Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Violence Against Women Act, which Congress has finally reauthorized after many delays. As my colleagues know, the final bill passed the Senate on Friday, it passed the House on Saturday, and it is now headed to the President for his signature.

As domestic violence leaders in my home State of Washington will tell you, this reauthorization is long overdue. VAWA has been a critical tool for fighting domestic violence, and it should have never been allowed to expire. The Republican leadership finally recognized that, and now we will strengthen and expand that critical law.

Today I want to discuss some of the improvements we have passed-- including new tools related to health care, housing, and abuse that involves police officers. I also want to share my disappointment that the economic protections I have worked to include were removed when this bill was considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I have tried to advance critical economic protections at every turn, and I want to update my colleagues--and advocates in Washington State-- about where those efforts stand. I do want to thank several of my colleagues for their hard work on this bill, including Senators Leahy, Specter, Biden, Hatch, and Kennedy.

The original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, created a national strategy for dealing with domestic violence. And that strategy has been very successful. VAWA brought together victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of domestic violence. This bill reauthorizes and strengthens those core programs.

This bill also creates new programs that represent important steps forward in areas such as health care, housing and officer-involved abuse.

The first new step concerns health care. For the first time, VAWA includes a national health care response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. It authorizes new grants to train health care providers to recognize and respond to domestic or sexual violence. These grants will help establish partnerships between victims service providers and health care providers in State hospitals and public health departments. It also provides funding for direct services for sexual assault victims, including 24-hour emergency and support services.

Second, this law now addresses housing inequities for victims by providing new grants to help victims find long-term housing. It also protects the confidentiality of victims who are receiving assistance from Department of Housing and Urban Development-funded programs. VAWA also now includes provisions to protect mail-order brides and expands protections for immigrant victims.

This legislation also addresses the issue of police officer-involved domestic violence. I have spoken about this issue on the Senate floor before because of a terrifying case in Washington state. In April 2003, Tacoma police chief David Brame shot and killed his wife, Crystal Judson Brame. Then he took his own life, all while their two young children watched. The final tragic act was the last in a long history of abusive events.

In response to this incident, the City of Tacoma, the Tacoma Police Department, and others formed a task force to examine officer-involved domestic violence. They created a new policy for the Tacoma Police Department, and they helped pass a State law which requires that departments have policies on officer-involved abuse.

This VAWA bill gives local communities new resources to deal with abuse that involves police officers. It funds the Crystal Judson Domestic Violence Protocol Program. It allows law enforcement agencies, victim service providers, and Federal, State and local governments to use STOP grant funds to create new protocols for handling officer- involved domestic violence.

What happened in Tacoma is a tragedy that cannot be weighed. Out of that tragedy, Washington State changed its laws, and now the Federal Government is giving communities across the country new tools to address

officer-involved abuse. So that new provision--along with the healthcare and housing measures--represent new progress in fighting domestic violence. But frankly, we have got a lot more work to do. I am deeply disappointment that the economic protections I have been fighting for since 1998 were not included in this reauthorization-- despite some early progress.

If we are going to break the cycle of violence, we need to address the economic barriers that trap victims in abusive relationships.

We know that financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence. Too often, victims don't have the financial strength to leave a violent relationship. As a result, they are forced to choose between protecting themselves and keeping a roof over their heads. When a victim cannot afford to move out, or cannot afford to pay the rent, or has lost a job because of abuse, that person is trapped, and Congress needs to help free them from that trap.

In this bill, we had an opportunity to help victims. In the Senate version of the bill, I worked to include an unpaid leave provision. It was in the Senate version, but it was dropped by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In my view, that was wrong. It is like leaving someone trapped in a burning building. We should have knocked down the barriers and thrown open the exit doors, but the Senate failed and that will have a real impact on people trapped in abusive relationships.

The protections I sought were reasonable. It would have allowed victims to take up to 10 days of unpaid leave per year to address domestic violence. Over 40 percent of American workers get no paid time off. They cannot use vacation time to address abuse, and missing work puts them in danger of losing their job. My provision would have allowed victims to take unpaid leave to get a protective order, see a doctor, or make a safety plan.

But unfortunately, there was opposition and complaints about jurisdiction, and these protections were stripped from the bill during consideration in the Judiciary Committee.

Once those protections were dropped, I kept fighting. I offered another tool to help victims escape abusive relationships. I asked the managers of the bill to include a provision on unemployment insurance. I asked them to provide victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking with unemployment insurance if they have to leave their job or are fired because of abuse.

We know that a job is often the only way for victims to build up the resources to leave a violent relationship, but abuse and stalking can make it impossible for a victim to keep a job.

Many of my colleagues may recall the story of Yvette Cade, of Maryland. As reported in the Washington Post, Ms. Cade's estranged husband showed up at her job at a wireless phone store, threw gasoline on her, and lit her on fire. A restraining order against her estranged husband had been dropped shortly before the incident, even though she had indicated he was still threatening her.

Ms. Cade was burned over 60 percent of her body and remains in the hospital.

There are many more cases of abusers who deliberately sabotage a victim's ability to work, placing harassing phone calls, cutting off their transportation, and showing up at the workplace and threatening other employees. When a victim loses a job because of violence, that victim should have access to unemployment compensation benefits.

Some people might claim that it is too expensive to allow victims to access unpaid leave. But I would remind my colleagues that domestic violence imposes costs on a workplace too. When violence follows victims into the workplace, it doesn't just hurt victims--it hurts their employers. It means less productivity and higher insurance costs.

So anyone who says it is too expensive to provide unpaid leave should also remember that domestic violence is expensive to businesses to in both lives and dollars. Providing the tools that will allow abused women to escape abusive relationships can help offset billions of dollars in costs that domestic violence imposes on businesses.

Unfortunately, my efforts to include unpaid leave provisions were rejected as well. But I am not giving up. I have been at this since 1998 and I know who I am fighting for. I have been to the shelters in my State, and I have talked with the victims. I have met with their advocates, and I am not giving up on them.

I am going to keep pushing for my SAFE Act, which stands for the Security and Financial Empowerment Act. It contains the protections victims need to break the cycle of violence. I thank Senators Leahy, Corzine, Dayton and Dodd for signing on as original cosponsors, and would invite all of my colleagues to sign on as well.

I am going to continue to tell their stories because we need to hear their voices here in the Senate. It is easy to argue about jurisdiction, but that doesn't mean anything to someone who is getting beaten up every night. It is easy to argue about the cost of unpaid leave--but that doesn't mean anything to someone who needs to get a protective order so they can escape a violent relationship.

This Congress has a lot of work to do to help victims, and I will come to this Senate floor as many times as it takes, until we finally give victims the help they need and deserve.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about developing countries around the world that are dealing with population explosions. As we near the end of the year, we are trying to wrap things up before the Senate goes out of session. But we continue to ignore this important issue.

This topic does not get very much attention here on the Senate floor, but in the developing world, there is a population explosion. Some experts believe that the population of Earth may top 9 billion by 2050. Eighty-eight percent of Americans believe that international population growth is either a major problem right now or that it will become one in the future. Almost all of the growth is occurring in countries that are the least able to govern, ensure jobs for, and care for their citizens.

But this is also about safe access to health care for women. Even though these countries are experiencing huge population growths, hundreds of thousands of women are dying each year from complications from pregnancy. These women do not have access to the health care that they need, especially reproductive health care.

In many poor countries around the world, nongovernmental organizations and medical professionals are working to make things better. They have set up clinics and reached out to the women and families in poor communities. They are doing great work. But their hands are tied because the Bush administration has imposed a political ideology on the world.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he signed an Executive order known as the global gag rule. It denies U.S. funds to any overseas health clinic unless it agrees not to use its own private, non-U.S. funds for anything related to abortion. What that means, is that if you are a medical professional living in an impoverished country trying to help people and save their lives, you are gagged from even talking about certain reproductive health services. The gag rule places limits on women and doctors that we would never accept here in the United States.

Earlier this year, the Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act to reverse the President's policy and ensure that health care clinics for women and families receive this much- needed funding. Unfortunately, this legislation has not passed by the full Senate. I am pleased that the Foreign Operations appropriations bill contains $34 million for the United Nations Populations Fund, UNPA, for this purpose. But in order to ensure that this money goes toward funding health care clinics for women and families in poor countries, we must overturn this global gag rule.

In closing, I would like to share the following article, which ran on December 3, 2005, with my colleagues because I believe that it provides some important food for thought as we continue to work on this important issue.

