on health care week in favor of even more tax breaks for the rich. This tax bill and the Senate's failure to help families with the soaring cost of health care are further proof that Republicans have the wrong priorities.

If we want to make America strong again, we need to invest here at home. Today middle-class families throughout Washington State and the country are struggling to pay for the skyrocketing costs of gas, college tuition, and health care. Instead of helping these hardworking families, Republicans have once again decided to leave the middle class behind.

While I am pleased that this bill includes a 1-year patch for the alternative minimum tax, there is not much else to be pleased about in this bill. According to the Tax Policy Center, this tax bill would provide middle income families an average tax cut of just $20, while millionaires would get an average tax cut of $42,000. Rather than extending the middle-class tax cuts that have already expired or will expire at the end of the year, Republicans have again turned their backs on the middle class. The Republican bill also denies families in my home State the ability to deduct their State sales taxes. It blocks teachers from deducting the cost of classroom expenses they pay out of their own pockets. It denies businesses access to the research and development tax credit which I helped extend in September 2004.

On its own, this bill has the wrong priorities, but when you look at the bigger picture a more disturbing pattern is clear. This tax bill is the second part of last year's budget resolution. The first part of the budget resolution, which was enacted in February, cut $39 billion from important areas like health care and education. When we passed that bill, we were told that the bill was necessary to reduce the deficit. Yet today we are presented with a tax bill that in fact increases the deficit by $30 billion and adds to our massive debt.

We need a tax system that is fiscally responsible, helps business grow, and provides maximum relief to the middle class, but this bill achieves none of this. Instead it takes out a loan against our children's future and adds

to the deficit. This tax bill makes it more difficult for us to address other important priorities like homeland security, paying for the war in Iraq, our nation's infrastructure, health care, and education. This is the wrong tax plan, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next Democratic speakers in order be Senator Dayton, Senator Durbin, and Senator Akaka.

Mr. President, at this hour, families are struggling with health care. Seniors are facing a critical deadline for drug coverage. Businesses are grappling with the high cost of insurance. And patients are being denied the cutting-edge research that could save their lives. Those are critical issues. And what is the Senate doing? We are dealing with a distraction instead of real solutions to make health care affordable, more accessible, and more innovative.

I am on the Senate floor this evening to talk about what we should be doing to help families and businesses and communities meet their health care needs. I also want to talk this evening about why the Republican proposal, S. 1955, could do more harm than good.

This is a bill which takes a good idea--pooling the risk in health insurance--and distorts it with a plan that will raise the cost of health care, strip away patient protections, and hurt many of our small businesses. But do not take my word for it. Attorneys general from 41 States, including my own, have written to outline the serious problems with the Republican bill. I have heard from doctors with the Washington State Medical Association and from my own Governor about the damage this bill will inflict on patients and on our economy.

Simply put, this proposal is a distraction. Instead of dealing with real solutions to real problems, the Republican leadership is wasting time on one narrow proposal that is only going to make things worse. We can do better. The truth is that patients and seniors, doctors and nurses, and all of our communities deserve better.

If we were serious about reducing the cost of health care, helping to improve access, and driving innovation, we would be talking about the critical issues that the Republican leadership is trying to avoid. We should be focusing on everything from the Medicare drug program, to stem cell research, to community health care. Frankly, we do not have a day to waste.

On Monday, millions of seniors and disabled will be hit with a deadline that means higher premiums for their prescription drugs. That May 15 deadline is just 6 days away. I am hearing from seniors that they are very worried about this deadline. They are worried they are going to pick the wrong plan, and they do not think it is fair to be punished if they need more time so they can make an informed choice.

I have been traveling throughout my home State of Washington, meeting with seniors and holding roundtables with patients, with pharmacists, with advocates.

Three weeks ago, I was in Chehalis, at the Twin Cities Senior Center. I can tell you, seniors are worried. They are angry. They are frustrated. They are frightened about this May 15 deadline, and that deadline is just one of the problems this flawed drug program is presenting.

