Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. It is with great disappointment that I have to tell the Senator from Alaska that I am greatly concerned by some preliminary indications from the Department of Transportation Inspector General, IG, that the Coast Guard may not have fulfilled its statutory obligations to fully fund mandated improvements to its Search and Rescue Program in fiscal year 2002. As part of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, the Committee mandated that not less than $14,541,000 be used solely to address the many deficiencies that the IG found with the Coast Guard's readiness in the area of Search and Rescue. We also mandated that the Inspector General monitor the Coast Guard's compliance with this directive. While the Inspector General's office has not yet finalized its report, I am greatly concerned by preliminary indications that the Coast Guard did not, I repeat ``not fulfill the requirement in the law. This is precisely the kind of concern that makes it essential that we continue to monitor the Coast Guard's compliance with Appropriations Committee directives as well as with Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act. Again, I commend your leadership in this area and look forward to working with you and Admiral Collins, the Commandant, on these issues in the future. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee again for his foresight and leadership in the efforts to create the Department of Homeland Security.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my condolences to the families and friends of men who lost their lives recently because of an accident aboard the Galaxy, which was fishing for cod in the Bering Sea. Aboard the Galaxy were First Mate Jerry L. Stephens of Edmonds, Washington; Crewman Jose R. Rodas of Pasco, Washington; and Cook George Karn of Anchorage, Alaska. From the Clipper Express: Crewman Daniel Schmiedt of Arlington, Washington. On October 20, 2002, an explosion occurred aboard the Galaxy, a 180- foot vessel fishing for cod off of Alaska's remote Pribilof Islands. Preliminary reports indicate that crew members were battling a small fire below deck when a hatch was opened to allow smoke to escape. This triggered an explosion which ignited multiple fires that quickly superheated its iron hull. With little time to act, the crew scrambled to don survival suits and release lifeboats as they tried to rescue shipmates who had been thrown overboard by the blast. Captain Dave Shoemaker of Carnation, Washington, sustained burns and broken ribs as he struggled through the fire to make the crucial Mayday call alerting the Coast Guard and other fishing vessels to come to the Galaxy's assistance. The heroic efforts of Deck Boss Ryan Newhall of San Antonio, Texas, saved the life of National Marine Fisheries Service biologist Ann Weckback, who was thrown into the icy water without a survival suit. One of the fishing boats which responded to the Mayday call, the Clipper Express, was drawn into the tragedy when 24 year old crew member Daniel Schmiedt was swept overboard during the rescue operation. It may be months until we know what caused the fatal explosion on the Galaxy. However, the immediate response of the Clipper Express and the other ships that came to the rescue of the Galaxy's crew is a testament to the industry. My heart goes out to the families and friends of the four men who died on October 20, 2002. I extend my deep appreciation to all those in the fishing industry and the Coast Guard who responded quickly to prevent even greater loss of life from this accident.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I rise today to note a very significant event that occurred last night on the floor of the Senate, and that was the passage of the pipeline safety conference report. As the Presiding Officer knows, in our State of Washington, a tragic accident occurred 3\1/2\ years ago when a pipeline blew up on a sunny June afternoon, tragically killing three young children in our State and devastating a mile-wide section of a river that travels through Bellingham, WA. This was a traumatic event that has impacted the lives not only of those families and their friends but hundreds of people in Bellingham and across this country. At the time, I thought this was a uniquely tragic accident that occurred in my State when a pipeline suddenly blew up on a sunny Friday afternoon, after school. But after coming back to Washington, DC, and researching what was known about pipelines, I found out that in a short time period, between 1986 and 1999, there had been 5,700 pipeline accidents. What happened in my home State was not unique. Three hundred twenty- five people had died in that time period. There had been 1,500 injuries that had occurred and $850 million in environmental damage. Working with many colleagues, Senator McCain, who chaired the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, who worked diligently with me, Senators Inouye, Breaux, Wyden, Brownback, Bingaman, Domenici, Corzine, Torricelli, my colleague who is presiding today, Senator Cantwell, and former Senator Gorton, made this an issue in this country. It has been a long and difficult road. We have passed this bill out of the Senate on several occasions. We have been stopped in the House, and today we are finally at a point where the House, I believe, is going to pass this legislation as well, and it will be sent to the President of the United States. It will put into place significant new improvements on training and qualifications of our pipeline personnel, on inspection and prevention practices, on tough penalties for people who violate this, and States' abilities to expand their safety activities. For the thousands of families who live next to pipelines, who work next to pipelines, who send their kids to schools next to pipelines, this is definitely an improvement in our law. Is it everything we ask for? No. But today I want to rise and thank all of my colleagues, and Congressman Larsen as well, for finally moving us to a point where the families of Wade King, Stephen Tsiorvas, and Liam Wood can realize the hard work they have put in is going to finally result in a change of law that means some future child, some future family, some future community, will not have to face the situation as they have. I thank my colleagues for their work on this, and I look forward to having the President sign this into law. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for his indulgence, and I thank my colleagues from Minnesota for allowing me a few minutes before they pay a very important tribute to Senator Paul Wellstone.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time will the Senators from Minnesota require?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask for time before the Senators from Minnesota speak.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment that the Murray/Snowe amendment was dropped, once again, in conference. The Murray/Snowe amendment would guarantee that women serving in our military overseas have access to safe, affordable and legal abortions. This amendment passed the Senate on a 52 to 40 vote. A similar amendment also passed in 1996 and was dropped in conference. Once again, reproductive health care needs of women were abandoned behind closed doors. The DOD authorization bill before us today will ensure that our men and women in the armed forces have the equipment and resources they need to protect us. Every day our service men and women work overtime, often in hostile, dangerous environments to protect our citizens and to secure the freedoms and values we cherish. They deserve our full support. Suprisingly, as the women of our military, fight for our freedoms overseas, they are actually denied some of these freedoms during their service. Here at home, women have the right to chose. They have constitutionally-protected access to safe and legal reproductive health services. But, this is not the case for women serving overseas. The Murray/Snowe amendment would have ensured that women serving in the military are not forced to check their rights at the U.S. border. Under current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their country are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right to make their own reproductive health decisions simply because they are serving overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as free citizens, yet they are denied one of the most basic rights afforded women in this country. Our amendment would not, and let me stress does not require any direct federal funding of abortion related services. The amendment would have required women to pay for any direct costs associated with an abortion in a military facility. The Murray/Snowe amendment does not, and again let me stress does not, compel a medical provider to perform abortions. All branches of the military allow medical personnel who have religious or ethical objections to abortion not to participate. Finally, this amendment would not have changed or altered conscience clauses for military medical personnel. This is an important and critical women's health issue. Women should be able to depend on their base hospital and military health care providers to meet all of their health care needs, including reproductive health. To single out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health. Opponents of this amendment have argued that the military does ensure access for women. Under current practices, a woman who requires abortion related services can seek the approval of her commanding officer for transport back to the U.S. as unscheduled leave: not medical leave, but unscheduled leave. In addition to the serious risk posed by delaying an abortion, this policy compromises a woman's privacy rights by forcing her to release her medical condition and needs to her superiors. This policy also forces women to seek abortions outside of the military establishment in foreign countries. Many women have little or no understanding of the laws or restrictions in the host country and may have significant language and cultural barriers as well. In this country, we take for granted the safety of our health care services. When we seek care in a doctor's office or clinic, we assume that all safety and health standards are adhered to. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many other countries. In addition, many of our military personnel serve in areas that are hostile to women's reproductive rights and choices. In some countries, women can be severely punished for seeking abortion-related services or family planning. This is the environment that many women face. Regardless of one's view on abortion, it is simply wrong to place women at risk. This amendment would have required the women to pay the full cost associated with the abortion. It would prohibit any direct federal funding. Ensuring that women have access to safe, legal and timely abortion related services is an important health guarantee. It is not a political statement. It is essential that women have access to a full range of reproductive health care services. That's why the Murray/Snowe amendment was endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Americans Medical Women's Association, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, Planned Parenthood of America, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. As we send out troops into the war on terrorism to protect our safety and freedoms, we should ensure that female military personnel are not asked to sacrifice their rights and protections as well. Allowing extreme ideology to dictate military health care policy is simply wrong. Women have suffered a major set back today. Dropping the Murray/ Snowe amendment sends the wrong message to our military servicewomen. It is simply wrong to deny women their basic rights behind closed doors. I will not give up. I will be back again to fight for this important reproductive health care protection. Eventually, we will do the right thing and enact the Murray/Snowe amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, on October 25, I lost a good friend, the Senate lost a leader, and the American people lost an advocate who was never afraid to stand up and speak for those who had no voice. I rise today to honor my friend and colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, who inspired so many people to speak up and to serve. Even as I stand here today, I cannot imagine that when I turn around I won't see Paul standing at his desk, his arms flailing in the air, making some point with great passion. Paul, with his energy and optimism, has left a mark on all of us. In 1990, when Paul Wellstone ran for the Senate, a lot of people were watching him and following his race. Political pundits said he could not win. But as I watched him, I became motivated. At the time, I was serving in the Washington State Senate, and I, too, was frustrated by what I saw happening in Washington, DC. In Paul I saw someone who cared about the little guy and who spoke passionately. Paul was never afraid to voice his ideas or take on big fights. Not only did he win that Senate race, but in the process he inspired a generation of young people to serve their communities. On a more personal level, Paul inspired me to run for the U.S. Senate. His