Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment this afternoon to share a part of a letter I received from an 84-year-old gentleman in my home State of Washington. He writes to me: My income is limited to Social Security and a small amount of interest generated from the proceeds of the sale of my home. That doesn't leave much for anything but the basics. The highest of my monthly bills is for prescription drugs, the cost of which has skyrocketed for the past few years. Because Medicare provides nothing towards the exorbitant cost of these drugs--which are mostly for my heart--I pay upwards of $250 a month out of pocket. If Congress does nothing else this coming session, please let it be relief from the expense of the drugs I have to take to survive. That is why I rise today in support of Medicare prescription drug benefits. This is an issue that Congress has talked about for years. It is a major challenge for seniors and the disabled every time they have to fill a prescription. And everyone agrees that we need to do something about it. We have a bill that will address this problem in a responsible way, and I am in the Chamber today to help move it forward. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill, the Medicare Outpatient Prescription Drug Act of 2002. This is not a new issue for me or for the people of my home State of Washington. Over the years, I have held many roundtable discussions in my home State where I have listened to doctors, seniors, the disabled, industry leaders, and health care providers. Like many people in my State, I am frustrated that it has taken us this long to finally reach this point in this critical debate. Unfortunately, as we all know, the attacks of September 11 and the problems in our economy have delayed this critical discussion until now. During my time in the Senate, I have been very proud to work on prescription drug coverage, from helping to draft the MEND Act in the 106th Congress to working on the Budget Committee over the past 3 years to provide funding for prescription drugs. In this Congress, I have been very proud to work with my Democratic colleagues to help ensure that the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill meets our priorities of providing an affordable, voluntary, comprehensive, reliable benefit that is part of Medicare. Health care has changed dramatically since Medicare was created, and it is time we update the Medicare Program to meet today's needs. Decades ago, there was no big prescription drug issue. Back then, it was because prescription drugs played much less of a role in our health care. Today, prescription drugs are a key part of our health care. They help to prevent disease, and they help patients live longer. As a result of these changes in health care, seniors now rely on prescription drugs more than ever. The average Medicare beneficiary fills 19 to 24 prescriptions each year. Clearly, prescription drugs are more effective--and coverage is more needed--than ever before. Unfortunately, it is getting more expensive--and more difficult--for seniors to get the medicine they need. Some seniors have drug coverage through their employers, but that number is shrinking. As costs rise, employers are cutting back on coverage. In 1994, 40 percent of firms offered health benefits to their retirees. But by 2001, only 23 percent offered health benefits to their retirees. Of those on Medicare, 38 percent have no drug coverage throughout the year. And even those seniors who are lucky enough to have coverage have seen increased premiums, deductibles, co-pays and greater restrictions. For those on Medicare, out-of-pocket payments for prescriptions--in just a two-year period from 2000-2002--have grown from an average of $813 to more than $1,000. The lack of coverage--and the growing costs--are impacting health care today. Right now, an estimated 10-13 million seniors not have any prescription drug coverage. To meet this need it has become critical that we update the program that seniors and the disabled rely on for their medical care. Updating Medicare is something we need to do very carefully. Back in 1997--when I first joined the Senate's HELP Committee--we faced the challenge of reforming and revitalizing the Food and Drug Administration's drug and device approval process. There were several competing demands we had to balance. On one hand, patients want new drugs and devices approved and available as soon as possible. On the other hand, the FDA has a responsibility to protect the public's health. We had to balance those two competing demands. And I am pleased that in the end--after months of debate--we passed a good bill that struck the right balance. I mention that example to remind us that there are several competing demands when it comes to prescription drugs for seniors. The first consideration is affordability. We can have the best prescription drugs in the world, but if seniors can't afford them, they are of little use. So affordability is key. But price is not the only consideration. A second concern is safety and effectiveness. We have worked hard over the years to make sure that our drug supply is safe. It is one of the FDA's most important responsibilities. I am proud of the way generic drugs have lowered the cost and improved access for so many Americans. But I also recognize that, if the drug isn't safe, or if it's not the medicine a patient needs, the cost savings are meaningless. Another concern is innovation. Here in the United States, we have access to the most innovative, cutting-edge medicines. We don't want artificial limits on drug distribution that would delay innovations. Finally, I believe that a prescription drug benefit must be a seamless part of Medicare. Just like care from a doctor or a hospital visit, prescription drugs are one of the key ways we provide health care today, and it should be treated like that under Medicare. With all those considerations in mind, I am proud to support the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill. It is the only plan that strikes the right balance. It is the only plan that delivers on the promise of a real prescription drug benefit for everyone on Medicare. It provides a comprehensive, affordable, and reliable prescription drug benefit. It provides coverage for every prescription without any deductible or coverage gap. It offers predictable, affordable co-payments, and it protects seniors from catastrophic expenses. Second, it's affordable. It has a fixed monthly premium of just $25. It covers all drug expenses after a senior has spent $4,000 in out-of- pocket expenses. And because there is no deductible, it will help seniors with their very first prescription. I am also proud that this bill goes to great lengths to help those with low incomes. For example, there is no premium or cost-sharing for beneficiaries with incomes below 135 percent of poverty. For those between 135-150 percent of poverty, there are reduced premiums. That will make a difference for the 168,000 Washington seniors who are below 150 percent of poverty. Finally, this drug benefit is reliable. It will give seniors the security that comes from knowing that they can get the medicine they need. Seniors will know they are getting the same coverage--for the same price--no matter how sick they are, and no matter where they live. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill is comprehensive, affordable and reliable. The other bills would leave a lot of Washington State seniors behind. Low-income seniors would in fact do far worse under the House and Senate Republican bills. The Senate Republican bill has a $250 deductible. Our bill has no deductible. Under the Senate Republican bill, there is a big ``benefit hole'' for seniors who spend--out of their own pocket--between $3,451 to $5,300 on prescription drugs. In Washington State, 212,000 people will fall into that benefit hole--paying premiums and high drug costs--without receiving any benefits. Under the House Republican plan, that benefit hole affects even more people--340,000 in Washington state alone. There are many other problems with the House and Senate Republican bills--from the very limited stop-loss to the asset tests. And both these plans rely on private insurance companies to provide the benefit. If private insurance companies are not willing to participate, there is no coverage. Those of us in Washington state have seen the private insurance market shrink in recent years, so that does not give us a lot of confidence in trusting the private sector to solve the problem. Before I close, I want to mention that we have other parts of Medicare we need to fix. Over the past few months, I have worked with a number of my colleagues to address the regional inequities in Medicare. Even though all seniors pay the same rate into the Medicare system, their access to health care depends on where they live. If they live in Washington state, they have fare less access to healthcare. That is because Washington state ranks 42nd in the Nation in Medicare reimbursements per beneficiary. I have been working with leaders in my state on the issue, and I'm continuing to raise the ideas and the MediFair proposal with my colleagues here in the Senate. I am proud that the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill does not base benefits on the same flawed formula that has created regional inequities in Medicare reimbursements. I hope we can move forward on both issues-- addressing the fairness sin Medicare payments and providing prescription drugs. Today, we have the opportunity to help the more than 700,000 people in Washington state whoa re enrolled in Medicare. We know that prescription drugs are more effective--and more important for good health care--than ever before. But seniors don't have access to them because of rising costs and shrinking coverage. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill will provide a prescription drug benefit that's part of Medicare and that is comprehensive, affordable and reliable. I urge my colleagues to help us pass this critical legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the past year as Americans have worked hard to restart our economy, we have been hit by report after report of irregularities, misconduct, and blatant conflicts of interest by corporate executives, auditors, and brokerage firms. The current corporate and auditing scandals are hurting American families. Thousands of jobs and retirement accounts have disappeared. Millions of current investors have watched their gains evaporate. Our economic recovery looks more distant. And most importantly for our long-term prosperity, investors are no longer confident that the financial information provided by public companies and their auditors is accurate. Congress cannot restore the jobs and retirement savings caused by this wave of corporate and auditing scandals. It can act to strengthen oversight of the accounting industry, to demand greater responsibility from corporate executives, and to address conflicts of interest in brokerage firms. Today I am voting for reform. We need to send a strong message to working and retired Americans, to investors, and to the executives and auditors of publicly held companies that this Senate will act to restore accountability and faith in our free market system. The Senate's bipartisan accounting reform bill will do just that. First, the bill limits its scope to publicly held companies. The bill does not attempt to federalize accounting oversight. Instead, it strengthens the Federal Government's historic role of regulating publicly traded companies and their auditors. The State boards of accountancy will continue their important role of regulating accountants who audit private companies. Second, the legislation establishes a strong, independent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The board is empowered to set auditing, quality control, and ethics standards, to inspect registered accounting firms, to conduct investigations, and to take disciplinary actions. As a check on the board's power, its decisions are subject to oversight and review by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. Third, this bill seeks to ensure that auditors are fulfilling their public duties by ending potential conflicts of interest. Large accounting firms typically provide both audit and nonaudit services to their public company clients. The legislation would prohibit auditors from performing specific nonauditing services, unless those services are approved on a case-by-case basis by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. All legal nonaudit services would need to be approved by a public company's audit committee. Fourth, the Senate legislation demands that corporate leaders take greater responsibility. The bill requires that chief executive officers, CEOs, and chief financial officers, CFOs, certify financial reports, outlaws fraud and deception by managers in the auditing process, prevents CEOs and CFOs from benefitting from misstatements made in their financial reports, and prohibits corporate decisionmakers from selling company stock at a time when their employees are prohibited from doing so. Fifth, the Senate bill would limit the growing pressure and conflicts of interest that affect the independence of stock analysts. Just as investors need to know that a company's financial reports are accurate, so should investors expect objective opinions from stock analysts. Finally, the bill would authorize additional funding for the SEC and would establish independent sources of funding for the new oversight board and FASB. