Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for the tremendous work she has done on this critical bill that supports the infrastructure across the country and for her diligence in keeping to the task to make sure we are finally here at this point where we are just a vote away from having this signed into law. Madam President, I wanted to come to the Senate floor tonight to urge the Senate to override the President's very shortsighted veto of this Water Resources Development Act. This is a bill that, as the Senator from California said, renews critical flood control, navigation, and water quality projects that are important across the country but are important in my home State of Washington as well. This bill ensures our waterways can continue to be used to move goods. It helps restore our beaches and our wetlands, which are important to our coastal communities, and it makes sure we are protected from catastrophic floods. These projects in this bill are essential for our economy. And as we saw with Hurricane Katrina, they can also be a matter of life and death. That is why I was astonished that President Bush vetoed this bill. More than 2 years after Katrina flooded 80 percent of New Orleans, destroyed coastal Mississippi, and killed 1,600 people, I couldn't believe the President said no to this bill. Even after he failed to respond to the devastation on the gulf, he is now standing in the way of projects that will protect the people of that region. Madam President, 81 Senators approved this bill in October because we understood our responsibility to invest in these important projects that provide for public safety and that keep our economy healthy. The President's veto is another example of his misplaced priorities. Throughout this year he has been insistent on playing political games at the expense of our Nation's economy and our health and safety. So, again, I urge our colleagues to override this veto and show the President he got it wrong. I know most of the Senate agree it is critical for us to address these issues now. This bill will help us avoid another catastrophe such as we saw in New Orleans, and it will help ensure our environment and our economy stays healthy. Too many years have passed since the Water Development Resources Act was reauthorized. It is 5 years overdue now, and the needs are piling up. I again thank Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe because their leadership in the first year of this Democratic-controlled Congress made sure that this bill did finally get to the President. The tragedy in New Orleans provided a dramatic example of how necessary this bill is, but there are hundreds of communities across the country that have been waiting for years for Congress to act on this bill and ensure that these vital projects finally get started. WRDA creates a national levee safety program and ensures thousands of miles of levees across the country will get a general safety inspection. It enables the Federal Government to act quickly on critical flood control projects, and it helps our local communities prepare for damaging and deadly floods. This bill is also about economic development. It ensures that shipping can continue on our waterways and helps us to move everything from wheat to cars to wind turbines from port to port. And it is about making sure our lakes and our beaches are clean and safe. It protects our environment and promotes recreation and it provides jobs. By vetoing this bill, the President said no to the communities that have been waiting for years to go ahead with these critical environmental, safety, and economic development projects. And, Madam President, some of those communities are in our home State. From shipping, to boating, to fishing, our waterways in the Pacific Northwest are vital to our way of life. That includes, by the way, a major shipping route on the Columbia River, with container ships and bulk carriers and tankers and car carriers that travel back and forth, as the Presiding Officer knows, carrying goods in, and shipping lumber and grain and countless other products out. So it is vital to the economy of our region the Columbia get regular dredging and maintenance. This bill, the WRDA bill, lifts restrictions on the number of days Federal dredges can operate to make sure that happens. And it helps our region in a number of other ways too. This bill gives the Corps of Engineers another tool so they can eliminate that huge backlog of permit applications for people who are trying to do everything from building piers to expanding ports. That will save our local governments millions of dollars. By vetoing this bill, the WRDA bill, the President essentially said no to the economy, to the safety, and to the environment in my home State of Washington. Sadly, the Water Resources Development Act is not the first important and bipartisan bill this President has blocked. It happens to be the fifth. Besides this bill, President Bush has vetoed children's health insurance; lifesaving stem cell research, twice; and our efforts to change course in Iraq and bring our troops home. He has, by the way, threatened to veto many of our appropriations bills. He says he objects to our spending bills because they invest $22 billion more than he asked for. President Bush is pretty happy to talk about pork and complain, but what he will not do and has not done yet is tell the American people what he wants to cut. Would he cut health care funding? Would he cut the money to build our deteriorating bridges and roads? Maybe he would cut investments to the FBI or the DEA. Perhaps it is the millions of dollars of funding we have in these bills for job training or education that he objects to. We don't know because he would not say. But he ought to know this. We stand by these important investments because our bills ensure our roads and our bridges and our airports and our railways are in good and safe condition. They ensure our kids can see a doctor. They ensure we can do cutting-edge research so we can find cures for diseases such as diabetes or MS. But as we have seen, the President has insisted on blocking these ideas and priorities and keeps repeating his apparent favorite four-letter word, which is ``veto.'' Instead of investing in our communities, he has continued to play political games. Instead of progress, all we have gotten are vetoes. I hope it is time for us to send a message to President Bush: We are not going to stand idly by and watch you veto these investments in our communities. I hope our colleagues override this veto on this important legislation, and I believe by standing together, as our friends in the House did, we can send a strong message to him about who has the right priorities for America. I hope by doing this we can finally unite with our Republican colleagues in choosing a new course for the other important bills--the children's health bill, all of our appropriations bills, even the stem cell research bill. I think it is time for Congress to turn a page on the President's obstruction. This is the first step. I hope there are more to come. As I have said before, and I will say it again now, people around this country are eager for a change. They want to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and we want to make sure the President does not put out that light. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very proud that this afternoon we are considering a very important bill that will fund not only the important investments in health, education, and the workforce but also historic increases in spending for our veterans and for their families. Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter have put together a great Labor-HHS bill. I am very proud to support it. But this afternoon I want to take a little bit of time to speak directly to the importance of the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs portion of this package, because today it is in grave danger of being blocked by bipartisan gamesmanship. Our servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan and from so many conflicts before have done absolutely everything we have asked of them. They have answered the President's call to war with the honor and sense of duty we have come to expect from our Nation's bravest men and women. They have performed under enormous pressure in the middle of a civil war. They have left loved ones behind who count on them. They continue to put their own lives on the line every single day. Now, unfortunately here at home, this administration has not been committed to care for them when they come home. From poor conditions at VA facilities around the country to a lack of PTSD counselors, to a benefits claims backlog that keeps our veterans waiting for months and sometimes amazingly even years, this administration has failed to account for our Nation's veterans as a part of the cost of this war. It is unacceptable that servicemembers who return from fighting overseas are being forced to fight their own Government for the care and the services we have promised them. Democrats today on this floor are working to reverse the Bush administration's failure to care for those heroes. We have produced a funding bill for our veterans that includes $3.6 billion more than the President asked. After years of Bush Republicans cutting corners on our veterans, we have, with this bill, offered an honest assessment of what these men and women need. This bill takes into account the extra strains that have been put on our VA system from our simultaneous wars and the new battlefield realities that are present today. It includes nearly all of the ``independent budget,'' a recommendation that has been compiled by our veteran service organizations. It makes investments that will improve health care and expand mental health services and allow construction for vitally needed new facilities. It is going to mean more qualified health care workers, better prosthetics, and more accessible veterans facilities. It is going to ensure our veterans get their earned benefits, see improved conditions at VA facilities, and get better treatment for PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and catastrophic injury. Most of all, though, this bill means that after years of neglect, our Government, the United States of America, will again honor the sacrifice of our veterans with the care they deserve. We are also making sure our troops are ready and that they receive the training they need. That is why I was so pleased about the military construction investment this bill makes across the country and especially in my home State. My home State of Washington's military facilities play an important role in our nation's security, from Fort Lewis in Tacoma, which is training the Stryker brigades--they are at the center of the fight in Iraq--to Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, which plays a major role in our air defense; to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, which patrols our Pacific shores. This bill ensures they are going to get funding they need, like all of our military facilities nationwide. In Washington State, it means more than $635 million in improvement for Washington's military installations. One of the best things about this bill is it won such huge bipartisan support when it passed the Senate on a vote of 92 to 1--92 to 1 it passed the Senate. It does not get much better than that for a bipartisan, strongly supported piece of legislation. Unfortunately, today Republicans seem to be willing to jeopardize all the good, critical, important matters that have been put into this bill which they said they supported, in order to play a procedural game that is designed to stop this important bill in its tracks. I think that is a shame. Now they are going to say, and the President will echo them, that the bill before the Senate is too expensive. They will say we should have not joined the spending for veterans with spending for health care, education, and job training. In the same breath, they are going to say this money for veterans is critically important and should be sent to the President before Sunday. Well, I agree with my 91 colleagues who supported this bill the first time we voted on it, and I agree we need to get it signed into law as soon as possible, and we can do that very easily by voting for it today, along with this package. It will go to the President by dinnertime. Most importantly, veterans would go to sleep tonight knowing that the vital projects in this bill are on the way. But I fear that is not going to happen. Instead, now we have Republicans who are going to make a cynical political move and block this money for our veterans because we have combined it with the Labor, Health and Education spending bill. The President objects, apparently, to combining those bills. So I guess the Republicans are going to put their allegiances behind President Bush ahead of our veterans and say ``no'' to a bill that almost all of those Senators supported a few short weeks ago. I think that is wrong. The Labor, Health and Education bill is a good one. It won the support of 75 Senators a few weeks ago here on the Senate floor. We are joining the two because both make critical investments in a broad range of urgent priorities. We need to stop playing political games with both of these bills and we need the President to sign them now. The Republicans and the President are complaining about this move today. But it is the American people and our veterans and their families, in particular, who will be hurt if this political move is made today to separate these bills. They will pay the price, those veterans and their families, for this roadblock. Our goal is simple. We want to make up for something President Bush has failed to do while he has tried to build up our military. We want to be sure our veterans are getting the care they need. As I told my friends before, George Washington was the one who famously observed that: The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country. Today we want to reverse President Bush's failure and reaffirm this commitment. This bill keeps our military strong by honoring the sacrifices of our heroes and meeting their needs. When those men and women put on a uniform, they earn the right to a government that cares for them on their return. When we approve this bill, we will assure them they will get finally the care they need. Veterans Day is just a few days away. I am confident every Senator on this floor will head home to acknowledge the veterans in their State, and rightfully tell them ``thank you'' for the tremendous service they have given to our country. I can think of no better time than this for us to forget the politics and do something positive for our veterans, for their families, and for our country. I have listened to the other side and the President tell us time and again: We need to get the bills to the President. We need to get the appropriations bills to the President. That is what we are trying to do today, to get two of these critical bills to the President in a timely manner. I urge our colleagues to think twice about a procedural move that will not send to the President the critical funding we need for our veterans and our military facilities across this country. With one vote we can send those to the President, and by dinner tonight know we are doing our job for the country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2779 and the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 361, which was submitted earlier today.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, back in August, I stood right here on the Senate floor and shared the story of a little girl from my home State. I did that because I wanted to illustrate why it is our moral obligation as Americans to renew and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. Shortly afterward, the Senate approved the CHIP bill by an overwhelming margin because Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed that all children should be able to see a doctor when they are sick. They supported reauthorizing CHIP because it would reduce the number of uninsured American children by a third. Well, President Bush vetoed it. Now it is 3 months later, and I am frustrated and angry that I have to stand here again talking about CHIP and that we are still trying to get the White House to understand. The supporters of this bill have agreed to a compromise. We want to make this program work. We are back with another bill now that we think meets everyone's needs. So today I come back to the floor to remind President Bush and anyone else who still questions how important it is to approve this program now--about that little girl from Yakima, WA, because it is time for the President to stop blocking her health care. The little girl I want