Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, next week we will celebrate the 33rd anniversary of title IX. For 33 years, title IX has opened doors for women and girls in all aspects of education. I can say without reservation that I would not be a U.S. Senator today without this critical law. Unfortunately, today the Senate confirmed a vehement opponent of title IX--Thomas Griffith--to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I voted against this nominee because of his record on title IX, the importance of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to title IX and other civil rights laws, and his disregard for the rule of law in his own practice. In 2002, Mr. Griffith served on the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics to evaluate whether and how current standards governing title IX's application to athletics should be revised. After the Department of Education spent nearly $1 million on the Commission, the Bush administration made the determination to make no changes to title IX in athletics. However, as a member of the Commission, Mr. Griffith made clear his opposition and hostility towards the law and its enforcement. As a member of the Commission, Mr. Griffith proposed weakening the standard for meeting title IX's 25-year-old requirement of equality of opportunity in athletics for young women through the elimination of the ``substantial proportionality'' test for compliance. This test, one of the three alternative ways to comply with title IX, allows schools to comply by offering athletic opportunities to male and female students that are in proportion to each gender's representation in the student body of the school. Mr. Griffith claimed this provision constitutes a quota in violation of title IX and the Constitution and asserted that ``[i]t is illegal, it is unfair, and it is wrong'' and even ``morally wrong.'' He made such extreme statements despite the decisions of no fewer than 6 Federal appeals courts which have upheld the legality of the test. In fact, none has ruled to the contrary. And when this fact was pointed out to him, he did not respect the decisions of all the Federal courts that have heard such cases--he said that ``the courts got it wrong.'' Eliminating this test would clearly undercut title IX's effectiveness-- and the Commission agreed. It rejected the Griffith proposal by a lopsided vote of 11 to 4. During his confirmation process, Griffith tried to change his position on title IX. Mr. Griffith now claims that he only wanted to eliminate the proportionality test because some have ``misused'' or ``misinterpreted'' the test. He now claims that the Commission recommendations regarding the proportionality test that he supported-- in addition to his own proposal to eliminate the test--were ``modest'' or ``moderate.'' If these claims were so moderate, why were they rejected entirely by the Secretary of Education? Mr. President, every Federal court of appeals that has considered this issue and every administration since 1979 have ruled that the three-part test is legally valid and does not impose quotas. Mr. Griffith's statements and actions put him in complete opposition to six Federal appeals courts. If that doesn't show that Mr. Griffith is out of the mainstream, I don't know what does. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is an especially important court. I believe that we must be careful when confirming individuals to serve lifetime appointments on this court, the second most powerful Federal court in the land. This court has exclusive jurisdiction over a broad array of Federal regulations, including title IX, and is often the court of last resort in critical issues involving workers' rights, civil liberties, and environmental regulations. I am concerned that, given his prior record relating to title IX, Mr. Griffith may not be able to hear such cases with the impartiality required of a judge on one of our Nation's highest courts. Mr. Griffith's hostility to title IX and the importance of the DC Circuit are not the only problems with this nominee. He has, on more than one occasion, failed to comply with the basic standards and practices of his profession by not paying bar dues and failing to get a license. He does not meet the high standards we must apply to any nominee for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. The Senate has the constitutional duty to advise the President and decide whether to consent to his nominations to the Federal bench. I believe that this role is one of the Senate's greatest responsibilities. It is critical that Senators work with the President to find judicial nominees that meet the standards of fairness, even- handedness and adherence to the law that we expect of judges in our communities. I believe the Senate has the duty to ensure each nominee has sufficient experience to sit in judgment of our fellow citizens, will be fair to all those who come before the court, will be even-handed in administering justice, and will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. Unfortunately, Mr. Griffith's record shows his inability to serve in such a manner and, therefore, I opposed his nomination.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator DeWine to introduce the ``Improving Head Start Access for Homeless and Foster Children Act of 2005.'' Head Start has made significant strides in providing comprehensive services to low-income children. Since Head Start was established in 1965, low-income preschool-aged children have received education, health, nutritional, social and developmental services they would not otherwise have access to. Unfortunately, children in greatest need of these services--homelss and foster youth-- are not receiving those services at adequate levels. It is estimated that 1.35 million children experience homelessness each year, and the mean income of a homeless family is at 46 percent of the Federal poverty level. Due to extreme poverty and the inherent instability of homelessness, children facing these conditions have considerably higher physical, mental and emotional difficulties. It is not surprising that homeless children are reported to be twice as likely to have a learning disability and three times as likely of having an emotional or behavioral problem that interferes with their learning. These children also face significant barriers to participation in Head Start. These children lack transportation. They lack the necessary documentation. They suffer from the invisibility of homeless families which leaves the community unaware of the need to include these children in Head Start recruitment and prioritization. As a result of these and other barriers, only 15 percent of preschool children identified as homeless are enrolled in preschool programs of any kind, compared to the 57 percent of low-income preschool children. Currently only 2 percent of the more than 900,000 students served by Head Start are children identified as homeless. States report that 60 percent of homeless students are having difficulties gaining access to Head Start. In addition to homeless children, kids in foster care face a unique set of challenges which both increase their need for the stability and educational services provided by Head Start. Tragically, these same challenges also hinder their ability to gain access to those services. Foster children are likely to suffer from both emotional and physical instability. With more than 500,000 children in foster care and a shortage of foster parents in this country, these children often go without the attention and advocacy that preschool age children need. More than 40 percent of the children in homeless shelters are under the age of five. The first years of a child's life significantly impact personal development and future academic achievement. That is why I once again stand with Senator DeWine to increase access to Head Start for homeless and foster children. Our bill would ensure equal access and benefits from to early education and supportive services provided by Head Start for the Nation's poorest children. It would make all homeless children eligible for Head Start. The bill also allow homeless children to be immediately enrolled in Head Start by allowing them extra time to provided required documentation; providing that that documentation be in a reasonable time frame. And, our bill would require school, district liaisons to assist families in obtaining necessary documents. In addition, our bill increases Head Start's outreach to homeless and foster children. Further, the bill would reduce barriers by encouraging coordination between Head Start agencies and community programs that serve these vulnerable populations. Again, I would like to thank my colleague Senator DeWine for his many efforts in supporting homeless and foster youth. I urge the Senate to ensure that all children, despite their background and socioeconomic situation receive equal access to a quality education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator DeWine to introduce the ``Improving Head Start Access for Homeless and Foster Children Act of 2005.'' Head Start has made significant strides in providing comprehensive services to low-income children. Since Head Start was established in 1965, low-income preschool-aged children have received education, health, nutritional, social and developmental services they would not otherwise have access to. Unfortunately, children in greatest need of these services--homelss and foster youth-- are not receiving those services at adequate levels. It is estimated that 1.35 million children experience homelessness each year, and the mean income of a homeless family is at 46 percent of the Federal poverty level. Due to extreme poverty and the inherent instability of homelessness, children facing these conditions have considerably higher physical, mental and emotional difficulties. It is not surprising that homeless children are reported to be twice as likely to have a learning disability and three times as likely of having an emotional or behavioral problem that interferes with their learning. These children also face significant barriers to participation in Head Start. These children lack transportation. They lack the necessary documentation. They suffer from the invisibility of homeless families which leaves the community unaware of the need to include these children in Head Start recruitment and prioritization. As a result of these and other barriers, only 15 percent of preschool children identified as homeless are enrolled in preschool programs of any kind, compared to the 57 percent of low-income preschool children. Currently only 2 percent of the more than 900,000 students served by Head Start are children identified as homeless. States report that 60 percent of homeless students are having difficulties gaining access to Head Start. In addition to homeless children, kids in foster care face a unique set of challenges which both increase their need for the stability and educational services provided by Head Start. Tragically, these same challenges also hinder their ability to gain access to those services. Foster children are likely to suffer from both emotional and physical instability. With more than 500,000 children in foster care and a shortage of foster parents in this country, these children often go without the attention and advocacy that preschool age children need. More than 40 percent of the children in homeless shelters are under the age of five. The first years of a child's life significantly impact personal development and future academic achievement. That is why I once again stand with Senator DeWine to increase access to Head Start for homeless and foster children. Our bill would ensure equal access and benefits from to early education and supportive services provided by Head Start for the Nation's poorest children. It would make all homeless children eligible for Head Start. The bill also allow homeless children to be immediately enrolled in Head Start by allowing them extra time to provided required documentation; providing that that documentation be in a reasonable time frame. And, our bill would require school, district liaisons to assist families in obtaining necessary documents. In addition, our bill increases Head Start's