Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask to speak on a nongermane topic for approximately 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Brian Harvey

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to honor Brian Harvey. He is a loving husband, father, grandfather, teacher, advocate, and a hero in the fight to protect Americans from deadly asbestos.

Anyone who has followed the debate over asbestos in Congress will immediately remember Brian for his booming voice, for the way he could capture the attention of every person in a packed committee hearing room and for his commitment to saving lives and bringing victims the justice they deserve.

This picture shows him doing what he did best: urging Congress to ban asbestos and to protect victims. Brian Harvey is my hero.

Mr. President, it is my sad duty today to report to the Senate that Brian passed away on Friday, July 22. Today, I want to extend my condolences to his entire family, including his wife Sue, his daughter Valerie, his stepchildren Ethan, Anne, and Amy, and his three grandchildren. But mostly I want to share my thanks that Brian was given more time on this Earth than many asbestos victims and that he used that time to help others.

I was very lucky to work with Brian over the past 3 years. We came together at an important time in both our lives and in the history of congressional action on asbestos. Back in 2002, Brian was defying the odds in fighting mesothelioma and looking for a way to share his experience and to help others. At the same time, I was 1 year into my effort in the Senate to ban asbestos.

I was surprised and horrified to learn that asbestos was still being put in lots of commonly used consumer products on purpose. In my research, I learned about the deadly toll of asbestos diseases and about the lack of prevention, research, and treatment. I wrote a bill to address those critical needs. I was very proud to have Brian Harvey at my side and at the podium as I introduced that bill in June of 2002.

Brian Harvey is my hero because he never hesitated to stand up and speak truth to power. Whenever we had a hearing or press conference, whenever Senators needed to understand the horror of asbestos disease, whenever my legislation needed a little boost or a powerful push, Brian Harvey was the first person on a plane from Washington State all the way here to Washington, DC.

Like so many asbestos victims, Brian was exposed to asbestos through no fault of his own. Brian grew up in Shelton, WA, and like me he attended Washington State University. During his summers back in college, Brian worked at a paper products mill in Shelton, WA. That is where he was exposed to asbestos fibers, but the damage of that exposure would not be revealed until three decades later.

In September of 1999, Brian experienced shortness of breath and fatigue. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and the odds were stacked against him. Most people diagnosed with mesothelioma who do not receive treatment die within 8 months. Those who do receive treatment increase their life expectancy to an average of only 18 months. Overall, a person's chance of surviving 5 years is 1 in 20. Brian lived 6 years after being diagnosed. He was truly one in a million.

Brian Harvey was lucky in many ways. He was diagnosed early. He got experimental treatment at the University of Washington. He had skilled doctors and medical professionals, and he had the support of his entire family and many friends. Many asbestos victims are not that lucky. Brian recognized that, and he used the time he was given to speak up for others whose lives and families have been torn apart by asbestos.

Brian Harvey is my hero because he did not despair about his own personal challenges. Instead, he shared those challenges with all of us, helping us to understand the threat and to inspire change in our public policy. And he did it with an actor's presence and a deeply human personal touch. Brian used to say to me that the left side of his body was made of Gore-Tex. And it was. But that did not explain Brian's toughness or his determination.

That came solely from his heart.

Brian Harvey is my hero because he made a difference. He pushed Congress to treat victims fairly and to ban asbestos. While that work is still a work in progress, Brian's voice and passion echo as loudly today as they did that day 3 years ago when he stood beside me as we introduced the bill for the first time. Brian Harvey is my hero because in the face of so many challenges that could have drained his energy, he found the strength inside to fight the good fight.

Every time I stood up for asbestos victims, Brian Harvey was at my side. He was there on June 28, 2002, when I first introduced my bill. He was by my side in June of 2003 when we stood together to call for fairness for asbestos victims. On March 5, 2003, Brian testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and with his passion and power he called for increased detection and fair compensation for asbestos victims. Three months later, on June 24, 2003, the Judiciary Committee included my ban in its reform bill. On March 25, 2004, at a press conference to call for passage of my bill, Brian Harvey was there as well.

It is very hard for me to picture the next hearing or press conference without Brian standing by my side. But I will continue the fight. When Brian and I met 3 years ago, the odds were against both of us. The medical odds were against Brian. Every day for him was a triumph. And the legislative odds, the chance we could pass a bill, were against both of us. We have made progress, but we are not there yet. I know it will be harder without Brian's advocacy, but I also know he has done so much to bring that goal now within reach. I know eventually we will ban asbestos, we will ensure victims are treated fairly, we will find new treatments for asbestos disease, and we will protect future generations from this epidemic. When that day comes, all of us will have Brian Harvey to thank.

Again, I extend my thoughts and my prayers to Brian's lovely family and his many friends. Last week, when Brian was in the hospital, I spoke to his wife Sue and his daughter Anne. Brian was not well enough for me to speak with him, but I talked to the nurse at his bedside. I asked her to tell Brian something that I have always wanted him to know: You are my hero. Brian Harvey was given extra time on this planet to help other people. That is exactly what he did. Brian Harvey will always be my hero.

I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to call up two amendments, and in the event cloture is invoked on the underlying bill, I will ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.

First, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1348 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 Senator Kennedy as a cosponsor of that amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1348.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1349 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 for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1349.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their consideration. I will come to the floor later to discuss both of these amendments, but essentially they deal with the children of our Guard and Reserve. I think all of us understand the impacts to families across our country. Our members from home have been called up for Guard and Reserve duty.

The first amendment I offered will help schools handle the sudden changes in student enrollment and help schools handle base closures, deployment, and force realignments. And the second amendment will make sure our military students get the counseling and support they need. Our Guard and Reserve families are spread across our States, not necessarily close to a base, and the schools are impacted across this country. When they are impacted, our children are impacted.

Both of these amendments will help all of our students in our schools make sure they reach the goals we all desire. I will be here again later to talk about both of these amendments. I thank the managers for their consideration in allowing me to call them up at this time.

Mr. President, today I join Senator DeWine to introduce a bill that would make the dream of a college diploma more accessible to homeless youth and kids in foster care.

We all know the obstacles students' in America need to overcome in order to succeed in post-secondary education. Couple these traditional obstacles with extreme poverty, residential instability, insufficient documentation and lack of awareness of supportive educational programs and it is no wonder homeless children and children in foster care are only half as likely to go on to college as their peers.

