Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Again, I thank the Senate for working with us to put a funding stream in this bill and to make this a real Maritime Cargo Security Act. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleague, Senator Dorgan, and other cosponsors, in introducing legislation which would prevent the use of private collection agencies by the Internal Revenue Service. As Ranking Member of the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, HUD, and Related Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations Subcommittee, I have consistently opposed allowing the IRS the authority to hire private debt collectors. During Subcommittee hearings with the IRS, I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue at length with the current IRS Commissioner, Mark Everson. What I have learned during those conversations has not changed my mind. When Chairman Bond and I finally are allowed to bring the Fiscal Year 2007 Transportation/Treasury Appropriations bill to the Senate Floor, I intend to offer an amendment that would effectively prohibit the IRS from going forward with this initiative. My amendment will be very similar to the bill we introduce today and the language that is already included in the House-passed Transportation/Treasury bill. I would point out, that the House Transportation/Treasury bill cleared the House of Representatives with the support of more than 400 Members. There is no question that people who owe back taxes must pay their debt to the government. At the same time, every taxpayer should have the right to interact with a professional IRS agent when it comes to dealing with contested tax liabilities. I'm against the use of private collection agencies (PCAs) because, first, I don't believe that taxpayer privacy will be adequately protected. When the IRS attempted the use of PCAs once before in the 1990s, it was a dismal failure. The IRS has not had a good track record of protecting taxpayer information and the Treasury Department's performance in providing information security protections to protect data confidentiality has worsened. Second, I am concerned that private debt collectors will not show the level of professionalism, sensitivity, and respect that taxpayers deserve. In 2005, the Federal Trade Commission received more consumer complaints about private debt collectors than any other industry. Due to the nature of the debts that the IRS intends to transfer to PCAs, the likely result will be that these agencies will end up going after the most vulnerable taxpayers in our society. We should not allow a system to emerge where better-off taxpayers get the benefit of interacting with a professional IRS agent, while economically- disadvantaged taxpayers are relegated to the harassing tactics of private collection agencies. Third, I am deeply concerned with the cost-effectiveness of this initiative. The IRS Commissioner, himself, testified that it would be more cost-effective for the IRS to collect these debts than to contract them out to PCAs. Initially, I am told that it will require 55 IRS personnel to oversee 75 private tax collectors. Taken as a whole, I have to wonder whether the Federal Treasury will really benefit at all from this initiative. Finally, the IRS should not be moving ahead with this activity while Congress is still debating its merits. More than 400 Members of the House approved a bill that included a prohibition on outsourcing tax collection. The IRS should suspend this effort immediately until the Congress has debated its fate and reached a final judgment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleague, Senator Dorgan, and other cosponsors, in introducing legislation which would prevent the use of private collection agencies by the Internal Revenue Service. As Ranking Member of the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, HUD, and Related Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations Subcommittee, I have consistently opposed allowing the IRS the authority to hire private debt collectors. During Subcommittee hearings with the IRS, I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue at length with the current IRS Commissioner, Mark Everson. What I have learned during those conversations has not changed my mind. When Chairman Bond and I finally are allowed to bring the Fiscal Year 2007 Transportation/Treasury Appropriations bill to the Senate Floor, I intend to offer an amendment that would effectively prohibit the IRS from going forward with this initiative. My amendment will be very similar to the bill we introduce today and the language that is already included in the House-passed Transportation/Treasury bill. I would point out, that the House Transportation/Treasury bill cleared the House of Representatives with the support of more than 400 Members. There is no question that people who owe back taxes must pay their debt to the government. At the same time, every taxpayer should have the right to interact with a professional IRS agent when it comes to dealing with contested tax liabilities. I'm against the use of private collection agencies (PCAs) because, first, I don't believe that taxpayer privacy will be adequately protected. When the IRS attempted the use of PCAs once before in the 1990s, it was a dismal failure. The IRS has not had a good track record of protecting taxpayer information and the Treasury Department's performance in providing information security protections to protect data confidentiality has worsened. Second, I am concerned that private debt collectors will not show the level of professionalism, sensitivity, and respect that taxpayers deserve. In 2005, the Federal Trade Commission received more consumer complaints about private debt collectors than any other industry. Due to the nature of the debts that the IRS intends to transfer to PCAs, the likely result will be that these agencies will end up going after the most vulnerable taxpayers in our society. We should not allow a system to emerge where better-off taxpayers get the benefit of interacting with a professional IRS agent, while economically- disadvantaged taxpayers are relegated to the harassing tactics of private collection agencies. Third, I am deeply concerned with the cost-effectiveness of this initiative. The IRS Commissioner, himself, testified that it would be more cost-effective for the IRS to collect these debts than to contract them out to PCAs. Initially, I am told that it will require 55 IRS personnel to oversee 75 private tax collectors. Taken as a whole, I have to wonder whether the Federal Treasury will really benefit at all from this initiative. Finally, the IRS should not be moving ahead with this activity while Congress is still debating its merits. More than 400 Members of the House approved a bill that included a prohibition on outsourcing tax collection. The IRS should suspend this effort immediately until the Congress has debated its fate and reached a final judgment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has been 5 years since September 11, and our country is still dangerously vulnerable. We have huge loopholes at our ports and in our cargo container system, and none of us should sleep well at night until we close those security holes and protect our country. That is why I am on the Senate floor once again pushing for us to pass the bipartisan GreenLane bill. I am excited that after working for a number of years, we are now on the verge of making our country more secure. The full House of Representatives passed our bill. The Senate Homeland Security Committee passed our bill. We have worked with the Commerce and Finance Committees to address the issues in the bill they have raised. Now it is up to us, the full Senate, to finally pass this bill. Today I wish to explain why our ports are so vulnerable, how an attack would affect our people and our economy, and finally, how this bill will make us more secure and keep trade flowing. To understand why our ports are so vulnerable, one just has to look at something that happened in my home State of Washington 3 weeks ago. On August 16, there was a big scare at the Port of Seattle. Two containers that originated in Pakistan were offloaded at terminal 18. They were targeted for inspection. They were first scanned by a gamma- imaging machine, which is essentially a giant x-ray machine for cargo containers. The initial images suggested what was supposed to be in the container was different than what that x-ray scan showed. Next, the port officials brought in two security dogs, and both dogs detected what they thought were explosives in that cargo container at terminal 18. To understand why that is such a scary incident in Seattle, one just has to look at the Port of Seattle and what surrounds it. This photograph shows the Port of Seattle. We can see the port very clearly in the foreground. That is Seattle in the background. My colleague, Senator Collins, was out there and remarked, tonight and while she was out there, about the incredible closeness to where our containers are brought into the Port of Seattle, to where our downtown area is, where there are two sports stadiums that can have thousands and thousands of people at one time sitting in them, and I-5 is over here. That is the main highway that goes through the State of Washington, right through downtown Seattle. As one can see, these cargo containers sitting on these docks are within feet and yards of mass people, infrastructure, our community, our railroads, our transportation system, sports stadiums, and where people live and work. During the scare I just mentioned, officials had to close the terminal and establish a 500-yard safety zone surrounding the terminal, and they had to create a 300-yard safety zone around the entire Seattle waterfront. Fortunately, that day, after having the