outreach to homeless and foster children. Further, the bill would reduce barriers by encouraging coordination between Head Start agencies and community programs that serve these vulnerable populations. Again, I would like to thank my colleague Senator DeWine for his many efforts in supporting homeless and foster youth. I urge the Senate to ensure that all children, despite their background and socioeconomic situation receive equal access to a quality education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to join my colleagues to talk about the Senate's deliberations on some of our administration's judicial nominations. It is very clear to me this is a debate about basic American values. In drafting the Constitution, the Framers wanted the Senate to provide advice and consent on nominees who came before us to ensure that these very rights and values were protected. I believe as a Senator I have a responsibility to stand up for those values on behalf of my constituents from my home State of Washington. Many activists today are complaining that certain Senators are attacking religious or conservative values. I must argue that it is others, not Democratic Senators, who are exercising their rights, who are pursuing a nomination strategy that attacks the basic values that were outlined in our Constitution. Our democracy values debate. It values discussion. Our democracy values the importance of checks and balances. Our democracy values an independent judiciary. But with this nuclear option and the rhetorical assault that is being launched at Democratic Senators by activists around the country, we now see those values under attack. The nuclear option is an assault on the American people and many of the things we hold dear. It is an attempt to impose on the country, through lifetime appointments, the extreme values held by a few at the cost of many. It is the tyranny of the majority personified. Confirming these nominees by becoming a rubberstamp for the administration would be an affront to the 200-year-old system we have in place, a system of checks and balances. At the same time I have to say it would be an affront to the values I promised to defend when I came to the Senate. It is not always easy. Building and maintaining a democracy is not easy. But our system and the rights and the values it holds dear are the envy of the world. In fact, the entire world looks at us as a model for government. It is our values they look to. We have to protect them, not only for us but for other fledgling democracies around the world. I returned recently from a bipartisan trip we took to Israel, Iraq, Georgia, and Ukraine, where we saw up close leaders who are working very hard to write constitutions, to write laws, to write policies. They were working hard, all of them, to assure that even those who did not vote in the majority in their country would have a voice. The challenges were varied in every country we went to. They faced everything from protecting against terrorists to, in some cases, charging for electricity for the first time, to, in other cases, reforming corrupt institutions. But making sure that democracies survive means having debates, it means bringing people to the table, and it means making tough decisions. But in each case, the importance of not disenfranchising any group within that country was an important part of making sure that democracy worked. So how we in this country accomplish the goal of sustaining a strong democracy and ensuring people--all people--participation is extremely important. Elections are the foundation of our democracy. They actually determine the direction of our country. But an election loss doesn't mean you lose your voice or you lose your place at the table. Making sure we all have a seat at the table is increasingly important to keep our democracy strong. That is why those of us on this side are fighting so hard to keep our voice, to have a seat at the table. Recently we have heard a lot from the other side about attacks on faith and values. In fact, some are trying to say our motive in this debate is somehow antifaith. I have to argue that just the opposite appears to me to be true. We have faith in our values, we have faith in American values, and we have faith that those values can and must be upheld. This is not an ideological battle between Republicans and Democrats, it is about keeping faith with the values and ideals our country stands for. Having values and having faith in those values requires--requires that we make sure those without a voice are listened to. Speaking up for those in poverty to make sure they are fed is a faith-based value. Making sure there is equal opportunity and justice for the least among us is a faith-based value. Fighting for human rights, taking care of the environment, are faith-based values. To now say those of us who stick up for minority rights are antifaith is frightening and, frankly, it is wrong. I hope those who have decided to make this into some kind of faith/antifaith debate will reconsider. This debate should be about democracy. It should be about the protection of an independent judiciary. And certainly it is a debate about the rights of minorities. Our system of Government, of checks and balances, and our values, are under attack today by this very transparent grab for power. They are, with their words and potential actions, attempting now to dismantle this system despite the clear intent of the Framers and the weight of history and precedent. They think they know better, and I think not. Today, it is fashionable for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to disparage what they call activist judges. But this power grab, this nuclear option reveals the true motivation. There are those who want activists on the bench to interpret the law in a way I believe undermines important American values. I believe we have a responsibility to stand up and say no to extreme nominees. But to know that, you do not need to listen to me. Just look back at the great Founders of this democracy. The Framers, in those amazing years when our country was founded, took very great care in creating this new democracy. They wrote into the Constitution the Senate's role in the nomination process. They wrote into the Constitution and spoke about protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority and their words ring true today. James Madison, in his famous Federalist No. 10, warned against the superior force of an overbearing majority or, as he called it, a dangerous vice. He said: The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and faith as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. Years prior, John Adams wrote in 1776 on the specific need for an independent judiciary and checks and balance. He said: The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society depends so much on an upright and skillful administration of justice that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive and independent upon both so that it may be a check upon both as both should be checks upon that. The Judges therefore should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent on any man or body of men. I have to shudder at the thought of what some of the great thinkers, the great Founders of our democracy, would say to this attempted abuse of power. Frankly, one of the best interpretations of the thoughts was offered to this Senate by Robert Caro, the great Senate historian. He wrote a letter in 2003 and he talked about the need for the Senate to maintain its history and its traditions despite popular pressures of the day and of the important role that debate and dissension plays in any discussion of judicial nominations. In particular, he wrote of his concern for the preservation of Senate tradition in the face of attempted changes by a majority run wild. He said, in part: In short, two centuries of history rebut any suggestion that either the language or intent of the Constitution prohibits or counsels against the use of extended debate to resist presidential authority. To the contrary, the nation's Founders depended on the Senate's members to stand up to a popular and powerful president. In the case of judicial appointments, the Founders specifically mandated the Senate to play an active role providing both advice and consent to the President. That shared authority was basic to the balance of powers among the branches. I am . . . attempting to say as strongly as I can that in considering any modification Senators should realize they are dealing not with the particular dispute of the moment, but with the fundamental character of the Senate of the United States, and with the deeper issue of the balance of power between majority and minority rights. Protection of minority rights has been a fundamental principle since the infancy of this democracy. It should not--in fact, it cannot--be laid to rest in this Chamber with this debate. I know there are a lot of people wondering why the Senate is spending so much time talking about Senate rules and judicial nominations. They are wondering why I am talking about nominees and quoting Madison and Adams. They are wondering what this means to them. I make it clear: This debate is about whether we want a clean, healthy environment and the ability to enforce our laws to protect it fairly. This debate is about whether we want to protect essential rights and liberties. This debate is about whether we want free and open government. This debate is about preserving equal protection under the law. This debate is about whether we want to preserve the independent judiciary, whether we want to defend the Constitution, and whether we will stand up for the values of the American public. I believe these values are too precious to abdicate. Trusting in them, we will not let Republicans trample our rights and those of millions of Americans who we are here to represent. We will stand and say yes to democracy, yes to an independent judiciary, yes to minority rights, and no to this unbelievable abuse of power. I see my colleague from New York is here, and I know he has time tonight, as well. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have been traveling around my State, like many of my colleagues have. When I travel around, people keep stopping me and asking me: Why should I hear about the judges you are debating back in Washington DC? Whether I am in Spokane talking to constituents at a town meeting or in a grocery store on Saturday or talking to family members at home, they all want to know what we are talking about and why this debate matters in their lives. Well, my answer to those constituents, whether it is someone in a grocery store or just chatting with someone or a family member, is that we are here for a very important reason; that is, to fight for basic American values, values all of us hold dear. I tell them we are fighting for the rights of minorities so all of us have an opportunity for a voice and a seat at the table. I tell them we are fighting for the constitutional principles that were given to the Senate 200 years ago. Today, in the Senate, unfortunately, those values are under attack. What we see in their continuing rush for power is that some here on the other side want to turn this great institution simply into a rubberstamp for the current administration. Nowhere is that more clear to me than with the nomination that is in front of us tonight, and that is of Judge Priscilla Owen. Senator Frist said the other day that the only argument he has heard against Justice Owen is on parental consent. I happen to agree with Senator Frist that her views and her decisions on this subject are very important, but if he has not heard the arguments against Justice Owen, I think he has not been listening enough. On everything from parental consent to victims' rights, to workers' rights, to bias towards her campaign contributors, Justice Owen is too far out of the mainstream. Her radical views make a lifetime appointment inappropriate by this body. Let me take just a few minutes to talk about some of those important objections. In Read v. Scott Fetzer Company, a 1998 case, Justice Owen ruled that a rape victim--a rape victim--could not collect civil damages against a vacuum cleaner company that employed an in-home dealer