Youth in foster care are less likely to be enrolled in college preparatory classes and are more than twice as likely as non-foster care youth to drop out of high school altogether. Because The Higher Education Act supports several programs that motivate and support disadvantaged students to help increase their postsecondary educational attainment, it already has many of the tools necessary to intervene in these student lives. My bill would help programs, such as TRIO and GEAR UP, target their resources to better serve homeless and foster care populations. Early intervention is key in retaining these students and preparing them for post-secondary education.

More than 70 percent of teens in foster care desire to go to college, only 27 percent of those who graduate from high school realize that dream. Although children and youth who experience the instability of homelessness or foster care represent the full range of academic talents and abilities, their situations create serious barriers to school enrollment, attendance, and success.

Homeless and foster care youth do not have the traditional family network to encourage or assist them in planning for a college education. These youth need help to select a college, apply for admission and obtaining financial aid. In addition, their student aid must be used for so much more than just tuition and books. They face the daunting challenges of housing, transportation and other basic needs. By assisting these youth to become independent students we will increase their access to student aid for financial aid purposes; improve their changes for a smooth transition into, and completion of, higher learning.

Our nation's economic well-being depends on our ability to provide greater access to higher education for students, regardless of their family background. By passing this bill we guarantee more students than ever will be given the tools they need to attend college and succeed. Through college we provide these vulnerable students with the best hope for escaping the cycle of poverty and homelessness.

I look forward to working with HELP Committee Chairman Enzi to incorporate these provisions into the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill. And again, I thank Senator DeWine for his commitment to these often overlooked children.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I join Senator DeWine to introduce a bill that would make the dream of a college diploma more accessible to homeless youth and kids in foster care.

We all know the obstacles students' in America need to overcome in order to succeed in post-secondary education. Couple these traditional obstacles with extreme poverty, residential instability, insufficient documentation and lack of awareness of supportive educational programs and it is no wonder homeless children and children in foster care are only half as likely to go on to college as their peers.

Youth in foster care are less likely to be enrolled in college preparatory classes and are more than twice as likely as non-foster care youth to drop out of high school altogether. Because The Higher Education Act supports several programs that motivate and support disadvantaged students to help increase their postsecondary educational attainment, it already has many of the tools necessary to intervene in these student lives. My bill would help programs, such as TRIO and GEAR UP, target their resources to better serve homeless and foster care populations. Early intervention is key in retaining these students and preparing them for post-secondary education.

More than 70 percent of teens in foster care desire to go to college, only 27 percent of those who graduate from high school realize that dream. Although children and youth who experience the instability of homelessness or foster care represent the full range of academic talents and abilities, their situations create serious barriers to school enrollment, attendance, and success.

Homeless and foster care youth do not have the traditional family network to encourage or assist them in planning for a college education. These youth need help to select a college, apply for admission and obtaining financial aid. In addition, their student aid must be used for so much more than just tuition and books. They face the daunting challenges of housing, transportation and other basic needs. By assisting these youth to become independent students we will increase their access to student aid for financial aid purposes; improve their changes for a smooth transition into, and completion of, higher learning.

Our nation's economic well-being depends on our ability to provide greater access to higher education for students, regardless of their family background. By passing this bill we guarantee more students than ever will be given the tools they need to attend college and succeed. Through college we provide these vulnerable students with the best hope for escaping the cycle of poverty and homelessness.

I look forward to working with HELP Committee Chairman Enzi to incorporate these provisions into the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill. And again, I thank Senator DeWine for his commitment to these often overlooked children.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, would you state the pending amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Corzine, Dayton, Conrad, Bingaman, and Salazar to my amendment.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the Senate came together, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, to do what is right for our Nation's veterans. By a vote of 96-0, we all agreed to increase veterans funding by $1.5 billion. We agreed to fill the appalling shortfall the VA faces this year by agreeing to that amendment for $1.5 billion. It was a very clear message that we will be there for the people who have served our country. I was very proud of the Senate when we passed that amendment to do the right thing.

Shortly following that unanimous vote, the majority leader stood on the Senate floor and moved to have the Senate yield to the House of Representatives' lower figure of $975 million. That would have gone against what this Senate had just agreed to. That proposal by the majority leader also went against what the Senate Appropriations Committee had agreed to earlier that very same day. On a bipartisan and unanimous basis, the Senate Appropriations Committee members reaffirmed that the Senate should approve the full $1.5 billion in immediate funding for the VA. The Appropriations Committee and the full Senate unanimously agreed that America's veterans deserve the full $1.5 billion for this fiscal year. Then there was an attempt to accept a lower number.

We need to make sure in this Senate there is no backtracking and that veterans in this country who have served us honorably do not get shortchanged. To make it clear to our Nation's veterans and to the American public, I am here with my colleague Senator Akaka and others in the Senate, offering an amendment that clears up this confusion. It clearly says the Senate stands firmly behind our unanimous vote of $1.5 billion in emergency spending for veterans health care.

If we backtrack, if we walk away from the $1.5 billion we promised this year for our veterans, our men and women who have served this country honorably will be hurt. If we yield to the House's $975 million, the VA hiring freeze will remain in place. That means no new mental health specialists will be hired to help our veterans who are dealing with posttraumatic stress disorder.

If any of my colleagues went home as I did last week and talked to returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, they will know as I do that these mental health specialists are absolutely needed for our men and women who are serving America today.

If we yield to the House's $975 million, the VA will not be able to build any of the new clinics our veterans have been promised. That means inconvenience and less access to care for the people who have sacrificed for our country. That is not what we promised our veterans. This is a critical priority.

We have a huge problem right now in this fiscal year 2005. Secretary Nicholson has made it very clear that the VA is at least $1 billion short this year. My colleagues know I have been here since the beginning of the year warning that this problem goes much deeper. Go out to any of your VA facilities and talk to any veterans who are trying to get access and Members will know as I do that veterans are waiting today 3 years for surgery.

The Associated Press reported in the papers today that the Army National Guard is having trouble recruiting the soldiers it needs.

I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, that article states:

The Army National Guard . . . missed its recruiting goal

for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly

19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength, military

officials said Monday.

Further, the Army Guard:

. . . is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its year-to-date

goal of almost 45,000 recruits and has missed its recruiting

target during at least 17 of the last 18 months.

Many factors, as we all know, affect recruiting, but how we care for our veterans is absolutely one of them. As George Washington 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.