brilliant example reminded me that you don't need to be powerful or rich--or even tall--to make a difference. You just need to have an honest concern for others, an optimistic spirit, and the courage to act. Over the last 10 years, I have agreed--and disagreed--with Paul on any number of issues. But never once did I doubt his conviction, and never once did Paul let his policy disagreements soften the love and friendship he felt for all of us. Paul and I worked on everything from domestic violence and education to providing health care for veterans and protecting families from asbestos. I could always count on Paul to remind me that so many Americans have been dealt a tough hand in life. So many families, through no fault of their own, find themselves struggling, and they need an advocate to speak out for them in this Congress. No matter what pressures he faced in the Senate or even with his own health, Paul always reminded me how lucky we are to be able to serve in the U.S. Senate. One thing I will not forget about Paul is that every one of us was important to him and he proved that time and again. A few months ago, I held a meeting in my office to develop a legislative strategy on a bill. I wanted to keep the discussion small and focused and frank, so I invited two other Senators and told them not to bring any staff members. When it was time to start the meeting, Paul bounced through the door with three people in tow. Even though staff were not invited, Paul didn't mind. But these weren't his staff--they were his interns. He proudly introduced each one of them to us, and they all stayed for the entire meeting. We were still able to get everything done that we needed to do in the short time we had. Those young students got to see democracy up close. They got to sit in on a closed-door meeting, and they got a sense--just for a moment--that they, too, belonged there and they, too, could do it. Paul never stopped showing people what they could accomplish, and that is because he knew that people--plain old people--were important. He didn't care about pollsters and consultants; he cared about people. His love did not depend on whether they could write him a check. My favorite all-time campaign event with Paul was not a fundraiser, but--in true Paul style--it was a ``time-raiser.'' On a cold Saturday morning, Paul jammed a hall with folks who could not write a check but who could donate 2 hours of time to call or leaflet or answer phones. Judging from the enthusiasm of that crowd, yelling to the rooftops in the packed room, Paul was their Senator and their guy. He valued them and they valued him.NOTICE If the 107th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before November 22, 2002, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 107th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, December 16, 2002, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Friday, December 13. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 16, 2002, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 17, 2002. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Sec.Senate.gov''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. MARK DAYTON, Chairman. I remember another event when Paul wasn't even scheduled to speak, but he ended up stealing the show. Earlier this year, I was at a press conference on education in the Dirksen Building. Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Reed, and others were scheduled to talk about making classrooms less crowded. Out of nowhere, Paul Wellstone rushed into the room looking a bit confused. My colleagues and I looked surprised because Senator Wellstone was not scheduled to speak and was not on the agenda. When Paul got to the podium, the first thing he said was: I am not sure if I am in the right room. When I ran into Ted Kennedy on the floor a while ago, he asked me if I was going to the education press conference, and I said I hadn't heard about it, but I would be there. He continued: Frankly, I don't even know if I am talking to the right group, but I am going to tell you why we need to fight for our kids. Everyone laughed. Paul went on to give a passionate, off-the-cuff speech that wowed and inspired every person in that room. To me, that really captures Paul's spirit. Wherever some cause needed a voice, he would rush in--regardless of the schedule--and give his impassioned best. If there were a need, he would be there to speak out. Paul had said he didn't know if he was in the right room, but today I can say with confidence that Paul was in the right place all along. We are all poorer for the loss of Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, the members of his staff, and the pilots who were taken from us on that dark day. It is sad to say that the Senate will no doubt change without Paul. No one will pace down this aisle and speak as passionately as Paul did for so many causes. But I hope that each one of us who are here will take on part of Paul's legacy--for example, the spirit to speak out for the underprivileged, for students in classrooms with leaky roofs, for the woman on welfare not because she wants to be, but because of domestic violence and she is trying to get back on her feet. I hope we will pick up his legacy and speak out for the workers who are out of a job because this economy has left them behind, or for those who are trying to overcome mental illness and just need some help from their insurance company. I hope, too, that we will carry on Paul's legacy of respect. Paul spoke from the heart and he spoke passionately. But he never held any disrespect for those with different views. I saw him so many times debate long and hard against another Senator and then step away from the microphone and share a laugh or a hug with the very person he had just debated a few moments before. If we can remember to fight for all Americans, no matter what challenges they have been dealt, and if we do it with respect and dignity, then Paul's legacy will live on in the Senate, as it lives on in our hearts and in our minds. I, for one, am going to miss him very much. He was all heart and soul. He is impossible to replace. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, in submitting this Senate resolution designating November as ``National Runaway Prevention Month.'' A recent study by the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention estimates that nearly 1.7 million American youth run away or are turned out of their homes in a single year. Many of these children end up living on the streets where they become victims of illness, hunger, drug use, and crime. Any parent knows how important their support is to helping children get a good start in life. Unfortunately, too many young people find themselves in desperate straits. Imagine a young girl, perhaps 15 or 16 years old, finding herself with no place to sleep. Or realizing that she is hungry but has no money left for food or for bus fare to get to a soup kitchen. Imagine her fear when the nights turn very cold and the clothes on her back are not enough to keep her warm. As a country, we would not, could not and must not ignore this young girl. I bring this resolution to the floor today to raise awareness of the tragedy of runaway youth, to express my appreciation for those who work to prevent runaways and help street children, and to remind my colleagues of the difference our funding decisions make in people's lives. Many street youth are running from families beleaguered by physical abuse, neglect, parental substance abuse, poverty or serious family conflict. Unlike many homeless adults, who often suffer from mental illness or substance abuse problems, most of these young people are leaving their homes as a reaction to intolerable circumstances. But while the conditions that drive these young people out of their homes may be intolerable, they are almost always preventable or treatable. As with many problems our society faces, the best way for us to prevent runaway and ``thrownaway'' children from taking to the streets is for our communities to work together. Communities can and must intervene to strengthen families and help youth in high-risk situations. The needs of these families are as diverse as our nation, but the solutions are often as simple as high-quality intervention services from a government, community or faith-based organization. Local organizations offering services to victims of domestic violence, counseling and anger management courses, substance abuse treatment and other social services could make the difference in whether or not a child runs away. I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank the social workers, counselors, caseworkers, teachers, and volunteers who devote their lives to preventing runaways. The services they offer vary widely, but their intervention may keep a family together and a young person in a healthy home. I would also like to thank the thousands of workers and volunteers who work with runaway youth. It is not always easy to work with young people who may be angry, alienated or addicted to drugs, but the people who go into the streets to find and help these children are capable, committed and caring. They are often the only thing standing between a young person and self-destruction. They help street children find shelter and food, get an education and recover from substance abuse where necessary. They also help them reunite with their families when appropriate, or find a safe alternative. They are truly guardian angels. Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that many of the local services that can help a struggling family become a healthy home are federally funded. We often see these services as abstract line-items in an appropriations bill: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment State Grants, and Social Services Block Grants. We must remember that these are not just line-items, they are lifelines to youth who need our help. Given the enormous deficits most States are facing, many of these services are losing critical state resources. As we ensure resources are available for the war against terrorism, we must not abandon our vulnerable young people in their own fight for survival. The recent White House Conference on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children helped to remind us of the fate of thousands of these children. Declaring November to be ``National Runaway Prevention Month'' would build on that reminder. Across our country, communities will undertake activities during November to increase public awareness of the circumstances facing many youth and the need for safe, healthy, and productive alternatives and resources for these children and their families. This resolution puts the United States Senate on record in support of National Runaway Prevention Month and its effort to promote family-based and community-based interventions that prevent young people from running away from home. I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's vulnerable youth by co-sponsoring this resolution and making an effort through their actions or their words to raise awareness of the tragedy of runaway youth.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to address the President's request for authority for military action in Iraq. I have spent weeks thinking about this issue and listening. I have sat across the table from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Rice, Governor Ridge, CIA Director Tenet, FBI Director Mueller, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Vice President Cheney. I have listened closely to the President's speeches and I have listened openly to the many questions my constituents have raised over the past few weeks. Mr. President, I understand the consequences of war and I don't shrink from them. My father was among the first to land on Okinawa as a GI. Growing up, we always knew that our country may need to project force to defend our freedoms. I know we have high obligations to the men and women of our Armed Forces who undertake the hard work of securing our freedom. In college, I volunteered at the Seattle Veterans Hospital. Most of the patients were young men, my age, who had returned from Vietnam. I carry that experience with me as the first woman on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. When I look at decisions like this one, I take the time to consider all sides, with the full knowledge this decision will have serious consequences for our country, our world, and our future. This evening, I want to share with my colleagues and my constituents my thoughts and my decision on this difficult issue. But most of all, I want to share my reasoning because I want everyone to know how I arrived at this conclusion. First, I looked to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Then I looked at the many questions that must be considered before our country begins military action. Then I looked at the President's case, the role of the U.N. and our allies, the impact war could have on the Middle East, and the impact it would have on the war on terrorism. Finally, I looked at the context in which we are being asked to make this decision, including our economy and the political climate. Mr. President, let me first address the threat. There is no doubt Saddam Hussein poses a serious threat to our