Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Linda Jantzen, a Defense fellow in the office of Senator Mikulski, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors Senators Akaka, Byrd, Boxer, Bingaman, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Jeffords, Salazar, and Dayton.

Mr. President, today in Iraq and in Afghanistan, our men and women in uniform are making great sacrifices to serve our country. Last month I had the opportunity to meet with some of them in Baghdad and in Kuwait and all of us can be very proud of their service. Every person I met with was a dedicated professional who was putting their duty above their personal well-being.

Today, I am very concerned that when all of these new veterans come home and need medical care, they are going to be pushed into a veterans health care system that does not have the medical staff, the facilities, or the funding to take care of them.

There is a train wreck coming in veterans health care. I am offering an amendment to deal with this emergency now before it turns into a crisis. The VA health care system is overcrowded. It is underfunded. It is understaffed. It is struggling to deal with existing veterans. I fear what will happen when tens of thousands of our new veterans are added to this already strained system.

As Americans, we make a promise to those who join our military that we will take care of them when they come home. It is a promise all of us have to work together to keep, and that is why I am on the Senate floor today. This is not a Democratic issue. It is not a Republican issue. This is an American issue. I am willing to work with anyone to make sure all of our veterans get the health care they are promised.

I appreciate the leadership of many Senators, especially Senator Craig who chairs the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on which I serve. I thank Senator Hutchison of Texas who chairs the committee that funds veterans health care. I truly appreciate their commitment to our veterans. I look forward to working with them, and I will work with many others to make sure we are doing everything we need to do to prepare for the influx of many new veterans.

With Senator Akaka and others, I am offering a veterans health care amendment to this emergency supplemental. Our amendment recognizes that caring for our veterans is part of the cost of war. This is being offered on the emergency supplemental because our amendment recognizes that caring for our veterans is a part of the cost of war.

Our amendment does three things: First, it makes sure all soldiers who need health care when they return home from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom can get that health care. To do that, this amendment provides $610 million. Second, it provides funding for mental health care for our newest veterans. Specifically, it provides $525 million for expanded mental health services, including $150 million to treat post-traumatic stress disorder for counseling, as well as family therapy. Third, the amendment helps address the shortfalls that are crippling our regional VA networks. It provides $40 million to each and every VISN, Veterans' Integrated Service Network.

This chart shows the 21 regional health networks. For each region, our amendment provides $40 million to spend on their priorities. For some areas it is going to mean erasing big deficits. For others it will help them hire more medical staff. In other parts of the country they will use it to buy medical equipment. That flexible funding that each VISN gets will allow each region to prepare their staff and facilities for our newest veterans. It will put a total of $840 million where these local communities need it the most.

In short, this amendment will ensure that we can handle the health care needs of all the veterans who will seek care after serving our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

The total cost of the amendment is $1.98 billion. Let me explain how we arrived at that figure. First, we looked at the number of new veterans who will return to the VA for care. We multiplied that by the average cost per patient and added the cost of reversing the deficits that are today facing our VA hospitals and the cost of meeting increased mental health care needs that everyone assures us we are facing.

Some Senators may wonder if this is the appropriate vehicle to fund veterans health care, so let me talk about that for a minute.

I would have preferred to fund this critical need in the regular budget process. I tried to do it several times last month in the Budget Committee and on the floor with Senator Akaka. Unfortunately, our amendments were voted down. But the need is not going away. The shortfalls are only going to get worse. So if we are not going to take care of our veterans from Iraq in the regular budget, then we have to take care of them in the bill that funds our war efforts. This is the appropriate bill because the veterans health care train wreck is an emergency, and because caring for our veterans is part of the cost of war.

As I have been talking about this amendment and discussing it with our veterans, I have been pleased by the support it has received. This amendment is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and it is supported by the VA workers who care for our veterans, represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. I thank all of these organizations and their members for supporting my amendment and reaching out to their Senators to call for its passage.

Before I go any further, I want to note that veterans health care is a very personal issue for me. My father was a disabled World War II veteran. I grew up knowing the sacrifices that our veterans make. When I was in college, I interned in our VA hospital in Seattle during the Vietnam war, and I saw how important the services were to our soldiers who were returning. I became the first woman to serve on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. I know what the costs are and I know what the challenges are.

The VA provides some of the best care, research, and treatment anywhere. Our VA employees have a unique understanding of the challenges that our veterans face when they return, and their dedication is unmatched. Like them, I want to make sure this system works for every veteran of every war and every generation.

I will share some specific examples from throughout our country that illustrate the emergency in veterans health care today. These examples didn't come from me. They came from people who know our VA facilities firsthand. A couple days ago, I posted a form on my Web site, murray.senate.gov, where veterans and their advocates can share their stories and examples with me. I have been heartened with the things people have shared. I invite other veterans to share their stories with me and with their own Senators.

For anyone who thinks this is not an emergency or it doesn't merit emergency funding, I invite you to listen very closely. I am going to talk about different places, but the overall problem is the same everywhere.

For years, VA funding has not kept up with the growing demand for care and with the rising costs of health care. So VA networks around our country have held off making improvements. When a doctor or nurse left, they were not replaced. When equipment needed to be purchased, it was put on hold. When a clinic needed to be opened, it was held in limbo. When there wasn't enough money in the operating budget, they started taking money from their capital budget.

Now all those years of chronic underfunding are coming back to roost at the worst possible time, as we are about to have a major influx of new veterans, men and women serving honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan today, when they are returning, our VA facilities across the country are facing deficits, staff shortages, and inadequate facilities.

Let me give a couple of examples that have been shared with me.

In Alaska, as of yesterday, they are starting a waiting list for nonemergency care for all new priority 7 veterans who are not enrolled in VA primary care. That means those people cannot get an appointment to even see a doctor.

In Colorado, the Eastern Colorado Health Care System is $7.25 million short this year.

In California, last year, the VA hospital there in Los Angeles closed its psychiatric emergency room.

In Florida, the VISN 8 facilities were facing a $150 million deficit earlier this year. West Palm Beach Medical Center has a deficit alone of $6 million.

In Idaho, at the VA in Boise, they are resorting to hiring freezes when we have soldiers coming home.

In Kentucky, veterans at the Louisville hospital, who are having a type of bladder examination, have to lie on a broken table because there is no money to replace that broken equipment.

In Maine, the Togus VA has a $12 million deficit.

In Minnesota, at the Minneapolis VA, they have a $7 million shortfall. They have one of the VA's four sites for dealing with veterans with complex, multiple injuries but they are not hiring anymore staff for that specialized center because of the deficit.

All of us who have visited our returning soldiers at Walter Reed or Bethesda know many of them are returning with these kinds of injuries that need to be treated at hospitals such as the one in Minneapolis.

In Missouri, at the Kansas City VA Medical Center, they have a $10 million operating deficit. I am also told that in Missouri there are not enough doctors and providers to see all the veterans. If a veteran is less than 50-percent service-connected disabled, he or she is put on a waiting list.

In South Dakota, they are expecting to be $7 million in the red by the end of this fiscal year. The VA is proposing to save $2 million by not filling staff vacancies. I am told, in fact, they need 58 new beds, and that some of the bedframes in that facility are held together with duct tape and wire. So because of the deficits they cannot even buy new beds. That is unacceptable for our veterans who have served this country.

I am also told that the Black Hills Health Care System is $3 million in the hole. They have had to use the capital budget to pay staff and other expenses.

In Texas, at the Temple, Texas, VA, nurses in inpatient care are working 16-hour days several times a week because there is not enough staff. We know that nurses providing direct care should only be working 12-hour days, because longer shifts lead to medical errors and unsafe care. This is not a way to treat our veterans who are returning.

In Virginia, as of January 1, I understand that Virginia had a budget shortfall of $14.5 million.

In my home State of Washington, we have problems, too. In Tacoma, at the American Lake VA, you can only get an appointment if you are 50- percent or more service-connected disabled. That is not the promise we made to the men and women who serve our country.

In Puget Sound, as of January, there was an $11 million deficit. At the Seattle and American Lake VA they are leaving vacant positions unfilled. There are about 16 new vacancies every month and those positions are remaining empty. They hope to reduce the workforce by 160 full-time equivalents by the end of this fiscal year.

This is having a huge impact on our patients. As of this month, the next appointment at the Seattle VA urology clinic is not available until August. I can tell you that conditions like these are breaking the hearts of our VA personnel who work day in and day out with the men and women who have served this country. They are frustrated at seeing so many veterans not get the care they have earned. Why? Because Congress is not providing the money.

I share these examples not to criticize or cast blame. We have problems such as this in my State as well, as I have talked about. I share these examples because we have to look at what is happening and realize that our VA system is not prepared to handle a new generation of veterans. All of these examples, from more than a dozen States, point to one conclusion: The VA is having trouble taking care of the patients it has today. It is certainly not prepared to handle a new influx of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many of these VA centers are in the hole for millions of dollars. They are not in a position today to begin expanding care to meet the growing need. They cannot do it alone. We have to step in and help them.

Before I close, I want to talk about one claim we made here during this debate. Some Senators have suggested

that the VA doesn't need any additional funding because it has some kind of reserve for $500 million. I was troubled by the idea that the VA has extra money it is not using while so many communities are struggling, so at a hearing last week of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee I got to the bottom of it. I wanted to share this chart with colleagues.

At our hearing on April 7, I asked Acting Under Secretary for Veterans Health Care Dr. Jonathan Perlin:

Is there a $500 million reserve?

Dr. Perlin's reply was:

No . . . I don't know where that might have been suggested,

but there is no $500 million reserve that is sitting there

for future projects.

I share that with my colleagues to set the record straight. The VA is not sitting on any type of reserve it can use for medical care. That comes straight from the man who runs the program nationwide. We have VA centers that are struggling in every part of our country. They cannot deal with the caseload they have today. How in the world are they going to deal with all of the new veterans who are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan?

We cannot kick this down the road any longer. It is an emergency today and if we do not deal with it now, it is going to be a crisis tomorrow. This is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. It is about whether we keep the promise to the men and women we send to serve us overseas.

I am willing to work with anyone who wants to make sure our country is prepared to care for all of the veterans who will be coming home soon. They were there for us. We need to be there for them now. I urge my colleagues to support this veterans health amendment. If you are concerned about this--perhaps I mentioned your State or you have heard from your own veterans--let's talk about it and find a way to make it work.