The week before that, I was in Silverdale, and I have held Medicare roundtables in Kent, Vancouver, Ballard, Shelton, Spokane, Anacortes, Bellevue, Aberdeen, Olympia, Lakewood, Seattle, and Everett. Everywhere, I have heard from seniors about just how bad the Medicare Part D Program is. I have heard their frustration about dealing with such a confusing system. I have heard their anger that this program does not meet their needs. And I have heard from many who just want to throw their hands up in the air and ignore the whole program.

If we were serious about improving health care, we would be fixing the problems they have outlined. Instead, we are going to let an unfair deadline hurt our seniors even further. In just 6 days--in just 6 days--they are going to have to pick a plan or face high penalties whenever they do enroll, and the penalties grow larger the longer they wait. To me, that is just not fair.

Right now, this Senate could be extending the deadline so our seniors are not pressured into making the wrong choice in such a complicated system. Right now, we could be lifting the penalty so that seniors are not punished if they need more time to make the right choice. Right now, we could be providing help to millions of vulnerable Americans who have been mistreated by this flawed Republican plan. But, instead, this Congress is leaving seniors to fend for themselves. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has said he opposes extending the deadline or lifting the penalties, and this

Republican Congress seems to agree with him by a shameful lack of action.

Seniors deserve better. The disabled deserve better. Our most vulnerable neighbors deserve better. If we really wanted to make health care more affordable and more accessible and more innovative, we would be on this floor fixing the Medicare drug program and helping seniors who are facing that unfair deadline.

Now, that is just one example of what a real focus on health care on this floor would include.

If we were serious about helping patients, we would be expanding lifesaving research. For patients who are living with diseases such as Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis or Alzheimer's or diabetes, stem cell research holds the potential to help us understand and to treat and someday perhaps cure those devastating diseases.

Nearly a year ago, the House of Representatives passed legislation to lift the restrictions that hold back this promising research. The House of Representatives has acted, but for an entire year the Senate has not. My colleagues, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, are well known for their leadership on this fight. They were promised a vote on stem cell research, and that vote has still not taken place. Every delay means missed opportunities for patients with devastating diseases.

If this Senate is serious about health care and saving lives, we should be voting on stem cell legislation today. That is why, last week, I joined with 39 other Senators in writing to the majority leader urging him to bring up H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. But instead of real solutions, the Senate is focusing on a distraction. Patients with life-threatening diseases deserve a lot better.

If we were serious about improving health care, we would be investing in local efforts that boost access to health care.

Two weeks ago, through the Johnson & Johnson Community Health Care Awards, I had a chance to honor leaders from across the country who are doing innovative work to break down the barriers to care. If we were serious about improving health care, we would be building more Federal support for their work. Instead, we are moving in the opposite direction.

Perhaps the best example is the Bush administration's 5-year effort to kill the Healthy Communities Access Program, which is known as HCAP. This is a program which helps our local organizations coordinate care for the uninsured. I have seen it make a tremendous difference in my home State. Well, every year since taking office, this Bush administration has tried to kill that successful program. I have been out here on the floor leading the fight for our local communities every year, and most years we have won. But this past year, the White House and the Republican Congress ended the support for Healthy Communities and thus made health care less accessible for families from coast to coast.

If we were serious about improving health care, we would be investing in local programs that make a difference. But, instead, the Republican leadership is focused on distractions. We can do better than that.

So let me take a few minutes to turn to the specific problems with the bill that is before us, S. 1955, and explain why so many experts across this country are warning us that this bill will eliminate critical patient protections, it will lead to unfair premiums and insurance practices, and it will raise the cost of health care.

First of all, this bill will eliminate many of the important protections that keep patients healthy and lower the cost of health care.

In my home State of Washington, we have enacted a number of State patient protections that require health plans to cover services such as diabetic care, mental health services, breast and cervical cancer screening, emergency medical services, and dental procedures. But under this bill, small business health plans or association health plans would not be required to cover those important benefits. Allowing insurers to abandon mandated benefits, many of which are preventive and are diagnostic, will result in a sicker population and higher health costs for everyone.

