Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dorgan and Wyden be added as cosponsors to this 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 lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for offering this amendment. The Kelo v. New London decision by the Supreme Court came as a great shock to many. The amendment being offered seeks to impose some meaningful limitations on the potential use of eminent domain with the funds provided in this act. I emphasize this provision is limited to the funds in this act and does not seek to overturn the Kelo decision. It merely ensures that funds appropriated for 2006 for the Department of Transportation and Housing are not to use eminent domain for projects that primarily benefit private interests. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the chairman of the committee for offering this critical amendment at this time. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment would extend to the judicial branch certain procurement authorities that are parallel with the authorities that have already been granted to the executive branch and would allow the judiciary to achieve certain cost efficiencies that I think we all want. This amendment has been cleared by the Judiciary Committee with the sunset provision that limits the authority to 5 years. I encourage an aye vote from all of our colleagues. I thank the Chair.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are in agreement on this amendment. It simply will clarify for the purposes of distributing funding from Section 8 housing assistance. Public housing authorities would not be penalized for shelving vouchers temporarily to develop a longer term project. This is a fairness issue, and we are all in agreement. I urge its passage.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and urge all of our colleagues to bring their amendments to the floor. As I stated last night, the chairman of the subcommittee was in a good mood. We had a great baseball game last night, from his viewpoint, for all of us who stayed up to watch the final home run. I think he is amenable to talking to anyone who would like to bring their amendments today. I would suggest our colleagues get that done. I think we all want to finish this bill, most importantly because we need to go to conference on this bill. We are again operating under a continuing resolution. There are many serious issues affecting our investment in housing, our investment in the FAA, in transportation, highways, as well as many other issues that are within this bill. We have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of getting this to conference and working out our differences with the House. I urge my colleagues to bring their amendments to the floor. We are going to be talking about a time agreement fairly soon. If Members want their issues addressed, they need to bring them to the floor. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is now considering the Transportation-Treasury bill, formally known as H.R. 3058. It is the appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for fiscal year 2006. This bill covers areas such as infrastructure, public housing, and the judiciary that are critical to millions of American families and to keeping our economy strong. For our country to reach its full potential, we need to invest in the priorities that are in this bill. Today, many people do not feel very secure about the future. They feel as though they are one slip away from losing their job, or they are worried about the fact that they will not be able to retire or to pay for a trip to the doctor if their child gets sick. To make America strong again, we need to invest at home. We need to invest in our communities, in our schools, in our people, and in our infrastructure. That is what the bill now before us does. In the last few months, we have seen how important it is to have a strong and reliable infrastructure. Tonight I want to offer my colleagues an overview of what this bill funds and some of the most important investments, but first I want to note that several things have changed since last year. As my colleagues know, our Senate subcommittee has changed significantly. Last year, three separate appropriations subcommittees were responsible for funding the agencies that are now in this bill. Even so, the Senate did not have the opportunity to debate and amend any of the appropriations bills that funded these agencies. Since then, the Appropriations Committee has been restructured. As a result, this bill was crafted by one new and very much larger committee. We now have 19 members. Only the Defense Subcommittee is as large. Fortunately for all of us, we have Senator Bond as our very able chairman. Senator Bond has demonstrated his skill and fair-mindedness time and again during his leadership of the former VA Subcommittee. This year, he continues to demonstrate his leadership, and the proof is in this bill. It was reported unanimously by both the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee back in July. In addition to the changes we witnessed in the last year, we have seen dramatic changes in the 12 weeks since we marked up this bill. First and foremost has been the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. More than 1 million people were forced to evacuate the region, including low-income citizens who remain eligible for housing assistance from HUD. Today, because of the devastation, even more people are eligible for Federal housing assistance. Other Federal agencies that are funded in this bill have responded to the hurricanes. In the Department of Transportation, the Maritime Administration has deployed ships from the Ready Reserve fleet to the gulf to assist in recovery efforts. DOT personnel have also been involved in the effort to obtain trucks and buses to move personnel and equipment. Amtrak assisted in the evacuation of storm victims from both New Orleans and Houston. The hurricanes showed us that we need workable plans to evacuate large numbers of low-income residents who depend on public transit. I truly hope the Department of Transportation and FEMA are hard at work on those plans. In the judiciary, Hurricane Katrina has required the emergency relocation of 36 Federal judges and more than 400 staff. The New Orleans office of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has been abandoned, as have the Federal District and Bankruptcy Courts for Eastern Louisiana and Southern Mississippi. Another change since we marked up this bill in July concerns energy prices. Back in late July, the average price per gallon of regular gasoline was $2.27. Today it is more than 25 percent higher. Gas costs more than $3 a gallon in many parts of our country. High gas prices are hurting our families, our businesses, and our communities. This price spike is already causing revenues to our Federal and State transportation trust funds to diminish. That could have a serious impact on the ability of our States to finance their highest priority road projects. The recent spike in fuel prices has also further undermined the financial condition of the Nation's airlines. Since we first marked up this bill, another two major U.S. carriers and one regional carrier have entered bankruptcy. That threatens the long-term availability of air service to the communities across the country and to tens of thousands of jobs. Also, since we first marked up this appropriations bill, we passed the authorization bill and made significant progress on Amtrak reform. First, just prior to the August recess, thanks again to the very able work of Chairman Bond, the Congress passed the conference report on the surface transportation bill, now known as SAFETEA-LU. This law will now guide the direction of our Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs for the next 5 years. Secondly, following the markup of this bill, the Senate Commerce Committee reported a comprehensive Amtrak reform bill. That bill has yet to come before the Senate, but it is important legislation that must inform this subcommittee's deliberations going forward. So as I said earlier, we have seen some dramatic and in some cases tragic changes since the Appropriations Committee first reported this bill. But even with those changes, this bill deserves the strong bipartisan support of the Senate. This bill totals more than $141.4 billion. That is more than $11.6 billion over the President's request. I think the best feature of this bill is that it rejects many of the painful and unwise cuts that were proposed in the President's budget. Whether it is funding to continue rail service in the country or building new runways to relieve congestion at our airports, to construct new housing for low-income seniors and for our disabled; whether it is to invest in community development or provide needed assistance to taxpayers or aggressively enforce our drug laws, this bill rejects the President's painful cuts. Instead, our bill invests the funds to make our world safer and advance the needs of our infrastructure and our people. I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd for providing our subcommittee with the necessary allocation so we could make these critical investments. Chairman Bond also deserves a great deal of credit for ensuring that even with so many new programs now under our jurisdiction, every program was thoroughly reviewed and considered. I thank Chairman Bond for treating me as a full partner in this endeavor. His door has always been open to me. While we do not see eye to eye on every funding level and every provision in the bill, I think the bill we are considering is truly an effort at bipartisan consensus, and I thank the chairman for that. I would like to review some of the priorities in this bill, starting with aviation. This bill rejects the administration's proposal to slash funding for our Nation's airports. It also preserves funding for the essential Air Service Program so that rural communities across the country will continue to receive air service. I am also pleased that the bill attempts to boost hiring of our air safety inspectors at the FAA. Last year this committee fully funded the President's request for safety inspectors. What happened? The FAA downsized that office by more than 300 people. With the Nation's airlines in turmoil and all the airlines seeking to cut costs, this is not the time to cut our safety inspector workforce as I described in detail on the Senate floor just a few weeks ago. For Amtrak, our bill includes $1.45 billion. That is a 20-percent increase over the current year. Now, the DOT inspector general testified that Amtrak would require between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion next year to maintain all of its current routes and services. This funding recommendation falls right in the middle of that range. This bill also recommends some reforms for Amtrak in the interest of helping Amtrak cut costs. The President's budget