No matter what party you are in, we are all Americans first. We all have an obligation, as President Lincoln said, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and for his orphan.''

We need to pass a veterans health amendment and keep this promise to America's veterans. This amendment is the last opportunity we will have to make sure our veterans--the men and women serving us--are taken care of when they return home.

I ask for regular order.

I send a modification to the desk on our amendment.

Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments. I thank the Senators from Idaho and Texas for working with us on this critical issue. I know both of them have worked very long and hard on veterans issues and care deeply about making sure the men and women who serve are taken care of when they return home, as we promised.

Let me remind everyone, of the 240,000 men and women separated from our services since the beginning of the war in Iraq, 50,000 have already asked the VA for services. Many more of them will continue to do that as they come home and as they get back into their homes and look for services, especially mental health services, as all know who have worked with veterans for a long time.

This is an emergency. If any Members work with veterans in our States, talk to our directors at home, and talk with soldiers who have returned home, we will realize the long lines they are waiting in, the clinics that were promised that have not been opened, the tremendous services that are not being provided.

As I discussed in my opening statement, beds are held together by duct tape in our facilities. This is not how we should be treating our veterans. It is an emergency because more veterans return in higher numbers with the care not available for them.

I am willing to work with the Senators from Idaho and the Senators from Texas over the next several hours, or whatever it takes to come up with a number. If they believe $1.98 billion is too high, I would like to talk to them about that. We can work together. I know both care about this issue, and we want to find a way to make sure our veterans are taken care of.

I remind everyone when we send our men and women overseas, one of the promises we make to them is we will have the care available when they return. When we have veterans who are in beds that are held together by duct tape, when we have veterans who have to endure long waiting lines for simple services, that is an emergency.

I clarify, the money in this bill will be used until it is expended. It does not have to be expended this year. It will be used until expended, allowing our veterans and our veteran services to put in place facilities they need for our men and women coming home.

I close at this time, and I will work with Senators from Idaho and Texas and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee because I believe this is an emergency. I believe we have a responsibility. I will make sure our veterans get the care they need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am happy to talk to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in order to work out a time agreement. I do have more I would like to say. This amendment is extremely serious. It is an emergency. We would like some more time, so I am happy to talk to the chairman about having an agreement on time, if he would like to do that.

Mr. President, I assume the time will be equally divided between now and 3:30 on this amendment. That would be satisfactory.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his heartfelt statement. I know he has worked in his State, talking to young men and women who are coming home. He has looked them in the eyes as I have. I was with him in Kuwait and Iraq a few weeks ago talking to soldiers who are coming home.

The No. 1 question was: We are hearing that services are not going to be available for us when we get home. We are hearing that the veterans from Vietnam and World War II are waiting in line. We have been over here for a year.

They fear this country has forgotten them despite all the rhetoric on this floor. The Senator from Illinois is right. This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. This is an American issue. This is about our American men and women serving us honorably and who deserve to have the services when they come home.

The Senator from Illinois is right. To look into the eyes of a young family where one of them is suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome affecting their marriage, job, their entire community, and what are we saying? Wait in lines. You don't get in to be served? That is not an emergency?

What we have now in front of us is a point of order saying this is not an emergency. If it is not an emergency to take care of our men and women who are now serving us overseas, who have come home, then I don't know what is. When I am going out and talking to service organizations and every single VISN in this country is telling us they are working under debts, they are not hiring doctors and nurses to replace those who are leaving, they have beds that are being held together by duct tape--if that is not an emergency, then I can't think of one that is.

We have talked to veterans in every single VISN. Every single one of them has given us dramatic stories of the wait lines, of clinics that have been promised and not opened, of service men and women from previous wars who are not getting served. This is not an emergency? I disagree.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Schumer, Johnson, Corzine, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Dorgan as cosponsors of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to print two letters of support in the Record. They are from the national veterans service organizations: The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Amvets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans.

Mr. President, the VA is not prepared to deal with the soldiers who are coming home. So far 240,000 soldiers have come out of our service and are now available or have available to them veterans services; 50,000 already have asked the VA for care. This is an emergency.

As I talked about this morning, in State after State, in Alaska, where priority 7 veterans who are not enrolled in VA primary care are not getting appointments to date; in Colorado, where they have a $7.25 million shortage this year; in California where the VA hospital in Los Angeles has closed its psychiatric ward at the exact time we have generals telling us that at least 30 percent of our soldiers who are coming home from Iraq will need mental health care capacity and we have psychiatric emergency rooms being closed; in Florida, where there is $150 million deficit; in Idaho, where we have the Boise Idaho VA facility with a hiring freeze; in Kentucky, where we are having soldiers lie on broken tables because there is simply no money to replace any equipment there. In Maine, we have a $12 million deficit; in Minneapolis, $7 million shortfall--I remind the Senate, there are four facilities that see the most difficult, complex injuries once they have been discharged. Minnesota is one of them, and they have a $7 million shortfall.

The list goes on and on. This is an emergency. I cannot think of a more important issue facing our country today. I can't go home and look at my veterans in north central Washington who have to drive over a mountain pass 150 miles to get care today, who have been promised the health care clinic, and say: Sorry, my colleagues don't see this as an emergency.

Any one of us who has taken the time to sit down with our soldiers when they are discharged from the service and out in their communities--they tell us the stories such as the Senator from Illinois talked about, about the help they need getting through the nightmares, the posttraumatic stress syndrome, getting help with serious injuries where they have lost arms and legs.

We should not say on this Senate floor this is not an emergency. I am appalled that that is what the argument has come down to. I believe this vote is about whether we stand with our men and women. It is about whether you are going to vote with our veterans. I am stunned that there are those who say this one issue is not something that is an emergency.

Any one of us who has been out there working with our veterans--I come to this floor as a daughter of a disabled veteran. I lived with my father who was in a wheelchair most of his lifetime. I worked at a VA hospital long before I even thought about being in the Senate. I worked at the Seattle VA hospital during the Vietnam war. Any one of us who has taken the time to talk to people who served in wars and have come home know that if we don't have the care for them, we are doing a disservice not only to the men and women who serve today, but to the men and women whom we are going to ask to serve us in the wars to come.

This is an emergency. I don't care if the administration is saying the VA hospitals have the money they need. When we talk to them, they are all telling us they have a budget deficit, a hiring freeze; they are not replacing the doctors and nurses who are leaving, and they have equipment that is old, decrepit, falling apart, and dangerous. That is an emergency. It is one we have to deal with.

Mr. President, I see my colleague from Minnesota on the floor. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?

Mr. President, I note that there is nobody from the other side on the floor. I am frankly not surprised, because I don't see how anyone can argue against making sure that our service men and women get the health care they need, whether it is for a mental or a physical need. We sent them to war. We should be there for them when they come home. Regarding this amendment, I have been trying to do this since the beginning of the year and I have been told this is not the time or the place.

I let my colleagues know this is our last chance this year to make sure our veterans have the care they need. There is no other opportunity. We are going to get to the budget at some point and to the appropriations cycle, and we are going to get to the point where we have an appropriations bill on the floor, and the budget already says there is no more money. We hear the administration say--when we talk

about the VISNs, everyone tells us they don't have the resources. If you look at it, you will see these men and women don't have the care they need.

Yes.

Mr. President, I have to agree with my colleague from Minnesota. I have not seen that done before. What we are going to vote on is whether our veterans are an emergency so they can be included in the supplemental.

The Senator is correct. Actually, the President sent us an $82 billion supplemental. The Senate is considering $80.1 billion. We have the means to still be less than what the President has sent us by adding this amendment. I sincerely cannot think of any other issue more important than to make sure that those men and women who served us, when they come home, have the services they need.

Yes.

The Senator from Michigan is correct. Frankly, I have joined her in trying to make veteran services mandatory so we are not here. It is disturbing to me that we are desperately pleading to our colleagues to call this an emergency. What are we doing to our soldiers when we tell them we are in a desperate fight on the floor of the Senate that we are going to lose on a partisan vote over our veterans? That is the wrong message to send to the men and women in the services. It should be part of our budget, part of the appropriations every year, that if you serve your country, you get your care. We don't have that now, so we are here in our last-ditch effort, last attempt, last ability to try to provide these services for the men and women in the services.

I find that appalling, but I will fight hard because I believe more than anything that we should be making sure if a young man or woman comes home from Iraq or Afghanistan, they are not turned away at their VA hospital. We need to make sure that anybody who serves in any war-- Vietnam, Korea, or anywhere--is not turned away at a VA hospital. They should not be put in a bed held together by duct tape. That is wrong. That is why we are here arguing now that this is an emergency, because we have not dealt with it in the past. We now have to deal with it, and I urge my colleagues to join with us on the last chance we have this year to keep our word to the men and women who have served this country honorably.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I yield for a question.

The Senator is exactly right. We are hearing that from every region, including yours. That is why this amendment is before us.

I have little time left. I see some colleagues on the other side are on the floor. They are going to make their arguments. Again, this is an emergency; this is part of the supplemental. We should not tell our soldiers that they are not an emergency when they come home.

I yield to my colleagues on the other side.

Mr. President, I yield some of that time to the Senator from Hawaii, as much time as he will choose to use.

Mr. President, how much time is left?

How much time is left on the other side?

Mr. President, I do not see anybody on the other side who is going to speak. Let me just reiterate for everyone here. What we are talking about is an amendment for veterans, to make sure they have the health care and support they need when they come home from the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

What we have been very clear about is in every region across this country there is a debt and a shortfall. We have facilities that are decaying, and no money is being put in to fix them. We have long waiting lines. We have veterans in rural areas who are being told they cannot have health clinics. We are being told that veterans, the men and women who served us, have to travel over mountain passes and travel long distances to get the care they need. Most of it is inaccessible.

We are telling veterans who live in urban areas that the long lines in which they are waiting have to be there. We are telling suburban parents if they send their young son or daughter off to war, we are not going to be there for them when they come home.