interests, to his own people, and to the world. Under his rule, Iraq has been an aggressor nation. It has started conflict with its neighbors and it has sought to stockpile conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. During 1991 through 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of facilities Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. U.N. inspectors have said Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and later against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, we know from history and experience that Iraq poses a danger to the region, to our interests, and perhaps to ourselves. It will continue its aggression and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. This leads us to a second set of questions. What should we do about this threat? The President has now asked Congress to authorize him to make war on Iraq. The goals of military action have shifted from regime change one day to disarmament, to enforcing any number of U.N. resolutions. The list of crimes to which the administration says Iraq must be held accountable varies widely. They include: attempting to assassinate a former President; holding prisoners of war after the gulf war, including one American; firing on aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone; seeking weapons of mass destruction; and violating U.N. resolutions. All of these are serious crimes; not all of them deserve the same response; not all of them call for war. Without a clear objective, victory cannot be measured. Indeed, it appears the administration established a solution--going to war--before it defined the problem or the goal. Our most important goal is disarmament. Given Iraq's history and Saddam's madness, there can be no doubt the world will be safer if we dismantle Iraq's ability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction. On this goal, the President receives complete support from the American people, the Congress, and the world community. Disarmament of Iraq is unquestionably the right thing to do. The means of achieving this goal are what is up for debate. In the past few weeks, the Bush administration unveiled its new preemption doctrine. This marks a shift from our longstanding national policy, and so far we have not been told how it applies to the world beyond Iraq. Obviously, if troops or tanks are amassing at the border, we have the right to defend ourselves, but to strike on the basis of suspicion alone is another matter. It is something this Congress and the American people need to fully explore and debate before we endorse the preemption doctrine. The United States is not alone in facing the threat of Saddam Hussein, but unfortunately our Government is acting that way. I am very concerned that a unilateral race to make war on Iraq will weaken the support we need worldwide to win the war on terrorism. In the aftermath of September 11, the international community helped us heal and supported our efforts to respond. Their support has provided critical intelligence keys to disrupting international terrorist networks. But today our allies are as confused about America's objectives in Iraq as the American people are. Like the American public, our allies woke up one day to find that the administration was making plans for war. Like the Congress, they were not consulted. Like the American people, they had nothing explained to them. They saw, as did the rest of us, that a course of action had apparently been determined before the reasons were clear. Recently, the administration has done a better job working with our allies. Secretary of State Powell is to be commended for his work, but we still have a long way to go. It would greatly benefit the Congress and the American people to know where our allies stand and what they are willing to do before we take action. While we welcome the support of our allies and the United Nations, we do not hand them or anyone else the ultimate power to decide America's security demands. Only the United States can determine our interests and what steps are required to defend them. That said, before we jump into a fight, we should know who is with us and what we are getting into, and today we do not. Another key part of the international response to the Iraqi threat is the United Nations. Efforts at the U.N. have been met with both success and failure. To date, our greatest failure has been the ending of weapons inspections in 1998 and the U.N.'s failure to hold Iraq responsible for its obligations. Today, the United States is working with our ally Britain to pass through the U.N. Security Council a new, tough resolution regarding Iraqi weapons inspections. I believe we need a new, strong U.N. resolution that provides for complete transparency of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. This new resolution must allow inspectors to search all sites without roadblocks. Iraq should know that the U.N. and the international community are serious about enforcing this resolution even with force, if necessary. One of the reasons U.N. support is critical is that it shapes how other nations will look upon our action in Iraq. There is a difference between going it alone and having the support of a broad coalition. We have a stated goal of working to achieve peace in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. We have strong ties to other states in the region--Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states. What action we take and how we take it will have a direct impact on our other stated foreign policy goals of achieving peace in the Middle East, maintaining friendly relations with our allies in the region, and contributing to the stability of the region. In addition to the impact of war on the Middle East, we must understand how action in Iraq will affect the war on terrorism. On September 11 last year, we were reminded again of the dangerous world in which we live. After bombing our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and attacking the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, al-Qaida has pulled off the most horrific crime our Nation has ever known. In the aftermath of these tragic events, the President declared war on terrorism. We dispatched our troops to Afghanistan and its neighbors. We worked closely with our allies. We even got help from some unexpected quarters. Most of the world joined our effort, but there are places where we do not have relations where terrorists hide, and to reach those dark corners we rely on intermediaries. Today, those intermediaries are providing us with intelligence information to help our efforts. We have to ask: Will unilateral action in Iraq undermine the support we need from other countries in the war on terrorism? The answer to that question should help inform us on our decision on military action in Iraq. If we do take action in Iraq, there is no doubt that our Armed Forces will prevail. We will win a war with Iraq decisively, and, God willing, will win it quickly. But what happens after the war? That will have just as big an impact on our future peace and our security. Will we be obligated to rebuild Iraq, and, if so, how? Our economy at home is reeling, our budget is in deficit, and we have no estimate of the cost of rebuilding. And with whom? As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman points out, there is a retail store mentality that suggests to some: If you break it, you buy it. How will the Iraqis get back on their feet? Iraq's leadership has led its people through two decades of misery. The people of Iraq have paid a terrible price for Saddam Hussein's military campaigns. What promises is the international community prepared to make to help restore the health of the Iraqi people? What promise is implicit in a unilateral attack? If we must disarm Iraq by force, we will, but we cannot achieve peace through occupation alone. It costs money and energy and time, and like building anything else, it is better as a shared responsibility than a solo effort. Again, the answers to these questions should not be the only factors in play as we make decisions on how to protect our security interests, but they are not insignificant and they have not been answered. We do not have a clear policy. We do not have a clear path to implementing that policy. We do not yet know what level of assistance we are going to get from our allies and the broader international community. We have not factored in all of the implications this may have on our other foreign policy objectives. We have not factored in all the implications this may have on our own economy. Not having a well-defined policy or proper preparations for contingencies that may result from whatever action we take is a dangerous situation on the eve of the war this administration says we must have. With all of these unanswered questions, how do we get here today? The administration has said it wants a vote on this resolution ``before the election.'' In this debate, many in Congress and many of our citizens are asking: What is special about November 5 in deciding this question? The question of war should not be placed in the context of trying to influence the outcome of an election, and surely that cannot be the case today. The question is too grave for that to be the motivation, even for that to be a motivation. The question of war should be placed squarely in the context of what is the right policy to achieve our Nation's security goals. With all of these questions in mind, I look to the resolution that is before us. Does this resolution address the question this Nation must answer in order to succeed? Does it clearly articulate a policy objective? What course of action does it sanction in our Nation's pursuit of that goal? While this resolution is a marked improvement over the President's original proposal, S.J. Res. 46 does not provide the information--and the objectives--needed at this time. It is overly broad in defining the objectives of military action. After considering the threat, the cost, and the unanswered questions, I have reached a decision. I will vote against the underlying resolution; I will vote against going to war at this time. I am committed to fighting and winning the war on terrorism, including eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I support wholeheartedly our men and women in uniform. I admire their heroism. And I will continue to do all I can to provide them with the resources they need for whatever mission they are asked to carry out on our behalf. Today we are being told we have no choice; that we have to grant the President war-making authority immediately, without knowing the ultimate goal or the ultimate cost, and without knowing whether we are going it alone. It may well be that someday our country needs to take military action in Iraq, but the decision right now to give the President this broad authority, without focusing it narrowly on weapons of mass destruction, without the support of our allies, without defining the costs to our country today and tomorrow, is not something I can support given what we know today. The constituents I hear from want to know: Why are we racing to take this action right now, alone, with so many questions unanswered? The administration could answer those questions with clear, compelling facts and goals, but so far we have not heard them. We are being asked to endorse a policy that has not been thought out, and one that could have dramatic consequences for our citizens and our future. While we may need to take action in Iraq down the road, today I cannot support sending our men and women into harm's way on an ill- defined, solo mission with so many critical questions unanswered. If, in the coming weeks or months, we learn that Saddam's capabilities are more advanced than we now realize, or if Saddam defies U.N. resolutions, we will certainly have the right to take appropriate action. Looking back over the past year, it is clear that we can respond to September 11 several ways. We can act out of fear, casting aside our principles, and taking action without sufficient planning. Or we can stick to our principles and draw strength from them in tough times. That is the course I advocate today. In closing, let me be clear. Despite my reservations today, I will always stand with and support those who serve our country, wherever and whenever their Commander in Chief sends them. If American troops are called to fight in Iraq, I will stand with the President and I will support our troops not only during the conflict, but afterward. The international community, and those who would do us harm, need to know without exception that while we may have our disagreements before military action, once our troops are on the ground, we are all on the same side. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator clarify the list of speakers following Senator Sarbanes with the change regarding Senator Chafee?