When this legislation was debated in the HELP Committee, I offered a number of amendments to provide for coverage of several important women's health benefits. Unfortunately, every one of those amendments was defeated. So now, here we are, and we have a bill on this floor that will strip away the protections on which our patients across this country rely.

A new report by Families USA shows just how many families in my home State will be hurt by this bill. That report found that 1,861,000 residents of Washington State may lose protections if this bill is passed. And what could they lose? Emergency services, home health care, drug and alcohol treatment, contraceptives, diabetic supplies and education, hospice care, mammography screening, maternity services, mental health care--the list goes on. I am not going to tell nearly 2 million people in my home State whom I represent that we are going to take a gamble and risk losing those hard-won protections for a plan that will likely raise the cost of health care for many of our families and small businesses.

Secondly, this bill will encourage insurance companies to charge higher premiums for less healthy consumers. This bill will preempt strong laws and protections in our State that limit the ability of insurers to vary premiums based on health status, age, gender, or geography. I am very concerned this will result in adverse selection or what we call cherry-picking, leading to higher premiums for less healthy consumers. In fact, rates will likely become unaffordable for those who need it the most, potentially increasing the number of uninsured Americans.

Now, Mr. President, I would like to share some letters I have received from leaders in my home State who all speak against this flawed proposal. I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, recently I received a letter from the Governor, Governor Christine Gregoire of my home State of Washington, in which she expressed many of her concerns regarding this legislation and its impact on the people who live in my home State.

This chart behind me contains the full text of the Governor's letter. As you can see, she has many serious concerns. I wish to highlight for the Senate some of the main points our Governor has raised with me.

Governor Gregoire alludes to the harmful aspects of this bill, and she says:

[S. 1955] stands to harm our small group insurance market,

which is a critical component of [Washington State's] current

health care system. . . .

Instead of promoting more affordable health care, this

legislation would cause a serious increase in rates for

consumers--possibly two or three times over what they now

pay.

Governor Gregoire also warns in her letter to me that:

[this] bill threatens consumer protections that the state

of Washington strives to guarantee to [all of] our residents.

The Governor also warns that this bill:

would foster a proliferation of health plans that do not

cover preventive services that are absolutely vital to the

health and well-being of Washington residents. . . .

Mr. President, I would also like to share a letter that I have received from the 9,000-member Washington State Medical Association that wrote to me in strong opposition to S. 1955.

Now, this chart shows the full letter, and I want to read just a portion of it:

This legislation will have a severe impact on all the

consumer health gains that have been made in Washington State

over the past decade.

S. 1955 will:

Undermine Washington State's many gains in advancing health

care quality;

Pull people from existing insurance coverage rather than

attract the uninsured;

Lead to higher costs for consumers;

Strike down Washington's Mental Health Parity law, which

took eight years of work to be enacted;

Eliminate other mandated benefits that help consumers such

as mammography services; and,

Leave Washington's citizens at risk for unpaid medical

bills in the event of an AHP insolvency.

That is from the head of the Washington State Medical Association, which has 9,000 members in my home

State. I think their words should be heeded by the Members of this Senate.

Third, this proposal does nothing to address increasing health care costs.

In fact, it builds on the sorry record of this administration and this Congress in not addressing the rising costs that Americans face. Because of the flaws I mentioned, this bill does nothing to contain those costs. In fact, it could dramatically increase costs for many businesses and families in Washington State. It could well mean that people in the State of Washington who have affordable coverage today could end up worse off than they are right now.

I know my State has been a leader in working to expand access to affordable health insurance for working families and small businesses. Many of the reforms that worked to control costs in my State would be jeopardized if this legislation is enacted. Washington State has a proud tradition of strong consumer protections and integrated managed care that has improved health outcomes and controlled cost increases. We should not jeopardize what my State has fought hard for by dangerous Federal legislation.