That was George Washington back in 1789. It is still true today.

We need to show our veterans--today's veterans and those considering military service--we will be there for them. If the Senate retreats from what we agreed to 2 weeks ago, it will tell potential recruits the VA will have a hiring freeze and the VA will not have new clinics and we will not be there for them. That is the wrong message to send.

The Senate agreed our veterans need $1.5 billion. We agreed on a bipartisan basis. I am offering this amendment today to make sure there is no backtracking and that our veterans get the help they need, they deserve, and they were promised. This is a basic American issue we can and must all support.

If Members vote for this amendment, we are giving the VA money to lift the hiring freeze to hire the medical staff it needs and to open new clinics. We are telling today's soldiers and tomorrow's recruits we will be there for them. But if members choose to vote against my amendment, they are simply voting to keep their local VA hospital overwhelmed and understaffed, telling veterans in your State that they will not get the new clinics they were promised. This vote will send a strong message to today's veterans and tomorrow's recruits.

This Senate needs to make sure we will show those who serve our country that we will be there for them just as they have been there for us.

My colleague from Hawaii is here. He has been a tremendous advocate for veterans. I thank him for all his work.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

How much does the other side control?

Mr. President, I would ask if the other side would mind, if they have no other speakers, yielding Senator Durbin 2\1/2\ minutes of their time or if they want to continue.

I thank my colleague from Illinois, and I also thank my colleague from Texas.

Mr. President, I saw the Washington Post article yesterday on ``VA Hospital in Texas Fights to Stay Open.''

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

I know the Senator from Texas was there and was quite startled to hear about the blind rehab unit at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Texas and how they have been serving older veterans, but in fact this year they are begining to see a new type of patient-- veterans in their early 20s with macular degeneration or diabetes- induced vision problems. I think it goes to the point of exactly why we are seeing such a tremendous shortfall in the VA today--because of the types of injuries our returning soldiers are having.

I welcome my colleague's cosponsorship, and I agree we do need to look at 2006. We will work with her and the VA Secretary and all Senators on making up the shortfall. But we are here today with the Murray amendment because there has been some confusion in the Senate about how much aid we are going to send to the Veterans Department. We have heard a lot of numbers thrown around and a lot of discussion, but I think why I am here today and why it is so critical is because in the early morning hours just before our July 4 recess, some Senate leaders moved we lay down in deference to the House of Representatives' lower number.

I think in the Senate we need to say there is no confusion. On a unanimous vote we supported $1.5 billion. The Appropriations Committee, hours after the House tried to limit funding for veterans, unanimously affirmed our support for $1.5 billion and now the Senate has an opportunity before us to tell our veterans we will do all we can, all we promised, to support and care for them when they return home.

Make no mistake, this Department needs the money. Even before the dramatic, unconscionable shortfall at the Department was revealed, veterans around the country were facing long lines and crumbling facilities. We know the promised clinics are not there, and we know the soldiers returning with posttraumatic syndrome are not being served. The money is critical. I ask the Senate this morning to say we are sticking with the $1.5 billion shortfall.

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

How much time remains?

I thank my colleague from Texas.

I remind all of our colleagues we should not be nickling and diming the Department of Veterans Affairs today. For all of us who have been out on the ground visiting our VA clinics, talking to our soldiers who are returning, it is very clear this war has created a need and demand for us to be there. When we call up our soldiers, we promise them we will be there for health care. It is not right that we sit in hearings and community meetings as I did last week and hear veterans saying: I finally gave up; I went and paid for health care out of my own pocket. That is not what we promised them and that is not a way to get new soldiers which we obviously need to do today.

A train wreck is coming in 2006. I will work with all of my colleagues. I know the administration is looking at sending over a budget amendment and I agree we need to find the money. But for right now we need to pass an emergency supplemental. This Senate has gone on record in the full Appropriations Committee and in this full body and we should have no backtracking. That is why we are voting on this amendment today, once again, to reaffirm our commitment and tell all the men and women who have served us both in this war and in previous wars that we will be there for them.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

How much time is left on our side?

Would the Presiding Officer indicate when 1 minute remains.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to again talk about the situation facing our veterans. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his dedication to this issue and his tremendous work and support as we have tried to raise this issue for a number of months.

So all of my colleagues know, I came to the floor of the Senate early this year to talk about the situation facing those soldiers who have worked so honorably for this country in past wars and for those who are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan today and the need to keep the promise that we gave to all of them that when they return we will provide them with the health care they need.

When I was in my State earlier this year, in January, I met with a number of the service organizations and the military to talk about reintegration, to talk about what happens to our soldiers when they return home, to make sure they have the services available to them, and to make sure they are taken care of. Many in those meetings were deeply concerned that we would not have the facilities available for them. They told me of already long waiting lines at our veterans clinics and our VA hospitals. They told me of soldiers who could not get appointments for as many as 6 months or 3 years. They told me of a looming budget crisis.

When I heard that, I talked to other organizations across the country and realized that we were, indeed, facing a tremendous shortfall at the VA. That is why in the Committee on the Budget I offered an amendment to increase the funding for VA. It was rejected by those on the majority side by an almost party-line vote. That is why, throughout the appropriations process and then on the emergency supplemental, I continued to come to the Senate to say that this is a looming crisis that we need to deal with.

In the Senate, I offered an amendment for $1.98 billion for an emergency supplemental, saying this is critical. Our soldiers are not getting the care they need. I was defeated on that amendment on an almost party-line vote because of the letter sent by the Secretary of VA to Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Senator who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, saying they do not indicate a dire emergency. He said:

I can assure you that the VA does not need emergency

supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005 to continue to provide

the timely quality service that is always our goal.

Based on that letter, many on the other side voted against my amendment because they believed the Secretary was being honest with them. Well, I continue to raise this specter saying we are going to face a crisis. Even several weeks ago, in a Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing, the Secretary of the VA came before our committee and once again said there is no budget crisis.

Well, last Thursday, finally the truth came out. The VA told us they were well over $1 billion short in funding for this year. What was their solution? Their solution was to go back into this year's appropriations that have already been approved by this body, for which we already have the money flowing to construction and maintenance projects throughout the country--these are projects for seismic upgrades in our VA facilities, for asbestos abatement, for hazardous waste cleanup, for clinics that are being built where contracts are already let--and the VA is saying: We are going to take money away from those projects.