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and the following article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am excited to congratulate the women Huskies on their terrific win in the NCAA Championships. Not only has UW's women's volleyball team given the University a new championship trophy, but they have given young girls across our State new role-models and proof that they can reach their dreams.

We need to ensure that any young girl who dreams of making the team, wearing a sports jersey or winning a college championship has the opportunity to succeed. That's why--as a Congress--we need to protect Title IX and the future of every girl in Washington State and around the country who wants to play sports.

For the past 33 years, Title IX has opened doors to athletics, education and success for millions of young women across America. Title IX is not about politics, it is about helping young women--like the members of UW's women's volleyball team--achieve their dreams.

I am proud of the UW women's volleyball team, their 32-1 record, and the fact that they became the first team in a 64-team NCAA tournament format to win all six matches by a sweep. I know I join volleyball fans statewide--and young female athletes everywhere--in congratulating them on their accomplishment.

Madam President, to keep America strong, we need to keep our families and communities strong. That is why I am very concerned about the fiscal year 2006 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill.

The Senate is scheduled to take up the final conference agreement on this bill, and it is bad news for the American people. This bill is filled with the wrong priorities for our country.

If we pass this bill as a result, it will tear apart what is left of America's health care safety net and provide fewer investments in education and workforce training.

Instead of investing here at home--in our people, our children, and our communities--this bill will move us in the wrong direction and will undermine America's strength.

If we can rebuild schools and hospitals in Iraq out of emergency funding, why can't we provide the resources our own communities need here at home?

We know that rebuilding safe and stable communities in Iraq requires investments in education, training, and health care. And the same is true in communities across America.

If we want to be strong here at home, we need to invest here at home, but this falls far short of what we need.

That is really a disappointment because this bill is the most direct tool we have each year to improve the health and education of the American people.

More than any other appropriations bill, the Labor-HHS bill directly impacts almost every family and every community. This is a bill that funds all of the Federal commitment on education. It provides funding for our investment in biomedical research. It funds all of the Older Americans Act programs. And it provides the funding to retrain our workers to succeed in a very competitive global economy.

This is an important bill and it should be used to invest in America, but instead--this bill cuts funding by $540 million from last year's level. When we add in the Medicare administrative funds, the total cut soars to $1.4 billion.

That means we are moving in the wrong direction--and families are going to feel the impact in health care, education and job training.

Let me start with health care.

This bill cuts total health care funding by $466 million. It cuts programs that help the uninsured get health care, efforts like community health centers, the maternal child health block grant; health professions training, rural health, and CDC disease prevention programs.

This bill also moves us in the wrong direction on disease research. We can all be proud of the National Institutes of Health. It is the leading source of biomedical research into deadly diseases like cancer, MS, Parkinson's, ALS, heart disease, and AIDS. But this bill provides the NIH with the smallest increase since 1970. It would move us backward in our fight against cancer and other terminal illnesses. How can we expect to be able to find vaccines for new global pandemics when we are cutting our investment in critical research?

This conference report will also make it harder for uninsured families to see a doctor. Specifically, this bill eliminates the Health Community Access Program, which I have fought to protect for many years now.

This is a program that helps our local communities to coordinate care for the uninsured and provide integrated health care services for vulnerable families.

I have seen the Community Access Program at work in my home State of Washington, and I know it is making a tremendous difference.

These are the very programs we should be investing in today. The HCAP program was authorized with broad bipartisan support in 2002. But this bill would eliminate this successful community-based model for helping the uninsured.

Not only is this bill bad news for health care, it also moves us in the wrong direction on education.

This bill represents the smallest increase in education in a decade. Today, schools are facing increasing requirements under No Child Left Behind. Today, family are facing rising college tuitions. Today is no time to shortchange education. We know the burdens on our local community are growing.

In the coming year, school districts will face higher academic standards, and they will have to meet new requirements for highly qualified teachers. That means they need more help. But the conference reports cuts funding for the No Child Left Behind Act by 3 percent.

Funding in the conference report is $13.1 billion below the authorized funding level.

This bill also marks the first time in 10 years that the Federal Government will slide backward on its commitment to students with disabilities. The Federal share of special education costs would drop from 18.6 percent in fiscal year 2005 to a flat 18 percent in fiscal year 2006.

Every time we cut back our investment in special education, we are putting a higher burden on local school districts, children, and their families.

In addition, funding for disavantaged students-through title I--will receive its smallest increase in 8 years. In fact, the funding level in this bill is $9.9 billion less than what Congress and President Bush committed to provide. The bill would leave behind 3.1 million students who could be fully served by title I if the program were funded at the committed level.

Many students are feeling the impact of higher tuition. This year, tuition and fees grew by 7.1 percent at 4-year public universities. But the conference report fails to increase the maximum Pell grant award for the fourth year in a row.

It also fails to increase funding supplemental educational opportunity grants, the Work-Study Programs, and the LEAP Program, which supports State need-based aid.

In addition, the conference report also fails to increase funding for GEAR UP and the TRIO Programs, which help disadvantaged students complete high school ready to enter and succeed in college.

This bill also moves us in the wrong direction on helping America's workers.

We hear a great deal about economic recovery and building a strong economy. Yet this conference report will cut adult job training by $31 million. It will cut youth training by $36 million. These programs serve over 420,000 people nationwide. How can we hope to strengthen our economy and help those who lost manufacturing jobs if we are reducing our investment in job training?

All of the tools we need to build a strong economy--and a strong America--are on the chopping block in the Conference Reports.

Worst of all, this is not the end.

We know that there will likely be an across-the-board cut in all discretionary programs, including those funded in the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill.

That means even more families will lose access to affordable health care, more children and schools will go without the resources they need to meet the Federal mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, and more workers will see the American dream slip away when their plant closes.

This is not the right message to send to our families and communities.

Let's show them that we want to make America strong again and that we are willing to invest here at home.

I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and force the Republican leadership to invest in making America stronger.

Mr. President, I have traveled throughout my home State of Washington throughout the past month. A lot of people have told me time and time again they want our country to be strong again, and to be strong we need to invest right here at home, in our people, in our infrastructure, and in our communities. But today the Republican leadership is trying to push us in the wrong direction by cutting those critical investments. Republicans today are attempting to interpose an across-the-board spending cut that will hurt our families, it will hurt our local communities, and it will even jeopardize the housing and safety of the American people.

I am speaking out today to explain how those misguided cuts will affect housing for vulnerable families and the safety of every American who plans to fly this holiday season.

I thank Senator Byrd for his tremendous leadership and his speaking out about this misguided Republican plan.

As the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies, I am here today to tell my colleagues that an additional 1-percent to 2-percent cut across the board will not be harmless. It will chip away at the Federal safety net that protects our vulnerable neighbors, and it will undermine the safety of our commercial aviation system.

Before I turn to those details, I want to make a broader point about priorities. There is something very wrong with the idea behind these broad, across-the-board cuts. Here is what the leadership in the Republican Party is saying with these cuts: When we need to rebuild in Iraq, we will pay for it out of the Treasury. But when we need to rebuild American cities such as New Orleans and Biloxi, we can only do it on the backs of vulnerable Americans. We can only do it by cutting other priorities at home.

That is the wrong message. It is the wrong priority, and America can do better than that. That Republican idea should offend every American taxpayer who believes that the first and greatest responsibility of our Federal Government should be the well-being of our own people. Nonetheless, that is the position of the Republican leadership in this Congress. As a result, we are now being told that, if we want to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, we have to cut every Federal program across the board, no matter how much those cuts will hurt our safety, our economy, or our security.

Some Senators may try to suggest that a small cut will not have a big impact. I can tell you, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, that is not the case. Let me talk about some of the specific ways these cuts will undermine American families in areas such as transportation and housing and in aviation. I know those areas well because I have worked on them as the ranking member on the Transportation and Treasury and HUD committee.

First of all, these cuts will mean less progress in reducing highway congestion. We will lose more than $720 million in highway construction funds, and with that 34,000 good-paying jobs. Americans will waste more time in traffic, businesses will lose productivity, and our economy will suffer.

Second, those proposed Republican cuts will make life harder for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and for the vulnerable families throughout our country. Hurricane Katrina revealed the harsh truth about poverty in America in 2005. Many people lost what little they had. There are still thousands of victims of that hurricane who are without adequate housing. Some of them are living in tents. Some are still in hotels, wondering when they are going to be thrown out. Others are doubled up with their relatives. And still others have been dispersed all across the country, wondering how they are going to pay for housing when they are earning no income. Neither FEMA nor HUD have done an adequate job addressing the critical housing needs of these Americans.