I do support the concept of pooling. I believe we can implement policies that provide stability in health insurance premiums. In fact, I am currently working with a number of my colleagues on legislation to create Federal and State catastrophic cost pools to spread out the risks and address what is driving health care costs. We can help spread the risk in ways that will lower costs and still protect patients. The legislation before us could raise costs for consumers and small businesses. We can do better than that.

There are serious challenges facing our country when it comes to health care. This Senate needs to get serious. Instead of focusing on a distraction, we should be helping seniors with prescription drugs. We should be expanding lifesaving research, and we should be supporting community health care. Those are some of the things we should be working on to reduce the cost of health care and to improve access and to accelerate innovation. We can do all of those things, but we need the Republican leadership to get serious if we are going to provide serious solutions. We don't have a day to waste. I hope we can get to work on the real solutions that our American families deserve.

Exhibit 1

Christine O. Gregoire,

Office of the Governor,

Olympia, WA, April 27, 2006.

Hon. Patty Murray,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Murray: I am writing with great concern about

S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and

Affordability Act, and its potential to further erode our

ability to provide sound health coverage to citizens in

Washington State. This bill stands to harm our small group

insurance market, which is a critical component of our

current health care system. Furthermore, the bill threatens

consumer protections that the State of Washington strives to

guarantee to our residents. For these reasons, I ask that you

oppose the bill in its current form.

When it comes to providing health care, the federal

government has been putting an ever-Increasing burden on the

states. The Deficit Reduction Act, alone, paves the way to

eliminate nearly $50 billion over the next five years for the

Medicaid program. Fresh on the heals of signing the Deficit

Reduction Act, the President unveiled his Fiscal Year 2007

budget proposal, which proposes eliminating $36 billion from

the Medicare program over the next five years. Additionally,

the implementation of the Medicare Part D prescription drug

program has had enormous impacts on the states. Nearly every

state in the Nation--Washington included--felt compelled to

step in to ensure that our most needy citizens, our dual

eligible population, continue to receive their medications

due to fundamental flaws in the Medicare Modernization Act.

Against this backdrop now comes S. 1955.

If passed, S. 1955 would establish a small group rating

mechanism that would further erode the possibility of

pursuing reasonable health care costs in the states. Instead

of promoting more affordable health care, this legislation

would cause a serious increase in rates for consumers--

possibly two or three times over what they now pay. At its

worst, the bill could result in the total collapse of our

small group insurance market, something we must fight to

prevent.

Additionally, I am concerned that S. 1955 would foster a

proliferation of health plans that do not cover preventative

services that are absolutely vital to the health and well-

being of Washington residents, such as mammography,

colonoscopies, diabetic care services, and newborn coverage.

In 2005, the Washington State Legislature passed, and I

signed, legislation providing mental health parity. If

Congress passes S. 1955, the bill could also fully abrogate

this effort to ensure mental health coverage in Washington

State.

It is surprising to me that S. 1955 is moving forward,

given that it is patterned, in part, on a flawed National

Association of Insurance Commissioner's 1993 Model Rating

Law, actually adopted by the state of New Hampshire in 2003.

This proved to be an unfortunate experiment for the people of

New Hampshire. Just this year, that state's Legislature

repealed provisions of its 2003 law due to the astronomical

jump in rates that occurred in only a two-year period after

it was implemented. Given this history that he knows only too

well, my colleague, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire,

recently registered his opposition to S. 1955 in a letter to

his federal delegation, dated March 28, 2006. New Hampshire's

experience is illustrative and a harbinger of what could come

to all states, should Congress adopt S. 1955.

As Washington State's Attorney General from 1993-2005, I,

along with the majority of my colleagues within the National

Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), opposed several

precursor bills to S. 1955. Introduced in each of the last

several Congresses, these bills allow for the federal

regulation of association health plans (AHPs), and have

passed out of the U.S. House more than once. I appreciate

that S. 1955, in its current form, does away with one fatal

flaw of the earlier AHP bills--that being the wholesale

obliteration of state regulation over national AHPs. But, as

I have articulated, S. 1955 still goes too far in preempting

other basic consumer protections. It is heartening to see

that a majority of current members of NAAG, including

Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, have now

weighed in with their concerns and opposition to S. 1955.