We cannot allow that to happen. These contracts are already being let. These facilities already need the maintenance. It has already been deferred for 2 years. We cannot go back to our States and tell these clinics: Gee, sorry. There was a mistake made at the VA. They didn't do the calculations correctly. You are not going to get the services.

That is not the promise we made to our men and women when we sent them overseas. We said we will be there. We said we will be there. That is a promise we need to keep now, as we face this budget crisis.

We looked at the VA and said, ``How could you make such a mistake?'' particularly when I was raising the specter of this for the past 6 months and knew from the ground, knew from looking at the VA's own numbers, that they were going to be facing this crisis.

Yesterday, Secretary Nicholson came before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and said they had assumed that only 25,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan would seek care at the VA in this fiscal year. Instead, what they have seen is 103,000 veterans already--already. And, as we know, many are still there, many more are to go, many more to be returning.

So the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was basing their calculations on 2002 numbers rather than saying, as we all know, that we are at war, that over a million men and women have been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. They are in what the generals call a 360-degree war, meaning there are intense times for each one of those soldiers, 24/7, knowing, when they return, they will need help for mental health care and post-traumatic stress disorder. The VA never took that into account. They never looked at the world of what was happening and said: We are going to have increased costs for Veterans Affairs because we have more veterans returning.

So I find it appalling that the VA, the VA Secretary, and those who are required to be giving us honest numbers failed to look past their own desks and recognize what all of us throughout the country know; that is, we have a high number of veterans returning who need both physical care and mental health care. It is our job to appropriate the money to take care of them.

So where are we today? Senator Byrd and I and others on this side are offering an amendment on the Interior appropriations bill that we will be debating later this afternoon to add, again, $1.42 billion as an emergency supplemental to provide the funding for this year. I am very proud of the Members of this Senate who have stood time and again to say we need to be there for our soldiers who are returning from war, and we need to do it responsibly.

Senator Craig, the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, told me, when we were on the floor debating this during the supplemental, when he used Secretary Nicholson's letter to justify voting no against my amendment, that if he was proved wrong, he would be out here to work with me to provide the funds.

I commend Senator Craig and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for coming to the plate now and saying we need to

deal with this, this year. They will be offering a second-degree amendment to my amendment this afternoon to add $80 million so we can provide the funds for this year. I am happy to join with them in making sure this body adopts that amendment, as well as the underlying Murray amendment, to the Interior bill so we can deal with this crisis today.

That is the responsible thing to do. The irresponsible thing to do is to say we can take care of this by moving the budget numbers; we can take care of this with budget gimmicks; we can ignore this; we can paper this over.

We have done that already for far too long. I commend my colleagues on the other side for now joining with us to say we need an emergency supplemental to provide the dollars for our veterans when they return home to make sure the facilities are there. No gimmicks, no just talking about it; we are going to do the right thing in the Senate body.

We now have to follow that through. We will have to make sure the House of Representatives comes to the table in negotiations and works with us to get this done. And I call on the President and the White House now to recognize this crisis, as well, and to not gloss over it, not to paper it over but to work with us to pass an emergency supplemental.

Every one of us is going to go home for the Fourth of July recess. Every one of us is either going to be in parades or talk to veterans or be out there making sure the country knows we are so proud of the men and women who are serving us regardless of how we voted on the war. Every Member of this body and every citizen in this country is proud of our soldiers and the work they have done for us.

We can show them that we keep our promises, today on the floor of the Senate, by passing the Murray amendment and the second-degree amendment that is going to be offered by the Senators from the other side to keep that commitment. We then have the responsibility to make sure the House of Representatives works with us to pass this as well and that the White House takes it on as a priority.

I listened to the President of the United States, last night, address this country. I listened to his impassioned plea to stay the course. What I did not hear was the President calling on the American public to make the sacrifice that is necessary in war. That sacrifice includes making sure we keep the promise to the men and women we are asking to serve in the war overseas, by being there to provide the health care services they will need when they come home and not in facilities that are falling down or crumbling, not with equipment that is failing, not with shortages and lines, but with real care and not just for the veterans who are returning home today but for the veterans who served us in prior conflicts.

Today, we are seeing an increase in the number of veterans in our VA facilities because--no surprise--the veterans from the Vietnam war are now reaching the age where they need additional health care dollars. Those figures have to be taken into account at the VA. They cannot bury their heads in the sand and look at reports from 10 years ago. They need to be real about what the costs are today. When we pass this amendment, we will hopefully get the President to work with us on an emergency supplemental to provide those funds. I will work with any Senator on this floor to make sure our Committee on Veterans' Affairs looks at the real numbers we need so we can project into the future the real costs and make sure we are doing the right thing on this end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to make sure we are providing the funds that our service men and women need.

Mr. President, last night, when I listened to the President of the United States, he called on the American public--he called on all of us--asking our young men and women to consider service to our country overseas. Part of that commitment is not just asking them to serve but being there for them.

He also called on all of us to put our flags up on the Fourth of July and to be proud as Americans and to honor those who are serving us and to tell them we are proud of them by raising our flags.

The other thing we can do is adopt this amendment on the supplemental and get the White House to agree with us to make it an emergency to provide the services that are necessary. We will raise our flags, we will honor our veterans, we will be proud of our soldiers, but we will also be there to take care of them when they come home.

That is what the Murray amendment will do today. I am proud to join with Senator Craig, Senator Hutchison, and others from the other side to do what is right. I call on the other Members of Congress, as well as the White House, to join us in this effort.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have said throughout this debate--as I spoke on the supplemental, as I have been out here on the floor many times and in our committee--veterans are not a Republican issue; they are not a Democratic issue; they are an American issue.

I think what you see happening on the floor this afternoon is exactly to that point. I congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania, as well as the Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig, and the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, who have been working diligently with us in a nonpartisan way to address a real need, and that is to take care of the men and women who have served us so nobly in previous wars and in the current conflicts in which we are engaged.

From my side, I thank Senator Byrd, who stood with me valiantly as we have worked to provide the funds for the men and women who are serving us overseas. I thank him for his leadership on this issue. I thank Senator Akaka, ranking member on the Veterans Committee, who has worked with us to make sure that on our side we are provided with accurate statistics and are moving forward.

At the end of the day who win are the men and women who serve us. It is a real tribute to this Senate that we are now standing here today with the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania to add $80 million to our amendment, to now be providing $1.5 billion for veterans services. We are here because we know when we ask men and women to serve us overseas, we tell them we will be there for them when they come home. What you see on the floor this afternoon is Republicans and Democrats standing together shoulder to shoulder to say in this body, we will be there for our men and women who serve us overseas.