port closed down for some time, further testing showed that what was in that container was just a false alarm. I wish to take a second to commend everyone on the ground for doing an excellent job of immediately responding to a possibly very dangerous incident. Here is the problem: We did not know what was in that container. We did not know. It could have posed a problem, and it was sitting right on the dock, right within our sports stadiums, within all of downtown Seattle, within our transportation systems, and where people live and work. That is why we are presenting this bill tonight. The main idea of this bill is to push our country's borders out, to do the screening and testing for these cargo containers overseas so that the container never gets close to our shores if we think it is dangerous. But today, too often we wait until that container is sitting on American soil, dangerously close to our cities, before we find out whether it could pose a danger. Fortunately, that Seattle incident ended well, but that very same week, we got a very stark warning about how it could have ended differently. In August around the same time, the RAND Center for Terrorism and Risk Management Policy issued a very troubling report that showed what could happen if there is a nuclear device in a cargo container. The RAND Corporation looked at the following scenario: terrorists put a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb inside a cargo container and detonated it at the port of Long Beach, CA. The researchers chose that scenario because, as they put it, ``analysts consider it feasible, it is highly likely to have a catastrophic effect, and the target is both a key part of the U.S. economic structure and a critical global shipping center.'' Here is what they said would have happened: Up to 60,000 people would be killed instantly from the blast or from radiation poisoning; 150,000 people would be injured by radiation exposure; up to 6 million people would flee Los Angeles; 2 to 3 million people would need to be relocated because their land would be contaminated by radiation. And finally, the economic loss simply would be about $1 trillion. That is 10 times worse than September 11. Those costs would include medical care, insurance claims, workers' compensation, evacuation, construction. Imagine that--the economic damage would be 10 times worse than what happened on September 11. How many more reports such as that is it going to take? How many port evacuations and scares is it going to take before we get serious about port security? Time is not on our side. Each year, 6 million cargo containers enter our U.S. seaports, and that number is expected to quadruple in the next 20 years. These cargo containers carry the building blocks of our economy, but without adequate security, they can also provide an opportunity for terrorists to deliver a deadly one-two punch to our country. The first punch would create untold number of American casualties. The second punch would bring our economy to a halt. Today we are not doing enough to keep America safe. Standing in this Chamber, it can feel as if the dangers at our ports are a distant concern, but given that our ports are connected to our Nation's transportation system and are close to our major population centers, the threat is never far away. I want to share a very disturbing photo that shows us what a terrorist attack could look like. On March 21, a container ship called the Hyundai Fortune was traveling off the coast of Yemen when an explosion occurred in the rear of the ship. This is a photo of what happened. This is a container ship close to Yemen with an explosion at the rear of the ship. Remember the picture I just showed of the port of Seattle and where we are and imagine this happening in the Port of Seattle. What happened when this ship exploded was that 90 containers were blown off the side of this ship and it created a debris field 5 miles long. Thankfully, amazingly, there were no fatalities and the crew was rescued. This incident, by the way, did not appear to be terrorist related, but it gives us an idea of what it would look like if a terrorist incident occurred on a container ship in one of our seaports. I want my colleagues to imagine the same burning ship sitting just a few feet off our shores in New York Harbor or Puget Sound, off the coast of Los Angeles or Charleston, Miami, Portland, Hampton Roads, the Delaware Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico. Now imagine we are not dealing with just a conventional explosion; we are dealing with a dirty bomb. I want to walk through what would happen next. Of course, there would be the immediate horrible loss of life. Many of our ports, as I said, are located near major cities. If this were a chemical weapon exploding in Seattle, the chemical plume could contaminate the rail system, Interstate 5, SeaTac Airport, not to mention, as I showed my colleagues, the downtown business and residential areas. At the port, there would immediately be tremendous confusion. People would try to contain the fire, but it is unclear today who would be in charge. Then when word spread and chaos ensued, panic would set in and there would be chaos as our first responders tried to react and people who lived nearby would try to flee. Next, what would happen is our Government would shut down every single port in America to make sure there were no other bombs on any other containers in any other city. That shutdown would be the equivalent of driving our economy into a brick wall and, in fact, it could spark a global recession. Day by day, we would feel the painful economic impact of the attack. American factories in the middle of our country would not be able to get the supplies they need. They would have to shut their doors and lay off workers. Stores around our country would not be able to get the products they need to put on their shelves. Prices would spike, demand would outweigh supply, and consumers would not be able to afford the simple items they rely on every single day. In 2002, we saw what the closure of just a few ports on the west coast could do. It cost our economy $1 billion a day. Imagine if we shut down all of our ports. One study, in fact, concluded that if U.S. ports were shut down for just 9 days, it would cost our economy $58 billion. The RAND report I mentioned earlier found the economic damage could easily top more than $1 trillion. Of course, we would soon realize we have no plan for resuming trade after an attack. We have no plan today for how we would resume trade, no protocol for what would be searched. We wouldn't know what would be allowed in or even who was in charge, and there would be a mass scramble to create a new system in a crisis atmosphere. Eventually, we would begin the slow process of manually inspecting all the cargo waiting to enter the United States. One report found it could take as long as 4 months to get all the cargo inspected and moving again. Finally, we would have to set up a new regime for port security. You can bet that any kind of rushed plan we put together in this kind of scenario would not balance strong security with efficient trade. This is a realistic portrayal of events that could happen tomorrow. Five years after September 11, we have not closed a major loophole that threatens our lives and our economy. Time is not on our side. We have to act, and we need to act now. I approach this as someone who really understands the importance of both improving our security and maintaining the flow of commerce. My home State of Washington is the most trade-dependent State in the entire country. We know what is at stake if there is an incident at one of our ports. That is why I wrote and funded Operation Safe Commerce to help us find where we are vulnerable and to evaluate the best security practices. It is why I worked hard to boost funding for the Coast Guard, and I fought to keep the Port Security Grant Program from being eliminated year after year. Right after September 11, 5 years ago, I started talking with security and trade experts to find out what we needed to be doing to both improve security and keep our commerce going. Last year, I sought out Senator Collins as a partner in this effort. I approached Senator Collins because I knew she cared about this issue. I knew she had done a lot of work on it already, and I knew she was someone who could get things done. Since that day, she and I have worked hand in hand to develop this bill and to move it forward. The reason we worked so hard on this bill is because we know how vulnerable we are. Terrorists have a lot of opportunities to introduce deadly cargo into a container. It can be tampered with at any time from when it leaves a foreign factory overseas to when it arrives at a consolidation warehouse and moves to a foreign port. It could even be tampered with while it is en route to the United States. There are several dangers. I outlined what would happen if terrorists exploded a container, but they could just as easily use cargo containers to transport weapons or personnel into the United States to launch an attack anywhere on American soil. In fact, in April, 22 Chinese stowaways were found at the Port of Seattle. They reached the United States inside a cargo container. In that case, they were stowaways, but they could easily have been terrorists sneaking into this country. The programs we have in place today are totally inadequate. Last year, thanks to the insistence of Senator Collins and Senator Coleman, the Government Accountability Office found its C-TPAT was not even checking to see if companies were doing what they promised they would in their security plans. Even when U.S. Customs inspectors do find something suspicious today at a foreign port, they can't force a container to be inspected. So we have a clear and deadly threat, and