As a nation, we need innovative solutions that provide high

quality, sustainable and affordable health care access to our

un- and under-insured populations. With the help of the

Washington State Legislature, I have embarked on a five-point

strategy to promote evidence-based medicine; better manage

chronic diseases; increase prevention and wellness

initiatives; require data transparency; and expand the reach

of health information technology. These strategies invite

strong partnerships between states and the federal government

that I remain committed to pursuing with you. Unfortunately,

proposals like S. 1955, are counterintuitive to the notion of

forging such partnerships and I ask that you reject the bill.

Sincerely,

Christine O. Gregoire,

Governor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I understand the chairman's request, it is to get 4 minutes of additional time on their side. I ask unanimous consent, then, for an additional 4 minutes on our side for comment only.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3677

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3819

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3860

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3592

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3729

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3761

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3805

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, as we gather this morning, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan need our support, families on the gulf coast need help rebuilding their lives, and communities all across this country need help moving forward. And now it is down to us. Will we provide that support? Will we provide that critical help? Or will we leave our troops unfunded, our gulf coast in ruins, and our communities stalled? This is the bill that determines whether we move forward as a country or whether we make it harder for our troops, for hurricane victims, and for American families to make progress. That is the choice before us.

I am on the floor this morning--as I have been all week--saying we need to move our country forward by passing this emergency supplemental bill. I do want to address some of the concerns that have been raised about this bill.

For years, this White House has been playing games to hide the cost of war. We know we have tremendous expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone knows that. But when it's time to write the budget--suddenly this White House develops amnesia. It somehow ``forgets'' to include the cost of war in the regular budget process. On the day the administration sends us its budget--the ongoing cost of war is somehow unknowable. But a few weeks later--when it sends up an emergency supplemental--suddenly we have got this huge document that lists the costs of war. It is a fiction, a sham, a game. And for too long--this Congress has been going along with it. We don't include the war in the budget. We don't fund the war through the Defense Appropriations bill, we just expect to pay for it through emergency supplementals, and that is not honest. Moreover, it means that real emergencies--unanticipated natural disasters and our own homeland security needs--are pushed aside and rendered ``less important'' than ongoing war costs.

All year I have been on the floor saying that if we are not realistic with our budgets, we are going to have to make up the difference in emergency spending--and that is where we find ourselves today.

Mr. President, I want to walk through how the size of the supplemental has changed to remind my colleagues that it didn't just grow mysteriously. Members of both parties added critical priorities to the supplemental, and members have stood up for those critical investments.

When the Senate Appropriations Committee gathered in early April to mark up this bill, several amendments were adopted that added to the cost of the bill. They included bipartisan amendments to address the agricultural disasters that we have witnessed across the country. That amendment was championed by Senator Dorgan and Senator Burns.

Senator Harkin added an amendment to make sure that there will be adequate funds to finance the administration's preparations to deal with a pandemic flu outbreak.

With the support of Senator Bond, I added an amendment to address the backlog of claims for highway emergency relief that still haven't been paid for recent declared disasters across the country; including: Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Dennis, the San Simeon Earthquake, Hurricane Ophelia, Tropical Storm Gaston, and the tragic

floods in Hawaii that we debated yesterday evening.

The gulf coast Senators on the committee, including Senators Hutchison, Shelby, Landrieu, and, of course, Chairman Cochran, also presented amendments to better address the needs of the gulf coast region in its efforts to recover from Hurricane Katrina and the other gulf coast hurricanes.

These amendments were all offered to address the real needs of our communities here at home.