I believe this is a emergency. I have outlined it this morning. I have outlined it again this afternoon. I heard from our colleagues on the other side that the Veterans Affairs Secretary, Secretary Nicholson, is saying he has the money he needs. He was on the job for 2 weeks when he said that. I invite the Secretary and any one of us to go out on the ground, go out to Michigan and Minnesota, go to Kentucky, go to Illinois, go to California, go to Texas, go to Idaho, go to any veterans facility and look and tell me there is not an emergency. Look in the eye of any VA doctor or nurse and tell them there is not an emergency. But more importantly, look in the eyes of the young men and women who served us.

I was in Iraq and Kuwait several weeks ago. I had to look in the eyes of 150 Guard and Reserve members who had just finished in Iraq for a year. Their No. 1 concern is they are hearing the facilities will not be available for them when they get home. Their No. 1 concern? Stress. A year on the ground in Iraq. They had heard from soldiers who had already gone home about the troubles they had with migraines, post- traumatic stress syndrome, reintegrating in the community. They want to come home, and we know the support is not there, and we tell them that is not an emergency.

I find it outrageous that this body can send to war our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and say we will not be there for you when you come home; that we will tell them you will have to wait, your budgets are not a priority, your issues are not a concern to this body. I cannot think of a more important issue, I cannot think of a more important emergency, and I cannot think of anywhere else we are going to be able to deal with this this year.

If we do not provide the funds on the emergency supplemental before us, we will be here a year from now with story after story of young men and women who served us and then came home and were told no. That is an emergency.

Mr. President, I understand the other side yielded this time. Let me simply respond by saying we are talking about a supplemental bill that talks about the cost of the war. Part of the cost of war is caring for the men and women when they return home. As President Lincoln said:

We all have an obligation to care for him who shall have

borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan.

That is what this vote is about, whether we carry forward our obligations to care for those we sent to war.

I ask my colleagues to vote with us to override this motion that says this is not an emergency so our veterans can receive the care they deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, what we voted on was whether to make the VA funding emergency funding. This vote is to say that the veterans funding is a priority for this Congress.

Mr. President, I rise this evening, as well, to join my colleague in support of the fair aerospace competition resolution that passed this body 96 to 0.

Thousands of American aerospace workers have lost their jobs in the past decade. That trend is going to continue unless we take action.

This evening I especially thank leaders on both sides of the aisle-- Senator Frist and Senator Reid--for their help and support of this measure. Senators Grassley and Baucus of the Finance Committee have been of great help. And, as always, I am proud to serve with Senator Maria Cantwell, my colleague from Washington State and another strong advocate for America's aerospace workers.

Our country invented the aerospace industry 100 years ago. Through it, American workers have done more than feed their families and pay for mortgages; they have made air travel safer and brought economic growth and innovation to every corner of our economy.

Many in this body have heard me talk for years about Europe's efforts to distort the commercial aerospace industry. In short, Airbus has done everything it can to kill our aerospace industry. Airbus has received billions in illegal launch aid. Airbus has tried

to play tricks on this side of the ocean with their slick PR campaign. And Airbus will continue the unfair tactics until they completely dominate the global aerospace market.

While Airbus is doing all of these things to hurt American workers, it is actually trying to get us to think they are a friend to the very men and women they are putting out of work.

Unfortunately, EADS, Airbus, and European governments will do and say anything to dominate the global aerospace market. I am here today to call their bluff and show this body, once again, that Airbus is no friend of the United States or our workers and to ensure that their doubletalk is exposed for all to see.

I have worked closely with several U.S. Trade Representatives on this issue over the years. For the past several months, the United States has tried to negotiate with the Europeans, but it is very clear that the Europeans do not take our concerns seriously. Those discussions appear to have broken down, and the Europeans are threatening a radical escalation if we pursue our right to file a WTO case.

You would think after all Airbus has done to kill American jobs, they would at least make a good-faith effort now that we are finally calling them to account for their behavior. But the Airbus and European leaders have done just the opposite. They have pounded their chest about how their latest subsidized plane will dominate the industry.

Instead of coming clean--or at least stopping their trade-distorting behavior--Airbus has sought to influence public opinion. They have pursued a deceptive public relations campaign. They have taken out ads in the Capitol Hill publications and major newspapers around the country, just like the one behind me.

Airbus claims to be a good friend of American workers, but it is selling to America's sworn enemies. Airbus claims to support hundreds of thousands of American jobs, but they cannot document them. Airbus claims it wants to be a more American company, but then it turns and preaches European domination when they think we are not looking.

We need to stand up for this unfair competition and send a strong signal to the Europeans that this Congress and this country will not allow a European-subsidized company to destroy America's aerospace industry.

They can talk out of both sides of their mouth all they want, but I am here to lay the facts on the table and to stand up for our workers.

Mr. President, I applaud the Bush administration, and specifically Ambassador Robert Zoellick, for the work they are doing to end unfair trade practices in the aerospace industry. This administration entered into negotiations in good faith. They wanted to restore balance and fairness to the commercial aircraft trade.

Unfortunately, Europe has never taken these talks or this issue seriously. Our willingness to seek a negotiated settlement has been greeted by more arrogant entitlement from Airbus and its European backers. While publicly committing to negotiations, Airbus and European leaders have been working behind the scenes to continue subsidies to Airbus in spite of U.S. threats to file a WTO case.

Now European Commission Ambassador John Bruton is saying, `` . . . one result of a case would be that maximum aid would be given'' for Airbus's new A350.

Today, this campaign is more directly than ever in Congress's line of sight. I hope to clearly show Airbus is not an American company and Airbus is simply continuing its policy of saying and doing anything to get what it wants.

A week ago last Friday, European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson wrote an eye-popping piece in the Washington Post. He, once again, restated baseless accusations against Boeing in an effort to justify billions of dollars in illegal Airbus launch aid.

The issue Mandelson correctly identifies as central to American concerns is the massive subsidies in the form of launch aid, landing rights, and other giveaways that European governments give to Airbus. Now the Europeans would like you to think that we offer similar subsidies to Boeing, but the facts simply don't line up. I don't need to talk at great length about the subsidies tonight, but I think it is worthwhile to make you all understand what those subsidies actually do.

European governments give Airbus huge direct subsidies to build new airplanes. These subsidies take the form of launch aid, supplier subsidies, R&D subsidies, and facilities subsidies. These subsidies create an uneven playing field and allow Airbus to do what normal, private companies cannot afford to do. They develop new products without any risk.

One American company is playing by traditional business norms-- borrowing money at commercial rates, being responsible to shareholders, and knowing if they don't make a profit, they are in trouble. That is why Boeing ``bets the company'' when they develop a new plane. Airbus enjoys virtually a risk-free product development, and it operates far outside of the bounds of fair competition. All of this comes at the expense of U.S. companies and American workers.

What does that mean in real terms? Let's take the new superjumbo Airbus A380 as an example. According to a January 20 article in the Financial Post, titled ``The Airbus 380,'' A380 subsidies are officially at $4.3 billion. Other estimates put it at over $6 billion.

The same day, the independent newspaper said:

To break even on its own investment, Airbus needs to sell

250 of the A380. To repay the four governments it needs to

shift to 700. To count as a real commercial success, Airbus

needs to sell twice that number. So far, it has firm orders

for 149.

It is no wonder that last summer respected industrial analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group called the plane a ``bloated airborne welfare queen.''

No other company in the world would be able to handle such huge cost overruns. But Airbus can because if the plane fails, they will simply write off the costs and move on to the next one.

To make matters worse, they have been making outlandish claims in this country for years. First, they claim Airbus has created and supports 120,000 jobs in this country. The Commerce Department can only document 500. Airbus says it subcontracts with as many as 800 firms in the United States, though they have moved that number up and down over the years. The Commerce Department can only come up with 250.

This last week, our Commerce Department released an exhaustive study done at the request of this Congress on the U.S. jet transport industry. That 150-page report once again comes to the same conclusion we have heard time and time again. Airbus is not an American company, and Airbus does almost nothing to support the hundreds of thousands of American workers who depend on this important industry.

Airbus and EADS are not helping America's aerospace industry; they are destroying it. In 15 years, 700,000 American workers have lost their jobs while Europe keeps adding new workers to the EADS and Airbus payroll. That is simply unacceptable.

Looking at their claims in American press alone, Airbus appears to be a pseudo-American company looking to create more jobs and helping to grow our economy. That is not the real story. Take a look at what Airbus proprietors say in Europe when they think we are not looking. A few months ago, with a lot of pomp and circumstance, the latest European Airbus product, the A380, was unveiled with four heads of state. Their comments show Europe's true intentions.

From the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapetero:

The European Union has built the plane that is the standard

bearer for European and global aeronautics.

He went on to boast:

What we see here today is Europe cannot be stopped.

He is saying that Europe, not a company, cannot be stopped.

From the French President, Jacques Chirac:

It is a technological feat and a great European success.

When it takes to the skies, it will carry the colors of our

continent, and our technological ambitions to even greater

heights.

From the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair:

It is European cooperation at its best. Airbus demonstrates

that we can achieve more together in Europe than we ever can

alone.

Finally, the German Chancellor, when asked about subsidies to Airbus, said:

We have done that in the past, we are doing it now, and we

will do so in the future.

This does not sound like a company bent on doing anything for American workers, but, again, that is what Airbus and its supporters are saying and doing to get what they want.

Unfortunately, the examples only continue. I do not have to look any further than the NBC Nightly News to find another shocking attack on American values and workers. For years, Airbus told us they will do anything to get a deal, and apparently they will sell to anyone. Not long ago, NBC News uncovered direct evidence of Airbus efforts to sell military aircraft to a country focused on destabilizing and undermining American interests in the Middle East, a country that is currently in the pursuit of nuclear weapons, a country to which no real American company would dare sell weapons.

NBC News was able to get a camera crew into an airshow in Kish, Iran, and they found EADS pitching their military helicopters to Iran.

I ask unanimous consent that the full transcript of the NBC story be printed in the Record.

I will read just a bit from that piece:

Also exhibiting at the show, European Aeronautic Defence

and Space Company, EADS, and its subsidiary Eurocopter, which

has launched a campaign in the United States to get a bigger

share of Pentagon contracts, featuring ads that wrap the

company in American flag.

But if the company is so pro-American, why is it ignoring

U.S. policy to isolate Iran.