who raped her while he was demonstrating the company's product even though the company had failed to check his references, and if they had, they would have found out he had harassed women at his other jobs and previously been formally charged and fired for inappropriate sexual conduct with a child. But Justice Owen ruled that rape victim could not collect civil damages against that company. I believe it is pretty clear that Justice Owen does not protect victims' rights. In another case, in GTE Southwest, Incorporated v. Bruce, a 1990 case, Justice Owen sided with an employer whom the majority in that case ruled inflicted intentional emotional distress on employees when he subjected them to ``constant humiliating and abusive behavior,'' including the use of harsh vulgarities, infliction of physical and verbal terror, frequent assaults, and physical humiliation. Justice Owen wrote her own opinion to make sure it was clear she thought the shocking behavior was not enough to support a verdict for the workers. It is clear to me that Justice Owen will not protect workers' rights and should not be promoted to a lifetime appointment by this body. Justice Owen's record shows she has consistently put huge corporations ahead of people. She took campaign contributions from companies including Enron and Halliburton, and then she issued rulings in their favor. Many of her campaign contributions came from a small group of special business interests that advanced very clear anticonsumer and anti-choice agendas. Critically, her record has shown that her donors enjoy greater success before her than before the majority of the court. Again, it is very clear to me that Justice Owen will not protect the rights of the people against these huge special interests and is not deserving of being promoted to a lifetime appointment by this body. But you do not have to just listen to me. Listen to what some of her colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court said about her decisions. In FM Properties v. City of Austin, the majority called her dissent ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.'' In the case of In re Jane Doe III, Justice Enoch wrote specifically to rebuke Owen for misconstruing the legislature's definition of the sort of abuse that may occur when parents are notified of a minor's intent to have an abortion, saying: abuse is abuse; it is neither to be trifled with nor its severity to be second guessed. And finally, as has been stated by my colleagues on the floor of the Senate, now-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then an Owen colleague, criticized her, not once, not twice, but 10 times in his rulings and called one of her interpretations of a parental consent law an ``unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' Unfortunately, this nomination is before us. This is the type of activist judge we are being asked to give a lifetime appointment. By stripping the Senate of its constitutional role, we are seeing the effort to pack the courts with radical judges, push an extreme agenda, and leave millions of Americans behind. That is why I say to my constituents, whether they walk up to me in a grocery store or it is one of my family members or somebody I am talking to in Spokane or Yakima or Vancouver or Bellingham, the debate we are having is critically important. For the people we promote to lifetime appointments, we need to know they will be fair and evenhanded and that they will protect the rights of Americans no matter where they live. That is why this fight is important, and that is why my colleagues are here on the floor of the Senate. I see my colleague from Illinois is on the floor. I know he is here to speak as well. I yield time to him.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me just a few minutes. I was over in my office a few minutes ago listening to the debate on both sides, and I heard my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Texas, talk about her tremendous friendship and passion for the woman whose nomination is in front of the Senate today, Priscilla Owen. I have tremendous respect for Senator Hutchison and all of her passion she has put in here. All Senators have been in a position of fighting hard for something we believe in, someone we care about. Sometimes we win, sometimes we have lost. One of the things that was said was that many of the colleagues on this side of the aisle, many of my colleagues have declined any opportunity to meet with this lovely person. They have refused to sit down and ask her questions to see if the person that is portrayed and the propaganda is really the same person. Mr. President, I want to set the record straight. I did sit down and meet with Judge Owen yesterday at the request of the Senator from Texas. I could not agree more, she was a lovely person. But this is not a debate about a lovely person. This is a debate about a record on judicial decisions and about whether that record merits promoting someone to a lifetime appointment. I will later today join with my colleagues to give more specifics, but I have sat down with Priscilla Owen. I have asked her questions, and I have reviewed the record. This is not about a person. This is about a record. It is about a record that is outside the mainstream on parental consent, which we have heard about. But not just that, it is about victims' rights, which any of us can be. It is about workers' rights, about a bias about campaign contributions. We will be setting that record straight throughout this debate. It is especially important for all to recognize a record says what someone will be and what decisions they will make about any one of us in this country in the future. That is what I dispute. That is what I will discuss later today when I have more time to outline. We can all agree that lovely people deserve opportunities, but when it comes to our courts and when it comes to making decisions about us, our family, about women, about children, about rape victims, about workers, the many things that come before a court, a record is what we have to look at and what we have to stand on. I thank my colleague from New York for giving me an opportunity to respond.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Washington State to very proudly mark the 25th anniversary of the day that Mount St. Helens erupted in my home State of Washington and will be joining with her later to offer a resolution to commemorate this anniversary. For anyone who lived in the Pacific Northwest at the time, May 18, 1980, is a day we will never forget. It was a day that changed lives and it changed the landscape of Washington State forever. It was also a day that imposed a heavy toll in lost lives and lost habitat. Fifty- seven people were killed that day. More than 230 acres of forest were leveled in an instant. Mr. President, the story of Mount St. Helens is a story of destruction, but it is also a story of renewal, a story of science, and a story of the importance of preparation. Today I rise to share that story and the lessons that it holds for us now 25 years later. Perhaps the best place to start really is the day before the eruption, when Mount St. Helens was really a beautiful and striking feature of landscape in the State that I was born and raised in. This photo behind me shows what the mountain looked like before the eruption. As you can see, it had a nearly perfect dome, and it was recognized as one of the most symmetrical mountains in the world. It was surrounded by lush forests and beautiful streams and rivers and lakes and the area was filled with wildlife of all kinds. But danger lurked right beneath that tranquil landscape. May 8, 1980, began as a beautiful, sunny morning in the Northwest. I remember it well, sitting at home with my two young children at the time. Meanwhile, below the surface, Mount St. Helens was anything but calm. At 8:32 a.m, a 5.1-magnitude earthquake occurred, and that sparked massive eruptions which would last for 9 hours. This photo shows some of what followed. Within minutes, this massive cloud of ash and toxic gas spouted 15 miles into the air. You could see it from many places in my State. A 300-mile-per-hour blast shot from the mountain, knocking down all of the evergreen stands as if they were matchsticks. The entire north face of the mountain gave way to this massive mud slide, and that mud slide carried hot water and debris that it picked up over the surrounding landscape. The eruption itself released 24 megatons of energy. It destroyed all forms of life within the 18-mile blast zone, including roughly 7,000 bear, elk, and deer. The scope of this devastation on that day was enormous. The hot ash from this eruption, combined with the melting snow at the mountain top, created massive mud flows. This was not just a local event. More than 500 million tons of that ash was blown eastward across the United States 250 miles away in Spokane, WA. That traveling ash turned day into night for everyone who was there, and by June, a few months later, ash could be found from Mount St. Helens on the other side of the world. As we now mark the 25th anniversary, I wanted to come here to the floor today with my colleague from Washington State, Senator Cantwell, to pay tribute to the 57 men and women who died on that day. Some of them were there enjoying the area's beautiful scenery, some were drawn to the mountain for scientific study, and others were long-time residents who lived there who refused to give up the only homes they had ever known. When that dust settled and the mountain quieted, nearly 150,000 acres of public and private land had been destroyed. This photo behind me shows some of that destruction. That stand of trees was blown down in an instant. The mountain's nearly perfect dome was turned into a crater. The Toutle River, which had been vibrant and green before, a great place in my State, was now a dark, gray expanse. Then President Jimmy Carter toured the site and later remarked: Someone said this area looked like a moonscape. But the Moon looks more like a golf course compared to what's up there. Everyone knew that wildlife restoration would be a major challenge. Within weeks of the eruption, however, many dedicated foresters and biologists returned to the area to assess the damages and help with the recovery. One of the strongest leaders in this revitalization has been the Weyerhaeuser Company. It lost nearly 68,000 acres of forest that day, making the company the largest private landowner impacted by this eruption. The company was able to replant over 45,000 acres with over 18 million seedlings. Weyerhaeuser has been committed to restoring the area through sustainable forestry. Now, 25 years later, many of those trees they planted in the wake of the eruption are now amazingly ready for thinning, and final harvesting will begin in another 20 years which will pave the way for the forest cycle to recommence. The U.S. Forest Service made similar efforts. On 14,000 acres of National Forest land, the Forest Service has planted nearly 10 million trees since 1980. In August of 1982, Congress established the 110,000-acre Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. The monument allows unhindered natural growth and serves as a resource for visitors and academics. Within weeks of the eruption, signs of life literally sprouted through the layers of destruction. As forests were replanted and vegetation again took root, the wildlife also began to return. Roosevelt elk and Columbia black-tailed deer, for example, along with small birds and mammals, reestablished their habitats. Today the area is a testament to the enduring circle of life, as green hills surround the crater, and blue waters flow through the valley once again. As the ecosystem rebuilds, we are constantly reminded of the wealth of knowledge available from the monument itself. Thousands of people have been drawn to the mountain to see the evidence of this power and to learn from its effects. For many, the eruption sparked a new interest in the earth sciences. It has provided new insight on seismology and volcanology, helping students and scientists to better understand the earth's natural movement. Representatives of the U.S. Geological Survey have teamed with researchers at local and national universities