asks that we throw Amtrak into bankruptcy and leave 22 million Americans stranded on the platform. This bill categorically rejects that approach and preserves all current rail routes so a meaningful debate on reform can continue without the threat of a crisis. Funding for the judiciary is up 6.6 percent. That is slightly higher than the level that was passed by the House of Representatives, and I am confident that this funding level will enable the judiciary to continue its important work without the threat of staff layoffs. Within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the President proposed to move the Community Development Block Grant Program over to the Department of Commerce and cut its funding by more than a third. I am very pleased to say that we will continue to fund CDBG in this bill, and we limited the funding cut to just 8 percent. Some of the more damaging cuts in the President's HUD budget include cuts to new construction for housing for the disabled and cuts to funding for housing funds for AIDS patients, and those have been rejected. Within the Executive Office of the President, the White House proposed to cut funding for the drug law enforcement activities of the high intensity drug tracking areas by more than 50 percent. Our bill, however, rejects that cut entirely and fully funds the HIDTA Program. Turning to Federal workers, this bill provides a 3.1-percent pay raise for all Federal employees. It is an identical adjustment for military and civilian workers. I am also very pleased that Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski reached a compromise on competitive sourcing. It will provide a level playing field when it comes to efforts by the Federal Government to contract out Federal jobs. As I have outlined, this bill makes some critical investments in our transportation infrastructure, in our ability to house the poor and administer justice, and the pressing needs, of course, of our highways and airways and transit systems. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill so we can strengthen our local communities and our entire country. I will repeat the words of my chairman, Senator Bond, and encourage my colleagues to bring their amendments to the Senate floor. The sooner we start these amendments, the sooner we can review them and perhaps get them adopted. One thing I do know is, as of right now, there is still hope that the St. Louis Cardinals are going to reverse course and win the National League Championship Series. I cannot guarantee to any of my colleagues that Chairman Bond is going to greet their amendments warmly, but I know he will greet them less warmly if the Cardinals are eliminated this evening, so I suggest to all my colleagues they bring their amendments to the floor as soon as possible so they can be considered and we can move forward on 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.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is going to vote in a couple of minutes on an amendment Senator Bond and I offered that addresses fraud and abuse at HUD properties. These are technical changes that are needed to provide the HUD Office of Inspector General the tools they need to continue this effort. The amendment clarifies that the Government can recover double damages from project owners, heirs, officers, and management companies that have violated their project agreements with HUD. These damages will apply even if the violators no longer have a mortgage or are doing business with HUD. The provision allows violations to basically be considered as a false claim. Large damage awards are a proven deterrent in minimizing fraud and abuse in these programs. There is a backlog of enforcement actions awaiting this change, including nursing homes that have been skimming equity from properties that are covered with HUD insurance. We have to put a stop to these abuses. I encourage all colleagues, when this vote occurs in a few minutes, to support this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate leadership to call up H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, once the Department of Defense appropriations bill is done. We all want to make our country strong again. We all want to make our communities strong again. One way to do that is to invest in our transportation infrastructure, in public housing, and in the other priorities that are part of that important bill. Every day we go without a Transportation-Treasury bill is a day that we fall short of making the investments we need to make to strengthen this country. We are not talking about our physical infrastructure, we are talking about our own safety. As I will show in a moment, the failure of the Senate to bring up the Transportation-Treasury bill could actually be threatening the safety of every American who flies on a commercial air carrier. A floor debate on the Transportation-Treasury bill is long overdue. The House of Representatives passed this bill more than 3 months ago. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported this bill almost 2\1/2\ months ago. Today we are almost a full week into fiscal year 2006, and still the Senate has been denied an opportunity to consider and debate and pass this important bill. The Senate needs to debate and pass this bill so we can avoid the unruly and unfair process of funding the Government through another Omnibus appropriations bill. The Senate needs to debate and pass this bill so all of the Senators, not just those on the Appropriations Committee, can have an opportunity to consider and, if necessary, amend that bill. The Senate needs to debate and pass this bill so we can urgently address the critical needs of our transportation and public housing sectors, including the pressing need to protect the safety of all of our citizens. Mr. President, 2002 was the most recent year in which the Transportation appropriations bill was sent to the President as a freestanding measure. I was chair of the subcommittee at that time. Ever since then, the funding for the agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction has been enacted as part of a series of unwieldy Omnibus appropriations bills. The process by which these bills were put together did not reflect well on the Senate. It did not reflect well on the Congress as a whole. Last year's process was the worst of all. Last year, the Transportation, Treasury, and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 was never even debated in the Senate. Once the appropriations bill was reported by the Appropriations committee, the bill languished for months before Congress went home for an election. Then, just before Thanksgiving, Congress reconvened and tried, in 3 days, to assemble a final conference report for dozens of major Federal agencies, even though the Senate had never even passed many of the appropriations bills that funded those agencies. I think Members of all political stripes in both the House and in the Senate recognized how poorly the public and the Congress were served by that process. In January, everyone said we will not do that again. We heard it from the leadership of both the House and the Senate and from the new leadership of the House and the Senate appropriations committees. I am glad they said it back in January. But from where I sit as the ranking member of the Transportation-Treasury Subcommittee, it sure looks to me as though we are now heading toward another Omnibus appropriations bill. The bottom line is this. The Transportation-Treasury bill has been sitting on this calendar, ready to be called up, for almost 2\1/2\ months. If we want to avoid another Omnibus appropriations bill, we need to call up and pass that bill as soon as we are done with this Defense bill. This process of sending bills approved by the Appropriations Committee directly to conference without appropriate debate on the Senate floor is not just grossly unfair to Democratic Senators, it is grossly unfair to all of the 72 Senators who do not sit on the Appropriations Committee. The appropriations bill that Senator Bond and I are recommending to the Senate was approved unanimously by the Appropriations Committee back in mid-July. It proposes to spend over $137 billion. These are not just tax dollars that were collected in Missouri or collected in Washington or collected in States represented by members of the Appropriations Committee, these are tax dollars that were collected from all Americans. Since that is true, every Senator should have the opportunity to debate this bill and pass judgment on our recommendations. Every Senator should be given an opportunity to amend that bill. We need to avoid another Omnibus to ensure a fair process. There are also some very practical programmatic reasons why we must call up and, importantly, pass this Transportation-Treasury bill as soon as possible. Now the Government is functioning under a continuing resolution. Under the requirements of that resolution, programs that are funded in the Transportation-Treasury bill are all operating at either the lower of the funding levels passed by the House of Representatives back in June or at the level the program was funded in fiscal year 2005. Some observers have speculated we could be operating under this continuing resolution until Christmas. It would take hours for me to list all the programs and national needs that will suffer if they are required to operate for any length of time under the funding restrictions of this continuing resolution. If we do not get agreement soon to debate the Transportation-Treasury bill, I may well take up a lot of the Senate floor time to explain each and every one of them. But today I want to focus on one topic and that is the topic of aviation safety and what our failure to move this Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill means for millions of Americans who travel by air in this country today. Over the last few years, our national aviation enterprise--our airlines, our airports, and the FAA--have been under an unprecedented amount of financial pressure. We now have no fewer than six airlines in bankruptcy. If jet fuel prices do not start declining soon, that number could grow even higher. In the interests of cutting costs, airlines on which you and I travel have been cutting back on staff, have been renouncing their pension plans, and have been outsourcing an increasing percentage of their aircraft maintenance. I know many other Senators, including myself, travel home almost every weekend, and we have all noticed the changes in the service the airlines offer. Staffing is leaner than ever and we have a lot of flight delays. Mechanical problems are on the rise. One important area of cost cutting has been the airlines' continuing efforts to contract out their aircraft maintenance activities to third parties, including, you all should know, overseas vendors known as foreign repair stations. In the past, airlines maintained their planes with experienced veteran unionized