There is going to be a lot of blame to go around. I have been asked: How did you know 2 months ago when no one else did? I started working with our veterans who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan late last year, beginning in January, and hearing the same stories that Senator Santorum just talked about of how our VA facilities were turning vets away, how there wasn't enough care, particularly for post-traumatic stress syndrome.

I think we all know that in the conflict that is before us today in Iraq, it being a 360-degree war where there is no front line to return back from, we are going to see a number of our service men and women increasingly needing that kind of care. We are also seeing that facilities that have not been maintained well were counting on the appropriations that we had this year. We are talking about veterans from previous wars who are now turning 60 and needing more health care being turned away. I think I began to look realistically at the numbers from the VA and became concerned that their projections were not based on the reality of what was occurring, which is why I offered my amendment to the supplemental.

I especially pay tribute to Senator Larry Craig from Idaho. When Senator Akaka and I offered the emergency supplemental bill, he was given a letter from the VA that said: We don't need any money. This is not a crisis. Our projections say that we are just fine.

So Senator Craig and others from the other side opposed us on that amendment at that time. But Senator Craig said to me on the floor, if I am proved wrong, I will stand with you to make sure we provide the dollars for our veterans that are required. Since he was told by the Veterans' Administration last Thursday that there is, indeed, a shortfall of $1.5 billion or more--I hope it is not more, but at least that much--he said that he would work with me, and he has kept to his word. This is a real tribute to this country that we can come together on an issue such as this, recognize that errors have been made, but it is time to move on, time to provide the dollars.

I see Senator Hutchison from Texas who has been working with us as well. I want my colleagues to know we are going to stand shoulder to shoulder to meet this debt in front of us. I want to work with all of you so we have the right projections for next year as Senator Hutchison puts her 2006 appropriations bill together so we are not sitting here 6 months from now, a year from now, 2 years from now saying we were wrong again. This has given us a tremendous opportunity to get it right. I can't think of anybody it is more important to get it right for than those who serve our country.

I am happy to yield.

I assure the Senator from Illinois that it is my understanding that this money in the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania is specifically for medical services provided by the Veterans Health Administration which does include mental health services and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Mr. President, I know there are a number of other Senators who would like to speak. Certainly, I would like to yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Let me say, again, that I appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for coming together with us right before the Fourth of July recess. I can't think of a better time for all of us to send an American issue forward and to stand up for our vets. I thank them for working with us.

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Conrad and Mikulski be added as cosponsors to the original amendment.

I yield to the ranking member on the Veterans Committee, the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. President, we have a number of colleagues who wanted to come and say a few words about this amendment and about service for veterans. I urge them to come to the floor, because it is clear we are ready to move at any time. If anybody has additional comments, please come.

I have been out on the floor several times over the last several days and I have expressed my anger at the Veterans' Administration for not being up front and honest about the numbers in the projections, even though it was clear to those of us looking at the numbers that we were facing a very severe crisis in the VA. That was the reason I offered an amendment for the Veterans' Administration on the emergency supplemental. It is why I have repeatedly raised this issue throughout the budget process, appropriations process, and throughout the last several months.

I think it is very clear that those of us who have been out on the ground talking to our veterans know this is a crisis. Yesterday, the VA came before the Veterans' Committee. Senator Craig had a hearing and had the Secretary before us. He was continuing to say we could fix this problem today by taking money from construction and maintenance projects that we had appropriated and allocated money for for 2005. I think it is very clear that the Senate now shortly will be on record saying we believe those maintenance projects need to go forward, that those construction projects need to go forward, and the medical equipment promised to our VA services needs to be in place. That is so important.

I was in Iraq a couple months ago, and our service men and women from Washington State met with me there. The very first question they asked me was: Is my country going to be there for me when I get home? Will I have health care?

I feel it is important that when we look our soldiers in the eye, we answer them honestly. Today, with the Senate going on record with an emergency supplemental to deal with this, we are going to be able to say we are doing the best we can to make sure the services are there. I urge the Veterans' Administration to do the same. I think it is disheartening and disconcerting to all of us when we rely on the Secretary and his agency to make sure they are honest about what the numbers are and they are incorrect. We need that so we can do our job in providing for our service men and women.

We are doing that with this amendment today. We all know there is work to come, and with the 2006 budget and appropriations bill, we need to have an honest assessment. We cannot continue to project a 2-percent increase for veterans when we already know the number of men and women coming back is much higher than that. We already know that the service men and women, particularly from the Vietnam war, who are reaching the age of 60, are increasingly accessing our veterans facilities. We already know that the maintenance projects out there are critical. We have to do the right thing. We have to make sure the funding is there.

Again, I commend Members on both sides of the aisle. I see the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, is here. I take this opportunity to thank him. He has been most generous in working with us, as we have moved this issue forward because information given to him that was erroneous at the time. He did give me his word that should things change, he would be there to work with us. He has kept his word in an admirable way, bringing the Secretary before the committee, working on this amendment on the floor, and he is here to speak as well. I tell him how much I appreciate his forthrightness and his willingness to work with us to solve this dilemma.

We will be voting on the Santorum amendment, which adds $80 million to our amendment that has $1.42 billion, making sure we have a total of $1.5 billion to provide for our veterans services for the 2005 budget and make sure we don't have to go into funds for other projects and put them in a waiting line, which would be a disservice.

I urge our Democratic colleagues who want to speak to this amendment to come to the floor as soon as they can. I thank my colleagues for working with us, the House, and the White House to hopefully have a supplemental in place before the July 4 recess.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Johnson, Kennedy, and Lincoln be listed as cosponsors.

I yield to the Senator from West Virginia whatever time he may use.

How much time do we have remaining on our side?

I yield to the Senator from Nevada. I believe the Senator from Colorado will be here for a couple of minutes. I will use the last 2, and we will be done on our side.

I yield to the minority leader.

Mr. President, how much time is left?

The Senator from Colorado is here and would like to make a statement. I ask if he could use 3 minutes, and I can use the remaining time.

Mr. President, as we wind up the debate, it would be easy for me to stand here on the floor of the Senate--after months of saying we need to address this issue, we need an emergency supplemental and we are finally here--to say I told you so. But that is not how I feel right now.

