Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of Chairman Kennedy regarding the State advisory councils on early childhood education and care included in S. 556, the Head Start for School Readiness Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 231 and the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join my colleague from Massachusetts and thank him for his work. I rise today to voice my support for workers, for their families, and for their right to share in the prosperity the Senator from Massachusetts talked about that they helped create for this country. As chairwoman of the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee, protecting workers' rights is a critical priority for me. In last year's election, we all heard the voice of America's voters calling for change. I am very proud to say that Democrats have been working very hard to help working Americans and their families secure a better future, and we are making progress. We recently, in fact, passed legislation to increase the minimum wage--the first increase in a decade. For the first time in 10 years, many Americans now have the opportunity to begin to lift themselves out of poverty. So we are moving in the right direction. But our work doesn't end there. Now it is time to help workers by ensuring that their voices are heard in the workplace--voices for better benefits, voices for better wages, voices for better health care, and voices for better pensions. As we all know, unfortunately, today in too many of our workplaces workers who do try to exercise their legal rights are blocked by an unbalanced system that can trap them in unacceptable working conditions. I think it is time for Congress to stand with our Nation's workers and give them their voice back by strengthening protections for our workers so they can freely choose to join a union. The Employee Free Choice Act will make the promise of employee choice a reality, and it will restore the balance of the relationship between our employers and our employees. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this important and balanced legislation. So why is this bill necessary? Well, because workers should be able to share in the prosperity they helped to create. This bill is an important step in helping millions of working families get their fair share of the economic pie. Our Nation's greatest asset is our people. American workers drive our economy. Their determination for a better future bolsters our Nation's prosperity. That is why I was so concerned to learn that workers believe the American dream is slipping away from them today. In fact, according to a poll conducted earlier this year by the Change to Win Federation, 82 percent of those surveyed said they believe working families are falling behind. I find that troubling, given that worker productivity has increased 3.1 percent each year between 2000 and 2004, and that corporate profits have more than doubled since 2001. To me, it doesn't add up that American workers and American families are the ones who are losing. They are working very hard to help our country prosper, but they are not reaping their fair share of the benefits. Unions can make a very positive difference. They allow our workers to collectively express their voices to employers on working conditions, health care, pensions, and other benefits, and the benefits we are talking about lead to better lives for Americans. Women who belong to a union earn 31 percent more than women workers who are not union members. That is an extra $179 a week and $9,300 more a year in income. Think about it. An extra $179 could help working moms put more food on the table for their family or help to pay for the education of a son or daughter. It could help her put a little more away for retirement, making she and her family less dependent on Social Security. Workers who are union members are twice as likely to have employer health care coverage. Union families who pay insurance premiums for their coverage pay 36 percent less than their counterparts, saving them almost $1,300 a year. With the enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act, it is estimated that up to a quarter of a million workers and their families in my home State of Washington alone would participate in their employer's health insurance plan. That is a step in the right direction for the 866,000 Washington State residents who were uninsured in 2005. They are also more likely to have guaranteed pensions. Sixty-eight percent of unionized workers are covered compared to only 14 percent of nonunion workers--68 percent compared to 14 percent. The AFL-CIO estimates that up to 250,000 Washington State workers would participate in their employer's defined benefit pension plan with the passage of the bill we are talking about today. Workers recognize the benefits that unions offer them. In fact, 53 percent of U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could. Clearly unions empower their members to access better benefits and provide a better life for their families. But what about other workers, those who don't belong to a union? Are unions beneficial for the rest of us? The answer is an emphatic yes. Unions have forged the way for millions of working families--union and nonunion--to share in the prosperity they helped create. Progressive employment policies such as the minimum wage, the 8-hour work day, the 40-hour work week, employer-provided health care and pension plans emerged from the labor movement and have become the standard in today's workplace. I think we can all agree that unions benefit our society as a whole. I am sure the 60 million U.S. workers who say they would join a union if they could think so, too. Why is union membership declining when so many workers want to join and unions clearly benefit all of us. As it turns out, exercising your right to organize with other workers isn't an easy task under our current system. The system is broken. We all know that a fair labor market can only exist when employers and employees have a respected voice in the system. I am sorry to say that is not the case today. Some unscrupulous employers are silencing employees who try to join a union to better their economic situation for their families, and that is not fair. Under current law, workers who want to join a union use the majority sign up method to let the union know they are interested. Then, employers have the power to make a choice. They can choose to recognize their employees' wishes, and many progressive employers do, or they can demand a NLRB election, stalling the process and silencing the voices of their employees. During the election process, employers have unlimited access to workers in the workplace. They can require workers to attend mass meetings to hear antiunion messages and even require one-on-one meetings between supervisors and employees. And, under our country's labor laws, these practices are perfectly legal. I think we can all understand how intimidating these tactics can be. More often than not, employers create an unfriendly work environment where employees don't feel comfortable discussing unions or their benefits. In many cases they fear for their livelihood, and rightfully so. Unlike the peer relationship between coworkers, employers hold a special position of power over their employees. Employers have power over a worker's wages and benefits and, ultimately, they can fire an employee. A recent analysis from the National Labor Relations Board shows that one in five union supporters are illegally fired for union activity during the organizing campaign. Too often, workers who clearly voice their desire for representation have been silenced by their employers. On the other hand unions do not have access to workers while on the job. They are not allowed to enter the workplace at any time to meet with employees. Employees interested in learning about union membership must meet with representatives and employees on their own time. The Employee Free Choice Act does nothing to change this relationship. It does not limit the access employers have to workers. And, it doesn't expand the union's access to employees on the job. If employees make it through this obstacle and elect to form a union, the ordeal is not over yet. Bad faith employers can drag out the initial negotiations process, often for