Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator asks me a question, I will be happy to respond.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I answer that I think most Americans do not know the reality of the language of the bill that is being presented to them, and I will make that case.

Mrs. MURRAY. That does not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, I would argue with my colleague, and I am happy to have that debate. Senator Reid from Nevada has been adamant about that issue, and I think it is totally separate from what we are discussing this evening.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield myself 9 minutes. Mr. President, I am dismayed and outraged that as we stand on the brink of war, as a quarter million of our finest soldiers gather in the Persian Gulf, the Senate is here this week discussing how to criminalize women's health choices. That is outrageous. I cannot believe the Senate leadership can find no more pressing national issue for the Senate to consider right now than abortion. I cannot believe my colleagues are so out of touch with what is going on in America and the world that we should be debating this bill, S. 3. For anyone who hasn't had time to read a newspaper or talk to a constituent in the last week, I will read you some of the headlines. It will help demonstrate what else we are not doing right now. This is from Friday's New York Times. Headline: ``U.S. Payrolls Fall Sharply as Jobless Rate Rises to 5.8 Percent.'' Employers shed more jobs last month at any time since the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Labor Department reported today. Saturday's Washington Post is even more alarming. . . . [T]he report showed significant declines in a wide range of industries, including manufacturing, construction, retail trade, transportation, and some service. How about this revelation: ``Chronic Budget Deficits Forecast,'' says the Washington Post. The Federal Government . . . faces chronic deficits that only dramatic policy shifts can reverse. . . . Altogether, the CBO concluded, the President's policies would leave the Government with $2.7 trillion in debt through 2013, which the Government would not realize if Bush's proposals were rejected. The Associated Press reported on Thursday that the Dow Jones fell to a 5-month low. If it drops 400 more points, it will hit a 5-year low. On Wednesday, we learned that ``75 million Americans had no health insurance in 2001-02.'' Today, the New York Times reported, ``More Students Line Up at Financial Aid Offices.'' As the economic slump wears on, universities are awash in financial aid requests that dwarf those of earlier years, often from students who never thought of asking for help before and now find themselves scrambling for ways to stay in school. On Saturday, the AP reported: The Air Force Chief of Staff vowed to make the Air Force Academy safer for female cadets. The Air Force says it has investigated 54 reports of sexual assault since the academy began admitting women in 1976. Many of the alleged victims have said they were afraid to report the attacks because they feared they would be reprimanded. Mr. President, this is a terrible situation. I commend Senators Allard and Warner for their leadership in working to address that problem. Unfortunately, the news overseas is no better than the news at home. The New York Times reported: ``North Korean Fliers Said To Have Sought Hostages.'' The North Korean fighter jets that intercepted an unarmed American sky plane over the Sea of Japan last weekend were trying to force the aircraft to land in North Korea and seize its crew, a senior defense official said today. Today's Washington Post reports that ``Iran's Nuclear Program Speeds Ahead; Making ``Startling' Progress.'' U.S. officials . . . described Iran's progress last week as ``startling'' and ``eye-opening,'' so much so that intelligence agencies are being forced to dramatically shorten estimates for when Iran may acquire nuclear weapons. But equally striking is the extent to which Iran's breakthrough caught the United States and others by surprise. Mr. President, these are the issues that I hear about when I am home in my State at the grocery store on Saturday morning. My constituents are terribly concerned about the economy, their jobs, their health care--or their lack of a job or health care. They ask about the war in Iraq and the threat posed by North Korea. My constituents have a vested interest in resolving the North Korean crisis, as do the Senators from California, since they have read news reports that the Western United States is potentially within range of a North Korean missile. We are living in very trying times. It is challenges like these that test the strength of a nation and its leaders. But for the good of the country, shouldn't we now, more than ever, put aside the wedge politics and get on with the real business of the American people? That is what they elected us to do. That is why each one of us is here today. Instead, we find ourselves on the eve of war facing a stagnant economy and the Senate is here debating a woman's right to choose. Someone just tuning into C-SPAN right now might think this debate is taking place on another planet because it is dangerously out of sync with the real