to tell you about is Sydney. She is 9 years old. In many ways, Sydney is like any other happy child in America. She loves to sing. She loves to dance. She does well in school. She has a lot of friends. But Sydney is different in one way. She has a life- shortening genetic condition called cystic fibrosis. It requires her to take and I quote from her a ``bucketful'' of medicine every day. She has already spent weeks of her young life in the hospital hooked up to an IV of antibiotics which help her to live another day. All of that is possible because of the health care she has received as part of the CHIP program. Her mom, Sandi DeBord, told me about Sydney because she was very frightened that CHIP might no longer be available for her daughter. She wrote to me and said: I know for a fact that without this bit of assistance, her life would end much sooner due to the inability to afford quality health care for her. Her life would end because she could not afford health care. What a sad note. I am here to tell the story again because, sad to say, 3 months later I cannot assure Sydney's mom that CHIP will always be there. In fact, the news has become even more worrisome. Just today, in the New York Times, it reported that because of the President's refusal to work with Congress on this bill, several States are now planning to start dropping children from the program in order to save money. Unless something changes, California says it is going to start dropping 64,000 kids a month in January--64,000 kids a month. A study from the Congressional Research Service found that nine States--Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island--are all going to run out of money by March. Twelve more States are going to run out between April and September. This is a tragedy, and it is our moral obligation to fix this. That is what we are trying to do now in the Senate. As Sydney's story shows us, the need for the Children's Health Insurance Program is clear. It does not matter if you are a Republican child or a Democrat child or a progressive or a conservative; making sure our children get health care is the right thing to do. When a child gets a cut that requires stitches or comes down with a fever or has an earache or any other imaginable problem, they ought to be able to get help, period. This is the United States of America. But, unfortunately, today, in this country, that is not the case. Millions of kids do not get the medicine or the care they need. We know the ranks of our uninsured children are growing because as the cost of living rises and wages remain stagnant, more and more parents are struggling to afford any health care. Most of us in the Senate know this. The CHIP program has had strong Republican support, and I particularly thank Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, who cosponsored the original 1997 bill, and have been working so hard with Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller since. But even with that bipartisan support in the Senate, President Bush has complained about the bill that passed. As an excuse to delay the program, he and a few Republican supporters say we have been unwilling to work with them. They say it will increase costs. I am here to say that is not the case. Despite what the President says, we listened to their concerns, and in this bill that is now before the Senate we address those concerns. This bill we are now considering addresses the concerns we heard over and over that children of illegal immigrants will be covered by requiring that States not only verify names and Social Security numbers, but they also check citizenship information in the Social Security Administration's database. So that issue is gone. Secondly, it ends the coverage of childless adults by the end of 1 year. So that issue is gone. Finally, this bill concentrates on making sure the poorest kids get covered first. So that issue is gone. This bill also helps bridge the gap for another 3.9 million children whose parents cannot afford insurance. And this program is paid for. I want to say that again. This program is paid for. President Bush just asked us to borrow $196 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for this year alone. But he opposes children's health insurance, even though we found a way to pay for every penny of it for the next 5 years. The $35 billion cost for CHIP's initiatives comes solely from a 61-cent excise tax increase on cigarettes and other tobacco products. No other programs are cut. Social Security is not raided. We are not increasing the deficit. Not only will this provide millions of children with health care, experts actually estimate it is going to get 1.7 million adults to quit smoking and prevent millions of kids from ever getting hooked. So this is good for our kids' health care now, and it is going to make a lot of kids healthier in the future. Children's health should not be about politics. I have said this over and over. It is about making sure kids see a doctor when they need to. Kids are not Democrats; they are not Republicans. They are just kids who deserve health care. Unfortunately, President Bush has let health care for our children get caught up in a desperate attempt to appeal to his dwindling number of supporters. We know CHIP is the right thing to do. Americans know it is the right thing to do. More than 65 percent of them oppose President Bush's veto. So to President Bush--and to any of our colleagues out there who still see this as a debate over politics and numbers--I want to remind you once more of a little girl who is 9 years old whose name is Sydney and the millions of other kids out there who depend on us to do the right thing. Sydney is still fighting cystic fibrosis, and her mom is still wondering whether she will be able to take care of her in the future. I hope we can tell her that we will. So on behalf of Sydney, on behalf of the 73,000 uninsured children in my State alone, and the more than 8 million children in this country, I thank all of my colleagues who worked so hard on this bill and supported it to this point. I urge the President to stop blocking this critical program for our kids. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Thursday, November 1; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled, with Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3963, the CHIP legislation; further, that all time consumed in morning business during today's session and tomorrow, as well as the time during the adjournment, count postcloture.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1808, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 362, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to pay special tribute to a very special individual who is no longer with us in the Senate. He was a friend to me, a tremendous U.S. Senator, and he was an advocate for thousands and thousands of human beings across this country who may never have met him but for whom he spoke so eloquently. That was Senator Paul Wellstone. Five years ago today, we lost that friend, that Senator, that passionate advocate. Still every day I come to this floor, I can see him here, raising his voice, throwing his arms out, speaking to everyone as if they were right in front of him about the issues he cared about. Every one of us has special memories of Senator Wellstone, whether it was his speeches on the floor of the Senate as he wandered back and forth and put his tremendous voice to such great use. For me personally, it was listening to him talk about the issue of mental health. It was standing beside him when he introduced the bill to ban asbestos 6 years ago. We looked around, and we were a pretty lonely crowd trying to make that happen. I know he would be so proud, wherever he is up there today, looking down and knowing that this Senate 6 years later passed a ban on asbestos. It was such issues as the war where Senator Wellstone, even though he was in a very tight election race at the time, stood his ground and said what he felt so strongly, that he could not vote for this country to go to war in Iraq. He feared no one in making that decision, even with the election he was facing. He was a friend and partner, someone I knew so well. My best memory of him was going to his State. He invited me there, as we all do with our other colleagues when we are out campaigning and ask them to help us. Senator Wellstone didn't ask me to come and do a fundraiser for him. He didn't ask me to do a speech to some dignified crowd in some ballroom. He didn't ask me to come and wear a suit. He asked me to come to his State the week before his election and do what he called ``a people raiser.'' He did it in a gymnasium. He invited people to come and donate their time because of what he cared about, the issue he fought for, to bring people into politics. He did it that day in such a tremendous way. All of us who knew him knew he was never comfortable talking to a crowd that was sitting down. He had to inspire them and have them all standing in front of him and applauding. He did it every time he spoke. I miss him so much in the Senate. It is hard to believe it was 5 years ago that we lost such a tremendous advocate. I think he would be proud of the legacy he left in his own family, in the issues he left for many of us, and the passion as we move forward. I know if he were here today he would be saying: Don't talk about me. He would be in a back room someplace making sure we never forgot the people who sent us here and the tremendous issues they face at home. He would be inspiring somebody to stand up and speak out. I hope we continue to do that in his memory for many years to come.