Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Illinois in expressing my deep concern about the nomination of Richard Stickler to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. That is a long title, but it means one thing: This is the person who is going to be in charge of the health and safety of every miner in America. That is a very serious responsibility, and it requires a serious leader, someone with a strong background in mine safety and a strong commitment to aggressively protect America's mine workers. I sit on the committee that oversees the nomination. I have to tell the Senate, Mr. Stickler offered neither. I believe the President, respectfully, should withdraw his nomination and send us at this time a more suitable nominee. As we all know, just 6 months ago, 12 miners were killed in the Sago disaster. In the wake of that tragedy, many of us in the Senate worked hard--and I commend the Senator who is sitting in the chair for his work--on this incredibly important issue. We did the right thing. We came together and passed the most comprehensive mine safety update in a generation. I was honored to work on that historic bill with Senators Kennedy and Enzi, Senator Isakson, who is in the chair, and Senators Rockefeller and Byrd. But we have to do more than just pass a law. We need to make sure we provide the resources, and we need to make sure we provide the leadership to carry this out. That is why it is so disturbing to me that the Senate majority leader is today trying to push an unqualified nominee through to head this agency. Senator Byrd, who represents the Sago families, has raised some very valid concerns about Mr. Stickler's qualifications and, following Senate tradition, those concerns should be heeded. They should give all of us pause. Indeed, we see the leadership today departing from the usual process and trying now to push this nominee through the Senate. I believe that is the wrong course of action when the lives of our American miners are at stake. Mr. President, as you well know, I am very passionate about this issue because I have worked on mine safety issues with you and with the Senator who is arriving on the floor as I speak, Senator Kennedy. In fact, at the hearing of this nominee, it was my questioning of his confirmation hearing that revealed to me his business-as-usual approach to miner health and safety. When Richard Stickler testified at his HELP confirmation hearing in January, he told me he believed the current mine safety laws are adequate. That was before we passed our legislation. He said those current mine safety laws were adequate. I couldn't disagree more, and neither could the House and Senate, which, after that, passed the most significant mine safety improvements in a generation. I was disappointed in his responses at the hearing, so I asked him further questions in writing. In reply to that, Mr. Stickler could not suggest a single way to improve mine safety--not one single suggestion. Think about that for a minute. We would not put someone in charge of food safety who has no idea about how to make consumers safe. We wouldn't put someone in charge of airline safety who has no idea how to make air traffic safer. And we certainly shouldn't put someone in charge of mine safety who has no idea about how to make our mines safer. We need a leader now more than ever at the Mine Safety and Health Administration who will not just accept the status quo that has cost miners their lives in this country. It is a wrong turn to have the enforcement of our mine safety laws turned over to a former coal company executive with no background in miner health and safety. Here is how the head of the United Mine Workers of America put it in a letter to President Bush. He said: The Nation's miners cannot tolerate having another mine executive running the agency responsible for protecting their health and their safety. For too many years, miners have endured an agency directed by coal mining executives. Too often these mining executives place a priority on productivity, but fail to focus on miners' health and safety. Too many times MSHA has not done all it is charged with doing to promote miners' health and safety. Clearly, we need a new direction at that agency and, clearly, Mr. Stickler does not provide a new kind of direction. The words that I just quoted are the words of Cecil Roberts, international president of the United Mine Workers of America. He and the AFL-CIO oppose this nomination and with good reason. With America's miners risking their lives every day, as we all know-- and a new law in place, thankfully, because of the leadership of the Presiding Officer, that has to be vigorously enforced--we cannot entrust our mine safety to someone who has not shown the background or the passion or the desire to make sure those laws work well and will fight for the health and safety of American miners. When it comes to mine safety, we know now that we cannot tolerate business as usual. I believe the Senate should reject this nominee and demand a leader, someone who will stand up for our miners.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I will.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk about the supplemental bill before us. And I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his remarks on agricultural disaster spending. I agree with him how critical this is for his State, and for many others, including mine. And I was deeply disappointed that the administration opposed the Senate's agricultural assistance proposal that was in our bill. Their letter to us said they opposed it on principle because the 2002 farm bill was designed, when combined with crop insurance, to eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Unfortunately, that policy has really harmed us in many of our States. I hope to work with the Senator from Minnesota and others to make sure we recognize these disasters that occurred to our agricultural communities. And I, too, am deeply disappointed it is not part of the supplemental. Mr. President, I do want to speak for a few minutes this afternoon about funding for the war in Iraq and hurricane recovery and other national priorities. I want to share with my colleagues that I have three real concerns with the bill. First, really, is that it continues the charade we have had that this war be funded off-budget. And, second, this bill leaves out critical funding for areas such as veterans health care, port security, and emergency transportation assistance on the gulf coast. Much of the progress we made on the Senate floor, through many hours of debate, was thrown out because of an arbitrary limit that was set by the President that is really going to hurt a lot of our communities. Finally, I want to talk about how this bill improperly included a budget ceiling that is going to affect every single spending bill and many of the decisions we need to make in the coming months. I believe the supplemental is the