As a European company, we are not supposed to take into

account embargoes from the U.S., says Michael Tripler, with

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the Senator, and I look forward to working with him to fight for our aerospace industry and to make sure companies in this country have a fair playing field.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Corzine and Mikulski to the amendment.

Mr. President, women around the world should have access to safe health care, especially those who are struggling in some of our world's poorest nations. That is why I am in the Senate this afternoon to support the Boxer amendment. I thank Senator Boxer for standing up on an issue that affects women around the globe. I am very proud to be a cosponsor and supporter of this amendment.

This amendment is about ensuring that women around the world have access to health care that they need, especially reproductive health care. It does not get much attention, but in the developing world, complication from pregnancy is one of the leading causes of death for women. It ranks right up there with tuberculosis. According to the World Health Organization, more than half a million women die every year of causes related to pregnancy or childbirth. That is more than one woman dying every minute of every day. That is what we are talking about with this amendment. That is a crisis.

Now, you know when there is a medical crisis, something that kills hundreds of thousands of people every year, we do not just stand by. We work to make things better. In poor countries around the world, medical professionals and nongovernmental organizations are simply trying to make things better. They have set up clinics. They have done an excellent job. They are reaching out to poor communities. And they are opening the doors of access to women and families who desperately need health care. They are doing great work. But today their hands are tied, and even worse their hands are tied because the Bush administration has imposed a political ideology on the world. We cannot allow this undemocratic policy to deny women and their children health care and ultimately sentence them to die.

As my colleague, Senator Boxer, has talked about, 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--its own--private, non-U.S. funds for anything related to abortion. If you are a medical professional living in an impoverished country trying to help people, save lives, you are gagged from even talking about certain reproductive health services.

We would not stand for that in the United States. We know how important the doctor-patient relationship is. When we go to a doctor, we want to know that the doctor is giving us all the advice we need-- not holding something back because of a gag rule imposed on him by someone else. But that is exactly what the global gag rule does. It is forced on women in poor countries around the world, and that is just simply wrong.

I am not going to take the time to go into detail on why I believe this gag rule is so wrong, but I just want to mention a few things. Simply put, the gag rule undermines reproductive health care, it hurts our efforts to prevent HIV and AIDS, and it limits access to contraceptives. The gag rule places limits on women and doctors that we would never accept here in the United States.

But here is the bottom line and something all of our colleagues should remember as we go to vote on this amendment: This is about protecting women's lives. Today, the women around the world are being denied the care they need because of an ideological policy, and they are dying as a result. We cannot tolerate that as Americans, and that is why I have come to the floor this afternoon, to urge my colleagues to support the Boxer amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from Hawaii and Illinois for standing up for veterans in this country and for their passion for their States and the people they represent.

We are here this afternoon because veterans throughout our country are waiting for the health care they have been promised, and it is our responsibility to make sure it is delivered. They are facing understaffed and overcrowded VA hospitals. They are dealing with paperwork and redtape, and they are not getting the service we promised them when we sent them to fight for all of us.

Every day the system is getting more and more crowded and the waiting lists are growing longer, and this body has to do something about it. I have heard several claims from the other side, and I want to take a few minutes to refute a few of them.

They claim we are going to be raising taxes. I remind you there will be $65 billion in this budget for tax cuts when our amendment passes. I believe we have a responsibility in this country to make sure we keep the promise to our veterans, and that is why I believe our amendment is responsible in its funding mechanisms.

Second, we have heard our opponents say that veterans funding has gone up by 43 percent, so veterans do not need another dime. I remind my colleagues that the number of veterans in VA care has gone up by 88 percent at the same time that medical inflation has gone up 92 percent. Inflation is rising, the cost of care is rising, and the number of veterans is rising. Forty-three percent is commendable, but it does not meet the promise we made to our servicemen when we sent them overseas that we would care for them when they returned.

Another claim we have heard over and over again is that the VA is sitting on $500 million. That does not stand with this Senator. I believe the VA officials here in Washington, DC, have a responsibility to get those funds out to our veterans across this country. They are in waiting lines. We do see clinics that are not opening or are closing. Our veterans need the services and the VA should not be withholding that money and it should go out there.

We have also heard from our opponents that veterans funding has increased by $900 million. That is simply not true. We had printed in the Record last night the true cost, which is $80 million, far less than the $900 million we have heard on this floor.

Let me just say I know veterans organizations across this country-- VFW, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled Veterans of America, American Legion, Vietnam Veterans--many other veterans organizations are watching us. They know there is a difference between the amendments offered on the Republican side and Democratic side. On the Republican side they are offering an additional $410 million; on our side, $2.85 billion--the difference between serving 68,000 additional veterans and 475,000 veterans; the difference between telling veterans, some of them, that they will be in waiting lines or will not get their service, and the ability for us to serve all of them.

Let me end my time today on this amendment by reminding all Senators what George Washington said back in 1789. I think it holds true today more than ever.

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.

These words hold true today. Voting for our amendment on our side will assure that we show these veterans that we appreciate and support their service. It will send a message to the next generation of young men and women we are asking to serve that we keep the promise.

I appreciate the Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, for offering his amendment. But I say the veterans will know which amendment will make a difference in the lives of veterans across this country and I urge my colleagues to support the Akaka-Murray amendment.

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

Mr. President, Senator Ensign's amendment is a nice gesture, but we all know that a wink and a nod is not going to make the waiting lines go away for the 700,000 veterans who are serving us honorably today. We all know about the understaffed and overcrowded VA hospitals. We know about the paperwork. We know about the redtape. We know our veterans are waiting for prescription drug coverage. They are waiting for posttraumatic stress syndrome treatment. That is for the veterans who have already served.

On top of that, we have new veterans coming home today, and it is our responsibility to make sure we do more than a gesture. That is what the Akaka-Murray amendment is that we will vote on after this amendment. I urge the adoption of the Murray-Akaka amendment. That would be the real vote to say whether we care for our veterans.

Mr. President, the Senate is now going to consider the real amendment on whether we are going to help our veterans. The amendment we just passed was a token amount of money to help our veterans--laudable but nowhere near what we need. The amendment we are now considering will provide the funding so the 700,000 veterans who are waiting will get the services they need.

Why do we need this? Because the number of veterans receiving veterans care has gone up 88 percent. Medical inflation has gone up 92 percent. We made a commitment to those who serve us that we will be there to serve them. That is our responsibility.

Across this country, veterans are calling to see if we keep our promise to America's veterans to fund health care now. That is what this amendment will do. It is our responsibility. It implies we will keep the promise we made when we asked young people to serve us overseas, that we will be there when they come home. It is the responsibility of this body, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will greatly enhance Federal participation in financing and improving our Nation's ferry transportation system.

Today I again introduce the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act, or Ferry-TEA. I am proud to have Senators Collins, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Corzine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Snowe, and Stevens as original cosponsors. This bill will provide significantly more resources to State governments, public ferry systems, and public entities responsible for developing facilities for ferries.

Specifically, the bill would: provide $150 million a year for the Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program. This is approximately four times the $38 million a year that is currently being provided under this program; add ``ferry maintenance facilities'' to the list of allowable use of funds under this program; add ``ferries'' to the Clean Fuels Program; establish a Ferry Joint Program Office to coordinate federal programs affecting ferry boat and ferry facility construction, maintenance, and operations and to promote ferry service as a component of the nation's transportation system; establish an information database on ferry systems, routes, vessels, passengers and vehicles carried; and establish an institute for ferries to conduct R&D, conduct training programs, encourage collaborative efforts to promote ferry service, and preserve historical information. This will parallel institutes that now exist for highways, transit, and rail.

Currently, the Federal investment in ferries is only one-tenth of one percent of the total Surface Transportation Program. There is virtually no coordination at the federal level to encourage and promote ferries as there are for other modes of transportation.

We need better coordinated ferry services because it's the sole means of surface transportation in many areas of the country, including, Hawaii, Alaska and my home State of Washington.

Ferries are also the preferred, and the only feasible, method of commuting from home to work in places like Washington State, New York/ New Jersey, North Carolina, Hawaii and Alaska.

Finally, in many States like my home State of Washington they are an important part of the tourism industry and represent a part of our cultural identity.

The symbol of ferries moving people and vehicles on the waterways of the Puget Sound is as much a part of our cultural identity as computers, coffee, commercial aircraft and the Washington Apple.

Ferry use is growing.

In Washington State our ferry system--the Nation's largest-- transports approximately 26 million passengers each year and carries 11 million vehicles. This is more passengers in my one state than Amtrak transports on a yearly basis nationwide.

Other systems that serve New York/New Jersey, North Carolina, San Francisco, and Alaska also have significant numbers of passengers using the ferries.

The Nation's six largest ferry systems recently carried 73 million people and 13 million vehicles in just one year.

The growth projection for ferry use is very high. For these larger systems, it is projected that by 2009 there will be a 14-percent increase in passengers and a 17-percent increase in vehicles being carried by ferries compared to 2002.

In San Francisco, that projection is a 46-percent increase.

It is clear that many people are using ferries and more will be using them in the future.

This is all with very little help from the Federal Government.

Our investment in ferries pails in comparison to the federal investments in highways and other forms of mass transit.

Our bill would provide the needed funding for these growing systems for new ferry boat construction, for ferry facilities and terminals, and for maintenance facilities.

The bill also would make ferries eligible under the Clean Fuels Program.

Like busses, ferries are a form of mass transit that is environmentally cleaner than mass use of cars and trucks. Making them eligible for the Clean Fuels Program will encourage boat makers to design cleaner and more efficient vessels in the future. This will make ferry travel an even more environmentally friendly means of transportation than it already is today.

During the 108th Congress, I, with the help of several of my colleagues, was able to attach an amendment to the surface transportation reauthorization bill--SAFETEA. That amendment would have increased the funding for the Ferry Boat Discretionary Program from $38 million per year to $120 million per year and make other changes.

I thank Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Bond, and Senators Jeffords and Reid for working with us to include that important amendment.

As we again move to the Senate consideration of the reauthorization bill in the near future, I look forward to working with my cosponsors and the leaders of the Committee, which now includes Senator Baucus, to see all the elements of Ferry-TEA is included in the bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will greatly enhance Federal participation in financing and improving our Nation's ferry transportation system.

Today I again introduce the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act, or Ferry-TEA. I am proud to have Senators Collins, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Corzine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Snowe, and Stevens as original cosponsors. This bill will provide significantly more resources to State governments, public ferry systems, and public entities responsible for developing facilities for ferries.