years, using the time and their unlimited access to employees on the job to convince them that unions are a bad idea. It is easy to see who holds most of the cards in this relationship. Workers shouldn't have to risk their livelihoods to exercise their right to form a union. But it happens all the time. Hardworking Americans shouldn't have to go through such an ordeal to form a union. The Employee Free Choice Act can help eliminate some of the unfair barriers that workers face and make it easier for them to organize. How does this bill address the problem? The Employee Free Choice Act can make a difference. It can help workers gain a respected voice in the conversation with employers, and it can penalize bad faith actors who break the law. First, the bill ensures that employees who want to organize can do so without interference. By allowing employees to choose majority sign up, the Employee Free Choice Act gives workers their voice back. Second, this bill ensures there's time for reasonable negotiations, but it does not allow one side to act in bad faith and string employees along in a never-ending process that is designed to block their ability to self-organize. Third, this bill will hold bad actors accountable if they break the law. According to ``American Rights at Work,'' every 23 minutes in America, an employer fires or retaliates against a worker for their union activity. We shouldn't tolerate illegal discrimination and retaliation against workers who are just trying to exercise their rights. If an employer violates the rights of its employees and is charged by the National Labor Relations Board, this bill will impose stricter penalties. It balances the playing field by requiring that the NLRB stop bad faith employers from interfering in a union campaign or contract negotiations. It puts teeth in the current law by making employers who break the law pay three times back pay and imposes civil penalties for unfairly discriminating against pro-union workers. This will ensure that breaking the law doesn't just become part of ``the cost of doing business.'' Some would have us believe that the Employee Free Choice Act radically changes the rules of the game or takes away employers' rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, it does not eliminate the secret ballot. I am pleased that this bill gives employees the opportunity to vote by secret ballot if they so choose. For too long, some employers have had control over the balloting process, and this bill gets the balance right by making sure employees have the free choice to use a secret ballot or majority sign up. Second, it does not create a new process. Some would have us believe this bill upsets the current system by creating a new process for forming a union. But majority sign up has always been allowable under the law. Today, some progressive employers voluntarily recognize their employees' choice to organize. Third, it does not trap employees into union membership. Opponents of this bill would also have us believe that allowing employees to choose majority sign up as their preferred method for choosing a union would lead to union coercion or would trap other workers into union contracts against their will. That is not true. Let's look at the facts about coercion and intimidation. American Rights at Work found that antiunion behavior is widespread among some employers. Among those employers faced with a union campaign, 30 percent of employers fire prounion workers; 49 percent of employers threaten to close a worksite when workers attempt to form a union, although only 2 percent actually do; 51 percent of employers coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism--both are illegal; 82 percent of employers faced with an organizing campaign hire union-busting consultants to stop union campaigns; 91 percent of employers force employees to attend one-on-one antiunion meetings with their supervisors. Some would have us believe that unions can be just as bad, but the data doesn't back that up. In her testimony before a House committee earlier this year, Nancy Schiffer, an attorney with AFL-CIO, told that they had reviewed 113 cases cited by the HR Policy Association as ``involving'' fraud coercion. It found that only 42 decisions actually identified coercion, fraud or misrepresentation in the signing of union authorization forms--and that's since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. That is less than one case per year. Compare that one case a year with the more than 31,000 cases filed in 2005 alone of employers engaging in illegal firings and other discrimination against workers for exercising their right to form a union. Clearly, unions have proven to be good faith actors in this process. Fourth, it does not change an employer's free speech or property rights. One thing this bill does not change is the access to employees that exists today. Currently, employers have full access to employees during the workday. Unions do not. This bill leaves that relationship unchanged. Finally, it does not bankrupt or harm businesses. Opponents to this bill would also have us believe allowing workers the free choice of forming a union would be bad for business or would bankrupt employers. Again nothing could be further from the truth. We know that majority sign up can work for employers and employees because it is already happening for some progressive employers. Take Cingular Wireless, now known as AT&T, for example. In my home State of Washington, we have seen proof that companies can remain competitive and profitable and still follow the law and respect worker rights. Cingular Wireless gave its workers in Bothell, WA, the free choice they are entitled to. As a result, nearly 1,000 workers in my hometown decided to organize, and Cingular won praise for its responsible, respectful approach to employee choice. Today, the company continues to be one of the top wireless providers in the country. Choosing to respect their employees' choice to unionize did not bankrupt them or make them any less competitive. This bill helps us find the right balance in relationship between workers and management. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in raising our voices in support of workers and their families by voting yes on this bill. Thank you Mr. President, I wish to speak to amendment No. 1614 sponsored by Senators Byrd, Landrieu, Webb, Rockefeller, Salazar, and Tester. The energy bill we have been debating this week is going to bring us greater energy independence and clean up our energy supply to help combat climate change. The bill is clean and green and will make great strides in developing clean energy sources, and increasing efficiency. But we must admit that we have done little in this bill to address America's largest energy resource and also one of our largest polluters--coal. Coal supplies over half of our electricity generation, it drives our industry and manufacturing and can be turned into a liquid transportation fuel to replace foreign oil. Coal is relatively cheap and easily accessible. We have enough coal for 250 years if we keep using it at the same rate that we are now. Not only are we going to keep using coal, but most energy experts predict we are going to use more of it in the future. But we have to start doing better when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions from coal. I do not believe that government has been providing the right incentives to move the coal industry in the right direction.