we know that current programs are inadequate. So what are we going to do about it? We could manually inspect every container coming into our ports, but that would cripple our economy. The real challenge we face is how to make our trade more secure without slowing it to a crawl. That is why the Homeland Security, Commerce, and Finance Committees, through the leadership of Senators Collins and Lieberman, Senators Stevens and Inouye, and Senators Grassley and Baucus and I, have worked with stakeholders and experts to strike the right balance. The result is the bill that we are now considering. It provides a comprehensive blueprint for how we improve security while keeping our trade efficient. At its heart, this challenge is about keeping the good things about trade--speed and efficiency--without being vulnerable to the bad things about trade, which is the potential for terrorists to use our engines of commerce. The GreenLane bill does five things. First of all, it creates tough new standards for all cargo. Today, we don't have any standards for cargo security. Second, it creates a GreenLane option which provides for an even higher level of security. Companies have the option to follow the higher standards of the GreenLane. Their cargo will be tracked and monitored from the moment it leaves the factory floor overseas until it reaches the United States. We will know everywhere their cargo has been. We will know every person who has touched it, and we will know whether it has been tampered with. The GreenLane pushes our borders out by conducting inspections overseas before cargo is even loaded into a ship bound for the United States, and we will provide incentives for the companies that use this highest standard of GreenLane. Third, our bill sets up a plan to resume trade quickly and safely, to minimize the impact of a terrorist attack on our economy. Fourth, our bill will secure our ports here at home by authorizing and funding port security grants. This funding will help our ports and port operators to develop and implement security plans. They could use this funding to strengthen their perimeter security, which would help prevent a number of security lapses that were highlighted in a recent Seattle Times article in which a reporter was able to enter a port and walk around the containers without anybody stopping him. Finally, our bill will hold DHS accountable for improving cargo security. DHS is long overdue in establishing cargo security standards and transportation worker credentials. We need to hold DHS accountable, and our bill provides the infrastructure to ensure accountability and coordination. Let me take a few minutes to share a few ways that our bill does make America safer. First of all, we close the loopholes that leave us vulnerable today. Senator Collins and I have studied the 9/11 Commission Report and the various GAO reports and we worked very hard to put their recommendations into this bill. The 9/11 Commission examined what went wrong 5 years ago and how we can prevent another terrorist attack. We listened to the 9/11 Commission and we worked very hard to incorporate their recommendations and to close the loopholes that the Commission identified. The 9/11 Commission said we needed a layered security system. Our bill adopts that layered approach. Here is what we envision as the Secretary of Homeland Security implements this bill. Each step in the GreenLane system will have multiple and redundant security layers. Cargo would be monitored and secured starting at a foreign factory overseas. In addition, containers will be sealed with high-tech container security devices, such as e- seals, to protect against their being tampered with or compromised. Then, before that container is ever loaded onto a ship, its manifest is reviewed and the container is inspected for radiation, seal tampering, and x-rayed. Finally, the cargo will be secured with access controls, ensuring anyone with access to GreenLane cargo has undergone a background check and possesses verifiable identification. Those multiple layers provide the type of layered security that the 9/11 Commission called for. Now, the 9/11 Commission also said we have to centralize authority and responsibility so that there is finally someone accountable in our Government. Our bill does that. It centralizes authority by establishing the Office of Cargo Security Policy within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate Federal cargo security programs and to advance security research and development. The 9/11 Commission also said we need to do a better job sharing information throughout our Government. Our bill promotes coordination by establishing regional interagency operational centers to enhance cooperation between our Federal agencies. So our bill is responsive to the problems and the loopholes that the 9/11 Commission identified. Our bill gives us new tools so we can approach cargo security in new ways. It gives U.S. officials in foreign ports the authority to inspect suspicious containers before they are loaded for departure into the United States. Our bill makes the haystack of containers smaller. It allows the Government to focus on suspicious cargo that enters our ports, and it ensures that we are inspecting and stopping cargo that poses a threat. And it cuts down on the smuggling of weapons, people, drugs, and other illegal cargo. This bill will also protect America's economy in the event of a terror attack, and that is because it provides a secure, organized way to quickly resume cargo operations after any emergency shutdown because any shutdown of our ports has the potential to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars a day. Our bill would minimize the economic impact of a terrorist attack. So I am very proud of this bill, and I thank all of our partners and all of our supporters. I especially thank Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership and work on this very complex issue, and I commend her for the job she has done. I thank Senator Coleman for his work as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I thank Senator Lieberman and all of our cosponsors, and I thank the Commerce and Finance Committees, especially Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. We have also seen tremendous progress on the House side with the Safe Port Act, and I want to thank Representatives Dan Lundgren and Jane Harman for their leadership. Finally, I especially tonight thank the numerous Federal, State and local officials and all of the industry representatives for their tremendous assistance in helping us craft this legislation. They truly are at the front lines of securing our Nation's ports, and I have been very proud to work with all of them and to get to know them and see their dedication and commitment to making our country more secure. Today, we have a choice in how we deal with the cargo security challenges that face us, but if we wait for a disaster, our choices are going to be pretty stark. So I think we have to make the changes now, on our terms, before there is a deadly incident. Let's protect America before an image like this appears on our television screens. Let's not wait until a terrorist incident strikes again to protect our people and to protect our economy. Earlier this year, the American people woke up, and they spoke out when they heard that a foreign government-owned company could be running our ports. That sparked a very critical debate. Now we need to set up a security regime that will actually make us safer. Until we do so, none of us should sleep well at night. A terrible image like this of a burning container ship with a dirty bomb in one of America's harbors could be on our TV screens tomorrow. So this Congress needs to act today. We only have a few days to get this right, and I hope that all of our colleagues will work with all of us to move this bill quickly and expeditiously and pass a GreenLane bill before it is too late. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is debating a resolution that simply asks the question: Could the Bush administration be doing things better in Iraq, the global war on terror, and with homeland security? I know we can do better. I know we need to change course if we want to be more secure. We can do better than sending our troops into war without the armor and equipment they need. We can do better than misleading the American people about the costs of this war. We can do better than completely misreading the insurgency, which the Vice President told us over a year ago was in its last throes. We can do better than a policy that leaves our troops without a clear mission and without a plan for success. Our servicemembers deserve better. Frankly, our security demands better. It starts with this Senate simply saying we need to change the course. We cannot tolerate more of the same. We cannot have an administration that has gotten it wrong at every turn. It is time to send that message loudly and clearly. We all want the same thing in Iraq: for our troops to complete their mission successfully and to come home safely. But today it is not even clear why our servicemembers are still there. What are they supposed to be accomplishing in Iraq today? Overthrowing Saddam Hussein? They accomplished that. Looking for weapons of mass destruction? They looked and there were no weapons to be found. Are they supposed to be setting up an Iraqi Government? We have done that. The Iraqi people have created a Constitution. They have elected their leaders. They filled their Cabinet. Our troops have done everything we have asked them to do. What is left? What are our troops supposed to be accomplishing today? And how will the President's policies get us there? That is the discussion we need to be having. This administration's focus--solely on Iraq--has distracted us from the