wrong place to be enacting a budget that was never passed by this entire Senate. I want to talk about each of these concerns. I will, like all of my colleagues, vote for this bill in the end because it is important that we provide the funding for our troops to carry out their mission as we have asked them to do and because, of course, it supports the recovery efforts along the gulf coast. My first concern is that the administration keeps trying to fund this war outside of the regular budget process. Instead of including the money our troops need in the annual budget, they keep sending us supplemental emergency requests. This may seem like a very small issue, but it has two real large impacts. First, every dollar we spend through emergency funding adds a dollar to our national debt. With every supplemental, we are burdening our children and grandchildren with more debt. It used to be that emergency spending bills were for emergencies, things we couldn't foresee such as natural disasters. The need for the funding for the war in Iraq is not a surprise. It is not like responding to an earthquake that no one could predict. We should not hand over to the President the final authority on what deserves emergency funding. I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing concern about this because this administration's approach is going to burden future generations. I don't think we should hide the true cost of the war from the American public, which we do through this supplemental process. Communities at home today are sacrificing because of the cuts that this administration and Congress have imposed on the annual budget. If the administration had to fund the war in the annual budget, those cuts at home would be a lot more painful. By funding the war off-budget, Republicans are hiding the true cost of the war and the real tradeoffs that we have to make because of it. I hope the administration will be honest with all of us about how much this war is costing and the investments that we are being denied at home because of the way this administration has chosen to fund the war. I believe the administration should not have the sole authority to decide what is worthy of emergency funding and what is not because we do have emergencies in our backyard as well as overseas. My second concern with this bill is that it leaves out many of the critical investments we fought to add right here on the Senate floor to the supplemental. Here in the Senate we worked very well on a bipartisan basis to make sure the bill funds priorities such as veterans health care. I commend Senator Cochran for his work in trying to get this bill through the Senate and working with all of us to make sure our needs were addressed. But, unfortunately, the President set an arbitrary limit for the size of this bill and said he wouldn't sign a bill that cost a penny more. What happened? The leadership rolled over, agreed to the President's limit, and now that is going to hurt our communities at home. One of the groups of people it is going to hurt the most is America's veterans. In April, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Murray-Akaka amendment to ensure that our veterans get the help they need. Our amendment had broad bipartisan support. We worked with Chairman Hutchison and others to make this funding emergency spending. But what happened? That amendment was removed from this bill. That is a huge setback for the men and women coming home from the war today and entering a VA system that is now overwhelmed and underfunded. This funding would have allowed us to provide soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with timely access to the health care they earned. We know today that the VA is facing funding challenges. In March, the VA themselves told us that they are seeing 38 percent more Iraqi war veterans than they budgeted for. In fiscal year 2006, the VA expected to provide medical care to 110,000. That number is now rumored to be nearly 170,000. In fact, the VA has treated 74,000 Iraq war veterans in the first quarter of this fiscal year alone. We are hearing that veterans have to wait over a year to get the specialty care they deserve. Some are waiting over 18 months to get their benefits. We have long waiting lists with thousands of names on them at our major VA hospitals. Recently, a VA official actually told us that long waiting lists make care for mental health and substance abuse virtually inaccessible. I am frustrated that the funding we worked to get on the floor of the Senate for our veterans is no longer in the bill that is in front of us. I believe our veterans deserve better, and I hope that we address this issue again in the near future. I also want to take some time to mention other investments that were removed from this bill to meet the President's arbitrary limit. I am the ranking member of the Transportation-Treasury subcommittee. I can tell my colleagues that some very important funding initiatives were left on the cutting room floor, initiatives that were sorely needed to help the residents of the gulf and to help that region's economy recover. Let me give an example. The Senate-passed bill included $200 million in emergency assistance for transit authorities in the gulf region. In prior supplemental appropriations bills, we have included $2.75 billion for the Federal Aid Highway Emergency Relief Program, but there is no such companion program for transit agencies. So right now the principal transit agency in the city of New Orleans is operating on funding through a mission assignment from FEMA. But FEMA has made it clear that this funding support is going to expire at the end of this month. Without any additional Federal help, the very limited amount of bus service that is now being provided is going to be severely curtailed. In fact, I am told that as a result of the $200 million being eliminated during the conference deliberations on this bill, the New Orleans transit authority is likely to be required to lay off between 300 and 450 employees. They are going to have to cut back their extremely limited service even more. Prior to Katrina, New Orleans had about 62 separate bus routes. By next month, they may have to cut that back to 17. New Orleans is desperate to generate the economic activity that is going to allow this city to again stand on its own two feet. They need workers, including workers who depend on mass transit, to fill all kinds of jobs. Cutting off those transit routes is not going to help that city recover, and throwing bus drivers on an unemployment line is not going to help that city recover. In Baton Rouge, city leaders are desperate for transit assistance to help them serve the thousands of Louisiana residents now relocated to that city. You can't just add bus service and commuter rail services and expect to cover that cost through the fare box. They have to be subsidized, just like transit services across the country. The city of Baton Rouge