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, for the past several weeks we have been talking about the proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security. I think it is very clear that there are a lot of details that still need to be worked out. I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership and his patience in raising the questions that must be raised to improve our security and our safety. I want to make sure we don't just ``do something'' about security, but that we do the right thing. Let's face it, it takes time to get the simple things right. I have been working with the Transportation Security Administration now for months on airline security and we still have not worked out all of the issues. It took a long time for us to get the National Guard to deploy to our northern border. In creating this new Department, I want to make sure we get it right. Three weeks ago, I spoke on the Senate floor and raised a number of questions, and at this point I am still troubled by the lack of answers I have received. There are many different ways to set up this Department. The President has offered one way. His proposal was created in a short amount of time by a few officials meeting at the White House in secret. We don't know how the President's proposal will balance the security and the economic needs of the American people. As I have stated before, I have two major concerns. First, we have not yet figured out how to fulfill our traditional missions and the new security missions at the same time. If we combine these various agencies into one massive Homeland Security Department, how are we going to meet the traditional mission? Just look at the Coast Guard. Since September 11, the Coast Guard has shifted resources away from their traditional missions to homeland defense. That is an appropriate response, but it comes at a cost. What the shift in resources means to the average American is that the Coast Guard is now spending less time interdicting drugs and illegal immigrants, enforcing fishery and marine safety laws, and protecting our marine environment. Yet the need for the Coast Guard to perform these vital missions is as important today as it was before the attack on our country. Unfortunately, we have not figured out how to effectively carry out both missions at the same time. I would like to know how one massive Department, focused primarily on security, will more effectively address all of our safety and security needs. Secondly, I am very concerned about how this new Department will function. The administration has asked for unprecedented power and control over this proposed Department. The President wants to change the personnel rules so he can have what he calls flexibility. From what I understand, the administration already has flexibility under current law. In addition to dramatic new controls over workers, the administration wants the power to move money around without congressional input. From what I have seen so far, that is pretty scary news for families in my State of Washington. Right now, I can fight to make sure that the needs in my State are being met. But if the administration gets this unprecedented authority, then accountants in the Office of Management and Budget will decide what is important to the people in my home State. If that happens, my constituents are going to lose out--at a cost to their safety and their security. So we need to better understand and define all of the missions in the various agencies. We need to make sure they continue to fulfill their traditional missions. That is why I support the Byrd amendment. It will allow us to move forward in a pragmatic manner that allows us to do this right. It is essential for our economic security and our future safety. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to share with the Senate a tribute to Mickie Pailthorp, a leader in my home State of Washington who passed away on July 31, 2002. On August 8, I was honored to speak at a memorial service for Mickie, and today I want to share her accomplishments with my colleages. I will never forget my first meeting with Mickie Pailthorp. It was early in 1992, and I had just announced that I was running for the U.S. Senate. Many in the established political community had written me off. They said I hadn't paid my dues. They said I couldn't raise the money. They even said I was too short. Many dismissed me sight unseen, but Mickie decided to find out for herself. Shortly after I announced, Mickie called my campaign office. She said she was thinking about supporting me because I was a woman candidate, but she absolutely had to meet me first. I thought, ``No problem.'' We met at a restaurant for what I thought would be a casual dinner. Instead, Mickie grilled me for over an hour. She wanted to know very specifically what I was going to do about this issue and that issue. She wanted to know why I thought I could win, and she wanted to know that I would work hard. To be honest, by the end of our dinner, I really wasn't sure whether she was going to help me. But before I knew it, she was one of my strongest behind-the-scenes supporters, and her support made a difference. Mickie quietly opened doors for me. She got me into places that I couldn't go on my own. When I won the election, she didn't come after me seeking favors or demanding credit, but I knew she was watching. Every year at Joel and Mickie's Christmas party, she would come up to me and say very quietly either: ``I was really proud of what you did here.'' Or more sternly, ``Now you've got to be careful about this.'' So I knew she was watching. When I think about Mickie, I remember her as whirlwind of passion and energy. She was there fighting the good fight for women on the ERA and so many other issues before it was popular and before it seemed possible. One of the things that made Mickie so unique is that she didn't seek any credit. She was happy to work behind the scenes. Mickie never needed to be the ``picture'' for the cause, but she clearly painted every line. Some leaders climb up to the top and when they get there they pull up the ladder behind them and leave everyone else stuck below. But Mickie's whole purpose was to help other women make it to the top, and she did that well. So today, while a generation of young women might not know Mickie's name, they know the women she helped elect. And they know that they can make a difference, too. Mickie Pailthorp was not a visible women's leader, but she made a lot of other women leaders visible. And because Mickie didn't trumpet her own accomplishments, it's up to us to make sure that others know about this remarkable woman and carry on her legacy. So I invite Mickie's friends and fans in Washington State to tell their children and grandchildren about an energetic, passionate woman named Mickie Pailthorp, and the opportunities she gave all of us.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me the time today. On June 6, President Bush addressed the American public, informing the public he had changed his mind. After months of rejecting just such a proposal, he now saw the benefit of organizing a new Department of Homeland Security. His aides had handed him a plan. To his eyes, it was a good plan and one that should be implemented. However, something else happened that week as well that happens all too frequently in America. The Coast Guard, one of the agencies that would be merged into the President's new Department of Homeland Security, was performing search and rescue operations across the Nation. In my home State of Washington, the Coast Guard was dispatching helicopters and motorboats throughout Willapa Bay to search for three missing Fort Lewis soldiers. On the evening of June 1, their 20-foot pleasure craft washed ashore in Bay Center, WA. Unfortunately, those soldier's bodies were recovered the next morning. As I look today at the President's request, I am very mindful of the impact it could have on the Coast Guard's ability to carry out other missions like search and rescue. We need to be responsive to the President's request. We need to give this and future administrations the tools they need to better secure America. However, we cannot sacrifice the critical safety work of the Coast Guard for the incomplete plan the President's aides drew up in the basement of the White House. I rise today because I am deeply concerned that in our rush to do something about homeland security, we may well overlook the consequences it will have on the safety and security of all Americans. Frankly, given what I have seen so far, I have very real reasons for concern. Of course, I believe, like all my colleagues, that we need to do everything we can to make sure our Government and our military can meet the challenges since September 11. We have to focus considerable energy and resources on addressing those challenges. Those who want to harm us will look for new ways to exploit our weaknesses. We have to do better. The world has changed. We must adapt. But we must balance the needs of our country. In my role as chairman of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, I have worked very hard to provide the resources to meet our needs at our borders, at our seaports, airports, and throughout our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Often, that has meant pushing this administration to support the necessary funding, sometimes without success. We are moving forward, and we are making America more secure. The Senate has followed a deliberate process, and the leadership of Senator Byrd has been critical to this endeavor. He has made sure that we move forward responsibly to meet the new challenges facing our Nation. But let's face it, it takes a while to get even the simple things right. I have been working with the Transportation Security Administration for months on airline security, and even the smallest things have taken a while to work out. Look at what we face at our northern border. It took many months and we had to put a lot of pressure on this administration just to get the National Guard deployed at the northern border to fill the gaping holes in our border security left by years of negligence. It then took many more weeks to get our guardsmen armed, secure. Securing our border is essential, but so is ensuring the efficient flow of people, goods, and services across our border with our friends in Canada. Canada is our Nation's largest trading partner. Many millions of people in both countries depend on that trade for their livelihoods. If we do the wrong thing, the loss of jobs in our border communities will be devastating. How will the Department of Homeland Security, envisioned by the President, balance the complexity of those competing needs of the American people? We do not know. We are supposed to trust this administration. Now the administration wants to rush through a homeland security bill which was drawn up by a handful of White House aides. It is the largest Government reorganization since 1947. Look at what has happened in the House since the President submitted his proposal. The standing committees looked at the proposal and saw major problems. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee unanimously voted to keep the Coast Guard out of that new Department. Based on their expertise and their research, the standing committee saw the clear need to maintain the Coast Guard outside of the new Department. What happened? The select committee ignored that recommendation and put a rubber stamp on the President's original proposal. In fact, several times the standing committees made constructive improvements to bills, only to see their recommendations rejected by the select committee. The administration wants to rush this proposal through Congress. Anyone who raises a legitimate question is immediately derided as ``trying to reserve turf.'' This is not about turf. It is about safety. It is about a young Coast Guardsmen who climbed aboard foreign vessels in the open seas, not knowing what they may find. It is about TSA security agents who are trying to make sure that passengers attempting to board our planes do not pose a security threat. I am proud to work to try to provide them with some job security just as they work hard to protect our Nation's security. These are real questions that need to be answered. This afternoon, I raise some of those questions because there is a lot at stake for the people I represent and for every American. I want to make sure we do this right. So far, I have not gotten the answers I need. I have two major concerns. First, we have not yet figured out how to fulfill our traditional missions and the new security missions at the same time. If we combined all these various agencies into one massive Department with a primary mission of homeland security, how are we going to meet the traditional needs across the board? Let's look at the Coast Guard, just one agency. Since September 11, the Coast Guard has shifted resources away from traditional missions to homeland events. That is an appropriate response, but it comes at a cost. Unfortunately, it means the Coast Guard is spending less time interdicting drugs and illegal migrants, enforcing fishery and marine safety laws, and protecting our marine environment. But the traditional missions have not disappeared. We still need the Coast Guard to keep drugs and the illegal migrants off our shores. We need them to protect our environment. And we need them to protect the lives of our fishermen and the integrity of our fishing grounds. Frankly, even without the new security needs, we have a long way to go to meet even those basic missions. I am concerned we are rushing into a new organization that could compromise our ability to meet all the challenges we