threats that are facing our Nation. It shows that nothing--not war, not the stagnant economy--will stop hardliners in Congress from trying to appease their political base by pushing an unconstitutional, deceptive, extreme agenda on American women. But do you know what? If the Senate leadership wants to debate abortion on the eve of war, fine, bring it on, because it is time the American people see that they are using deceptive examples and misleading information to impose extreme, unconstitutional restrictions on a woman's health decision. Throughout this debate, I want to show that the Republican proposal is based on misinformation and is skewed to undermine a woman's legal, constitutionally protected rights. I am going to go a step further and offer an amendment that would actually reduce the number of abortions in America and ensure that low- income, pregnant women have access to health care that will reduce complications in their pregnancies and ensure healthy outcomes. Like any debate on a sensitive issue, the debate on this measure is complicated. But it really comes down to one simple question: Who decides what is right for a woman's health? The woman and her doctor, or Senators she has never met? Who decides whether or not a woman will ever be able to have children? The woman herself, or a Senator who knows nothing about her? When you ask Americans who they believe should be making health care decisions, the answer is overwhelmingly clear: The patient should decide. We all bristle at the idea that an insurance company or an HMO would stand in the way of a doctor or patient making a decision about a medical test. Yet on this, the most sensitive and private and difficult decision a woman may ever face, the Senate is about to insert itself between a patient, her doctor, her family, and her faith. This measure would gag a doctor who is about to offer a woman a choice in a potentially life-threatening or health-impairing decision. It would substitute a woman's own judgment about her life and her family for the judgment of the Senate leadership. With all due respect, the Senate leadership does not know what is best for that woman, and neither do I, nor any other elected official. The Government should not be making a woman's health decisions for her. She should make them for herself, in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her faith. Mr. President, I will have much more to say about this and the amendment I intend to offer, but again, I have to say that I find it so amazing this Senate would be so out of sync with the fear and the anxiety in this country not because of some late-term abortion bill that is brought out for political reasons, but because our country is on the edge of a war that could change things for a long time to come. We are on the edge of a war where we have thousands of young people standing ready to do what this President asks. We are on the edge of a war where no one knows what the consequences will be, and at the same time, at home, we are facing an economy that is truly becoming one in which many people fear for their job, their health care, their ability to send their kids to school, and the future of this country. Those are the issues we should be debating tonight, Mr. President, not this issue. But we are here. We will debate it, and we will make the case that it is deceptive, it is extreme, and it is unconstitutional. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I retain the remainder of our time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will make the case that this is deceptive, it is extreme, it is unconstitutional, and I will make that case over the following days.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in February my State lost one of its great citizens and the father of the Washington State wine industry, Walter Clore. My colleagues in the Senate may not know a fact that many wine drinkers around the globe have learned the last few years: Washington state produces some of the highest quality wine in the world. In 2001, Wine Enthusiast Magazine named Washington state as ``Wine Region of the Year'' in recognition of its fast emergence as a global leader in producing quality wines. I am very pleased that Walter Clore lived to see this honor--and so many other honors--bestowed on Washington wine. These honors reflect just how far the Washington wine industry has come. They are also an outstanding tribute to the legacy of Walter Clore and his vision, hard work, and dedication. I had the great privilege to meet Walter Clore in August 2002. That month, I spent two days traveling through Washington wine country--from Yakima to Prosser to the Tri-Cities to Walla Walla. I toured wineries and vineyards and visited with wine grape growers, vintners, and researchers. Walter Clore was himself a researcher. He spent 40 years at the Washington State University Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center in Prosser, Washington, an institution that has helped lead Washington agriculture forward in so many ways. During his career, Walter developed and tested wine grape varieties throughout Washington State. Walter Clore retired in 1976, but he was not content to relax and watch from the sidelines. Using his 40 years of experience and knowledge, he connected emerging