So here we are trying to address those needs with a supplemental appropriations bill, and Republican leadership is saying if you want to help these Katrina victims, you have to cut housing assistance for other vulnerable families. I think that is the wrong way, to say the only way we will help the victims of Hurricane Katrina is by taking housing away from other needy families. Those cuts would mean that more than 35,000 families will lose the help in housing that they get today through HUD's tenant-based housing assistance program.

Those cuts also threaten to eliminate transitional housing for 1,200 homeless citizens. Think about it. Cutting housing for the homeless, taking help away from 35,000 vulnerable families right before the holidays--that does not reflect my values and that does not reflect my priorities.

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, public housing agencies across America opened their doors and sought to make emergency housing available to the citizens who had to evacuate New Orleans. I saw it even in my home State where housing agencies worked hard, thousands of miles away from the gulf coast, to help these families. Most of those housing agencies already had long waiting lists of low- income families waiting for a unit or for a voucher. By accommodating those Hurricane Katrina victims, those housing agencies effectively pushed their own local citizens further down that very long waiting list.

We should not now make it worse by eliminating vouchers for 35,000 families in order to pay for the additional aid for the Katrina victims. We must not come to the aid of victims of Hurricane Katrina by creating still other victims around the country through these misguided cuts.

These cuts will hurt jobs and transportation. They will hurt the homeless and other families who are living on the brink. And these cuts will affect the safety of our air travel in this country.

I addressed the Senate on this issue of aviation safety on October 6, and I did so because I thought it was critical that all Senators understand the relationship between the funding levels we provide to the FAA and the ability of that agency to ensure that the American people are safe when they board an aircraft.

The holidays are upon us. Thousands of American families are going to board planes shortly to gather with their families across America. When they do, they have the right to expect that we in Congress are doing everything in our power to ensure that they will continue to benefit from the safest aviation system in the world.

Yet the reality is that the FAA is facing an unprecedented budget challenge in adequately staffing its air traffic control facilities with fully trained professionals. And the agency is also challenged when it comes to deploying an adequate number of fully trained aviation safety inspectors to oversee the safety practices of our Nation's airlines.

As I explained back on October 6, over the last few years our national aviation enterprise, airlines, airports, and the FAA, have been under an unprecedented amount of financial pressure. We now have no fewer than six airlines in bankruptcy, and that number could grow.

In the interest of cutting costs, airlines have been cutting back on staff, renouncing their pension plans, and outsourcing an increased percentage of their aircraft maintenance.

I know many Senators like me who travel home every weekend have noticed those changes in the services the airlines offer. Staffing is leaner than ever, and flight delays and mechanical problems are on the rise.

Airlines are now contracting out their aircraft maintenance work to third parties, including, my colleagues should know, many overseas vendors who are known as foreign repair stations.

Let me say that again.

Aircraft maintenance work is being contracted out to overseas vendors who are known as foreign repair stations.

In the past, airlines maintained their planes with experienced veteran unionized mechanics. Today, they outsource more than 50 percent of their maintenance work to independent operators. Airlines, such as Northwest, send some of their aircraft as far as Singapore and Hong Kong for heavy maintenance. We have one major carrier, JetBlue, that sends a large portion of its all-airbus fleet to be maintained in El Salvador, Central America. That is where those planes have mechanics that work on them. America West Airlines, now merged with U.S. Airways, does the same thing. This outsourced work needs adequate oversight, and it needs inspection if the American people are going to be safe.

How has the FAA responded to this growing threat to aviation safety? Because of across-the-board cuts in the prior appropriations bills, the FAA has actually downsized its safety workforce by more than 300 personnel, including more than 230 inspectors. That is right. We have gotten rid of more than 230 inspectors, the very professionals who are charged with ensuring that maintenance operations are meeting adequate safety standards.

That was not the intent of the transportation appropriations subcommittee in either the House or the Senate. Indeed, just last year the Transportation appropriations bill provided every penny the President requested for the FAA's safety office. But the FAA still had to drop the number of inspectors because of the across-the-board cut that was imposed by the Republican leadership.

It also resulted from the fact that Congress granted all civilian Federal employees a higher pay raise than the Bush administration asked for, but none of the appropriations subcommittees were given adequate funding allocations to fully fund those pay raises.

Now we know the FAA's inspection efforts are falling short. We have troubling reports today from the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, from the Government Accountability Office, and the National Transportation Safety Board.

Yet despite all those dangers, the FAA had to go ahead and decrease the number of FAA safety inspectors dramatically last year because of those across-the-board cuts. No one can stand up today and say that an across-the-board cut has no impact.

Let us fast-forward to right now, this year. I am very proud to say that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have worked to address this safety vulnerability. Both committees provided increased funds over and above the levels requested by the Bush administration to bring the number of safety inspectors back to reasonable levels.

In the fiscal year 2006 Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill that the President signed a few weeks ago, we provided $8 million dollars to boost employment in the FAA safety office by 119 inspectors. That is not going to restore all of the safety inspectors that we lost last year. But it will move staffing in this critical function in the right direction.

But if Congress enacts an across-the-board cut, it will completely eliminate all of the progress we just made in ensuring safety in our skies.

An across-the-board cut that threatens to be included in the final appropriations bill this year could cut the FAA's operations account by over $160 million and then put the FAA's budgetary situation right back where it was. That will require downsizing of the FAA inspector workforce while the critical workload continues to grow.

The situation is almost identical when it comes to the FAA's efforts to avoid the continued attrition in the ranks of our air traffic controllers. It is estimated that 73 percent of the FAA's air traffic controllers will be eligible to retire over the next decade.

In the fiscal year 2006 Transportation appropriations bill just signed into law, we provided almost $25 million to hire an additional 1,250 air traffic controllers. That funding is essential in order to replace the over 650 air traffic controllers who are expected to retire over the course of the next year and to build that workforce back up so we can handle retirements in the future.

Another across-the-board cut this year will completely nullify our effort to hire an adequate number of air traffic controllers. Such a cut will put America's flying public at great risk.

As I said, those across-the-board cuts have a meaningful impact, and they recklessly eliminate initiatives that are critical to the safety of American citizens.

If Senators don't want to take my word for it, they need to listen to the word's of George Bush's FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey. I have had several discussions with her about this topic in the last few weeks. She recently sent me a letter. I will read a portion of it. It says:

Over the past two years, we experienced a net loss of 1,000

controllers and 231 safety inspectors. I don't believe

Congress intended that to happen, but that has been the

impact of unfunded pay raises.

I am concerned it is going to happen again if Congress

adopts an across-the-board reduction in the final bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I received from the Bush administration's FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to implore my colleagues to heed the warning of the FAA Administrator and me. We have to reject this absurd and reckless policy.

If we can declare an emergency under the Budget Act and provide the funding necessary to rebuild Iraq without offsets, then surely we can do the same when it comes to rebuilding Mississippi and Louisiana.

We certainly should not be cutting essential services to all Americans across the country, especially low-income Americans, for the purpose of funding the needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Those cuts will simply create another wave of victims.

As I just outlined, it will put the well being of Americans at risk.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Bond, in supporting the conference report on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary and Independent Agencies Appropriations for fiscal year 2006.

This bill is the product of many hours of hard work since the Senate passed the bill on October 20. First, I want to express my sincere gratitude for the cooperative spirit that my colleague, Chairman Bond, along with our House colleagues, Chairman Knollenberg and Congressman Olver, brought to bear during our conference negotiations.

I am pleased to say that the conference agreement, like the Senate- passed bill, restores many of the more punitive cuts that were included in the President's budget for transportation, housing and drug law enforcement.

We have funded airport grants at $3.55 billion rather than accept the President's proposal to cut this program by half a billion dollars.

While the President sought to move the Community Development Block Grant program to another department and cut it by more than a third, this bill restores most, but not all of the annual funding for CDBG.

While the President's budget effectively zeroed out Amtrak and proposed to eliminate rail service in our country, this conference agreement provides Amtrak with a $100 million increase and includes many of the reforms that were agreed to and included the bill reported by the Senate committee.

This is a good bill that addresses many of the urgent needs facing our country. It includes critical investments in our Nation's transportation infrastructure and provides much needed housing assistance to our most vulnerable.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the tax reconciliation bill before the Senate today.