What I am thinking about at this point is my own father, who was a veteran of World War II, one of the first soldiers into Okinawa, who was injured, sent to Hawaii, was in the hospital there for 3 months, and he went back to serve in Okinawa again and then was in a wheelchair for most of my life before he passed away.

I am thinking of the men and women in the veterans' hospital in Seattle WA, back in 1972 when I was a senior in college and I volunteered at the veterans' hospital there during the Vietnam war, working on the psychiatric ward with young men and women my age who were returning from Vietnam and understanding what they were going through, and then going back onto the street and the public not aware of the sacrifice of these soldiers.

I am thinking of the young men and women I recently met in Iraq serving us today, who were asking us: Will my country be there for me?

I can assure you none of those soldiers were saying: Will the Republicans be there for me? Will the Democrats be there for me? They were asking: Will we, as Americans, be there for them? With Democrats and Republicans alike just about to vote for this amendment--that will make the underlying amendment $1.5 billion with the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania--what we can say is that this Senate stands in full support of our soldiers, from previous conflicts as well as the ones who are serving us today. I think that is a powerful message and one of which I am very proud.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask that Senator Corzine be added as a cosponsor to the Murray amendment, as well.

We will shortly vote on the Santorum amendment, then the Murray amendment, as amended. I urge all of my colleagues to support both amendments.

Mr. President, we are about to vote on the Murray amendment, as amended. I remind all of our colleagues, this has been a long road in coming to get to the point today where we stand as a united body to make sure we provide the funds for our veterans that are needed in this coming fiscal year.

As I said when we ended this debate, this is not a Republican issue; this is not a Democratic issue; this is an American issue. It is the right thing to do as we head into the Fourth of July recess to know that we are providing the funds in an emergency supplemental to make sure none of our members in the service from prior conflicts or the wars today who are coming home will be denied the services they have been promised.

This is a proud moment for the Senate. I want to work with my colleagues now to make sure the House and the White House work with us to expeditiously get these funds in place for our veterans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I engage the Senator from Montana, the distinguished subcommittee Chairman, and the Senator from North Dakota, the distinguished subcommittee ranking member, in a brief colloquy to clarify the location of the Forest Service land acquisition project listed as the ``I-90 Corridor'' on page 87 of the committee report.

The project called ``I-90 Corridor'' is listed in the committee report as being in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. The parcels that are designated for acquisition by the Forest Service in FY 2006 are actually located in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. I ask the Chairman and Senator Dorgan if that is their understanding as well?

I thank the chairman and ranking member, and appreciate the suggestion that we clarify this in the conference report accompanying H.R. 2361, so that the report will read ``Mt Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest--I-90 Corridor'' in the State of Washington.

I thank Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan for their assistance in clarifying this matter.

bia water technician training program

Mr. President, 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to amendment No. 1052, an amendment offered by myself, Senator Byrd, and Senator Feinstein regarding emergency supplemental funding for the Veterans Health Administration.

As my colleagues know, throughout the last 6 months I have been talking to this body about my deep concern that we were not going to have sufficient funding for our veterans, both our current veterans who are accessing the system, nor for our veterans who are now returning home in record numbers from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Throughout the budget process, I asked that we consider making sure we have additional funding. I was rejected in that request. Throughout the appropriations process, I have made it known time and time again that looking at what we know, we are not going to have sufficient funding for our veterans health care.

On the supplemental emergency bill, I offered an amendment to add an additional $1.98 billion for veterans services, and I outlined on this floor for all of my colleagues the exact numbers we were looking at as we went out and talked to our regional veterans administrations, as we heard the stories of shortfalls in every single place across this country, about service men and women who are waiting in line, about the high number of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who would need access to mental health care services for post-traumatic stress syndrome, and I asked that we add emergency supplemental funding because I knew, looking at the numbers, we had a shortfall.

On this floor, I was defeated on that amendment. Why? Because the Secretary of the VA, Secretary Nicholson, sent a letter to this body saying they had sufficient funds.

That was less than 3 months ago. Several weeks ago in the Veterans' Committee I asked the Secretary, when he was before us, if they had sufficient funding, and he told us they had adequate funding.

Last Thursday, to everyone's surprise, except a few of us, we were told that the VA is now over $1 billion short in funding this year. This is surprising to some, but it should be appalling to all of us.

As I told my colleagues when I was on the floor talking about the supplemental, we all know that the veterans in VA care have gone up by 88 percent. We know that medical inflation has gone up 92 percent. But the VA continued to go on a formula based on 2002 figures that did not adequately take into account our military who were going to be accessing the veterans services, nor the fact that we all know of medical inflation.

So here we are today, and it would be easy to say I told you so, but that is not going to solve the problem. So last Thursday, I called Secretary Nicholson. I said: How are you going to solve this problem? What are we going to do?

Well, he said to me that we were going to take the money out of maintenance and construction projects.

I would let every one of my colleagues know that all of them have VA facilities in their own States or in their own region that are serving our veterans today that need asbestos removal. There are new clinics that have been promised for years. There is maintenance due, long-term backlogs that have not been completed that we voted on in the 2005 appropriations bill and promised to our men and women back in our home States would be taken care of this year.

We cannot go back on that promise right now. Those veterans are waiting for that service. If we were to say, well, we have to suck it up and take the money out, that means we are just going to defer those costs until next year. If we are today basing our figures of the VA on 2002 numbers, then we know the $1.5 billion we are short this year is going to be multiplied by two or three times next year and those facilities will not be fixed.

So we have a problem. We have a big problem, and we need to address it now. I believe the best and most important way we can do that quickly is through an emergency supplemental bill passed through the House and Senate to get the VA the money they need to serve our veterans. This is an emergency.

None of our veterans who served in previous conflicts should be told that they have to wait 6 months or a year or 3 years. None of our veterans who are being served in our hospitals today should be looking at facilities that are falling down around them. None of our veterans who are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan should be told that they do not have adequate care and we are not there for them.

I was just in Iraq 2 months ago and the first question that my soldiers from Washington State asked me is: Will my country be there for me when I get home?

The Senate has been responsible by passing a bill last year to begin to put

in place those contracts, maintenance, and important facilities projections. We cannot take that away now. Our only responsible choice remaining is to pass an emergency supplemental.