mechanics. Today, they outsource more than 50 percent, more than half of their maintenance work, to independent operators. Airlines such as Northwest send some of their aircraft as far as Singapore and Hong Kong for heavy maintenance. We have one major carrier, Jet Blue, that sends a large portion of their Airbus fleet to be maintained in El Salvador, Central America. That is where their planes are maintained. America West Airlines, now merged with U.S. Airways, does the same thing. Many of us watched in fear a few weeks ago when a Jet Blue A-320 was required to make an emergency landing at the Los Angeles International Airport. As we all watched on television, we saw its front landing gear facing sideways, at 90 degrees. That was not the first time the landing gear didn't engage correctly. In fact, it was not the 5th time, it was not even the 10th time, it was the 14th time that the FAA learned of the front landing gear of an A-320 aircraft not engaging correctly. According to the FAA, these 14 dangerous and frightening mishaps have occurred as a result of 5 separate and distinct causes. It is the job of the FAA inspectors to find out why these problems happen and to force the plane's manufacturer to fix that problem. We cannot afford to have an understaffed or an overwhelmed FAA safety office. Our airlines are going through a period of dramatic and rapid change. That puts an extraordinary amount of stress on the aircraft inspection function of the Federal Aviation Administration. We have received a disturbing series of reports from the DOT Inspector General, from the Government Accounting Office, and the National Transportation Safety Board citing deficiencies with the FAA's inspection effort. In 2004, the NTSB found that deficient maintenance by an outside contractor and inadequate oversight by the airline and the FAA contributed to the 2003 crash of a commuter flight to Charlotte, NC. That crash killed 21 people. The DOT Inspector General first identified serious deficiencies with the FAA's inspection efforts back in 2002. Just this past June, the IG reported that many of those deficiencies have still not been adequately addressed. The IG found that the FAA focused too much attention on the airline's dwindling in-house maintenance function and not enough attention on the outsourced maintenance activities of their foreign contractors. The IG found that the FAA inspectors were spending too much time inspecting maintenance facilities during the day, while a majority of the maintenance activities are actually conducted at night. The IG found the FAA was doing an insufficient job of its surveillance of financially distressed or rapidly growing airlines. And the IG found the FAA was not able to meet its own standards for frequent inspections because it was short staffed. In just the last few weeks, the FAA staffing shortage has become even more critical. As these airlines enter bankruptcy, the FAA is automatically required to step up its inspections of bankrupt carriers. Today, the FAA must give heightened scrutiny to the six bankrupt carriers, as well as four other carriers that are in merger proceedings. Following the liquidation of Eastern Airlines several years ago, a number of dramatic and horrifying revelations came out regarding the maintenance shortcuts that Eastern took in the interest of conserving cash in its waning days. The entire aviation community vowed that there would not ever be a repeat of the Eastern Airlines experience. I would think with the external recommendations and the record that I have just cited, the FAA would now be rapidly hiring more inspectors to keep up with its growing and challenging workload. Unfortunately, over the course of the last year, the exact opposite has been the case. Despite the fact that the Congress granted the FAA's inspections office every penny that was sought in the President's budget for fiscal year 2005, the office has been required to downsize by roughly 300 inspectors over the course of just this last year. That is right. As the requirements on our FAA inspectors to maintain safety in our skies has increased dramatically, the FAA has been downsizing its inspection force each and every month. This unacceptable situation is one that Senator Bond and I pursued as part of our hearings with Secretary Mineta this year--and the House Appropriations Committee did the same. I am proud to say that on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, both the Transportation-Treasury bill passed by the House and the bill that has been reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee seeks to rectify the situation. The House Appropriations Committee provided this office with an increase of $4 million over the President's budget request and committed those funds to the hiring of additional inspectors. The Senate provided an increase of $8 million over the President's request, and we directed that funding be used to restore safety inspector staffing reductions that occurred during fiscal year 2005. Personally, I still question whether we should be doing more in this area since we have now had two more airlines in bankruptcy since we marked up that appropriations bill. But still, these actions on the part of the House and Senate committees indicate that Congress, on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis, is prepared to address this glaring safety vulnerability, even if the administration is not. With that said, we can't make any progress in tackling this problem if we do not call up and pass the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill. Under the current continuing resolution, the agency can make no progress in restoring the necessary FAA inspectors to a level that could better protect us. As I said, this was just one of several reasons it is imperative for the Senate leadership to call up the Transportation-Treasury bill. I again implore the Senate Republican leadership to call up the Transportation-Treasury bill immediately upon the completion of this Defense appropriations bill. We have to have the opportunity to debate this bill, not just for the fairness of our colleagues and to maintain the integrity of the Senate, but we must debate this bill and pass it so we can ensure the safety of our citizens. VAWA Reauthorization Mr. President, I rise today to speak about tbe Violence Against Women Act, which the Senate this week passed by unanimous consent. For the last few months, we have been talking about reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, as it is better known. Back in 1994, through this historic legislation, we created a national strategy for dealing with domestic violence, establishing a community-wide response. Since we took that historical step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. We can clearly see that VAWA has been tremendously effective. But there is still work to be done to protect victims of domestic violence--particularly when it comes to helping victims break the cycle of violence. And that is what I am here to talk about today--breaking the cycle of violence. Financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence. Too often, victims who are not economically self sufficient are forced to choose between protecting themselves and their children on one hand, and keeping a roof over their head on the other hand. It is critical that we help guarantee the economic security of victims of domestic or sexual violence who cannot pay the rent without their abusive partner, or who have been forced to leave their job because of abuse. Without our help, economic dependency will continue to force these victims to stay in abusive relationships. The purpose of the Violence Against Women Act is to reduce domestic violence. The reauthorization legislation addresses several new issues that will help prevent and reduce domestic violence. One such--way as I already mentioned--is a national health care strategy. But the legislation as introduced contained another important tool to helping reduce domestic violence--it contained provisions that would have allowed victims to take up to 10 days of unpaid leave per year to address domestic violence. Over 40 percent of American workers get no paid time off. They can't use vacation time to address their abuse, and missing work puts them in danger of losing their job. This provision would have allowed these victims, and many others, to take unpaid leave to get a protective order, see a doctor, or make a safety plan to address their abuse. But sadly, amidst opposition and complaints of jurisdictional issues, these provisions were stripped from the bill during consideration in the Judiciary Committee. The legislation that was reported out of committee--which the Senate just passed by unanimous consent--does not contain any economic protections for victims. I did not give up on these protections easily. After the leave provisions were dropped, I asked the managers of this bill to include another economic security provision, unemployment insurance. Specifically, I asked them to provide victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking with unemployment insurance if they have to leave their job or are fired because of abuse. We know that a job is often the only way for victims to build up resources for themselves to eventually leave a violent relationship, but abuse and stalking can make it impossible for a victim to keep a job. We know of cases where abusers will deliberately sabotage a victim's ability to work, placing harassing phone calls, cutting off their transportation, showing up at the workplace and threatening employees. When a victim loses a job because of violence, that victim should have access to unemployment insurance compensation benefits. Are you aware that a woman is eligible for unemployment benefits if she has to leave her job because her husband had to relocate? But in many States, if a woman has to leave her job because she is fleeing a dangerous situation, she cannot receive the same benefits. That is unacceptable. Currently, 28 States plus the District of Columbia already provide some type of unemployment insurance assistance for victims of domestic violence. We can offer that same protection to victims in every State, and we have an obligation to do it. But, since this provision is not included in VAWA either, we need to do it here and now. It is important to recognize that this violence goes far beyond the home, too often following victims into the workplace, where it doesn't just hurt victims--it hurts their employers, too. In fact, from decreased workplace productivity to increased health insurance cost, the data shows that domestic violence is bad for business. It has real and painful costs on employers. So for those Members who want to weigh this measure against its economic merits, the facts are clear. Providing the tools that will allow abused women to escape abusive relationships can help offset billions of dollars in costs that domestic violence