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will support full funding for the SEC. We need to work to prevent future scandals. We also need stronger criminal laws and penalties to address fraud and abuse by corporate executives and auditors. During last week's debate I voted for three amendments, including an amendment by Senator Leahy, that would close gaps in current law. I know some of my constituents in the accounting and business communities are concerned by a few of the steps in the Senate bill. As I talk to certified public accountants in my State, they have emphasized that it is critical to encourage greater competition in the public accounting field. I agree investors would be better served by more competition. The bill requires the Comptroller General, in consultation with various agencies and organizations, to identify the factors that have led to the consolidation of public accounting firms since 1989, the impact of consolidation, and ways to address it. While a study does not guarantee action, I look forward to reviewing its findings. It is time to restore confidence in corporate financial statements. It is time to hold people accountable who violate the public trust. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am hoping we will have an agreement and I will be able to offer my amendment shortly, so we can have a time agreement tonight and hopefully move to a vote on this quickly. To save time, I will now begin a discussion of the amendment I will offer. I hope to shortly send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Boxer. Every day since the attacks of September 11, the men and women of our Armed Forces have been working overtime--often in hostile, dangerous environments--to protect our citizens and to secure the freedoms and values that we cherish. This Department of Defense authorization bill will ensure they have the equipment and resources they need to protect us. Surprisingly, as the women of our military fight for our freedoms overseas, they are actually denied some of those freedoms during their service. Here at home, women have the right to choose. They have constitutionally protected access to safe and legal reproductive health services. But that is not the case for military women serving overseas. So I will this evening offer an amendment to ensure that military personnel serving overseas have access to safe and legal abortion services. As many of you know, I have offered this amendment for the past several years, and I continue to urge my colleagues to support these efforts. Under current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their country--and female military dependents--are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right to choose--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 all women in this country. This amendment does not--and let me stress does not--require any direct Federal funding of abortion related services. My amendment would require these women to pay for any costs associated with an abortion in a military facility. In addition, this 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 moral, religious or ethical objections to abortion not to participate. This amendment would not change or alter conscience clauses for military medical personnel. This is an important women's health amendment. Women should be able to depend on their base hospital and military health care providers to meet all of their health care needs. To single out abortion-related services could jeopardize a women's health. Opponents of this amendment will argue that the military does now ensure access for women. But under current practices, a woman who requires abortion related services can seek the approval of her commanding officer for transport back to the United States. Once in the United States, she can seek these services at her own expense, but she is not afforded medical 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. She must seek and receive the approval of her commanding officer with no guarantee that this information will be kept confidential. 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 countries. From 1995 until 2000, the previous administration and former Secretary of Defense Cohen supported this amendment. They argued it was an important protection for military personnel and dependents. They did not assume there would be any difficulty carrying out this requirement. They were confident that the Defense Department would be able to determine the cost of these services as well as ensure the availability of providers. The Department of Defense has been on record in the past in support of this amendment by stating that it was unfair for female service members serving in overseas location to be denied their constitutional right to the full range of reproductive health care. Despite the support of the previous administration, opponents still argued that allowing privately funded abortions in overseas military facilities was somehow beyond the abilities of the Department. Opponents have argued that there is no way to determine the costs of these services, despite the fact that private hospitals must determine per-unit costs of per-procedure costs, every single day. Opponents also argued that the military might have to contract for these services and assume liability for these contractors. This is no different from what the Department does for all military personnel. If a neurosurgeon or highly trained specialist is required to meet the needs of our military personnel, the Department can and does contract for these services and of course insures the quality of these services by assuming the liability. I remind my colleagues that prior to 1988, the Department of Defense did allow privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities. Clearly, it can be done. I should also point out that it must be done today in certain circumstances. Under current law, the Department allows for privately funded abortions in the case of rape or incest. It also may pay for abortions in case of life endangerment. For our opponents to argue that the Department cannot handle or does not want to be responsible for providing privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities, is to argue that the Department cannot protect military personnel and dependents who have been raped, who are a victim of incest, or whose life is endangered. Is this what we are saying to the estimated 100,000 women who live on military bases overseas? Regardless of one's view on abortion, it is simply wrong to place women at risk. 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. This amendment has been supported by: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American 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. These organizations support this amendment because of its importance to women's health care. I would also like to read a letter I recently received from retired General Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman three-star general. Before she retired in June 2000, she was the highest ranking female officer of her time. She writes: Dear Senators Snowe and Murray: I am writing to express my support of your efforts to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to ensure that servicewomen and military dependents stationed overseas have the ability to obtain abortion services in U.S. military medical facilities using their own, private funds. The importance of access to abortions for military women has not been discussed in public media very often, since many of the issues that related to non-military women also are a part of the social and medical environment of military women. However, some distinctions do exist, making it imperative that our soldiers have access to safe, confidential abortion services at U.S. military hospitals overseas. Let me just relate an experience of one of my soldiers about 15 years ago. I was a battalion commander of an intelligence battalion in Augsburg, Germany from 1986 until 1988. One day a non commissioned officer (NCO), who was one of the battalion's senior women, came into my office and asked for permission to take a day off later in the week and to have the same day off for a young soldier in the battalion. She said the soldier was pregnant and wanted an abortion--yet had no way to have an abortion at the U.S. Army medical facility in Augsburg. She had gotten information about a German clinic in another city, and they were going there for the procedure. The soldier did not have enough money to return to the USA for the abortion. Further, she did not want to have to tell her predicament to her chain of command in order to get the time and other assistance to go to the States. I told the NCO to go with her and to let me know when they had returned. Later the NCO told me that the experience had been both mortifying and painful. . . . no pain killer of any sort was administered for the procedure; the modesty of this soldier and the other women at the clinic had been violated (due to different cultural expectation about nudity); and neither she nor the soldier understood German, and the instructions were given in almost unintelligible English. I believe that they were able to get some follow up care for the soldier at the U.S. Army medical facility. But it was a searing experience for all of us--that in a very vulnerable time, this American who was serving her country overseas could not count on the Army to give her the care she needed. During that same time frame, and in the early 1990's when I was a brigade commander of an intelligence brigade in Hawaii, I noticed that there were Army doctors who displayed posters which were extremely disapproving of abortion . . . creating a climate of intimidation for anyone who might want to discuss what is a legal option. Since the doctors are officers and far out-rank enlisted soldiers, and since the soldiers have no way to choose which doctor they see on sick call, it was only with good luck that a young soldier might be seen by someone who would treat her decision with the respect she deserved. What makes the situation of a soldier different from that of a civilian woman? She is subject to the orders of the officers appointed over her. Every hour of her day belongs to the U.S. Army, and she must have her seniors' permission to leave her place of duty. She makes very low pay and so relies on the help of friends and family to pay for travel for medical care that is not given by the Army. Of all the reasons we lose soldiers we lose soldiers from their place of duty (for training, injuries, temporary duty elsewhere, and other reasons), pregnancy accounts for only 6% of all reasons for soldier absence. Yet, this feature of women (that they sometimes become pregnant) is offer cited as an attribute that makes them less desirable as soldiers. While I believe that the difficult decision to end a pregnancy should be completely individual, the institution cannot have it both ways: to deny women safe and reasonable access to abortion (in a world in which there is no 100% effective birth control), and at the same time to complain that women are pregnant. I commend your efforts to remove this irrational and harmful barrier to the health and well-being of our soldiers serving America. Madam President, I could not have said it better myself. Our female military personnel deserve better than what they are getting. As we send out troops into the war on terrorism to protect our freedoms, we should ensure that female military personnel are not asked to sacrifice their rights and protections as well. I recognize the urgency in passing the fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization bill. It provides important support for our military personnel and infrastructure. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for their efforts to move this legislation. I stand ready to support whatever measures we need to consider to ensure that our military is ready to respond to this new world threat. I only ask that female military personnel and their dependents be given the support they deserve when serving in overseas military locations. I yield the floor at this time. Again, I will offer my amendment as soon as we have a time agreement. Hopefully, that can be very soon because I know we want to vote on this and move on.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. I see my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, a cosponsor of this amendment, who has worked diligently with me. I ask how much time she needs.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Maine as much time as she may consume.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3927 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment with me--Senator Snowe, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Boxer--and remind my colleagues that what we are simply asking for is that the women who serve us in military uniforms overseas have access to safe, legal, reproductive health care systems. This system today does not let them have that. They are serving in the Philippines or Germany or wherever we have asked them to go, and they want access to affordable health care. I would remind my colleagues that it is not just the women who are in the services; it is the dependents of these who are in the services, as well, who are being denied. They have to go to their superior officer to ask permission--usually an older person, usually a man--for leave to come back to the United States. They have to wait for transport on a C-17 or other military equipment, which could take time, putting their health in jeopardy. They have to be subjected to giving up their privacy rights because, most likely, they will have to tell their officer why they want to come back to the United States. So they are putting their life and their health and their health care at risk. And these are women who are serving us overseas. All we are asking with this amendment is that they have the ability to go to a military hospital--where we have health care equipment, where we have safe equipment, where we have good doctors--to pay for their own health care for which they are asking. I have heard over and over again that these are taxpayer expenses. The women will pay for the services. We are not asking for them to have taxpayer support. Mr. President, this makes complete sense. It is common sense. We should treat our military women who are serving us as equal citizens to the women who live in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment tomorrow morning. I am more than willing to yield back my time. I see our whip is on the floor. And I see Senator Brownback is in the Chamber. I am willing to yield back our time if he is ready to end this debate as well.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Maine for her excellent statement, and I yield to my colleague from North Carolina such time as he should consume.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, and then we will go to the other side.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask the Senator from New Jersey how much time he wants.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today I rise and join my colleagues Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, and Wellstone in introducing legislation to improve protections for workers and consumers against a known carcinogen: asbestos. The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to ban the substance by 2005. Most Americans believe that asbestos has already been banned. People have this misconception in part because EPA tried to ban it in 1989, and the ban was well publicized. But what wasn't so publicized was the fact that in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's ban, and the first Bush Administration didn't appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing ones were not. People also believe asbestos has been banned because the mineral has been heavily regulated, and some uses are now prohibited. But the sweeping ban that EPA worked for ten years to put in place never went into effect. As a result, products such as asbestos clothing, pipeline wrap, roofing felt, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-cement shingle, disc brake pads, gaskets and roof coatings still contain asbestos today. Had EPA's ban gone into effect, these products would no longer be allowed to contain this deadly substance. This morning I met with three people who wish there had been better protections in place against the dangers of asbestos years ago. I had the honor of meeting Mrs. Susan Vento, the wife of the beloved Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota who died from a disease caused by asbestos in October of 2000 at the age of 60. Representative Vento was exposed to asbestos when he worked in factories in St. Paul during college. I also had the privilege of meeting Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, the son of the legendary Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt who also died in 2000 of mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal organs caused by asbestos. Like so many others who served in the Navy, Admiral Zumwalt was exposed to asbestos during his military service. In addition, I had the pleasure to meet Mr. Brian Harvey, a former English teacher from Washington State University and a survivor of the deadly disease. Like Congressman Vento, Mr. Harvey was exposed to asbestos working summers during college, only Mr. Harvey worked in a timber mill in Shelton, WA instead of in factories in St. Paul. Mr. Harvey received aggressive treatment from the University of Washington, and his triumph over the deadly disease offers all of us hope. You don't have to tell Mrs. Vento, Lt. Colonel Zumwalt or Mr. Harvey that asbestos can kill, or that it hasn't been banned. Unfortunately, they already know about asbestos. I have also heard from other Washington State residents about the devastating effects that asbestos exposure can have on people's lives. I'd like to take a moment to tell you about an e-mail I received from two of my constituents, Mr. Charles Barber and his wife, Ms. Karen Mirante, who live in Seattle. They wrote to me last year to express support for my efforts on asbestos. Mr. Barber and Ms. Mirante had just recently learned that both of their fathers were diagnosed with mesothelioma, the same deadly disease that took the lives of Congressman Vento and Admiral Zumwalt. Mr. Barber's father, Rudolph ``Rudy'' Barber, was a World War II veteran who worked at Todd shipyards. Then he worked for Boeing for 35 years building airplanes. According to his son, when Rudy served on a troopship during the war he recalled sleeping in a bunk under asbestos- coated pipes which flaked so badly that he had to shake out his sleeping bag every morning. A few years after retiring from Boeing, Rudy Barber started to develop breathing problems. First he was told by one doctor that his disease could be cured with surgery, but it wasn't. After undergoing surgery, another doctor diagnosed him with mesothelioma. After a year and a half of suffering and of enduring repeated radiation and chemotherapy treatments, Mr. Barber died on April 28, 2002. According to his family, he never complained and continued to help his family and neighbors with maintenance and farm work for as long as he could. Karen Mirante's father, Fred Mirante, was a retired truck driver who was active in labor issues. While the source of Mr. Mirante's exposure to asbestos is unknown, it is likely that he breathed in asbestos from brakes when he worked on cars. After receiving experimental therapies for the disease and after a two and one-half year battle, he died on June 4, 2002. June 16, last Sunday, was the first Father's Day that Mr. Barber and Ms. Mirante had to spend without their cherished, hard- working dads. I mention Bruce Vento, Admiral Zumwalt, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Barber and Mr. Mirante to demonstrate that asbestos disease strikes all different types of people in different professions who were exposed to asbestos at some point in their lives. Asbestos knows no boundaries. It is still in thousands of schools and buildings throughout the country, and is still being used in some consumer products. I first became interested in this issue because, like most people, I thought asbestos had been banned. But in 1999, the Seattle Post- Intelligencer starting running stories about a disturbing trend in the small mining town of Libby, Montana. Residents there suffer from high rates of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. These findings prompted Montana Senator Max Baucus to ask EPA to investigate. The agency found that the vermiculite mine near Libby, which operated from the 1920s until 1990, is full of tremolite asbestos. EPA is still working to clean up Libby, which is now a Superfund site. W.R. Grace, the company which ran the mine, had evidence of the harmful health effects of its product, but did not warn workers, town residents or consumers. Instead, the product was shipped to over 300 sites nationally for processing and then was used to make products such as home insulation and soil additives. EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, have determined that 22 sites are still contaminated today, including one in Spokane, WA. At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed, waste rock left over from the expansion process was given away for free, and people used it in their yards, driveways and gardens. During its investigation into sites around the country which processed vermiculite from Libby, ATSDR discovered a picture taken of two darling little boys, Justin and Tim Jorgensen, climbing on waste rock given out by Western Minerals, Inc. in St. Paul, MN sometime in the late 1970s. According to W.R. Grace records, this rock contained between 2 and 10 percent tremolite asbestos. This rock produced airborne asbestos concentrations 135 times higher than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's current standard for workers. Thankfully, neither Justin nor Tim has shown any signs of disease, but their risks of developing asbestos diseases, which have latency periods of 15 to 40 years, are increased from their childhood exposures. People may still today be exposing themselves to harmful amounts of asbestos in vermiculite. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may have insulation made with harmful minerals from Libby. And EPA has also tested agricultural products, soil conditioners and fertilizers, made with vermiculite, and determined that some workers may have been exposed to dangerous concentrations of tremolite asbestos. As I learned more about Libby, and how asbestos has ended up in products by accident, I was shocked to learn that asbestos is still being used in products on purpose. While some specific uses have been banned, the EPA's more sweeping ban was never put into effect because of an asbestos industry backed lawsuit. As a result, new uses of asbestos were banned, but most existing ones were not. Asbestos is still used today to make roofing products, gaskets, brakes and other products. In 2001 the U.S. consumed 13,000 metric tons of it. Asbestos is still entering the product stream in this country, despite its known dangers to human health. In contrast, asbestos has been banned in these 20 countries: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Now it is time for the United States to ban asbestos, too. According to EPA, 27 million Americans had significant exposure to the material on the job between 1940 and 1980. It is time for the sad legacy of asbestos disease we have witnessed during the 20th century to come to an end. I want to ensure our government does all it can to minimize future suffering and death caused by this substance. That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002. The legislation has four main parts. First and foremost, this bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 13 years ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The bill requires EPA to ban it by 2005. Like the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material available: if there is no substitute material available and EPA determines the exemption won't pose an unreasonable