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Todd Beuke, a great contributor to the education community in the State of Washington. Mr. Beuke is an exceptional teacher who has been honored this year as a finalist for the Richard T. Farrell Teacher of Merit Award for his outstanding success in teaching history. As a teacher at Sequim Middle School, Mr. Beuke has been able to create excitement in the classroom by using creative teaching methods that resonate with his students. Students and teachers alike have praised Mr. Beuke for his supportive teaching style and the comfortable environment he has created in which students can explore history. Mr. Beuke is an innovator in Washington State education, an inspiration to his students, and a teacher capable of making history lessons relevant and accessible. Mr. Beuke's work extends beyond the classroom as well. He has helped expand the National History Day program throughout Washington State. The National History Day program is a national education organization that encourages professional development and active student learning. The program provides publications and education programs that help guide teachers in methods to engage students and bring history to life. Washington State teachers and students have benefited from the effort Mr. Beuke has made to share information about the History Day program. The National History Day awards are a valuable way to highlight positive role models in our education system. I am proud Mr. Beuke has been nominated for this award. I thank Todd Beuke for his work in the classroom and for his commitment to education in my home State. I am sure he will continue to be successful in inspiring students to enjoy the study of history.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his tremendous work and advocacy that has gotten us to this place today, a very important day that he talked about, where the House of Representatives voted to pass the embryonic stem cell research bill, joining the Senate. That bill is now on its way to the President's desk. It is because of the work of Senator Harkin over the years and his advocacy and his not giving up that we are here today. I am very proud to join him on the floor to urge the President, now, to do the right thing. The House of Representatives today, in voting for this bill, offered hope to millions of Americans in supporting embryonic stem cell research. There is now one person who can make this decision for millions of Americans and that is the President of the United States. He has a choice. He can stand with so many people who are looking for that desperately needed cure or he will stand against them. I hope, similar to my colleague from Iowa, the President pauses, thinks about the lives he holds in his hands and makes the right choice and signs the bill for embryonic stem cell research. This is an issue I know personally. I grew up in a family of nine. My dad was a wonderful, physically active human being. He served our Nation in World War II; raising his children. He was a strong man. In my eyes when I was growing up, he was indestructible, but when I turned 15 years old, things changed dramatically in my life and my dad's life. My dad was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. That is a horrific disease, for anyone who is not familiar with it. It wasn't long until he could no longer walk, he was in a wheelchair and required my mother to take care of him full time. It was a very difficult time for my family. We had to watch my dad deteriorate physically. We had to watch as my mom returned to work. She was on welfare for a while and finally was able to get some schooling and get a job. But she had to work, take care of my dad, and raise all seven kids. We all hoped a cure one day would be found for my dad and people like him. You never lose hope when something such as this happens to you. It is essential to dealing with what you have been handed. But we were also realistic. Scientists didn't have any promising leads, doctors said there wasn't much they could do, there was no cure on the horizon, there was nothing to hinge our hope on when I was growing up. But now we have a chance finally to offer families across this country hope, opportunity, a chance for a cure. It is time for President Bush to stop his obstruction and to stop saying no to cures and to stop saying no to hope for families such as mine. Unfortunately, we know since being elected, President Bush has blocked robust federally funded research on embryonic stem cells. Originally, he told us there would be 78 stem cell lines available for study. In truth, there were only 21, far fewer than scientists say are needed for this research. Even the Director of the National Institutes of Health, as Senator Harkin talked about, who was appointed by President Bush, said: ``It is clear today that American science would be better served, and the Nation would be better served, if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines. . . .'' The President refused to heed that advice from the scientific community or his own Director of the National Institutes of Health. He did so-- why? To pacify the ideological views of a few in his political base. What he did by blocking that was to force millions of Americans who suffer from many ailments to put their hope on hold and to stand idly by and watch as a family member's condition worsened. Besides putting the hopes of millions of people on hold, the President's action actually pushed stem cell research overseas. Our country, which has been known as the world leader in medicine and in scientific research, is now falling behind other countries in this field. Reuters recently reported that British scientists, with funding from an American who was upset with President Bush's actions, were using embryonic stem cell research to cure some forms of blindness. Our country must remain at the forefront of innovation. Institutions such as the University of Washington, in my home State, have to have the ability to compete with organizations in other countries. This President has denied that. The bill that has been sent to the President today is on its way to his desk. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 allows the Department of Health and Human Services to finally begin robust research on embryonic stem cells from frozen embryos, embryos, it is important to note, that would otherwise be discarded. That bill also promotes research into funding alternative ways to derive stem cells from embryos, and it does these things while it imposes strict ethical guidelines, as all of us have insisted upon. In fact, the standards in the legislation that is on its way to the President's desk today are more stringent than even the President's own policy. Most important, though, the legislation we want this President to sign takes hope off hold for millions of Americans. We all know the President has threatened to once again veto this legislation, as he did last year. I am here today, and I hope he hears me, to say: Please don't do that. There are millions of sick Americans and their families who are watching and waiting and praying and hoping he signs this bill. If he vetoes this bill, he will likely claim, as he did last year, the legislation is unnecessary since researching adult stem cells, which he supports, is as promising as studying embryonic stem cells. Similar to last year, he would be wrong. Scientists say embryonic cells, which can be used to grow any type of human or cell tissue, show the most promise. They offer the most hope. I have lived with someone with a serious illness. I have seen the suffering that happens, personally, to their families, and to everyone around them. I know how hard it can be. We must not block the discovery of cures for these people. We must not block their hope. Today, at least 17 million Americans suffer from diabetes. At least 500,000 Americans suffer from Parkinson's, 250,000 Americans suffer from multiple sclerosis, and 250,000 have spinal cord injuries, including, I would add, many veterans of the Iraq war. All these Americans, and many others who suffer from a variety of conditions, will stand to benefit from embryonic stem cell research. Finally, today, in sending this bill to the President, this Congress is offering a chance to families across the country to have hope, to have an opportunity, to have a chance for a cure. I hope President Bush hears their calls, picks up that pen, stops his obstruction, stops saying no to cures, and signs his name to the legislation. We are all watching. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, last night, the State of Wyoming lost a fine statesman and a true gentleman with the passing of Senator Craig Thomas. Senator Thomas was a strong advocate for his State and its interests. He fought hard for his priorities, and I especially admired his tireless advocacy for our Nation's beautiful parks and wilderness. He also worked hard for the priorities of rural Wyoming and indeed all of rural America, fighting hard to improve health care infrastructure. Senator Thomas dedicated his life to serving his country and his State. After graduating from the University of Wyoming, he joined the Marines and began his long career of service. Even when faced with his final battle with cancer, he continued to fight on for Wyoming and serve with distinction. But the Senate lost not only an outstanding advocate but a wonderful person. More than anything, I will remember Senator Thomas as a man who carried himself with dignity and who treated all of his colleagues with respect, despite party differences. More than any debate, committee hearing or piece of legislation, it is his warm smile that I will remember most. I know he did a fantastic job representing the State of Wyoming, and I am honored to have known and worked with him. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this difficult time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today I celebrate the life and service of Norm Maleng, a deeply respected leader in my home State of Washington who served as King County Prosecutor since 1978. Seattle, King County, and in fact the entire Pacific Northwest, lost one of our finest statesmen ever with his passing. Norm was known by everyone for his fairness and honesty. He was a thoughtful leader who helped guide our community through difficult times. Over the years, our community was rattled by the Wah Mee Massacre, the murder of the Goldmark family, and the Green River Cases. We all breathed easier knowing that Norm Maleng would handle the cases and that justice would be served. To me, Norm Maleng was always the King County prosecutor. Norm held the position so long, and did his job so well, that it is hard for me to remember anyone else who held the job before him. For all of us in public office, Norm was an icon. For me, despite our party differences, he was always a voice of reason and even-handedness. For everyone in King County, we knew that whatever issue came before him, he would handle it with integrity. As an elected official, Norm Maleng was the best role model for all of us. He treated everyone equally and fairly. He approached every case and every challenge with wisdom and dignity. His voice will be missed. For me, he will always be the King County prosecutor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate, at 8:25 p.m., vote, without any intervening action or debate, on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206; that the time from 7:55 to 8:25 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders, with the majority leader in control of the last 15 minutes, and that no other amendments or motions be in order prior to the vote, with the time allocated as follows: Senator Durbin, 5 minutes; Senator Levin, 5 minutes; Senator Landrieu, 5 minutes, and Senator Brown, 5 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The unanimous consent would allow for every other Senator to be from that side, at your discretion. I did limit it to 10 minutes and I will be happy to amend the unanimous consent for Senator Grassley for 15 minutes following Senator Byrd.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to morning business and the following Senators on our side be recognized for the time amounts that I will give, alternating with Republican Senators on the other side if they so request, limited to 10 minutes. On the Democratic side the order would be: Senator Byrd for 15 minutes, Senator Kerry for 10 minutes, Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, Senator Murray for 10 minutes, Senator Conrad for 5 minutes, Senator Dodd for 10 minutes, Senator Brown for 5 minutes, Senator Landrieu for 5 minutes, Senator Levin for 5 minutes, and Senator Durbin for 5 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think it is important that, in response to the comments of my friend Senator Enzi, I set the record straight for the Senate and the American people regarding the practice of including unrequested emergency funding in war supplementals. The emergency supplemental bills approved by Republican Congresses in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 included emergency funding for many of the same issues that are in the emergency supplemental, such as: agriculture disaster assistance--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental-- $500 million; border security--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$1.9 billion; pandemic flu--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$2.3 billion; wildland fire suppression--fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations Act, which carried $25.8 billion war supplemental--$500 million; airline security--fiscal year 2003 war supplemental--$2.396 billion; and fisheries assistance--fiscal year 2006 war supplemental--$112 million. The White House has complained about Democrats including agricultural disaster assistance in the war supplemental. Not only did the Republican Congress approve a targeted agriculture disaster package in 2006, but there is also precedent for including assistance to a sector in the economy that has been hard hit by a disaster. In 2003, Congress approved $515 million of relief for the aviation industry. The White House has also complained about Democrats including other matter in a war supplemental, such as the minimum wage increase. Yet under Republican control, war supplemental laws included such unrelated matters as the REAL ID Act, fiscal year 2005, a temporary worker program, fiscal year 2005, and budget process provisions, fiscal year 2006. So I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify for my colleagues the real record when it comes to meeting the needs of the American people in emergency supplemental appropriation bills.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to support the supplemental appropriations bill we will be considering shortly. Let me be very clear. I strongly disagree with the President on our course in Iraq. I was one of only 23 Members of the Senate to vote against going to the war in Iraq, and I am committed to changing the course, redeploying our troops, and refocusing our efforts on fighting the global war on terror. I have voted time and again for resolutions and amendments to change direction. I believe the President is wrong to continue on with an open-ended commitment to an Iraqi government that has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and take responsibility for its own country. I believe the President is wrong to continue to ignore the warnings of generals, experts, and the will of the American people. But I also believe the President is wrong when, in his stubborn refusal to change, he also withholds money for our troops whom he has sent into harm's way. The President did just that on May 1 when he vetoed a congressionally approved supplemental that provided $4 billion more than he asked for for our troops. When the President vetoed that bill, he was the one who denied our troops the resources, equipment, and funding they need to do their jobs safely. The President was wrong, but he hasn't changed his mind. He and the majority of Republicans in Congress are blocking funding for our troops. As we head into this Memorial Day, I will vote for this supplemental because the President has blocked this funding for too long, and I will vote for this supplemental because Democrats in Congress have changed our course. With this bill, we have taken a responsible path forward, in spite of the President, on many of our Nation's most pressing issues. This bill, for the first time, funds the needs of our veterans and wounded warriors who have sacrificed for all of us and whose needs the President has refused to acknowledge as the cost of war. This bill makes our homeland more secure by investing critical funds in our ports and our borders, and this bill aids the recovery of hard-hit communities across the country and in the gulf coast where families have continued to suffer due to neglect from this administration. In just 5 short months, Democrats have provided a new commitment to the American people, a new direction in Iraq, and we are going to continue on this new path to change. From the start of the war in Iraq, the Republican Congress allowed President Bush a free hand. They held few oversight hearings. They demanded no accountability. There were no wide-ranging investigations into this administration's endless mistakes. Year after year, they sent the President blank checks in the form of emergency supplementals. Now, 