Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Senator restate the question?

Mrs. MURRAY. That is absolutely correct. This amendment does not compel any medical provider to perform an abortion.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is not correct. The amendment, as I have offered, has a conscience clause for all doctors overseas.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. This amendment does not require the Federal Government to pay for an abortion. In fact, it will allow the woman herself to pay out of her own personal private funds for an abortion in a military hospital overseas.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, no woman should be forced to surrender her constitutional rights when she puts on a military uniform and volunteers to serve our country overseas. But that is exactly what happens today, and it must stop. The women of our military risk their lives to protect our rights, but if they serve abroad they are being denied access to safe, legal, constitutionally protected health care. Today I am on the floor of the Senate to offer an amendment to ensure that our military women when they serve overseas have access to the same health care as they get here at home. I again thank all my cosponsors, Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman. Before I go into detail, I want to clarify what this is about and what it is not about. There are four very important aspects to understand. First of all, this amendment does not require any direct Federal funding of abortion-related services. My amendment simply requires these women to pay for any costs associated with an abortion in a military facility. So no direct Federal funding is involved. Second, my amendment does not compel a medical provider to perform abortions. All branches of the military allow medical personnel who have moral or religious or ethical objections to abortion not to participate. So this amendment does not change or alter conscience clauses for military medical personnel. Third, this will not create any significant burden on the military. It will not hinder the military's ability to carry out its missions or to provide medical services. Finally, do not believe anyone who tells you that our military, the finest military in the world, is not capable of providing these health services or that our military is unable to determine the cost. The truth is that today the Defense Department allows for privately funded abortions in the case of rape or incest. The ultimate proof that this is something our military can do is that, prior to 1988, the Department of Defense did allow privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities. So, clearly, this can be done. So let's make sure we are all straight on those four points. There is no direct Federal funding. No medical provider would be required to do anything they oppose. No significant burden would be placed on the military. And there is no doubt that our military can do this because it has done it before, prior to 1988, and does it today in cases of rape or incest. Anyone who comes to the Senate floor and makes any of those claims I have just rebutted is raising red herrings as a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is the health of women who serve our country and respect for their rights and freedom. The current policy on the books today is an insult to women. It is a rejection of their rights and it is a threat to their health. Under current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their country, and female military dependents, are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right to choose, simply because they are serving overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as free citizens. Yet they are denied one of the most basic rights afforded all women in this country. This is an important women's health amendment. Women should be able to depend on their base hospital and military health care providers to meet all of their health care needs. To single out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health. The current policy does not ensure the access women need for four reasons. First of all, a woman today must seek the approval of her commanding officer for transport back to the United States. That could be very humiliating and can be a deterrent to a woman to getting the care that she needs. We know, from a GAO report that was issued in May of 2002, that many commanding officers--and I quote: . . . have not been adequately trained about the importance of women's basic health care. Department of Defense officials said that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be reluctant to allow active duty Members, both men and women, time away from their duty station to obtain health care services. So women have to face the humiliation of asking a superior officer for permission over something that the GAO found many commanders do not understand or appreciate. Second, the current policy jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy because she must disclose her medical condition to her superiors with no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept confidential. That is a very important point. She would have to disclose her medical condition to her superiors in the Air Force or the Army, in the service, with no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept confidential. Third, the woman is not afforded medical leave, so she is further penalized under the current policy. And fourth, because of these unfair restrictions, many women are forced to seek care off the base, in a foreign country. That country may have different cultural and religious norms and different standards of health care. Many women have little or no understanding of the laws or restrictions in a host country, and there may also be significant language and cultural barriers as well. So let's be honest. Some of the countries our military operates in are not very progressive when it comes to women's issues, and that could threaten our service women. In addition, these countries may not have adequate safety and medical standards. Here in the United States, we take for granted the safety of our health care service. When we seek care in our doctors' offices or in a clinic, we assume all safety and health standards are adhered to. Unfortunately, that is not the case in many countries. Under current conditions, we are subjecting women to standards in a foreign country where they may not be safe, where they may not be health standards where we can assure that their basic health care is taken care of. Finally, because of all these barriers, women may delay getting the care they urgently need. Many women are forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until they can travel to a location where safe, adequate care is available. Each week that an abortion is delayed there are greater risks to a woman's health. So the current policy is humiliating. It is a threat to women's privacy. It is punitive. It is a threat to women's safety, and it is a threat to women's health. Those are not the types of burdens we should be putting on women who volunteer to serve our country and defend our freedoms. The current policy is unfair to women. It denies them their constitutional rights. My amendment before the Senate today will correct that. This amendment