risk of injury to public health or the environment. Second, the bill requires EPA to conduct a pubic education campaign about the risks of asbestos products. Within 6 months of passage, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission will begin educating people about how to safely handle insulation made with vermiculite. I believe the government needs to warn people that their insulation, if made with vermiculite, may be contaminated with asbestos. Home owners and workers may be unknowingly exposing themselves to asbestos when they conduct routine maintenance near this insulation. While EPA has agreed to remove vermiculite insulation from homes in Libby, the agency currently has no plans to do this nation-wide. The legislation also requires EPA to conduct a survey to determine which foreign and domestic products being consumed in the United States today have been made with asbestos. There is no solid, up-to-date information about which products contain it, although EPA has estimated that as many as 3,000 products still do. The survey will provide the foundation for a broader education campaign so consumers and workers will know how to handle as safely as possible asbestos products that were purchased before the ban goes into effect. Third, the legislation requires funding to improve treatment for asbestos diseases. The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, working through the National Institutes of Health, to ``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.'' The Ban Asbestos in America Act requires the creation of a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease. If there had been an asbestos disease tracking system in place, public health officials would have detected the health problems in Libby much sooner, and may have saved lives. In addition, the bill authorizes funding for 7 mesothelioma treatment centers nationwide to improve treatments for and awareness of this fatal cancer. As was the case with Mr. Harvey, who received treatment from the University of Washington, early detection and proper treatment make the difference between life and death. This bill authorizes $500,000 for each center for five years. This means more mesothelioma patients will receive treatments that can prolong their lives. In response to the EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, EPA committed to create a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and other durable fibers. However, because of insufficient resources, EPA has now narrowed the focus of the Panel to address issues surrounding only the six regulated forms of asbestos. The bill requires EPA to expand its Blue Ribbon Panel on Asbestos to address issues beyond those surrounding the six regulated forms of asbestos. The Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 expands the Blue Ribbon Panel's scope to include nonasbestiform asbestos and other durable fibers. The Panel shall include participation by the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In its response to the Inspector General, EPA was originally planning for the Panel to address implementation of and grant programs under Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, creation of a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Pollutants under the Clean Air Act for contaminant asbestos, and other legislative and regulatory options for protecting public health. The Administration also promised for the Panel to review the feasibility of establishing a durable fibers testing program within EPA, options to improve protections against exposure to asbestos in asbestos-containing products in buildings, and public education. The Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 requires the Panel to address these subjects as EPA originally planned. The legislation also requires the Panel to explore the need to establish across federal agencies a uniform asbestos standard and a protocol for detecting and measuring asbestos. Currently, asbestos is regulated under at least 11 statutes. There are different standards within EPA and across federal agencies, and agencies rely on different protocols to detect and measure the substance. This has led to widespread confusion for the public, for example, in 2000, there were reports that there was asbestos in crayons. There has also been confusion surrounding asbestos exposure in New York City following the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. And in Libby, the EPA Inspector General's report cited split jurisdiction and multiple standards as one of the reasons EPA didn't do a better job of protecting the people of Libby from exposure to asbestos in the first place. The Blue Ribbon Panel will also review the current state of the science on the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other durable fibers, whether the current definition of asbestos containing material should be modified throughout the Code of Federal Regulations, and current research on and technologies for disposal of asbestos- containing products and contaminant asbestos products. The bill leaves up to the discretion of the Panel whether it will expand its scope to include manmade fibers, such as ceramic and carbon fibers. The Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations are due 2 years after enactment of the Act. Our Federal agencies need to do a better job of coordinating and working together on asbestos, which will mean less confusion for the public and improved protection for everyone. The toll that asbestos has taken on people's lives in this country is staggering. And while Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, Wellstone, and I continue to mourn the loss of Congressman Bruce Vento, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, more than 200 people from Libby and thousands of others, today our message is one of hope. Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, seniors in Washington State cannot get the medical care they need, and I have come to the floor today to explain the problem and to offer a solution that has the support of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and patients throughout Washington State. While many States are facing challenges in health care, the problems are especially severe in my home State, where providers are struggling to care for patients in a system that is falling down around them. There are many reasons for this crisis, but one of the most fundamental is the unfair way in which Medicare reimburses doctors and providers. Just look at what happens to the seniors I represent. They have spent their lives working hard, raising their families, and paying into the Medicare system. In fact, they have paid the same percentage of their income into Medicare as Americans from every State. But when they retire, they find that their access to health care depends upon where they happen to live. If they live in Washington State, they can expect far less access and far fewer benefits than seniors in other States. That is because Medicare reimbursement rates vary State by State. Today, those reimbursement rates don't reflect the true cost of providing care, and they are penalizing patients and providers throughout Washington. Madam President, in recent years, we have lost many physicians and clinics, especially in our rural areas. These unfair Medicare rates are making the problem even worse by encouraging doctors to retire early, to move, or to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. At the same time, these rates make it even harder for us to attract the new doctors, nurses, and health care professionals that we need to fill the growing void. As a result, seniors have to spend all day long on the phone trying to find a doctor who will see them. More often than not, they are told the doctor is not accepting any new Medicare patients. Today, I want to explain the problem, show the impact it is having on the people of my State, and talk about a legislative proposal that Senator Cantwell and I have introduced to give Medicare patients the equity they deserve. For years, the health care challenges of Washington State have been getting worse, just like in the Presiding Officer's State. More and more patients don't have insurance and families don't have enough insurance. There is a shortage of health care professionals. That is causing problems, especially in our rural areas. There are many reasons for these difficulties, including our growing retired population, the rising cost of medical care and prescription drugs, as we all know, and paperwork and insurance. In January, Medicare payments to doctors were slashed by 5.4 percent nationwide. Because many private insurers base their rates on Medicare payments, providers cannot shift the costs as they could in the past. In addition, Washington State is facing a budget shortfall and that has affected funding for Medicaid. As we in Washington State try to address those national challenges, we are starting out several steps behind. That is because Washington State receives far below the national average in Medicare payments per patient. As this chart behind me shows, Medicare rates vary by State. Shown here are the average Medicare payments per beneficiary. These figures come from the Federal agency that manages the program--the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS. These figures are for fiscal year 2000. I would love to show more recent numbers, but I understand CMS has decided they are no longer going to calculate or distribute these figures. Looking at this chart, you can see that these figures vary dramatically between States. At the top is Louisiana. They get, on average, $7,336 per Medicare patient. At the bottom is Iowa, which receives less than half that, just $3,053. When you include the District of Columbia, Washington State, my State, ranks 42nd in the Nation in Medicare reimbursement beneficiary. The Presiding Officer's State of Arkansas ranks right here at about 28th in the Nation. It is well below the average of what most States get. The national average is $5,490. Washington State, my State, receives $3,921 per patient. In fact, in New York, a doctor can be reimbursed at twice the rate as Washington State for some procedures. That affects the stability of our doctors, hospitals, clinics, and home health care providers. Over the lifetime of a Medicare beneficiary, it can mean thousands of dollars less spent on their care in Washington. These regional inequities have resulted in vastly different levels of care and access to care. For example, in Florida, up here at the top of the chart, a lot of Medicare beneficiaries have access to prescription drugs and prescription eyeglasses in their Medicare Plus Choice program. In Washington State, while there may be some willing providers, there are no open plans available that offer prescription drug coverage, much less eyeglasses, because of our low reimbursements. Overall, this is about fairness and access to health care. So I want to point out four reasons this morning why this system is unfair to patients in my State and the other States that rank at the bottom in reimbursements. First, Washington State seniors pay the same rate into Medicare as everyone else. During their working years, every American pays the same percent of their income into the Medicare system, no matter where they live. During retirement, every American pays the exact same dollar amount in part B premiums, no matter which State they live in. Washington seniors pay the same, but they do not get the same access to care, and that is not fair. Second, the reimbursement rates do not reflect the true costs of providing care. The cost of treating a patient does not magically drop when you cross the border into my home State of Washington. The health care pressures we are facing do not stop at the State line, but payments do, and that is forcing doctors to choose between helping patients and staying in business. That is not fair. Third, health care today is affected by national trends that require more equal reimbursement rates throughout the country. Two of those trends are the shrinking pool of available doctors and the growing need for expensive medical equipment. There are a limited number of medical professionals, and every State is now competing to attract them. Because Medicare rates are so much lower in my State, we cannot offer the same salaries or the same recruitment incentives. Hospitals face this challenge when it comes to medical technology. Today, health care relies increasingly on sophisticated expensive technology. An MRI machine costs the same amount for a hospital in Florida