larger important war on terror and has left us vulnerable. Our country faces possible threats from terrorists around the world. We need a security strategy that ensures we can fight those threats wherever they are. But, instead, this administration has become increasingly focused on Iraq. The President took a detour from the war on terror and has invested a majority of our resources in Iraq, seemingly forever. That weakens our ability to fight the important war on terror. That is another mistake. Bin Laden is still on the loose and our homeland security efforts are woefully inadequate. This resolution sends the message that we have to get back on track on the war on terror. We cannot continue to stay the course in Iraq indefinitely and expect to make progress in the global war on terror. The war on terror extends far beyond the borders of Iraq, and unless we deal with all the threats we are facing, we are not going to have the security we deserve in this country. But this White House has put all our eggs in the baskets of Iraq, and we are slipping behind all the other challenges we face in Iran, in North Korea, in Afghanistan. Yesterday, the New York Times showed us how bad things have gotten in Afghanistan. And I quote: Across Afghanistan, roadside bomb attacks are up by 30 percent; suicide bombings have doubled. Statistically it is now nearly as dangerous to serve as an American soldier in Afghanistan as it is in Iraq. Today the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in my home State of Washington editorialized that we need to get back to work in Afghanistan. And I want to read to you what they said: The central government's control is weakening as warlords and the Taliban reassert themselves. Casualties for international troops are mounting, making Afghanistan almost as risky for U.S. soldiers as Iraq. Opium production is at a record. The head of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime said Afghanistan is now supplying a ``staggering'' 92 percent of the world's opium supply. We entered Afghanistan because it had harbored al-Qaida and bin Laden--who are responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, which killed nearly 3,000 Americans. We still have not captured bin Laden, and the Taliban is reemerging in Afghanistan. Iraq is not the only challenge we face, and if we do not recognize that, Americans will pay the price. This administration has gotten it wrong in Iraq, the war on terror, and on homeland security time and again. Continuing the status quo is unacceptable, and that is the message I send with my support for this resolution. The American people deserve straight answers and a real debate so we can get this right. Nothing is more important for our security, and nothing is more important for this country's future. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Lyn McClelland, a highly respected leader in the maritime community, who is retiring this month after 21 years of service as the Maritime Administration's Seattle representative. Lyn has helped support the success, safety, and security of the U.S. maritime community in the Pacific Northwest. Over the years, we have turned to Lyn time and again for her expertise, her judgment, and her ability to come up with practical solutions. If there is a challenge in the maritime community, you can bet that Lyn's worked to solve it. I am especially proud of Lyn's work on critical security programs, which as my colleagues know is an area of special interest for me. I was so pleased that Lyn worked on Operation Safe Commerce, which I helped create here in the Senate. She has worked on the STEP program Seattle/Tacoma/Everett Port Security Program, and the Washington State Transportation Research Center electronic seal test. She's been a key player on three Area Maritime Security Committees Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, and Lyn partnered with the Coast Guard on a number of maritime security programs including reviewing applications for port security grants. Lyn's work also helped ensure the development, availability and security of military out-load ports in support of our men and women engaged in hostilities overseas. Lyn's contributions were not limited to port security. She has also been a major supporter of the development of the Marine Transportation System, the U.S. Merchant Marine, and she has always been involved in encouraging young people to pursue careers in the maritime industry. Her support of the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee spurred the adoption of new safety measures for vessel and waterfront facility operation. Lyn's eager participation in a wide array of maritime events and celebrations helped make them successful. Lyn has been a stalwart leader and mainstay of the Pacific Northwest maritime industry, and she has strengthened the relationship between industry and government. As other leaders came and went, we could always rely on the energy, knowledge, dedication, and professionalism of Lyn McClelland for any challenge. I want to wish her ``fair winds and following seas'' in her well-deserved retirement. She will be greatly missed. Lyn may be leaving her job, but she is leaving all of us with a tremendous legacy of service and success. Congratulations, Lyn.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, their preliminary analysis shows that this provision would take away the wages and reduce it dramatically for waiters and waitresses, bartenders, barbers, baggage porters, cooks, dishwashers, hairdressers, maids, manicurists, massage therapists, parking lot attendants, personal care and services workers, service station attendants, taxi drivers, and chauffeurs. It appears, indeed, that the provision in this bill will dramatically reduce the income of thousands of workers in my State and other States. I again reiterate that is why we are opposed to this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a question has been raised about whether the minimum wage provision affecting States that allow tips to be exempt would be impacted by the legislation that is before us. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Gary Weeks, who is the director of the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, that says definitively: Under our preliminary analysis, this proposal, in effect, appears to nullify an employer's obligation to pay the minimum wage rate in RCW 49.46.020 with regard to tipped employees. This means that Washington workers who receive tips--typically service industry workers--would see a decrease in income. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the passage of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006. Perkins, the Federal Government's largest investment in our Nation's high schools, provides critical resources for students pursuing career and technical education at the secondary and postsecondary levels. Although the President has proposed eliminating the program in recent budget requests, Perkins has enjoyed a long history of bipartisan support. More than 11 million students are currently enrolled in some form of career and technical education and I am confident this reauthorization will improve the programs and services available to help them realize their goals. I am particularly heartened by this bill's heightened focus on individualized student counseling and the use of graduation and career plans. For too many students, high school graduation and postsecondary education seem out of reach. That is why I have introduced my Pathways for All Students to Succeed, PASS, Act. The PASS Act provides assistance for schools to hire and train mathematics and literacy coaches; supports the collection and reporting of accurate graduation rates; and targets funding for struggling schools to implement reforms. It also dedicates resources to increase the number of academic counselors working in schools. Research has shown that providing early high school students with guidance boosts the likelihood that they will graduate with a diploma. Early, individualized planning also helps students obtain the coursework and training they need to achieve their professional aspirations. I applaud the increased focus on individualized student counseling and planning in Perkins, which will reach career and technical education students earlier in their schooling and put them on a track to graduate. This Perkins reauthorization retains and strengthens the Tech Prep program, which encourages states to design and implement innovative programs that combine secondary and postsecondary activities into a coherent set of courses. In my home State of Washington, it is estimated that workforce training at community and technical colleges increases a student's lifetime earnings by more than $150,000. Federal Perkins dollars, matched by States and localities, are precisely the kind of government investment that pays off over a lifetime and I salute the continuation of these important programs. In addition, I am heartened by several of the major changes we made to update the bill. We strengthened the emphasis on assisting students in preparing for high skill, high wage or high demand occupations, ensuring that we provide our students with skills they need to remain competitive in today's global marketplace. We promoted partnerships among high schools, community colleges, local workforce investment boards, business and industry, with the twin goals of providing students with pathways toward skilled occupations and producing the trained workers that employers need. We promoted professional development opportunities for career and technical education teachers, counselors, and administrators, so that those leading our classrooms and schools remain on the cutting edge of ever-changing workplaces and economy. I commend this bill for bolstering the reporting requirements for Perkins programs, extending this level of transparency to the local level and requiring disaggregation for important population subgroups, including individuals with disabilities; students from economically disadvantaged families, including foster children; people preparing for nontraditional training and employment; and single parents, including single pregnant women. I am pleased that States now are required to report on student rates of attainment of diplomas and GEDs, as well as annual graduation rates. Valid and reliable data serves both an accountability and diagnostic function, and I am pleased to see that this reauthorization requires states to collect and publicize this information. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy, Chairman Enzi, Chairman McKeon, and Congressman Miller for their leadership on this bill. I also want to thank Carmel Martin, Jane Oates, J.D. LaRock, Beth Buehlmann, Scott Fleming, Whitney Rhoades, and Denise Forte for their hard work. The time and effort dedicated by members and staff is evident in the quality of the final product and I am pleased to support the reauthorization of the act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the GreenLane Maritime Security Cargo Act does five things. First of all, it creates tough new standards for all of our cargo. Today, we don't have any standards for cargo security. Second, it creates the GreenLane, which provides an even higher level of security. Companies have the option to follow those higher standards of the GreenLane, and their cargo--those companies which agree to that--will be tracked and monitored from the moment it leaves a factory floor overseas until it reaches the United States. We will know where that cargo has been, we will know every person who has touched it, and we will know if it has been tampered with. The GreenLane will simply push the borders out by conducting inspections overseas before cargo is ever loaded onto a ship bound for the United States. And we will provide incentives for companies to use those higher standards of the GreenLane. Third, our bill sets up a much needed plan to resume trade quickly and safely to minimize the impact on our economy. Fourth, our bill will secure our ports at home by funding port security grants at $400 million. That funding will help our ports and our port operators to develop and implement security plans. They can use this funding to strengthen their perimeter of security, which would have helped prevent a number of security lapses that were highlighted this week in the Seattle Times article. Finally, our bill will hold DHS accountable for improving cargo security. The Department of Homeland Security is long overdue in establishing cargo security standards and transportation worker credentials. We need to hold them accountable. The bill we have written provides the infrastructure to ensure accountability and coordination. I take a minute to thank Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership on this critically important issue. I thank Senator Coleman for his leadership and work as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator Coleman has helped expose our vulnerabilities, and he has worked with us to develop solutions. I also thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership on this issue. I commend all the other cosponsors of our bill: Senators Feinstein, Snowe, DeWine, Salazar, Santorum, Graham, Cantwell, Durbin, and Byrd. We are seeing tremendous progress on the House side with the Safe Port Act. I thank Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane Harman for their bipartisan leadership. Finally, I thank the numerous Federal, State, and local officials as well as all the industry representatives for their tremendous assistance in crafting this legislation. Those people truly are the front lines of securing our Nation's ports. I have been very proud to work with all of them. Right now, today, we have a choice about how we deal with cargo security and the challenges facing us. If we wait for a disaster, our choices are going to be very stark. We should make those changes now on our terms before there is a deadly incident. Let's protect America before an image like this hits our television screens. Let's not wait until a terrorist incident strikes again to protect our people and our economy. Earlier this year, the American people woke up and spoke out when they heard that a foreign government-owned company could be running our ports. That sparked a critical debate. Now we need to set up a security regime that will actually make us safer. Until we do, none of us should be sleeping well at night. A terrible image like this, a burning container ship with a dirty bomb in one of America's harbors, could be on our TV screens tomorrow. This Congress needs to act today. We have heard the majority leader say we need to address port security, but words will not protect us from terrorists, words are not going to help us find a bomb that is hidden in a cargo container, and words won't help us tell which containers could be holding a group of terrorists who are trying to sneak into our country. We need more than words. The Senate needs to take up and pass the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. We only have a few days left before we can do this. We need to act. I urge the leadership, before the August break, to finally bring up and pass the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act before it is too late. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to do that if I can have additional time to answer the Senator's question.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have waited day after day in the Senate on political issues when we should be taking the Senate's time to make America more secure. Last week, the majority leader mentioned port security in a long list of issues to be debated before the August recess. While Senator Frist continues to pay lipservice to this important priority, I remain concerned that with only a week left before the August recess we have no firm schedule or commitment to bring this bill to the floor. I am worried that while the majority says it wants to act, it refuses to put any action behind that rhetoric. And here's the bottom line--if God forbid there is an incident at one of our ports--the fingers will point to this Chamber. And people will want to know: Why did the Senate sit on a bill that passed the full House and passed the Senate Homeland Security Committee? Why didn't we make these ports secure when we had the chance? The only thing keeping the GreenLane bill from protecting us is the Senate's failure to take it up. We have to bring up and pass this bill before it's too late. I am here today because nearly 5 years after 9/11 our country is still vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Just this week, an article in the Seattle Times showed us that our ports are not secure. A reporter was able to enter two West Coast ports simply by hiding in trucks that were entering those ports. The reported walked around cargo containers in areas that are supposed to be secure. In this case, the security gaps appeared to be on the ``land side,'' but as the article notes--an incident at any port--whether from the land or sea side--could shut down all of our ports. Time is not on our side. Each year, 6 million cargo containers enter U.S. seaports. And that number is expected to quadruple in the next 20 years. These cargo containers carry the building blocks of our economy. But without adequate security, they can also provide an opportunity for terrorists to deliver a deadly one-two punch to our country. The first punch would create an untold number of American casualties. The second punch would bring our economy to a halt. Today, we are not doing enough to keep America safe. Standing in this Chamber, it can feel like the dangers at our ports are a distant concern. But given that our ports are connected to our Nation's transportation system and are often close to major population centers, the threat is never far away. A recent example makes this threat crystal clear. On March 21, a container ship called the Hyundai Fortune was traveling off the coast of Yemen when an explosion occurred in the rear of the ship. About 90 containers were blown off the side of the ship, creating a debris field 5 miles long. Thankfully there were no fatalities, and the crew was rescued. Fortunately, this incident does not appear to be terrorist-related. Now I want to imagine this same burning ship sitting just a few feet from our shores--in New York harbor or Puget Sound, off the coast of Los Angeles or Charleston, Miami, Portland, Hampton Roads, the Delaware Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico. Now imagine that we are not just dealing with a conventional explosion. We are dealing with a dirty bomb that has exploded on America's shores. Let me walk through what would happen next. First, there would be an immediate loss of life. Many of our ports are located near major cities. If a nuclear device exploded at a major port, up to 1 million people could be killed. If this was a chemical weapon exploding in Seattle, the chemical plume could contaminate the rail system, Interstate 5, and SeaTac Airport, not to mention the entire downtown business and residential district. At the port, there would be tremendous confusion. People would try to contain the fire, but it's unclear who--if anyone--would in charge. Then--when word spreads that it's a dirty bomb--panic would likely set in. There would be chaos as first responders try to react, and residents try to flee. Next, our government would shut down every port in America to make sure there weren't other bombs on other containers in other cities. That shutdown would be the equivalent of driving our