to process the data and to continue monitoring movement beneath the ground. Teachers from across the country have brought hundreds of student groups to the Forest Service's three visitor centers. There, students study the eruption and the reemerging wildlife. Now what was once a bleak scene of destruction is now a living monument and an educational resource. Although 25 years have passed, there is still much we can learn from the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Just last fall, we were reminded that we haven't heard the last from this mountain. After 18 years of relative quiet, a series of small quakes have occurred in October. And in March, just 2 months ago--the mountain released a 36,000 foot plume of steam. Today, inside the crater, the lava dome continues to grow. That is a sure sign that there is far more activity to come. The most important lesson we can learn from the eruption is the need to improve our warning and response systems. While we may never be able to fully protect surrounding communities, we can help reduce the risk. For months before the 1980 blast, scientists from the USGS had monitored Mount St. Helens and were able to predict that an eruption was likely in the near future. As a result, most people stayed away from the mountain. We must continue to support the efforts of the scientists and local officials who keep us all safe. Unfortunately, according to a recent USGS report, monitoring of high- risk volcanoes in the U.S. leaves a lot to be desired. Of the 169 volcanoes, 55 qualify as being a ``high risk'' for eruption. After Kilauea in Hawaii, Mount St. Helens ranks second on the list of high-risk peaks. Mount Rainier, also in Washington State, is ranked third, followed by Mount Hood in Oregon and Mount Shasta in California. Millions of people live near these mountains, making their monitoring and study a critical undertaking. I want to personally commend the hundreds of dedicated scientists and local, state and federal officials who are keeping a close eye on these mountains in Washington State. Their work is helping to ensure that the public is better prepared for any future disaster. We can honor those who died 25 years ago by learning from the eruption and improving our ability to predict and respond to natural disasters. While we have been fortunate not to have a major eruption in the U.S. since Mount St. Helens, the tsunami tragedy in Asia once again reminded us of the power of events beyond our control. We know there is more to come, so together, I hope we make sure we are well-prepared, and our communities are well-protected. My colleague from Washington State, Senator Cantwell, is on the floor. I welcome her.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we awoke today to see news of a breakdown in negotiations to end the so-called nuclear confrontation that some Republicans are driving this body toward. I want to take a minute to thank our leader, Senator Reid, who I believe is really doing his best to preserve the tradition and the precedent of the Senate through good-faith negotiations. He put forth a good-faith compromise proposal only to see it rejected out of hand. This breakdown really marks a sad day for this body. More than 200 years ago, the Senate was created as part of the Great Compromise, and for the balance of those 200 years, compromise has been central to any and all of the great work that has been completed by the Senate. The rules are set up here to assure that the Senate serves as a center for Government compromise. We have a system of checks and balances, with the Senate checking the President through advice and consent and the President checking the Congress with the use of the veto. And all the while we have an independent judiciary that is empowered to balance out the system. Those checks and balances were put in place for a reason. They promote compromise, they promote preservation of minority rights, and they ensure that our system of government works for all of the people. Unfortunately, the goal of some becomes clearer each passing day in this body that they are not interested in compromise on the so-called nuclear option. If this Senate does remove the last check in Washington against an abuse of power, the majority will be able to appoint to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and the Federal bench anyone they want. The American people have rejected court packing before and I believe they will again. We are united against the abuse of power known as this nuclear option. We believe that Senators were sent here to serve all Americans, not to promote political agendas of one faction. Mr. President, Democrats will join responsible Republicans to fight this abuse of power and get back to the real work of the American people.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the supplemental appropriations bill we are considering which funds our military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall, I support this bill. We do need to get the money out to our troops. But I am here today because I have several concerns about what it leaves out and how it was put together. I have to say I am particularly troubled that I and other Senators were denied a promised opportunity to debate and vote on some very controversial immigration changes that have been attached to this bill. First, let me say, I know how important the funding is to our troops overseas. In March, I traveled with the Senator from Illinois and several others on a bipartisan trip to Iraq and met with troops from the State of Washington. To a person, each of them was a dedicated professional who was putting duty above their personal well-being. They need our support, and they deserve every resource our grateful Nation can provide. As I have said before, I am the daughter of a disabled World War II veteran. I represent hundreds of thousands of Washington State veterans and military families. I support every dollar in this aid bill to help our troops protect themselves and complete successfully the dangerous mission we have assigned them. But I am concerned that when all of these new veterans come home and need medical care, they are going to be pushed into a VA system that does not have medical staff, facilities, or the funding needed to care for them. That is exactly why I was on the Senate floor fighting to include within the supplemental the critical cost of war, and that is taking care of our Nation's veterans. I am disappointed that Republicans in the Senate have decided that funding for veterans care is not an emergency and not a priority. By denying that there is a crisis at the VA, they are simply ignoring our responsibility to fully provide for the men and women who are risking their lives for our freedom. Our veterans, our military, and our future recruits deserve better. Taking care of our veterans is part of the cost of having a great military. It is a real disservice that we have not taken care of that funding within this bill. I am here today because I am also very troubled by how far-reaching and unrelated immigration rules got attached to this bill without a vote and without an opportunity to debate. The REAL ID provision has ramifications for privacy, for States rights, and for immigration policy. I am disappointed that it has been rammed through as an attachment to a desperately needed bill that funds our troops. Frankly, a lot of us are kind of scratching our heads about how this REAL ID provision ended up in this conference report. I know I didn't vote for it. I know there wasn't even a discussion of it in conference, but somehow it is included in a must-pass bill. Mr. President, I served on the conference committee, and I want to share with my colleagues exactly what happened in that conference committee so they will understand why the sudden appearance of the REAL ID provision is so surprising to many of us. When the conference committee met, the chairman gave assurances to the minority that we would be able to vote on several provisions when the conference met again. But that conference never met again, leaving no opportunity for the minority party to vote, much less to strike these provisions. I want to share with the Senate the specifics. In our second meeting of the conference committee, Senator Durbin, who is now on the Senate floor, asked Chairman Cochran for his assurance that we would get a chance to vote on these immigration changes, and other open items as well, before the supplemental was sent to the floor. In fact, I want to read a portion of the transcript of that meeting. This discussion took place on Thursday, April 28. Senator Durbin said: I would also like to say to my colleagues, if this bill contains--as I believe it does--the REAL ID Act, I would like a vote on that so that we can be on the record on an issue that has never been brought before committee in the Senate. My question to you is this, Mr. Chairman: There have been times when conference committees of this magnitude have recessed and never been heard from again. The next thing we find is a conference committee report on the floor on a take it or leave it basis. Can we have your assurance that we will return for votes on amendments such as those we have debated today and those that I have mentioned? Senator Cochran's response to Senator Durbin: Senator, I would be glad to make the assurance that if there is work to be done, if there are open items to be considered, that we can consider those in conference. I am not prepared to make a commitment as to when that will be. I don't want to lead you to believe that I am going to surreptitiously or in secret reach an agreement on the other side without consulting all the conferees on the Senate side. I think everyone in this conference has a right to participate in this discussion and I wouldn't want to cut off anybody's right to participate. Mr. President, I have worked closely with Senator Cochran for many years, and I do know him to be a man of his word. But to me, what that exchange meant, sitting there in that conference, was that we would have an opportunity to vote on the REAL ID provision, but that never happened. To me, that was wrong. The REAL ID provision will have dramatic and far-reaching changes and puts an unfunded mandate on many States. Yet it was never brought before a Senate committee, and it was never voted on in the conference. That is exactly why I did not sign the final conference report, which is very unusual for me. I did not sign it because I believe the process was flawed and we were denied an opportunity to debate and discuss these immigration changes before they were brought to the floor as part of a must-pass bill. Mr. President, we are all very concerned about security, but this received very little debate. Before Congress mandates these kinds of changes, we should have a more informed debate. In fact, it begs the question, why was this added to a must-pass bill without a debate? Probably because it could not withstand a rigorous and open public debate. We should have that, and I am disappointed that the majority denied us that opportunity. I also want to note today the irony that the Senate is about to allow a technical fix to immigration-related language that was included in the supplemental, which I agree needs to be fixed; but the Democrats in the conference committee were not provided any opportunity to fix any other immigration provision. I want to reiterate my frustration with how the REAL ID Act was included and that we were not given the same consideration regarding that language. Mr. President, the REAL ID provision has some unique impacts for my home State. This section on immigration is particularly troubling to me because Washington State has proactively enacted several laws to protect the privacy of Washington State residents. While I understand the needs for increased security, I don't think Washington State laws should be completely overridden by this provision, especially without ever having had the chance for debate and discussion on it. We know this bill is going to pass. Our troops need the funding it includes. I am already working with communities and officials across Washington State to help find a way to implement these new requirements. I will continue, once this is passed, to push the administration to now provide the funding necessary to make these changes without piling new burdens onto our already cash-strapped State. Mr. President, it is really unfortunate that at a time when we should be focusing on the needs of our troops and our veterans, the majority party is using the supplemental aid bill as a vehicle to legislate on subjects that have not received the debate and attention they deserve. But at the end of the day, we know we cannot afford to fail in our missions abroad. With hundreds of thousands of troops sacrificing every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will support this supplemental bill, and I will continue to work to fight for their care as they return home. I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding me time and allowing me to express my frustration on how this part of the bill was put in without anybody able to discuss it in conference committee. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from our side.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tonight families in my home State of Washington and across the country are concerned. They are concerned about the security of their jobs, their communities, access to affordable health care, and a quality education. Unfortunately, rather than inspiring confidence, the budget we will vote on tonight leaves too many Americans questioning their future. On issue after issue, this budget falls short of what our communities and our country need to move forward. I have served on the Budget Committee for 12 years. I have served through recessions. I have served through economic expansion. I have served during periods of record surpluses and record deficits. I know what responsible budgets look like because I have worked with chairmen of both parties to create them. Unfortunately, the budget that is before us tonight, the Republican budget, fails to create jobs, improve security, and meet our country's needs. I am particularly concerned that this budget agreement, of which I am a conference member, was reached behind closed doors with just one party in the room. The Republicans control Congress, but that does not mean that half the country has lost its voice or that the majority has carte blanche to make decisions that affect our families and communities across the country. This is becoming an all-too-common tactic of this majority party today. We have seen it with the power grab that seeks to undermine the Constitution and minority rights on our judicial nominations. While simultaneously moving toward breaking Senate rules, the needs of the American people are being ignored by shortchanging them with a pathetic budget that fails to protect our Nation's priorities or to fulfill our commitment to our children, to our seniors, to our veterans. One powerful example of how this power grab will hurt the most vulnerable is the billions of dollars this budget cuts from Medicaid. At a time when my State of Washington and other States are struggling to meet their health care costs, we should not be in this Chamber playing games with a program that helps ensure coverage to our most vulnerable residents. The guarantee of health insurance that Medicaid provides is a solemn commitment. In March, a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to strike the President's dangerous cuts to Medicaid, and just yesterday the House of Representatives too said no to the cuts. But tonight, ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans and ignoring the wishes of both Houses of Congress, here we are voting on a budget that includes those exact dangerous and shortsighted cuts. As more and more working families struggle to pay for health care without the benefit of insurance, Congress has a responsibility to protect safety nets like Medicaid, not tear them down. Those cuts--and this budget--are both irresponsible and they are wrong. This budget offers too little help for families in Washington State. My State has struggled over the past few years to get back on its feet. But this budget doesn't give Washington State families the support they deserve as they work hard to turn our economy around and build for the future. People in Washington State deserve a real Federal commitment as they work to create jobs, provide health care, and improve security and transportation. On the issues important to my State, this budget comes up short. Not only is this budget bad for Washington State, it is also bad for our country's economic future. As Senator Conrad said so eloquently a short time ago, it lines up massive deficits for years to come. I have to say it is astonishing to me that so many people in the majority speak of the need for fiscal discipline. The rhetoric does not match the reality of this budget. We are currently fighting a war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we are paying for it entirely out of deficit spending. We are paying for today's war on the backs of our children and grandchildren, when we should be doing it responsibly as part of this budget. That is only one of the many major spending initiatives this budget chooses to ignore in favor of keeping the consequences on generations to come. Tonight, the President was on television talking about our grandchildren. The budget before us robs our grandchildren of an education, of health care, an economic future, and hands them a tremendous debt that they will be responsible for paying. I think that is the most fiscally irresponsible action we can take. Sadly, this budget also shortchanges our veterans. My home State of Washington is home to 700,000 veterans. They rely on the services that were promised when they signed up. Washington State has also sent thousands of brave men and women to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now a large group is returning home, including 4,000 members of the National Guard. That is why I have tried twice in this budget process to increase funding for veterans health care services. And twice the Republicans have said no. I even tried adding funding for this in the supplemental because caring for our veterans is a cost of war. Again, the majority party turned their backs on them. I am extremely disappointed that Republicans in the Senate have chosen to turn their backs on the men and women who fought for us, our veterans. By denying the crisis at the VA, they are ignoring our responsibilities to fully provide for the men and women who risk their lives for our freedom. I have heard the Republicans say we can take care of the needs of our veterans through the appropriations process. I am going to tell you, in the budget that is before us today, there will be not enough money to take care of our veterans through the appropriations alone. They will be competing with our military bases and other critical needs for precious few funds. Our veterans, our military, and our future recruits deserve better. We send these brave men and women overseas to fight for us. They should not have to fight for the health care they have earned when they return home. Next, let me turn to education. This budget fails to provide the funding that was promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. This budget comes up short of what our local schools need to fulfill a promise we made to our children. I am also very concerned that this budget drastically cuts student loan programs and programs which provide critical early intervention and preparation for students to help them graduate from high school and succeed in college. There can be no better investment than those, and our young people are robbed of that in this budget. Finally, I turn to transportation. When we invest in transportation infrastructure, we create jobs and we create economic growth. In fact, it is estimated that for every $1 billion we spend on transportation infrastructure, we create over 47,000 good-paying, family-wage jobs. We know investing in our transportation priorities today will help us improve our quality of life and provide for future economic growth. If this Congress truly cared about investing in jobs, we would be here tonight considering a budget that includes the funding necessary to invest in our roads, our highways, and our bridges across this country. Unfortunately, once again, this budget that we are looking at tonight does not provide for our national priorities or for future economic growth. At the start of the President's second term, this administration promised to restore bipartisanship and they promised to reach across party lines to meet the challenges of governing. I have to tell you, as a member of the joint House-Senate conference committee, I come here to tell my colleagues that we were not invited to the table. We were told our presence wasn't necessary. This partisan, backroom dealing spells disaster for the entire budget process. Adoption of this budget resolution is only the first step in the lengthy budget process. It is far too early for this process to break down. I am really disappointed in the decision to ignore many of the bipartisan amendments that were adopted in the Senate and, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have to say I fear that this kind of partisan tone will make past budget battles on the floor seem mild. We have heard a lot about fiscal responsibility throughout this budget process. Unfortunately, those lessons are ignored in this budget resolution before us tonight. We are ignoring our priorities and our responsibilities, and we are increasing our deficits. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this budget agreement and sit here tonight and agree to work on a budget agreement that does invest in our future and pays off our debts from the past. I yield the floor.

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 am pleased today to introduce a bill with Senators Durbin, Kennedy, and Clinton that will help our Nation's high school students graduate with the knowledge necessary to succeed in post-secondary education and the skills needed to succeed in the workforce. Unfortunately too many high school students today are not completing high school at all or with the skills necessary to enter post-secondary education or the workforce. The statistics are staggering. Every day, 3,000 teenagers drop out of high school. This year over 500,000 students will drop out of high school. Overall, less than 70 percent of high school students will graduate and less than 50 percent of high school students of color will graduate. Of 100 9th graders, less than 70 percent will graduate on time, only 38 percent will directly enter college, only 26 percent will still be enrolled in their sophomore year, and only 18 percent will graduate from college. That number is even lower for minority students. Forty percent of students entering 4-year colleges and nearly 70 percent of students entering community colleges will take remedial classes in reading, writing or math, extending their years in and the cost of college. Only one-third of the U.S. workforce has any post-secondary education but it is estimated that 60 percent of new jobs in the 21st century will require a post-secondary education. Business will spend billions of dollars on remediation for their employees in reading, writing and math. We can do better and we must do better for our Nation's students, their families, and American business. Currently, high school students are graduating at meager rates and even if they are graduating from high school, they are not leaving high school with the skills and knowledge to enter the workforce or be successful in college. That is why I have written and am introducing the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act or the PASS Act. The PASS Act targets high school reform in three key areas: core academics, improving graduation rates, and assistance to low-performing schools to improve student achievement through innovative models. The PASS Act will help improve student achievement in core academics and reduce the need for remediation in college and the workplace through grants for schools to hire literacy and math coaches. Literacy and math coaches bring professional development back into schools and classrooms. Coaches help teachers identify which students are having reading or math