are facing. What will be the commitment from the Department of Homeland Security to protecting our marine environment or enforcing our fisheries laws or conducting search and rescue operations? If the administration continues to play budget games and underfund the Department, as it has done so far with the TSA, will the scarce dollars go only to security and not to traditional missions? Right now, we cannot even get the basic facts. I would like to know how much of the current Coast Guard budget is going toward homeland security. On July 9, the Coast Guard Commandant said 40 percent of the Coast Guard's operating budget goes to the missions of the new Department. A few weeks later, on July 30, the Commandant said almost 50 percent of the Coast Guard's budget went to homeland security. That is a difference of at least $350 million. That number matters because the boats and resources used for homeland defense are often the very same ones needed for search and rescue and other missions. I am not raising this to criticize Admiral Collins. He is doing an excellent job. I work closely with him. But it shows how difficult it is to get even the most basic questions answered as we look at this new Department. The answers matter because the vast majority of Americans live in coastal States or along the Great Lakes or inland waterways, and every American is impacted when the Coast Guard slows down its work stopping illegal drugs. To include the Coast Guard in the new Department will impact the lives of millions of people. I think we need to explore these questions closely. Simply put, we have not done a good job meeting our traditional missions and security missions at the same time. I would like to know how one massive Department, focused primarily on security, will help us meet the needs out there. Second, I am very concerned about accountability and authority over everything from the staff of the new Department to its budget. The administration has asked for unprecedented power and control over this proposed Department. Some of the demands for power over workers really trouble me. The President wants changes in the personnel rules so he can have flexibility. Is the President suggesting that today's unionized border agents are not doing an adequate job or that today's unionized Customs officials are not responding to new mission requirements in a timely manner? If that is what he is suggesting, then he is wrong. I have been on the border. I have met with the Border Patrol and Customs agents. These professionals are our sons and daughters, they are our neighbors, they are our friends, they are our husbands, and they are our wives. They serve the American people selflessly, often jeopardizing their own health and safety. I do not think those who serve in the Department of Homeland Security should be second-class citizens, given a lower level of rights and respect. In addition to dramatic new control over workers, the administration wants the power to move the money around without congressional input. Let me tell you, given what I have seen so far, this is pretty scary news for families in Washington State. Right now, as a United States Senator, I can fight to make sure the needs in my State are being met. As elected Members of Congress, we know the needs in our communities and we are accountable to our voters. But the administration now wants accountants in the Office of Management and Budget to decide what is important to the people of my home State of Washington. If that happens, my constituents will lose out at a cost to their safety and security. Let's just look at what happened with the supplemental appropriations bill. Under the leadership of Chairman Byrd, the Appropriations Committee held unprecedented and comprehensive hearings on how to best meet our obligations to the American people. We spent countless hours hearing from national and local experts. We passed the funding to meet the needs before us. Congress passed that funding, but then the President eliminated more than $5 billion of it. With a wave of his hand, over the August break, the President eliminated funding that we here in Congress considered critical, after many hours of hearings, to protecting the American public. He eliminated $11 million from Coast Guard operations. The President eliminated, with a wave of his hand, $262 million for critical Coast Guard procurement, including funding for coastal patrol boats for our security. The President eliminated $150 million for our Nation's airports, as they are working so hard to meet the December deadline for installing explosive detection devices. And the President eliminated $480 million from its already shortchanged Transportation and Security Administration. The Office of Management and Budget has not been a good advocate for the people of my home State of Washington. Given that record, I am very reluctant to give OMB dramatic new power over the safety and security of my constituents. The OMB originally blocked the Coast Guard's desperately needed improvements to the marine 911 system. When they brought it to their attention, the OMB changed its policy, but under the President's plan there is no way for us in Congress to address the arbitrary decision made by the OMB. Granting the President dramatic new authority is not just a bureaucratic exercise. It has real consequences for the people I represent. I take that responsibility very seriously. If we are not going to figure out how all the functions are going to be performed and we can't tie money to functions, this reorganization may consign many functions to death, as we saw when the President eliminated $5.1 billion in homeland security funding. In closing, we need to better define the missions of the various agencies, and we need to make sure they continue to fulfill their traditional missions. It is essential for our economic security and our physical safety. The House bill does not strike a balance, and we have to do better. We need to really understand the consequences of this proposal and ensure that it will actually increase our homeland security and not jeopardize our citizens in other ways. I believe this has not been thought out enough and we should certainly not race to put a rubberstamp on such an incomplete proposal. I think every Senator feels pressure to do something, anything, about homeland security. But it is much more important to do the right thing. I look forward to having a good debate about the new Department of Homeland Security. There are a lot of serious questions, and I look forward to hearing some serious answers.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President since the 1996 welfare reform, our nation has experienced one of the longest economic booms in history, but families are still struggling to make ends meet, and children are still living in poverty. Now, with the recession, working families are facing even more barriers on the path toward self-sufficiency, and states are struggling to maintain their existing programs. In my own state of Washington, we've seen the results of the recession: good jobs are more difficult to find, welfare rolls are up, and state budget cuts have taken a chunk out of childcare and other critical supports for our most disadvantaged families. It is with this in mind that I introduce Senate bill S. 2876, the Secure and Healthy Families Act of 2002. The Secure and Healthy Families Act will help build on the successes of welfare reform. This bill gives us an important opportunity to reaffirm that we value America's families and that we will protect our children. This bill takes what we know from our own experiences as parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents and what research has proven to be effective to help us move toward the goal of building healthy families. It does not impose inflexible top-down strategies. Instead, it allows states to support work and engage families on assistance. It will help build secure and healthy families in a number of ways. First, this legislation will create the Promoting Healthy Families Fund that enables the Secretary of HHS to fund state activities to promote and support secure families. For example, the fund would support state and local efforts to provide family counseling, income enhancement programs for working poor families--like the successful Minnesota Family Investment Program, or teen pregnancy prevention programs that help young people avoid the poverty that often comes with these unplanned pregnancies. Second, this act will ensure states recognize that secure and healthy families come in all shapes and sizes. The federal government has long led the way in opposing discrimination, and this bill will continue that critical role. Next, this bill puts in place several provisions to help the parents build a better future for themselves and their children. The bill encourages teen parents to remain in school by not counting the time that they are in school against their five-year lifetime limit. Under this legislation, a teen mother would also be given the chance to get on her feet, get settled in school, and find a safe place for her and her baby to live without losing assistance. Mr. President, in families where children are chronically ill or disabled, parents are confronted with special challenges. Most cannot find appropriate affordable care, and cannot leave sick and vulnerable children alone. They run from the doctor's office and emergency rooms-- trying to keep their jobs while dealing with the sudden and frequent life-threatening health problems that these children face. This bill would offer support for these families by recognizing that full time care of a chronically sick or disabled child is hard work, and by giving parents the opportunity to meet their children's special needs. The bill also strengthens support for those families who are victims of domestic or sexual violence. We know that as many as 70 percent of welfare recipients are or have been victims of domestic violence. This bills sends a clear message to states that they must protect there vulnerable families in several ways including: having comprehensive standards and procedures to address domestic and sexual violence, training caseworkers so that they are sensitive to the unique needs of victims of domestic violence, and informing survivors of domestic and family violence of the existing protections to ensure their privacy and safety. Most states are approaching domestic violence prevention and assistance in interesting and innovative ways. The bill will provide funding for a national study of best practices on the ways states are addressing domestic violence. In addition, states will be able to continue to provide services to domestic and family violence survivors without worrying about federal exemption caps. The bill will allow these survivors to receive the services they need when they are making the transition out of dangerous situations to safe and successful lives. Finally, the bill would support relatives who take in underprivileged children. A growing number of children, 2.16 million in 2000, are being cared for solely by grandparents and other relatives. Although some of these children are involved with the child welfare system, many more of these children are able to remain outside of the system because their relatives are able to care for them. Last week a young man named Eustaquito Beltran came to my office to talk to me about the importance of supporting foster children. He told me that he had lived in more than one hundred homes since he was a toddler. The results for children like him are heartbreaking. Fewer than half graduate from high school, and many become homeless after they turn 18. Prior to being abandoned by or taken away from their parents, most of these children live in poverty with families devastated by substance abuse, mental health disorders, poor education, unemployment, violence, lack of parenting skills, and involvement with the criminal justice system. A 1990 study found that the incidence of emotional, behavioral, and developmental problems among children in foster care was three to six times greater than the incidence of these problems among children not in care. If care by a relative can help children like Eustaquito avoid the foster care system, then we should be grateful for the assistance that relative is offering. Instead, relatives who care for children with support form TANF are often trapped in a Catch-22. If a grandmother takes in her grandchild, but needs support herself and receives TANF assistance, federal time limits and work requirements apply. It doesn't make sense to require this grandmother, who may have worked for years and finally reached retirement, to return to work in order to help her grandchild stay out of the foster care system. My bill would exempt kinship care families from federal time limits and work requirements to help ensure ongoing support for these children. This will allow relative caregivers to provide the additional supervision and care that children who have been abused and neglected often need. Mr. President, the strength of our nation lies in how we care for our most vulnerable. Coming together to support victims of domestic violence, children abandoned by their parents, and teen mothers can make it clear that welfare reform is about helping all Americans succeed, not about punishing the needy. The Senate must focus our crucial federal welfare dollars on programs and practices that create a bridge to self-sufficiency and productivity while keeping families secure and healthy. I am committed to strengthening the safety net our families depend on so that parents have the skills they need to find work and succeed once they are in the workplace. This bill will ensure that children grow up in secure and healthy families. It is a critical step in our work to leave no child behind.