Specifically, the bill would: provide $150 million a year for the Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program. This is approximately four times the $38 million a year that is currently being provided under this program; add ``ferry maintenance facilities'' to the list of allowable use of funds under this program; add ``ferries'' to the Clean Fuels Program; establish a Ferry Joint Program Office to coordinate federal programs affecting ferry boat and ferry facility construction, maintenance, and operations and to promote ferry service as a component of the nation's transportation system; establish an information database on ferry systems, routes, vessels, passengers and vehicles carried; and establish an institute for ferries to conduct R&D, conduct training programs, encourage collaborative efforts to promote ferry service, and preserve historical information. This will parallel institutes that now exist for highways, transit, and rail.

Currently, the Federal investment in ferries is only one-tenth of one percent of the total Surface Transportation Program. There is virtually no coordination at the federal level to encourage and promote ferries as there are for other modes of transportation.

We need better coordinated ferry services because it's the sole means of surface transportation in many areas of the country, including, Hawaii, Alaska and my home State of Washington.

Ferries are also the preferred, and the only feasible, method of commuting from home to work in places like Washington State, New York/ New Jersey, North Carolina, Hawaii and Alaska.

Finally, in many States like my home State of Washington they are an important part of the tourism industry and represent a part of our cultural identity.

The symbol of ferries moving people and vehicles on the waterways of the Puget Sound is as much a part of our cultural identity as computers, coffee, commercial aircraft and the Washington Apple.

Ferry use is growing.

In Washington State our ferry system--the Nation's largest-- transports approximately 26 million passengers each year and carries 11 million vehicles. This is more passengers in my one state than Amtrak transports on a yearly basis nationwide.

Other systems that serve New York/New Jersey, North Carolina, San Francisco, and Alaska also have significant numbers of passengers using the ferries.

The Nation's six largest ferry systems recently carried 73 million people and 13 million vehicles in just one year.

The growth projection for ferry use is very high. For these larger systems, it is projected that by 2009 there will be a 14-percent increase in passengers and a 17-percent increase in vehicles being carried by ferries compared to 2002.

In San Francisco, that projection is a 46-percent increase.

It is clear that many people are using ferries and more will be using them in the future.

This is all with very little help from the Federal Government.

Our investment in ferries pails in comparison to the federal investments in highways and other forms of mass transit.

Our bill would provide the needed funding for these growing systems for new ferry boat construction, for ferry facilities and terminals, and for maintenance facilities.

The bill also would make ferries eligible under the Clean Fuels Program.

Like busses, ferries are a form of mass transit that is environmentally cleaner than mass use of cars and trucks. Making them eligible for the Clean Fuels Program will encourage boat makers to design cleaner and more efficient vessels in the future. This will make ferry travel an even more environmentally friendly means of transportation than it already is today.

During the 108th Congress, I, with the help of several of my colleagues, was able to attach an amendment to the surface transportation reauthorization bill--SAFETEA. That amendment would have increased the funding for the Ferry Boat Discretionary Program from $38 million per year to $120 million per year and make other changes.

I thank Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Bond, and Senators Jeffords and Reid for working with us to include that important amendment.

As we again move to the Senate consideration of the reauthorization bill in the near future, I look forward to working with my cosponsors and the leaders of the Committee, which now includes Senator Baucus, to see all the elements of Ferry-TEA is included in the bill.

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

Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

Mr. President, at this very hour, veterans in my home State of Washington and throughout the country are waiting for the health care they were promised. They are facing understaffed and overcrowded VA hospitals and clinics. They are dealing with paperwork. They are dealing with redtape. They are not getting the service they were promised.

At this hour, veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts are waiting for appointments to see a doctor, waiting for prescription drugs, and waiting for help with post-traumatic stress disorder. While they are waiting, new veterans are coming home from Iraq, from Afghanistan, and they need health care, too.

Every day the system is getting more and more crowded. The waiting lists are growing longer. We have to do something about it. These brave men and women were there for us. We have now got to be there for them. They answered our country's call, and now we have to do our part. That is why I am on the floor tonight with Senator Akaka, offering an amendment to increase funding for veterans health care by $2.85 billion.

I am here today with a simple message, which is displayed right here on this chart: Congress needs to keep its promise to America's veterans. We need to honor their service and their sacrifice, and we need to fund health care now. I received many letters from veterans throughout my State with this simple plea: Keep our promise to America's veterans. Fund health care now.

Let me say, we have a lot of work to do. If we follow the budget President Bush proposed last month, we will force veterans out of the VA system, we will force veterans out of nursing homes, we will force veterans to pay more in fees and copayments, and we will force veterans to wait even longer for the care they have earned.

As the daughter of a disabled World War II veteran, as the first woman in history to serve on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and as the voice of more than 700,000 brave veterans in the State of Washington, I cannot let that happen.

I have been fighting for veterans for many years. In fact, just last week in the Budget Committee I offered an amendment to boost funding for VA health care. Do you know what some Senators told me? They said: We have already increased funding for veterans plenty, so we don't need another dime for veterans health care.

They are wrong. That is not what the veterans in my home State are telling me.

I want every Senator to know that how you vote on this amendment is a test of how committed you are to helping America's veterans. With this vote, we are going to find out who is serious about helping our veterans and who is just talking.

With this vote, every Senator will have to announce publicly whether they are making life better for our veterans or whether they are making excuses. I am here to say let's do the right thing. Let us support this amendment and keep the promise to those who have served.

For those veterans who are following this debate tonight, let me recap where it stands.

This month, Congress is deciding how much money to spend on priorities such as veterans health care. So far, we have only had two choices, and one is to follow President Bush's approach. He offered a budget that will impose higher fees and copayments on many veterans. It will lock the doors of VA to thousands of veterans. It is no wonder that veterans organizations from coast to coast have denounced that budget proposal.

Last week, the Senate Budget Committee organized its own budget proposal. I serve on that committee. I was part of that debate.

The Republican proposal got rid of some of the onerous fees in President Bush's budget, but they refused to increase funding for veterans to meet their needs.

I tried to improve that bill in committee with the Murray veterans health care amendment, but the Republicans blocked my funding and passed an inaccurate budget on a party-line vote. Now that flawed budget is here on the Senate floor, and we have one more chance to make it right.

That is why I am here tonight offering this amendment with Senator Akaka. Our amendment says let's fund veterans health care based on real needs.

We know what the needs are because over the past few weeks, the Nation's largest veterans service organizations came before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, the committee on which I serve. Leaders from AMVETS, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, all told us what they need. They are not asking for special treatment--just what they were promised in exchange for serving our country. They told us that veterans are not getting the help they need. They told us what would happen if we adopted the President's budget.

For me, veterans health care is a very personal issue. My father served in World War II, and he returned as a disabled veteran. During the Vietnam war, I interned in the Seattle VA hospital. I know firsthand the scars and the wounds that burden our veterans when they come home.

During the gulf war, when our soldiers were coming home with gulf war syndrome, I brought the VA Secretary out to Washington State so he could hear from veterans what I was hearing.

Over the past 2 years when President Bush tried to close the doors at three VA hospitals in Washington State, I worked with veterans and community leaders from across our State to keep those facilities open. I continue to press the VA to open new community clinics in north- central Washington and in Whatcom County to help our veterans who today have little access to VA services.

When it comes to VA's health care budget, it has been a battle every year to get the funding we need. Every year, the President has proposed a small number for veterans health care, and every year we in Congress have stepped in to protect our veterans.

I have been convinced for a long time that we need to move VA health care out of the annual budget process. That is why I have sponsored legislation to make VA health care funding mandatory, so it is always there no matter what type of budget games are going on.

Unfortunately, the Republican majority has blocked that commonsense proposal every year.

So the fight goes on. That is why we are here tonight. This year's debate started on February 2 when the President unveiled his budget proposal.

Veterans of Foreign Wars looked at his proposal, and they said:

If the President's budget were approved, waiting time for

basic health care appointments would again skyrocket,

returning us to the era of the six-month waiting period.

That is what the commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said about the President's budget.

The President's budget would force more than 2 million veterans to pay a $250 annual fee just to get VA health care. In my book, if you served our country, if you have already paid your dues, it is insulting to nickel and dime America's veterans.

The President's plan would also double the copayment for prescription drugs for thousands of our veterans. It would slash prosthetics research by $9 million.

The President's budget would eliminate thousands of State-run nursing home beds. In my home State alone, 300 veterans who honorably served this country would lose their place in a State nursing home. That is 300 Washington State families being asked to shoulder a new burden, and that is just wrong.

The President's budget would cut the VA workforce by more than 3,000 people while there is a backlog of more than 700,000 claims. That just does not make any sense.

We have a huge backlog of claims, with new claims coming in every day, and now there will be fewer staff to process. That is wrong.

The President's budget would also continue to ban some veterans from coming to the VA for care. So far, under this flawed policy, nearly 200,000 veterans have been turned away, including more than 3,100 veterans in Washington State.

That is what the President proposed. I have been working with others to fix that.

I have to tell you that it has been very frustrating. No one in this administration is willing to say how we are going to take care of our newest veterans, when they have waiting lists for existing veterans.

I asked the President's budget director on February 9: Where is the money in your budget to take care of our newest veterans and our existing veterans? I didn't get an answer. So on February 15, I asked the Veterans Secretary. I didn't get an answer from him. So the next day, I asked the Defense Secretary, but I didn't get an answer from him either.

So I offered an amendment in the Senate Budget Committee last week. My veterans amendment was defeated on a party-line vote of 10 to 12.

So tonight I am here on the Senate floor with Senator Akaka with a similar amendment. And now every Senator is going to have to go on the record either for or against our veterans.

During this debate, you are going to hear Senators say that we have raised funding for veterans plenty. Other Senators are going to suggest that we are meeting the needs today. I am going to refute those claims line by line. But let me say this first: When veterans tell me they are being left behind and politicians tell me everything is fine, I will believe the veterans every time.

With that said, I want to look at some of the claims the other side will make.

One of the arguments you are going to hear from the opponents is that appropriations for veterans medical care grew by 63 percent from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 2004. That claim is inaccurate because it leaves out three critical facts.