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the past few months we have sent the President critical legislation that invests in our country's transportation, economy, health and safety needs. Funding these priorities will make our country safer, our communities healthier, and our economy stronger. Unfortunately, it seems the President doesn't share these priorities. He has proposed to this Congress harmful budget cuts, and now he says he is going to veto several of these vital bills because we are asking for $22 billion more than he requested. He says our domestic spending is ``irresponsible and excessive.'' I personally find that hard to understand when, at the same time as he is saying that, he wants $196 billion in emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, that does not include any money for our veterans. In fact, the $22 billion we want to invest at home represents less than what the President spends in Iraq in 3 months. That, not these bills, is what I think is irresponsible and excessive. We have to make sure we are not ignoring our needs here at home. The appropriations bills have the support of both parties. They ensure that our roads and our bridges, our airports, our railways are in good condition. They assure that our workers and families are healthy and our children have a chance to succeed. They assure that we have enough law enforcement officers to keep our communities safe. These bills simply restore some of the money the President cut and take a modest step forward after years of going in the wrong direction. A healthy transportation system is vital to a healthy community. We need to ensure that our families can get to school or get to work and that goods move from place to place. But when he says no to our bill that provides money for transportation and housing and urban development, what the President is saying no to is the investments that ensure that our communities are strong, that prevent disasters--such as the bridge collapse in Minneapolis--from happening in this country again. I am baffled, frankly, that the President's request for the war includes about $200 million for the construction of secondary roads in Afghanistan. He wants to spend $200 million on roads in Afghanistan but he is upset about our amendment to fix bridges in the United States. Clearly, this administration thinks these projects are a priority for Iraq and a priority for Afghanistan; otherwise, the President would not have included them in his emergency spending bill for the war. So I ask, why doesn't the President think the roads and bridges are a priority in our country, in the United States? At the same time the President is waging war overseas, we are here trying to make sure our employers have workers, that our families have access to health care, that our children get a good education. Tuesday night an overwhelming majority of this Senate voted to spend $11 billion over the President's request on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education programs so we could do that. That bill we passed would invest in cutting-edge medical research for diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes and cancer, research that brings hope to millions of Americans. In taking that vote the other evening, a bipartisan group of Senators agreed to restore funds for education, for jobs training, for health systems, when President Bush would have left them to cope with yet another year of unfunded mandates and empty promises. The children's health insurance bill that we approved earlier this year also is intended to help millions of our children. That bill, too, achieved a majority of support in the House and in the Senate but not from the President. Those bills would make Americans healthier and the economy more competitive. But the President disagrees. He says these programs are ``irresponsible and excessive.'' But guess what he proposes in his $196 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan. He asks for $25 million for economic development projects to foster job creation--in Iraq. And $60 million to fund economic projects to sustain development in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Let me say it another way. He plans to veto job creation and economic development right here at home, but he is asking us to spend millions of dollars in emergency funding on similar programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President says $196 billion that he is requesting for the war is necessary to make our world safer. We believe we also need to invest more in safety here at home. Our bill funding Commerce, Justice and Science programs works hard to ensure that our communities have enough FBI agents and police on our streets here at home. Like the other programs we want to fund, that bill restores the cuts that the President had proposed. Few bills are as important to the safety of our communities as that one. I am especially concerned that the President is threatening to veto that bill because of how it affects my home State and the Nation. Six years after 9/11, the administration still has not replaced 2,400 law enforcement agents across the country that it reassigned to counterterrorism after 9/11. In my home State of Washington, we were hit very hard by that. According to an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, our Seattle newspaper, we have a critical shortage of FBI agents: 2.1 agents for every 100,000 residents or about half the national average. The shift to counterterrorism has left our law enforcement shorthanded. Local police and sheriffs told me that the FBI has ``virtually disappeared'' from white-collar crime investigations. They told me the FBI does not have the resources today to adequately staff antigang task forces. Criminals have not stopped robbing our banks or dealing drugs or stealing identities. An amendment I included in that bill would take steps to get more FBI agents into my community and wherever they are needed. But the President said he is going to veto that bill. In so doing, he is going to veto our amendment. If we can spend $10 billion a month for the war in Iraq, we should be willing to spend a fraction of that to ensure the security of our citizens at home. Clearly, the President is the one who is being ``excessive'' and ``irresponsible.'' This might be an abstract debate about Federal funding for the President, but I think all of us know here it is about real people; it is about hard-working parents who are searching for a way to get health care for their own families when it has not been provided by their employers. It is about citizens out of traffic jams, and ensuring that our roads and bridges are safe to drive on. It is about making sure the people we represent can trust that enough law enforcement officers will be there to fight crime in their neighborhoods. When I travel around Washington State, people tell me they want hope and they want change. Whether it is the war in Iraq or gas prices or access to health insurance, people today feel a real weight on their shoulders. They are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel. By vetoing those important bills, and failing to invest in the safety, health, and economic future of all Americans, the President keeps putting out that light. We are investing $22 billion over last year in the future of our country. I urge all of my colleagues to support these bills as we move forward on behalf of the millions of American children and families who would benefit. I hope the President is listening. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, our Nation was built on the belief that no matter where we start from in life, we all have a shot at the American dream. I, for one, am very proud of this reputation, and I believe it is one we should continue to promote and maintain. Unfortunately, Mr. President, somewhere along the way, amid politics and rhetoric, the belief that we should now turn our backs on certain children in our communities has gained a voice. Mr. President, I am here on the floor of the Senate today because I believe we need to make sure that America remains a country of opportunity for all children, no matter where they come from, no matter what language they speak at home, and no matter what obstacles they have to overcome. Earlier today in the Senate we had a chance to pay more than just lipservice to the idea of opportunity for all. Unfortunately, a few Members of this body didn't think it was an American priority. I still believe in the DREAM Act and its power to not only give hope to many today but to make our country stronger in the future. In fact, we can still give hope to many by passing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. This DREAM Act was narrowly tailored bipartisan legislation that would give a select group of undocumented students the chance--the chance--to become permanent residents if they came to this country as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, and attend college for at least 2 years or enlist in the military. Certainly, Mr. President, those are criteria that all of us would be very proud of. Senator Durbin previously brought up the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill to address critical manpower shortages that are facing our military forces. Under the DREAM Act, tens of thousands of well-qualified potential recruits would become eligible for military service for the first time. These are young people who love our country and are eager to serve in the Armed Forces during a time of war. The DREAM Act would add a very strong incentive to enlist because it provides a path to permanent legal status. The DREAM Act would also make qualified students eligible for temporary, legal immigration status upon high school graduation that would lead to permanent residency if--if--they attend college. Mr. President, critics of this amendment would have you believe this is simply a matter of politics. Well, it is not. This is about real people, and I want to tell you about one of them. Recently, the Seattle Times, a newspaper in my State, featured the story of a young woman named Maria who has lived in the United States illegally since her parents brought her here at the age of 5. Maria completed high school in my home State of Washington. She did really well and was an active member of the student body. In fact, she was elected class officer 3 years in a row. Maria was accepted to the University of Washington. She graduated with a high GPA and honors in her department of study. Maria is now in her second year of law school, and to quote the Seattle Times: By all rights, save one, she should have the world by the tail. But she is dogged by the questions: When she graduates, will she be able to take the bar exam? Will she be able to keep helping low-income people as she's done during her internship this summer with a non-profit legal-aid corporation? ``The DREAM Act is my only hope,'' Maria said in the article. ``I hope and I pray for it.'' Isn't Maria exactly the type of young person in whom we should be investing? She studied hard, she got good grades, she has served her school, she has served her community, and now she wants to continue to serve her community and our country--the only home she has ever known. It is not Maria's fault that her parents brought her to America when she was 5 years old. It is not Maria's fault that Congress has not yet passed the comprehensive immigration reform we clearly need. But it is the thousands of Marias out there who are living the consequences. We do need comprehensive immigration reform, but we also need a Government that invests in our children and understands that the face of the American dream is not just one class or one race or one religion. Our Nation is filled with young people who love this country, have beat the odds, and whom we should be investing in. We will reap the return we invest. The reason I know that is from personal experience. When I was young, growing up in a family of nine, I thought my family was doing fine. I knew we didn't have a lot of money. But my dad was stricken with multiple sclerosis when I was a young teacher. All of a sudden, seven young kids under the age of 16 didn't know if they would ever be able to go to college, didn't know if they would ever even be able to graduate from high school or how they were going to face the future. Because this country was there for them and we had student loans and Pell grants and a country that said: We are there with you, all seven of those children graduated from high school and graduated from college. Today, this country has a Microsoft employee. They have a lawyer who works very hard. They have a young mom who stays home with her two kids. They have a newspaper reporter who follows sports around the country. They have an eighth grade teacher who has taught now, for 25-plus years, eighth grade students. And they have a U.S. Senator. That is a pretty good investment by our country for those seven kids who thought they had lost their hope. That was my family. I know what it is like to lose hope, and I know what it is like to have hope behind you when your country steps in. That is what we are talking about with the DREAM Act--young kids out there who are just looking for a country to be behind them, who have the skills, who have the capability, who are willing to be a part of this country, to give back if they could. This is a real issue which touches real communities and real people across our country. I actually got a letter from the superintendent of the Lake Chelan School District in north central Washington. I wish to read what he wrote. He said: Each year I watch students who have worked hard to be successful during high school struggle to continue their education after graduation because of their immigration status. These students are an important part of America's future and we must give them the opportunity to further their education, contribute to society, and help build the American dream for generations to come. Allowing these young people to flourish is not only fair to them, but it also adds value to our country's rich, vibrant, and diverse culture. They deserve that opportunity to succeed regardless of the outcome of the current immigration debate. I couldn't agree more. I think it is important that we remember that this debate is not just about immigration. It really is about what type of country we want to be. It is about what we stand for. It is about what type of future we want to build. It is pretty easy to get caught up in the specifics of the policies we debate. But I encourage all of my colleagues to not lose sight, today, as we struggle with this difficult debate, of the bigger picture, because this debate touches nearly every aspect of American life, from our economy to our security, from our classrooms to our workplaces. Most importantly, it speaks about our values. I received a letter recently from a high school senior named Victor. Victor lives in Walla Walla, a small town on the Washington-Oregon border. Victor wrote to me and he said: I came to the U.S. when I was 10 years old. My most difficult and only challenge I faced since I came to the U.S. is education. I came to this country not knowing a single word of English, therefore I had to learn it as fast as I could. I was held back a grade and put into English as a Second Language classes. It took me about a year to learn it well enough to where I was able to be in classes with native speakers. I am currently part of the National Honors Society and I also take part in fall and spring sports. I have