problems, how to respond to such problems, and how to integrate literacy and math skills across curricula. The PASS Act also targets dropouts and low graduation rates through grants for academic counselors and a meaningful graduation rate calculation. Time after time I have talked to students in their senior year who have said, ``I didn't know I needed four years of math to graduate and get into college.'' Part of the problem is that our counselors are completely overwhelmed. The current national average ratio of students to counselors is over 450 to 1. My bill would provide grants to bring that ratio down to 150 to 1. Academic counselors will also work with students and their families to create 6 year graduation and career plans that will help students identify what classes they need to graduate and achieve their post-secondary goals, whether those goals are training or college, and identify support services such as GEAR UP and TRIO that are available to the student. The PASS Act also provides grants to schools for data collection, and specifically on graduation rates. Currently schools do not have a way to accurately calculate graduation rates. The Department of Education only requires schools to report the graduation rate based on 12th grade data and we all know that is not when students drop out. The PASS Act provides schools with funding to collect, disaggregate, and report accurate graduation rates so that schools can correctly diagnose and address problems facing specific student populations. And lastly the PASS Act provides additional funding for schools labeled ``in need of improvement'' to implement proven, innovative reforms leading to gains in student achievement. I often talk to principals who tell me they know what they need to do to improve their schools; they just don't have the funds to make the necessary changes. Such reforms include smaller learning communities, adolescent literacy programs, whole school reforms, personalized learning environments, and programs that target transitions between middle and secondary school. Congress must act now and act boldly to correct the shortfalls in our nation's high schools. We can and must do better. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and addressing the needs of our high school students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a bill with Senators Durbin, Kennedy, and Clinton that will help our Nation's high school students graduate with the knowledge necessary to succeed in post-secondary education and the skills needed to succeed in the workforce. Unfortunately too many high school students today are not completing high school at all or with the skills necessary to enter post-secondary education or the workforce. The statistics are staggering. Every day, 3,000 teenagers drop out of high school. This year over 500,000 students will drop out of high school. Overall, less than 70 percent of high school students will graduate and less than 50 percent of high school students of color will graduate. Of 100 9th graders, less than 70 percent will graduate on time, only 38 percent will directly enter college, only 26 percent will still be enrolled in their sophomore year, and only 18 percent will graduate from college. That number is even lower for minority students. Forty percent of students entering 4-year colleges and nearly 70 percent of students entering community colleges will take remedial classes in reading, writing or math, extending their years in and the cost of college. Only one-third of the U.S. workforce has any post-secondary education but it is estimated that 60 percent of new jobs in the 21st century will require a post-secondary education. Business will spend billions of dollars on remediation for their employees in reading, writing and math. We can do better and we must do better for our Nation's students, their families, and American business. Currently, high school students are graduating at meager rates and even if they are graduating from high school, they are not leaving high school with the skills and knowledge to enter the workforce or be successful in college. That is why I have written and am introducing the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act or the PASS Act. The PASS Act targets high school reform in three key areas: core academics, improving graduation rates, and assistance to low-performing schools to improve student achievement through innovative models. The PASS Act will help improve student achievement in core academics and reduce the need for remediation in college and the workplace through grants for schools to hire literacy and math coaches. Literacy and math coaches bring professional development back into schools and classrooms. Coaches help teachers identify which students are having reading or math problems, how to respond to such problems, and how to integrate literacy and math skills across curricula. The PASS Act also targets dropouts and low graduation rates through grants for academic counselors and a meaningful graduation rate calculation. Time after time I have talked to students in their senior year who have said, ``I didn't know I needed four years of math to graduate and get into college.'' Part of the problem is that our counselors are completely overwhelmed. The current national average ratio of students to counselors is over 450 to 1. My bill would provide grants to bring that ratio down to 150 to 1. Academic counselors will also work with students and their families to create 6 year graduation and career plans that will help students identify what classes they need to graduate and achieve their post-secondary goals, whether those goals are training or college, and identify support services such as GEAR UP and TRIO that are available to the student. The PASS Act also provides grants to schools for data collection, and specifically on graduation rates. Currently schools do not have a way to accurately calculate graduation rates. The Department of Education only requires schools to report the graduation rate based on 12th grade data and we all know that is not when students drop out. The PASS Act provides schools with funding to collect, disaggregate, and report accurate graduation rates so that schools can correctly diagnose and address problems facing specific student populations. And lastly the PASS Act provides additional funding for schools labeled ``in need of improvement'' to implement proven, innovative reforms leading to gains in student achievement. I often talk to principals who tell me they know what they need to do to improve their schools; they just don't have the funds to make the necessary changes. Such reforms include smaller learning communities, adolescent literacy programs, whole school reforms, personalized learning environments, and programs that target transitions between middle and secondary school. Congress must act now and act boldly to correct the shortfalls in our nation's high schools. We can and must do better. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and addressing the needs of our high school students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the Senate's deliberations on some of the administration's judicial nominees. It is clear this is a debate about basic American values. In drafting the Constitution, the Framers wanted the Senate to provide advice and consent on nominees who came before it to ensure that these very rights and values were protected. I believe, as a Senator, I have a responsibility to stand up for those values on behalf of my constituents in Washington State. Many activists today are complaining that certain Senators are attacking religious or conservative values. I must argue that it is others--not Democratic Senators exercising their rights--who are pursuing a nomination strategy that attacks basic values outlined in the Constitution. Our democracy values debate and dissension. Our democracy values the importance of checks and balances. Our democracy values an independent judiciary. But with the nuclear option and the rhetorical assault being launched at Democratic Senators by activists around the country, among others, we see those values under attack. The nuclear option is an assault on the American people and many of the things we hold dear. It is an attempt to impose on the country, through lifetime appointments, the extreme values held by a few at the cost of the many. It is the tyranny of the majority personified. Confirming these nominees by becoming a rubber stamp for the administration would be an affront to the 200-year-old system of checks and balances, and at the same time it would be an affront to the values I promised to defend when I came to the Senate. Building and maintaining a democracy is not easy, but our system and the rights and values it holds dear are the envy of the world. In fact, the entire world looks at us as the model for government. It is our values they want to look to. We must protect them not only for us but for those fledgling democracies. I just returned from a bipartisan trip to Israel, Iraq, Georgia, and the Ukraine, where we saw leaders who were trying to write constitutions, trying to write laws, trying to write policies. They were all working very hard to assure even those who did not vote in the majority that they would have a voice. The challenges were varied in each country. They faced everything from protecting against terrorists to charging people for the first time for electricity, to reforming wholly corrupt institutions. Making sure that democracy survives means having debates, bringing people to the table, and making tough decisions. In each case, the importance of not disenfranchising any group of people also rings true. So how we in this country accomplish the goal of sustaining a strong democracy and ensuring the participation of all people is very important. Elections are the foundation of our democracy. They determine the direction of our country. But an election loss does not mean you lose your voice or you lose your place at the table. That is what we must do to keep our democracy strong. That is why we are fighting so hard to keep our voice. Recently, we have heard a lot from the other side about attacks on faith and on values. In fact, some are trying to say our motive in this debate is somehow antifaith. I argue the opposite is true. We have faith in our values, in American values. We have faith that these values can and must be upheld. It is not an ideological battle between Republicans and Democrats. It is about keeping faith with the values and the ideals our country stands for. Having values and having faith in those values requires that we make sure those without a voice are represented. Speaking up for those in poverty to make sure they are fed is a faith-based value. Making sure there is equal opportunity and justice for the least among us is a faith-based value. Fighting for human rights and taking care of the environment are faith-based values. To now say those of us who stick up for minority rights are antifaith is frightening and it is wrong. I hope those who have decided to make this into a faith-antifaith debate will reconsider. This should be about democracy. It should be about the protection of an independent judiciary, and it should be about the rights of minorities. Mr. President, our system of government, of checks and balances, and our values are under attack by this transparent grab for power. They are, with their words and potential actions, attempting to dismantle this system despite the clear intent of the Framers and the weight of history and precedent. They think they know better. I think not. Mr. President, there is even news this morning that our friends on the other side are unwilling to come to the table to compromise to avoid this crisis. I want to take a second to praise our leader, Senator Reid, for his effort to find a reasonable conclusion before the nuclear bomb is dropped. Unfortunately for him, for all of us on this side of the aisle, and for this institution, that plea has been rejected. First, yesterday we saw that Karl Rove, one of the President's top advisers, said there would be no deal. Now, in this morning's papers, we read the leadership on the other side of the aisle is falling into line and saying, ``No deal.'' By