5 years into this war, after 5 years without accountability, 3,400 of our heroes have died, and over 25,000 have been injured. Our troops are now policing a civil war in Iraq. Billions of taxpayer dollars are unaccounted for. The reconstruction of Iraq is far from complete, and our veterans are facing awful conditions when they return home. In November, voters asked for an end to this. They voted for us to stand up, ask difficult questions, and hold those who make mistakes accountable for them. Democrats heard that call. Immediately after being sworn in, we began to hold hearings. We heard from military and foreign affairs experts and called administration officials to testify--under oath. We began conducting investigations into prewar intelligence, the waste of taxpayer dollars, and the treatment of our veterans. Democrats began holding vote after vote on Iraq. We forced Republicans to make clear to Americans where they stood on the war: Are they for escalation or redeployment? Are they for allowing Iraqis to continue to shirk their responsibility or for forcing them to stand up? In January, President Bush ignored calls from Congress to follow the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Instead, he escalated our troops in Iraq. Congressional Republicans refused to criticize the escalation and stood by the President and attacked anyone who spoke out against that surge. But congressional Democrats stood strong. We upheld our constitutional duties and what Americans put us in office for-- conducting oversight and holding the administration accountable for its actions. This trend continued for months, and eventually, though slowly, some of my Republican colleagues began separating from the President and siding with us and the American people. After months of this, Democrats overcame Republican opposition and passed a bill with redeployment provisions. We sent that bill, based on the advice from the Iraq Study Group and military leaders and supported by 64 percent of Americans, to the President. We hoped he would read that bill. We hoped he would realize it was the best way forward in Iraq. But he didn't, and he vetoed it. Now, finally, after months of blindly following the President, more and more of our colleagues on the other side are beginning to stand up to the President, demanding benchmarks and a timeline for change in Iraq. It is clear that despite a slim majority in the House and only a one- vote margin in the Senate, Democratic efforts are working. Today is further evidence of that. The bill we pass tonight will not be perfect. It doesn't go nearly as far as many of us would like. We, along with the American people, have made it clear what we want--a new direction that forces Iraqis to take control of their own country. Unfortunately, the President has said he would veto that bill. So today we have a bill that takes a step forward with our changing course in Iraq. It forces the White House to acknowledge the will of the American people and the role of Congress, it pressures Iraqis to stand up, and, importantly, it funds our troops. The hard truth, of course, is that not enough Democrats are here to override a veto. We realize that another veto will not serve our troops well. They need our funds; they don't need another White House delay. So we are moving ahead. I will say it again: This bill is not all I hoped for, but this war is not going to be brought to a close in 1 day. It is not going to be brought to a close with one bill. We will support our troops, and we will bring an end to the war in Iraq. We will continue to debate and force votes on this war week after week after week. Americans will continue to hear where the Republicans stand on this war. We face terror threats around the world. We must, and we will, defeat them. Unfortunately, the Iraqi civil war is not making us more secure. We do need to refocus our fight back on the war on terror, and we do need to rebuild our military. I support a new direction in Iraq so that we can focus on the larger security challenges our country faces, and they are high. But I know we can improve security at home, that we can track down and eliminate terrorists around the world, and that we can take care of our servicemembers. It is a matter of getting our priorities straight. Redeploying our troops from Iraq is an important first step toward getting those priorities straight. It is a step the Senate must take, just as passing this bill tonight is one. This bill, however, is about much more than just Iraq; it is about taking care of the best military in the world, both when they are deployed and when they return home. It is about rebuilding here in America, on the gulf coast and on family farms from coast to coast, and it is about providing hard-working Americans struggling to care for their families with a desperately needed raise. I am not satisfied with the Iraq language in this bill. I disagree with Senator Warner's language. I voted against it last week. But I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in this bill--in particular, taking care of the troops, which this bill does. It includes billions more than the President requested to train and equip and take care of our fighting men and women and to make sure we care for them when they come home. So tonight, when we vote, I will cast my vote as a yes--not for the Warner language, not for the language on Iraq, but to make sure that those men and women whom we have sent to battle, despite how I feel, have the care and support they need. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I congratulate Caitlin Snaring, a bright young woman from my home State of Washington. Today, she won the National Geographic Bee, a competition that starts with nearly 5 million students each year. Caitlin is from Redmond, WA, and this was her second time representing our State in the national competition held in Washington, DC. On Monday, Caitlin and I sat near each other on the plane flight from Seattle to Washington, DC. While everyone else was reading magazines or watching a movie, Caitlin was studying her notebooks and preparing for the competition. I had a chance to talk with her, and I could see that she was really determined and focused. I remember thinking to myself, ``She's going places.'' After her victory today, I called her and said: ``Caitlin, I can tell that when you decide what you're going to be and what you want to do, you are going to achieve any dream you have.'' And I really believe that. Caitlin won a $25,000 college scholarship. I understand that she is the second girl to win the geographic bee since the competition started in 1989 and the fifth winner from Washington State. In fact, Washington has produced more national winners than any other State. I want to congratulate Caitlin, her family, and friends on this great achievement and on the wonderful example she has set for young people in Washington State and around the country.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I just wanted to come to the floor for a few minutes today and talk about the budget that is before us now. It reflects a lot of work. It reflects the priorities of families across this country. Importantly, it returns fiscal responsibility to Washington, DC. It invests in critical needs of all Americans. I am very proud to be able to say I support it. It is tough and it is strong, which is exactly what we need to be doing today in the United States. First and foremost, I do want to thank our chairman, Senator Conrad, on his work on this most difficult task. I have served with him through this process time and time again. I am always amazed and impressed by his thoughtfulness, his attention to detail, and, of course, his amazing charts. He always works well, along with his partner from the House, Congressman Spratt, to help us establish priorities of which all Americans can be proud. Writing a budget of this size and scope is not easy, but Senator Conrad has again proven this year he is up to the task. I am proud to call him a colleague and a friend. Mr. President, Senator Conrad and all of us as Democrats want a budget that reflects the priorities of American families. We do that in this budget by investing here at home--in our schools, in our infrastructure, and in our communities. We still provide every dollar the President asks