First of all, the number of veterans who have served has gone up dramatically over that same period of time, as this chart shows. During the same year, the number of unique veterans getting care from the VA has increased by 88 percent.

It is nice that the funding has gone up, but it is nowhere close to meeting the number of veterans who are getting care at the VA.

Second, the Republican claim is inaccurate because it ignores the impact of medical inflation.

As this chart shows, over the same timeframe they are talking, medical inflation has shot up 92 percent, so the increases we have had so far have not even kept up with medical inflation. It is great that veterans funding has increased over the years, but it has not even kept up with inflation.

There is another problem with this excuse that we do not need this amendment, because every day, as each of us knows, new veterans are coming back home and seeking care at the VA. If the number of veterans was going to be stable in the coming years, it would be one thing, but we all know the number of veterans will keep growing as soldiers come home from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Washington State alone has sent thousands of brave men and women to Iraq and Afghanistan over the past several years. Now a large group is returning home, including 4,000 members of the National Guard. This is the next generation of veterans.

Congress needs to provide more funding if we are going to keep up with the growing needs. So we are going to hear some of the opponents claim that veterans funding has gone up 63 percent so veterans do not need any more. But when we hear that claim, we need to remember the number of veterans in the VA system has gone up 88 percent. Medical inflation has gone up 92 percent. And we are creating new veterans every single day who need a strong, stable VA to take care of them.

Here is another excuse we will hear from the opponents. They will say the VA is sitting on nearly $500 million. VA officials in Washington, DC, may well be holding back money to see what next year may bring, but that does not mean the funds are not needed at VA hospitals and clinics. Veterans health networks are already experiencing shortfalls. As a result, the committee has heard that outpatient clinics have stopped seeing even the poorest of patients, sending them hundreds of miles away to other facilities.

I am hearing from veteran leaders in my region that the VA is not moving forward with new clinics in Whatcom County and north central Washington because all those dollars are needed for medical care for existing veterans.

If the VA is sitting on funds we have appropriated, I want those dollars moved out to help veterans as we intended. It is not an excuse to block this amendment.

We may also hear opponents claim this budget increases veterans funding by about $900 million. But when you look at the numbers, the increase in medical care is less than $80 million.

I have a chart that was produced not by us but by majority staff on the Committee on Veterans Affairs. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. President, we have heard some opponents say we should not provide another dime in the budget for veterans health care because we do not know how the Appropriations Committee will spend that money. I serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and I serve on the Veterans Appropriations Subcommittee. If the Senate passes our amendment, then the Appropriations subcommittee will have explicit instructions that this money is to be spent on veterans health care. Because I serve on all the committees involved--Appropriations, Veterans' Affairs--I will be there at every turn to remind my colleagues of the promise we made.

This amendment is also about making sure our military is strong today. How we treat our veterans affects our ability to recruit the men and women we need to serve in our Armed Forces. That is nothing new. It has actually been true since the founding of our country. On the chart behind me I have a quote from George Washington in 1789. 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 President George Washington in 1789.

We have an opportunity tonight with this amendment to do right by our veterans and to keep our country strong. This amendment will help meet the growing needs and will ensure that we keep the promise to those who have answered this country's call. They were there for us when we needed them, and we need to be there for them.

With this amendment offered by Senator Akaka and myself and many others, every Senator will have to decide if they are voting for veterans or against them. I urge every Senator to do the right thing and vote for our amendment.

Exhibit 1

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho, who has assumed this year the task of chairing the Veterans' Committee, does have a true compassion for veterans. I appreciate his work and his diligence on this and all the work he is attempting to do to take care of our veterans because he shares with all of us a concern of making sure we take care of those who have served us.

We just have a difference of opinion on the amendment that we have offered on this side. There are $70 billion worth of tax cuts that are assumed in this budget. All we are saying with our amendment is let's assume over $67 billion instead of $70 billion and use that amount for our veterans.

I am one who believes that when we ask our men and women to serve, we have to keep a commitment to them that we will be there to take care of them when they come home. It is part of the cost of war. I agree with the Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the Veterans' Committee, that we have increased veterans care. We had to. We have more veterans. We have increased it 43 percent over the past 4 years. But I remind my colleagues that the number of veterans needing veterans health care has increased 88 percent. Medical inflation has increased 92 percent. Even with the amendment that Republicans have offered, we will not be meeting the needs of the veterans, the men and women who have served this country.

I believe we have a responsibility to do that. I believe we cannot tell the next generation we are asking to serve that we are only going to take care of 43 percent or 60 percent. We have an obligation to take care of their health care when they come home.

The amendment offered on this side by Senator Akaka and myself will assure us we can go home and our tell veterans they have been there for us and they will not be turned away. They have served us and we should serve them.

I am one who believes the cost of taking care of veterans is a cost war. It is not a cost we should pass on to the next generation. It is not a cost we should ignore. It is a cost that we have a responsibility to take care of.

I commend the Senator from Idaho for his amendment. I appreciate his attempt to raise it. But I say we have to make sure that all veterans are cared for. I believe that is a cost of war and it is a cost we should assume. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment that was offered on this side so we can make sure when we go home and face our veterans, the men and women who are coming home today from Iraq and Afghanistan will have the services they need. It is the least we can do.

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

Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about the budget that is now before the Senate. We have to remember that a budget is really a statement of priorities. It talks about how we choose to allocate our resources, and it says a lot about the kind of country we want to be and whether we want communities where opportunities are available to a few or communities where opportunities are available for everyone.

When I was growing up, my father was a World War II veteran. When I was in my teens, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Pretty soon he was no longer able to work, and my mother had to go to work to support seven kids. Fortunately, with some help from our Government, she got the help she needed to get a good job to take care of us and to take care of my dad. Without that kind of help, I would not be sitting here tonight as a Senator.

My family is not alone. Our country has a proud tradition of helping those who fall on hard times and helping them to reach their full potential. That tradition comes from fundamental American values, and one of those values is a belief in the importance of community.

The American philosophy says we all count and we are all in this together. It says that if I am doing well personally but my neighbors are suffering, I am not doing so well after all either. Today, those community values, those American values, are under attack by a budget that places too little value on the things ordinary Americans need. In doing so, this budget imperils the American dream for every one of us. To keep the American dream alive, I believe we have to put America first. For our Nation to be strong and continue to be an example to the world when it comes to creating opportunities for a better life, we have to be strong at home.

Unfortunately, this budget that is now before us does not put America first. This budget does not allow us to provide the kind of support Americans need in a number of critical areas, ranging from support for our veterans, to education, to health care, to the environment, to funding for our rail system. When this budget cuts funding to these priorities, it puts opportunities out of reach for ordinary working Americans who play by the rules and want nothing better than a chance for a better life for their families. They deserve the chance at a better life, and it is our responsibility to do all we can to give them that chance by making the right investments so they can be safe, healthy, and productive. We must not fail in or overlook this responsibility to put America first. Future generations of Americans are relying on us to make the right decisions now, and the fact is we still have the opportunity to do the right thing in this budget that is before us.

My first concern about this budget is that it is fiscally irresponsible. While the President and this Congress have consistently prioritized tax breaks in a time of war, the war itself has not been enough of a funding priority. It simply astounds me that this budget does not fund the true and full cost of the war in Iraq, which includes rebuilding. It also includes the cost of taking care of our veterans when they return home from their missions. At a time when our Nation is at war, our top priority has to be to support our men and women in uniform. I am deeply concerned that this budget fails to do so. Instead, we are asked to keep the cost of war offline as we pass that cost on to our children, our grandchildren, and future generations of Americans. These costs are knowable. We have been there for years now, and the costs should be reflected in our budget.

This budget underfunds veterans' needs by nearly $3 billion, failing in our commitment to provide the health care and benefits they have been promised in return for the sacrifice they are making for all of us. We have an obligation to care for those who have taken care of us, and, unfortunately, this budget does not meet that obligation.

Access to first-class care should be a reality for all veterans, especially while our Nation is at war. This budget may contain a few steps in the right direction, but sadly it does not go far enough to meet the needs of our veterans. If this budget is enacted, it will severely damage veterans health care. Payroll and inflation increases for doctors, nurses, and medications cost more than $1 billion, but this budget proposes to give the VA only half of what it needs.

To make up for this shortfall, the budget forces more than 2 million middle-income veterans to pay more than double for their needed medications and to pay a $250 enrollment fee. In addition, this budget actually continues to ban some veterans from coming to the VA for care, and so far under this flawed proposal 192,260 veterans have been turned away across the country, including more than 3,000 in my home State of Washington. That sends the wrong message to our troops who are serving us overseas. They need to know that we are there for them when they return home. This budget also imperils the relationship between the VA and the States. The VA has supported the cost of veterans residing in State VA nursing homes since the Civil War. Yet this budget calls on States to cover the entire cost for many veterans in these cost- effective nursing homes.

To make this budget add up, this proposed budget calls for $590 million in unspecified efficiencies. That means thousands of nurses and other providers are going to be cut; thousands of nursing home beds are going to be shuttered; and more than a million veterans are no longer going to be able to come to the VA for the health care they were promised and they deserve.

This budget falls very short in providing the general public with the health care they need. Today there are 45 million Americans who are uninsured. Without the safety net of Medicare and Medicaid, those numbers would be far greater. Let's take Medicaid as an example. Medicaid provides insurance to 40 million Americans and covers 55 percent of poor children. It also covers significant numbers of disabled, of elderly, and it provides the bulk of long-term care. Far too many Americans rely on Medicaid to defund it now.

Whatever the final number of the proposed cuts, and even if we call those improved flexibility, people are going to be hurt badly. The fact is, we should not forget that already-strapped States are going to be left to make up the shortfall because of what we do here. That is not right, and I hope we can correct it as we go through the amendment process.

Let me also talk about education. We had an amendment a short while ago, offered by Senator Bingaman. I think all of us need to remember that States are being overburdened by cuts in our educational system. This is another area where I believe this budget fails us as a community and it reflects the wrong priorities. It fails to provide the support necessary to build a workforce with the skills and education necessary so we can pass on a strong and secure economy.

This budget will cut educational funding for the first time in the past decade. It is going to eliminate 48 programs totaling $4.3 billion--programs our children rely on. The programs that have been cut include critical early intervention and college readiness programs, programs such as GEAR UP and TRIO that have been so successful.