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to indicate my support for the Andean Trade Preference Act conference report now before the Congress. As my colleagues know, this conference report contains a number of trade provisions, including Trade Promotion Authority. As I have said throughout my service in the Senate, Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the country. Trade and our ability to maintain and grow international markets for our goods and services is tremendously important to my State. It is an economic issue, a family-wage jobs issue for my constituents who are accustomed to international competition. With these new trade tools, the President can give Washington State exporters new and expanded opportunities abroad. Expanded trade can play a role in job creation and economic recovery for Washington State. The conference report, like all legislation, is a compromise. And while I would have liked to see even stronger provisions on trade adjustment assistance and worker and environmental protection, the conference report represents real progress on many issues I have worked on and supported over the years. More workers will be eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Some workers from secondary industries will be covered for the first time under the conference report. The Senate bill provides a new health benefit to displaced workers. The Senate bill provided a stronger health benefit for displaced workers. The conference report provides a 65-percent up-front, refundable tax credit for COBRA coverage which is slightly less than the 70-percent up-front credit provided by the Senate bill. This is a significant benefit. Congress will have to monitor closely the degree to which displaced workers are able to access the benefits. If necessary, I will not hesitate to support further modification of this program to allow displaced workers and their families to keep their health insurance. This is an issue of ongoing interest to me. Fast track or trade promotion authority has been debated extensively now for 8 years. The President will soon have the authority that he and his Democratic predecessor sought. As the administration looks forward to difficult trade talks with Chile, Singapore, and others, I call upon the President and USTR Zoellick to be true to the debate the Congress has had on trade promotion. Many important issues have been raised. And while not all are included in the final conference report, the issues raised by the Congress will play a role in final approval of any trade agreement negotiated with TPA. I am concerned that this administration will not be inclusive in upcoming trade negotiations. Members of Congress and outside groups have a legitimate role to play in setting national trade priorities and policy and I encourage the administration to be respectful of these roles. I have had several discussions with Ambassador Zoellick and he has demonstrated to me an awareness of important issues to my State. The administration should not misinterpret today's TPA vote. It is not a vote for a trade agreement. Congress will closely scrutinize the work of this administration as it negotiates as well as any agreement submitted for consideration under TPA's expedited procedures. I will be a very interested observer as the President and his trade team move forward. The tremendous importance of international trade to my State, my entire State is the strongest argument for my vote in support of trade promotion authority. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, my constituents and the administration on important international trade issues. Today's vote is an important step, a complicated step but ultimately the right step for our country.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to support the withdrawal of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. I am opposed to the McCain amendment which would attempt to redefine an issue the entire Congress has already endorsed and the President has signed into law. I spoke about this amendment last evening and will only make brief remarks today. I want to begin by associating myself with the remarks of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. Both of these Senators have committed an enormous amount of time to work on this important issue. I know, all Senators know, that when Senator Dan Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens speak about tankers, their ultimate interest is the safety of the men and women in uniform who are protecting our country. I am proud to have worked closely with Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens to win approval for the leasing provisions in last year's Defense Appropriations measure. Senator McCain ask the Senate to again require authorization for the lease of aircraft. Senator McCain's language is specific to the proposed 737 lease but his rhetoric and his ultimate objective is to scuttle any potential lease deal regardless of whether it is for a 737 aircraft or 767 aircraft. As I stated last evening, I am puzzled that this issue continues to come up. Not long ago, the Senate considered the Defense Authorization legislation. The Senator from Arizona sits on the committee. That was the bill to have this debate. This Senator complains that the Appropriations bill is the wrong place to authorize. Yet, here we are considering an authorizing amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona on an appropriations bill. It makes little sense to me. This is the wrong place to have this debate. The Senator wants to scuttle the 737 lease recently announced by the Air Force. Importantly, that lease deal has been sent to the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in both the House and Senate for review and comment. And, it is my understanding, that all four panels have reviewed and approved of the lease and the Air Force justification for the lease. Last year, both the Senate and the House supported the language in the Defense Appropriations bill giving the Air Force the authority to move forward with lease discussions. The President signed the bill into law after the provisions were carefully scrutinized by the Office of Management and Budget. And now, with an actual lease deal proposed, the four relevant panels have signed off on an actual deal. Yet, the Senator from Arizona persists in his attempts to scuttle an Air Force lease. Senator McCain has succeeded in making sure that this issue is thoroughly reviewed. It has been reviewed. The Senator clearly does not like the outcome of the review and he now wants the Senate to start the process over again and give him additional time to delay a legitimate need of our military. The Senator also talks about competition. Here's what is really at stake. The Senator from Arizona wants to open the doors to the Air Force and the Department of Defense to Airbus. One U.S. company manufactures commercial aircraft of this type. One and only one U.S. company can meet the Air Force needs. The Senator is not talking about asking the Air Force to choose between Ford and Chevrolet. The Senator from Arizona is asking the Senate to decide whether U.S. workers or European workers will manufacture U.S. military aircraft. That's a simple choice for me. U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to undermine the lone U.S. manufacturer of aircraft. U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize Airbus. I want to remind my colleagues again what the Secretary of the Air Force, James Roche, wrote to me in a letter on the tanker issue, quote: ``The KC-135 fleet is the backbone of our Nation's Global Reach. But with an average age of over 41 years, coupled with the increasing expense required to maintain them, it is readily apparent that we must start replacing these critical assets. I strong endorse beginning to upgrade this critical warfighting capability with new Boeing 767 tanker aircraft.'' Those are the words of the Secretary of the Air Force. The Air Force wants to move forward with the lease option. Congress voted for the lease last year. The President signed the lease option into law. And the relevant committees have just approved the lease terms proposed by the Air Force for 737 aircraft. I encourage my colleagues to again support this important option to lease aircraft, to get assets into the field that are of great importance to our men and women in uniform.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President since the 1996 welfare reform, our nation has experienced one of the longest economic booms in history, but families are still struggling to make ends meet, and children are still living in poverty. Now, with the recession, working families are facing even more barriers on the path toward self-sufficiency, and states are struggling to maintain their existing programs. In my own state of Washington, we've seen the results of the recession: good jobs are more difficult to find, welfare rolls are up, and state budget cuts have taken a chunk out of childcare and other critical supports for our most disadvantaged families. It is with this in mind that I introduce Senate bill S. 2876, the Secure and Healthy Families Act of 2002. The Secure and Healthy Families Act will help build on the successes of welfare reform. This bill gives us an important opportunity to reaffirm that we value America's families and that we will protect our children. This bill takes what we know from our own experiences as parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents and what research has proven to be effective to help us move toward the goal of building healthy families. It does not impose inflexible top-down strategies. Instead, it allows states to support work and engage families on assistance. It will help build secure and healthy families in a number of ways. First, this legislation will create the Promoting Healthy Families Fund that enables the Secretary of HHS to fund state activities to promote and support secure families. For example, the fund would support state and local efforts to provide family counseling, income enhancement programs for working poor families--like the successful Minnesota Family Investment Program, or teen pregnancy prevention programs that help young people avoid the poverty that often comes with these unplanned pregnancies. Second, this act will ensure states recognize that secure and healthy families come in all shapes and sizes. The federal government has long led the way in opposing discrimination, and this bill will continue that critical role. Next, this bill puts in place several provisions to help the parents build a better future for themselves and their children. The bill encourages teen parents to remain in school by not counting the time that they are in school against their five-year lifetime limit. Under this legislation, a teen mother would also be given the chance to get on her feet, get settled in school, and find a safe place for her and her baby to live without losing assistance. Mr. President, in families where children are chronically ill or disabled, parents are confronted with special challenges. Most cannot find appropriate affordable care, and cannot leave sick and vulnerable children alone. They run from the doctor's office and emergency rooms-- trying to keep their jobs while dealing with the sudden and frequent life-threatening health problems that these children face. This bill would offer support for these families by recognizing that full time care of a chronically sick or disabled child is hard work, and by giving parents the opportunity to meet their children's special needs. The bill also strengthens support for those families who are victims of domestic or sexual violence. We know that as many as 70 percent of welfare recipients are or have been victims of domestic violence. This bills sends a clear message to states that they must protect there vulnerable families in several ways including: having comprehensive standards and procedures to address domestic and sexual violence, training caseworkers so that they are sensitive to the unique needs of victims of domestic violence, and informing survivors of domestic and family violence of the existing protections to ensure their privacy and safety. Most states are approaching domestic violence prevention and assistance in interesting and innovative ways. The bill will provide funding for a national study of best practices on the ways states are addressing domestic violence. In addition, states will be able to continue to provide services to domestic and family violence survivors without worrying about federal exemption caps. The bill will allow these survivors to receive the services they need when they are making the transition out of dangerous situations to safe and successful lives. Finally, the bill