Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am honored to come to the floor today to speak on behalf of Richard Jones. He is a distinguished lawyer and a King County Superior Court judge from my home State. He is a man who enjoys broad bipartisan support, and he deserves a seat on the Federal bench. President Bush nominated Judge Jones to be a district court judge for the Western District of Washington State. He is an excellent choice. I am very proud to be here this afternoon to support him, and I urge my colleagues to support him as well. If you were to ask lawyers or judges in my home State about Judge Jones, some of the descriptions you would hear are, ``He is admired by everyone in the justice system.'' ``He gives respect, and he gets respect.'' ``The test of one's performance is the way they handle the smaller cases. Richard displays precisely that same degree of sensitivity to all who appear before him.'' The Seattle Times described this nomination by saying: This is a lifetime appointment with no room for mistakes, and we believe there is no mistake here. I couldn't agree more. Judge Jones has handled some of the most difficult cases in western Washington in the past decade and he has won the respect of everyone who has come before him. He presided over the sentencing of Gary Ridgway, who was known as the ``Green River Killer.'' Ridgway pleaded guilty to 48 counts of aggravated first- degree murder in 2003 and is one of the most prolific serial killers in American history. That would be a tough case for any judge, but Judge Jones earned praise for the sensitivity and dignity he showed for the victims of the Green River killer. As a result of that case--and in recognition of his long service to Washington State--in 2004, Judge Jones received the ``Judge of the Year Award'' from the Asian Bar Association of Washington, from the King County Bar Association, from the Washington State Bar Association, and from the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association. Judge Jones has also been praised by his peers for handling cases far out of the media spotlight with the same care and attention. Both Senator Cantwell and I assisted the President in choosing Judge Jones from a list of very qualified candidates. When I met him, I was so impressed with his sensitivity, his professionalism, and his overall sense of fairness. Throughout his career, Judge Jones has won high praise for his judicial demeanor and for the respect he shows all parties. In the courtroom, Judge Jones is known for making articulate and powerful statements that make clear where he stands. He clearly meets the standards of fairness, evenhandedness, and adherence to the law we all expect from our Federal judges. In his personal background, he graduated from Seattle University and the University of Washington School of Law. In private practice, Richard Jones successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of civil cases. As a State and a Federal prosecutor, he had extensive experience prosecuting criminal cases. Most recently, as a full-time King County Superior Court judge, Richard Jones has distinguished himself and won broad support. In addition to all of those professional responsibilities, Judge Jones also has been deeply involved in community activities. He served as a YMCA board member and mentored minority youths. He has worked in the community to expand opportunities for students to pursue legal careers by supporting youth-oriented legal programs. Judge Jones has shown a commitment to the people of his community, and that is one of the reasons why they have shown a commitment to him. Since he was first appointed in 1994, the voters of King County have reelected him three times. I know I speak on behalf of a large number of people in my State's legal and law enforcement community in saying that our Federal bench will be stronger with Richard Jones. It is my pleasure to be here on the floor this afternoon to support his nomination. He has garnered bipartisan support in my State, and I am confident that his record of fair and unbiased service will earn him a bipartisan vote on the floor of the Senate today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and our floor staff on both sides of the aisle who helped us. They know that Senator Isakson and I dogged them every single day, every single minute of the way until we got this done. Without their help we couldn't be here either. I will end by saying I have looked in the eyes of too many people who have lost a loved one to a product that contained asbestos because they went to work and didn't know they were being exposed. To all of those people who have stuck with us and worked with us and fought with us--some of them are here in the Senate with us today--we wouldn't be here without you and your passion. Because of that, we are changing the world to a better place. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before Senator Boxer speaks, I want to thank all of my staff who have been involved in this. I will insert their names in the Record. Bill, Crystal, Alex, in my press shop, Mike, Pete, previous staff members have put in countless hours on this. Without them we would never do this. I certainly know that working with Senator Isakson's staff and 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. With that, I thank our chairwoman.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues in the Senate for taking a moment this afternoon to pass a very important piece of legislation. What the Senate did was pass the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007. This is a piece of legislation I have been working on now for almost 7 years. When I heard about Americans and people who were dying from asbestos, I thought to myself, my gosh, I thought asbestos was banned many years ago. How can this be? Well, the fact is asbestos has never been banned. In fact, today 2,500 metric tons of asbestos are being imported every year. It is in products such as hair dryers, ceiling tiles, it is in brake pads, and over 3,000 other products Americans are using and being exposed to every day. I began, with Senator Paul Wellstone, 6 years ago to try and pass this legislation. Of course, I lost my friend Senator Wellstone in an airplane crash. I thought to myself: Wow, how am I ever going to get this out of the Senate without his passion? Well, I was very fortunate because I found another partner who was just as passionate, and he is here with us today, Senator Isakson from Georgia, who took up this banner with me, who has worked this bill through every way possible, because he too looked in the eyes of those families who were losing loved ones, members of their families today, because asbestos was exposing them to deadly diseases, and they were dying of mesothelioma. I could not have done it without him. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for working this bill through every nook and cranny, every difficult challenge we have had, every difficult sentence. For anybody out there who thinks legislation passes without anybody looking at it, we can tell you that every ``T'' has been crossed, every ``I'' has been dotted, and this legislation, when it passes, is going to make a real difference in the lives of Americans. I thank Senator Boxer, the chair of the EPW Committee, who, when she heard us working on this bill 7 or 8 months ago now, said: Senator Murray, Senator Isakson, this bill is in my jurisdiction. I am going to work with you to get it passed. She has worked every single day through all of the challenges we have had, to this moment now, and what a moment it is. When I began this battle, I began it with two men I met who were dying of mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to asbestos: Fred Biekkola and Brian Harvey. I told them I would stand with them every step of the way until this bill was passed, sent to the President, and signed into law. I lost both Brian and Fred, because they died of mesothelioma. But I have met many others along the way too. Today I stand here on the floor of the Senate and I tell everyone, when you believe in something, and you work hard, and you find good people to work with you, you can make a difference. Because of the Freds and the Brians and the many other people I have met, and my great colleagues on the floor of the Senate, today we are making a difference. We are well on our way to banning the use of asbestos. It goes now to the House. We are working to make sure the House gets this passed and to the President's desk. I can tell everyone in America, when that bill is signed, we will no longer be exposed to the importation and use of asbestos in this country. You can pick up your hair dryer, or know that the ceiling tiles you buy, or the brake pads that are in your car, or the mechanic who is exposed to it accidentally will no longer be exposed to it, and we will have made a major step forward in the health of all Americans. I thank Senator Isakson, Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, all of the people who have worked with us. But as we all know, we are doing this because we want America to be a safer place. I thank everybody for this major step forward. I yield to my colleague who has worked so hard with me on this.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 321, S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007; that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment be agreed to and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from Rhode Island for voicing his concerns about the veto of the children's health bill that is so important to so many children, and I appreciate his strong statement. I think yesterday was a sad day for all Americans. For reasons I can't comprehend, President Bush yesterday decided to veto our bipartisan effort to invest in health care for the Nation's children. With no fanfare, behind closed doors, when no one was looking, the President put his personal politics ahead of increased investment in our most precious asset, our children. I was so proud last week when, with bipartisan support in good margins in both Houses of Congress, we passed the Children's Health Insurance Program. That bill is an example of how Government ought to work. Leaders in the House and in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, worked together to find a compromise that could work for everyone at the table. Nobody got everything they wanted, but the final product was worthy of support and pride on all sides. I had hoped that after seeing the tremendous work that went into this compromise the President would think of the kids in every State of the Union who needed basic health care and reconsider his position. I had hoped he would think about the families who are struggling to make ends meet and reconsider his position. I had hoped that in the end he would reconsider his plan to say no to our children and to our families. But yesterday those hopes were dashed. All children should be able to see a doctor when they are sick, and all children should be able to get the medicine they need to make them better. When a child gets a cut that requires stitches or comes down with a fever or an earache or with any other imaginable problem, they ought to be able to get help, period. Unfortunately, as we all know, today in America--the richest and most successful country ever--that is not the case. In fact, millions of American children do not have health insurance, which means millions of American kids cannot see a doctor when they are sick, and millions of American children don't get the medicine they need to help them get better. It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat, whether you are a progressive or conservative, I believe making sure our children get health care is the moral thing to do. This veto that the President penned yesterday has real and serious impact on many families in my State and across the country. Because President Bush vetoed that bill, 3.8 million uninsured children are going to continue to live without coverage. Let me say that again. President Bush told 3.8 million children in America they cannot have health care. To me, that is just shameful. When I came to the floor a couple of weeks ago to talk about this important bill, I told the story of a woman in my State, Sydney