never budgeted for these subsidy costs. That city is struggling to provide city services all across the board. They just can't tax all of these new residents. In fact, some of them were left with just the clothes on their backs. I am deeply disappointed that this Congress acquiesced when President Bush chose to ignore all of those needs and draw a line in the sand saying he would veto any bill that exceeded his request. Because of that demand, the conference was also required to eliminate funding items for the gulf that the President himself requested. Here is why. The President set a limit, and if we wanted to fund anything new that went beyond that limit, the money would have to come out of the investment he requested. And one of those requested items that got eliminated in this conference was a $202 million request for HUD for tenant-based rental assistance. That funding was intended to serve some 44,000 families, including families who had received HUD support prior to Katrina, and homeless families. The bill that passed the Senate expanded the purpose of this money to include the reconstruction and repair of HUD projects in the afflicted region and to provide vouchers for about 4,500 needy citizens in the region, especially the disabled and homeless. That provision received widespread support from numerous national organizations, such as AARP, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, and Volunteers of America. But all that support didn't matter when it came to cutting billions of dollars out of the supplemental. The end result, the conference report now before the Senate eliminated every penny that the President requested and the Senate included for that activity. My final concern with this bill is, as I said before, it includes a budget ceiling that is far different from the one that was passed in the Senate. That budget ceiling is going to tie our hands when we work to try to help our communities. This undermines the work we do on the Budget Committee to meet America's needs. I know this was done once before, but I am still very concerned about the precedent we are setting. About 12 weeks ago, the Senate adopted a budget resolution by the narrowest of margins, 51 to 49. That budget included more funding than the President's request. That is because from the floor we did our jobs as Senators. We offered a number of amendments. Some were accepted; some were not. Some were added during the floor on consideration of the resolution. Here on the floor we adopted amendments to boost funding for Alzheimer's research, for cancer research, for low-income energy assistance, for homeland security, for mine safety, for land and water conservation, and we added funding to help recruit a larger Army to ease the burden on all of those who are now serving. Only after those amendments were adopted was the budget resolution found to be acceptable by the bearest majority in the Senate. Since that time, the conference committee has made no progress in reaching a final budget resolution for this year. It is this complete breakdown of the budget process that has now brought us to this point. As Members of the Senate are aware, the budget resolution claims to do many things. But the most significant thing it does is impose a spending ceiling on the Appropriations Committee. Now that the Congress has failed to adopt a conference report on the budget, the decision was made to include a provision in this supplemental conference report we are now considering that imposes a new spending ceiling on the appropriations process. Never mind that there is no such provision in either the House or the Senate bill. This emergency supplemental conference report now before us includes one small but extraordinarily meaningful paragraph that masks the fact that this Republican Congress has failed to enact a budget for the U.S. Government. Worse still, the ceiling that is included in this emergency supplemental bill is not the same one that was agreed to by the Senate when they barely passed a budget resolution 51 to 49. Instead, the ceiling that is included in this conference report is $9 billion lower than the level the Senate adopted, and $7 billion lower than the ceiling for fiscal year 2008. The ceiling that is included in this bill deliberately ignores the amendments that were adopted by this Senate back in March. So we are basically being presented with a spending ceiling that would wipe out the amendments that were adopted on the Senate floor and bring our ceiling right back down to the level recommended in the President's budget. The Senate already was presented with that ceiling in the resolution that was reported by the Budget Committee. But the Senate amended that proposal many times to add about $16 billion in spending to it, and only then did they find 51 votes to pass it. I am sorry the spending ceiling is now included in this bill. I don't think it belongs in an emergency supplemental bill for the war or for the needs of the people who live on the gulf coast. I do want to acknowledge that Chairman Cochran notified us that he would seek to add the deeming resolution to the supplemental. The bottom line is that a new appropriations ceiling does not belong in this emergency supplemental. The Democratic Senators on the Appropriations Committees want to enthusiastically support the appropriations bills that our committee is going to produce over the next several weeks and months. We want those bills to pass on a broad bipartisan basis. We want those bills to address the critical funding needs of the functions of our Government, whether it is health research or education or infrastructure investment or agriculture or the needs of our troops. In reality, it is going to be hard enough to produce appropriations bills that are going to get broad bipartisan support at the levels we adopted back in March. It is going to be almost impossible to do so if we ignore the amendments adopted on the Senate floor and impose a spending ceiling that was not proposed by the President. So I am very troubled by this bill. It used to do a much better job of meeting our priorities at home. But the President set a limit and the Republican Congress went along, and I think that is going to hurt the families that we represent. I will vote for the emergency supplemental because our troops need the resources to do their jobs and the gulf coast needs our help. But I am really deeply disappointed at the missed opportunities that are represented in this bill. We can do better, and I hope we stop the political games and start determining the right direction. Frankly, our troops and our country and our future depend on it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last week our country celebrated a very important event--Memorial Day. Every Member of the Senate went home to services where we heard about the sacrifices of men and women who served in conflicts throughout this Nation's history, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan where we have now lost close to 2,500 of our Nation's best and brightest. I listened to those speeches, and I heard about the sacrifices these men and women have made. I heard the rhetoric about making sure we take care of their families, making sure we take care of those who are wounded when they come home, making sure we have the ability to care for those we ask to serve this country so honorably as we celebrated Memorial Day last week. I went throughout my State. I listened to people wanting to make sure we did not forget those people who served us. I came back to the Senate last night confident that we should be talking about those issues. It is deeply disconcerting to me that we are not talking about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, we are not talking about the sacrifices our soldiers have made, we are not talking about the tremendous responsibility we have as the Senate and Congress to make sure we have the funds for those men and women who have served us, both while they are overseas and when they come home. We are here instead on a completely different priority, and I have to ask the question of this Senate: Why are we spending time on political games when we have soldiers in harm's way who are serving us honorably around the world? Don't they deserve better than this? Why is the Senate bringing up divisive issues when we need right now more than ever to come together as a country and address the challenges that confront us? Maybe it is because those people who are in charge, those people who make a decision about what issues we discuss here, just have the wrong priorities. And I see the wrong priorities being debated in the Senate not just for this week but for apparently the coming weeks. Last week, I traveled through communities in my home State of Washington. Everywhere I went, I heard a growing anger and frustration that American troops are being wounded and dying in Iraq, and my constituents want to know why. They want to know where we are going. They want to know what they are doing. They want to know why we are there. They want to know what will make us successful and how we can bring our troops home successfully. But here we are in Washington, DC, where the Bush administration doesn't have a plan they have outlined for success, and here we are in Congress not demanding answers. My constituents are very frustrated, and they have good reason to be so. They, like all of us, are watching what is happening in Iraq on their TVs every night. They see personally what these deployments are doing to their communities at home, their friends, their neighbors, their coworkers, being called up not just once but twice, three times, to head to Iraq and come back. They see the terrible consequences for families who are left behind, and they see these veterans, when they go to get the treatment they need, being told they have to wait in line because we haven't adequately funded our Veterans' Administration. And by the way, many of these same veterans just in the last week were told that because of lack of oversight at the VA, 26.5 million of these veterans who served our country honorably have now lost their identities, and we are not dealing with that in the Senate right now? How are we going to make sure every one of these veterans gets the care they need, and how are we going to make sure now that 26.5 million veterans get the help they need as their identities have been stolen? That is going to cost money. It is not free. We have a responsibility to help every single one of them. They should not be treated like this as veterans in the United States today. I see what these deployments are doing in our communities, just as my constituents do, and they see the challenges these veterans are facing when they come home and their families while they are deployed. They don't see a plan about how we are going forward in Iraq today. And what they importantly don't see is us in Congress on the Senate floor standing up and talking about what is going on, demanding answers from the Bush administration and the Pentagon. We can only make the good decisions about how we go forward if we have a discussion in the Senate about what is happening on the ground, what the impacts are, what our choices are, how we can help both the Pentagon and the Bush administration and our constituents make a good decision about whether our troops should come home or whether they should stay or what is happening. We need to demand answers in the Senate from this administration and the Pentagon about what is happening on the ground. That is the discussion I wish we were having in the Senate today. That has meaning to every single one of my constituents. They want to know what we are doing, where we are going, how we are going to pay for it, and how we can be successful so we can know when our troops are coming home. I have watched now for 3 years as our soldiers went to war in Iraq, and at every possible juncture in this war, the Bush administration has chosen the wrong path. When they were advised to build a stronger multinational coalition, they decided to go it alone. When the Army's Chief of Staff said it would take several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq after the war, they ignored his advice and they fired him. When sectarian violence started boiling over and undermining the stability of Iraq and the safety of our troops, they pronounced the insurgency was in its last throes. Well, they were wrong. We can't continue to watch what is happening in Iraq without answering questions in the Senate. For too long, we have watched decisions being made that have sent us in the wrong direction, and for too long, I say to my colleagues in the Senate, we have given them a pass on these monumental failures, and that has to change. Families I represent want Congress to demand accountability, and they want us to get to the bottom of this. But that is not what they are getting here. Instead, we see the Republican leadership playing politics with debates on gay marriage and flag burning. What are we not doing while we spend our time on this issue? We are not having hearings on Iraq. We are not having discussions about what is happening on the ground. We are not hearing from our generals so that we can make good decisions about when and how our troops can come home successfully. Instead, we are seeing political distractions that are simply meant to divide our country at a time when we ought to be together, Republicans and Democrats, having serious discussions about what we can do as leaders of this Nation to bring us success, if it is possible, in Iraq. Back home, people want us to talk about Iraq. They want answers. But in the Senate, the Iraq war is the proverbial elephant in the room. It is right there, everyone can see it, but no one talks about it. No one talks about it in the Senate of America. No one is talking about the Iraq war. I will tell my