as a hospital in Washington State, but the only difference is the hospital in Washington State receives far less money from Medicare to pay for it. Overall, that means our State cannot attract the providers or buy the equipment that other States can, and that is not fair. I recently heard from doctors with Olympia Radiation Oncology in Olympia, WA, and they said: While the cost of state-of-the-art equipment and personnel remains the same from state to state, the reimbursement is allowing appropriately reimbursed states to maintain a higher quality of care, while Washington State is struggling to deliver basic care. . . . If this problem is not addressed in a timely manner, we will continue to have a migration of young people and businesses out of our state, and we will be left with an aging population with suboptimal care. My State is being penalized for doing the right things in health care, and that is not fair. Washington State has a long tradition of providing high-quality, low-cost health care, but today that innovative tradition is being used against us by the Medicare system. Other States spend more than twice what we spend and end up with less healthy outcomes while we are being punished for providing excellent care at low costs, and that is not fair. This is an issue of fairness. Our seniors pay the same into the system and pay the same Part B premiums, but we do not get the same access or benefits. Our doctors have to choose between staying in business or accepting Medicare patients because Medicare payments do not reflect the true costs. Our State is competing with every other State to attract doctors and to buy medical equipment, but we do not have the same resources as Medicare provides to other States. Finally, our State is being penalized for providing highly efficient, high-quality health care at low costs. Any way we look at it, the system is not fair to the people I represent. This difference in reimbursement rates would not be a big deal if it were just a bureaucratic formula on a piece of paper, but we are talking about whether or not people can see a doctor, and I can tell you, unfair Medicare rates are hurting patients in Washington State in several ways. Many doctors are leaving our State, retiring early, or even refusing to accept Medicare patients. Nationwide a study by the American Academy of Family Physicians found that 17 percent of family doctors are not accepting new Medicare patients. The problem is even more severe in my State. The Washington State Medical Association conducted a survey last November and found that 57 percent of physicians who responded said they are either limiting their Medicare patients or dropping all Medicare patients from their practice. Many experts believe that study does not even show the full extent of the problem. Other doctors are just leaving our State altogether. Since 1998, the number of Washington State Medical Association members leaving our State has increased by 31 percent. To illustrate this problem, the Washington State Medical Association took out print advertisements in Washington State newspapers. And they say: Eastern Washington, my State, has a thriving medical community. You will find them in places like Boise, ID and Eugene, OR. It's getting to the point where Washington doctors can't afford to stay in Washington. Administrative costs are out of control, reimbursement rates don't cover services, medical practices are shutting down. The fact is Medicaid and Medicare are grossly underfunded and private payers are setting their rates according to public programs. Now what does this mean to the patient? It means that even if you have great health insurance, the underfunding of public programs puts your personal physician's practice in jeopardy. So in other words, all the insurance in the world isn't going to help when your family doctor packs up and leaves the State. This is a pretty good description of what is happening in my State. When doctors leave our State or retire early, their patients have to look for a new doctor who will accept Medicare, and according to my State's medical association, each time one physician leaves the Medicare Program, 2,000 patients have to find a new caregiver. Across Washington State, seniors are experiencing the frustration of spending all day on the phone and still not being able to find a doctor who will accept them just because they are on Medicare. Many articles have been published in my State detailing the trouble our seniors are having finding a doctor, and I have included many of these articles on my Web site. But I want to share one example with my colleagues. A few months ago in Sequim, WA, a small, rural community, an older woman came up to me in a parking lot with a cast on her arm. She told me when she broke her arm, she went to the doctor. He put her cast on and told her to come back in 4 weeks. In the interim, her doctor determined he could no longer take Medicare patients. So when she went back 4 weeks later, she found out her doctor would not see her because he was not accepting Medicare patients. There she was in this parking lot, standing there asking me how she was supposed to get her cast off. That is how bad it has gotten. These terrible examples are becoming more common every day in my State because unfair Medicare rates are encouraging doctors to leave my State or close their practices to Medicare patients. But it is not just a problem for people on Medicare. It ends up having an impact on everyone. When a patient cannot find a doctor, a patient ends up in the emergency room. The ER is really the only place where a patient cannot be turned away. Unfortunately, by the time they make it to the ER, their symptoms, which could have been addressed easily, have now developed into more serious medical problems. James Newman is an emergency room doctor in Kennewick, WA. He is the chairman of education for the Benton-Franklin County Medical Society. Dr. Newman has seen patients go into cardiac arrest in the emergency room because they did not get care early enough. Often those patients had symptoms for weeks, but they could not find a primary care doctor, so they end up going into cardiac arrest in the emergency room, and that is outrageous. Dr. Newman says that once a patient is ready to leave the ER, he cannot find a doctor who will continue to care for them. So Dr. Newman, who is board certified in emergency medicine and has been practicing for 10 years, spends much of his time trying to find doctors for his patients, sometimes begging and borrowing favors just to get his patients the care they need, and he ends up having to practice beyond the normal scope of his job. For example, he might give a patient an 8-month prescription for hypertension medicine because he knows that patient will not be able to find a primary care doctor to refill a shorter prescription. Even worse, Dr. Newman ends up seeing the same patients again and again in his emergency room because they cannot find a doctor to care for them. That is how bad things have gotten in my State. Remember, the cost of providing care in emergency rooms is much higher than preventing those problems in the first place. This problem impacts everyone who needs emergency care. Our emergency rooms are overcrowded. According to a recent study by the Washington chapter of the American College of Emergency Room Physicians, 91 percent of small hospitals and 100 percent of large hospitals reported overcrowding. In addition, 76 percent of large hospitals reported overcrowding 2 to 3 times a week or more often. In addition to problems in the emergency room, these unfair rates also make it hard for us to recruit the new physicians we need to replace those who are moving and retiring early. I want to share with the Senate what Mike Glenn, the CEO of Olympic Medical Center in Port Angles, WA had to say on recruitment. As he tries to attract doctors, he is finding that hospitals in other States are offering twice the salaries he can offer. He says: Doctors in nearly every field are either fleeing our state to earn higher salaries, or staying but with growing levels of dissatisfaction and resentment. Physician headhunter firms have targeted our state as fertile ground to find doctors willing to pack up and leave for positions in states benefitting from more Medicare dollars. If this situation is not quickly remedied, many Washington communities will face critical shortages of physicians. Imagine a trip to a hospital Emergency Room without qualified ER doctors to provide life saving treatment, or without anesthesiologists to staff the Operating Room. This is not a doomsday scenario, but a logical consequence of the current Medicare reimbursement system. There is no denying that unfair Medicare rates are hurting patients and providers in Washington State. Doctors are leaving our State or refusing to see new Medicare patients. As a result, seniors cannot find doctors who will accept them. Too often, those seniors end up in the emergency room in much worse condition. We cannot even dig ourselves out of this hole because the low reimbursement rates make it hard for us to recruit new doctors to Washington State It is going to get worse. As I mentioned earlier, in January, Medicare payments to doctors were cut by more than 5 percent. They are expected to continue to decline in the next 3 years for a total decrease of 17 percent by 2005. That is untenable. We need to do something about it. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration does not acknowledge the severity of the problem. In April, Tom Scully, the administrator of CMS, told Washington seniors that ``access was not yet a serious problem.'' On Wednesday, I asked him about it at a hearing, and he said basically the same thing: That it will be a problem, but it is not a serious problem today. They do not get it. CMS is not going to fix this. The White House is not going to fix this. The Office of Management and Budget is not going to fix this. If we are going to fix this problem, we are going to have to do it right in the Senate. That is why Senator Cantwell and I have introduced S. 2568, the MediFair Act. The MediFair Act is designed to restore access and fairness to Medicare, and--in the process--help seniors, the disabled and all of our citizens. This proposal is based on what I have heard from doctors, nurses, hospitals and patients over the past year. Our bill has been endorsed by the Washington State Medical Association, the Washington State Hospital Association, and the Washington Nurses Association. On the House side, companion legislation has been introduced. It has the support of lead sponsor Adam Smith along with Representatives Dicks, McDermott, Baird, Inslee, and Larsen. The MediFair Act is a starting point for eliminating the regional inequities in Medicare. The bill will make the system more fair. It will ensure that seniors are not penalized when they choose to retire in the State of Washington. It will encourage more doctors to accept Medicare patients. It will make it easier for us to recruit new doctors to our State. And it will help our hospitals and home health agencies get the resources they need to care for our patients. Let me explain my bill. The MediFair Act works to bring States up from the bottom of the reimbursement list. The legislation would ensure that every State receives at least the national average of per-patient spending. The bill does not affect States that currently receive the national average or just above the national average. Further, our bill promotes efficient health care and healthy outcomes. This is an area where we really need to correct the incentives. Here is how Mike Glenn of the Olympic Medical Center put it: The concern is not over 42 states receiving better Medicare reimbursement than Washington, but over what is rewarded and what is not. Washington hospitals and physicians are proud of our record of pioneering high quality, cost effective medicine. And we do so by focusing on treatments that can help, while avoiding overuse of treatments that cannot. This style of medicine yields equal if not better patient outcomes. Our reward for this is to be paid a fraction of our actual costs. To make matters worse, states who do not embrace our style of cost effective care continue to demand and receive twice as much funding from Medicare for no discernable difference in patient outcomes. The gap between the ``haves'' and the ``have-not States'' is growing. If Medicare does not change this--through action like the MediFair bill--Washington hospitals in Medicare dependent areas will enter into a death spiral until they are forced