imposes on businesses. As many of my colleagues know, I have been working on the issue of economic security for victims for many years. I have spoken with victims and their advocates, and employers. In fact, just this past Tuesday in my State of Washington, I held a roundtable discussion to meet with stakeholders. I heard from an employer--and owner of a small business in Snohomish County--who talked about the importance of flexible schedules and leave policies that allow employees to address their abuse. He said that helping them address their situations helps his bottom line. I also heard from someone who works at the employment security department, who said that the numbers do not suggest that women are abusing unemployment insurance. And I heard from a survivor, who shared her story and talked about the crucial importance of these economic protections. These are the voices we must hear. And these are the stories we must learn from and let guide our work here in the Senate. I am going to keep coming to the Senate as many times as it takes, and I will tell these stories until my colleagues realize this is an issue that needs to be addressed. We need to provide these victims with the economic tools to help escape their dangerous situation. For a long time, violence against women was considered a private matter. That attitude hurt women. Today, stopping domestic violence is everyone's business. That is in large part due to the Violence Against Women Act which I was very proud to work on and help pass. For the first time, the Violence Against Women Act recognized domestic violence as a violent crime and a national public health crisis. Economic protections are the next logical step in the progress we have been making in fighting domestic violence. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues have not realized the critical importance of providing these economic protections. I brought this issue up last year when the Senate was considering the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I tried to amend that bill with my Security and Financial Empowerment, SAFE, Act, which contains all the economic protections I have talked about today. I was told then it wasn't the right time to address preventing violence against women. My amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. I am here again talking about how the Senate is failing to address this issue and failing to help prevent domestic violence by overlooking these economic provisions. I reiterate to my colleagues that I will continue to come to the Senate and talk about how critical this issue is in helping victims get out of abusive relationships. I will continue to introduce legislation and offer amendments providing economic protections to victims. I will continue to ask whether the Senators in this Chamber are serious about talking about the next crucial step to help victims of abuse. I urge the conferees on the Violence Against Women Act to send the powerful message to victims that they understand how important these economic protections are by including them in the conference report on VAWA. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect low-income Medicare beneficiaries from being penalized under the new Medicare Modernization Act. My legislation also gives all seniors and the disabled more time to make the right choice in selecting a drug plan. My bill is called the Medicare HEALS Act, which stands for Help for Every beneficiary and Low Income Seniors. I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Cantwell in introducing this new bill. My goal is to protect very low-income seniors who today are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid. The new drug law will impose new co- payments and premiums on these vulnerable patients, while--at the same time--covering fewer prescription drugs. Worst of all, the law prohibits States from providing additional coverage, known as wrap-around coverage, to seniors, the disabled and low-income beneficiaries. I believe seniors deserve better. I believe low income working families deserve better, and that's why I've written this bill. The new drug law will force painful changes on low income patients, and my bill will help protect our most vulnerable from the negative impacts of the drug law. Let's start by looking at how low-income beneficiaries are covered today versus how they will be covered under the new law. Today, very low income seniors are eligible for coverage under both state Medicaid programs and the Federal Medicare program, so they are often referred to as ``dual eligibles.'' Today, their prescription drugs are covered by State Medicaid programs, and they are a good deal. For many seniors and the disabled, State Medicaid drug coverage involves limited co-payments, no premiums, and coverage for a broad range of medically-necessary drugs. Once the new Medicare drug program is implemented, these vulnerable patients will lose their State Medicaid coverage. They will be shifted into the Federal Medicare program, which will impose higher co- payments, new premiums and fewer covered drugs. It's a bad deal for low-income seniors and to make matters worse, it's incredibly complicated to figure out which private drug plan meets their needs. 1 am concerned that these individuals will be unable to afford co- payments or tiered co-payments that will be part of many MMA plans. I am concerned that these individuals will also be denied the most medically-appropriate treatments due to restrictions imposed by the plans or additional financial burdens that plans will use to drive down drug utilization costs. In addition, I am not convinced that we have done enough to fully educate and prepare beneficiaries to the choices and implications of these choices that they face today. Another problem with the Medicare drug law is that it will penalize anyone on Medicare who needs extra time to make a decision about which plan to choose or whether or not to join the program. For a new system that is as complex as this new drug law, it's unfair to force people to make a decision quickly and to penalize those who need extra time to make the right choice. To solve these problems and to protect our most vulnerable, my legislation would repeal the prohibition included in MMA on the use of Medicaid funds to provide wrap around coverage for dually eligible. While I still believe that additional delay is warranted in switching this population to private plans under Medicare, I do believe we need to ensure that States facing a huge backlash from this population can respond accordingly. I have joined in support of legislation aimed at providing a 6-month transition period for dual eligibles to give these patients time to phase into these new plans, but I also think we must ensure that States have the ability to respond to lapses in coverage or financial barriers that will deny access to necessary and life saving drugs. States would have the option of providing wrap-around coverage using both Federal and State Medicaid funds, as they do today. My legislation would also deduct any State funds used to provide wrap-around coverage from the so-called clawback amount. As we know, the MMA legislation takes back much of the savings States will see by transferring these patients to Medicare. I do not think it is fair to penalize States for trying to do the right thing. Finally, my legislation would delay the late penalty enrollment from May 15, 2006 until January 1, 2008, for all beneficiaries. This will give all Medicare beneficiaries the time to fully evaluate the plans. The extension will provide beneficiaries with one full benefit year and the open enrollment period to determine if these plans offer them a good value or provide the kind of security we all expect from Medicare. This extension is of particular importance to those seniors who may be eligible for assistance but have not yet applied. We know that full dual eligibles will be automatically enrolled in a plan if they fail to select one. However, those with incomes from 135 percent to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level could also qualify for assistance but will not be automatically enrolled. Early estimates from the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) indicate that a number of seniors have failed to even apply for eligibility determination. I have been told from CMS that 18 to 19 million beneficiaries were mailed information and an application this summer to begin the eligibility determination. So far, only 3 million have even applied. A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that only 37 percent of beneficiaries understand the program somewhat, but 61 percent do not. Fifty-four percent of beneficiaries do not even plan on joining the program. Many seniors have simply chosen not to even try and navigate the process. For some, there are more than 20 different plans with premiums nationwide, ranging from $1.87 to $100 and deductibles from $0 to $250. This does not even get into restricted formularies or other restrictions that may be imposed. It is clear that all beneficiaries need more time. Extending the late penalty enrollment deadline of May 15, 2006 is the simplest step we can take to give seniors time to evaluate these plans and this new benefit. The late enrollment penalty of 1 percent each month is a huge financial hit that punishes those who may need the help the most. In Washington State, we could see thousands of frail, vulnerable beneficiaries paying significantly more for life saving drugs or simply going without. There are an estimated 86,167 full dual eligibles and an additional 22,869 who receive some assistance from Medicaid. The intent of MMA and this new benefit was to expand access to affordable drug coverage; however, the unintended consequence could be the disruption of care for millions of low income beneficiaries nationwide. It is my understanding that dual eligibles in Washington State will be automatically enrolled into 1 of 12 plans. There are 31 plans participating as Medicare Advantage or Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). Within these plans, there are often several different benefit packages. Premiums range from $0 to $120; deductibles can range from $0 to $2500; and many will have tiered co-payment structures. None of these plans will cover all top 100 drugs used by seniors. Some plans provide only 77 of the top 100 drugs. While these plans may offer far better benefits than many receive today, it will be difficult to make this determination. The range of choices; the restrictions; the variations in out-of-pocket and the belief by many that this is not a good benefit overall, will lead many seniors to simply walk away. But, even if seniors decide to sit down and do the calculation and evaluate each plan or option, they face challenges in the reliability of the information. CMS has partnered with a number of outstanding groups in Washington State who are working hard to get information