colleagues, we are not going to get better results in Iraq if we ignore it in Congress. In all the time I have served in the Senate, I believe this is the weakest oversight I have ever seen from a Congress during military conflict. We were not sent here to just rubberstamp this administration or any administration. I served under the Clinton administration during the war in Bosnia when we required generals to come up here almost on a daily basis, to obtain answers from them about what was happening on the ground, how we were proceeding forward, what we needed to do; and yes, at the time, there were calls to bring our troops home, no boots on the ground, all the different points we are hearing today, but we at least had generals in front of us so we could ask questions and go home and respond to our constituents and feel confident in whatever decision we made in how we were to move forward. We were sent here as Senators to develop policy to help our country move forward. And in this time, this place, this war, I can't think of a more important time that as Republicans and Democrats we should sit down together and put our cards on the table and say: How should we move forward and how can we do it safely and how can we do it effectively? Yet here we are in the Senate talking about gay marriage and flag burning. We are not talking about a conflict that has consumed our Nation, that has sent our youngest, best, and brightest to a war where we have almost 2,500 military families that have suffered the loss of a loved one, where we have thousands and thousands of young men and women who have lost limbs, have had head injuries, and are now being serviced in our veterans hospitals for years to come, and yet we haven't talked about how we are going to pay for that. There is a huge disconnect between the families at home and what is happening on the Senate floor. There is no surprise they are frustrated and angry and demanding answers. They are surprised and shocked that we are talking about gay marriage and flag burning because the discussion they have at their dinner tables when they are home at night is what is happening in our world; how can we protect our children; how can we make sure our families are safe; how can we make sure our loved ones who are serving us overseas are protected while they are there; how can we make sure we win a war in Iraq, if that is possible; how can we make sure that those people we send to serve us overseas have the services they need when they come home. I was shocked to see an article in the ``Psychiatric News'' just a few weeks ago that says our veterans are not getting the help they need for mental health care and substance abuse. I wish to quote Frances Murphy, M.D., Under Secretary for Health Policy Coordination at our Department of Veterans Affairs, who said that the growing number of veterans seeking mental health care has put emphasis on areas in which improvement is needed, and she noted that some VA clinics do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do----

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on our side?

Mrs. MURRAY. She says, ``waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible.'' Our soldiers who are serving in a 24/7 war in Iraq deserve to have mental health care when they come home. They are not getting it today, and the Senate is not dealing with that issue. I think we can do a lot better. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with their latest tax plan, Republicans are showing once again that they care more about giving tax breaks to millionaires than helping working families. Republicans said this week would be health care week. While it is insulting to devote only 1 week to such a critical issue, it's even more troubling that Republicans pulled the plug on health care week in favor of even more tax breaks for the rich. This tax bill and the Senate's failure to help families with the soaring cost of health care are further proof that Republicans have the wrong priorities. If we want to make America strong again, we need to invest here at home. Today middle-class families throughout Washington State and the country are struggling to pay for the skyrocketing costs of gas, college tuition, and health care. Instead of helping these hardworking families, Republicans have once again decided to leave the middle class behind. While I am pleased that this bill includes a 1-year patch for the alternative minimum tax, there is not much else to be pleased about in this bill. According to the Tax Policy Center, this tax bill would provide middle income families an average tax cut of just $20, while millionaires would get an average tax cut of $42,000. Rather than extending the middle-class tax cuts that have already expired or will expire at the end of the year, Republicans have again turned their backs on the middle class. The Republican bill also denies families in my home State the ability to deduct their State sales taxes. It blocks teachers from deducting the cost of classroom expenses they pay out of their own pockets. It denies businesses access to the research and development tax credit which I helped extend in September 2004. On its own, this bill has the wrong priorities, but when you look at the bigger picture a more disturbing pattern is clear. This tax bill is the second part of last year's budget resolution. The first part of the budget resolution, which was enacted in February, cut $39 billion from important areas like health care and education. When we passed that bill, we were told that the bill was necessary to reduce the deficit. Yet today we are presented with a tax bill that in fact increases the deficit by $30 billion and adds to our massive debt. We need a tax system that is fiscally responsible, helps business grow, and provides maximum relief to the middle class, but this bill achieves none of this. Instead it takes out a loan against our children's future and adds to the deficit. This tax bill makes it more difficult for us to address other important priorities like homeland security, paying for the war in Iraq, our nation's infrastructure, health care, and education. This is the wrong tax plan, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at this hour, families are struggling with health care. Seniors are facing a critical deadline for drug coverage. Businesses are grappling with the high cost of insurance. And patients are being denied the cutting-edge research that could save their lives. Those are critical issues. And what is the Senate doing? We are dealing with a distraction instead of real solutions to make health care affordable, more accessible, and more innovative. I am on the Senate floor this evening to talk about what we should be doing to help families and businesses and communities meet their health care needs. I also want to talk this evening about why the Republican proposal, S. 1955, could do more harm than good. This is a bill which takes a good