to close their doors. So our bill promotes the right things: efficient healthcare and healthy outcomes. It will force States that receive inordinately high payments to improve the quality of their healthcare. Payments would be reduced to those States, which do not realize healthy outcomes--such as extending life expectancy or reducing rates of diabetes or heart disease. Simply put, our bill finally holds states accountable for the health care they provide with Medicare dollars. Before I close, I want to answer just a few questions about my bill. Some are concerned about the possible cost of fixing the inequities in Medicare. I am, too. But I also know that there is a high cost to doing nothing as seniors lose their doctors and their access to healthcare. There is a cost to the community when seniors end up in-and-out of the emergency room on a regular basis. And of course, there is a human cost to the patients and their families. Another question I have heard is: How will this bill attract support from Senators from high reimbursement states? First, States that are using Medicare dollars efficiently and effectively don't need to be concerned. Either way, I recognize that not everyone will embrace this specific legislative proposal. I want to find a solution that will help seniors get the care they need, and I recognize that there may be different ways to approach the problem. This MediFair bill is a starting point. It's a way to draw attention to the problem and get folks to look at various solutions. What matters is fixing the problem, so I welcome ideas and suggestions from anyone who wants to help us solve this problem. Finally, some of my colleagues may wonder how this bill fits into our efforts to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, which is something I have worked to pass for several years. We have introduced the ``Medicare Outpatient Prescription Drug Act of 2002,'' of which I am a cosponsor. Our work on prescription drugs should not keep us from fixing this fundamental problem. After all, a prescription drug benefit isn't worth anything if there aren't any doctors to write out a prescription. So both issues are critical, and we need to move forward on both of them. We need to fix these problems now--before another senior in my State loses her doctor--before another patient goes into cardiac arrest in the emergency room because he could not find a doctor when his symptoms first appeared. The system is unfair, and as Dr. Sam Cullison said, ``Sadly, it is the Medicare patients themselves who are paying the price for this inequity.'' We can restore fairness to Medicare. We can help patients get the medical access they need, and the MediFair Act is part of that process. I invite my colleagues to talk with Senator Cantwell and me about how we can move this or any other proposal forward. I conclude by saying that this is a matter of critical national attention, and I am going to work every single day to educate our fellow Senators, who are also impacted. We have to do something about this. I ask unanimous consent that several articles be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the estate tax is bad for businesses. It is bad for workers and new job creation. And it is bad for our communities who are watching their local, family-owned businesses get swallowed up by large corporations. Therefore, I wish I could have supported the estate tax repeal amendment debated today. For the last 7 years, I have worked to address the problems with the estate tax. I introduced legislation in 1995 to reform the estate tax, and I voted for the 1997 tax bill that made it easier for family farms and small businesses to transfer their assets to the next generation. In 2000, I cosponsored legislation by Senator Jon Kyl and former Senator Bob Kerrey to repeal the estate tax. I voted for similar legislation later that year. I believe the Kyl-Kerrey bill made a critical contribution to the estate tax debate. It was a middle ground that essentially substituted an estate tax when an asset is transferred at death with a capital gains tax when an asset is sold. In my opinion, that is a fair approach. For me, estate tax repeal is about protecting and creating jobs, strengthening locally owned businesses, and protecting the environment. When a business owner spends thousands of dollars each year on estate tax planning, that is less money the owner invests in employees and the business. When family businesses are sold, they are often purchased by large corporations, not by other locally owned businesses. When timber lots or farms are sold, there is a good chance that land will be eaten up by strip malls or other development, and not kept as open space. For the reasons I just outlined, a vote for repeal would have been the easy road to travel today. My constituents did not elect me to the Senate to take the easy road. They elected me to make tough decisions. As much as I believe the estate tax is a bad tax, I believe passionately that we have a responsibility to balance the government's books. Just as the estate tax hurts businesses and jobs, so does chronic deficit spending by the Federal Government. During the last 2 days, some of my colleagues have argued for permanent estate tax repeal. Not one of them has told me how we will pay for it. Last year's tax cut blew open the budget while not making estate tax repeal a high priority. Our budget problems were made worse by the recession and September 11 terrorist attacks. Clearly, we are in a different place than we were 2 years ago. The country deserves a debate on how we balance estate tax repeal--or other aspects of last year's tax law--with our other obligations. We must address our homeland security needs, whether it is strengthening airline and port security, improving operations at our borders, or making sure our troops in the field have the training and resources they need. Our constituents are also demanding action on issues that were important prior to September 11. Health care is a crucial issue for individuals and families, and to the businesses who support estate tax repeal. In addition, we cannot lose sight of long-term investments in education, job training and infrastructure. Given what is at stake, we do a disservice to the American people if we simply tell them they can have it all. We have to make choices, and last year the administration and Congress chose not to make estate tax repeal a priority. While I could not support the estate tax repeal amendment offered by Senators Gramm and Kyl, neither could I support the amendments by my Democratic colleagues. While well intentioned, I believe the nation has moved beyond whether we should repeal the tax. To me, it is not a question of if, but when we repeal the tax and how we pay for it. The alternative amendments offered today would have taken us backwards. Today is not the last time we will debate estate tax repeal. Between now and the next estate tax vote, I believe Congress and the administration need to reach agreement on a basic budget framework that makes room for estate tax repeal. Unless we repeal the estate tax in the context of a budget agreement, we will just be playing politics instead of making real progress

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I join my colleagues today to speak in support of S. 625, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act. In every corner of our country, communities have been trying to respond to hate crimes. Despite great gains in equality and civil rights throughout the last century, too many Americans are subjected to discrimination, violence, and even death because of who they are. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has documented over 8,000 incidences of crime motivated by bias in the United States in 2000. Crimes motivated by the victim's race, color, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, disability, or gender. These crimes attack the values and rights of every American, yet today there is no federal law stopping these crimes. Passing the bill before us will give us more tools to fight this special brand of crime. I am pleased to join with many of my colleagues as a co-sponsor of this important legislation. The legislation we are considering would expand the definition of a hate crime and improve prosecution of those who act out ``their hate'' with violence. If someone harms any person because of the victim's race, gender, ethnicity, color, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation, they will be punished. It is important to note that the prosecutor would still have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal act was motivated by prejudice, and states would be involved in helping to determine whether a defendant would be charged with a Federal hate crime. The bill would also importantly require the FBI to document and report hate crimes committed against women. Previously the FBI was only required to collect data from crimes committed because of a person's race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and ethnicity. This bill will allow us to know the ``who,'' ``what'' and ``why'' so we can work to end these crimes against women. I know some of my colleagues have argued that the states are doing an adequate job of handling hate crimes on their own, and I commend the States for their efforts, but I believe the Federal government has an important role in this as well. At the Federal level, we already prosecute many crimes that are motivated by prejudice. We need to strengthen these Federal hate crimes laws and increase the role of the federal government in ending this violence. It wasn't that many years ago that we stood up for equality and justice by forcing the States and private citizens to end segregation and discrimination. Now we must do the same for hate crimes against our citizens. Madam President, we are a Nation of laws. We are a Nation that respects the individual and individual liberty. We are a Nation that rewards hard work. We are a Nation that tolerates and celebrates our diversity. These are some of our most cherished values. We cannot allow hate crimes to threaten our fellow citizens and undermine our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I rise this evening in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4775, the supplemental appropriations bill for 2002. During our debate, I have heard complaints from some colleagues that this bill is beyond the President's request. Members are asking why this bill is larger than the administration's request and why it is larger than the House-passed bill. Our bill is larger because it makes the critical investments we need to make in transportation security. We have spent months listening to the experts and finding out what investments we need to make. We did that in my own subcommittee, and through Senator Byrd's leadership we discovered the needs through full committee hearings on homeland defense. The President's budget and the House budget do not make the necessary investments in transportation security. Our bill does. That is why it is larger than the President's request. I want to spend a few minutes explaining what is in our bill because it will prove that these are critical investments that the President and the House have not been willing to make. For example, our bill funds the Transportation Security Administration. It will improve cargo security. It will enhance the security in and around our Nation's airports. It will improve security on inner-city buses. It will allow the Coast Guard to assess the vulnerability of our seaports. It will ensure that the FAA can meet the staffing needs at our Nation's control towers this summer without stealing from the budget for modernization and safety improvements. It will better reimburse our Nation's airports for the considerable expenses they have incurred due to our new security requirements. Overall, it will address the security challenges we all know are out there. Before I talk about some of the specifics of the bill, I want to correct the record on one point. I have heard some claim that our bill is $2.2 billion larger than the House-passed bill. That is simply not accurate. While some in the House claim their bill is $28.8 billion, it is actually $30.1 billion when we use traditional, customary Congressional Budget Office scorekeeping. Instead of using that method, they have used accounting gimmicks. For some items in their bill they have actually chosen to use OMB scorekeeping; for example, concerning the delays in the availability of airline loan guarantees. That point aside, the Senate bill is larger than the