and help to seniors so they can make informed choices. But the task is made much more difficult when CMS announces that materials already mailed to beneficiaries are incorrect. My office received notice this week from CMS that the area specific 2006 version of the ``Medicare and You Handbook'' already mailed to beneficiaries contains a rather large error. The error occurs in the comparison charts listing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). In the last column of the comparison table, entitled ``If I qualify for Extra Help, will my full premium be covered?'' For each plan listed, the column should say yes if the plan's premium is at or below the regional benchmark, and a beneficiary who qualifies for the low income subsidy would pay no premium for this plan. The column should show no if the plan's premium is above the regional benchmark and a beneficiary who qualifies for the low income subsidy would pay the difference between the regional benchmark and the plan's premium. Due to an error, this column lists yes for every plan. Even if one could figure out what the regional benchmark is and the difference in the premium, they are still getting bad information. How can anyone determine the value of a plan or benefit when the initial information is wrong? There are other examples of information being provided by CMS that is incorrect or inconsistent. I think this has happened in part because this administration is in a race against time to enroll, enroll, enroll. This kind of pressure will only lead to more and more confusion and distrust. As we saw with the temporary discount drug card, seniors simply refused to participate. Even those who would have qualified for $600 did not bother to enroll. The largest enrollment was done by States and private plans for those who qualified for the subsidy, but far more simply did not bother. The choices were too complex, there were too many rules or restrictions, and there was no way for beneficiaries to measure the value of these cards. My legislation does not address every problem and every coverage gap, but it is a small step to protect the most vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to join me in making these small but necessary corrections today before beneficiaries lose their coverage and lose access to affordable life saving drugs. I know that this administration has resisted any efforts at fixing this program and has said the President would veto any legislation that delays implementation or changes the structure of the benefit. But, I am convinced we will be back making changes to this program over the next 2 years because seniors will demand action. Maybe before all confidence in this program is gone and seniors are calling for repeal, the administration would look at small, humane fixes today, and that is the Medicare HEALS Act offers.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect low-income Medicare beneficiaries from being penalized under the new Medicare Modernization Act. My legislation also gives all seniors and the disabled more time to make the right choice in selecting a drug plan. My bill is called the Medicare HEALS Act, which stands for Help for Every beneficiary and Low Income Seniors. I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Cantwell in introducing this new bill. My goal is to protect very low-income seniors who today are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid. The new drug law will impose new co- payments and premiums on these vulnerable patients, while--at the same time--covering fewer prescription drugs. Worst of all, the law prohibits States from providing additional coverage, known as wrap-around coverage, to seniors, the disabled and low-income beneficiaries. I believe seniors deserve better. I believe low income working families deserve better, and that's why I've written this bill. The new drug law will force painful changes on low income patients, and my bill will help protect our most vulnerable from the negative impacts of the drug law. Let's start by looking at how low-income beneficiaries are covered today versus how they will be covered under the new law. Today, very low income seniors are eligible for coverage under both state Medicaid programs and the Federal Medicare program, so they are often referred to as ``dual eligibles.'' Today, their prescription drugs are covered by State Medicaid programs, and they are a good deal. For many seniors and the disabled, State Medicaid drug coverage involves limited co-payments, no premiums, and coverage for a broad range of medically-necessary drugs. Once the new Medicare drug program is implemented, these vulnerable patients will lose their State Medicaid coverage. They will be shifted into the Federal Medicare program, which will impose higher co- payments, new premiums and fewer covered drugs. It's a bad deal for low-income seniors and to make matters worse, it's incredibly complicated to figure out which private drug plan meets their needs. 1 am concerned that these individuals will be unable to afford co- payments or tiered co-payments that will be part of many MMA plans. I am concerned that these individuals will also be denied the most medically-appropriate treatments due to restrictions imposed by the plans or additional financial burdens that plans will use to drive down drug utilization costs. In addition, I am not convinced that we have done enough to fully educate and prepare beneficiaries to the choices and implications of these choices that they face today. Another problem with the Medicare drug law is that it will penalize anyone on Medicare who needs extra time to make a decision about which plan to choose or whether or not to join the program. For a new system that is as complex as this new drug law, it's unfair to force people to make a decision quickly and to penalize those who need extra time to make the right choice. To solve these problems and to protect our most vulnerable, my legislation would repeal the prohibition included in MMA on the use of Medicaid funds to provide wrap around coverage for dually eligible. While I still believe that additional delay is warranted in switching this population to private plans under Medicare, I do believe we need to ensure that States facing a huge backlash from this population can respond accordingly. I have joined in support of legislation aimed at providing a 6-month transition period for dual eligibles to give these patients time to phase into these new plans, but I also think we must ensure that States have the ability to respond to lapses in coverage or financial barriers that will deny access to necessary and life saving drugs. States would have the option of providing wrap-around coverage using both Federal and State Medicaid funds, as they do today. My legislation would also deduct any State funds used to provide wrap-around coverage from the so-called clawback amount. As we know, the MMA legislation takes back much of the savings States will see by transferring these patients to Medicare. I do not think it is fair to penalize States for trying to do the right thing. Finally, my legislation would delay the late penalty enrollment from May 15, 2006 until January 1, 2008, for all beneficiaries. This will give all Medicare beneficiaries the time to fully evaluate the plans. The extension will provide beneficiaries with one full benefit year and the open enrollment period to determine if these plans offer them a good value or provide the kind of security we all expect from Medicare. This extension is of particular importance to those seniors who may be eligible for assistance but have not yet applied. We know that full dual eligibles will be automatically enrolled in a plan if they fail to select one. However, those with incomes from 135 percent to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level could also qualify for assistance but will not be automatically enrolled. Early estimates from the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) indicate that a number of seniors have failed to even apply for eligibility determination. I have been told from CMS that 18 to 19 million beneficiaries were mailed information and an application this summer to begin the eligibility determination. So far, only 3 million have even applied. A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that only 37 percent of beneficiaries understand the program somewhat, but 61 percent do not. Fifty-four percent of beneficiaries do not even plan on joining the program. Many seniors have simply chosen not to even try and navigate the process. For some, there are more than 20 different plans with premiums nationwide, ranging from $1.87 to $100 and deductibles from $0 to $250. This does not even get into restricted formularies or other restrictions that may be imposed. It is clear that all beneficiaries need more time. Extending the late penalty enrollment deadline of May 15, 2006 is the simplest step we can take to give seniors time to evaluate these plans and this new benefit. The late enrollment penalty of 1 percent each month is a huge financial hit that punishes those who may need the help the most. In Washington State, we could see thousands of frail, vulnerable beneficiaries paying significantly more for life saving drugs or simply going without. There are an estimated 86,167 full dual eligibles and an additional 22,869 who receive some assistance from Medicaid. The intent of MMA and this new benefit was to expand access to affordable drug coverage; however, the unintended consequence could be the disruption of care for millions of low income beneficiaries nationwide. It is my understanding that dual eligibles in Washington State will be automatically enrolled into 1 of 12 plans. There are 31 plans participating as Medicare Advantage or Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). Within these plans, there are often several different benefit packages. Premiums range from $0 to $120; deductibles can range from $0 to $2500; and many will have tiered co-payment structures. None of these plans will cover all top 100 drugs used by seniors. Some plans provide only 77 of the top 100 drugs. While these plans may offer far better benefits than many receive today, it will be difficult to make this determination. The range of choices; the restrictions; the variations in out-of-pocket and the belief by many that this is not a good benefit overall, will lead many seniors to simply walk away. But, even if seniors decide to sit down and do the calculation and evaluate each plan or option, they face challenges in the reliability of the information. CMS has partnered with a number of outstanding groups in Washington State who are working hard to get information and help to seniors so they can make informed choices. But the task is made much more difficult when CMS announces that materials already mailed to beneficiaries are incorrect. My office received notice this week from CMS that the area specific 2006 version