been accepted to the University of Washington and three other Washington universities. . . . My plans are to go to the University of Washington and get a degree in computer science. Unfortunately, I come from a low-income family, making it hard for me to make further plans about my education. Currently the federal government will not help with any financial aid to any noncitizen in the United States. How do you expect us to improve ourselves and succeed in this country? I would like to ask my colleagues how they answer Victor's question, how they expect our Nation to continue to be one of hope, one of opportunity, if we close down our children's future rather than handing them the keys to success. All of our children should have the opportunity to become more successful than their parents, and none of them should be punished for their parents' decisions. We have thousands of dedicated, motivated, and gifted students who have been forced into the shadows through no fault of their own. Like Victor, like Maria, they have beaten odds many of us could never even imagine, and they want to serve now and contribute back to America's future. It would be our mistake to say no. I hope my colleagues will reconsider their votes today. I hope they will say yes to the DREAM Act and yes to a richer, stronger, more vibrant American dream for all of us, for generations to come.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this bill is about making sure families have access to health care and children get a good education. It supports cutting-edge research, helps build a skilled workforce, and ensures that crucial services are in reach for people who most need them. Most important, it gives Americans hope that their Government is working for them. These programs help every family and every community. They are priorities for me. I know they are priorities back home. So I want to thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their leadership and important work on this bipartisan bill. These programs should be priorities for this administration too. Unfortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto this legislation. He opposes this bill it because it represents an increase over his requested budget. He says it is ``irresponsible and excessive.'' Yet the $9 billion increase over the President's request represents a fraction of the $190 billion in emergency spending he wants this year for Iraq and Afghanistan. It is less than the $10 billion he spends in Iraq in one month alone. As the President has waged war overseas, our education, job training, and health systems have been left to cope with unfunded mandates and empty promises. That--not this bill--is what is ``irresponsible and excessive.'' This bill simply restores some of the money the President cut and takes a modest step forward after years of going in the wrong direction. Among other things, this bill boosts American competitiveness by investing $4.8 billion in job training and career- and technical- education when the President would have cut these programs by more than $1 billion. It adds $1 billion to expand critical research at the National Institutes of Health, reversing years of stagnant budgets. And it strengthens education and health care by providing money for Head Start, school improvement, and community health centers. This bill recognizes how important access to quality health care is for working families. While the President's budget neglected the uninsured and those with limited access to health care, the Senate bill invests an additional $250 million over the President's request in the community health center program. This will help those families get medical care without having to seek it in the emergency room. We have all heard stories about how overburdened emergency rooms are by patients who seek care there because they don't have health insurance or are underinsured. But access to a doctor can prevent a child's earache from turning into a serious infection, and it can make sure a father gets screening and preventive care so that he doesn't develop a serious and expensive form of cancer. This bill also makes investments in another critical health care concern--making sure we have enough doctors and nurses and other health care professionals. Last week, I heard about it again in roundtables I held across the State. This bill provides $357 million for the Health Professions and Nursing Programs to recruit and hire new health care professionals-- that is $242 million over the President's proposal. Of this, $169 million is for nursing education. That is $20 million over last year's level. Our nurses are the front line of care in hospitals and nursing homes. This will help address the serious nursing shortage we already face. It is also important that we provide opportunities and encouragement for students who want to go into nursing so that we can replace these retiring caregivers and meet the increasing demand for nursing care. I applaud the committee for recognizing this looming concern, and I repeat that the time to invest in our health care system is now--before these problems become an urgent issue. We can't afford to wait. This bill also supports our scientists and our biotech industry by funding landmark research. The President's budget would have eliminated hundreds of research grants from the National Institutes of Health-- money that could lead to cures or treatments for cancer, MS, and diabetes, among other diseases. This is on top of years of inadequate funding for NIH. The Senate bill adds $1 billion for NIH funding nationally. This allows scientists at prestigious universities--including the University of Washington--to continue their innovative medical and biotech research. It also will provide hope for people with serious diseases--hope that they won't have if this research is cut off because of lack of funding. We have heard the President say that education is one of his top priorities. That is why it is so frustrating to me that he is threatening to veto this bill. I am committed to ensuring Federal funds are there to help build and improve our Nation's schools. Strong schools make strong communities. We want everyone in this country to have a promising future and a promising job--and education is how you get there. The Senate bill supports increased funding for Pell grants that help kids afford college when they might not otherwise have had a chance to get a college degree. It increases funding for school improvement by $500 million. It sends $1 billion in badly needed money to help schools in low-income communities raise children's achievement levels and provide more opportunities for learning. And it reverses the President's proposed $100 million cut to Head Start. As a mom, a former preschool teacher, and school board president, I saw firsthand that giving kids a boost early on can pay off in the future. Reaching kids early makes them more likely to graduate and succeed. This isn't frivolous spending. The money we spend on education today will help children grow into better educated, better prepared workers. Providing Americans with the skills they need to excel in the global economy while keeping them safe on the job are very basic needs that every working family has the right to expect from their Government. That is why I continue to be baffled by the administration's lack of commitment to workers in our Nation. With strong bipartisan support for this bill, the Senate is proud to stand with working families and support the priorities that shape their daily lives. When I travel around my home State of Washington, employers tell me they are desperate to find workers with the skills they need to grow their businesses. And we have thousands of people on waiting lists hoping to get trained for these family-wage jobs. Yet for the last 7 years, the President has proposed hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts for job-training programs, shutting the door to millions of dislocated workers, youth and disadvantaged adults who deserve to share in the American dream. Under his watch, worker safety on the job has also been put at risk. With OSHA's lack of enforcement, workers are unprotected. And today's miners continue to work under an administration that values voluntary compliance above safety and enforcement. This is the wrong direction for working families and the wrong priority for America. How do we begin to solve