The Appropriations Committee reported this bill to the Senate Floor by a vote of 27 to 1. When we brought the bill to the floor, we received a statement of administration policy from the Bush white house. That statement said that the President would veto any bill that exceeded the level of $94.5 billion. Soon after, the Senate was given an opportunity to vote on the President's position.

My friend, Senator Thomas of Wyoming, offered an amendment to delete all of the provisions that were not in the administration's original request--thus bringing the size of the bill down to the level acceptable to the President. That amendment failed overwhelmingly, by a veto-proof margin of 72 to 26.

Just hours later, my friend from Nevada, Senator Ensign, made a motion to recommit the bill back to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be cut back to the level President Bush said he would support. That amendment also failed by a veto-proof margin of 68 to 28.

Why did those amendments fail, even in the face of the President's veto threat? Because Senators from across the country on both sides of the aisle recognized that the investments that this bill makes here in America are needed.

Indeed, in the face of those embarrassing votes, the Senate Republican leaders frantically scurried around to get enough signatures on a letter to the President saying they would uphold the President's veto. They were desperate to get that letter out to the media because it was clear from the votes on the Senate floor that the Members of the Senate--Republican and Democrat alike--were not prepared to ignore our needs here at home, even if President Bush is prepared to do so.

That is how this supplemental developed--one amendment at a time-- Senators from both parties voted to address critical needs. Senators have stood by those investments, and now it is time to pass this bill.

Mr. President, we have critical needs in our war effort and here at home that we must address. Those needs have not been addressed through the regular budget, so we must address them through this bill. Let's pass this supplemental and make sure our troops and our communities have the support they need. And as we move forward--let's get real about the budget process--let's get real about the cost of war--or we are going to find ourselves back here time and again passing emergency spending.

We have heard a lot about the size of the bill, and I want to address that. This supplemental is big because the budgets we have passed over the years have been unrealistically small.

Let me say that again: This bill is big because the budgets we have passed have been unrealistically small. Time and again, the White House has proposed budgets that do not come close to meeting our domestic needs--and that completely ignore the costs of war. Those budgets have been works of fiction. And if we are not going to be realistic in the regular budget process--if we are not going to include the cost of war in the regular budget, we are going to have to face reality during this supplemental.

That is where we find ourselves today. So any Member who is troubled by the size of this bill should tell the White House it is time to get real and send us budgets that include the cost of war and that address our domestic needs--or we are going to find ourselves dealing with emergency spending time and time again.

But we can't miss the big picture--either we pass this bill and help our troops an our country, or we make it harder for America to move forward. Let's have the wisdom to make the right choice.

Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership that Senator Byrd has provided throughput this process. He knows this body better than anyone. And, more importantly, he brings with him a deep commitment to doing the right things not only for the Senate, but for the country, and for the families we all represent.

I also want to thank Chairman Cochran for his leadership and hard work on this bill. He has shown extraordinary patience throughout this debate, and I appreciate how he has worked with all of us to keep this bill on track.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, we have no objections on this side.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the amendment that has been sent to the desk the modified amendment?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute to express my deep gratitude to Chairman Cochran who, as I stated earlier, has demonstrated extraordinary patience over the past 2 weeks we have been debating this supplemental bill.

I also want to express my thanks to the ranking member, Senator Byrd, who has continued to demonstrate his strong and resolute leadership on this bill.

I also want to thank the many members of our Appropriations Committee staff who have worked very hard.

First and foremost, I thank our staff director and deputy staff director on our side, Terry Sauvain and Chuck Kieffer.

I also thank the majority staff director, Keith Kennedy, and his staff, Clayton Heil and Les Spivey.

I want to make special mention of the extraordinary hard work of B.G. Wright, Kate Fitzpatrick, and Rachael Taylor. They have been keeping us all on track on this side as to which of the hundreds of filed amendments have been cleared and which have not.

Finally, I thank Peter Rogoff who has dedicated his life on the Senate floor for the last 2 weeks above and beyond the call.

I thank all our staff and floor staff for being here many long hours for the completion of this bill.

I yield the floor.