would support relatives who take in underprivileged children. A growing number of children, 2.16 million in 2000, are being cared for solely by grandparents and other relatives. Although some of these children are involved with the child welfare system, many more of these children are able to remain outside of the system because their relatives are able to care for them. Last week a young man named Eustaquito Beltran came to my office to talk to me about the importance of supporting foster children. He told me that he had lived in more than one hundred homes since he was a toddler. The results for children like him are heartbreaking. Fewer than half graduate from high school, and many become homeless after they turn 18. Prior to being abandoned by or taken away from their parents, most of these children live in poverty with families devastated by substance abuse, mental health disorders, poor education, unemployment, violence, lack of parenting skills, and involvement with the criminal justice system. A 1990 study found that the incidence of emotional, behavioral, and developmental problems among children in foster care was three to six times greater than the incidence of these problems among children not in care. If care by a relative can help children like Eustaquito avoid the foster care system, then we should be grateful for the assistance that relative is offering. Instead, relatives who care for children with support form TANF are often trapped in a Catch-22. If a grandmother takes in her grandchild, but needs support herself and receives TANF assistance, federal time limits and work requirements apply. It doesn't make sense to require this grandmother, who may have worked for years and finally reached retirement, to return to work in order to help her grandchild stay out of the foster care system. My bill would exempt kinship care families from federal time limits and work requirements to help ensure ongoing support for these children. This will allow relative caregivers to provide the additional supervision and care that children who have been abused and neglected often need. Mr. President, the strength of our nation lies in how we care for our most vulnerable. Coming together to support victims of domestic violence, children abandoned by their parents, and teen mothers can make it clear that welfare reform is about helping all Americans succeed, not about punishing the needy. The Senate must focus our crucial federal welfare dollars on programs and practices that create a bridge to self-sufficiency and productivity while keeping families secure and healthy. I am committed to strengthening the safety net our families depend on so that parents have the skills they need to find work and succeed once they are in the workplace. This bill will ensure that children grow up in secure and healthy families. It is a critical step in our work to leave no child behind.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are all very proud of the men and women of the military as they have responded to the attacks of September 11 and as they continue to protect us here at home and around the world. As we work on the Defense appropriations bill, we have an obligation to the men and women who are defending us to make sure they have the resources and the equipment they need. Tonight, I rise in strong opposition to the McCain amendment on which this body will be voting tomorrow morning. The Senator from Arizona persists in his efforts to redefine an issue that this entire Congress has already endorsed and that the President has signed into law. The McCain amendment addresses both the 767 and the 737 lease provisions that were endorsed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin less than 1 year ago. Frankly, I am puzzled that this issue continues to come up. The Appropriations Committee engaged in this issue following consideration of the Defense authorization bill last year. The issue came to light in part because of the terrorist attack on our country, the global war on terrorism, and the tremendous demand placed upon our air refueling fleet. This issue was not a sleight of hand to undermine the authorizing committee. We acted out of necessity as our country responded to September 11 and to terrorism. We had a lengthy debate, thanks to the Senator from Arizona, and the Congress agreed to go forward using the lease option as the vehicle to give our men and women in uniform the asset they need. Not long ago, the Senate considered the Defense authorization legislation. The Senator from Arizona sits on that committee. That was the bill to have this debate. The Senator complains that the appropriations bill is the wrong place to authorize. Yet here we are considering an authorizing amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona on an appropriations bill. I read his amendment, and I want my colleagues to understand what is really at stake. The Senator from Arizona wants us to open the doors to the Air Force and the Department of Defense to Airbus. It is quite simple to me. One U.S. company manufactures commercial aircraft of this type. One, and only one, U.S. company can meet the Air Force's needs. The issue before the Senate is whether U.S. workers or European workers will manufacture U.S. military aircraft. That is the bottom line. That is what the vote will be about tomorrow. Let me also say that the Senator from Arizona has a broader agenda than the language in this amendment. Listen to his rhetoric. He interchanges the 737 and the 767 lease programs approved by the Congress. The language in his amendment is about the 737 lease, but he references, time and again, the larger issue of the 767 tanker lease. So let's talk about the 767 tanker lease. Since September 11, one piece of equipment has become more critical than ever, air refueling tankers. These flying gas stations allow us to project our military around the globe. In fact, tankers are the backbone of our air capability. Just look at the war in Afghanistan. Our B-2 stealth bombers had to get from their base in Missouri to Afghanistan and back. They needed to be refueled in the air nine times. Our bombers, which left the airbase on Diego Garcia, had to be refueled three times to reach their targets 3,000 miles away. So we needed the tankers to get our aircraft over there. We also relied on our tankers to keep our planes going during the fighting. During the heaviest bombing of the Afghanistan battles, 30 to 35 tankers were in the air nearly around the clock to refuel 100 tactical jets. Even carrier-based warplanes needed the aid of air tankers to strike their targets in Afghanistan. Here at home, many of our cities were protected by combat air patrols. Those patrols relied on air refueling tankers. As Air Force Lt. Gen. Plummer put it: In the opening campaign of this war, every bomb, bullet and bayonet brought into the theater got there thanks to our aging refueling tanker fleet. . . . Our reliance on tankers has grown 45 percent from fiscal year 2001. So whether it is projecting our force around the world or supporting our aircraft in the middle of a fight or keeping our homeland safe, the men and women of our military rely on our KC-135 tankers. But there are serious problems with these tankers. They are old. In fact, they are among the oldest aircraft in the entire service. Because they are so old, they are not reliable, they are often down for repairs, and they cost a fortune to maintain. Just look at the figures. The average age of these tankers is 41 years. One-third of the fleet is unfit to fly at any given time due to mechanical failure. Each plane requires a full year of maintenance for every 4 years spent on duty. A 41-year-old aircraft runs on parts that are not commercially available. Corrosion is also a significant problem. In fact, KC-135s spend about 400 days in major depot maintenance every 5 years. So what we have are old planes that cost a fortune to keep flying and that are often down for repairs. That is not what you want in an aircraft that is used to protect your military around the world in the middle of a war. Some have suggested that we just keep repairing the existing planes, and we could do that. But it does not make sense financially. It takes those planes out of service for a very long time. It would forfeit new planes that are more flexible, more reliable, and more efficient. Let me share with the Senate something Secretary Rumsfeld said earlier this year: We needed to begin moving out some of the older pieces of equipment that are--aircraft and various things that require so much upkeep and maintenance and so much on spare parts, that it is unwise to continue to try to maintain them. Secretary Rumsfeld also said: So you end up trying to take a 1934 Oldsmobile and prop it up for another five, six years, and there's a point beyond which that doesn't make good sense. We have reached that point. I show you a picture of an old Oldsmobile. I think it is actually a 1939 Olds, but it proves the same point. We could keep repairing them, but it does not make sense to keep pumping money into a 41-year-old airframe. It is expensive. If you want to keep one of these old planes going, you probably are going to have to remove the plane's metal skin because these planes, as I said before, have a lot of corrosion. I share with my colleagues a photograph showing some of the problems with the metal on these aging tankers. To ``re-skin'' this airplane costs $26 million. Does it make sense to do that to 100 planes? Mr. President, $26 million is an awful lot of money to fix one problem with one 41-year-old plane. After you have replaced the skin of the aircraft, it is probably going to need new engines. That is not cheap. To put a new engine in 100, 125 tankers is going to cost $3 billion. That is a lot of money for a 41-year-old airplane. There are other parts that need to be replaced. It would be one thing if you could fix them all today, but it takes a long time to overhaul these tankers. Right now, we are overhauling four a year. At a certain point, it is just not worth dumping money into these old planes. K-135s were first delivered to the Air Force in 1957. On average, they are 41-year-olds, and we are paying for it. They have been around longer than most of the people who are flying them. There is no question they must be replaced with new tankers; the only question is when. I would love for us to be able to buy these new tankers today, but there is not enough money in the Air Force's procurement budget. So many of us in Congress have worked very hard to work out a more flexible approach, an approach that is used with commercial aircraft all the time. In December, Congress approved, and the President signed, legislation to authorize the Air Force to negotiate with Boeing on a 10-year lease of 100 new 767 aircraft to use as air tankers. Congress has authorized the lease program for both the 767 and the 737 aircraft. My colleagues will recall that the bill to authorize these lease programs for the Air Force was approved by this Senate 96 to 4. I also want to remind my colleagues what the Secretary of the Air Force, James Roche, wrote to me in a letter. I will quote: The KC-135 fleet is the backbone of our Nation's Global Reach. But with an average age of over 41 years, coupled with the increasing expense required to maintain them, it is readily apparent that we must start replacing these critical assets. I strongly endorse beginning to upgrade this critical warfighting capability with new Boeing 767 tanker aircraft. That is from Air Force Secretary James Roche. My home State of Washington is home to the 92nd Air Refueling Wing. There are approximately 60 air refueling tankers that are based outside of Spokane, WA. I have been to Fairchild. I have visited personally with the families. I know the difficult missions these crews handle for each one of us every single day. And I know the men and women of the 92nd Air Refueling Wing need these aircraft. The Senator from Arizona talks about leasing aircraft as if the lives of our men and women in uniform were not at stake. I remind my colleagues that we are talking about equipping young American pilots and the missions they support to go forward with the greatest opportunity to succeed. Mr. President, I encourage the Senate, tomorrow, to table the McCain amendment. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for his foresight and leadership with the FY2003 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I commend the Chairman for including in this bill $50 million in the Military Personnel Defense Health Program for a Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. Our military personnel face numerous unknown risks each and every day. Providing funding to treat, mitigate or eliminate these risks is the least we can do for those who have agreed to dedicate their lives to defending our nation and freedom.

Mrs. MURRAY. I point out that great strides have been made in the area of infectious disease tracking by Paladin Data Systems Corporation in Seattle, WA. They have the background and experience in healthcare information systems and could provide a real-time data repository to aid in the detection of outbreaks of epidemic diseases as part of an overall effort to avert bioterrorism crises. Again, I thank the Chairman for this foresight and leadership.