for defense spending over the next 5 years. At the same time, Americans want us to return to fiscal responsibility in Washington, DC. Every family knows the importance of balancing their own checkbooks and paying their own bills. They expect us, the Federal Government, to be responsible with their money as well. Unfortunately, as Senator Conrad pointed out, for too many years under Republican control we have seen a failure to manage those taxpayer dollars. Year after year, they have produced some of the largest debts this country has ever seen. This budget, our budget, says ``no more.'' Our plan does include strong pay-as-you-go rules, and that means we are being responsible for today and not burdening our grandchildren with future debt. In fact, this budget produces a $41 billion surplus by 2012. I really want to say we owe Senator Conrad a debt for keeping us fiscally responsible yet investing in the right priorities, and still producing a surplus by 2012. We recognize in this budget that American families want relief from taxes as well. This budget supports middle-class tax relief. It extends marriage penalty relief, child tax credit, and supports reform of the estate tax just to make sure that we protect small business and family farms, and, importantly, provides relief from the alternative minimum tax for 1 year, a tax that increasingly is a burden on middle-class families. I am especially proud of what we have done in this budget that pays attention, finally, to our veterans when they come home. From stories we have heard of veterans who have been struggling to get mental health care for post-traumatic stress disorder, to some who had to wait months if not years to get the benefit checks they so need, or the lack of focus on traumatic brain injury, the signature issue of this war that is affecting thousands and thousands of our soldiers who have returned home. What we have seen clearly is the President has not adequately funded veterans care. This budget reverses that terrible trend and provides $43.1 billion for addressing those problems. That is a critical component of this budget that every Member of this Senate ought to vote for. Importantly, our budget rejects the President's proposal to impose new fees and higher copayments on veterans. The President's budget that came to us said that he wanted to impose fees and copays on the veterans themselves to pay for veterans health care. We say no. We say these men and women have paid the price by serving us. We are not going to charge them again. Very importantly, we keep the promise to our Nation's heroes and restore that by saying we will not impose fees on our veterans to balance this Nation's budget. This budget also invests in critical port security needs. I was very proud to work last year on a bipartisan basis to pass the Safe Ports Act. But that bill did not adequately fund the critical infrastructure we need to keep our ports safe. This bill begins that process. We have increased funding for the Safe Ports Act, which means more radiation detection centers at our Nation's ports, more partners in safe trade, and importantly, the personnel, custom officials to make sure this bill actually works. On education, our budget reverses the painful cuts that we have seen year after year to education and provides the largest increase in funding for elementary and secondary education programs in 5 years. Like all of my colleagues, I have been home. I have listened to my teachers, my administrators, my parents, and students at home who tell us the lack of funding in the promise to No Child Left Behind has hindered them from being able to do the right thing, to make sure our children get a good education. Our budget, this budget that is before us, increases Department of Education funding by $9.5 billion above the President's request and keeps the promise we made when No Child Left Behind was enacted. As a parent, a former teacher, I know the importance of investing in our children's education. I am very proud this budget does just that. This budget also provides very important funding for SCHIP; that is the program that Senator Conrad talked about which is the children's health insurance program. Everyone talks about the incredible burden of health care in this country and who it is impacting most, our Nation's children. This budget expands health care coverage to nearly 6 million children. Certainly, in this country today that ought to be our top priority. That is what Democrats are saying in the budget before us. We provided a very important step forward for American children with the investment in this budget. I think it is important to note that in 3 of the last 5 years, the Republican majority failed to pass a budget. They had a much larger majority than we do here in the Senate today, and we saw what happened when a budget did not happen: historic debts that were passed on to our children and grandchildren. Well, last November, in the election, Americans demanded a change. I believe this budget reflects that call. It returns fiscal responsibility to Washington, DC and, importantly, ensures our Nation's priorities are addressed. I am very proud to support this bill. I encourage all of our colleagues to do so. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. If I can have about 5 minutes before the Senator goes, I would appreciate it. If not, I will come back.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in these dangerous times, we face terrorist threats around the world. The decisions we make here in the Senate must put us in a stronger position to fight and defeat terrorists wherever they hide. Just last week, the United States and German Governments unraveled the reported plot to attack American interests in Germany. This development reminds us that we face dangers all around the globe, and we need to be able to dispatch our resources wherever and whenever they are needed to keep us safe. Unfortunately, having nearly 150,000 American troops stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq does not strengthen our ability to fight terrorists from around the globe. In fact, by forcing our troops to police a civil war and by not giving our troops the equipment and training they need, the President's current policy is impairing our military readiness and our ability to fight and win the broader war on terror. It is time to refocus our efforts back on to the broader war on terror. Yes, we will still fight and defeat the al-Qaida terrorists who are in Iraq. But we recognize that terror networks exist in many other countries, and we have to fight and defeat terrorists in those places as well. That is why I supported the Feingold-Reid amendment this morning. That amendment recognizes that leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq is not the best use of our military. It doesn't make us safer at home, it diminishes our ability to fight the broader war on terror, and it impairs our military readiness. It is clear the Iraqi civil war cannot be solved militarily. It must be solved politically. Today we are 5 years into this war. Thousands of American lives have been lost, and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent. Yet the Iraqis have not moved forward with meeting key benchmarks and beginning reconciliation. We have to show the Iraqis that we will not police their civil war indefinitely and that they must take responsibility for their own future. The redeployment language of the Feingold-Reid amendment from this morning makes it very clear to the Iraqis that our commitment is not open-ended and that they must make the necessary compromises to bring peace to their country. In Iraq, our troops have done everything we have asked them to do. Now it is time to begin redeploying our troops, rebuilding our military, and getting back to fighting the war on terror. As I look at these issues, I see four imperatives: First, we have to fight and defeat terrorists; second, we have to recognize the war in Iraq is impacting our ability to do that; third, we have to rebuild our military readiness, which has been seriously compromised by this war in Iraq. Finally, we have to be there to support our servicemembers, our veterans and their families, every step of the way. First of all, we all recognize that we are in a war with terrorists around the world and we need to fight