rejecting the deal, Republicans are now saying that three nominees--three total nominees--are so important that they must break with the more than 200 years of tradition and 200 years of precedent. We have heard day after day on the floor--even a few moments ago--that this is the most important issue facing this body today. Well, we have record-high gas prices and deficits, we have 45 million uninsured Americans, and we have far too many veterans without the health care they need and deserve. All the other side is talking about is doing away with the checks and balances so they can get radicals on the bench. If the other side wants to continue on this destructive course and ignore those real needs of the American people, they can. But this Senator and my colleagues will continue to fight this abuse of power and do the work the people sent us here to do. It is a sad day when one side refuses to come to the table to negotiate a way out of this impasse. It is even sadder that they refuse to accept our excellent confirmation record in blind pursuit of confirming the most radical of their choices. Although we have been able to confirm 205 nominees that President Bush sent forward, there are a few that are far outside some basic values. Let's start close to home with President Bush's nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court. To that court, which overseas appeals from my home State of Washington and five other States, President Bush has nominated William Myers. Mr. Myers is a lifelong lobbyist and anti-environmental activist. He is opposed by over 175 environmental, labor, civil, and women's disability rights organizations. He even drew opposition from Native American organizations and from the National Wildlife Federation. This is a man who has never tried a jury case, who has an anti-environmental record stretching back to his days as a Bush Interior Department official and industry lobbyist. He even received the lowest possible rating from the ABA. Mr. President, in the Pacific Northwest and in regions around this great country, we hold our environmental values dear. I am not willing to hand a lifetime appointment to such a vehement advocate against the people's interests. This is the perfect example of the check our Framers had in mind when they drafted our Constitution. We can, and we must, use it. That is just one example of a nominee looking to attack basic values. Bill Pryor, a nominee to the Eleventh Circuit, opposes basic individual liberties and freedoms. He called Roe v. Wade the ``worst abomination of constitutional law in history.'' Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to the DC Circuit Court, called 1937-- that was the year this Government enacted many of the New Deal's programs to help lift our country out of the deep depression--``the triumph of our own socialist revolution.'' Mr. President, her disdain for worker and consumer protection values and principles is clear in decision after decision. Nominee Priscilla Owen's narrow constitutional view was so far outside the mainstream that then-Texas Supreme Court Judge and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that to accept it would be ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' Mr. President, time and time again, these nominees have sided against the American people and the values we hold dear. They have taken extreme positions that run counter to mainstream values. Not one of these nominees has the experience or the temperament to administer justice in an impartial way to the citizens that they would serve. Today it is fashionable for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to disparage what they call activist judges. But this power grab reveals their true motivation. They want activists on the bench to interpret the law in a way that undermines important American values. We will not let them. We have a responsibility to stand up and say no to these extreme nominees. But to know that, you don't need to listen to me; just look back at the great Founders of our democracy. The Framers, in those amazing years when our country was founded, took great care in creating our new democracy. They wrote into the Constitution the Senate's role in the nomination process. They wrote and they spoke about protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Their words ring true today. James Madison, in his famous Federalist No. 10, warned against the superior force of an overbearing majority or, as he called it, a ``dangerous vice.'' He said: The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. Years prior, John Adams wrote, in 1776, on the specific need for an independent judiciary and checks and balances. He said: The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society, depends so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checked upon that. The judges, therefore, should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man or body of men. Mr. President, I shudder at the thought of what these great thinkers and Founders of our democracy would say to this attempted abuse of power in the Senate. I think one of the best interpretations of those thoughts was offered to this body by Robert Caro, the great Senate historian, in a letter in 2003. He talked about the need for the Senate to maintain its history and traditions, despite popular pressures of the day, and of the important role debate and dissension plays in any discussion of judicial nominees. In particular, he wrote of his concern for the preservation of Senate tradition in the face of attempted changes by a majority run wild. In part, he said: In short, two centuries of history rebut any suggestion that either the language or intent of the Constitution prohibits or counsels against the use of extended debate to resist Presidential authority. To the contrary, the Nation's Founders depended on the Senate's members to stand up to a popular and powerful President. In the case of judicial appointments, the Founders specifically mandated the Senate to play an active role providing both advice and consent to the President. That shared authority was basic to the balance of powers among the branches. I am . . . attempting to say as strongly as I can that in considering any modification, Senators should realize that they are not dealing with the particular dispute of the moment, but with the fundamental character of the Senate of the United States, and with the deeper issue of the balance of power between majority and minority rights. Mr. President, protection of minority rights has been a fundamental principle since the infancy of this democracy. It should not--in fact, it cannot--be laid to rest here in this Chamber. I know many people are out there wondering why we are spending so much time talking about Senate rules and judicial nominations. They are wondering why I am talking about nominees and being on the floor quoting Madison and Adams. They are wondering what this means to them. Let me make it clear. This debate is about whether we want a clean, healthy environment and the ability to enforce laws to protect it fairly. This debate is about whether we want to protect essential rights and liberties. This debate is about whether we want free and open Government. This debate is about preserving equal protection under the law. This debate is about whether we want to preserve the independent judiciary, whether we want to defend our Constitution, and whether we want to stand up for the values of the American public. Mr. President, these values are too precious to be abdicated. Trusting in them, we will not let the Republicans trample our rights and those of millions of Americans we are here to represent. We will stand and say, yes, to democracy; yes, to an independent judiciary; yes, to minority rights; and, no, to this unbelievable abuse of power. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to share with you a remarkable story from World War II and the remembrance shown by our friends in Germany. Lindlar, Germany a small town outside of Cologne, is honoring the memory of an American war hero who lost his life during WWII. First Lieutenant Victor Rutkowski was a 24 year old, B-17 co-pilot assigned to the 390th Bombardment Group stationed in England. Lindlar will be dedicating a monument to Victor's memory and holding a memorial service to honor him this weekend. Doug Johnson was the pilot of the B-17 during Victor's last mission. The following is his account of that final mission. Oct 15, 1944: My 35th and final mission started about like most of the others we had flown during the previous few months. Two of our earlier missions had extended all the way from England, over Germany landing in Russia for a short stay. Leaving Russia and bombing in Poland and Rumania before proceeding on to Italy for a couple days before our final leg back into Framlingham, England. But this time we were going on a relatively short mission to Cologne, Germany. We were to fly the lead position, high element of ``B'' squadron. Take off went according to schedule and we were airborne at about 0534. Climb out and assembly was simply routine. We reached the IP and turned toward the target area. No enemy fighters were sighted and it looked like the flak was going to be light and inaccurate. Hey, this was going to be a piece of cake. Just before bombs away the flak became moderate and their gunners were beginning to home in on us. Suddenly we received a burst right under the right wing. We lost number 4 engine and Victor Rutkowski, my co-pilot, feathered it immediately then informed me that number three engine was on fire. Now things were beginning to get pretty tense. We attempted to extinguish the fire with no success and it's about time for bombs away. We continued and dropped our bombs in the target area. We notified the squadron leader and immediately pulled away from the formation. I called out on the intercom that ``we had better get out of here before this plane blows up''. Things looked pretty bad. I called back later to the crew but got no answer because all of them except the co-pilot, engineer and myself had already bailed out. The fire continued in number 3 engine so the engineer bailed out and Victor followed him. I climbed down to bail out but decided to take one last look at number 3. The fire appeared to have gone out. The plane was in a slight dive as I climbed back into the seat. Upon returning the plane to level flight I noticed that the fire re appeared. I then put the plane in a fairly steep dive. I remember saying to myself ``come on baby we've gotten this far, don't blow up on me now''. The fire blew out shortly thereafter. My luck was still holding. I was down to about 4000 feet by now and found myself flying through some more flak, and small arms fire. I didn't realize at the time that I was flying directly over the ground fighting between our troops and the Germans somewhere north of Aachen. I really did not know who was shooting at me then but luckily I was out of it in a minute or so. I finally contacted a P-47 fighter pilot in the area who led me into St. Trond, Belgium, Site A92, where the landing was not the best I had ever made. A flat right tire that had been shot out by flak didn't help. After exiting the plane and walking around to inspect the damage, I noticed that the tail gunner was still at his post. A flak burst had killed him. The plane had about 200 holes in it and the fuel was still leaking from the number 3 engine. I still can't figure out why that plane didn't blow up. I later learned that my co pilot was killed on the ground by German civilians and that my bombardier had been wounded but evaded and my engineer also escaped capture and returned to base. The rest of my crew spent the balance of the war as POWs. A truly remarkable story that speaks vividly to the sacrifice soldiers such as Victor made fighting for their countries. I would like to commend the citizens of Lindlar for honoring the memory of Victor Rutkowski and all those who died during in WorId War II. I would like to add the thanks of the Rutkowski family and the United States Senate to Lindlar for this special tribute.