economy into a brick wall. It could even spark a global recession. Day by day, we would feel the painful economic impact of the attack. American factories would not be able to get the supplies they need. They would shut their doors and lay off workers. Stores around the country would not be able to get the products they need to stock their shelves. Prices for these goods would spike, as demand began to outweigh the supply. And consumers would not be able to afford the items they rely on every day. In 2002, we saw what the closure of a few ports on the west coast would do. It cost our economy about $1 billion a day. Imagine if we shut down all our ports. One study concluded that if U.S. ports were shut down for just 9 days, it would cost our economy $58 billion. Next, we'd realize we have no plan for resuming trade after an attack--no protocol for what would be searched, what would be allowed in, and even who would be in charge. There would be a mad scramble to create a new system in a crisis atmosphere. Eventually, we would begin the slow process of manually inspecting all the cargo that's waiting to enter the U.S. One report found it could take as long as 4 months to get them all inspected and moving again. Finally, we'd have to set up a new regime for port security. And you can bet that any new, rushed plan would not balance strong security with efficient trade. Unfortunately, the scenario I just outlined is not the stuff of fantasy. Rather, it is a realistic portrayal of events that could happen tomorrow. Nearly 5 years after September 11, we still have not closed a major loophole that threatens our lives and our economy. Time is not on our side. We must act, and we must act now. I approach this as someone who understands the importance of both improving security and maintaining the flow of commerce. My home State of Washington is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. We know what's at stake if there were an incident at one of our ports. That is why I wrote and funded Operation Safe Commerce to help us find where we're vulnerable and to evaluate the best security practices. It is why I have worked to boost funding for the Coast Guard and have fought to keep the Port Security Grant program from being eliminated year after year. Right after 9/11, I started talking with security and trade experts to find out what we need to be doing to both improve security and keep commerce flowing. Last year, I sought out Senator Collins as a partner in this effort. I approached Senator Collins because I knew she cared about the issue, I knew she had done a lot of work on it already, and I knew she was someone who could get things done. Since that day, we have worked hand-in-hand to develop a bill and move it forward. I am also grateful to Senators Lieberman and Coleman for their tremendous work. We know we are vulnerable. Terrorists have many opportunities to introduce deadly cargo into a container. It could be tampered with anytime from when it leaves a foreign factory overseas to when it arrives at a consolidation warehouse and moves to a foreign port. It could be tampered with while it's en route to the U.S. And there are several dangers. I outlined what would happen if terrorists exploded a container, but they could just as easily use cargo containers to transport weapons or personnel into the United States to launch an attack anywhere on American soil. In fact, in April, 22 Chinese stowaways were found at the Port of Seattle. They had reached the United States inside a cargo container. In that case, they were just stowaways. Imagine if they had been terrorists sneaking into our country. The programs we have in place today are totally inadequate. Last year, thanks to the insistence of Senators Collins and Coleman, the Government Accountability Office found that C-TPAT, the program in place, was not checking to see if companies were doing what they promised in their security plans. Even when U.S. Customs inspectors do find something suspicious in a foreign port, they cannot force a container to be inspected. We have a very clear and very deadly threat. We know today that current programs are inadequate. What are we going to do about it? We could manually inspect every container coming into this country, but that would cripple our economy. The real challenge is to make trade more secure without slowing it to a crawl. That is why Senators Collins, Coleman, Lieberman, and I have been working with all the stakeholders and the experts to strike the right balance. The result was the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. It provides a comprehensive blueprint for how we can improve security while keeping our trade efficient. At its heart, this challenge is about keeping the good things about trade-- speed and efficiency--without being vulnerable to the bad things about trade--the potential for terrorists to use our engines of commerce.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want 15 minutes as in morning business. We could go back and forth. I think we could accommodate that quite easily if the Senator from Kansas wants to speak. I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Kansas, if I could have 15 minutes in morning business, and then go back to the other side.

Mrs. MURRAY. Following my remarks, if the Senator from Alabama wants to go, I would be happy to agree to that.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I revise my request and ask that following the remarks of the Senator from Kansas for 15 minutes, the Senator from Alabama for 5 minutes, and then I would be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the so-called Child Custody Protection Act. This is yet another one of those divisive bills with a deceptive title and a dangerous impact on women. Today, many Americans are upset about the direction in which our country is moving. One would think that the Republican majority would finally start addressing the real issues that affect working families every day--issues such as access to healthcare, high energy prices, fixing the prescription drug program, and protecting our ports. But instead, we are seeing yet another debate on election year gimmick. Last month, Republicans rolled out a constitutional amendment on gay marriage just so they could energize their base. Then they brought up a constitutional amendment on flag burning. Now we have a divisive bill that threatens the health of women and undermines our rights. It is no wonder that Americans are so frustrated with the Republican majority. Today families are facing real challenges, and once again, what we see here is the Republican leadership is playing election year games. To me, this is just the latest example of how Republicans have the wrong priorities. With a war overseas, painful cuts to education at home, veterans being denied healthcare, soaring energy costs, and mounting debt, the Republican majority is saying this is the most important issue we could be debating today. They should stop wasting time on divisive election year politics and start focusing on the real challenges facing the American people. We should be talking about pressing needs, not a dangerous and misguided bill that threatens the health of our Nation's young women. Today's debate comes in the context of a series of attacks on women's rights. Since 1994, we have seen a consistent and aggressive effort in Congress to limit a woman's right to choose. There have been more than 170 antichoice votes taken in Congress since 1994. This bill follows that troubling pattern. The legislation is not about protecting young women, or improving communication within families, or stopping sexual predators. Instead, it is just another attempt by Republicans to chip away at a woman's right to safe and legal reproductive health care. Let me turn to the substance of the bill. This legislation could criminalize a grandparent, aunt, or adult sibling, for responding to a request for help from a young woman in a crisis pregnancy situation. If any of these caring adults accompany a young woman across State lines to obtain reproductive health services, and the woman's home State has a parental-involvement law, then those caring adults could be criminally prosecuted. Today, an amendment will be offered to exempt grandparents and clergy from this onerous bill. It is the least we can do to minimize the harm of this legislation. But this law doesn't stop at turning caring adults into criminals. It would also criminalize anyone who transports a pregnant minor across any State line. Imagine a young woman living in a rural area with no reproductive health service providers and the nearest facility is in a large city just over the State line. If that young woman boards a bus or takes a taxi to the city to get an abortion, the person who drives her could be criminally liable under this law and sued by the parents. I think we all agree that a young woman facing a crisis pregnancy should be encouraged to talk to her parents. According to a study by Stanley Henshaw and Kathryn Kost, in the vast majority of these situations, the young woman does involve her parents. But tragically, in situations where women don't tell their parents, one-third of the young women are victims of abuse. In an ideal world, every young woman would take to her parents, but we don't live in an ideal world. The reality is that a young woman cannot always turn to a parent. We are not talking about a young woman who is afraid her parents will be ashamed or shun her. We are talking about serious situations where the young woman may be a victim of incest or abuse. A young woman who has an abusive home situation often accurately predicts the danger of telling a parent about a pregnancy. This bill would punish those young women if they seek the support and help of other family members or clergy. We live in a