idea--pooling the risk in health insurance--and distorts it with a plan that will raise the cost of health care, strip away patient protections, and hurt many of our small businesses. But do not take my word for it. Attorneys general from 41 States, including my own, have written to outline the serious problems with the Republican bill. I have heard from doctors with the Washington State Medical Association and from my own Governor about the damage this bill will inflict on patients and on our economy. Simply put, this proposal is a distraction. Instead of dealing with real solutions to real problems, the Republican leadership is wasting time on one narrow proposal that is only going to make things worse. We can do better. The truth is that patients and seniors, doctors and nurses, and all of our communities deserve better. If we were serious about reducing the cost of health care, helping to improve access, and driving innovation, we would be talking about the critical issues that the Republican leadership is trying to avoid. We should be focusing on everything from the Medicare drug program, to stem cell research, to community health care. Frankly, we do not have a day to waste. On Monday, millions of seniors and disabled will be hit with a deadline that means higher premiums for their prescription drugs. That May 15 deadline is just 6 days away. I am hearing from seniors that they are very worried about this deadline. They are worried they are going to pick the wrong plan, and they do not think it is fair to be punished if they need more time so they can make an informed choice. I have been traveling throughout my home State of Washington, meeting with seniors and holding roundtables with patients, with pharmacists, with advocates. Three weeks ago, I was in Chehalis, at the Twin Cities Senior Center. I can tell you, seniors are worried. They are angry. They are frustrated. They are frightened about this May 15 deadline, and that deadline is just one of the problems this flawed drug program is presenting. The week before that, I was in Silverdale, and I have held Medicare roundtables in Kent, Vancouver, Ballard, Shelton, Spokane, Anacortes, Bellevue, Aberdeen, Olympia, Lakewood, Seattle, and Everett. Everywhere, I have heard from seniors about just how bad the Medicare Part D Program is. I have heard their frustration about dealing with such a confusing system. I have heard their anger that this program does not meet their needs. And I have heard from many who just want to throw their hands up in the air and ignore the whole program. If we were serious about improving health care, we would be fixing the problems they have outlined. Instead, we are going to let an unfair deadline hurt our seniors even further. In just 6 days--in just 6 days--they are going to have to pick a plan or face high penalties whenever they do enroll, and the penalties grow larger the longer they wait. To me, that is just not fair. Right now, this Senate could be extending the deadline so our seniors are not pressured into making the wrong choice in such a complicated system. Right now, we could be lifting the penalty so that seniors are not punished if they need more time to make the right choice. Right now, we could be providing help to millions of vulnerable Americans who have been mistreated by this flawed Republican plan. But, instead, this Congress is leaving seniors to fend for themselves. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has said he opposes extending the deadline or lifting the penalties, and this Republican Congress seems to agree with him by a shameful lack of action. Seniors deserve better. The disabled deserve better. Our most vulnerable neighbors deserve better. If we really wanted to make health care more affordable and more accessible and more innovative, we would be on this floor fixing the Medicare drug program and helping seniors who are facing that unfair deadline. Now, that is just one example of what a real focus on health care on this floor would include. If we were serious about helping patients, we would be expanding lifesaving research. For patients who are living with diseases such as Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis or Alzheimer's or diabetes, stem cell research holds the potential to help us understand and to treat and someday perhaps cure those devastating diseases. Nearly a year ago, the House of Representatives passed legislation to lift the restrictions that hold back this promising research. The House of Representatives has acted, but for an entire year the Senate has not. My colleagues, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, are well known for their leadership on this fight. They were promised a vote on stem cell research, and that vote has still not taken place. Every delay means missed opportunities for patients with devastating diseases. If this Senate is serious about health care and saving lives, we should be voting on stem cell legislation today. That is why, last week, I joined with 39 other Senators in writing to the majority leader urging him to bring up H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. But instead of real solutions, the Senate is focusing on a distraction. Patients with life-threatening diseases deserve a lot better. If we were serious about improving health care, we would be investing in local efforts that boost access to health care. Two weeks ago, through the Johnson & Johnson Community Health Care Awards, I had a chance to honor leaders from across the country who are doing innovative work to break down the barriers to care. If we were serious about improving health care, we would be building more Federal support for their work. Instead, we are moving in the opposite direction. Perhaps the best example is the Bush administration's 5-year effort to kill the Healthy Communities Access Program, which is known as HCAP. This is a program which helps our local organizations coordinate care for the uninsured. I have seen it make a tremendous difference in my home State. Well, every year since taking office, this Bush administration has tried to kill that successful program. I have been out here on the floor leading the fight for our local communities every year, and most years we have won. But this past year, the White House and the Republican Congress ended the support for Healthy Communities and thus made health care less accessible for families from coast to coast. If we were serious about improving health care, we would be investing in local programs that make a difference. But, instead, the Republican leadership is focused on distractions. We can do better than that. So let me take a few minutes to turn to the specific problems with the bill that is before us, S. 1955, and explain why so many experts across this country are warning us that this bill will eliminate critical patient protections, it will lead to unfair premiums and insurance practices, and it will raise the cost of health