of the ``Medicare and You Handbook'' already mailed to beneficiaries contains a rather large error. The error occurs in the comparison charts listing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). In the last column of the comparison table, entitled ``If I qualify for Extra Help, will my full premium be covered?'' For each plan listed, the column should say yes if the plan's premium is at or below the regional benchmark, and a beneficiary who qualifies for the low income subsidy would pay no premium for this plan. The column should show no if the plan's premium is above the regional benchmark and a beneficiary who qualifies for the low income subsidy would pay the difference between the regional benchmark and the plan's premium. Due to an error, this column lists yes for every plan. Even if one could figure out what the regional benchmark is and the difference in the premium, they are still getting bad information. How can anyone determine the value of a plan or benefit when the initial information is wrong? There are other examples of information being provided by CMS that is incorrect or inconsistent. I think this has happened in part because this administration is in a race against time to enroll, enroll, enroll. This kind of pressure will only lead to more and more confusion and distrust. As we saw with the temporary discount drug card, seniors simply refused to participate. Even those who would have qualified for $600 did not bother to enroll. The largest enrollment was done by States and private plans for those who qualified for the subsidy, but far more simply did not bother. The choices were too complex, there were too many rules or restrictions, and there was no way for beneficiaries to measure the value of these cards. My legislation does not address every problem and every coverage gap, but it is a small step to protect the most vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to join me in making these small but necessary corrections today before beneficiaries lose their coverage and lose access to affordable life saving drugs. I know that this administration has resisted any efforts at fixing this program and has said the President would veto any legislation that delays implementation or changes the structure of the benefit. But, I am convinced we will be back making changes to this program over the next 2 years because seniors will demand action. Maybe before all confidence in this program is gone and seniors are calling for repeal, the administration would look at small, humane fixes today, and that is the Medicare HEALS Act offers.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Dayton, Dodd and Corzine, I am introducing legislation that, if adopted, will protect and even save the lives of victims of domestic or sexual violence and their families. This bill, the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, addresses the impact of domestic and sexual violence that extends far beyond the moment the abuse occurs. I am introducing this legislation today as a tribute to Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were such champions for victims of domestic violence. Senator Wellstone and I first introduced this legislation together in 1998. Paul's desk was just behind me here on the Senate floor. I can still see him behind me waving his arms and making the case for people who have no voice. Not long ago, domestic violence was considered a family problem, and many victims had nowhere to turn for help. Today, thanks to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) we have made great progress in fighting these violent crimes. I worked to help pass this landmark legislation in 1994 and I am proud to be a part of reauthorizing it this year. But although VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers and law enforcement professionals to meet immediate challenges, there is still work to be done. As someone who has spent my entire public life working with victims and experts to fight domestic violence, I am offering this bill based on what these courageous individuals have told me they need. Financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence. Too often, victims who are not economically self sufficient are forced to choose between protecting themselves and their children and keeping a roof over their heads. It is critical that we help guarantee the economic security of victims of domestic or sexual violence so that they can provide permanent safety for themselves and their families and so that they are not forced, because of economic dependence, to stay in an abusive relationship. In order to do this, we must ensure that victims of domestic or sexual violence can seek the help they need without the fear of losing their jobs. Too many victims have been fired for missing work in order to find shelter or get a court restraining order, even after receiving permission from their employers. Today, a woman can use the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for a sick or injured spouse, but she cannot use that act to seek protection from her abuser. The SAFE Act will allow victims to take time off from work without penalty in order to make court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning. For too many victims, access to these essential services can mean the difference between life and death. Unfortunately, some victims of domestic or sexual violence are forced to leave their jobs and relocate to protect themselves and their families. We must ensure the continued financial security of these victims through the use of unemployment benefits. Currently, a woman can receive unemployment benefits if she leaves her job because her husband must relocate. But if that same woman is fleeing her husband's abuse, in many States she cannot receive the same benefits. Currently, 28 States and the District of Columbia provide some type of unemployment assistance to victims of domestic or sexual violence. Our bill will ensure that assistance is available in every State, so that no woman has to make the tragic choice of risking her safety to protect her livelihood. Moreover, victims must not be made silent by the fear of discrimination in employment and insurance. Punishing victims for circumstances beyond their control is wrong and only helps abusers in their efforts to control their victims. Denying a woman employment because she is a victim of domestic violence robs her of the economic security she needs to escape a dangerous relationship. Making insurance coverage decisions based on a history of abuse only encourages women to lie about their victimization and avoid seeking help until it is too late. The SAFE Act prohibits discrimination in employment and insurance based on domestic or sexual violence, to ensure that victims are never punished for their abusers' crimes. Sadly, domestic violence and poverty are inextricably linked, and many victims of domestic or sexual violence are also recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Work requirements in this program often punish victims who must take time off to protect themselves and their children. In 1996, Senator Paul Wellstone and I offered an amendment to TANF called the Family Violence Option, which allows States to adjust TANF work requirements for victims of domestic violence. The SAFE act will strengthen the Family Violence Option, in order to protect some of the most economically vulnerable victims. Despite the great progress that has been made, domestic violence is still a serious problem in our country. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, and over 5.3 million incidents occur every year. Domestic or sexual violence also continues to have severe economic consequences, costing businesses between 3 and 5 billion dollars each year in lost productivity. The SAFE Act will help victims to escape dangerous situations and prevent abuse from occurring. This will not only protect the lives of countless victims, it will allow them to be more productive members of the economy. I am proud of the guidance we've received from advocates in crafting this legislation. I want to thank them for their efforts and their commitment to breaking the cycle of violence. I want to particularly acknowledge the efforts of the advocates in Washington State who have provided invaluable input in drafting this legislation. The support and leadership of our communities will help us take this critical next step in passing SAFE. For victims of domestic violence, an abusive relationship can seem like a hopeless situation. Through VAWA, we have already provided new hope to millions of these victims. The SAFE Act is the crucial next step in ending the cycle of abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and provide victims and their families with the tools they need for productive, independent and most importantly, safe futures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Dayton, Dodd and Corzine, I am introducing legislation that, if adopted, will protect and even save the lives of victims of domestic or sexual violence and their families. This bill, the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, addresses the impact of domestic and sexual violence that extends far beyond the moment the abuse occurs. I am introducing this legislation today as a tribute to Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were such champions for victims of domestic violence. Senator Wellstone and I first introduced this legislation together in 1998. Paul's desk was just behind me here on the Senate floor. I can still see him behind me waving his arms and making the case for people who have no voice. Not long ago, domestic violence was considered a family problem, and many victims had nowhere to turn for help. Today, thanks to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) we have made great progress in fighting these violent crimes. I worked to help pass this landmark legislation in 1994 and I am proud to be a part of reauthorizing it this year. But although VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers and law enforcement professionals to meet immediate challenges, there is still work to be done. As someone who has spent my entire public life working with victims and experts to fight domestic violence, I am offering this bill based on what these courageous individuals have told me they need. Financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence. Too often, victims who are not economically self sufficient are forced to choose between protecting themselves and their children and keeping a roof over their heads. It is critical that we help guarantee the economic security of victims of domestic or sexual violence so that they can provide permanent safety for themselves and their families and so that they are not forced, because of economic dependence, to stay in an abusive relationship. In order to do this, we must ensure that victims of domestic or sexual violence can seek the help they need