Today, Americans are saddled with more than $8 trillion in national debt, an obligation being passed on to our children and grandchildren. And our Nation's expenditures--because of the War in Iraq, the global war on terrorism, Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters, and countless other challenges our Nation is confronting are far outstripping our tax receipts.

The current administration has placed passing tax cuts for the few ahead of targeted tax cuts for the middle class and to grow business and has made us less able to address other important priorities, homeland security, paying for the war in Iraq, our nation's infrastructure, health care, and education.

I believe we need a tax system that is fiscally responsible, helps business grow, and provides maximum relief to the middle class. That is why I support tax policies that work to achieve those goals, and that is why I voted for the Conrad substitute amendment, which would have fully paid for the cost of targeted middle class tax relief.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about passing a $60 billion tax cut bill at a time when we are cutting Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, and other domestic programs that will spur economic growth and help all Americans. Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate Republican leadership brought a spending cut to the floor to cut $35 billion from areas like healthcare and education. The budget that passed this body contains the wrong priorities. It imposes painful cuts on working families, as I said at the time.

Mr. President, too many working families in American don't feel secure. They are worried about high gas prices and how they are going to heat their homes this winter. They are worried about how they will pay for their health insurance and their prescription drugs. And they are worried they won't be able to afford a home or college tuition for their children.

Given all this, why would the Congress pull the rug from under these working Americans at exactly the time they need our support? The answer is before us today to make room for more tax cuts. Now, some of the tax cuts contained in the tax reconciliation bill are certainly helpful. The research and development tax credit, the deduction of State and local sales tax, and the deduction for teacher's expenses are all important provisions and should be extended. I have voted for and cosponsored bills that extend or make permanent some of these provisions. In fact, I voted to extend these tax provisions and all those expiring at the end of the year when I voted for the Conrad substitute amendment. That amendment fully paid for the tax cut extensions and the Hurricane tax relief over 10 years and did not cost the Federal Treasury a dime.

I oppose cutting critical services to pass unbalanced tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy. The capital gains and dividend tax cut extensions, which primarily benefit those making

more than $1 million, are not in the current version of this bill. But I know that when the tax reconciliation bill comes back from conference, it will have those provisions. We all heard Senate Majority Leader Frist when he said, and I quote ``I will not bring a conference report to the Senate floor that does not include this extension.''

So, Mr. President, we have a choice to make: will we invest in priorities like health care, education, transportation and job training that spur economic growth and keep families out of poverty, or will we continue to conduct business as usual and pass tax cuts in a fiscally irresponsible way? Based on the vote 2 weeks ago to cut $35 billion in critical help for Americans in the most need, it appears that the Republican-controlled Congress has chosen the latter.

I understand the importance of a responsible Federal budget. Our nation's annual deficit is more than $300 billion. Foreign owned debt has increased by more than 100 percent over the last 5 years, and we will soon be asked to increase the country's debt ceiling by another $781 billion. At a time when we are facing such tremendous spending pressures and an increasing deficit, I think it would be wise to heed the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said during testimony before the Budget Committee last year:

``If you are going to lower taxes, you should not be borrowing essentially the tax cut. That over the long run is not a stable fiscal situation.''

Unfortunately, the tax reconciliation bill before us will increase the deficit and borrow money to do so. The Senate was presented with the option to extend the tax provisions expiring at the end of this year and pass the hurricane tax relief in a fiscally responsible manner. Unfortunately, the sound Democratic alternative we offered failed on a party line vote.

Mr. President, these are very challenging times for our country and our people. Working families don't feel secure about their jobs, their health care, their pensions or their future. Many Americans are making tremendous sacrifices by serving in our military. We need to show that we are on their side. We need to help make America strong again. The way to do that is to invest in our people invest in their education, their job training, and their future. The Republican budget does just the opposite it cuts out those critical investments so that they can reduce taxes for a few at the top. Those are the wrong priorities. I believe America can do better, and America deserves better, and therefore I will vote against this misguided budget.

Mr. President, I will not object, but I would amend the unanimous consent request by asking unanimous consent that Senator Collins and I have 40 minutes equally divided after the Senator from Kentucky speaks.

Mr. President, today I'm pleased to introduce the bipartisan GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act with the chair of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senator Susan Collins.

We've worked together to create an innovative bill that will protect the American people and protect our economy from terrorist threats.

Our bill will help close one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities facing our nation--a terrorist organization using cargo containers to bring weapons and terrorists into the United States.

For decades, industry leaders in my home state of Washington and around the world have worked hard to create an open, efficient trading system. That system relies on cargo containers to move the vast majority of the world's commerce from factory to market.

The cargo container has reduced the cost of trade--helping American businesses and creating American jobs. We can be proud of the efficiency and speed of our container trading system.

But that system was designed for a different time--before terrorist attacks on American soil and before fanatics took jetliners and turned them into missiles.

Our bill addresses those concerns. Our bill increases scrutiny of shipments. It provides benefits to shippers but only after we have verified that they have improved security. And it ensures we keep testing the system to make sure it stays secure.

Let me quickly summarize the benefits of the GreenLane Act. It gives U.S. officials in foreign ports the authority to inspect suspicious containers before they are loaded for departure into the United States. The GreenLane Act makes the haystack of containers smaller so that the search is smaller. It allows the Government to focus on suspicious cargo. It ensures that we are inspecting and stopping cargo that poses a threat. And it cuts down smuggling of weapons, people, drugs or other illegal cargo.

A smaller haystack and strict overseas security measures will allow the United States and foreign officials to better stop criminal actions and threats to our national security. The GreenLane Act protects America's economy in the event of a terror attack, and it provides a secure, organized way to quickly resume cargo operations after any emergency shutdown. Because any shutdown of ports has the potential to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars a day, the GreenLane Act will minimize the economic impact of a terrorist attack. And the GreenLane Act creates market incentives for everyone in the supply chain to improve security and take responsibility for the cargo they handle.

Today we have a choice in how we deal with the cargo security challenges that face us. But if we wait for a disaster, we will not have a choice. If we all agree on a system now, we will have a role in shaping what it looks like and making sure it is sensitive to the need for free-flowing commerce. I am here to say, along with Senator Collins, that we need to make these changes on our terms now before there is an incident. If we wait until after there is an incident, we risk drastic actions that will hurt everyone. With the GreenLane Act we introduce today, we have the opportunity to create effective, efficient systems and put them in place now.

I invite anyone who cares about our security and our economy to join Senator Collins and me in this effort. If anybody would like more information, visit my Web page at Murray.Senate.Gov/GreenLane.

I thank Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership and partnership in developing this legislation. She brings tremendous experience and expertise to one of America's biggest threats. It has been a pleasure to work with her in developing this critically important bill. I look forward to working with her, and anyone else here, to help turn the ideas of this bill into laws that will protect the American people.

Mr. President, today I'm pleased to introduce the bipartisan GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act with the chair of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senator Susan Collins.

We've worked together to create an innovative bill that will protect the American people and protect our economy from terrorist threats.

Our bill will help close one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities facing our nation--a terrorist organization using cargo containers to bring weapons and terrorists into the United States.

For decades, industry leaders in my home state of Washington and around the world have worked hard to create an open, efficient trading system. That system relies on cargo containers to move the vast majority of the world's commerce from factory to market.

The cargo container has reduced the cost of trade--helping American businesses and creating American jobs. We can be proud of the efficiency and speed of our container trading system.

But that system was designed for a different time--before terrorist attacks on American soil and before fanatics took jetliners and turned them into missiles.

Our bill addresses those concerns. Our bill increases scrutiny of shipments. It provides benefits to shippers but only after we have verified that they have improved security. And it ensures we keep testing the system to make sure it stays secure.

Let me quickly summarize the benefits of the GreenLane Act. It gives U.S. officials in foreign ports the authority to inspect suspicious containers before they are loaded for departure into the United States. The GreenLane Act makes the haystack of containers smaller so that the search is smaller. It allows the Government to focus on suspicious cargo. It ensures that we are inspecting and stopping cargo that poses a threat. And it cuts down smuggling of weapons, people, drugs or other illegal cargo.

A smaller haystack and strict overseas security measures will allow the United States and foreign officials to better stop criminal actions and threats to our national security. The GreenLane Act protects America's economy in the event of a terror attack, and it provides a secure, organized way to quickly resume cargo operations after any emergency shutdown. Because any shutdown of ports has the potential to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars a day, the GreenLane Act will minimize the economic impact of a terrorist attack. And the GreenLane Act creates market incentives for everyone in the supply chain to improve security and take responsibility for the cargo they handle.