DeBord, who lives in Yakima, WA. She is a young girl who has cystic fibrosis. Her mom wrote to me to tell me how important this children's health insurance program was to her family. She said it allowed her daughter, Sydney, to get and extend her life, and it allowed her to live her very tough life to the fullest. I want to quote again from that letter because I believe she speaks for those more than 3 million children and their families on this dark day. Ms. DeBord 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. As her parent, it frightens me to even think some day she may be without health care coverage if programs like CHIP are no longer available. Today, I share Ms. DeBord's fears, and all other parents do as well. We have another chance. The President doesn't have the final say on this one. Right now, Members of the House of Representatives are working to find the votes to override this veto, perhaps, and hopefully end the fears of Ms. DeBord and millions of moms just like her. They need a few more votes. If they get a few more votes, we can tell the President that investing in families and investing in America is a priority of the men and women of this Congress no matter how many vetoes he sends our way. It is very troubling to me that the President continues to ignore the wishes of the American public. The American people and the vast majority of Congress want to expand stem cell research to find cures for diseases affecting so many in our Nation. The President says no. The American people and the vast majority of Congress want to change course in Iraq and bring our troops home safely. The President says no. The American people and the vast majority of Congress want investment in roads, bridges, medical research, and education. The President says no. The American people and the vast majority of Congress want to provide health care for our young children today. The President says no. So we need a few more Republicans to join us and to join the American people in telling the President he is wrong and he cannot stand in the way of progress for our young kids. I hope the disappointment felt by kids and their families today is going to be washed away in the weeks to come by another bipartisan show of support for this outstanding and critical health care program in America. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today, I heard disturbing testimony during a Senate HELP Committee hearing on the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster about the misinformation that families received during the tragedy. When I met with many of the family members of the miners involved in the accident, I saw the enduring pain of their loss, and, although there is nothing I can do to take that pain away, I can work to ensure that if other families are ever faced with such tragedy in the future, they will be cared for with respect, dignity, and consistency. I am proud to introduce the Mine Disaster Family Assistance Act of 2007, closely modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board's highly effective family assistance model used during major aviation accidents in this country to care for victims and their families. This bill puts families who experience such a tragedy first by establishing a director of family support services at MSHA. This person would serve as the Federal Government's point-of-contact for families during an emergency. The director would be responsible for the overall coordination of family services provided by all parties involved in a mine emergency and ensure that families receive consistent information first during rescue and investigation efforts. Second, it requires the designation of an independent nonprofit organization with experience in disasters and post trauma family communication, such as the American Red Cross, ARC, as the primary coordinator of emotional care and support for families. This organization will provide mental health and counseling services to families, and a private place to grieve; meet with family members onsite; and update families on accident and post accident activities. Third, it requires mine operators to submit a strategic plan to clearly establish accident protocols for meeting the needs of families before an emergency occurs. To ensure these plans are submitted and approved in a timely fashion, the bill also prohibits approval of other operating plans until a mine has an MSHA-approved family assistance plan. Finally, it gives families a voice in the process by including them as a required partner in a task force designed to provide recommendations for program enhancements. Other partners include mine operators, including operators of small mines, labor, the ARC, and the Bureau of Land Management. We all agree that families who have lost loved ones in mining tragedies like those at Sago and Crandall, deserve our best efforts to provide consistent communication and support. The landmark MINER Act, signed into law last year, was a good first step in this direction, but these tragedies demand that we take additional steps to ensure that the victims' families receive the best information and care possible during an emergency.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. This continuing resolution provides funding for the Essential Air Service program at the current rate with the expectation that the program shall continue to function as it is functioning now. We expect the Department of Transportation to avoid any major policy decisions that can impact this program during the period of the continuing resolution--especially given the fact that there is already legislation reported out of committee and awaiting Senate action that addresses the continuation of air service to these communities.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for helping us work through that. More than 4\1/2\ years into this war in Iraq, our troops are stretched thin, we all know the equipment is deteriorating, and the patience of the Nation is wearing out. We have now seen 3,700 of our servicemembers die and thousands and thousands more have been injured. Month after month, our fighting men and women are pushing harder and harder and our troops are leaving their loved ones behind for months and years and putting their lives on the line without complaint. We owe them the best treatment and the best training possible. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has continually fallen short in doing that. Our country is home to some of the finest fighting forces in the world, and we can all be very proud of that. We need our military to remain the best trained, the best equipped, and most prepared force in the world. Tragically, however, the war in Iraq and the President's use of extended deployments are now undermining our military's readiness. The current deployment schedule hampers our ability to respond to threats around the world. We know it causes servicemembers to leave the military service early. It weakens our ability to respond to disasters at home. It unfairly burdens family members and intensifies the combat stress our servicemembers experience. We do need to rebuild our military, and the first step is giving our fighting men and women the time they need at home to prepare and train for their next mission. So that is why I am on the floor today, to speak to the readiness challenges that threaten our military strength and ultimately our Nation's security. Two months ago, I came to the floor and spoke those very same words in my effort to support the Webb amendment--virtually the same measure we are now, this afternoon, considering. Member after Member did the same, pleading with our colleagues to join us in this most basic effort to truly support our troops. Unfortunately, even though 56 Senators voted in favor, it was blocked by the Republican Senators. Now since that time, 2 months later, more of our troops have died, more have been wounded, and more have been subjected to 15-month deployments, without hope for the same amount of time at home. Meanwhile, the administration has told us 15-month deployments will continue, and they have maintained their plan to keep 130,000 troops in Iraq. Today we have another chance--another chance to support our troops, to support their families, and to return some common sense to our troop rotations. We need a few more courageous Senators to join us. Today I hope they will. Sadly, our forces are being burned out. Many of our troops are on their third and even fourth tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Months ago, the Department of Defense announced that tours would be extended from 12 months to 15 months. On top of all that, they are not receiving the necessary time at home before they are sent back to battle. This is not the normal schedule. It is not what our troops signed up for. And we in Congress--those of us who represent these people--should not simply stand by and allow our troops to be pushed beyond their limits like this. Traditionally, active-duty troops are deployed for 1 year and then they rest at home for 2 years. National Guard and Reserve troops are deployed for 1 year and they rest at home for 5 years. But that, as we know, is certainly not the case today. Currently, our active-duty troops are spending less time at home than they are in battle, and Guard and Reserve forces are receiving less than 3 years rest for every year in combat. With the increasing number and length of deployments, this rest time is even more critical for our troops. Unfortunately, though, our forces are not receiving the break they need, and that increases the chances that they become burned out. But this administration has decided to go in the other direction, pushing our troops harder, extending their time abroad, and sending troops back time and again to the battlefield. The current rotation policy not only burns out servicemembers, but it hurts our military's ability to respond to other potential threats. For the first time in decades, the Army's ``ready brigade,'' that is intended to enter troubled spots within 72 hours, cannot do so; all of its troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The limited time period between deployments also lessens the time to train for other threats. Numerous military leaders have spoken to us about this problem. GEN James Conway said: . . . I think my largest concern, probably, has to do with training. When we're home for that seven, eight, or nine months, our focus is going back to Iraq. And as I mentioned in the opening statement, therefore, we're not doing amphibious training, we're not doing mountain-warfare training, we're not doing combined-armed fire maneuvers, such as would need to be the case, potentially, any other type of contingency. Those were not my words; those were the words of GEN James Conway, who spoke before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of this year. GEN Barry McCaffrey said that because all ``fully combat ready'' active-duty and Reserve combat units are now deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, ``no fully-trained national strategic Reserve brigades are now prepared to deploy to new combat operations.'' This current deployment schedule is making us less ready for other contingencies we need to be ready for. It is also making us less secure at home. The current rotation policy has left our Guard units short of manpower and supplies, and it has severely hindered their ability to respond to any kind of disaster they might face here at home. For years, those kinds of problems were the exception, not the rule. But I fear that the balance has shifted. Recently, USA Today reported that National Guard units in 31 States say 4 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have left them with 60 percent or less of their authorized equipment. Last month, LTG Steven Blum said the National Guard units have 53 percent of the equipment they need to handle State emergencies, and that number falls to 49 percent once Guard equipment needed for war, such as weapons, is factored in. In fact, Blum said: Our problem right now is that our equipment is at an all- time low. That is deeply concerning to a lot of us who worry about national disasters in our States. Out in the West, where I live, we face forest fires; along the gulf coast, we have seen the destruction of