time when we have a lot of families who don't fit the traditional two-parent model. More and more grandparents are raising their grandchildren. Divorced parents are getting remarried, and young women can develop close relationships with their stepparents. In these families, the caring adult who is responsible for the day- to-day care of a young woman would be criminally liable and could even be sued by an absentee parent. We also know that some young women have no other alternative but to go to another State to obtain reproductive health services. Access to these services all across our country is severely limited--87 percent of counties have no providers. There are States, such as Mississippi, that have only one provider. Our laws should reflect the reality that for some women, these services cannot be found locally. Unfortunately, the only thing this bill does do is ensure that young women who are intent on seeking reproductive health services ``go it alone.'' If a young woman thinks that bringing a caring adult or supportive friend will get that person in trouble, she will make the trip on her own. You wouldn't want your children to drive home from the hospital after having surgery, but this legislation will result in young women driving themselves after having a medical procedure. How can my colleagues say that this bill is about the safety of young women when it actually endangers them more? Proponents claim that the ``judicial bypass procedure'' is an adequate protection for young women who feel they can't involve their parents. That is not the case. A young woman would have to go to a courthouse, get a hearing, tell the judge and anyone else in the courtroom her situation, and wait for a judge to rule. Now imagine that this happens in a small town where the judge is friends with her parents. Whether it is a big city or a small town, a young woman who has never been to court could find the whole process intimidating and overwhelming. This bill doesn't even have an exception to protect the health of young women. That raises huge constitutional questions. Since Roe v. Wade, every constitutional Federal law restricting a woman's right to choice has contained a health exception, and many laws have been struck down because they lack one. Should we really be saying that a young woman's health does not count when she faces a crisis pregnancy? Is this Senate ready to tell young women that their health and safety do not matter? This bill doesn't care about a young woman's health--and it barely even cares about her life. That is because the bill's exception for a life-threatening situation is very narrow and very limited. In addition, according to experts who have studied it, this bill could effectively nullify the laws of States that allow physicians to provide confidential medical services to minors, such as my home State of Washington. The people of my State have twice affirmed a woman's right to choose. That is the settled position of our State. This bill could reach into my home State and effectively eliminate those protections. No matter how one feels about this bill, I think everyone should be concerned that Federal intervention could undermine the ability of States to set their own laws on this difficult subject. The House version goes even further, potentially making criminals out of Washington State physicians who follow the laws of Washington State. Proponents of this bill claim that it is needed to prevent sexual predators from taking pregnant young women across State lines to obtain reproductive health services against their will. But that is not how the bill is written. If it were truly meant to prevent sexual predators from harming young women, why would it criminally prosecute a young woman's family members, including grandparents, aunts, or adult siblings? Why is the scope of this bill so broad that it includes clergy members and even unknowing taxi drivers? Every one of us wants to reduce the numbers of abortions that occur. Instead of forcing the Government deeper into sensitive and personal family relationships, we should focus on preventing teen pregnancies. Mr. President, to summarize, across the country today, Americans are very worried about what is going on, whether it is access to health care, high energy prices, prescription drug programs, or protecting our Nation's security. But instead what we are seeing this afternoon is an election year gimmick. Last year, we saw a constitutional amendment on gay marriage to energize their base, and then they brought up a constitutional amendment on flag burning, and now we are having a debate, instead of on the issues which are on the front burner for every American family, about the health of women and how we are going to undermine their rights. I find that very sad. Let me talk a few minutes about the substance of this bill. As my colleague from California said, this is a bill which is going to criminalize a grandparent or an aunt or an adult sibling for simply responding to a request for help from a young woman who is in a crisis pregnancy situation. We will see later an amendment to exempt grandparents and clergy from this onerous bill. I hope we do that. It is the least we can do. But I think what we should all agree on is that a woman who is facing a crisis pregnancy should be encouraged to talk to her parents. In fact, we have seen studies by Stanley Henshaw and Kathryn Kost that in the vast majority of situations, a young woman does involve her parents. But tragically, in situations where women don't tell their parents, one-third of those young women are victims of abuse. Those are the women we are going to be affecting by legislation such as this. In an ideal world, the young woman would talk to her parents, but too often, too many young women do not live in an ideal world today. They cannot turn to a parent. We need to make sure they have the availability of health care for their needs, and this bill takes that away. Unfortunately what this bill really does is ensure that young women who are intent on seeking reproductive health services go it alone. If a young woman thinks that bringing a caring adult or supportive friend will get that person in trouble, she will make that trip on her own. You wouldn't want your children to drive home from the hospital after having surgery, but this legislation is going to result in young women forced to drive themselves home after a medical procedure. I don't see how my colleagues can say this bill is about the safety of young women when it actually endangers them more. This bill doesn't even have an exception to protect the health of young women, and that, frankly, raises huge constitutional questions about which we have heard. This bill doesn't care about a young woman's health, it barely cares about her life, and that is because the bill's exception for a life- threatening situation is very narrow and very limited and, according to experts who studied it, this bill will effectively nullify the laws of States such as mine that allow physicians to provide confidential medical services to minors. For that reason, I will oppose this bill, but I do commend the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, who is offering an amendment that we will be voting on that is a comprehensive approach to reproductive health care for our teenagers. It will help reduce teen pregnancy, and that is its goal. That amendment would be a good step forward, but even that addition is not going to save this flawed bill. We should be working on ways to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies among teens and women alike. That is why, on issues such as emergency contraceptives, I fought so hard to make sure the FDA makes its decision based on science on whether that drug is safe or effective. Unfortunately, the bill we have in front of us today is just another ploy for the majority to get their base excited in an election year and, frankly, I am deeply concerned that women's lives are being used as pawns in a political debate. I believe women's rights should never be traded away in a ploy for votes. I hope we send a message that we know our country is facing serious challenges and we are going to spend our very limited time addressing those challenges and fighting for all of our families. I urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous, divisive, and misguided bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Jack Michaels, a decorated veteran and a lifelong advocate for veterans and disabled persons and their families all over the country. It has been my sincere pleasure to work with him to forward these efforts and I wish him all the best in his retirement from his post as Executive Director of the Northwest Paralyzed Veterans Association. His remarkable record of service reminds us all that one person's efforts can improve the lives of many. The effects of Jack's advocacy can be felt in many ways. Jack served courageously as a Captain in the United States Army from 1966 to 1971 and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, a Purple Heart, and other honors. After being shot down in combat and incurring a severe spinal cord injury, Jack realized his service to the United States was far from over; rather, it was just beginning. We see Jack's influence in our national civil rights legislation. During Jack's tenure as the National President of Paralyzed Veterans of America, he worked tirelessly to facilitate the passage of landmark civil rights legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act. We see Jack's influence in the Puget Sound area. He provides expertise in accessibility and has served on public projects including Safeco Field, Seahawks Stadium, Benayora and McCaw Halls, and Seattle's new City Hall and Regional Justice Center, just to name a few. His leadership enabled the