I have to say I am deeply concerned about how our VA came to this, and I am frankly quite angry. Less than 3 months ago, our VA said, no problem. Our VA, 2-plus weeks ago, said no problem, and now they tell us they are well over a billion dollars short this year. In fact, what they are saying is we can fix that; we can take $600 million from construction, as I just talked about.

We cannot let them do that.

The other $400 million they are talking about coming up out of a reserve fund. I have been on this floor before talking about this. There is not a reserve fund. I asked Dr. Jonathan Perlin. He is the VA's Acting Under Secretary for Health. I asked him on April 5th: Is there a $500 million reserve?

He said to me:

No . . . I do not know where that might have been

suggested, but there is no $500 million reserve that is

sitting there for future projects.

So the White House's solution, the VA's solution, to take $600 million from construction and $500 million from this reserve account does not exist. Those are already part of our appropriations and there is no reserve account. So it is time for us to be responsible. It is time for us to face up to the fact that we have not been given accurate figures from this administration on veterans, and we need to act responsibly to pass an emergency supplemental.

I want to say that Senator Craig, the chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Senator Hutchison, the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, have been responsible in the last few days by addressing this crisis. We have held a hearing this morning under Senator Craig's direction to hear from the VA what their solution was.

As I have said, that is simply unacceptable to me. It should be unacceptable to this Senate. I want to work with anyone to solve this problem. We have an amendment that is now pending. It is amendment No. 1052 to have an emergency supplemental to deal with this crisis. I know that my colleagues on the other side feel that we must address this as well, and I hope that we can work this amendment out and get it passed on the Interior appropriations, get it passed through the House and sent to the President so that our members who are serving us, both in previous conflicts and in Iraq and Afghanistan today, can look any one of us in the eye on the Fourth of July recess, when we all go home to march in parades and carry our flags, and we can say, yes, this country is there for you.

I can think of no more important issue that this body should address before the upcoming recess than this pending crisis before us. We owe it to the troops who have served us so honorably to be there for them when they come home. We cannot say to them that your clinics will not be built, that your hospitals will not be maintained, that there is a hiring freeze and you will not be seen if you show up.

We all have talked to generals who are in Iraq, and every member of this body knows that this is a 360-degree war. We have been told that time and time again. Our members in the military who are serving us in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a front line to go behind to get some ease from this conflict. They are in this conflict every single minute of every single day that they are there, and as a result of that many of them will be facing emotional stress and post-traumatic stress syndrome when they get home.

It would be wrong of this country to tell those members who served us so well that there are no services for them when they come home. We have a responsibility not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, but as an American to be there for them. The most responsible way to do this is through this amendment with an emergency supplemental.

I think who said it best was George Washington back in 1789:

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.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this emergency supplemental funding, get it to the House, and get it to the White House so that we can address this crisis that has come before us. We can say a lot of stuff about the VA and why the numbers were wrong and why what we knew on this floor were not listened to and were not told to us honestly. We can spend time doing that, but I think the most important thing we can do is make sure this funding is there for our soldiers, and we do it through an emergency supplemental in a responsible way.

The President is going to address the Nation this evening. He is going to talk to us about the importance of staying the course in Iraq. Well, I would say to the President and to the Members of the Senate, when we send our troops to war, part of the cost of that is making sure we are there for them when they come home. I urge the President, when he addresses the Nation tonight, to tell us how this administration is going to be there for our soldiers when they return and work with us to pass this emergency supplemental as expeditiously as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the pending amendment No. 1052, which is the emergency supplemental funding for the veterans services which I spoke about earlier. I thank my colleagues, Senators Akaka and Kerry, for their remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators to our amendment as cosponsors: Senators Jeffords, Salazar, Bill Nelson, Dayton, Rockefeller, and Harkin.

Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Will the Senator yield?

I wanted to ask if the Senator was aware that when our amendment was offered on the supplemental, Senators on this floor were told by the VA that they didn't need the funding. And last Thursday, the VA announced that they were indeed well over $1 billion short for this fiscal year alone for VA funding. That is why I needed to offer this amendment on this bill, and hopefully the Senate will pass it. I hope it will pass unanimously tomorrow. Is the Senator from North Dakota aware that is the situation we are now in?

I was asking if the Senator from North Dakota was aware that during the consideration of the emergency supplemental, when we offered our amendment, we were told by the administration they didn't need the funding. And then last Thursday they announced that they were, indeed, as we had warned, well over $1 billion short. That is why we are offering this amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to express my support for a provision in this energy legislation that provides relief for Washington State ratepayers who suffered from Enron's market manipulation schemes.

All of us from the West Coast remember the energy crisis of 2001, when consumers and businesses were hit with massive increases in the cost of energy. Many in California faced shortages and brownouts. In Washington State, we felt the impact as well.

Washington State ratepayers have been continually penalized for failures in the energy market and failures by Federal energy regulators. While there were many causes for the energy crisis, the most disturbing is the fact that energy companies, such as Enron, manipulated the marketplace to take advantage of consumers.

As we saw throughout the crisis, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not take aggressive action to protect consumers from market manipulation. In fact, over the last several years, as we in the West have sought to clean up the mess that these companies left in their wake, FERC has continued to drag its regulatory feet.

For more than 3 years, many of us in the Northwest delegation have been urging FERC to better protect consumers, and provide relief to ratepayers affected by market manipulation. At the height of the 2001 energy crisis, FERC was urging companies to enter into long-term contracts at highly-inflated rates, advice which many Northwest companies followed.

In 2003, FERC found that market manipulation occurred during the 2001 energy crisis, but indicated it would be unlikely that Washington State ratepayers would be reimbursed for the harm caused by the manipulation. When Western utilities--including Snohomish PUD, which was hit particularly hard--terminated their contracts with Enron, Enron turned around and sued them for ``termination payments.''

It was very disturbing for all of us to see FERC agree that there was manipulation, but leave Washington ratepayers holding the bag--with no relief--for the harm they experienced in 2001 and continue to experience today.

I am pleased that this energy legislation addresses this important issue by giving FERC exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether termination payments are required under certain power contracts are unjust and unreasonable.

This is wonderful news for Washington State ratepayers because of a March 2005 order, in which FERC found Enron in violation of its market- based authority at the time Snohomish PUD signed its power contract. This provision ensures Snohomish PUD's ratepayers will not be required to pay the now-bankrupt Enron for power the region did not receive.

Mr. President, I support this provision as it will protect Northwest ratepayers and give FERC more tools to better police the energy market.