hurricanes this season; and in the Midwest, entire towns can be decimated by tornadoes in minutes. So we are deeply concerned about our Guard and Reserve being ready for a disaster here at home. This problem is about more than equipment. It is about retention rates. It is about real people and real families. We all know military life can be very tough on our troops and their families. They go for months, and sometimes years, without seeing each other. Our troops-- these men and women--need adequate time at home to see their newborns, to be a part of their children's lives, to spend time with their husbands or wives, and to see their parents. This current rotation policy decreases the time families are together, and that places a tremendous strain on everyone. Our troops, who are facing these early deployments and extended tours today, have spoken out. When the tour extensions and early deployments were announced, our troops themselves expressed their displeasure. In Georgia, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Soldiers of a Georgia Army National Guard unit were hoping to return home in April, but instead they may be spending another grueling summer in the Iraqi desert. At least 4,000 National Guard soldiers may spend up to 4 extra months in Iraq as part of President Bush's troop increase announced last month. SGT Gary Heffner, a spokesman for the 214th, said news of the extension came as a ``little bit of a shock'' to the Georgians. In the 1st Cavalry Division, according to the Dallas Morning News: Eighteen months after their first Iraqi rotation, the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry regiment, and the last of the Fort Hood, Texas-based 1st Cavalry Division, returned to Iraq in mid-November. These are the words of Brandon Jones, a veteran from my State of Washington. He testified before a field hearing on mental health care that I held in Tacoma last month. He said: In November 2003, I was called to full-time duty with the 81st Brigade. I was given very short notice that my unit was being mobilized. In that time, I had to give up my civilian job--an income loss of about $1,200 a month--and my wife had to drop out of classes at Olympic College to care for our children. I went from living at home and seeing my children on a daily basis to living on base--just a mile from home--and visiting my children periodically. To my kids, I went from being their dad to the guy who drops by the house for a visit once in a while. The 3 months of mobilization before my deployment were very stressful. We struggled financially. Although we reached out for help, we were told that the only financial resources available were strictly for active duty soldiers at Fort Lewis. It wasn't until we were threatened with eviction and repossession of our car that my wife was able to obtain a small amount of assistance generally reserved for active duty soldiers. Our families helped us make up the rest--about 60 percent of what we were in need of. The stress made it difficult for my wife to keep a positive attitude, for our children to feel comfortable, and for me to concentrate on the mission ahead of me. When my wife and I reached out for marriage counseling prior to my deployment, we were made to feel that the few sessions we were given were a favor to us and that we were taking up a resource meant for active duty soldiers from the base. Let me remind you that all of this happened before I was even deployed. As Brandon said, that was before he was even deployed. Just imagine the sacrifice these families have made when they go through these 15- month deployments. To me, it is very clear that we need to pass the Webb amendment. We hear a lot of rhetoric on the floor about supporting our troops, but I believe this amendment is the opportunity we need to end the rhetoric and start with action. Troops should be at home for the same amount of time as they are deployed. That seems to me like a basic commonsense requirement. I applaud our colleague from Virginia for being a champion for our troops and for crafting this bipartisan measure that he and the entire Senate can be proud of. Our troops have sacrificed a lot. They have already gone above and beyond the call of duty. We need to institute a fair policy for the health of our troops, for the health and well-being of their families, and for our Nation's security and our ability to respond to disasters here at home. This amendment does all of those things. I urge our Senators to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference on the disagreeing votes, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, who has worked hard with me, the staff, and all of us who have been working to get this bill to the floor and pass it. It is an extremely difficult bill, covering a wide variety of programs and projects throughout the country. We started this process way back in the beginning of the year with the budget process. He and I spent many conversations on the phone working together, getting our bill through subcommittee, full committee, and now to the Senate floor. I could not have done it without Senator Bond's help and support, particularly in the housing arena, helping to work through a lot of difficult issues. I thank him in particular for his diligence and his ability to help us get through this today. Also, I thank his staff: Jon Kamarck, Ellen Beares, and Matt McCardle. They have been there time and again to help us work through the issues. I thank my staff: Peter Rogoff, Rachel Milberg, Bill Simpson, Meaghan McCarthy, and Terri Curtin. They spent innumerable all-night sessions trying to get us to reach deadlines and get the bill to the Senate floor. Without their expertise, we would not be here. I thank them on behalf of all of us in this country. I thank, from my personal staff, Travis Lumpkin, who has been here working with us to get this bill through, as well as Mike Spahn, of my floor staff, who spent a lot of time helping us work through all the difficult parts of the bill. It takes a lot of people to get a bill of this complexity to the floor, and every one of them should be recognized. We cannot do these bills on our own. A lot of people put a lot of time and energy into getting us to this point. I thank Senators Byrd and Cochran, the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, who have worked with all of us on appropriations to get our work done in a timely fashion. This bill is headed to conference. It is an extremely important bill. As we have heard throughout the last days as we have debated the bill, every American is touched by the impact of this legislation. If you get up and go to work, whether you drive or, as we heard yesterday, ride a bike; whether you go on an Amtrak train or if you have to fly, what we decide in this bill and how we set spending priorities makes a difference in your life. For many Americans who are facing a housing crisis today, this bill addresses those concerns, as the Senator from Missouri talked about. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. We received the President's budget with severe cuts in Amtrak, in housing, in FAA modernization, and many more that I have talked about over the last several days. This Senate has said we have to invest in the infrastructure of this country. We need to move forward in making sure that average, everyday Americans who get up and go to work, enjoy time with their families, who want to be able to participate in our communities, have a right to do that, and we have an obligation as a Congress to make sure the infrastructure is in place. We are going to continue to work on this bill with our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, our House counterparts. I hope we can get a bill to the President and get it signed and move these programs forward so the money we have debated and talked about will be allocated and our communities across this country will benefit from it. Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from Missouri.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with that, we will proceed to the final vote. I wish to thank all our colleagues for their support.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference on the disagreeing votes, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendments and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Members were notified last night the vote would begin at 9:30. We have no additional debate at this time. If the Senator from North Carolina has nothing to add, we are going to put in a quorum call until 9:30--unless he wishes to make any additional comments?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his discussion of the current pending DeMint amendment. It seems to me it is our responsibility to make sure our people who are working on these critically important infrastructure improvements are paid a prevailing wage and given the opportunity to care for their families as they care for all of us. Mr. President, at this point we yield back all of our time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today, after two days of testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, to talk about a subject we have still heard virtually no discussion of from this administration: the impact of this war on our servicemembers and veterans. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have now spent countless hours in an attempt to sell both the Congress and the American people on the virtues of the President's surge. Their aim is to convince us to spend more time, more money, and more lives in Iraq. Yet we have heard precious little about the impact of this surge on the men and women who are actually on the battlefield fighting. That is a disturbing omission that leaves me--and I am sure thousands of military families across the country--deeply unsettled and greatly concerned for the future of our Nation's plan to take care of these heroes. We all know going to war has a profound effect on our men and women in uniform, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are no exception. As the Iraq war now enters its fifth year, it is clear the fighting overseas has taken a tremendous toll on the lives of our troops, who have served this Nation so honorably, and on their families, who have supported them so fully. Yet, over and over again, in their sales job, this administration has either failed to make the cost of caring for our wounded warriors a priority or--as we found this week--blatantly misled Congress and the American people about that cost. Unfortunately, on Monday, just 2 days ago--the same day General Petraeus appeared in the House to talk about the results of the surge-- we learned from the VA inspector general that the Department of the VA repeatedly--repeatedly--understated the wait times of our injured veterans seeking care. How can we be expected to trust this administration about the continuation of a surge when they continue to cover up the costs of this war? Administration officials, including Secretary Nicholson himself, have repeatedly told Congress and the American people that 96 percent of all veterans seeking primary care and 95 percent of veterans seeking specialty care were seen within 30 days of their desired appointment date. Well, this week, the inspector general found that in reality only 75 percent of veterans have waited less than 30 days. In fiscal year 2006, the VA underestimated the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who would be seen by 45,000 people. For the current year--fiscal year 2007--the VA has now been forced to revise its projection up by 100,000 people. Now the VA is projecting it will see 263,000 Iraq and Afghanistan vets in 2008. Yet, I am told by some that the VA should actually be preparing to see more than 300,000 returning veterans. Frankly, I think it is very important that we do not underestimate this number. We have seen the past failures in the VA to accurately project the numbers, and I think it is very important this administration get those numbers right. The VA's fiscal year 2008 budget also assumed a decrease in the number of inpatient mental health patients, when all signs everywhere we heard and turned to pointed to an increase in need. In February of this year, I had the opportunity to ask VA Secretary Nicholson, how the President's escalation