without the fear of losing their jobs. Too many victims have been fired for missing work in order to find shelter or get a court restraining order, even after receiving permission from their employers. Today, a woman can use the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for a sick or injured spouse, but she cannot use that act to seek protection from her abuser. The SAFE Act will allow victims to take time off from work without penalty in order to make court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning. For too many victims, access to these essential services can mean the difference between life and death. Unfortunately, some victims of domestic or sexual violence are forced to leave their jobs and relocate to protect themselves and their families. We must ensure the continued financial security of these victims through the use of unemployment benefits. Currently, a woman can receive unemployment benefits if she leaves her job because her husband must relocate. But if that same woman is fleeing her husband's abuse, in many States she cannot receive the same benefits. Currently, 28 States and the District of Columbia provide some type of unemployment assistance to victims of domestic or sexual violence. Our bill will ensure that assistance is available in every State, so that no woman has to make the tragic choice of risking her safety to protect her livelihood. Moreover, victims must not be made silent by the fear of discrimination in employment and insurance. Punishing victims for circumstances beyond their control is wrong and only helps abusers in their efforts to control their victims. Denying a woman employment because she is a victim of domestic violence robs her of the economic security she needs to escape a dangerous relationship. Making insurance coverage decisions based on a history of abuse only encourages women to lie about their victimization and avoid seeking help until it is too late. The SAFE Act prohibits discrimination in employment and insurance based on domestic or sexual violence, to ensure that victims are never punished for their abusers' crimes. Sadly, domestic violence and poverty are inextricably linked, and many victims of domestic or sexual violence are also recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Work requirements in this program often punish victims who must take time off to protect themselves and their children. In 1996, Senator Paul Wellstone and I offered an amendment to TANF called the Family Violence Option, which allows States to adjust TANF work requirements for victims of domestic violence. The SAFE act will strengthen the Family Violence Option, in order to protect some of the most economically vulnerable victims. Despite the great progress that has been made, domestic violence is still a serious problem in our country. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, and over 5.3 million incidents occur every year. Domestic or sexual violence also continues to have severe economic consequences, costing businesses between 3 and 5 billion dollars each year in lost productivity. The SAFE Act will help victims to escape dangerous situations and prevent abuse from occurring. This will not only protect the lives of countless victims, it will allow them to be more productive members of the economy. I am proud of the guidance we've received from advocates in crafting this legislation. I want to thank them for their efforts and their commitment to breaking the cycle of violence. I want to particularly acknowledge the efforts of the advocates in Washington State who have provided invaluable input in drafting this legislation. The support and leadership of our communities will help us take this critical next step in passing SAFE. For victims of domestic violence, an abusive relationship can seem like a hopeless situation. Through VAWA, we have already provided new hope to millions of these victims. The SAFE Act is the crucial next step in ending the cycle of abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and provide victims and their families with the tools they need for productive, independent and most importantly, safe futures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to share the very sad news that Sam Volpentest--a name many of us in Congress know well-- passed away last night at the age of 101. Here in our Nation's Capital, Sam was a near constant fixture--always searching for new ways to help his beloved community of the Tri-Cities to move forward. To fully appreciate Sam's contributions, you have to understand something about the geography and history of my State. The Tri-Cities-- which are Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick--are located on the Columbia River in the southeastern region of Washington State. From the Hanford nuclear facility, to the pristine beauty of the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River, to the many varied agricultural and business challenges, the Tri-Cities are diverse and very unique. Located across the Cascade Mountains from Seattle and other population centers, it could be pretty easy for these three communities to have their needs overlooked. Well, Sam made sure that never happened. Whenever something important was happening in the Tri-Cities, I could always count on Sam to show up in my Senate office to share it with me, even if I didn't know he was coming. I vividly remember many years ago when the chair of the Energy Committee cut funding for the construction of HAMMER. HAMMER is a world-class training facility located in Richland, WA. Well, I like to think I am always on top of the issues affecting my home State, but Sam kept me on my toes. I showed up at my office one morning at about 7:30 a.m. Guess who was already there, standing there, waiting for me outside my door. Sam Volpentest. Although Sam may have only had about an inch or two on me, that man's passion could move mountains. And on that day, his passion was for building HAMMER. Well, I didn't want to mess with Sam, so I marched right into that Energy Committee chairman's office, and I fought side by side with Sam to restore those cuts. And we won. I was proud to stand with Sam at the HAMMER groundbreaking ceremony in July of 1995. Sam was 91 years young at that time. I still have that shovel on display in my office as a reminder of what we can all do if we have passion and heart, and if we work together. Just look at HAMMER today. It is a first-rate facility that keeps Hanford workers safe. HAMMER has created jobs. It has created economic opportunities and development, and it has the potential now to be a Homeland Security training center for first responders across the country. Our entire country owes Sam a debt of gratitude for all he has done for so many people. During my years in the Senate, I have worked with a lot of people. But no one--no one--has come close to matching Sam's energy, his commitment, and his success. Sam has been a role model to me and to all of us who want to spend our lives giving something back to the communities we care about most. I thank him for helping me be a better representative for all the people of my home State. Sam was a one-person Chamber of Commerce. He was a visitor's center and he was a cheerleading squad all wrapped into one. Sam Volpentest was the heart and soul of the Tri-Cities. He was one of a kind. Sam will be dearly missed, but he will not be forgotten.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to announce my vote on the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. I do not cast this vote lightly. I recognize how critical the courts are in protecting and advancing the rights of all Americans. I know what is at stake. I am also mindful that John Roberts has been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the highest seat on the highest Court in our country. In our system, there is no backstop or review of a Supreme Court Justice once he or she is confirmed. That means under the Constitution we in the Senate have the responsibility to fully evaluate each nominee before voting, and that is exactly what I have done. For me personally, casting a vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court carries special meaning. Thirteen years ago the nomination of another Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, helped launch my own path from the kitchen table in Shoreline, WA to this historic desk on the floor of the Senate. During the Thomas confirmation, I was deeply frustrated that the questions I believed needed to be answered were not even raised. I was troubled that average Americans, moms and dads, had no voice in a process that would affect their rights and liberties. This time I had the opportunity to ask those questions directly to the nominee. I was pleased to work with my Democratic women colleagues to open the process and empower people across the country to submit questions to the nominee via a Web site that Senator Barbara Mikulski created. Today not only did I have the opportunity to ask those questions directly, but the weight has also been on my shoulders. For days I have struggled with whether this nominee represents the fear I have of the worst motives of this administration or whether he represents the best hopes of a country for wise decisions that protect our rights and our freedoms and our responsibilities. No one of us can know for sure. There is no doubt that anyone I would have nominated would have come from a different background with a different history, but this was not my choice. There is much I do not know about how Judge Roberts will rule, but as history has shown, none of us can predict that. And without a crystal globe, I must make this very difficult decision based on what I do know and upon the criteria I have long used to evaluate nominees for judicial appointments. This evening I talk about how I have applied my standards to other nominees for the Federal bench. I am especially pleased that in Washington State we do judicial nominations the right way, through a careful, bipartisan process that helps us select qualified candidates without regard to politics. In Washington State, I have worked with different administrations to craft a process that helps us identify and confirm qualified individuals for the Federal bench. We solicit input from a wide variety of respected individuals within the Washington State legal community, and then we personally interview each recommended candidate prior to submitting his or her name to the White House for consideration. During the Clinton administration, my colleague Senator Gorton and I worked together to recommend and support individuals for appointment to the Federal bench. Senator Gorton and I disagreed on a lot of issues, but we did agree that when it came to our duty in confirming individuals to the third and coequal branch of our Government, we should set aside partisanship and focus on qualifications. That tradition has continued with my colleague Senator