vintners with promising varieties and pointed them to ideal sites for growing wine grapes. I am deeply saddened by the loss of Walter Clore. But I take solace in the fact that he pursued his passion with unrelenting determination and transformed his vision of a vibrant Washington wine industry into a reality. We need more pioneers like Walter Clore. Today, Washington state's $2.4 billion wine industry is the Nation's second largest producer of premium wines. The industry boasts more than 200 wineries and 300 wine grape growers. More important to consumers than the size of the industry, my State continues to earn respect for its quality, affordable wines. I believe the best way to pay tribute to Walter Clore is to continue his legacy. As a U.S. Senator, that means funding research through USDA and institutions like Washington State University to keep the industry healthy and on the cutting edge. It means investing in trade promotion initiatives like the Market Access Program so that Washington wine can earn the markets and worldwide recognition it deserves. And it means creating opportunities for Washington wine country to become a destination spot for wine lovers who live in the Pacific Northwest and around the Nation. As Washingtonians, we are so proud to call Walter Clore our own. On behalf of the Washington wine industry, I want to express my condolences to Walter's family. I also want to let them know that we will continue to build on his great legacy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from Wine Press Northwest about Walter Clore be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Throughout my service in the Senate, we have struggled with judicial nominations. I know we can make the process work. In Washington State, I worked with a Republican Senator and a Democratic President to nominate and confirm Federal judges, and today, with a Republican President I am working with my Democratic colleague from Washington State on a bipartisan process to recommend judicial candidates. I have also seen the process work in the Senate. My Democratic Senate colleagues agreed to confirm 100 Federal judges during the period of the 107th Congress when Democrats were in the majority. That is a great accomplishment for a Democratic Senate and a Republican President. There were also periods during the Clinton administration where the Republican Senate confirmed significant numbers of judges appointed by a Democratic President. It is important to put this standoff in the proper context. We are considering a nominee to the DC Circuit Court which is widely acknowledged as the second highest court in our country. This court has jurisdiction over a broad array of critical issues involving workers rights, civil liberties, disabilities, and environmental regulations. Judges at the DC Circuit Court are often given serious consideration for service on the United States Supreme Court. This is a lifetime appointment. Neither the President nor the Senate can revisit this nomination once it has been confirmed. All of these factors--the importance of the DC Circuit, the potential of consideration for the Supreme Court, and the lifetime appointment-- signal Members to proceed with caution. We are not considering a nomination to a commission or an ambassadorship or some other Senate- confirmable position. This is different. 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. I respect President Bush's role in nominating Miguel Estrada. I respect the majority's right, working with the President, from the same party, to promptly move judicial appointments. I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to respect the Senate's constitutional advice and consent responsibilities. 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 the American people for generations to come. That is a tremendous responsibility. I know all Senators take it very seriously. Let me say a few words about the nominee now before the Senate. Miguel Estrada, by all accounts, is an accomplished lawyer with a compelling personal history. But I owe it to my constituents to make an informed judgment on his nomination. At this time I am simply not prepared to move forward with a vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada because there is too little information for me to make an informed decision. I encourage the majority leader to take this nomination off the floor at this time. We expect Federal judges to provide the proper check in our system of checks and balances outlined in the Constitution. Without it, our system does not function properly. We must ensure each nominee has sufficient experience to sit in judgment of our fellow citizens, will be fair to all those who come before their court, will be evenhanded in administering justice, and will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. To determine if a nominee meets those standards, we need to explore their record, ask questions, and weigh their responses. Miguel Estrada and the administration have failed to address these basic issues. And without addressing these basic issues, I cannot assess the nominee's qualifications. From my perspective, the Senate has been asked to confirm a candidate about whom we know very little. I cannot at this time vote to confirm Miguel Estrada for lifetime