it? Well, one thing is clear--it isn't by cutting $1 billion dollars in job training funds at a critical time in our economic growth, as the President has proposed, nor is it by proposing hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to job training programs, as he has one over the last 7 years. This bill rejects the President's misguided cuts and goes to great lengths to maintain a viable workforce and training system. If we want our local businesses and our Nation to be competitive in the global economy, we must make skills training for every worker a national priority. This bill does that. For some here in the Senate, this might be an abstract debate about Federal funding. But this debate is about real people. It is about 30 kids in a classroom and a teacher struggling to make sure they succeed. It is about hardworking parents searching for a way to get health care for their families when it isn't provided by their employers. And it is about workers who need training that will help them get a job that pays enough to support a family. When I travel around Washington State, people tell me they want hope and change. Whether it is the war in Iraq or gas prices or access to health insurance--people feel a real weight on their shoulders. They are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel, and by vetoing these important bills--and failing to invest in the health, safety, and economic future of all Americans--the President keeps putting out that light. Mr. President, in this bill, we are investing more than $7 billion over last year in the future of our country. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation on behalf of the millions of American children and families who would benefit. And I hope the President is listening.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let's be very clear. The amendment that has been offered by Senator Vitter is an attack on the health and well- being of all Americans, purely and simply. When you look at the depth and breadth of this amendment which has been offered, it could withhold critical Federal dollars from virtually any health care entity or provider across the country that is in any way tied to abortion services, directly or indirectly. I wish to remind my colleagues that in some of our rural communities, there is only one health care provider. That clinic may provide flu shots for children, for the elderly, and it may also provide family planning services. This amendment which has been offered would tie that clinic's hands and prevent it from receiving any Federal funds whatsoever. That is just plain wrong. Our Nation's core health care providers rely on millions of dollars from Medicaid, from family planning, from community health centers, child health, and numerous programs which provide, as we all know, vital health care services to some of our Nation's most vulnerable women, men, and children. But because of the way this amendment is worded, it would put millions of men and women--primarily, of course, those who are low income who can't advocate for themselves, who don't have health insurance--at risk of losing access to family planning and other preventive health care services. We have all said many times we all want to reduce the number of abortions. It is something on which we all agree. But this amendment, in fact, goes directly against that goal. This amendment is counterintuitive. Eliminating a community's only source of birth control will not reduce the number of abortions. Denying women access to their trusted doctors and nurses won't do it either. Let's be clear. This amendment is not necessary to prevent family planning funds provided through title X from paying for abortions. As the Senator from California has said, Federal law prohibits that. Over the past 7 years, we have seen this administration and conservatives in this Congress systematically work to erode reproductive freedoms for women, both in the United States and overseas. In fact, just this week we learned that the President's nominee for Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs has supported dropping a requirement that Federal health insurance plans cover birth control. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mrs. MURRAY. She called Plan B--the medically safe birth control pill that I and others worked to approve--a ``grave threat to women.'' We all want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in this country, but limiting health care and education options will only produce the opposite effect. We have to make sure women have access to safe and affordable family planning alternatives. Cutting them off, as this amendment would do, is the wrong way to go. I stand with my colleague from California in saying that the Senate needs to stand on record to protect women's rights in this country. This is the time when we need to do it. We are not out here to provide a divisive debate; we are out to defend the rights of women in this country, for which they have worked long and hard. Let's not affect and impact hundreds and hundreds of men and women who are trying to get health care today by an amendment that is divisive and is not needed. As the Senator from California said today, the funds in this bill that are federally provided do not go for abortions today. We do not need this amendment. We should not take this dangerous step that will impact the lives and health of many women in this country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there are few bills that we deal with in Washington, DC, that are more critical to the safety and well-being of our communities than the bill we are considering on the floor today. This legislation is going to help fund Federal law enforcement and justice programs that are absolutely essential if we are going to keep our neighborhoods safe, keep our justice system strong, and make sure our communities are healthy. At a time when our budgets are very tight and our needs are very great, I believe this bill invests in the right priorities. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for their leadership and their very hard work to put this bill together. But as all of us in this Chamber know, despite their hard work and leadership at their subcommittee to make a sound investment in the health of our communities, the President has said he will veto this bill. According to the administration, the additional funding in this bill is ``irresponsible and excessive.'' That is very hard to fathom when this administration is asking for over $190 billion in emergency appropriations to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 1 year. While this President easily is spending our money overseas, local communities in my home State and around the country are going without the money they need for very critical programs. The increases this legislation calls for are a fraction of what this President spends on the wars in a year. The money in this bill will go to revitalize programs that have been overlooked by this administration. My home State, for example, is experiencing a dangerous shortage of FBI agents who do essential work to ensure that we prevent another terrorist attack at home and who perform critical law enforcement duties. That shortage is one example of how this President mixed up the Nation's priorities. But this bill does make a small step toward fixing some of those years of problems. In my home State, the lack of FBI agents for critical law enforcement needs has been a serious concern for some time, but the urgency of this situation was driven home recently in a series of articles by the Seattle Post- Intelligencer. The paper's first article noted that since 9/11: the White House and the Justice Department have failed to replace at least 2,400 agents, transferred from law enforcement to counterterrorism, leaving far fewer agents on the trail of identity thieves, con-artists, hate mongers and other criminals. The article I referred to found that Washington State has a mere 2.1 FBI agents for every 100,000 residents. That is nearly half the national average. This past week, I met with police chiefs and sheriffs from across my State, and they agreed this shift has had a real impact on State and local law enforcement. One police chief told me the FBI had virtually disappeared from white collar crime investigations. A sheriff told me the local law enforcement now investigates and prosecutes over 90 percent of all bank robberies, even though this has traditionally been a FBI responsibility. Another police chief told me the FBI does not have the law enforcement resources to adequately staff antigang task forces, even as the gang presence and gang-related crime increases in our communities. All of these sheriffs and police chiefs had nothing but praise for the essential work that FBI agents perform in their communities. But even as the FBI focuses on counterterrorism, they ask that it not abandon law enforcement. The Seattle FBI field office has remained understaffed even for counterterrorism agents. That is especially troubling because Washington State's industry-leading companies, international seaports, and important military facilities make it a prime target for a terrorist attack. Three years from now, thousands of people are going to travel through my home State to attend the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. We have to be prepared for the worst. Currently, Washington State ranks 35th in per capita FBI agents. Clearly, that makes no sense. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for working with me on this issue; specifically an amendment that would end this disconnect and ensure we are placing our FBI agents where they can best protect our communities. It will also get the FBI to tell us how it intends to distribute its resources. That amendment is the first step toward ensuring that the FBI's priorities are in sync with our country's security needs and its own stated priorities. I commend Senator Mikulski for her recognition of that need. Her work to include additional funding for the FBI in this bill is a very good first step. The next step is to increase funding to hire, train, and place new FBI agents throughout the country that will help to ease the burden the FBI has had to bear since 9/11 changed its mission. But I think we all know more funding is needed. Unfortunately, if this President believes that increasing our FBI budget is irresponsible and excessive and plans to veto this bill, we will not be able to make the necessary investments today that will make our country more secure tomorrow. While Federal agents are critically important to maintaining the security of our country, we all know that State and local law enforcement are the real guardians for our communities. In this post-9/ 11 world, we have asked them to place counterterrorism at the top of their priorities. But criminals have not stopped abusing children or robbing stores or dealing drugs. The local police have been told they need to do more with less, but we have reached a point today where we simply cannot ask them to do more without help. A recent FBI crime report showed that after a decade of declines, violent crime is now rising for the second straight year. We have to make sure it doesn't rise again. This bill restores funding for our State and local law enforcement to nearly $2.7 billion and fills a major gap, after the President cut its budget in half. This will also provide $1.4 billion for State and local law enforcement grants, including $550 million for COPS grants, and over $100 million for Byrne grants. These funds are critically important and they support antidrug and antigang task forces around the country. They fund communications equipment that helps our police and our emergency response teams talk to each other, something we all know is desperately needed in all our communities. They fund critical programs to deal with the spread of methamphetamine, and police chiefs and sheriffs have consistently told me these grants were absolutely essential to their ability to protect our communities. Unfortunately, as I said, we have heard the President say he is going to veto this legislation. This bill addresses critical priorities across our country and I urge all my colleagues to support the bill and send the President a message from our constituents at home that he is taking our country's safety and economic well-being in the wrong direction and that we need to change focus and give our communities what they need to be safe and sound and secure. This bill also addresses vital commercial and economic interests across the Nation. In my home State, that means helping to ensure a healthy, sustainable salmon population. In Washington State, healthy salmon mean a healthy economy. That's why I am thankful that this bill includes $90 million in funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. This money will help support our State's coordinated effort to restore salmon runs and preserve a way of life in the Pacific Northwest. When I talk with leaders in my home State about the need to restore our salmon populations, they call it critical. When I go home and discuss with law enforcement officials, experts and the media, about the need to increase the number of FBI agents, they say it is an urgent problem. When I talk to local police and sheriffs about the need for COPS and Byrne grants, they say these grants are crucial to the security and safety of our communities. Yet when I return to Washington, DC, I am told by this President that the money that is so desperately needed at home is ``irresponsible and excessive.'' It could not be clearer that this Administration is out of step with the priorities of the people of State and the people of this country. We have presented the President a measured, responsible bill to bolster our security and build our economy, and I understand he has decided to reject it. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and send the President a message from our constituents at home: That he is taking our country's safety and economic well-being in the wrong direction, and that we need to change focus and give our communities what they need to be safe, and sound, and secure. Amendment No. 3317

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, In the nearly 7 years that I have worked to pass the Ban Asbestos in America Act, I have been aided by so many dedicated and driven individuals without whom this day would not have been possible. I wish to take a minute to thank them for all they have done. I would like to begin by thanking my entire personal staff who have taken on this fight with me. Over 7 years many of them have come and gone, but I know they are all very proud today because each and every one of them, in their own unique way, has helped this effort along. In particular I would like to thank Bill Kamela who, as the head of my HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, has carried the torch on this issue for so many years. Bill has sat with me in countless meetings reassuring widows, clearing legislative hurdles, and pledging to all to make this ban a reality. Bill's hard work and expertise have been essential to making this possible. I would also like to thank Anna Knudson, a former member of my staff who had the vision and passion to begin this effort. I would like to thank Bill's hard-working staff Crystal Bridgeman, Mike Waske, and Janice Camp who lent their know-how and support to this effort at a critical juncture. I would like to thank Alex Glass and my entire press office for their work in spreading the word about the importance of this effort. And I would like to thank Pete Weissman who recently left my office but whose words often helped drive home the urgency of this effort. I would also like to thank Mike Spahn who worked with me on the Senate floor to guide this bill to passage I also want to recognize and thank Dr. Barry Castleman, Chris Hahn from the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, MaryAnne Dunlap from Senator Inhofe's office, Ed Egee from Senator Isakson's office, Linda Reinstein from the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Dr. Aubrey Miller, Dr. Greg Meeker, Dr. Richard Lemen, Dr. Mike Harbut, Dr. Harvey Pass, Andrew Schneider of the Seattle PI, and Matt Bergman. I also want to say that it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Isakson's staff, the staff from EPW, and Senator Boxer's staff. It takes a lot of people to get something done. A tremendous amount of people have worked on this. I thank them. Because of their work, we are going to ban asbestos, we are going to dramatically expand research and treatment, and we are going to launch a public education campaign so all Americans understand how they can protect themselves from the deadly asbestos products that may be in their home.