is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It is supported by the American Medical Women's Association. It is supported by Physicians for Reproductive Choice in Health. And it is supported by the National Partnership for Women and Families. The Senate agreed to this amendment. The Department of Defense has followed this policy before. And, finally, let me just say, after the inspiring and courageous work our military women have done in Iraq and in Afghanistan, we owe them nothing less than the same rights they are fighting to protect for all of us. This is a test for every Senator. Every Senator is going to have to answer to the women who serve our country overseas. Will you stand up for the rights of women who, today, are standing up to ensure your freedom? Either you respect the women who serve our country overseas and you agree that they deserve the same rights and freedoms as women here at home or you do not. That is the choice. Either you respect the women who serve our country overseas and you agree that they deserve the same rights and freedoms as women here at home or you do not. That is the case. If you vote against the Murray-Snowe amendment, you are simply telling American servicewomen that when they serve overseas protecting our country and risking their lives that they can't be trusted with the constitutional right to health care that women here at home in the United States have. They deserve more respect than that. I hope my colleagues will vote for the Murray-Snowe amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to add cosponsors as follows: Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, is the Murray amendment called up?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from California has given a very clear reason to vote for this amendment. We have heard no disagreement that this current policy toward women service members is not humiliating. We have heard no disagreement that it is not a threat to privacy, and it is punitive. What this issue is about is whether women in the service overseas have the same constitutional rights, protections, and safety in their health care as those women who are in this country. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the Senator such time as she needs.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will make a couple of points. Under current law, in the case of rape or incest, at a military facility an abortion can be performed. No one is protesting that today. I again advise my colleague that a woman who is in this country has this right, anyway. Where we are concerned, rightfully, is for women who are serving overseas. They don't have a constitutional right today to have an abortion. Let me tell you what happens to a woman if she finds herself in difficult circumstances and is serving overseas. She has to go to her commanding officer. Believe me, that is very difficult for a woman to do, go to a commanding officer and describe the circumstances she finds herself in, and ask for permission to fly home to have an abortion performed, where it is legal. Mr. President, that is humiliating, but it is also difficult. She then has to wait for a C-17 to be available. Think about this. We have just seen the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have to make a C-17 available for a woman to fly home. That is ridiculous. They have the medical facilities there already, and the facilities are available. So we are putting the services at risk when we have to fly them home. This is humiliating and she has to ask her commanding officer. A woman serving in the country doesn't have to do that. It is difficult and cumbersome. This also really jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy because in order to go to her commanding officer, she has to disclose her medical condition. We all would think the officer would respect her rights, but that is not always the case. She has to put that question in her head when she goes to ask them. I don't think it is fair to the women overseas when they disclose their medical condition with no guarantees that they will be kept confidential. Think of the potential of using that against a woman in the service. I think that is something none of us want to place a young woman in the position of having to do. We need to remember a woman is not given any medical relief and she is penalized under this policy. She has to wait for a C-17 to be available, fly home, take the time to have the procedure done, and then return to military service. We are taking her out of service when we need her, and we are causing her a tremendous amount of distress, too. Remember, we are talking about a service that is protected constitutionally for any woman who is here in this country. But these are women who have volunteered to serve us overseas in the military. Finally, let us not forget what we have done to women today who are serving us in the military and fighting for our freedom. We have put them--if they don't want to ask their commanding officer, wait for a C- 17, and all of the other conditions we put on them--today, they can go to a hospital in a foreign country. Well, think of the difficulties of that, where they don't have the same culture, don't speak the same language, if a woman has a health care procedure done and the doctor cannot tell her what she needs to do in the following 24 hours or weeks to make sure she is taking care of herself correctly, and she cannot understand him because she doesn't understand the language. Why would we do that to a woman serving us overseas? I think we ought to go back and put in place a provision in the law that has worked before that simply gives women who serve us the same constitutional right women in this country have today. That is what this amendment is about. That is what this vote is about. I hope our colleagues will vote with us in a few minutes when the vote is called. I retain the balance of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to do what should have been done decades ago: fully ban asbestos in the United States. I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 to prohibit this known carcinogen from being used to manufacture products in this country. The bill also bans imports of asbestos products from other countries where asbestos is still legal. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Dayton, Jeffords and Leahy are original cosponsors of this important legislation. The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to ban the substance within two years. Most people think that asbestos has already been banned. In fact, in 1989 EPA finalized regulations to phase out and ban the substance by 1997. But in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's ban, arguing that EPA did not ``first evaluate and then reject the less burdensome alternatives'' under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately, the first Bush Administration did not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing ones were not. As a result, it is still legal in 2003 to construct buildings in the United States with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and clutch facings. Asbestos is still not banned, and as a result, we're still using it. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2001, businesses in this country consumed 26 million pounds of chrysotile asbestos to make roofing products, gaskets, friction materials and other products. Last month, my staff walked into a local home improvement store and bought off the shelf roofing sealants made with asbestos. In addition, we are still importing asbestos products from other countries, many of which have less stringent environmental and public health standards. Everyone knows that asbestos is harmful. The term asbestos, like arsenic, lead, mercury or DDT, is synonymous with poison. Asbestos may well be the most regulated toxic substance that federal and state agencies have ever dealt with. At least eleven different Federal statutes address asbestos. The EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Mine Safety and Health Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission are only some of the Federal agencies tasked with implementing rules to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of this substance. But the sheer volume of rules and regulations in place does not guarantee that public health and the environment are being adequately protected. We have significant evidence suggesting that because asbestos is still not banned, we're still not safe from its dangers. I'd like to highlight some of this evidence for my colleagues. First, workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, ``An estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposure on the job. Heaviest exposures occur in the construction industry, particularly during the removal of asbestos during renovation or demolition. Employees are also likely to be exposed during the manufacture of asbestos products, such as textiles, friction products, insulation, and other building materials, and during automotive brake and clutch repair work.'' It is important to remember that there is no known safe threshold level of asbestos exposure. OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter is based on technical measurement limitations. OSHA's limit assumes that workers exposed to this concentration have a lifetime exposure risk of 3 to 5 in 1,000 for cancer and 2 in 1,000 for asbestosis. This is a very high risk compared to the cancer risk levels that are considered acceptable for some environmental cleanups. The extent to which workers are exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos is especially troublesome when one considers the frequency with which OSHA's standards are violated. On July 31, 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. At the hearing I learned from OSHA that since 1995, the agency had cited employers for violations of its asbestos standards 15,691 times. This is astounding given the known dangers of asbestos and the high risks of disease even when OSHA's exposure limit is being met. As follow-up to the hearing, I asked OSHA to provide more information about asbestos-related violations. In an October 17, 2001 letter to me, Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote that between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2001, OSHA conducted a total of 190,971 inspections generating a total of 427,786 violations. Of these, 3,000 inspections and 15,691 violations involved asbestos. According to Mr. Henshaw, about 2 percent of inspections and 4 percent of violations were asbestos-related. In his letter to me, Mr. Henshaw wrote, ``OSHA does not consider any level to be an acceptable noncompliance level. We strive for 100 percent compliance.'' Despite OSHA's best intentions, workers are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. It is also important to consider that the vast majority of workplaces where asbestos exposure occurs, such as construction jobs and auto repair shops, are not regularly inspected by OSHA. The Administration conducts inspections only in response to complaints or as a result of referrals from law enforcement or the media. Many more violations of the standard occur in the real world than are actually recorded by regulators. Many employees likely do not contact OSHA about potential asbestos exposure on the job because they think asbestos has been banned long ago and is no longer a problem. But asbestos in the workplace is clearly still a problem. Recent news investigations provide more evidence that workers are being exposed to dangerous levels of this mineral. According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on November 16, 2000, ``During the past three months, the P-I collected samples of dust from floors, work areas and tool bins in 31 brake-repair garages in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Richmond, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Asbestos, almost exclusively chrysotile, which has been used for decades in brakes, was detected in 21 of the locations. The amount of asbestos in the dust ranged from 2.26 percent to 63.8 percent.'' When dust with these concentrations of asbestos in them is disturbed, airborne concentrations of asbestos occur that are well above OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter. Under current OSHA regulations, if airborne asbestos concentrations exceed this level, employers must conduct air monitoring, take measures to reduce asbestos emissions, post warning signs and record concentrations of airborne asbestos. Workers are supposed to wear respirators and protective clothing and are required to undergo long term medical monitoring. Now I recognize that much of the exposure to asbestos in the workplace comes from asbestos products installed years, and in many cases, decades ago. By one estimate, about 30 million tons of asbestos was used in this country between 1900 and 1980. Asbestos in place, in our buildings, schools and homes, will be with us for decades to come. But given the known dangers of this mineral, why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose when there are perfectly acceptable substitutes? In retrospect, it is tragic that asbestos was so widely used during the 20th century, for the economic and public health impacts have been disastrous. One very important step in overcoming the problems caused by asbestos is to stop adding to the problem--however incrementally--by continuing to use this dangerous mineral in products on purpose. I'd like to point out some additional evidence supporting the need to ban asbestos in the United States and to raise awareness about this issue. Most of my colleagues are familiar with the tragedy in Libby, MT, where hundreds of workers and their families suffer from asbestos- related diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite. For decades, the W.R. Grace mine in Libby supplied about 80 percent of the vermiculite used in this country. W.R. Grace very successfully marketed its product, without any warning labels, even though the company was well aware its product was contaminated with this known carcinogen. Asbestos-contaminated ore was shipped to more than 300 sites around the country for processing and use in industrial and consumer products. According to the EPA, 14 of these sites are so contaminated with asbestos that they still need to be cleaned up, even though the Libby mine closed in 1990. While this is a problem that came from a small mining town in Montana, the ramifications and consequences are clearly national in scope. In addition, vermiculite from Libby is still around and is still a threat to public health. It is estimated that tens of millions of