service on the DC Circuit Court. As several of my colleagues have done, I need only to invoke the words of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to describe my hesitancy to move forward with the Estrada nomination. Speaking of President Clinton's judicial nominees and the Senate, Senator Hatch said the Senate will have ``to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views.'' Mr. Estrada and the administration have failed to meet the same standard set out by Senator Hatch. Mr. Estrada has failed to provide through his writing, his experience, or through answers to questions at the Judiciary Committee, any meaningful insight into his likely decisionmaking process as a Federal judge. He has very limited scholarly or judicial experience. He did work in the Solicitor General's Office at the Department of Justice during the 1990s. But, unfortunately, the administration has refused to provide the Senate with or characterize any opinions he wrote or had while at DOJ. Despite repeated requests from Senators, the nominee and the administration have refused to provide information that can help all Senators determine whether Miguel Estrada is deserving of confirmation to a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. Allowing Senators to access the memoranda he wrote while at the Solicitor General's office is particularly important. Unlike most judicial nominees, he has nothing on paper to give us any indication as to how he would rule on the bench. In fact, Mr. Estrada has not had any published legal writings since he was in law school. Time and again, we are told by the administration that Miguel Estrada is a brilliant lawyer and more than qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court. Yet, all we have to base a decision on his nomination are the endorsements of others. I appreciate these endorsements, but each of us as Senators must reach our own conclusions based on the facts. I am greatly troubled by the silence we have heard from the nominee himself. The path to confirmation for a judicial nominee is indeed a difficult one. But in the case of Mr. Estrada, the nominee and the administration went beyond anything we are accustomed to and brought great difficulty upon themselves. At his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Estrada refused to give Senators straight answers to most of their questions. Many of our Judiciary Committee colleagues have discussed this nomination at great length here on the floor. I have listened to the statements from both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. The words of Senator Feinstein stands out as I look at this nomination. Let me share them again with the Senate. Senator Feinstein said: I have been reviewing background materials about Miguel Estrada, talking to those who have concerns about him, and I have re-read the transcript from Mr. Estrada's hearing. I must say that throughout this process, I have been struck by the truly unique lack of information we have about this nominee, and the lack of answers he has given to the many questions raised by Members of this Committee. He, essentially, is a blank slate. And, if confirmed, he could serve for 30, 40, or even 50 years on one of the highest courts in the Nation. We has better be right about this decision. Mr. President, I agree with that assessment. The Senate must be right about this decision. That is why so many on this side of the aisle have asked the majority leader to help us be right about the Miguel Estrada nomination. At a minimum, Mr. Estrada should be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for more questioning. In the Committee, he should be more forward in answering the questions of Senators. He should be more willing to release information regarding his opinions about important judicial matters. Mr. Estrada was asked to name any case in the history of the Supreme Court with which he disagreed. Surely, Mr. Estrada--who served as the editor of the Harvard Law Review--can cite a case that he disagrees with. At his original confirmation hearing, Mr. Estrada could not cite a single case before the Supreme Court he disagreed with. The Senate should give Mr. Estrada another opportunity to answer this question before the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Estrada was asked to name a Supreme Court judge that he admired. When he refused to answer this question, Mr. Estrada was asked to name any Federal judge that he admired. Again, Mr. Estrada refused. The Senate should give Mr. Estrada another opportunity to answer this question before the Judiciary Committee. Unless the Senate is able to learn more about Miguel Estrada, I am left to conclude that this nominee has no judge he would try to emulate, no judicial philosophy he follows, and no opinion on any important case that has ever come before the Supreme Court. Without so little information to determine how Mr. Estrada will rule as a Federal judge on important matters of labor rights, rights of privacy, civil rights and environmental regulation, I cannot consent to considering his nomination at this time. I strongly encourage the majority leader to withdraw this nomination and send it back to the Judiciary Committee. I encourage the President and the nominee to address the many issues raised by Senators. The ultimate fate of the Miguel Estrada nomination--was well as the Senate's ability to move forward with bipartisan support for judicial nominees--rests with the majority leader and the President of the United States.