This budget also fails employers because it fails to provide the funding we need to bring skilled workers into tomorrow's workforce and to keep our economy growing by eliminating the $1.3 billion Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Program. That is a bad move for students who are entering the workforce, it is a bad move for employers, and a bad move for the future of our economy.

The supporters of the underlying budget say it does not contain the assumptions of the cuts. But appropriators will not have the option to increase or even maintain current levels of funding in critical educational programs if we do not at least restore the

funding for the programs that have been cut.

I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to restore these cuts, and it failed on a party-line vote, just like the vote tonight in the Senate. We need to remember these cuts are real. They are going to affect real people.

Just last week, one of the last things we did was to reauthorize, here in the Senate, the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, while at the same time the Republicans on the Budget Committee voted down my amendment that would have restored the $1.3 billion that program needs to make it work. We are now considering a budget without that amendment.

There are some increases for education in this budget, but they are very deceptive. For example, instead of fulfilling the promise of No Child Left Behind, this budget funds a meager 1.3 percent increase to No Child Left Behind and underfunds it by $12 billion.

This budget increases funding for title I, which is the program that funds disadvantaged students, by 4.7 percent, but that is also very deceptive. There is a shortfall of over $9 billion in this program. That concerns me, as someone who knows. We have a responsibility to make sure the generations that come after us have the skills they need to be productive so we will have a strong country that we can all count on in the future.

Another area of deep concern for me is this budget's failure to fund Amtrak. This budget sets the overall levels for domestic discretionary spending at the level included in the President's budget. That proposal includes his anticipated zero amount for Amtrak's traditional subsidy and $360 million for continuation of commuter service. If this budget gets adopted, I do not know how we are going to keep Amtrak operating next year. If this system shuts down, we will hurt 25 million passengers, people who rely on the Amtrak system to get to work, to get home, and almost 20,000 employees. Bankrupting Amtrak will be the wrong move for the people who depend on the rail system for their livelihood, for their mobility, and for their quality of life.

I am also really disappointed this budget includes language allowing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This improper use of the Senate's budget authority circumvents the appropriate avenue for addressing such a critically important and sensitive question.

Drilling in the Arctic is controversial and should be debated in the context of an energy bill. It has no place in this budget resolution, especially as the overinflated revenues are based on unrealistic expectations of oil and gas recovery.

I agree we have to work to achieve energy independence. But the fact is, energy independence can be achieved by tightening fuel economy standards for passenger cars, especially light trucks and sport utility vehicles, and the greater use of renewable energy sources and further focus on energy efficiency will do more to lessen reliance on foreign oil than drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Although we were not able to remove this unnecessary provision in the markup, I know an amendment is going to be offered, and I hope we can remove it on the floor.

Before I close, I do want to mention that this budget does not do enough to support our Nation's farmers. When Congress passed the 2002 farm bill, it was hailed as providing new economic development opportunities for rural areas and for ensuring that farmers have a safety net to get them through the hard times. This budget will unravel that safety net by asking farmers, rural communities, and the poor to foot the bill for the support and opportunity that it is our responsibility to provide. In my State alone, with farmers from Washington State reeling from years of low prices and natural disasters and closed foreign markets, this is the time we should be providing a leg up, not cutting back on research and investment.

These are just a few examples of where this budget shortchanges ordinary Americans and does not put America first. I have other concerns with this budget and I will address them throughout the process, but tonight I wanted to register my deep concern that the priorities in this budget proposal are out of line with the challenges we face in this country in these difficult times. The sense of community that makes our Nation great, the feeling that we are all in this together is what got my family through its toughest times. It is what our country needs now more than ever. I believe that should be reflected in our Federal budget.

I believe we can do better, and I will work with my colleagues throughout this process on amendments to help develop a responsible budget that meets our country's needs and really reflects our true values.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I voted against a bankruptcy bill that puts credit card companies and politics ahead of ordinary Americans. Rather than providing balanced reform, this bill punishes those who have fallen on hard times--particularly our military families and those who are struggling under the weight of soaring medical bills.

I have heard from residents across Washington State that the cost of medical care is forcing them into bankruptcy. In fact, a report last summer by the Working for Health Coalition found that half of Washington State bankruptcies were due to rising health care costs. Most of these families are working and more than half have health insurance, but the growing cost of health care is so overwhelming it pushes them into bankruptcy. A national study last month found that 61 percent of bankruptcy filers did not seek the medical care they needed. These families deserve help, but instead this bill punishes them for circumstances beyond their control.

This bill also fails to adequately protect our military families, particularly our Guard and Reserve members. These patriotic families have had to struggle with half their normal income during long--and often extended--deployments. Many have seen their businesses collapse at home while they have served overseas. I have met with Washington State Guard and Reserve families and have seen how they are struggling to meet the financial burdens of long deployments. They deserve a lifeline, not more paperwork, legal fees, and threats from collection agencies. The Senate had an opportunity to protect our soldiers through Senator Durbin's amendment, but that was rejected for a Republican amendment that falls far short. Our military families deserve better.

If Republicans had been willing to make the bill less punitive toward ordinary Americans, they would have adopted a number of reasonable amendments in committee and on the Senate floor, but they refused. For example, Republicans blocked an amendment that would have protected workers and retirees if their company files for bankruptcy. Republicans also voted down amendments to ensure the elderly don't lose their homes and to discourage predatory lending. And they even failed to protect people who have had their identities stolen by criminals who then run up huge credit card bills. These are all examples of how Republicans are protecting corporate interests at the expense of vulnerable individuals.

This bankruptcy bill also stacks the deck against women and children. For example, this bill will make it harder for single mothers to collect the past-due child support they and their children are owed.

I am also disappointed that the Senate rejected the Schumer amendment, which would have assured that those who commit violent crimes at reproductive-health facilities against women and doctors do not escape paying their debts and fines by declaring bankruptcy.

Looking at the big picture, this bill fits a pattern of Republican proposals that turn the tide against average Americans. Last month, Republicans tipped the scales of justice against working families by limiting their ability to seek compensation for a death or injury caused by a company's negligence. On Monday, Republicans rejected a proposal to raise the minimum wage. Taken together, these actions will make life harder for working families and represent a dangerous trend that threatens average Americans.

In the past, I have voted for bankruptcy reform legislation, but today families find themselves in a much different place financially because of the costs of healthcare and military service. Congress should not punish them for things beyond their control with this unbalanced, unfair bill. American families deserve reform, not retribution.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the Democratic side?

Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of the Senator from Illinois about Social Security. We have heard a lot of talk on this floor. We have heard a lot of talk on the television shows and all around the country in recent weeks about Social Security. We have heard about a supposed crisis in this program, that it will be flat busted or broke, we have heard about the President's view that this social insurance program must be radically restructured, and we have heard that privatizing Social Security is the only way to go.

Now we hear that the President is embarking on a 60-stop campaign tour in an effort to sell his privatization plan to the American people. The American people are not buying this risky privatization scheme.

From the day this debate began, I have consistently said that any proposal put forward to address Social Security must meet a few basic standards. It has to preserve Social Security's guaranteed benefit. It has to preserve Social Security's protections for workers when they are disabled. It has to protect against benefit reductions, especially for women, minorities, and others, and it has to protect our budget from ever-growing deficits.

This week in the Senate we saw the first bill that purports to reform Social Security, and, unfortunately, that new legislative proposal fails my simple test in a few not-so-simple ways. First, preservation of the guaranteed benefit has to be our top priority. The bedrock of Social Security is the guaranteed benefit, and the President's plan calls for cutting benefits by one-third or more. That is a huge hit to every retiree who depends on this system. Like Bush's plan, the new Senate bill will also slash benefits. That plan has a further 7 percent reduction in benefits for early retirees relative to current law that is phased in between 2024 and 2028.

In conjunction with the two pieces of the plan that raise the retirement age, the proposal would reduce benefits for retirees--people who are retiring at 62--by 40 percent by the year 2026, by 50 percent by the year 2054, and it will reduce them by 56 percent by the year

2080. The deconstruction of the guaranteed benefit leads us further away from the real security this program provides, and this country needs to know that even though Republicans do not like to campaign on it, their plans would end the guaranteed benefit Social Security provides today.

A few weeks ago, I joined several of my female colleagues on the Senate floor to speak about how the President's plan would impact women. Unfortunately, this is not a new battle. For years, we have fought to ensure that women and minorities receive a fair shake in Social Security reform discussions. The promise of Social Security is especially important to women. Why? Because women face unique challenges when they retire. We know women make less money throughout their lifetimes, so we know when they retire they have fewer dollars to live on. Women also leave the workforce to raise their families. That is a value that we all support and endorse and want women to be able to do, but that means they have less money when they retire. Finally, women live longer. That is a fact. And they are more likely to suffer from a chronic health condition. So they, in particular, rely on the security of Social Security. With those special challenges women face, we know today Social Security keeps a lot of older women out of poverty. The benefit formulas of Social Security are tilted to give a greater rate of return for lower wage workers such as women and minorities.

Unfortunately, time and time again, we have found that these proposals will impoverish women and slash their benefits. The new plan that has been offered in the Senate is no exception. That plan will cut benefits based on a new life-expectancy requirement. The Senate Republican plan says:

By factoring increased life expectancy into the base

benefit calculation, the rate of increase in benefit payments

will be slowed.

Addressing the long-term solvency of Social Security is a laudable goal, but trying to balance the books by slashing benefits for women is absolutely unacceptable. This plan would dismantle the progressive nature of Social Security benefits, leaving women with less money over a longer period of time. So if one is a woman who retires at 62 or 65 and lives to be 95, under these plans they will not be able to make it. Their Social Security benefits will be reduced, and they will not be able to live off what they retired on 30 years prior to that.

It makes no sense to reduce women's benefits. They are already limited by their lower income, and cutting them again simply because they live longer is just wrong. In fact, we should be doing all we can to ensure progressive benefits for low wage earners that are targeted to those least likely to have other retirement savings. All too often, as we know, that means women.

I know I am not going to stand for this attack on women, and I know many of my colleagues are going to stand right alongside me in this fight.

Finally, there is another important issue I will talk about today that no one on the other side of the aisle or the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue cares to talk about, and that is these Social Security plans will add trillions of dollars to an already massive Federal debt, a debt that we are just handing over to the generation coming behind us.