care. First of all, this bill will eliminate many of the important protections that keep patients healthy and lower the cost of health care. In my home State of Washington, we have enacted a number of State patient protections that require health plans to cover services such as diabetic care, mental health services, breast and cervical cancer screening, emergency medical services, and dental procedures. But under this bill, small business health plans or association health plans would not be required to cover those important benefits. Allowing insurers to abandon mandated benefits, many of which are preventive and are diagnostic, will result in a sicker population and higher health costs for everyone. When this legislation was debated in the HELP Committee, I offered a number of amendments to provide for coverage of several important women's health benefits. Unfortunately, every one of those amendments was defeated. So now, here we are, and we have a bill on this floor that will strip away the protections on which our patients across this country rely. A new report by Families USA shows just how many families in my home State will be hurt by this bill. That report found that 1,861,000 residents of Washington State may lose protections if this bill is passed. And what could they lose? Emergency services, home health care, drug and alcohol treatment, contraceptives, diabetic supplies and education, hospice care, mammography screening, maternity services, mental health care--the list goes on. I am not going to tell nearly 2 million people in my home State whom I represent that we are going to take a gamble and risk losing those hard-won protections for a plan that will likely raise the cost of health care for many of our families and small businesses. Secondly, this bill will encourage insurance companies to charge higher premiums for less healthy consumers. This bill will preempt strong laws and protections in our State that limit the ability of insurers to vary premiums based on health status, age, gender, or geography. I am very concerned this will result in adverse selection or what we call cherry-picking, leading to higher premiums for less healthy consumers. In fact, rates will likely become unaffordable for those who need it the most, potentially increasing the number of uninsured Americans. Now, Mr. President, I would like to share some letters I have received from leaders in my home State who all speak against this flawed proposal. I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next Democratic speakers in order be Senator Dayton, Senator Durbin, and Senator Akaka.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, recently I received a letter from the Governor, Governor Christine Gregoire of my home State of Washington, in which she expressed many of her concerns regarding this legislation and its impact on the people who live in my home State. This chart behind me contains the full text of the Governor's letter. As you can see, she has many serious concerns. I wish to highlight for the Senate some of the main points our Governor has raised with me. Governor Gregoire alludes to the harmful aspects of this bill, and she says: [S. 1955] stands to harm our small group insurance market, which is a critical component of [Washington State's] current health care system. . . . Instead of promoting more affordable health care, this legislation would cause a serious increase in rates for consumers--possibly two or three times over what they now pay. Governor Gregoire also warns in her letter to me that: [this] bill threatens consumer protections that the state of Washington strives to guarantee to [all of] our residents. The Governor also warns that this bill: would foster a proliferation of health plans that do not cover preventive services that are absolutely vital to the health and well-being of Washington residents. . . . Mr. President, I would also like to share a letter that I have received from the 9,000-member Washington State Medical Association that wrote to me in strong opposition to S. 1955. Now, this chart shows the full letter, and I want to read just a portion of it: This legislation will have a severe impact on all the consumer health gains that have been made in Washington State over the past decade. S. 1955 will: Undermine Washington State's many gains in advancing health care quality; Pull people from existing insurance coverage rather than attract the uninsured; Lead to higher costs for consumers; Strike down Washington's Mental Health Parity law, which took eight years of work to be enacted; Eliminate other mandated benefits that help consumers such as mammography services; and, Leave Washington's citizens at risk for unpaid medical bills in the event of an AHP insolvency. That is from the head of the Washington State Medical Association, which has 9,000 members in my home State. I think their words should be heeded by the Members of this Senate. Third, this proposal does nothing to address increasing health care costs. In fact, it builds on the sorry record of this administration and this Congress in not addressing the rising costs that Americans face. Because of the flaws I mentioned, this bill does nothing to contain those costs. In fact, it could dramatically increase costs for many businesses and families in Washington State. It could well mean that people in the State of Washington who have affordable coverage today could end up worse off than they are right now. I know my State has been a leader in working to expand access to affordable health insurance for working families and small businesses. Many of the reforms that worked to control costs in my State would be jeopardized if this legislation is enacted. Washington State has a proud tradition of strong consumer protections and integrated managed care that has improved health outcomes and controlled cost increases. We should not jeopardize what my State has fought hard for by dangerous Federal legislation. I do support the concept of pooling. I believe we can implement policies that provide stability in health insurance premiums. In fact, I am currently working with a number of my colleagues on legislation to create Federal and State catastrophic cost pools to spread out the risks and address what is driving health care costs. We can help spread the risk in ways that will lower costs and still protect patients. The legislation before us could raise costs for consumers and small businesses. We can do better than that. There are serious challenges facing our country when it comes to health care. This Senate needs to get serious. Instead of focusing on a distraction, we should be helping seniors with prescription drugs. We should be expanding lifesaving research, and we should be supporting community health care. Those are some of the things we should be working on to reduce the cost of health care and to improve access and to accelerate innovation. We can do all of those things, but we need the