Today we have a choice in how we deal with the cargo security challenges that face us. But if we wait for a disaster, we will not have a choice. If we all agree on a system now, we will have a role in shaping what it looks like and making sure it is sensitive to the need for free-flowing commerce. I am here to say, along with Senator Collins, that we need to make these changes on our terms now before there is an incident. If we wait until after there is an incident, we risk drastic actions that will hurt everyone. With the GreenLane Act we introduce today, we have the opportunity to create effective, efficient systems and put them in place now.

I invite anyone who cares about our security and our economy to join Senator Collins and me in this effort. If anybody would like more information, visit my Web page at Murray.Senate.Gov/GreenLane.

I thank Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership and partnership in developing this legislation. She brings tremendous experience and expertise to one of America's biggest threats. It has been a pleasure to work with her in developing this critically important bill. I look forward to working with her, and anyone else here, to help turn the ideas of this bill into laws that will protect the American people.

Mr. President, I appreciate the work that went into the bill this year, recognizing how difficult it was given the allocation and given the level of support by the administration. I am particularly concerned about some specific levels within the bill, like funding for our Nation's environmental management program within the Department of Energy's cleanup responsibilities. Specifically, the Waste Treatment Plant, or Vitrification Plant, at the Hanford site is one of those nationally important projects. The Hanford site played a critical role in support of national security efforts in World War II and the Cold War. As a result, tens of millions of gallons of radioactive waste was left behind. It is the obligation of the U.S. Government to clean up that site and the Department of Energy identified the Vit Plant as the flagship project in that cleanup effort.

Officials at DOE claim the administration is 100 percent dedicated to the project. Actions speak louder than words. The request for this fiscal year was $64 million below necessary funding, according to the Department's own out-year projections. On top of that, the supplemental package sent to Congress came with rescissions for ``lower-priority'' programs including a $100 million cut for the Vit Plant. How can cleaning up one of the most polluted sites in our country be deemed a lower priority? Given this lack of support from the administration, I understand how difficult the project is to defend this year, and understand the hesitation on the part of this subcommittee to go beyond the official request by this White House.

And while the cuts to the funding are deep, and while I have deep concerns about what they will mean for our Nation's commitment to cleaning up this dangerous waste, I do concede that it could have been worse.

I specifically thank Senator Reid and his staff for his last-minute assistance in limiting the cuts to the Vit Plant and I thank the chairman for being receptive. When I met with Senator Reid last week, he shared my concern for this project, and together we were able to fight back additional cuts.

I will continue to support the cleanup efforts at the Hanford site.

Madam President, tomorrow our country is going to be celebrating Veterans Day. Together, across the country, we will be honoring the service and sacrifice that so many Americans have made to keep all of us safe and free.

Tomorrow, in the State of Washingon, I am going to join with local veterans at a breakfast for the Compass Center, which provides services to homeless veterans.

I will be at a ``Service of Remembrance'' at the Evergreen-Washelli Memorial Park in Seattle, and I will visit the Washington Soldiers Home in Pierce County.

I am looking forward to those events and the chance to share my thanks with those who have sacrificed so much.

Veterans Day is not just a ceremonial holiday. It is not just an occasion for us to thank others for what they have done for us. It is also a time to ask if we have done enough for those who serve our country. And that is a very timely occasion today with so many veterans coming home from places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and with an aging veterans population that needs more care today.

So today I ask: Are we keeping our promise to those who served our country? Do our politicians and our budgets reflect the great debt that we owe to so many veterans?

I want to try to answer that question by looking at how we treat our veterans who need health care and how we budget for their needs and how we treat our Guard and Reserve members.

First of all, we recognize we have an obligation to those who serve us. When they signed up to serve our country, we agreed to take care of them. They kept their part of the bargain, and now we need to keep ours.

In my home State of Washington, we have made a tremendous contribution to that effort. I am sad to report that 102 servicemembers from Washington State have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our Nation in this war in Iraq. They have earned a place of eternal honor in a rollcall of freedom.

We owe them and their families a debt that can never be fully repaid.

Many other veterans have come home to us with serious injuries, both visible and invisible. They need our help as well.

Today, more than 6,500 Washington State citizens are serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Since 2001, more than 1 million Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of those 20,000 have been from my home State of Washington.

Back in March, I traveled to Iraq and Kuwait. I had the opportunity to meet with a number of our Washington State National Guard who are serving our country there. I saw firsthand they were all operating under tremendously difficult and dangerous conditions. I also saw how every one of them was professional and fully committed to completing their mission.

We need to do right by everyone who serves us because we made a promise and because it keeps our military strong. The way we treat our veterans today affects our ability to recruit new soldiers tomorrow. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what George Washington once said:

The willingness with which our young people are likely to

serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly

proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier

wars were treated and appreciated by their country.

Those are the words of George Washington. They are just as true today as when he said them.

Let's look at how well we are keeping our promise, starting with health care. We can all be proud the VA provides some of the best health care available anywhere in America. We have a great health care system in the VA, but we don't fund it like a priority. Every year it is a struggle to get Congress to provide the funding that is needed. That is why we need to make veterans health care spending mandatory so it is not subject to budget games every year.

This year we had a big fight to make sure veterans did not lose their health care. Starting last February, I began warning that the lines were growing at the VA and we needed to do more. I pointed to the many veterans who were returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan who needed care. Three times I offered amendments to boost VA funding in the Senate. And three times they were voted down. For months the VA and the administration assured us that everything was fine.

But then in June we learned that the VA was facing a massive shortfall of $1 billion. Again, I introduced a bill to provide the $1.5 billion in supplemental that the VA needed for funding. That time it passed.

Today, the House and the Senate are in negotiations to set the final veterans health care budget for fiscal year 2006. I am very concerned we will not provide enough funding. Yesterday, I joined with leaders from six national veterans service organizations to send a message. Together, we said we are watching. We expect the House and the Senate to keep their commitment to America's veterans. Any dollar below the Senate level is $1 taken away from a veteran. It is a VA clinic that will not be constructed. It is a VA doctor who will not be hired. It is a veteran who doesn't get the care America promised them when they enlisted. We cannot leave our veterans without care; we have to stick with the Senate budget in the final appropriations bill.

I am also very concerned about how we treat those who have challenges such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Instead of focusing on getting help to those who need it, today the VA is moving to scrutinize and stigmatize our veterans with post-traumatic stress syndrome. That is why I worked with Senators Durbin and Obama to put language into the Senate VA bill that will require the VA to explain its plan to Congress and to hold veterans harmless, except, of course, in cases of fraud. Those protections have to stay in the final bill that emerges from this conference. We will be watching.

As I think about the way we treat veterans health care, it is pretty clear we need to do two more things. First of all, the VA has to provide an accurate accounting of how it is spending the money we have provided. It needs to give us a clear picture of the needs it is seeing throughout the country. Second, the Bush administration needs to start sending realistic budgets, no more gimmicks, no games--send a 2007 budget that is based on real numbers and real needs. They need to send a budget that takes care of both our aging veterans and our veterans of current operations. When I look at our budget and our priorities, I know we have a lot more work to do to keep our promise to our American veterans.

Another area that concerns me is how we are treating our Guard and Reserve members, especially when they come home from the battle front. In this war, we are relying on Guard and Reserve heavily. It is estimated that 40 percent of those on the ground in Iraq are citizen soldiers. Unfortunately, today the support services for the Guard have not kept pace with the way we are now relying on them in this war. They did not often have access to employment services or job training or family support or health care when they return home.

This past summer, I held a series of roundtables around the State of Washington. I heard from Guard and Reserve members who had come home, who could not find a doctor that accepts TRICARE. I heard about reservists who returned home and fell through the cracks without the payments or support they were promised. I heard from veterans who could not find a job when they came home to this country after serving so honorably.

Our transition services are left over from the Cold War. They do not work for a military that now today relies so

heavily on Guard and Reserve members. I fear this administration is moving the cost of war on to businesses and families who are our Guard members. I believe they have already sacrificed enough. To do our part, we have to update transition and employment services that we bring to the returning Guard and Reserve members.