homes, schools and businesses contain insulation made with Libby vermiculite, known as Zonolite. A recent study conducted for EPA, entitled Asbestos Exposure Assessment for Vermiculite Attic Insulation, found that Zonolite in homes today contains up to 2 percent asbestos. This study included tests on Zonolite insulation from Seattle Public Utilities and from a home in Washington State. It found that when this insulation was disturbed, airborne concentrations of 3.3 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeters were measured. In other words, handling Zonolite asbestos can cause levels of asbestos in the air that significantly exceed OSHA's exposure limit for workers. Even more troubling, perhaps, the study found ``vermiculite that tests non-detect for asbestos by bulk analysis can still generate airborne asbestos concentrations when disturbed.'' When vermiculite without significant amounts of asbestos in bulk was disturbed, concentrations of asbestos in the air up to 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeters were detected. This means that even vermiculite with only trace amounts of asbestos in bulk can generate unhealthy concentrations of asbestos in the air. Yesterday EPA launched a national consumer education campaign warning people not to disturb Zonolite attic insulation if they have it in their homes. The agency also warned people not to let their children play in attics with vermiculite for fear of asbestos exposure. EPA has developed a consumer education brochure and has created an asbestos hotline for people to call for more information. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have joined EPA in this education effort by creating materials to educate consumers and workers about the dangers of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite. While we need to ensure that we are no longer adding asbestos to our products on purpose, we also need to ensure that asbestos in harmful concentrations isn't ending up in our consumer products by accident. I am glad EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. This is an important first step in dealing with just one aspect of the legacy created by W.R. Grace in Libby. There is another important reason to ban asbestos that I would like to share with my colleagues. As I mentioned previously, the United States is still importing products that contain asbestos. Unfortunately, we do not have precise statistics on which products coming into this country contain the deadly mineral. The Department of Commerce's import database does not distinguish between asbestos- containing products and products containing asbestos substitutes. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, in 2002 this country imported more than 44,000 tons of asbestos-cement products, some of which may have contained cellulose instead of asbestos. With increased globalization and international trade, U.S. imports of asbestos containing consumer and industrial products will continue to rise--unless we prohibit these products from crossing our borders in the first place. Although we do not have accurate numbers for the extent to which asbestos products are flowing across our borders, we do know that asbestos is being heavily marketed to developing countries. According to an August 2, 1999 USA Today article, ``As asbestos demand has plummeted in the industrialized world the past 25 years, it has soared in many developing nations and formerly communist countries. Its use in these countries is largely unregulated, haphazard and deadly.'' A more recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares the asbestos industry to the tobacco industry. The February 20, 2001 article by Doctors Joseph LaDou, Philip Landrigan, John C. Bailar III, Vito Foa and Arthur Frank reads: ``The commercial tactics of the asbestos industry are very similar to those of the tobacco industry. In the absence of international sanctions, losses resulting from reduced cigarette consumption in the developed countries are offset by heavy selling to developing nations. In a similar fashion, the developed world has responded to the asbestos health catastrophe with a progressive ban on the use of asbestos. In response, the asbestos industry is progressively transferring its commercial activities and the health hazards to the developing countries.'' Banning asbestos in the United States sends an important message to the rest of the world. The asbestos industry will no longer be able to justify its marketing to developing countries by pointing out that asbestos is still legal in the U.S., and therefore, it must be safe. More than 30 countries have already banned asbestos, and it is time for this country to follow suit. It is our moral responsibility as the world's strongest economy, the most powerful Nation and a leader in environmental protection and public health to ban this harmful substance. That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act. The legislation has five main parts. First, this bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 14 years ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The legislation requires EPA to ban it within two years of passage of the Act. As under the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material available. Second, the bill requires EPA to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos policy and to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct an asbestos study. In response to the 2001 EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, the EPA promised to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and non-regulated fibers. But instead of convening a high level panel, EPA hired a non-profit organization, the Global Environment and Technology Foundation, to develop an asbestos policies focus group. Just yesterday EPA released GETF's Asbestos Strategies Report. I am very pleased that the Report recommends several aspects of the Ban Asbestos in America Act, including that Congress pass legislation to ban asbestos. While the recommendations are certainly helpful in providing guidance to EPA, Congress and other federal agencies on the next steps to address asbestos, the GETF report does not replace a full fledged Blue Ribbon Panel. The Ban Asbestos in America Act codifies creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel as EPA first committed to in 2001. The panel will include participation from the Department of Labor and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It will review the current laws and rules in place to protect workers and consumers, and make recommendations for improving protections within 2 years of passage of the Act. In addition, the bill calls for EPA to have the NAS conduct a study on the current state of the science relating to the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other durable fibers. The NAS study shall also include recommendations for a uniform system of asbestos exposure standards and for a uniform system to create protocols to detect and measure asbestos. As I mentioned previously, asbestos is regulated under multiple statutes. There are different standards within EPA and across Federal agencies, and agencies rely on different protocols to identify the substance. The NAS shall be required to submit the study to EPA, other federal agencies and Congress within 18 months of passage of the Act. Third, the