Northwest Paralyzed Veterans Association to provide expertise to enable Amtrak's Cascades to become the first fully accessible train in America. His continued efforts to make SeaTac International Airport more accessible for the disabled will result in a new over-sized disabled passenger vehicle parking lot to be dedicated by Memorial Day this spring. We see Jack's influence in Seattle's public transportation system. While working with the Washington Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities, of which he was a co-founder, and the Northwest Chapter Paralyzed Veterans of America, which he founded, Jack advocated for a totally accessible public transit system, which became a reality at King's County METRO 20 years later. We see Jack's influence in the lives of hundreds of disabled veterans, for whom he has delivered, often personally, adaptive equipment in a donation program he created that provides free wheelchairs and hospital beds to those in need. Throughout his service and advocacy, Jack never forgot his brothers and sisters in arms, both past and present. Through his words and his works, Jack constantly reminded American policymakers and citizens alike of the bravery, honor, and sacrifice military service entails. He reminded us of our national obligation to take care of our veteran population and to create a system with the capacity to provide for future veterans. He reminds us that the absolute least we can do to thank the courageous men and women who put their lives in jeopardy every day to protect our rights is provide for them and their families when their service is complete. With the aging Vietnam and Korean war veteran population and ever growing number of Iraq veterans returning home, it is on all of us to continue Jack's work for veterans and never to forget the example he set. You might notice the frequent use of a single word throughout this recounting of Jack's military and civilian experience: served. Jack dedicated his life to service, first when he volunteered for the Army, then in countless other volunteer and advocacy endeavors. He gave his time and expertise in exchange for the satisfaction of effecting change and improving the lives of others, many of whom he may never meet. Rather than react with anger or despair to his harrowing combat injury, Jack treated it as a call to action. Jack's work has given opportunity to thousands of veterans and disabled Americans and left a legacy of service that will continue to touch lives for decades to come.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding me time tonight on this important legislation. I rise tonight to express my support for expanding stem cell research. This innovative research offers us a chance to save lives. Families across this country are holding out hope that we will finally allow science to move forward and deliver on the promise of stem cell research. That is exactly what we should be doing. But, unfortunately, today the hands of American scientists are tied by political restrictions. I believe we can expand stem cell research while still maintaining strict ethical safeguards. That is why I will be supporting H.R. 810. Back in 2001, President Bush imposed restrictions on promising stem cell research. Since that time, we have learned that there aren't as many useful stem cell lines as the President suggested. The Bush administration promised us that 60 lines would be available for research. To date, only 15 are available, and it appears that all of those lines have contamination problems. The President's restrictions have held back American science and stalled promising research. It is time to correct that mistake and allow our country to make progress. Stem cell research is about improving medicine, and it is about saving lives. For patients with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, diabetes or multiple sclerosis, stem cell research holds promising potential to provide the tools to understand, treat, and someday cure these devastating diseases. I understand the challenges and frustrations these diseases cause. When I was just 15 years old, my dad was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. In a few short years, his illness became very bad, so bad that he couldn't work anymore, and for most of my life my dad was in a wheelchair. His illness had a profound impact on my entire family. My mom, who stayed home to raise seven kids, had to work to care for him and had to get a job so she could support our family. She got that job, but it was never enough to support seven kids and a husband who was in a wheelchair and with growing medical bills. I can only imagine how different our lives would have been had there been a cure for M.S. Back then, we didn't have the tools to find a cure, but today we do, and these tools unfortunately are being blocked by an ideological policy that puts politics over science. I think we can do better than that. My dad's challenges are similar to the struggles millions of Americans and their families face every day. They deserve a chance, and they deserve hope. That is why we can't let the current restrictions stand. A short time ago, I received a letter from a constituent of mine who lives in Mercer Island, and he wrote: My 17-year-old son was recently involved in an automobile accident and is now paralyzed from the upper chest down. Stem cell research looks to be our brightest hope by far. Please help give him the chance to ride a bike, go for a hike, and run with his friends again. Please, support stem cell research. As that father points out, this is about people. It is about keeping our country on the cutting edge of science and research, and I am proud to represent a State that has a strong reputation for scientific research. But for our country to remain a leader in this promising field, our scientists and our researchers need the support of our Government. America should never take a back seat to other countries in the search for promising new cures. Unfortunately, the President's current stem cell research policy is tying the hands of our scientists by limiting the number of lines eligible for Federal funding. We can do better than that. In fact, the majority of this Congress has been trying to correct the President's mistake for over a year now. H.R. 810 passed the House of Representatives 13 months ago. Since that date, my colleagues and I have been fighting to bring this issue of stem cell research to the Senate floor. We wrote letters, we pleaded on the floor, and we asked Republican leaders numerous times for even a few hours to debate and pass this bipartisan bill. Our efforts to promote research and offer hope had been denied at every turn. But now, finally, our day has come, and after more than a year of obstruction, we finally have a chance to offer hope to millions of patients and their families. On a bipartisan basis, I believe this bill will pass. But, of course, we know that is not the whole story. Shortly after we got word that this bill would finally come to the floor, I was dismayed to see headlines announcing that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political officer and adviser, guaranteed a veto of this important bill. In nearly 6 years in office, President Bush has never once vetoed a bill. It is pretty amazing to me that he would choose this bill--this bill which offers basic hope and opportunity to so many Americans--for his first veto. I believe the President is wrong on this issue, and I think threatening a veto is wrong. I am here this evening to pledge my support for this bill and to call on my colleagues to support it. But next, I call on them to ask the President in no uncertain terms to stand with us in support of open opportunity, stand with us in support of medical research, stand with us and, more importantly, with millions of Americans who are waiting on a cure, in support of stem cell research. For far too long, this administration's ideology has trumped research. Politics has been more important than science. With this bill, President Bush has a chance to change course and put people ahead of personal political ideology. I urge him to do the right thing. For our patients, for their families, and for the future of our Nation's research leadership, it is time for the Senate to pass H.R. 810, and it is time for the President to sign it. Let's take the handcuffs off of our scientists and let them find the cures that will save lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Byrd, the ranking member on our side, does have further remarks. I thank him and all of his staff

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a lot of work has been accomplished in the last 3 days. I particularly thank Senator Gregg, chairman of the committee, who has done a good job of balancing a very difficult budget in a very difficult year but has been great to work with. The numerous amendments came from both sides of the aisle, and I thank all of his staff for their work. I thank the ranking member on our committee, Senator Byrd, for his work on this committee and all of the effort he has put into making sure we have a balanced bill that has come before the Senate to appropriate funds for Homeland Security. I especially thank the staff that has been out here on our side working for the last numerous days, night and day, to get us to the point where we will shortly vote on this bill: Chuck Kieffer, Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, Adam Morrison, and all of our staff who have been out here. I end by thanking Senator Gregg for his tremendous work on this bill in a very difficult year.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Beth Kolbe, an intern in Senator Kerry's office, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the stem cell legislation and any votes that may occur in relation thereto.