As I evaluate today how we were treating our veterans, one thing is clear to me: America's military personnel are providing the highest level of service to our country, but we have got some work to do to make sure our support of them, when they come home, is equal to the service they have provided. I am committing to keep a promise our country has made. I ask for the support and leadership of every member of the Senate to do the same. We owe our veterans nothing less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Corzine be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, in a few short weeks some of our most vulnerable Americans, our sickest and poorest, so-called dual eligibles, are going to be shifted from Medicaid to Medicare. We have a train wreck coming. Medicare is going to randomly assign these people to a plan which they may not know about and which might not cover their lifesaving drugs. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists are scrambling. These prescription drug policies themselves have not defined the drugs they are going to cover. My amendment simply gives a 6-month transition for those people so they do not get lost in this switch. I support Medicare coverage for these dual eligibles, but I cannot--and I don't think we should--support turning these people away at the drugstore.

This amendment does not delay the implementation of the Medicare drug benefit. It simply assures thousands of our most vulnerable Americans that they will not be lost in the transition from Medicaid to Medicare coverage.

I thank Senator Rockefeller and my cosponsors, and I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the extraordinary achievements of a gifted Washingtonian named Dr. Bonnie J. Dunbar. Dr. Dunbar is widely acknowledged as one of the world's most experienced female astronauts as well as a pioneer in biomedicl engineering. In tribute to her accomplishments, Dr. Dunbar has been selected to receive the distinguished Women in Engineering Achievement Award for 2005.

Born and raised on a ranch in Sunnyside, WA, Dr. Dunbar took an early interest in space. As a child, she studied the exploits of astronauts like Alan Shepherd and spent her nights studying the sky for signs of passing satellites. By the third grade, she had already declared that she would one day be an astronaut. Encouraged by her parents to follow her dreams, Bonnie Dunbar attended the University of Washington where she received her bachelor and master degrees in engineering, an important precursor to her career at NASA. However, her journey to space was not without its hurdles.

Like a true pioneer, Dr. Dunbar worked to break down barriers. At a time when women were generally discouraged from pursuing science based careers, Dr. Dunbar both succeeded and prospered in her field, paving the way for countless women who shared her interest in science. After receiving her doctorate in Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering from the University of Houston, Dr. Dunbar went on to

hold a number of esteemed research and engineering positions in the private sector. During this time, Dr. Dunbar assisted in the development and manufacture of Space Shuttle Thermal Protection Systems integral to NASA flight operations.

In 1978, when NASA opened its astronaut program to women for the first time, Dr. Dunbar was one of the first candidates to enroll. Although she was not chosen in the final selection, NASA recognized her talents and hired her as a payload officer and flight controller. This would mark the beginning of a distinguished 27-year career at NASA. In 1981, Dr. Dunbar earned her astronaut wings and was assigned to the 1985 Challenger Spacelab mission. Following this successful mission, she was selected to participate in four more missions in space. All told, Dr. Dunbar logged more than 1,208 hours or 50 days in space.

Dr. Dunbar's exceptional performance during these missions garnered more than six NASA Space Flight Medals, including the Superior Accomplishment Award in 1997, and the NASA Exceptional Achievement Award in 1996.

Doctor Bonnie Dunbar's meteoric rise from a small ranching community in the State of Washington to a veteran of five successful missions to space is both extraordinary and inspiring. Her courageous trailblazing took the world's fascination for space to new plateaus and encouraged women to follow their dreams. She truly is a remarkable pioneer and a worthy recipient of the distinguished Women in Engineering Achievement Award for 2005.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Rockefeller, Bingaman, Kennedy, Clinton, and Lautenberg as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, I have some serious concerns about the budget that is now before us.

To make our country strong again, we need to invest at home. What I see in this budget is a $35 billion cut from America's priorities, and I see that it will burden our children with a massive debt.

I am especially concerned this afternoon about what this bill will do to our most vulnerable in this budget and in the new Medicare prescription drug plan that is going to be implemented very soon.

This budget cuts $27 billion from Medicaid. That is a health care program, and it is a safety net for our country's most vulnerable and sickest. I think that cutting their health care is the wrong thing to do.

As I look ahead to this new Medicare prescription drug law, I see a time bomb that is ticking for more than 6 million Americans. A time bomb is ticking for our communities and for our health care providers. That fuse is set to detonate on January 1, 2006, in a few short months. We cannot stand by and let low-income seniors and the disabled lose their drug coverage. We cannot leave doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes unprepared for the biggest change in decades, and we cannot push hundreds of thousands of people who need care on to our local communities.

We cannot wait. We need to fix this problem today. That is why I am offering this amendment. I have been working with Senators Rockefeller, Bingaman, and Nelson to address this immediate crisis, and I want to thank them for their leadership.

I have also introduced my own bill to protect our most vulnerable. It is called the Medicare HEALS Act, S. 1822. I have been traveling around my home State of Washington this past month and meeting with people in Seattle, in Lakewood, Yakima, out in Aberdeen, and Olympia. Everywhere I have gone they have been angry, confused, and very worried and with good reason. Here are some of the concerns I heard. One senior told me:

Everyone I have talked to is totally confused--my doctor,

my pharmacist, even the Medicare number you are supposed to

call.

Another said:

If we can't understand this, this whole plan is going to

fail.

Everywhere I went, people were confused. There were questions I could not answer. When I turned to the doctors sitting next to me, they did not know the answer and neither did the pharmacists or the patient advocates that were there with us.

If Senators, doctors, and experts do not understand this bill, how can we expect an 80-year-old person with serious medical problems to understand this complicated new Medicare prescription drug plan? We cannot. So I believe we need more time and more resources to make this work.

One person I met with said:

Please give us more time, give us the chance to understand

this so we don't make a mistake when we sign up.

One panelist said to me:

Taking something away from those that need it the most . .

. is not the American way.

I could not agree more, and that is why today I am offering this amendment on this budget bill.

I have a lot of concerns with the Medicare prescription drug law. I was one of those who voted against it in 2003 because I think seniors deserve better, and I think America can do better for our seniors. I am very concerned about the complexity. I am concerned about the coverage gap, and I am concerned about whether needed drugs will actually be covered. I am concerned about the retirees who are losing the good coverage they have today, and I am concerned about the late enrollment penalty that is going to punish seniors who need more time to pick the right plan for themselves.

I am working with many other Senators to address those specific concerns. Today, the most urgent problem is the way that this new Medicare prescription drug law treats our most vulnerable: People with low incomes, the disabled, and those who face serious medical challenges such as AIDS.

This Medicare prescription drug law takes away the critical drug coverage that these people have today and puts them into this new program that could charge them more money in exchange for less drug coverage. If they do not sign up for a plan, they are going to be randomly assigned one. Either way, the prescriptions they need may not be covered. Because these are Americans who are living on the financial brink, an interruption of their drug coverage or a new copayment could keep them from getting the drugs they need to live. These people who are being affected do not know this is even going to happen to them. Their doctors and their pharmacists do not understand it and this entire mess is going to burst into the open on January 1, a few short weeks away.

This Senate needs to take action now so we can prevent this catastrophe, which is just a few months away. To understand this problem, let us look at how our most vulnerable are getting their prescription drugs today and how that is about to change.

Today, about 6.4 million Americans with low incomes get help from two programs: Medicare at the Federal level and Medicaid at the State level. These individuals are what we call in Washington, DC, dual eligible because they are eligible for assistance from both Medicaid and Medicare.

What Medicare does not cover, States cover. For example, since the Federal program did not cover prescription drugs, the State programs filled that gap. This State coverage is often called wraparound coverage, and it is very critical for these vulnerable families. As a result, these individuals got the drugs they need, often without copayments or deductibles.

Now there is a big problem coming on January 1. The new prescription drug bill will prohibit States from providing this extra help these people need. Instead, what it does is take these people and move them into this new Medicare Program alone, which will require of them higher out-of-pocket payments and will probably cover fewer drugs.

To me, it does not make sense to take away the good coverage these vulnerable families have today, force them into a program that might not meet their needs, charge them more money in the process and then prohibit our States from helping out these most vulnerable residents. It does not make sense, but that is exactly what this new drug program will do, unless we fix it before January 1.

In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug program changes the coverage for our most vulnerable families in five ways: First, it is going to impose higher costs, higher premiums, copayments, and deductibles. These are our low-income families. They do not have the extra dollars.

Secondly, it is going to cover fewer drugs. Those drugs that they rely on right now for their health care, their mental health, may not be covered in the plan they are randomly assigned to.