President's request and the House request, and one of the largest differences is in the area of transportation security. In this area, the funding level in our bill is $928 million or 20 percent higher than the administration's request. It is important to point out that the House of Representatives actually cut the President's request for transportation security. That is why the Senate bill is $1.244 billion or 29 percent higher than the House-passed bill. The centerpiece of the transportation chapter of this bill is the $4.7 billion the committee has included for the new Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. That amount is more than $300 million higher than the level requested by the administration and more than $850 million more than what is provided in the House bill. First and foremost, the funding provided for the TSA will fully cover the administration's request to implement the recently enacted Aviation and Transportation Security Act that the President signed into law. The House version of the bill imposes several cuts to the administration's request just at the time that the administration is aggressively seeking to meet the deadlines imposed by the Transportation Security Act. The most daunting of these deadlines is the requirement to screen all checked baggage for explosives by the end of this calendar year. As many of our colleagues, I have been frustrated with the performance of the Transportation Security Administration in implementing those requirements. There has not been sufficient consultation with the Nation's airports or with Congress, and there has not been a sufficient amount of hiring at the TSA of individuals with transportation backgrounds. But still I don't think the solution to these problems is to impose significant cuts on the resources the administration itself has requested. As with most of my colleagues, I do a lot of flying. I have witnessed the long lines of passengers seeking to get through airport security checkpoints. I have shared the frustration of clearing the security checkpoint only to be screened at the gate again. Our aviation industry is already suffering due to the fact that the high revenue business travelers who provide 40 percent of the airline's revenues are not returning to the skies. If the Transportation Security Administration does not succeed at its stated goal of providing high-quality customer service and a short wait to clear airport security, our aviation industry is going to suffer a great deal further. Secretary Mineta and Transportation Under Secretary Magaw have committed themselves to a national standard where no passenger will wait longer than 10 minutes to clear airport security. Frankly, many of us question whether they will ever achieve that goal. That is why the bill before us contains a requirement that the TSA publish on a monthly basis the actual wait times at each airport. I intend to monitor the TSA's performance in this area on a regular basis. Another area of great concern to me is that air passengers are treated with dignity as they pass through our Nation's airports. If passengers can be expected to be treated as criminals from the moment they walk into the airport, they are not going to fly. Treating air passengers as criminals is not a formula for helping our airlines get back on their feet. The administration's TSA budget has gone through a very torturous path. A full month passed from the time the Bush administration submitted its $4.4 billion supplemental budget request for TSA to the time Secretary Mineta could sit down with members of our committee and discuss what funds could be used for. That was not necessarily Secretary Mineta's fault. He was spending that month arguing with the President's Office of Management and Budget on how much money we needed to implement the requirement to screen all checked baggage for explosives. When the noise finally quieted down between the DOT and OMB, the results were, frankly, very disappointing. Rather than deploy a significant number of explosive detection system, EDS, machines that can be easily integrated at the airports' luggage distribution system, the administration has chosen to take a cheaper route. They want to deploy only trace detection machines at three- quarters of our Nation's airports. These trace detection machines are effective at detecting explosives, but they were never designed or intended to be primary explosive detection mechanisms at our airports. What I find most troubling is the TSA's plan to require more than half of passengers' bags to be opened by Federal enforcement personnel at three-quarters of our Nation's airports. I don't believe the flying public is going to be very warm to the idea that more than half of their luggage will be checked by Federal personnel who will rifle through their baggage in the airports. As such, the committee has included directives to the TSA to ensure that this regime is implemented with dignity and privacy in mind so passengers will not have to open their baggage in full view of all the other passengers with whom they are traveling. The committee appropriation for the TSA includes a $35 million initiative in the area of aviation safety and security that was not requested by the administration. Those funds are to be used exclusively for enhanced perimeter security and terminal security. Unfortunately, it is not necessary to get through the security checkpoints to attack our Nation's aviation system. A terrorist can do a great deal of damage to our aviation system merely by performing a terrorist act within a crowded airport terminal. I believe we need a stronger surveillance regime in our airport terminals, and the funding entered by this committee will be used for that purpose. Also, the record indicates that more needs to be done to ensure that only those individuals who are properly credentialed and qualified are granted access to the secure areas of our airports. Over the last few months there has been a spate of indictments and arrests of individuals who used falsified documents to gain access to secure areas of our airports. The additional funding provided by our committee will ensure better protection of those areas. Now, perhaps these are improvements that the OMB considers to be unnecessary security add-ons, but I recommend that Director Daniels review the testimony of both Secretary Mineta and Under Secretary Magaw before making these complaints. Both of those gentlemen identified perimeter security as an area of significant need. That is not adequately funded under the President's proposal. In the area of port and maritime security, the committee has included several new funding initiatives over and above those requested by the administration. In the last supplemental appropriations bill, the committee included $93 million for a new advanced program to beef up security in our Nation's seaports. That $93 million appropriation elicited almost $700 million in applications. In order to better meet that demand, the Senate bill includes an additional $200 million in the bill and also includes a $28 million initiative to deploy Operation Safe Commerce. During our full committee's hearings on homeland defense in April and May, we heard testimony from ADM Richard Larrabee. Admiral Larrabee recently retired from the Coast Guard and became the director of commerce for the ports in New York and New Jersey. He was sitting in his office in the World Trade Center when the terrorists attacked and he lost dozens of his colleagues on that day. Admiral Larrabee, along with CDR Stephen E. Flynn, Coast Guard, Retired, testified before our Appropriations Committee about the urgency of establishing a security regime to security cargo containers from the point of origin to their domestic destination. In addition to the work of the full committee on this issue, the subcommittee has held 2 hearings on this issue, hearing from the administration, labor, industry, port authorities, and others in the field. It is difficult to overstate the importance of beginning to deal with this set of issues now. Over 30 million intermodal containers enter our Nation's seaports each year and, frankly, we know very little about what is in them. Between the Coast Guard and Customs Service, fewer than 2 percent of those containers are ever physically inspected. The Customs Service has only recently begun to beef up the reporting requirements regarding the content of those containers. The Operation Safe Commerce initiative in our bill will be deployed at the three largest container load centers in our country. Together, those port areas take in more than 50 percent of the containers that enter our country every year. It is impossible to exaggerate the damage that could be done to our economy if we are suddenly required to slow down the trade lanes into and out of our country because of security concerns. This initiative will demonstrate the art of the possible when it comes to improving security of container shipping. Also, within the amount provided for the TSA, the committee provided $20 million for improved security for over-the-road bus operators. I wish to particularly commend the leadership of my colleague from Georgia, Senator Max Cleland, on this issue. As he notes, intercity bus transportation is part of our country's vital infrastructure. The Nation's intercity bus operators are just beginning to use the most rudimentary methods to better ensure security of bus passengers. Given the frequency with which we see terrorists overseas use buses as a venue for horrific acts of terrorism, this is the minimal investment we should be making in this area. The Senate bill provides slightly more than $666 million for the U.S. Coast Guard. Those funds will be used to accelerate the Coast Guard's planned vulnerability assessments of our Nation's seaports. Funds will also be used to expedite procurement of critical surface and aviation assets and to launch a new maritime domain awareness program to dramatically improve the Coast Guard's readiness to deal with domestic terrorist threats. During our committee's hearing with Admiral Larrabee, we were disappointed to hear that the Coast Guard doesn't plan to conduct its vulnerability assessment of the second largest shipping port in the United States for 2 years. The committee did not consider that to be a satisfactory plan. So our bill grants the Coast Guard funds to expedite these port vulnerability assessments across the country so we can better secure these gateways of the globe. The bill also includes $115 million that was not requested by the administration for the emergency funding needs of the Federal Aviation Administration. Since September 11, the FAA has had to spend at least $100 million to dramatically enhance security around its own critical air traffic control towers. As a result, the FAA now finds itself $100 million short of the amount it needs to provide critical overtime expenses for air traffic controllers as we enter the busy summertime travel season. Senators will remember, as I do, that during the two summers prior to September 11, air transportation in our country was rife with delays. If we don't adequately fund the shortfall in overtime at the FAA, we can expect to experience those delays again. The administration's budget proposed to meet this $100 million shortfall by transferring funds already appropriated to improve air traffic control equipment, safety, and capacity. To me, that is not a responsible solution. We are years, if not decades, behind where we need to be in modernizing our air traffic control system, and we have huge, unmet needs at our airports. That is why our bill provides the $100 million needed to pay for the air traffic controllers without stealing from those other accounts. The Senate bill also includes an additional $100 million to better compensate the Nation's airports for the security costs they have incurred since September 11. Last year, the committee appropriated $175 million for that purpose. But the airports committed almost $500 million in costs to the FAA for this funding. This additional $100 million will better reimburse the Nation's small, medium, and large hub airports for the costs associated with the security directives issued by the FAA since September 11. Finally, separate from the issue of homeland defense, the bill includes a provision drafted by Senator Harry Reid and myself authorizing a higher obligation ceiling for the Federal Aid Highway Program for fiscal year 2003. As Members should be aware, the administration's budget proposes that overall highway funding to the States be drastically slashed by $8.6 billion next year. That