of the war would impact our care for veterans. He told me it would have a ``minimal'' impact. Now, not only does that statement fly in the face of reason, it boggles my mind. I told Secretary Nicholson, when he told me that: When the President has proposed a surge in troops to Iraq, when the men and women in uniform are being deployed for their second and third tours of duty, and when more and more of our troops are coming home with [post-traumatic stress disorder] and other mental health care needs, I don't understand how the VA can assume that they will treat fewer patients for inpatient mental health care. The VA Secretary's duty is to protect our veterans, not a dishonest administration. If the VA had been frank with us about waiting times and backlogs from the beginning, we in Congress would have been able to invest in our facilities and in allocating our resources properly. If we were getting accurate information, and not being served a political line, we could do our job and serve the veterans. Unfortunately, based on our experience with VA leadership over the past several years, I have serious doubts about the level of frankness we can expect from a VA that has tried to minimize the cost, both in money and in lives, of this war. This spring, as our military was surging in Iraq, we learned that the VA officials--the officials--had received bonuses, while our veterans faced waiting lines and backlogs for benefits. To me, that is plain wrong. Senior career officials throughout the VA were getting a generous package of more than $3.8 million in payments by that financially strapped agency, at the same time as our veterans waited up to a year--up to a year--to see a doctor, and at the same time VA officials were misleading Congress and the American people. This week's IG report found: . . . .that schedulers at some facilities were interpreting the guidance from their managers to reduce waiting times as instructions to never put patients on the electronic waiting list. Well, that obviously results in ``gaming'' of the procedure. So a veteran calls in, asks for an appointment, and instead of putting them in line, they are told to call back in a month or two, before they get on the waiting list. That is the wrong way to treat our veterans. I have to ask, were officials receiving bonuses for cooking their books on wait times? Well, in light of this week's report, it seems to me to be a fair question. The inspector general's report on the VA's failure to provide an accurate account of how long our veterans are waiting for care is a frustrating reminder of that agency's need for honesty and leadership. Whether the VA's numbers were intentionally skewed or incompetently reported, the result is the same: Our veterans pay the price. Now, I have long said the VA provides excellent care to our veterans--once they get in the door. The VA has a long-term focus on patients, it has a great integrated delivery model, and it has a first- rate health IT system that provides distinct advantages over our private sector care. We have to keep it that way. But too often, for our veterans, getting in the door is the problem. Every one of us has heard at home from veterans who have waited months to see a primary care doctor. Some of those veterans have had to wait years to get surgery. For too many years, under this administration, veterans have been last in line, and we in Congress have had to fight this administration tooth and nail to meet their needs. It is clear that 5 years into this war--5 years into this war--the VA is still not on a wartime footing to deal with this problem. It is far past time for the VA to put an end to the pattern of dishonesty that has plagued them. From exaggerated reports of success, to failures to present their real funding needs, to poor conditions at our facilities, the VA is not coming clean with the American people. And every time the VA tries to save political face, do you know who it ends up costing? Our men and women who have served us honorably overseas, our veterans. No matter how anyone in this country feels about the war, Americans support our veterans. Everywhere I go, people stand up and say to me that they do not support the war, but they will be there with their pocketbooks and their hearts to make sure our veterans are taken care of when they get home. In order for us to do that--and everyone here wants to do that--we need to have an honest assessment from this administration about what the costs are or we cannot provide the support that Americans want us to provide. The President of the United States has a responsibility now to send us a nominee to fill the soon-to-be-vacant position at the VA. We need a new nominee, a new Secretary, who is going to be an honest advocate. We need a new VA Secretary who is going to fill the needs of our current veterans and future veterans and who will honor their sacrifice with superior service. I am looking forward to the President finding and sending to us someone who will fill that position that we can finally trust, who will bring about a culture of change, who will bring us accurate information, who we do not have to second guess, and, most importantly, who will be willing to stand up and be honest with the American people about the cost of war when it comes to the men and women who are fighting for every one of us. If we are just being told a happy picture all the time, and not getting the reality of what is out there, we in Congress cannot do our job to make sure our veterans get what they need. The men and women who have served in the military have borne significant burdens. They have assumed great risk for our country, and they have sacrificed their lives and their limbs to protect all of us and our freedoms. They have done their job. They have done what this country has asked. They have done it honorably. It is time this administration helps us keep a promise to them to fulfill their needs. Our Nation has a moral obligation to care for those who have served this country in uniform, and that begins by an honest assessment of the cost. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse.) Without objection, it is so ordered.