Third, it blocks our States from providing extra help as they do today, and our States are the end here. They are the ones who are going to see the fallout if these people do not get the prescriptions they need.

Fourth, it provides no transition period to make sure that these low- income residents do not face gaps in their coverage.

Finally, it penalizes people who simply need more time to understand and pick the right plan for them. These are real people that we are talking about. I am going to introduce two of them.

Earlier this month in Seattle, I met a woman named Kathryn Cole. She is 36 years old. She is disabled, and she is living on Social Security disability. She fills about 15 prescriptions every month. Her monthly income is $757. That is what she lives on. Well, she told me: Even if this copay were only $5, that adds up to $75 a month out of her $757. She said:

I don't have that kind of extra money to squeeze out of my

budget.

Kathryn looked at me and she said, which week am I not supposed to eat?

People like Kathryn across this country today are living on the financial edge. They cannot afford to pay more for their medication. That is what America is about, making sure that the least among us are able to succeed in this country. Kathryn is one of those people.

In Olympia, in my State, I met a man named William Havens. He is 50 years old, and he is living with HIV/AIDS. He takes 43 pills a day. William told me:

For the first time I realize I'm going to have to make a

choice between pills and food.

It is outrageous that this Medicare prescription drug law is going to make

life so much harder for these people that I have met, such as Kathryn and William.

In addition to hurting these people, this new drug program, if enacted the way it is right now, is going to hurt our health care system. It is going to have a costly impact on our nursing homes, our doctors, our pharmacists, and our hospitals.

Many of these dual-eligible individuals live in nursing homes. Nursing homes are going to have to navigate through all of these new plans. In my home State of Washington, there are at least 14 of these new plans that the dual eligibles are going to be assigned. Each one of these plans has different costs and different formularies. Nursing home managers are going to have to see which plan their patient has and if the needed drugs are covered.

In Olympia, I met with a doctor named David Fairbrook. He is in private practice, and he is also the medical director at two of these skilled nursing facilities. He cares for about 150 patients. He is very concerned about his patients being randomly assigned to plans that do not meet their medical needs. He said patients may be denied needed drugs. They could be forced to change their medications, and they could very well face a time-consuming, stressful appeals process.

Dr. Fairbrook predicted to me that there is going to be chaos for nursing staff regarding coordination of multiple suppliers, further duplicating their paperwork and documentation requirements. Chaos, he called it. There is a tremendous new administrative burden for understaffed and underfunded nursing homes and care providers.

In addition, unless we act, this new program is going to make the work of our pharmacists across the country a lot harder. Pharmacists, as we all know, are literally going to be on the front lines. They are going to be forced to deny coverage to these patients. CMS is telling us that pharmacists will be able to look up and see what plan someone has randomly been assigned to so when one of these patients comes into their pharmacy and says, I do not know who is covering me now, they are supposed to be able to look it up and tell them.

Frankly, given all the errors and mistakes that CMS has made so far, I do not have a lot of confidence that this is going to be a flawless transition. Remember, these people whom we are talking about do not have a financial cushion. So if they go into the pharmacy and all of a sudden they find out, much to their surprise, that they have to have a copay of $5 per prescription or more, they are living on fixed incomes, they do not have an extra $20 or $30 to say, fine, okay, I will pay this. They will turn away from the pharmacy counter, and they are not going to have the funds to pay for their drugs now and get reimbursed later when some kind of paperwork system gets sorted out. So we are going to see a huge impact at our pharmacies, and we are already hearing about it from them.

Doctors are going to be on the front line. Doctors are going to have to know which drugs are on the formulary, and they may need to help their patients appeal any denials. I remind my colleagues, most of the plans out there right now do not have a formulary. So people who are looking at this and making conscious decisions about which prescription drug plan they are going to sign up for cannot make a reasoned decision yet because they do not even know which plans cover what drugs. So doctors are telling us that they are going to have a real challenge as they try to help their patients work their way through these plans to make sure that their plan covers the prescriptions that are actually given to them.

One doctor I met with told me if doctors do not have the information they need on this yet, if their patients pick the wrong plan and their medicine is not covered, it can have serious medical harm.

Hospitals are also going to be impacted by this. They are going to have to navigate all of these new plans that are being offered. They are going to have to deal with patients who have not been able to get their prescriptions. In fact, for many of these poor families, the only place to get needed medicine is going to be the emergency room, and that is going to increase the cost of health care for all of us.

So this new drug law is going to impose an expensive and confusing administrative burden on doctors, on pharmacists, on hospitals, and on nursing homes. I think we can do a lot better than this. My amendment simply says let us fix this problem before people realize that they cannot get the prescriptions that they need.

The Murray-Rockefeller-Bingaman amendment simply provides a 6-month transition for low-income, dual-eligible beneficiaries. It does not delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D Program. It simply gives States, CMS, and the Social Security Administration 6 more months to ensure that all of those who currently have access to prescription drugs through Medicaid or who are eligible for Medicaid assistance are not lost in this transition.

Surely we can at least do that for these people.

According to CBO, this amendment could cost $130 million over 5 years. I say that is a very small price to pay when we are talking about the lives of 6.4 million Americans. In this budget, we are being asked to cut $27 billion from health care for the poor. I think it is worth spending less than 1 percent of that amount to make sure our most vulnerable do not lose their drug coverage in this transition.

Today we got another example of how easily our most vulnerable can fall through these cracks. Just today, CMS announced it is going to be sending a mailing to 86,169 dual eligibles in my home State of Washington. But according to the numbers I got from my State, there are actually 95,000 of these dual-eligible patients. So somehow 8,831 vulnerable people are not being counted. They are not going to get a letter. They are not going to get signed up for a plan. They are going to get lost in this transition, and on January 31 they will have no drug coverage. That is exactly why I am offering this amendment and telling my colleagues that we need to have a transition period to allow this to work.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and give our most vulnerable a few extra months to make sure they do not get lost in this transition.

This is a life-or-death issue for many people. We cannot rip away the last remaining safety net for these people. We owe them at least this one very small fix. Time is running out. On January 1, millions of vulnerable Americans are going to be forced into a new system they do not understand and that does not meet their needs. I believe we can avoid this train wreck. People's lives are hanging in the balance, and I urge my colleagues to at least allow these people who are dual eligible a transition period so they are not lost as this plan is implemented.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I will have more to say on this issue, but I would like to use my remaining time to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Wyoming.

I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

With time being charged. We can charge it against our side. That is fine.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue I have been working on for the past year--ending a runaway subsidy in the student loan program.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin and Clinton be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2353.

Mr. President, currently students are enjoying low interest rates on their loans.

That was not always the case. In the 1980s, lenders were promised a rate of return at 9.5 percent on their loans when interest rates were high, but we were trying to keep costs down for students. In 1993, when interest rates were coming down, extra payments to lenders on 9.5 percent loans were supposed to phase out. However, they did not start phasing out and were rapidly increasing until I took action with my colleagues to end this practice.

Last year, I along with my colleagues, including Senators Kennedy and Durbin, who support closing this loophole passed the Teacher-Taxpayer Act. The Teacher-Taxpayer Act took aim at some of the most egregious abuse of this runaway subsidy and returned that money to student's pockets. However, while the Teacher-Taxpayer Act took great strides forward on this issue, the Federal government is still paying out $1 billion a year on the 9.5 percent loans. I believe we are far overdue in ending this practice.

I have filed an amendment to fully and permanently end the remaining 9.5 percent subsidy loophole, which according to the Congressional Budget Office will provide a savings of approximately $500 million. I have stated my intent repeatedly to finally close the remaining loophole. The Higher Education Act reauthorization bill moving through the House of Representatives closes this loophole and Education Secretary Spellings have called for the ending this remaining loophole.

Certainly.

I would agree with that assessment, yes.

I thank the Senator. We may not fully agree on this issue but I commend my colleague's efforts to develop a bipartisan Higher Education Act reauthorization and the challenges in moving such a bill through the Senate on a reconciliation bill.

I thank my colleague Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with him and the chairman through conference on this issue. I appreciate the chairman's commitment to work with me through that process to make sure my voice is heard and interests are met. I think it is critical that, as we work with the House in conference on this issue and others, that we ensure protection and improvement of student benefits, and that any savings generated on this issue be returned to students. We must also work to advance and protect diversity in the lending market, which leads to the competition that provides for improving student benefits in lending.

I thank my colleague for his commitment to working with me and look forward to working with him and Senator Kennedy through that process.