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate is now considering and will soon adopt the omnibus conference report on H.J. Res. 2. I will vote for the conference report. I know from my work on the Appropriations Committee that this bill represents a genuine effort by many in both bodies to finally finish the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill. I want to begin my remarks by thanking our leader on this side, Senator Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee when the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process began. He steered all 13 appropriations bills through the committee with bipartisan support from every member of the committee. Senator Byrd was instrumental in putting this conference report together. I know the Senator has many concerns about this bill. I share many of his concerns and particularly those regarding the many cuts to homeland security in this bill. The Senator has been a leading voice for homeland security funding and I look forward to working closely with him in the days ahead as this body works on this important issue. I also want to acknowledge and thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We are here tonight because of the determined leadership of Senator Ted Stevens. I know many of my colleagues did not want to see the Congress agree to fund the government with a continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year. This would have represented a huge failure on the part of the Congress, setting a dangerous precedent for the legislative branch's working relationship with the Executive Branch. Chairman Stevens is a tough but fair chairman. I appreciate the work he has put in to manage and successfully complete this very unusual process. I appreciate the inclusion of funding for many projects and programs that directly benefit the environment and natural resources in my beautiful home State. The bill includes funding for salmon recovery work from the Elwha River in northwest Washington to the Snake River in southeast Washington and nearly every community between. Funding is also provided to fight the Spartina infestation in Willapa Bay and to acquire important ecological lands around the State. However, while I am very grateful for my colleagues willingness to support my work to secure this funding, I must express my dismay over anti-environmental provisions included in the bill and its failure to adequately fund the conservation trust fund created 3 years ago. The conference considered many different provisions related to the Tongass National Forest which sought to strip away environmental considerations in the management of the forest. I appreciate the conference removing these provisions, but wish the one remaining provision could have also been deleted. Also of concern to me is a provision retained in the omnibus that significantly expands the Forest Service's stewardship contracting program. This had been a pilot project intended to see if the stewardship contracts were a constructive tool in addressing forest health issues. The problem with the provision in the bill is that it creates a permanent program before we have received any data from the pilot projects already authorized. There is simply no data yet in upon which to make the decision to provide unlimited expansion of the program. I want to make clear that I support the pilot program and believe stewardship contracting could be a valuable tool in addressing forest health issues, but in order for this to be a valuable tool, it must be one that has the trust of Congress and citizens. There is simply not enough data to have created that trust yet. There are many great accomplishments in this bill. I am particularly proud of the work we did in the transportation title. The Senate worked very hard to keep my amendment to fund the Community Action Program or CAP at $120 million for the fiscal year. I appreciate the Senate's hard work to stand for this small program that is making a difference all across the country. This bill provides increased funding for a number of education programs. Importantly, education programs like Head Start are exempted from any across the board cuts associated with this bill. As we conclude the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process, I hope we can move forward on the coming fiscal year with a renewed commitment to finish all 13 appropriations bills on time. We will need the help of our House colleagues and of course, the administration is an important contributor to the appropriations process too. We must avoid a repeat performance of fiscal year 2003.