and win that war. This is not a war against countries. We are in a war against terrorists wherever they reside. President Bush wants us to believe the war in Iraq is the war on terror. It is not. The war on terror that our country faces is not the same thing as the civil war that is raging in Iraq. What is happening in Iraq is primarily a civil war between factions that have been in conflict for generations. The Feingold-Reid amendment empowers our military to target and destroy any terrorist elements in Iraq, but it would not force the majority of American troops to be stuck indefinitely in the crossfire of a civil war. As we look at the terrorists our Nation confronts, al-Qaida is the most dangerous, according to the declassified National Intelligence Estimate from last year. That NIE report said: Al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the homeland and U.S. interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. The NIE also said the jihadists ``are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.'' Al-Qaida is the threat. We have to get back to fighting al-Qaida, and that is what the Reid-Feingold amendment would allow. Under that amendment, while most troops would be redeployed, some would remain to conduct targeted operations against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. They would provide security for American infrastructure and personnel, and they would be allowed to train and equip the Iraqi security forces. This administration's focus on Iraq has distracted us from the larger war on terror, and it has left us vulnerable. Our country faces possible threats from terrorists around the world, and we need a security strategy that ensures that we can fight those threats wherever they are. But, instead, the Bush administration has become increasingly focused on Iraq, which weakens our ability to fight that broader war on terror just when we must be strong. Next, let's look at the relationship between the civil war in Iraq and our own security. Does having so much of our military tied up in Iraq's civil war make us safer? Does it help us fight terrorists around the world? The truth is, leaving our troops in Iraq is not making us more secure. A State Department report from 2 weeks ago found: International intervention in Iraq has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to the instability in neighboring countries. According to our own State Department, our involvement in Iraq is making the region less stable, not more stable. The war in Iraq has the potential to make it harder for us to respond to other threats around the world. That is because the conflict in Iraq is tying up large parts of our military and is degrading our military readiness, which brings me to my third point. We must rebuild America's military. We can all be proud that our country is home to the finest fighting forces in the world. But we must also face the truth. The war in Iraq has impaired our military readiness, and that is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of military leaders and experts who say it may take us, now, 5 years to rebuild our military. The Iraq war has impaired our readiness by forcing a hard-to-maintain tempo on our troops, by destroying our equipment, by reducing the capabilities of our Guard and Reserve, and by limiting the training that our troops receive. Today we are forcing a very tough tempo on our servicemembers. They all want to work, and they all want to work hard. But we have to make sure the demands placed on them are reasonable. The Pentagon has extended tours of duty for our troops. It has deployed troops sooner than planned. It has sent troops without all the training and equipment they should receive. It has deployed troops without the downtime at home that our servicemembers and their families deserve. Two Army brigades are on their fourth deployment now to Iraq and Afghanistan. That tremendous pace with little downtime in between is a strain on our troops. Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address those strains on our servicemembers so we can remain the best in the world. The Iraq war is also impairing our readiness by destroying our equipment. The Army, for example, is supposed to have five brigades' worth of equipment prepositioned overseas, but because of the war in Iraq, the Army is depleting those reserves. GEN Peter Schoomaker told the Senate just last month: It will take us 2 years just to rebuild those stocks. Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the strains on equipment so we can remain the best in the world. The Iraq war has especially impacted the readiness of our National Guard. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Stephen Blum, testified that the readiness of National Guard forces is at a historic low. He said: Eighty-eight percent of the forces that are back here in the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard. A national commission looked at the National Guard and Reserve and sent its report to Congress last March, a few months ago. The commission said: We believe that the current posture and utilization of the National Guard and Reserve as an ``operational reserve'' is not sustainable over time, and if not corrected with significant changes to law and policy, the reserve component's ability to serve our Nation will diminish. Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the readiness of our Guard and Reserve so we can remain the best in the world. We also rely on our Guard members when disaster strikes at home. We need their trained personnel and equipment to respond quickly. After the horrible tornadoes that occurred in Kansas just a few weeks ago, the Governor of Kansas said recovery efforts for those two States were hampered because there were not enough personnel and equipment. Where were those resources? In Iraq, not here at home. COL Timothy Orr of the U.S. Army National Guard told the Senate that his brigade's homeland security capabilities have been degraded. He testified to us: Our ability as a brigade to perform these homeland missions continues to be degraded by continued equipment shortages, substitutions, and the cross-leveling of equipment between the State and the Nation to support our deploying units. I have shown now how the Iraq war has impacted the readiness of our troops, of our equipment, and of our National Guard. The pace of deployment to Iraq is also hindering another measure of readiness--the training that our servicemembers receive. To meet the President's surge, the Pentagon has been sending some troops to Iraq earlier than was planned, and they are keeping other units there in Iraq longer than planned. That means our troops are getting less time at home, less time between deployments, and importantly, less time to train. Commanders are forced to shorten the training their troops receive so they are focusing now only on specific training that they need for Iraq, but not for other potential conflicts. That makes sense if there is limited training time. We want all that time devoted to their most immediate need. However, many military leaders are now warning us that this fast pace diminishes our ability to respond to other potential conflicts. Here is how the colonel who commands the First Marine Regiment put it: Our greatest challenge is and will remain available training time, and because that time is limited, our training will continue to focus on the specific mission in Iraq. This has, and will continue to, limit our ability to train for other operations. Army COL Michael Beech told the Senate in April that he believes our training strategy is broad enough to support a variety of other events. But he added: However, if deployed in support of other emerging contingencies, I would be concerned with the atrophy of some specific tactical skills unique to higher-density conflicts. We have military commanders telling us that they are concerned that our ability to train for other missions has been limited and certain tactical skills have atrophied. We don't know what the future of our world brings. We don't know what types of conflicts we will need to be prepared to fight. It is our responsibility, as leaders today, to be preparing for whatever the future brings for the next generation. By allowing our troops to only now be trained for today's mission, we are not meeting our responsibility for the long-term dangers our country must be prepared to defeat. Our military is the best in the world. I believe we have to address these training shortfalls so we can remain the best in the world. I am also concerned at the billions of dollars that we are spending in Iraq, coming at the expense of our ability to be strong at home. I am very concerned that the Bush administration has chosen to fund this war in ways that have meant that homeland security priorities at home have not been fully funded. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to try to correct that in areas such as port security grants and first responder funding. But it is not easy to overcome years of misplaced priorities from this administration. Let me share with you some of the examples from this President's latest budget proposal. President Bush, in his budget proposal to us, dramatically cut funding for first responders to pay for the war in Iraq. His budget cut critical State homeland security grants by $348 million, or about 60 percent, to pay for the war in Iraq. He reduced urban area grants by $185 million--that is a 25-percent reduction--to pay for the war in Iraq. He cut our local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants by $119 million. That is a cut of 33 percent at home to pay for the war in Iraq. Mr. President, we know funds are limited, so we have to be smart. Policing a civil war in Iraq should not come at the expense of our security right here at home. Finally, as we fight and win the war on terrorism and we rebuild our military, we have to be there every step of the way to support our servicemembers, our veterans, and, importantly, their families. We need to meet their needs every step of the way from the day they are recruited, while they are being trained, when they are deployed, and, importantly, when they transition back here at home. Today, too many of our servicemembers are falling through the cracks and not getting the support they deserve. That is why I have been working on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee to identify those needs, to fund them, and to have the appropriate policies so we support those men and women who have so strongly supported us. At the end of the day, our security comes down to people, people doing a job this country has asked them to do. We have to keep our promise to them. We face terrorist threats around the world. We must and we will defeat them. But to do so, we have to be smart and we have to be tough. Unfortunately, the civil war in Iraq is not making us more secure; it is making us less secure. We need to refocus our efforts back on the war on terrorism and we need to rebuild our military. I supported the Feingold-Reid amendment this morning because it sets a new direction for our involvement in Iraq so we can refocus on the larger security challenges our Nation faces. This is what I am fighting for in the Senate. I know we can do it. We can take care of our men and women in uniform, we can improve security right here at home, we can track down and eliminate terrorists around the world. It is a matter of getting our priorities straight. Redeploying our troops from Iraq so we can focus on those other priorities is a critical first step in the Senate we have to take. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The Senator from Vermont.

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

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 wish to recognize Muriel Gibson for her 19 years of service to the U.S. Senate and the people of Washington State. Ms. Gibson has been a caseworker on my staff since I was first elected to the Senate in 1993, and she is leaving at the end of this week to continue her public service in another capacity. Ms. Gibson has spent the last 15 years on my staff and 4 years on Senator Brock Adams's staff serving Washington State's veterans and members of the armed services. She has been a tireless advocate for the men and women of our State who served us through military service. As a country, we promise our servicemembers and their families support in exchange for their commitment to protect our Nation. Ms. Gibson has made sure that these promises are kept to these brave men and women. The needs of our veterans and soldiers can often be demanding, and Ms. Gibson met those demands with compassion and understanding. As the daughter of a career soldier, she knows the challenges facing our military families firsthand. Whether assisting a World War II veteran to receive his long delayed Purple Heart or ensuring that a returning soldier from Operation Iraqi Freedom gets the medical care needed, Ms. Gibson saw to it that everyone who approached my office for assistance received the guidance and attention they deserved. I am also pleased to say that her service to our Nation's veterans will not end when she leaves my office. She will be working toward a master's degree in social work and hopes to work for the Department of Veterans Affairs upon completion of her degree. I am comforted by the knowledge that a new generation of veterans will gain from her experience and dedication in the years to come. I would like to thank Ms. Gibson for her years of distinguished service to the Senate, and I wish her happiness in her future pursuits.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation that my colleague from Washington, Congressman Doc Hastings, and I are introducing to name the soon-to-be-opened Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Wenatchee, WA, after Elwood ``Bud'' Link. Bud provided both the inspiration and the energy necessary to make this project a reality, thereby fulfilling a longstanding and serious need for his community. Bud, a World War II veteran and an active member of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 10445, recognized the need for better, more accessible veteran medical services for those veterans living in north central Washington. Like countless others, Bud suffered from health problems attributed to his service in the Navy, where he bravely served aboard the USS Tracy escorting convoys throughout the South Pacific and protecting medical personnel after the deployment of the atomic bomb. When Bud returned to the States, he, like so many other veterans, relied on the VA for health care. In order to receive the necessary treatment from the VA, however, Bud was forced to make a 3-hour drive in each direction to the VA medical center nearest to his home. Realizing that this was the case for veterans all over his community, Bud, his wife of over 50 years, Helen, and his fellow VFW Post 10445 members, helped by the American Legion and other veteran service organizations, mobilized the community to work toward the creation of a new, more accessible outpatient veteran center. I was proud to contribute to this effort. After several years of hard work, I stood with Congressman Doc Hastings at the Cashmere VFW hall on March 20, 2006 to announce the VA's final decision to create the Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Wenatchee, WA. Although Bud sadly passed away before this exciting announcement was made, the creation of this facility in Wenatchee represents the culmination of Bud and his fellow veterans' efforts to make veterans' medical care more accessible and, in turn, to hold the Federal Government accountable for fulfilling its promises to the veteran community. Bud dedicated his time and energy to addressing this and other veteran needs as an advocate, a leader, and a concerned citizen. Due in large part to Bud's work, the new CBOC, set to serve six counties in north central Washington, is likely to make over 25,000 visits by veterans more accessible next year. Bud's life of service and activism, coupled with this final victory, reaffirms a valuable lesson for all Americans: even a single citizen can see a problem and fix it. Bud Link dedicated his time and energy to helping other veterans, and now that the clinic he fought for is going to open, we have a chance to honor his lifetime of service. My bill will ensure that Bud's efforts and good example will not be forgotten, but rather, that the new CBOC will carry on Bud's legacy. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the work that Bud Link and his fellow veterans have done to make this new CBOC a reality.