Mr. President, to make our country strong again, we need to invest here at home, and that is why I oppose this budget. It is a bill that will cut $35 billion from America's priorities and burden our children with massive debt. Simply put, I think America can do better.

I will vote against this flawed budget, just as I did in the Budget Committee last week, because it starves our highest priorities. Not only that, this bill opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, which will not solve our energy problems. And I have serious concerns about a House proposal--which could be added to the House version of this bill--to split the Ninth Circuit into two smaller circuits.

Mr. President, a budget is a statement of priorities. As I look at the challenges facing our country--and as I listen to people in my home State of Washington--it is clear that our top priority now must be making America strong again. To do that, we need to invest here at home.

Today, too many people don't feel secure. They feel like they are one step away from losing their job or their pension or their healthcare. They are worried about high gas prices and how they are going to heat their homes this winter. They are worried about the men and women in uniform, who are returning home and can't find a job or healthcare. They are worried they won't be able to afford college tuition for their children. Many people are worried about the new prescription drug program, which will make life harder for so many vulnerable families.

Today people across America worry about being safe here at home. They look around their communities and see aging and unsafe highways, roads and bridges. After what happened in the Gulf Coast with Hurricane Katrina, they are worried their own communities are not protected. There is a coastline, or a volcano, or a fault line, or an aging dam in every State in this

Nation, and this budget doesn't make the right investments in prevention or protection.

This budget has the wrong priorities. I believe we should be providing greater investments in the tools that spur economic growth and help all Americans--education, health care, transportation, and job training. In short, we should be making Americans more secure. Unfortunately, the package before us today does just the opposite. It cuts $35 billion from areas like healthcare and education.

And what is more, this is only the first step in the reconciliation process. You will not hear much about it from the other side of the aisle, but in the coming weeks, the Senate is scheduled to take up the next piece of the reconciliation process--a massive tax giveaway that's even bigger than the cuts we're considering this week.

So what's happening here today is we're being asked to make painful cuts for average Americans so that in a few weeks we can turn around and give massive giveaways to the most well off. That is what's really going on here.

The massive tax cut package that's coming soon would give billions away to the richest people in our country. Multi-millionaires and special interests will reap the benefits from these budget-busting tax breaks, including capital gains and dividends tax breaks. In fact, the upcoming tax breaks exceed the spending cuts we're considering this week by more than $30 billion.

And who benefits? 53 percent of the benefits of capital gains and dividends go to those with incomes greater than $1 million. Listen to the facts. On average, those who make more than $1 million would get tax cuts of more than $35,000. But those with income under $50,000 would get just $6.

Something is clearly out of whack.

The Senate leadership wants to impose painful cuts on average families today. Why? So that in a few weeks they can give massive tax cuts to the most well off. That is wrong.

Today people are hurting on the Gulf Coast. People are concerned for their safety--be it by terrorist attack or flu epidemic and instead of meeting these important priorities, the Senate will cut spending, give away tax cuts, and increase the amount of debt each American owes.

Taken together, these efforts represent the core values and priorities of the Republican Congress, but not of the American people. America can do better. The bill before us this week cuts important programs while doing almost nothing to address the real priorities facing our nation.

First let me talk about Medicaid--a health care program, a safety net for our country's most vulnerable and sickest. This bill cuts Medicaid spending for those least among us by $27 billion. At the same time, Republican members of this body are refusing to take up and pass bi- partisan Medicaid relief for Americans affected by Hurricane Katrina, they want to slash spending on the program here today.

What about agriculture--programs that make sure we can feed our Nation? This bill also cuts agriculture investments by $3 billion, and that will have a painful impact on our family farmers who are struggling today. Just last week, I sat down with farmers from Washington State, and I can tell you they are reeling from drought and high fuel and fertilizer prices. This bill makes their lives even harder by retracting the support that helps family farms get by and will impact our country's ability to ensure we will be able to feed our Nation and keep our country strong. These farm families need our help, but Republicans just say no.

This bill also undermines the pension plans of millions of hard- working Americans. This is a top anxiety for people everywhere I go. Is my retirement gone? What happened to my security?

This bill will increase the financial burden on companies and drive more employers into bankruptcy and out of the defined benefit pension system. It more than doubles the Pension Benefit Guaranty premiums, and it will index those payments in the future. This budget we are debating today undermines the carefully crafted bipartisan pension reform bill that the HELP Committee bill recently passed unanimously. America's pension policy should be driven by what is best for American workers, retirees and employers--not by the need to meet an arbitrary budget target.

And of course, this budget opens ANWR up to shortsighted drilling. This misguided effort is especially troublesome, and is worth a few minutes of time here on the Senate floor. We are all concerned about the high cost of energy. It's a tremendous burden for families, businesses and farmers. We should use that concern to make wise choices that will actually help our country. Instead, this bill takes shortsighted steps in the wrong direction. The responsible way to address our energy problems is to focus on long term solutions like reducing our need for oil, and investing in clean, renewable energy sources.

I oppose drilling in ANWR because the potential benefits do not outweigh the significant environmental impacts. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an important and unique national treasure. It's the only conservation system in North America that protects a complete spectrum of arctic ecosystems. It's the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge. And it's an important calving ground for a large herd of caribou, which are vital to many Native Alaskans. Energy exploration in ANWR would have a significant impact on this unique ecosystem.

Further, development will not provide the benefits being advertised. Proponents claim that energy exploration has become more environmentally friendly in recent years. While that may be true, there are still significant environmental impacts for this sensitive region. Exploration means a footprint for drilling, permanent roads, gravel pits, water wells, and air strips. We recognize that our economy and lifestyle require significant energy resources, and we are facing some important energy questions. However, opening ANWR to oil and gas drilling is not the answer to our energy needs.

And let's keep in mind that drilling in ANWR will not make us less dependent on foreign oil. As a Nation, the only way to become less dependent on foreign oil is to become less dependent on oil overall. The oil reserves in ANWR are not enough to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

There are better ways to meet America's energy needs--including boosting fuel efficiency, expanding the use of homegrown renewable and alternative fuels, investing in new technologies like fuel cells, developing and deploying more energy efficient technologies, and improving conservation and energy efficiency. Drilling in ANWR is not a serious answer to our country's serious energy challenges, and it should not be included in this budget bill.

Another reason I am voting against this bill is because it will clearly get much worse in conference--through steeper cuts in critical investments. This budget bill already cuts $35 billion from America's priorities. And on the House side, leaders are working to cut an additional $15 billion from infrastructure, education and healthcare. That would move this bill even further in the wrong direction.

Finally, I am very concerned about a possible attempt in the House-- which we may see next week--to split the 9th Circuit.

As a member of the West Coast delegation, I strongly oppose this change. The House proposal is not warranted by the facts and is not supported by the judges on the circuit. Back in 1980, when Congress split the 5th Circuit, all of the judges supported that move. But today, that is not the case. I understand that a majority of judges on the 9th Circuit oppose the split. I've spoken with some of them, and they have said a split could create new problems.

They pointed out that splitting the circuit would impose new costs for facilities, staff and administration. The efficiency we have today would turn to duplication tomorrow if the circuit is divided. There would be significant costs to establish a new circuit headquarters and to create a duplicate administration system. In an era of limited budgets, this makes little sense. As the ranking member on the subcommittee that funds the Judiciary, I know we don't have extra money to spend to duplicate administrative services.

A split would also lead to a duplication of cases. Today, by deciding cases for nine States, the circuit provides

clear, uniform guidance to district courts. That prevents a duplication of cases. If the circuit is divided, issues decided in the new 9th Circuit would have to be decided again in the new 12th Circuit, doubling the use of judicial resources and costing even more money. And in addition to the massive cost associated with splitting the 9th Circuit, the change would split the West Coast Technology Corridor into two different circuits. That could have a paralyzing effect on IT and technology growth since there would be a weaker judicial foundation.

I share my concerns about this because next week there may be an effort in the House of Representatives to attach the judicial provision to the House version of this bill. I want House Members to know that as a member of the affected delegation--and as the ranking member of the subcommittee that funds the Judiciary--I oppose this change.

Mr. President, this budget plan has the wrong priorities and that is why I am voting against it. We need to make America stronger and invest here at home. This budget does just the opposite--cutting key investments in the things that our people need. Why? To have money for tax cuts for the wealthiest. America can do better. I urge my colleagues to reject these flawed priorities and work to invest in that which will make our country and our people strong.