legislation requires a survey to determine which products contain asbestos, either on purpose or as a contaminant. EPA will be required to conduct this review with input from the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the International Trade Commission. The bill directs the EPA to conduct a survey on the status of asbestos-containing products, such as roofing materials, brake pads and gaskets, which contain asbestos on purpose. EPA must also study contaminant-asbestos products, such as some insulation and horticultural products, which contain asbestos as a contaminant of another substance. The study will examine how people use these products and the extent to which people are exposed to harmful levels of asbestos. The study must be finalized within 18 months to inform the Blue Ribbon Panel and the education campaign. Fourth, based on the results of the study, EPA shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos products, including those in homes and workplaces. The agency shall give priority to those products posing the greatest risk, as determined by the study required by the bill. The education campaign must be conducted within 2 years of passage of the bill. EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall still be required to conduct a national education campaign about vermiculite insulation within 6 months of passage of the Act. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may contain asbestos-contaminated insulation made with vermiculite from Libby. This requirement is still in the bill despite EPA's recent announcement of an education campaign about vermiculite attic insulation. This will ensure EPA's long-term commitment to educating the public. Finally, the Ban Asbestos in America Act increases the federal commitment to finding new treatments for the terrible diseases caused by asbestos. At least 2,000 people per year die from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal organs caused by exposure to asbestos. The legislation would direct the head of NIH to ``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.'' The Centers for Disease Control would be required to create a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease, which in many cases goes undiagnosed and thus unrecorded. In addition, the bill creates 10 mesothelioma treatment centers around the country to improve treatments for and awareness of this fatal cancer. Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. In the meantime, we should do all we can to ensure that the rules in place to protect workers, consumers and schoolchildren from asbestos are followed and are strengthened if necessary. We also need to make sure that Federal agencies are given adequate resources to fully implement Congress' many mandates. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to do what should have been done decades ago: fully ban asbestos in the United States. I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 to prohibit this known carcinogen from being used to manufacture products in this country. The bill also bans imports of asbestos products from other countries where asbestos is still legal. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Dayton, Jeffords and Leahy are original cosponsors of this important legislation. The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to ban the substance within two years. Most people think that asbestos has already been banned. In fact, in 1989 EPA finalized regulations to phase out and ban the substance by 1997. But in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's ban, arguing that EPA did not ``first evaluate and then reject the less burdensome alternatives'' under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately, the first Bush Administration did not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing ones were not. As a result, it is still legal in 2003 to construct buildings in the United States with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and clutch facings. Asbestos is still not banned, and as a result, we're still using it. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2001, businesses in this country consumed 26 million pounds of chrysotile asbestos to make roofing products, gaskets, friction materials and other products. Last month, my staff walked into a local home improvement store and bought off the shelf roofing sealants made with asbestos. In addition, we are still importing asbestos products from other countries, many of which have less stringent environmental and public health standards. Everyone knows that asbestos is harmful. The term asbestos, like arsenic, lead, mercury or DDT, is synonymous with poison. Asbestos may well be the most regulated toxic substance that federal and state agencies have ever dealt with. At least eleven different Federal statutes address asbestos. The EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Mine Safety and Health Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission are only some of the Federal agencies tasked with implementing rules to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of this substance. But the sheer volume of rules and regulations in place does not guarantee that public health and the environment are being adequately protected. We have significant evidence suggesting that because asbestos is still not banned, we're still not safe from its dangers. I'd like to highlight some of this evidence for my colleagues. First, workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, ``An estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposure on the job. Heaviest exposures occur in the construction industry, particularly during the removal of asbestos during renovation or demolition. Employees are also likely to be exposed during the manufacture of asbestos products, such as textiles, friction products, insulation, and other building materials, and during automotive brake and clutch repair work.'' It is important to remember that there is no known safe threshold level of asbestos exposure. OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter is based on technical measurement limitations. OSHA's limit assumes that workers exposed to this concentration have a lifetime exposure risk of 3 to 5 in 1,000 for cancer and 2 in 1,000 for asbestosis. This is a very high risk compared to the cancer risk levels that are considered acceptable for some environmental cleanups. The extent to which workers are exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos is especially troublesome when one considers the frequency with which OSHA's standards are violated. On July 31, 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. At the hearing I learned from OSHA that since 1995, the agency had cited employers for violations of its asbestos standards 15,691 times. This is astounding given the known dangers of asbestos and the high risks of disease even when OSHA's exposure limit is being met. As follow-up to the hearing, I asked OSHA to provide more information about asbestos-related violations. In an October 17, 2001 letter to me, Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote that between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2001, OSHA conducted a total of 190,971 inspections generating a total of 427,786 violations. Of these, 3,000 inspections and 15,691 violations involved