In traveling the country to sell his privatization plan, President Bush has been saying we have an obligation and a duty to confront problems and not pass them on to future generations. Well, many of us on both sides of the aisle agree with him. We should not create new problems for the next generation to handle. The trouble is, the President's plan actually adds to the problems of the next generation. It does nothing to solve them.

This new Republican plan, just like President Bush's, would add trillions of dollars in debt to our country's financial sheets in the next two decades alone. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that the privatization proposal will create nearly $5 trillion in new debt over the next 20 years. That money is going to have to come from somewhere, and it is naive to think that huge new borrowing will not affect current retirees. It is also naive to think that massive new borrowing will not affect programs such as Medicare and Medicaid that really do need our attention. It is naive to think we will simply go along and pass on these massive new problems to our children and our grandchildren.

So once again we are left to consider privatization plans that run up massive new debt on the country's credit card while pulling money away from the Social Security system and ending the bedrock of the program-- the guaranteed benefit. That is a recipe for disaster.

The President and his friends in the Senate are fixated on private accounts, even though they will do absolutely nothing to address the long-term solvency of the Social Security program.

Last week, I joined with 41 of my colleagues to ask President Bush to take this risky scheme off the table before moving forward with any Social Security reform. The letter said, in part, funding privatized accounts with Social Security dollars would not only make the program's long-term problems worse, but many believe it represents a first step towards undermining the program's fundamental goals. Therefore, so long as this proposal is on the table, we believe it will be impossible to establish the kind of cooperative bipartisan process we need to truly address the challenges facing the program many decades in the future.

We will not stand for the President's plan for social insecurity. We will continue to stand for future generations against a private solution that simply adds trillions of dollars in debt to future generations. We want to be proud of what we pass along to our children and grandchildren.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes on the Democratic side as well.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to reiterate that I am extremely concerned about President Bush's proposed Social Security restructuring, privatization--whatever the code word of the day is--restructuring, which I believe is going to put at real risk the security of all Americans in this country, from our young workers who will be retiring in future decades, to our seniors who are retiring today or who are already retired.

As President Bush's plan has come out, we are realizing what it will do. It will end the guaranteed benefit that is such a critical part of this insurance program today. We also see that it is going to do nothing to fix the long-term issues that face Social Security. Just privatizing and restructuring it is not going to solve those long-term issues.

I am also here today to emphasize the fact that this restructuring or privatization plan is going to add trillions of dollars to our national debt--trillions of dollars when we already have record deficits that future generations will be responsible for. This privatization plan adds trillions of dollars to our national debt.

As President Bush has been traveling around the country to sell his privatization plan, we hear him say:

We have an obligation and a duty to confront problems and

not pass them on to future generations.

Well, many of us, on both sides of the aisle, agree with him. We should not create new problems for the next generation to handle. But the trouble is, that is exactly what this President's plan does. It actually adds to the problems of the next generation. It does nothing to solve them.

I think it is time for President Bush to level with the American people about what his program really is. It really is a new recipe for a continuing fall into a black hole of debt. This plan, as the President is proposing, is going to run up $5 trillion in debt that our generation will not pay for. It is going to fall squarely on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren.

The President not only wants to gamble away the secure future that retirees count on today, he wants to burden them with a huge new $5 trillion debt.

Now, there is another point worth making about the President's plan as well. I keep hearing him say that anyone over 55 will not be affected. Anyone over 55--well, let's be clear. Anyone over 55 will be impacted by this tremendous new debt that is incurred.

President Bush can say he will not cut your benefits now, but how can he guarantee that if we take trillions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund for this privatization plan?

All we have to do, to understand this situation, is to look at the record.

Just last week, we got a budget with the biggest deficit in our Nation's history--4 short years after the budget had the largest surplus in our Nation's history. A few days later, we saw cost estimates for the Medicare prescription drug benefit balloon from the $400 billion we were told it would cost to now it costing more than $700 billion.

Now the Bush administration plans to add trillions to our balance sheet by privatizing Social Security. Let's take a look at this chart. It tells the picture clearly. As we see with this chart, there is more red ink in the President's budget than we care to see for years to come. Unfortunately, if his privatization plan goes into effect, massive new debt increases are added in the years after this plan takes effect. The President, as he did with Medicare, likes to talk about the cost of implementation over 10-year periods. What he does not mention is that for 5 years under those projections, the plan is not fully phased in. So rather than considering his already bloated $700 billion transition projection, let's look at an outside source.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says the borrowing numbers we have heard from the administration ``are misleadingly low.''

They are generated by using a ten-year budget window (2006

to 2015) that includes only five years of the fully phased-in

plan. The plan would not be launched until 2009 and not be in

full effect until 2011.

Over the first ten years that the plan actually was in

effect (2009 to 2018) it would add $1.4 trillion to the debt.

Over the next ten years (2019 to 2028) it would add about

$3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add

$4.9 trillion (14 percent of GDP in 2028) to the debt over

the first 20 years.

That is almost $5 trillion. That money is going to have to come from somewhere, and it is pretty naive to think that huge new borrowing will not affect our current retirees. It is naive to think massive new borrowing won't affect programs such as Medicare or Medicaid that do need our attention. And it is naive to think we will simply go along and pass this massive new problem on to our children and grandchildren.

A story a couple of days ago in the Washington Post was headlined ``After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget Costs Balloon.'' I want to read a few lines from that story.

It warned that ``the numbers released in recent days add up to a budgetary landmine that could blow up just as the next president moves into the Oval Office.''

Philip G. Joyce, professor of public policy at George Washington University, said in the piece:

It's almost like you've got a budget and you've got a

shadow budget coming in behind that's a whole lot more

expensive.

And a Republican adviser to one of our colleagues said:

Hopefully some very difficult decisions will be addressed

between now and the time we have a new White House resident

so that occupant isn't faced with some very expensive

chickens coming home to roost. There are some things that we

can do, but unfortunately in the political world kicking down

the road is often seen as leadership.

That is what kicking down the road is going to give us. That says it all.

This huge new debt is not the only bad part of privatization. In fact, we need to remember this plan that is being put forward does nothing to extend Social Security solvency--not for a year, a day, not for an hour. That is the issue we are trying to solve. The President's plan, at least the part he has been willing to share with us, does not address that. It is an ideological gamble that we in the Senate and those who depend on Social Security today and tomorrow and around the country should not stand for.

Rather than gambling away our security and running up this huge new debt, we should promote personal savings to help every American with their retirement security and we should stop raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for misguided priorities such as massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

The ideas we have heard from the President are too dangerous for this generation's retirees or those who are to follow. As you can imagine, like all of my colleagues, I have heard a lot about this proposal from my constituents in Washington. I have heard from current retirees, from disabled workers whom we have not even begun to talk about how this plan will affect, and from young people who would supposedly benefit. President Bush would be very surprised by the tremendous number of comments I have been getting and the tone of them. I will share a few.

From a retiree who lives on Whidbey Island:

The administration should be ashamed of its effort to

confuse and mislead the hard-working citizens of the United

States.

I heard from a 20-something, who supposedly is going to benefit from privatization, who said:

I want Social Security to be left in its current form.

I heard from a 51-year-old self-employed fisherman who said:

My main concern about Social Security is that it survive

for my children. The risks are simply too great for the

future of our citizens and our country.

I agree with him. This plan is a plan for social insecurity. It is a guaranteed gamble, not a guaranteed benefit. We are going to continue to stand up for future generations, the young people who are following us, against a private solution that simply will add trillions of dollars in debt to the future generations we are supposedly thinking about here in the Senate. We want to be proud of what we pass along to our children and grandchildren.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to again join my colleague, Senator Cantwell, in introducing the MediFair Act of 2005. My bill will restore fairness to the Medicare program and provide greater equity for health providers participating in Medicare. Most importantly, it will open doors of care to more seniors and the disabled in my State.

Today, in Washington state, unfair Medicare reimbursement rates are causing doctors to limit their care for Medicare beneficiaries. Throughout my State, seniors and the disabled are having a hard time finding a doctor who will accept new Medicare patients.

Unfortunately, the Medicare Modernization Act, enacted in 2003, creates even greater inequities for my State. Prior to enactment, Washington State was 41st in per beneficiary reimbursement costs. When fully implemented, this legislation will push Washington State to 45th in per beneficiary costs. This growing inequity places health care providers in my State at an economic disadvantage and further limits access to health care for Washington patients.

My bill will reduce the regional inequities that have resulted in vastly different levels of care and access to care by ensuring that every state receives at least the national average of per beneficiary spending. This measure will encourage more doctors to accept Medicare patients and will also guarantee that seniors are not penalized when they choose to retire in the State of Washington. The regional inequities in Medicare reimbursement have created a very different program for my seniors, one that offers them fewer benefits.

In addition to ensuring that no state receives less than the national average, my legislation will encourage healthy outcomes and the efficient use of Medicare payments. The current Medicare structure punishes health care providers who practice efficient health care and who produce higher levels of healthy outcomes. Physicians and hospitals in my state are proud of the pioneering role they have played in providing high quality, cost-effective medicine. Unfortunately, instead of being rewarded for their exceptional service, they are being punished with unfair Medicare payments that only cover a fraction of their actual costs.

I applaud recent efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to direct Medicare resources to performance-based medicine. I believe this effort to reward providers who practice performance-based health care is an important step forward. It's a wise investment to shift Medicare from a disease-based program, which rewards over utilization and medical errors, to a prevention-based program that encourages healthy outcomes based on performance. It will mean better care for seniors and will slow the hemorrhaging of Medicare dollars. I am hopeful that CMS will expand these efforts.

Performance-based medicine will also begin to close the gap in Medicare reimbursement. We must invest in this new approach and begin to make changes system wide. In the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, we worked to close the gap between rural and urban providers. I believe it is time to take the next step. When doctors and hospitals work to improve outcomes and lower utilization rates they should not be punished with unfair Medicare payments.

I want to acknowledge the lead sponsor of the MediFair bill in the House, Congressman Adam Smith, as well as the other House cosponsors, Congressman Baird, Congressman McDermott, Congressman Dicks, Congressman Inslee, and Congressman Larsen.

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