Mr. President, today I cast a vote for the McCain- Lieberman climate stewardship and innovation amendment to H.R. 6.

My vote is a statement on the need for the United States to take action to address global climate change in a real and proactive manner.

The authors of the amendment have recently added provisions related to nuclear power. I don't agree that these two policy issues should be linked, but it was my colleagues' option.

The real message and point of this amendment remains that the United States needs to acknowledge and rapidly begin addressing global climate change.

Voluntary measures are constructive but not good enough. We cannot afford to sit back and indulge those who choose against making reductions in harmful emissions at the expense of those who do. Scientific evidence shows that global warming poses a real threat to the Pacific Northwest environment, way of life, and economy.

As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, we should lead by example and innovation. We should not wait for other countries to lead on this important priority. We should seek and promote technologies that promote energy efficiency and make significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, as the climate stewardship and innovation amendment would have us do.

Mr. President, I support this amendment because it commits the United States to a mandatory program that makes real cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment will make our country, and the entire globe, a safer, cleaner place.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Andrew Ivy, an exceptional history teacher and role model from Kirkland, WA. Mr. Ivy has been named Teacher of the Year by the Richard T. Farrell Teacher of Merit Award for outstanding success in teaching history. This national award is presented every year to an educator who develops and uses innovative and creative teaching methods that interest students in history and help them make exciting discoveries about the past. As a teacher at International Community School in Kirkland, WA, Mr. Ivy has shown exemplary commitment to making history education engaging and exciting, while involving his students in the National History Day Program.

National History Day is a yearlong program in which students explore historical topics related to an annual theme. Participants qualify for national competition after competing in several local and State competitions. In preparing his students for the program, Mr. Ivy's work ethic and research skills provided students with the tools necessary to be successful in competition.

Teachers like Mr. Ivy play an important role in education. By teaching about the nations past they keep our history a part of our current lives. When children question, and discuss our history, teachers are doing something profoundly patriotic; they are helping students understand who we are as a nation--the importance of our common heritage and the values that make us unique.

Andrew Ivy has proven exceptional. His drive to offer his students the best education possible has led him to invest a great deal of personal study in his curriculum. He regularly attends training classes to ensure that the material he teaches is accurate and current. Additionally, Mr. Ivy often tries new approaches to his teaching method in order to keep his classroom interested and challenged. His curriculum often changes to meet his very own high standards and his students greatly benefit from all of his efforts.

Mr. President, I find it heartening that there are educators in this country who devote so much time and effort to shaping the minds of our young people. I hope you and our colleagues will join me in recognizing Mr. Andrew Ivy for his dedication to educating the potential leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. President, next week we will celebrate the 33rd anniversary of title IX. For 33 years, title IX has opened doors for women and girls in all aspects of education. I can say without reservation that I would not be a U.S. Senator today without this critical law.

Unfortunately, today the Senate confirmed a vehement opponent of title IX--Thomas Griffith--to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I voted against this nominee because of his record on title IX, the importance of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to title IX and other civil rights laws, and his disregard for the rule of law in his own practice.

In 2002, Mr. Griffith served on the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics to evaluate whether and how current standards governing title IX's application to athletics should be revised. After the Department of Education spent nearly $1 million on the Commission, the Bush administration made the determination to make no changes to title IX in athletics. However, as a member of the Commission, Mr. Griffith made clear his opposition and hostility towards the law and its enforcement.

As a member of the Commission, Mr. Griffith proposed weakening the standard for meeting title IX's 25-year-old requirement of equality of opportunity in athletics for young women through the elimination of the ``substantial proportionality'' test for compliance. This test, one of the three alternative ways to comply with title IX, allows schools to comply by offering athletic opportunities to male and female students that are in proportion to each gender's representation in the student body of the school.

Mr. Griffith claimed this provision constitutes a quota in violation of title IX and the Constitution and asserted that ``[i]t is illegal, it is unfair, and it is wrong'' and even ``morally wrong.'' He made such extreme statements despite the decisions of no fewer than 6 Federal appeals courts which have upheld the legality of the test. In fact, none has ruled to the contrary. And when this fact was pointed out to him, he did not respect the decisions of all the Federal courts that have heard such cases--he said that ``the courts got it wrong.'' Eliminating this test would clearly undercut title IX's effectiveness-- and the Commission agreed. It rejected the Griffith proposal by a lopsided vote of 11 to 4.

During his confirmation process, Griffith tried to change his position on title IX. Mr. Griffith now claims that he only wanted to eliminate the proportionality test because some have ``misused'' or ``misinterpreted'' the test. He now claims that the Commission recommendations regarding the proportionality test that he supported-- in addition to his own proposal to eliminate the test--were ``modest'' or ``moderate.'' If these claims were so moderate, why were they rejected entirely by the Secretary of Education?

Mr. President, every Federal court of appeals that has considered this issue and every administration since 1979 have ruled that the three-part test is legally valid and does not impose quotas. Mr. Griffith's statements and actions put him in complete opposition to six Federal appeals courts. If that doesn't show that Mr. Griffith is out of the mainstream, I don't know what does.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is an especially important court. I believe that we must be careful when confirming individuals to serve lifetime appointments on this court, the second most powerful Federal court in the land. This court has exclusive jurisdiction over a broad array of Federal regulations, including title IX, and is

often the court of last resort in critical issues involving workers' rights, civil liberties, and environmental regulations. I am concerned that, given his prior record relating to title IX, Mr. Griffith may not be able to hear such cases with the impartiality required of a judge on one of our Nation's highest courts.

Mr. Griffith's hostility to title IX and the importance of the DC Circuit are not the only problems with this nominee. He has, on more than one occasion, failed to comply with the basic standards and practices of his profession by not paying bar dues and failing to get a license. He does not meet the high standards we must apply to any nominee for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land.

The Senate has the constitutional duty to advise the President and decide whether to consent to his nominations to the Federal bench. I believe that this role is one of the Senate's greatest responsibilities. It is critical that Senators work with the President to find judicial nominees that meet the standards of fairness, even- handedness and adherence to the law that we expect of judges in our communities.

I believe the Senate has the duty to ensure each nominee has sufficient experience to sit in judgment of our fellow citizens, will be fair to all those who come before the court, will be even-handed in administering justice, and will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. Unfortunately, Mr. Griffith's record shows his inability to serve in such a manner and, therefore, I opposed his nomination.