Mrs. MURRAY. The bill specifically directs the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Service Surgeons General, to select medical research projects of clear scientific merit and direct relevance to military health. Included in the list of projects that could be funded through this project is an infectious disease tracking system. In my home state of Washington, our military community has an urgent need for such a system, facilitating the quick response to potential life-threatening events. Public health has long been focused on the ability to quickly identify epidemic diseases and intervene to protect public safety rapidly and as efficiently as possible. Preparing for and responding to a biologic crisis requires a clear understanding of such dimensions as geography, time frames, population demographics, resources, severity, and outcomes. The problem, at this point, is that the public health arena lacks the type of information infrastructure in place that is needed to guide an immediate response to a bioterrorism event. Do you agree, that an information system to track infectious diseases is a vital and worthy area of research?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Eric Wagner, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of the Defense appropriations bill.

Mrs MURRAY

Mrs MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to reluctantly support the Graham/Smith amendment. I am casting this vote to move the process forward so we can get closer to providing seniors and the disabled with the prescription drug coverage they need. I have got to tell you that I am frustrated and disappointed that Congress hasn't made more progress on this critical issue. Our seniors deserve better than the procedural fights we have seen here in the Senate, and they deserve better than the Graham/Smith amendment. Today I am voting for this amendment because it offers best hope of moving the process forward after so many delays. Part of my frustration goes back to the priorities that were set last year. Strengthening Medicare should have been a top priority in Congress. Instead, the Republican-controlled House and Senate moved forward with a $1.25 trillion tax cut. Now we are fighting to provide a minimal Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not cost more than $400 billion over ten years. While we have come a long away since the President's inadequate $190 billion proposal at the start of the year, we still are not where we need to be. I do want to applaud the efforts of our leader Senator Daschle and Senator Graham. I know that they share my goal of a universal, affordable benefit as part of Medicare. Senator Graham has worked especially hard on behalf of our seniors and the disabled. While this amendment provides some targeted relief, it falls far short of our original goal. I supported S. 2625, a universal, affordable benefit that treated all seniors the same. Like the Medicare program, it offered every senior access to affordable coverage. I was disappointed that we could not secure the necessary 60 votes on this package. I do want to point out that S. 2625 did receive 52 votes, meaning a majority of my colleagues supported this approach. Unfortunately, due to procedural battles and partisan bickering, 52 votes were not enough. This amendment does provide immediate assistance to the most needy and vulnerable. Ensuring that seniors below 200 percent of poverty receive access to affordable coverage is critical and will offer coverage to a larger number of seniors and the disabled. In Washington State, this could mean that 290,000 Medicare beneficiaries would be eligible for full coverage with a nominal copayment and no monthly premiums. This is a big improvement. It would ease some of the pressures on our State Medicaid program, which has been trying to fill the Medicare gap for low income beneficiaries. But, as we all know, income is sometimes not always the best measurement of need. What about those seniors who earn just $1 over the 200 percent of poverty threshold? They could have significantly higher drug costs yet receive no benefit, until they reach a catastrophic level of $3,300. In Washington State, this could mean 428,000 beneficiaries would not be eligible for the low income assistance. Yet, these seniors paid the same taxes and contributed the same percentage of their income while they were working to support the Medicare program. I am pleased this amendment will offer catastrophic protection to all seniors regardless of income. Targeted relief to those with expensive drug costs does provide some level of fairness to the program. Ensuring that seniors with more than $3,300 in out of pocket costs receive relief is a positive improvement and will offer some piece of mind. This amendment is a good starting point, but it cannot be the final product we offer our seniors. I fear that this proposal could get worse in conference. The House-passed bill is nothing but a false promise of benefits. It is based on a private insurance model that has all but failed in most parts of the country. It would require significant out of pocket costs for even the low income and could result in less coverage for many seniors. It has a huge hole in coverage and does not offer a seamless benefit as part of Medicare. It is a sham, and once it sees the light of day, seniors will not be fooled. I am willing to support this amendment with the understanding that this is only the beginning. This is the foundation for building a real universal benefit as part of Medicare. This cannot be the high water mark. I do not want a final conference report to offer only targeted limited relief based on a private insurance model. We cannot just merge this amendment with the House-passed bill. Instead, we must build on both approaches and make significant improvements. We must insist that the final product result in a seamless benefit that is part of Medicare that offers universal, affordable coverage. I want to make one other point about our attempts to improve Medicare. As my colleagues know, I am very concerned about Medicare reimbursement rates. These rates vary by region and don't reflect the true costs of providing care in many States. I am concerned that this amendment builds on that flawed, unfair formula. In Washington State, the annual per beneficiary payment from Medicare is $3,921 while in Louisiana it is as high as $7,336. Seniors in Washington State are suffering from this inequity. They cannot find a doctor to accept new Medicare patients and are forced to seek care in overcrowded emergency rooms. This inequity also puts providers in Washington State at a distinct economic disadvantage. Doctors are leaving my State for other parts of the country that offer higher Medicare reimbursements. In some parts of the country, Medicare payments are so high they subsidize private insurance payments. I can tell you that this is not the case in Washington State. Unfortunately, the Graham/Smith amendment would result in some States receiving much greater coverage than others. Because the benefits will be targeted to those below 200 percent of poverty, some States will again receive much more Medicare funding than other States. In Washington State, only 40.4 percent of seniors would be eligible. However, in Louisiana 66 percent would eligible for coverage. As we work to improve Medicare we should make the program more fair to all seniors. I understand that we will not be adding a provider package to this bill. We all recognize the need to address the provider shortfalls. I understand that the Majority Leader is committed to taking up a provider package in September. This must be a priority. It does little good to offer a prescription drug benefit if seniors cannot find a doctor. I urge my colleagues to work to address the inequities in the Medicare reimbursement formula as part of a provider package. We cannot continue to increase payments without a fix, as those at the top continue to receive a large percentage of the increased dollars. So I am willing to support the Graham/Smith amendment as a starting point for our work on crafting an affordable, universal drug benefit that's part of Medicare. It's clear that we still have a great deal of work to do. And regardless of the outcome of this vote, I'm committed to working on this issue until we have the coverage that seniors and the disabled need. Mr. Hatch. Mr. President, my, what a difference a week makes! Who would ever think that the Senate would now be considering a piece-meal, minimalist Medicare prescription drug coverage amendment. Is that what seniors want? I don't think so and that is why I want to express my vehement opposition to the Graham plan. Over the past few weeks, we have heard just about everything under the sun regarding prescription drug coverage. Some fact, much fiction. What we need to do now is to sort out the rumors and false statements and look just at the facts. The one undeniable fact where we all agree is this: the need for Medicare drug coverage is too great to let it become buried in a political quagmire. We have all been working hard on this issue and we must not fail our seniors now by passing a piece-meal Medicare prescription drug plan. Apparently, our Democratic Leadership does not agree. Let's look at the facts. We know that the tripartisan bill will cost $370 billion over 10 years. We hear that the latest Graham bill will cost close to $400 billion over 10 years, but the plan keeps changing so we do not have a true CBO score. We just received the legislative language late yesterday afternoon and CBO has not had a change to carefully review the legislative language. We know that the tripartisan bill will provide a comprehensive benefit package for all seniors. Every single senior receives comprehensive, guaranteed coverage for his or her prescriptions. We know that the Graham bill does not provide comprehensive coverage for all seniors. Under the Graham bill seniors only receive coverage for drugs if their incomes are below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level or if they reach their catastrophic coverage limit. What happens to middle-income beneficiaries? My friends, these seniors are just out of luck. We know that the tripartisan bill will work to push drug costs down through private sector competition. We know that the graham bill is going to have a new, federally- funded, government-run drug program that has no cost-saving mechanisms. In my opinion, a government-run program will lead us down the dangerous path of prescription drug price-setting. Look what has happened to the reimbursement rates of other Medicare providers, like hospitals and physicians. The tripartisan bill encourages competition based on quality and cost. The tripartisan proposal lowers prices for all drugs without compromising quality and innovation. The Graham plan does not. The tripartisan plan offers choice--a choice of plans, a choice of medication and a choice of Medicare coverage through our enhanced fee- for-service option. The Graham plan has a one size fits some proposal. Our tripartisan plan improves the Medicare program by taking a global approach to meet the changing needs of seniors. The tripartisan bill provides protection against high hospitalization costs and offers free preventions benefits. This is what modern health care demands. On the other hand, the Graham plan only provides minimal drug coverage for a small number of Medicare beneficiaries. Why should seniors settle for a piece-meal approach? It just doesn't make any sense. For less than the cost of the Graham catastrophic plan--or, I think, the catastrophic Graham plan--which would benefit less than half of seniors, the tripartisan approach provides comprehensive coverage with quality drug coverage, choice and cost savings for all Medicare beneficiaries. A piece-meal approach and last minute changes to keep the CBO score down to placate people is the approach my colleagues on the other side have taken in putting this bill together. And it is the wrong approach. So it is no surprise that is what their plan has offered--a piecemeal, band-aid approach to providing drug coverage. We need to provide Medicare beneficiaries with adequate prescription drug coverage, this year. We must put aside our differences and self interests.. Partisan arguments only stand in the way of Medicare drug legislation being passed by the Senate. Let's start the process of improving health care for our seniors by passing quality prescription drug coverage. Let's not fail them again by allowing the piece-meal Graham plan to pass the Senate. Our Medicare beneficiaries are depending on us to provide them the best Medicare prescription drug coverage possible. My friends, a vote in favor of the Graham plan does not accomplish this important goal. Our Medicare beneficiaries deserve better. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Graham amendment.