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Linda Jantzen, a Defense fellow in the office of Senator Mikulski, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I imagine that recently it has been pretty difficult to wake up every morning to read the newspaper if you are a Federal judge. Extremists in and out of Washington, DC, have nearly declared war on the judiciary, from demanding retribution for recent decisions that lawmakers disagree with to suggesting impeachment for judges who do not toe the party line. It is discouraging, it is disheartening, and it is downright wrong. But what is so concerning about this recent rhetorical assault is it is being backed by action that has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with increasing Republican power at the expense of our Constitution. I am deeply concerned that Republicans are trying to increase their power by ignoring rules dating to our country's founding. They want to push through radical judicial nominees who will serve a lifetime on the bench by eliminating a 200-year-old American rule allowing each Member in the Senate to speak out on behalf of our constituents and to fight for the ideals we hold dear. We had an election last year, and it is true, Republicans ended up with a majority in this body. But that does not mean half the country lost its voice. That does not mean tens of millions of Americans will have no say in our democracy. That does not mean Republicans have carte blanche to pack the courts and to ignore the rights of the minority. In reality, this is not about judges. This is not about a Senate procedural change. This is, plainly and simply, a power grab and an effort to dismantle the checks and balances our Founding Fathers created. Without that system, the Senate would simply become a rubberstamp for the President. It would allow whichever political party is in power, Republican or Democrat, to have the say over our Nation's courts. I will not stand for that. This is a basic argument about the future of the Senate. It is about how we are going to conduct our business. I believe in giving the people a voice, in standing up for those people who sent me here, and in protecting the rights of minorities everywhere. One of the first things every child is taught about American Government is the separation of the three branches. This separation and the checks and balances that come with it are fundamental to the greatest system of government ever created. This system is worth protecting. That is exactly what many of my colleagues and I intend to do. This is not a debate about judicial nominations. It is about increasing the amount of power that is wielded by the majority. We hear a lot about judges in the Senate, so let me put that discussion in context for a minute. The judges who serve on the Federal bench affect the lives and liberties of every American. These are lifetime appointments. This is not the nomination to a commission or nomination to an ambassadorship; this is a lifetime appointment for a Federal judge whose rulings over the next 30 or 40 or more years will have ramifications for every single American. As Senators, we are elected to serve our constituents. We are asked to confirm judges whose decisions can change U.S. history and shape the lives of American people for generations to come. When any citizen, Republican or Democrat, in a blue State or a red State, a man or a woman, no matter what race, color, or creed, comes before a judge, we have a responsibility to ensure they will get a fair shake. That citizen, no matter who or where they are, must know our system will work for them. They have to have confidence in that. How can we make those assurances to each and every Senator, Republican or Democrat, red or blue State, man or woman, no matter what race, color or creed, if Republicans alone are selecting, considering, and confirming them to the courts? I don't believe we can. In addition, we expect Federal judges to provide the proper check in our system of checks and balances outlined in our Constitution. Without it, our system does not function properly. We have to ensure each and every nominee for the courts has sufficient experience to sit in judgment of our fellow citizens. We have to ensure every nominee will be fair to everyone who comes before their court. We have to ensure every nominee will be evenhanded in administering justice, and we have to ensure every nominee will protect the rights and the liberties of each and every American. To determine if a nominee meets those standards, we have to explore their record, we have to ask them questions, we need to weigh their responses. That is a tremendous responsibility of each and every Senator. It is one I take very seriously. In the Senate we have made a lot of progress in confirming the judges President Bush has nominated. Look at the figures. The Senate has now confirmed 205 judicial nominees of President Bush. In 3 years we have stopped 10 of those whose records raised the highest questions about their abilities to meet the standard of fairness every American expects. Let me repeat that: We have confirmed 205 judicial nominees. That is a confirmation of 95 percent. We have confirmed 205 judges, the best confirmation rate since President Reagan. Today, 95 percent of Federal judicial seats are filled. This is the lowest number of vacancies in 13 years. There are now more Federal judges than ever before. I have to point out while the majority is complaining today about our confirmation rate, it was a different story during the Clinton administration. Back then, Republicans used many roadblocks to stop or block the confirmation of judges who were nominated by President Clinton. During Clinton's second term, 175 of his nominees were confirmed and 55 were blocked from getting votes. During those years, the majority used the committee process to ensure nominees they disagreed with never came to a vote in the Senate and 55 never received consideration. The Senate has an impressive record of confirming judges. That is clear in the 98-percent confirmation rate, the 95 percent of Federal judicial seats that are filled, and today the lowest number of vacancies in 13 years. I will talk about the process we have used in my home State of Washington to confirm judges. We have worked out a system to ensure that Washington judges are nominated and confirmed even when different political parties hold Senate seats or control the White House. For many years I worked with a Republican Senator and a Democratic President to nominate and confirm Federal judges from my State. Today, with a Republican President I am working with my colleague from Washington State on a bipartisan process to recommend judicial candidates. We developed a bipartisan commission process that forwards names to the White House. It has worked very well. Both sides had equal representation on the commission. The commission interviews and vets the candidates. It worked for Senator Gorton and me when we forwarded names to President Clinton and it is working well for Senator Maria Cantwell and me as we recommend names to President Bush. I am very proud that during President Bush's first term we worked together to confirm five excellent judges through this bipartisan commission. We, in fact, confirmed Ron Leighton, a distinguished trial lawyer in Tacoma who is now a U.S. district court judge for the western district of Washington in Tacoma. We confirmed Lonny Suko as a district court judge for the eastern district of my State. He is a distinguished lawyer and a U.S. magistrate judge who has earned the respect of many in his work on some of eastern Washington's most difficult cases. We also confirmed Judge Ricardo Martinez for a vacancy on the U.S. district court for the western district of Washington State. He, in fact, holds the distinction of becoming the first Latino district judge in the history of our State. For over 5 years he has served as magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court in the western district. Before that, he was a superior court judge for 8 years and a King County prosecutor for 10 years. I will never forget calling him from the Senate floor after we completed his vote on the confirmation. I could hear the cheers in the background from a truly overjoyed, deserving family. Also during the first term we confirmed Judges Richard Tallman and James Robart. Both of them are now serving lifetime appointments with dignity. In Washington State, we are making genuine bipartisan progress confirming judges. It is a process that serves the people of my home State well. Our record of bipartisanship makes this current Republican power grab all the more outrageous. The record proves it is not about judges at all. This procedure is about destroying the checks and balances our Founding Fathers created to prevent the abuse of Governmental power and to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans. Now we are hearing the Republicans want to destroy the independence in Federal judges by rewriting the rules so they can ram through appointment of Federal judges, especially a Supreme Court Justice, who will overreach and roll back the rights of American people. Recent comments by advocates on the other side and even by some elected officials have left me very worried about the future of the independent judiciary. It seems many in this country are intent on running roughshod over the Constitution, bent on misusing their power to destroy fundamental principles of our great democracy. That is not how America works. It is not what our Founding Fathers intended. In our democracy, no single person and no single political party may impose extreme views on the Nation. The constitutional system of checks and balances was set up for a reason. It has worked for two centuries. There is no reason to destroy this fundamental principle now. My colleagues and I are standing up to these abuses. We are fighting to protect the historic power of this body to make sure it is not a rubberstamp for sectarian, partisan, special interests. We will continue to do so. I yield back the remainder of the time on this side and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his heartfelt statement. I know he has worked in his State, talking to young men and women who are coming home. He has looked them in the eyes as I have. I was with him in Kuwait and Iraq a few weeks ago talking to soldiers who are coming home. The No. 1 question was: We are hearing that services are not going to be available for us when we get home. We are hearing that the veterans from Vietnam and World War II are waiting in line. We have been over here for a year. They fear this country has forgotten them despite all the rhetoric on this floor. The Senator from Illinois is right. This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. This is an American issue. This is about our American men and women serving us honorably and who deserve to have the services when they come home. The Senator from Illinois is right. To look into the eyes of a young family where one of them is suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome affecting their marriage, job, their entire community, and what are we saying? Wait in lines. You don't get in to be served? That is not an emergency? What we have now in front of us is a point of order saying this is not an emergency. If it is not an emergency to take care of our men and women who are now serving us overseas, who have come home, then I don't know what is. When I am going out and talking to service organizations and every single VISN in this country is telling us they are working under debts, they are not hiring doctors and nurses to replace those who are leaving, they have beds that are being held together by duct tape--if that is not an emergency, then I can't think of one that is. We have talked to veterans in every single VISN. Every single one of them has given us dramatic stories of the wait lines, of clinics that have been promised and not opened, of service men and women from previous wars who are not getting served. This is not an emergency? I disagree. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Schumer, Johnson, Corzine, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Dorgan as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. I send a modification to the desk on our amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for regular order.