represents a cut of more than 27 percent. Senator Reid serves as the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee for highways, and the provision he and I drafted will ensure that, as part of the appropriations process for 2003, the Appropriations Committee will restore at least $4.5 billion of the President's cut and perhaps as much as $5.7 billion. I believe my colleagues will agree that during this uncertain time in our economy, we must do our best to avoid the President's proposal to slash thousands of jobs and cut our investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The provision included in this bill--authorized by Senator Reid and myself--will go a long way toward that goal. I also thank my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, for his assistance in developing the transportation chapter of this bill. I also thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for the bipartisan leadership of the Appropriations Committee and for their receptive approach to the views of our subcommittee. Both leaders demonstrated needed vision and commitment to exploring and understanding these issues of critical importance to our Nation's security and prosperity. I believe the transportation chapter of this bill represents a strong, comprehensive approach to our homeland security needs, and I look forward to arguing for every dollar of this funding when we go to conference with the House of Representatives. Each item was developed with thought and care. Each item represents an investment that needs to be made. Each item will help build a more secure America. The critics of this bill, and those who are impeding progress, put those investments at risk. I ask: What investment in airport security don't you want to make? What investment in seaport security don't you want to make? What will you say to the American people--our soldiers and sailors who are defending the Nation--when we don't make these needed investments? This is a reasonable bill. It takes a reasonable approach to investing in America's security needs. It was reported unanimously by our committee, and I hope the Senate can dispense with the delays and get on with passing this very important bill. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on May 23, 2002, I was pleased to introduce with Senators Cantwell and Inouye, ``The Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Act.'' This bill will provide compensation to the Spokane Tribe for its contribution to the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam. This legislation, S. 2567, is very similar to S. 1525, which Senator Inouye and I introduced in the first session of the 106th Congress. The Grand Coulee Dam is the largest concrete dam in the world, the largest electricity producer in the United States, and the third largest electricity producer in the world. It provides electricity and water to one of the world's largest irrigation projects, the one million acre Columbia Basin Project. The Grand Coulee is the backbone of the Northwest's Federal power grid and agricultural economy. The Dam has provided and continues to provide tremendous economic benefits to the region. But for the native peoples of this region, the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam came at a very high price. To the Spokane Tribe, the Dam meant an end to a way of life. The dam flooded the Tribe's reservation on two sides. The Spokane River changed from a free flowing waterway that supported plentiful salmon runs to barren slack water that now erodes the southern lands of the reservation. The benefits that accrued to the nation and the Northwest were made possible by uncompensated injury to the Native Americans of the Columbia and Spokane Rivers. In 1994, Congress enacted settlement legislation to compensate the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. That legislation provided a onetime payment of $53 million for past damages and approximately $15 million annually from the proceeds from the sale of hydropower by the Bonneville Power Administration, (BPA). The Spokane Tribe settlement legislation would provide a settlement proportional to that provided to the Colville Tribes, which was based on the percentage of lands appropriated from the respective tribes for the dam. This translates into 39.4 percent of the past and future compensation awarded the Colville Tribes. S. 2567 would provide a one- time payment of approximately $21 million from the General Treasury as compensation for past damages. The bill would provide from BPA about $10 million to the Tribe to account for payments the Colvilles have received since 1995. In addition, the legislation would direct BPA to allocate approximately $6 million annually to the Spokanes. Since the 1970s, Congress and Federal agencies have indicated that both the Colville and Spokane Tribes should be compensated. Since 1994, when an agreement was reached to compensate the Colville Tribes, Congress and Federal agencies have expressed interest in providing fair compensation to the Spokane Tribe, too. This legislation will provide for a long overdue settlement for the Spokane Tribe. I hope my colleagues will support this bill. I also hope the Senate Indian Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on S. 2567 at the Chairman's earliest convenience.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join the debate over trade promotion authority legislation before the Senate. I am in my 10th year as a member of the U.S. Senate and I have consistently voted for measures to open new markets to our exporters and our workers. Today, I will vote for trade promotion authority, or TPA. New export opportunities for Washington State will support economic recovery and expansion. Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the country. International trade matters tremendously to each and every region of my State and to every sector of our economy. Trade matters to my State in good and bad economic times. We are an export State. We have a trade surplus. We are also a port State and gateway to Asia and the world. My constituents benefit from trade at every point. We grow the commodities. We move containers and cargo from ships to rail to destinations throughout the country. We manufacture, build, design, develop, finance and insure goods and services traded globally each and every day. Trade jobs--estimated to be one in three jobs in Washington State--are good family wage jobs in my State. Importantly, this legislation also significantly expands trade adjustment assistance. I have always supported trade adjustment assistance. I commend the Finance Committee, the Democratic leader and the bipartisan work which led to the expanded TAA package in this legislation. I was a cosponsor of S. 1209, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Farmers, Fisherman, Communities and Firms Act of 2002. The TAA language in this legislation is really a product of S. 1209 and the bipartisan work of many in the Senate to expand TAA. More workers will be eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Some workers from secondary industries will be covered for the first time under the Senate TPA bill. The Senate legislation provides community assistance, particularly to rural communities, who see significant job loss related to trade. Communities will have the opportunity to seek grant assistance to implement economic diversification plans. Farmers and fishermen will also be eligible for TAA assistance. Importantly, the Senate bill provides new health benefits to displaced workers. A new 70 percent up-front, refundable tax credit for COBRA coverage will enable many workers and their families to keep their health insurance. The Senate has considered a number of important amendments and issues in this debate over trade promotion authority. I voted for a number of important message amendments. I encourage the administration as it eventually moves forward with trade talks to give serious consideration to the expressed will of the Senate. I expect a significant bipartisan vote for trade promotion authority today. Then the legislation must go to conference with legislation adopted by the House of Representatives. The House TPA bill is very different from the Senate bill. Conference committees require compromise, and I anticipate changes to the Senate-passed version. Regardless of the conference committee outcome, the administration should not disregard the Senate TPA debate. The Senate addressed some very difficult issues. In future trade talks, the administration will be called upon to address issues like those raised on the Senate floor. Some in this body will judge trade agreements submitted to the Congress on these issues. The administration now knows a great deal about the concerns of the Congress. There will be fewer surprises for either the Congress or the administration as the future negotiations occur thanks in part to the Senate debate. I want to be very clear about my expectations for the upcoming TPA conference committee. I strongly believe any agreement between the House and the Senate must include the Senate trade adjustment assistance package. It is tremendously important to me that we do all we can to boost jobs and create jobs that rely on international trade. Expanded trade is a recipe for economic growth in Washington State. That is why I will vote for trade promotion authority and advocate for my State's many trade interests with the President and this administration. At the same time, I know that every worker, every industry, every community does not share the benefits of expanded trade equally. Where dislocation and hardship occurs, as a result of international trade, our government should play an activist role in helping workers and communities through these changing and challenging economic times. The Congress has an opportunity to do both on this legislation. We can move forward to create and protect trade jobs. And we can do the right thing in helping workers and communities combat unfair foreign trade practices and the changes in the global economy. TPA, or fast track, has been granted to every administration since President Gerald Ford was in office. Congress has granted this authority to Democratic and Republican Presidents. Granting this authority which I will support does not obligate any Senator to support an agreement. And I will certainly scrutinize any agreement submitted to the Congress by the President under TPA. My vote for trade promotion authority is a vote to open markets to U.S. exporters and their workers. It is a vote for equitable and reciprocal access to foreign markets. The U.S. marketplace is the world's largest market, and our market is open with few restrictions to the world. I want to see the President go abroad on behalf of the American people with the goal of opening markets and supporting U.S. workers. My vote for trade promotion authority is a call on the President and the administration to strengthen the international trade system and particularly, to strengthen the dispute settlement process for trade disputes. The Senate legislation contains important transparency guidance to the administration calling for public access to WTO and other international trade proceedings. My vote for trade promotion authority represents my continued belief that environmental protection and worker rights are legitimate trade issues. These issues must be included in trade negotiations if the Congress is to continue to have bipartisan support for international trade initiatives. The Senate legislation contains a number of negotiating objectives of great importance to Washington. The legislation directs U.S. negotiators to seek a revision of WTO rules that disadvantage the U.S. in tax cases like foreign sales corporations which benefit U.S. exporters. Additionally, the Senate bill provides guidance to the administration in a number of important Washington state industries like agriculture and high-technology. Of great importance to me and to Washington State is the Senate language on trade in commercial aircraft. This legislation directs U.S. negotiators to address the use of unfair subsidies and non-tariff barriers by Airbus. I continue to believe Airbus manipulates the commercial aircraft market through subsidies and an assortment of non- competitive practices. I have met with the U.S. Trade Representative regarding Airbus. I fully support the language in this bill to address unfair trade practices in commercial aircraft. I will vote for passage for this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to send a strong message of support for trade and economic expansion.