asbestos. According to Mr. Henshaw, about 2 percent of inspections and 4 percent of violations were asbestos-related. In his letter to me, Mr. Henshaw wrote, ``OSHA does not consider any level to be an acceptable noncompliance level. We strive for 100 percent compliance.'' Despite OSHA's best intentions, workers are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. It is also important to consider that the vast majority of workplaces where asbestos exposure occurs, such as construction jobs and auto repair shops, are not regularly inspected by OSHA. The Administration conducts inspections only in response to complaints or as a result of referrals from law enforcement or the media. Many more violations of the standard occur in the real world than are actually recorded by regulators. Many employees likely do not contact OSHA about potential asbestos exposure on the job because they think asbestos has been banned long ago and is no longer a problem. But asbestos in the workplace is clearly still a problem. Recent news investigations provide more evidence that workers are being exposed to dangerous levels of this mineral. According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on November 16, 2000, ``During the past three months, the P-I collected samples of dust from floors, work areas and tool bins in 31 brake-repair garages in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Richmond, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Asbestos, almost exclusively chrysotile, which has been used for decades in brakes, was detected in 21 of the locations. The amount of asbestos in the dust ranged from 2.26 percent to 63.8 percent.'' When dust with these concentrations of asbestos in them is disturbed, airborne concentrations of asbestos occur that are well above OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter. Under current OSHA regulations, if airborne asbestos concentrations exceed this level, employers must conduct air monitoring, take measures to reduce asbestos emissions, post warning signs and record concentrations of airborne asbestos. Workers are supposed to wear respirators and protective clothing and are required to undergo long term medical monitoring. Now I recognize that much of the exposure to asbestos in the workplace comes from asbestos products installed years, and in many cases, decades ago. By one estimate, about 30 million tons of asbestos was used in this country between 1900 and 1980. Asbestos in place, in our buildings, schools and homes, will be with us for decades to come. But given the known dangers of this mineral, why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose when there are perfectly acceptable substitutes? In retrospect, it is tragic that asbestos was so widely used during the 20th century, for the economic and public health impacts have been disastrous. One very important step in overcoming the problems caused by asbestos is to stop adding to the problem--however incrementally--by continuing to use this dangerous mineral in products on purpose. I'd like to point out some additional evidence supporting the need to ban asbestos in the United States and to raise awareness about this issue. Most of my colleagues are familiar with the tragedy in Libby, MT, where hundreds of workers and their families suffer from asbestos- related diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite. For decades, the W.R. Grace mine in Libby supplied about 80 percent of the vermiculite used in this country. W.R. Grace very successfully marketed its product, without any warning labels, even though the company was well aware its product was contaminated with this known carcinogen. Asbestos-contaminated ore was shipped to more than 300 sites around the country for processing and use in industrial and consumer products. According to the EPA, 14 of these sites are so contaminated with asbestos that they still need to be cleaned up, even though the Libby mine closed in 1990. While this is a problem that came from a small mining town in Montana, the ramifications and consequences are clearly national in scope. In addition, vermiculite from Libby is still around and is still a threat to public health. It is estimated that tens of millions of homes, schools and businesses contain insulation made with Libby vermiculite, known as Zonolite. A recent study conducted for EPA, entitled Asbestos Exposure Assessment for Vermiculite Attic Insulation, found that Zonolite in homes today contains up to 2 percent asbestos. This study included tests on Zonolite insulation from Seattle Public Utilities and from a home in Washington State. It found that when this insulation was disturbed, airborne concentrations of 3.3 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeters were measured. In other words, handling Zonolite asbestos can cause levels of asbestos in the air that significantly exceed OSHA's exposure limit for workers. Even more troubling, perhaps, the study found ``vermiculite that tests non-detect for asbestos by bulk analysis can still generate airborne asbestos concentrations when disturbed.'' When vermiculite without significant amounts of asbestos in bulk was disturbed, concentrations of asbestos in the air up to 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeters were detected. This means that even vermiculite with only trace amounts of asbestos in bulk can generate unhealthy concentrations of asbestos in the air. Yesterday EPA launched a national consumer education campaign warning people not to disturb Zonolite attic insulation if they have it in their homes. The agency also warned people not to let their children play in attics with vermiculite for fear of asbestos exposure. EPA has developed a consumer education brochure and has created an asbestos hotline for people to call for more information. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have joined EPA in this education effort by creating materials to educate consumers and workers about the dangers of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite. While we need to ensure that we are no longer adding asbestos to our products on purpose, we also need to ensure that asbestos in harmful concentrations isn't ending up in our consumer products by accident. I am glad EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. This is an important first step in dealing with just one aspect of the legacy created by W.R. Grace in Libby. There is another important reason to ban asbestos that I would like to share with my colleagues. As I mentioned previously, the United States is still importing products that contain asbestos. Unfortunately, we do not have precise statistics on which products coming into this country contain the deadly mineral. The Department of Commerce's import database does not distinguish between asbestos- containing products and products containing asbestos substitutes. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, in 2002 this country imported more than 44,000 tons of asbestos-cement products, some of which may have contained cellulose instead of asbestos. With increased globalization and international trade, U.S. imports of asbestos containing consumer and industrial products will continue to rise--unless we prohibit these products from crossing our borders in the first place. Although we do not have accurate numbers for the extent to which asbestos products are flowing across our borders, we do know that asbestos is being heavily marketed to developing countries. According to an August 2, 1999 USA Today article, ``As asbestos demand has plummeted in the industrialized world the past 25 years, it has soared in many developing nations and formerly communist countries. Its use in these countries is largely unregulated, haphazard and deadly.'' A more recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares the asbestos industry to the tobacco industry. The February 20, 2001 article by Doctors Joseph LaDou, Philip Landrigan, John C. Bailar III, Vito Foa and Arthur Frank reads: ``The commercial tactics of the asbestos industry are very similar to those of the tobacco industry. In the absence of international sanctions, losses resulting from reduced cigarette consumption in the developed countries are offset by heavy selling to developing nations. In a similar fashion, the developed world has responded to the asbestos health catastrophe with a progressive ban on the use of asbestos. In response, the asbestos industry is progressively transferring its commercial activities and the health hazards to the developing countries.'' Banning asbestos in the United States sends an important message to the rest of the world. The asbestos industry will no longer be able to justify its marketing to developing countries by pointing out that asbestos is still legal in the U.S., and therefore, it must be safe. More than 30 countries have already banned asbestos, and it is time for this country to follow suit. It is our moral responsibility as the world's strongest economy, the most powerful Nation and a leader in environmental protection and public health to ban this harmful substance. That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act. The legislation has five main parts. First, this bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 14 years ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The legislation requires EPA to ban it within two years of passage of the Act. As under the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material available. Second, the bill requires EPA to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos policy and to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct an asbestos study. In response to the 2001 EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, the EPA promised to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and non-regulated fibers. But instead of convening a high level panel, EPA hired a non-profit organization, the Global Environment and Technology Foundation, to develop an asbestos policies focus group. Just yesterday EPA released GETF's Asbestos Strategies Report. I am very pleased that the Report recommends several aspects of the Ban Asbestos in America Act, including that Congress pass legislation to ban asbestos. While the recommendations are certainly helpful in providing guidance to EPA, Congress and other federal agencies on the next steps to address asbestos, the GETF report does not replace a full fledged Blue Ribbon Panel. The Ban Asbestos in America Act codifies creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel as EPA first committed to in 2001. The panel will include participation from the Department of Labor and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It will review the current laws and rules in place to protect workers and consumers, and make recommendations for improving protections within 2 years of passage of the Act. In addition, the bill calls for EPA to have the NAS conduct a study on the current state of the science relating to the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other durable fibers. The NAS study shall also include recommendations for a uniform system of asbestos exposure standards and for a uniform system to create protocols to detect and measure asbestos. As I mentioned previously, asbestos is regulated under multiple statutes. There are different standards within EPA and across Federal agencies, and agencies rely on different protocols to identify the substance. The NAS shall be required to submit the study to EPA, other federal agencies and Congress within 18 months of passage of the Act. Third, the legislation requires a survey to determine which products contain asbestos, either on purpose or as a contaminant. EPA will be required to conduct this review with input from the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the International Trade Commission. The bill directs the EPA to conduct a survey on the status of asbestos-containing products, such as roofing materials, brake pads and gaskets, which contain asbestos on purpose. EPA must also study contaminant-asbestos products, such as some insulation and horticultural products, which contain asbestos as a contaminant of another substance. The study will examine how people use these products and the extent to which people are exposed to harmful levels of asbestos. The study must be finalized within 18 months to inform the Blue Ribbon Panel and the education campaign. Fourth, based on the results of the study, EPA shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos products, including those in homes and workplaces. The agency shall give priority to those products posing the greatest risk, as determined by the study required by the bill. The education campaign must be conducted within 2 years of passage of the bill. EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall still be required to conduct a national education campaign about vermiculite insulation within 6 months of passage of the Act. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may contain asbestos-contaminated insulation made with vermiculite from Libby. This requirement is still in the bill despite EPA's recent announcement of an education campaign about vermiculite attic insulation. This will ensure EPA's long-term commitment to educating the public. Finally, the Ban Asbestos in America Act increases the federal commitment to finding new treatments for the terrible diseases caused by asbestos. At least 2,000 people per year die from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal organs caused by exposure to asbestos. The legislation would direct the head of NIH to ``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.'' The Centers for Disease Control would be required to create a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease, which in many cases goes undiagnosed and thus unrecorded. In addition, the bill creates 10 mesothelioma treatment centers around the country to improve treatments for and awareness of this fatal cancer. Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. In the meantime, we should do all we can to ensure that the rules in place to protect workers, consumers and schoolchildren from asbestos are followed and are strengthened if necessary. We also need to make sure that Federal agencies are given adequate resources to fully implement Congress' many mandates. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I have come to the floor for 6 of the past 7 years to offer the Murray-Snowe amendment to lift the restrictions on privately funded abortions for our military women serving overseas. We have offered this amendment virtually every year since 1996 with the hope that one day women in the military would not be required to sacrifice their constitutional right when they serve overseas. Since 1996, this amendment has twice passed on the Senate floor only to be killed during conference. This amendment has always been relevant and germane, even in postcloture debate. The amendment simply ensures access to safe and legal reproductive health care for our military personnel. Access to safe and legal health care is certainly relevant when discussing the Department of Defense authorization bill. I find it extremely hard to understand how after these 7 years this topic is suddenly no longer relevant. It does not make sense. I think it is an outrage and an insult to the women who serve in our military. I would never want to have to tell a woman in our Armed Forces who is risking her life to serve our country overseas that her health care is irrelevant in the Senate. The intent of the Defense authorization bill is to ensure that our military has the resources and support it needs to protect all of us. The health of our female service members is certainly a key ingredient in a successful military. Today, women are serving side by side in combat situations and in hostile war zones. Women are a critical part of our military. They serve in leadership roles, and they provide outstanding service. Their health care is relevant. I don't know how many of my colleagues could come to the floor and argue any differently. I thank the cosponsors of the amendment, including Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, and Corzine. My amendment would eliminate the restrictions on privately funded abortions only. It doesn't change conscience clauses for military personnel. It doesn't require direct funding, and it would not result in a huge new mission for military health care. Under current restrictions, women who volunteer to serve their country--and female military dependents--are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right simply because they are serving overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as free citizens. Yet they are denied one of the most basic rights accorded all women in this country. Women depend on their base hospital and military care providers to meet all of their health care needs. Singling out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health. The truth is, women serving overseas have very few options when facing a difficult pregnancy. They can seek care in a host country, but few countries have the standard of health care that we take for granted here at home. These women service members can seek leave--not medical leave--and be transported back to the United States. These are difficult options which put women's lives in jeopardy. That is why retired GEN Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman three-star general, supported my amendment. She has firsthand knowledge of women who face this difficult experience, and she wrote to me about one of those women. She told me: [T]hat in a very vulnerable time, this American who was serving her country overseas could not count on the Army to give her the care she needed. The impact of this unconstitutional restriction on women's health is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. In the past, some have argued that allowing privately funded abortions in military facilities overseas would be a huge burden that the military couldn't meet. I wish to point out that the previous administration endorsed my amendment and saw no problems implementing this policy. I also add that under current law the military is required to provide abortion-related services when a woman's life is in jeopardy in the case of rape or incest. To say that the military cannot provide this service calls into question that ability to meet current law. In the past, we have had concerns raised about objections from host countries. Abortion is illegal in many countries, as is family planning for unmarried women. In some countries, simply allowing them to drive can violate local customs and laws. I think the military has a long tradition of respecting the laws and customs of host countries without delegating women to second-class citizenship status or sacrificing our own proud history of equal treatment under law. Current restrictions humiliate servicewomen by forcing them to seek the approval of their commanding officer in order to travel back to the United States for abortion services. We know from a previous GAO report issued in May of 2002 that many commanding officers ``have not been adequately trained about the importance of women's basic health care.'' Department of Defense officials say that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be reluctant to allow active-duty members, both women and men, time away from their duty stations to obtain health care services. Many women are forced to seek care off the base or wait until leave can be arranged without approval from a commanding officer. Many women are forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until they can travel to a location where safe and adequate care is available. I have to tell you, I do not see why lifting this offensive and dangerous restriction now--this year--is not relevant to a Department of Defense authorization bill. Isn't it our goal to provide the resources and support for our military personnel? How can the health and safety of women who serve in the military all of a sudden be called not relevant? I have been told that if I offer this amendment, the Chair is going to rule it out of in order on the claim it is not relevant, so I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment. I do not know how we explain to military servicewomen that their health care is not relevant or that supporting their access to safe and legal reproductive health care is somehow now not part of the Defense authorization bill. This is a sad day for our country when women who are serving their country overseas are told their health care is not relevant by the Senate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I find that very troubling. I find it troubling the Senate has now decided to change the definition of relevancy we have operated under in the Senate as long as I have been here. It appears very clear to me now that the issue of relevancy is a much higher standard than the issue of germaneness. We have stepped into a realm most of us are going to be very sorry we are in. I again will say to my colleagues that having objected to waiving this relevancy, having listened to how we have now changed the definition of relevancy, what we are really doing is saying to women in this country they are irrelevant. I find that to be very sad, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY. Seven years.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from Virginia, what I am having trouble understanding is why an amendment that has been considered germane in the past tonight under the ruling is not considered relevant. I would ask the Senator from Virginia if he is not also troubled that we have now set a definition for relevancy that is higher than the standard for germaneness that may indeed trouble us far into the future?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just respond to the Senator, this amendment I am offering tonight in the past has been ruled in postcloture as germane. I am now tonight being told it is not relevant.