Cantwell. We got off to a rough start on this approach because the Bush administration at first did not want to continue the fair process Senator Gorton and I had established, but eventually the wisdom of our process prevailed. While there have been hiccups along the way, we have used it to confirm qualified people to serve on the bench. Through this fair and deliberative process, I have supported nominees with a wide variety of backgrounds. I have supported people who have come from privileged backgrounds and those who beat the odds to realize their achievements. I have supported Democrats and Republicans. Each time, though, I was confident that I was supporting an individual who would serve every American who came before them well, and I have not been disappointed. My home State of Washington is 2500 miles away from Washington, DC. In many ways it is even further than that in terms of our independence of thought. The White House would do well to learn from the example we set in Washington State, and I hope the Bush administration will do a better job of consulting with the Senate on its next nominee and providing a more complete record of that nominee's background and writings. Some have suggested to me that I use my vote to register my disapproval at things the Bush administration has done or that I use my vote to send a message to the President. While I am angry about mistakes and miscalculations and misrepresentations and misdirected priorities of the Bush administration, this vote is not the place to vent those frustrations. Fairness requires that I evaluate each nominee on his or her own merits, without a predetermined outcome, just as I expect every judge to do when a case comes before them. My vote is based on the same standards I have used for years, not on anger or in sending messages or ignoring a nominee's actual record. This would be an easier decision if we had a complete record. The White House has refused to provide more recent memos from Judge Roberts' work in the Solicitor General's office which would have provided us with a clearer picture of the nominee. I, frankly, think the White House's position is a reflection of the general breakdown in the process that we use to select and confirm judges today. With this administration, consultation with the Senate is cursory at best, and from the very beginning there has been often a kind of ``spoils of war'' approach to how they view appointments to the Federal bench. I believe this approach has resulted in unqualified individuals being forwarded by the administration to the Senate for consideration. This approach has contributed to the partisan rancor regarding nominations to the courts. These actions are even more concerning in light of the second vacancy the Bush administration is set to fill in the coming weeks. I do not believe that an honest, fair evaluation could be completed with any less material information than we were provided during this confirmation process. I believe the Bush administration is attempting to set a dangerous precedent with its words and actions or lack thereof, and I fear that future court nominations could be even more contentious as a result. In looking at nominees for our courts, I always follow a very deliberative process of having a set of standards and comparing individuals who come before us as nominees to that set of standards. I examine their record and their experience and their testimony. I see if they meet the basic standards of honesty and ethics and qualifications and fairness. Then I evaluate if they will be independent, evenhanded in deciding cases, and if they will uphold our rights and our liberties. Those standards help me ensure that when any American, regardless of background, comes before the court, he or she receives a fair hearing and that the resulting decision renders justice according to the law. In reaching a decision on Judge Roberts, I reviewed all of the information that was available, and then I examined how Judge Roberts measured up to my criteria for judicial nominees. I followed the Judiciary Committee hearings closely. I read the transcripts. I have spoken directly with Judge Roberts twice, once in a meeting in my office and once by phone. Looking at my standards, I found Judge Roberts to be honest, ethical, qualified, and fair. I believe he will be evenhanded in deciding cases. On those criteria, Judge Roberts clearly met my test. It was my last criteria, upholding the rights and liberties of all Americans, where I had a harder time evaluating Judge Roberts. I wish the White House had been more forthcoming in making available more documents that would have shed light on some of his more recent work and opinions. I wish the nominee himself had been more responsive to questions in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Through this process, I have concluded that Judge Roberts is a decent person with keen intellect and high ethical standards. I believe he does know the difference between the role of advocacy, which he has held in the past, and the role of judge. I think he has the capacity to be fair, and I think he aims to serve all of the American people. On the question of upholding the hard-won rights and liberties of the American people, I believe Judge Roberts has a healthy regard for precedent and intends to apply a thoughtful approach to interpreting the law. This is not to say I would expect or even hope to agree with every decision he might make or every opinion a Chief Justice Roberts might author. In making my decision, I recognize that history has shown no one can accurately anticipate what type of Justice a nominee may ultimately become. For many weeks I have known some people in Washington State will be disappointed in my decision regardless of what that decision is. I have heard from friends and colleagues, constituents and strangers, on all sides of the question. Many of them have surprised me in their candor and in their position. All this has led me to struggle with the decision for many days now. I have read up on Judge Roberts. I have listened to the thoughts of others. I have talked with the judge himself. All the while, it has been an extremely close call in my mind, for I know the gravity and the consequences of this important vote. I have had deep and lasting concerns. But I have had strong, heartfelt hopes as well. In the end, I returned to the basic criteria I use on any tough question and to the values the people of Washington State sent me here to protect. In examining that criteria and those important values, I have made a decision that I hope everyone can understand and appreciate and even be proud of. I am satisfied that Judge Roberts meets my long- held criteria and, therefore, I will vote to confirm his nomination. I believe Judge Roberts is well qualified to serve. I believe he is intelligent and honest and fair. Is he wise? Only time can answer that. I cast this vote with the hope that John Roberts will be an individual who will combine common sense and decency with a real respect for how the law affects each American as he serves out his tenure on the Supreme Court. In spending time with him and reviewing the available record, I believe Judge Roberts has the capacity to be that kind of justice. Throughout our history, America has always had to confront challenges and enjoyed a lively debate on how to meet them. Today is no different. Our great Nation is confronting enormous challenges, and the debate over how to address those challenges has caused great divisions in our country. Many people, as I do, fear the direction in which this country is headed. They fear for our security. They fear we are not doing enough at home to secure a stronger future, and they fear the progress we have made in the last several generations is being eroded by a political agenda. Those fears are well founded, and they are real. But our country was also founded on hope, hope that by securing individual liberty, a free people could govern themselves in the interest of promoting the common good, hope that despite our differences, we could band together to create strong communities and a better future for generations of Americans to come. That spirit of hope is alive today and should help guide us at least as much as our fears. My vote tonight is a vote of hope--hope that despite our differences, we can unite around the common good; hope that equal justice under the law means something powerful to every American, regardless of background or political persuasion; and hope that John Roberts responds to the needs of this Nation to have a Supreme Court that honors our past and helps secure the rights and liberties of every American into the future. When I asked Judge Roberts what kind of judge he wanted to be, he said: A Justice for all Americans. I hope my vote, along with the diverse group of my Senate colleagues, reminds him every day that he must be a judge for all Americans. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Senator Kohl, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support on this issue. This project is critical to the long- term health and viability of dry pea and lentil producers in Washington State and all across the country. Citrus Canker Compensation

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the purposes of a colloquy. Senator Kohl, the legume plant pathologist position currently working in the CRIS titled ``Improving Disease Management of Soil-borne Diseases of Edible Legumes'' is being eliminated in a reorganization proposed by USDA ARS. Root diseases are fast becoming a major problem in all of the production areas. These root diseases cause a loss of yields and quality of pulse crops. A reduction of research support by USDA ARS at this time of rapidly increasing acreages of pulses in ND, MT, SD and NE is unacceptable. Eliminating this research could substantially hurt the entire pulse crop industry. Within the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations, there is funding provided for a legume pathologist focused on root diseases. Due to the reorganization of the ARS Prosser facility, this pathologist will not be funded unless that position is moved to the ARS Pullman facility. The need for this project is clear and should be supported by ARS. In order to continue this vital research it is clear that it will need to be moved to ARS Pullman. I ask that the conference report accompanying the Agriculture bill include language directing ARS to transfer the legume pathologist position and the $250,000 from the Vegetable and Forage Legume Research Unit at Prosser, WA, to the Grain Legume Genetics and Physiology Research Unit at Pullman, WA. This requires no new funding, as it will solely involve the transfer of the legume pathologist from Prosser to Pullman. This will allow ARS to continue its research on pulse crops at no additional costs. Senator Kohl, would you support this language moving the legume pathologist position from Prosser, WA, to Pullman, WA?