Republican leadership to get serious if we are going to provide serious solutions. We don't have a day to waste. I hope we can get to work on the real solutions that our American families deserve. Exhibit 1 Christine O. Gregoire, Office of the Governor, Olympia, WA, April 27, 2006. Hon. Patty Murray, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Murray: I am writing with great concern about S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act, and its potential to further erode our ability to provide sound health coverage to citizens in Washington State. This bill stands to harm our small group insurance market, which is a critical component of our current health care system. Furthermore, the bill threatens consumer protections that the State of Washington strives to guarantee to our residents. For these reasons, I ask that you oppose the bill in its current form. When it comes to providing health care, the federal government has been putting an ever-Increasing burden on the states. The Deficit Reduction Act, alone, paves the way to eliminate nearly $50 billion over the next five years for the Medicaid program. Fresh on the heals of signing the Deficit Reduction Act, the President unveiled his Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposal, which proposes eliminating $36 billion from the Medicare program over the next five years. Additionally, the implementation of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program has had enormous impacts on the states. Nearly every state in the Nation--Washington included--felt compelled to step in to ensure that our most needy citizens, our dual eligible population, continue to receive their medications due to fundamental flaws in the Medicare Modernization Act. Against this backdrop now comes S. 1955. If passed, S. 1955 would establish a small group rating mechanism that would further erode the possibility of pursuing reasonable health care costs in the states. Instead of promoting more affordable health care, this legislation would cause a serious increase in rates for consumers-- possibly two or three times over what they now pay. At its worst, the bill could result in the total collapse of our small group insurance market, something we must fight to prevent. Additionally, I am concerned that S. 1955 would foster a proliferation of health plans that do not cover preventative services that are absolutely vital to the health and well- being of Washington residents, such as mammography, colonoscopies, diabetic care services, and newborn coverage. In 2005, the Washington State Legislature passed, and I signed, legislation providing mental health parity. If Congress passes S. 1955, the bill could also fully abrogate this effort to ensure mental health coverage in Washington State. It is surprising to me that S. 1955 is moving forward, given that it is patterned, in part, on a flawed National Association of Insurance Commissioner's 1993 Model Rating Law, actually adopted by the state of New Hampshire in 2003. This proved to be an unfortunate experiment for the people of New Hampshire. Just this year, that state's Legislature repealed provisions of its 2003 law due to the astronomical jump in rates that occurred in only a two-year period after it was implemented. Given this history that he knows only too well, my colleague, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire, recently registered his opposition to S. 1955 in a letter to his federal delegation, dated March 28, 2006. New Hampshire's experience is illustrative and a harbinger of what could come to all states, should Congress adopt S. 1955. As Washington State's Attorney General from 1993-2005, I, along with the majority of my colleagues within the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), opposed several precursor bills to S. 1955. Introduced in each of the last several Congresses, these bills allow for the federal regulation of association health plans (AHPs), and have passed out of the U.S. House more than once. I appreciate that S. 1955, in its current form, does away with one fatal flaw of the earlier AHP bills--that being the wholesale obliteration of state regulation over national AHPs. But, as I have articulated, S. 1955 still goes too far in preempting other basic consumer protections. It is heartening to see that a majority of current members of NAAG, including Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, have now weighed in with their concerns and opposition to S. 1955. As a nation, we need innovative solutions that provide high quality, sustainable and affordable health care access to our un- and under-insured populations. With the help of the Washington State Legislature, I have embarked on a five-point strategy to promote evidence-based medicine; better manage chronic diseases; increase prevention and wellness initiatives; require data transparency; and expand the reach of health information technology. These strategies invite strong partnerships between states and the federal government that I remain committed to pursuing with you. Unfortunately, proposals like S. 1955, are counterintuitive to the notion of forging such partnerships and I ask that you reject the bill. Sincerely, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3805

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3677

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have no objections on this side.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute to express my deep gratitude to Chairman Cochran who, as I stated earlier, has demonstrated extraordinary patience over the past 2 weeks we have been debating this supplemental bill. I also want to express my thanks to the ranking member, Senator Byrd, who has continued to demonstrate his strong and resolute leadership on this bill. I also want to thank the many members of our Appropriations Committee staff who have worked very hard. First and foremost, I thank our staff director and deputy staff director on our side, Terry Sauvain and Chuck Kieffer. I also thank the majority staff director, Keith Kennedy, and his staff, Clayton Heil and Les Spivey. I want to make special mention of the extraordinary hard work of B.G. Wright, Kate Fitzpatrick, and Rachael Taylor. They have been keeping us all on track on this side as to which of the hundreds of filed amendments have been cleared and which have not. Finally, I thank Peter Rogoff who has dedicated his life on the Senate floor for the last 2 weeks above and beyond the call. I thank all our staff and floor staff for being here many long hours for the completion of this bill. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the amendment that has been sent to the desk the modified amendment?

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. There is no objection on the Democratic side.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of other Democratic Members, I will object.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.