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, NIOSH recommended that workers: . . . should isolate the work area from other areas in order to avoid spreading fibers, use local exhaust ventilation to reduce dust exposures, and use appropriate respiratory protection. If the employer or worker is concerned about potential exposure, and if at all possible, the vermiculite should not be disturbed. But, astonishingly, this guidance was never released. How many of the construction workers, maintenance people, electricians, plumbers and homeowners across the country know they should ``avoid spreading fibers, use local exhaust ventilation or appropriate respiratory protection?'' I suspect that like Mr. Ralph Busch, thousands of people across the U.S. are not taking these important precautions because they are simply unaware of the danger. I would like to read to my colleagues another section from the never- released NIOSH Fact Sheet. This was in response to the question about how workers can know if the vermiculite they have is contaminated with asbestos. It says: As a rule, we believe that any vermiculite that originated in Libby, Montana, before 1990 should be regarded as potentially contaminated . . . It is known that vermiculite from Libby was sold as attic insulation under the product name Zonolite Attic Insulation and that this product is still in homes throughout the United States. But especially interesting is the next section, which is in parentheses as a comment by the author: W.R. Grace estimates several million homes contain ``vermiculite attic insulation,'' which is most likely very conservative. If we don't wish to provide any indication of the magnitude of the potential VAI (or vermiculite attic insulation) exposure in number of homes, we should be clear about the potential situation to provide a more accurate picture and warning. I must ask my colleagues, why wouldn't NIOSH or others in the Administration--when they are taking great pains to do the job right in Libby--want to share with workers and the public an indication of the magnitude of the number of homes with asbestos-tainted vermiculite? Isn't it our government's job to protect people from risks associated with hazardous substances such as asbestos? Don't we need to know the scope of the problem in order to help gauge the extent of the potential risks? Why aren't we warning workers and giving them the new guidance that has already been drafted by NIOSH? Interestingly enough, on April 10, 2002, the day before the date on this NIOSH Fact Sheet, EPA received a letter from W.R. Grace defending their harmful product. The letter read: Zonolite Attic Insulation (ZAI) has been insulating homes for over 60 years and there is no credible reason to believe that ZAI has ever caused an asbestos-related disease in anyone who has used it in his/her home. How then does Grace explain the fact that the company has settled at least 25 bodily injury claims caused by exposure to Zonolite? Make no mistake. W.R. Grace is a company with one of the worst public health and environmental records in America. I draw my colleague's attention to a 1998 article by Dr. David Egilman, Wes Wallace and Candace Hom published in the journal Accountability in Research entitled ``Corporate Corruption of Medical Literature: Asbestos Studies Concealed by W.R. Grace & Co.'' I will read briefly from the abstract of this article: In 1963, W.R. Grace acquired the mine (in Libby) and employee health problems at the mine became known to W.R. Grace executives and to Grace's insurance company, Maryland Casualty. In 1976, in response to tighter federal regulation of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, W.R. Grace funded an animal study of tremolite toxicity. They hoped to prove that tremolite did not cause mesothelioma, the cancer uniquely associated with asbestos exposure. However, the study showed that tremolite did cause mesothelioma. W.R. Grace never disclosed the results of this animal study, nor did they disclose their knowledge of lung disease in the Libby workers, either to the workers themselves or to regulatory agencies. These actions were intentional, and were motivated by Grace's conscious decision to prioritize corporate profit over human health. Given the facts that W.R. Grace has knowingly manufactured and sold an asbestos-tainted product, has suppressed research findings showing that tremolite asbestos causes cancer, and has denied that their product is potentially dangerous, the company is woefully lacking for credibility. Which brings us to our question: If EPA was planning to warn the American public about the dangers of Zonolite insulation, what stopped EPA from following through with its plan? Why aren't we warning homeowners nationwide about Zonolite insulation? Why aren't we warning workers and giving them new safety guidelines? The answers might lie, not with the EPA, but with the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB. An internal e-mail from John F. Wood, the Deputy General Counsel at OMB, to staff at EPA contained details about finalizing the Action Memo for Libby. Also copied on the e-mail were OMB Deputy Director Nancy Dorn and Associate Director of Natural Resources Programs Marcus Peacock. Here's what OMB's lawyer wrote to EPA. I ask unanimous consent that this e-mail be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, because of OMB's involvement, EPA never conducted the planned outreach to warn people about Zonolite. NIOSH's guidance to workers about how to protect themselves was never finalized. In response to these shocking reports, on January 3, 2003, I wrote to EPA Administrator Whitman and OMB Director Daniels to get some answers. Mr. Daniels has not yet responded to the allegations that his office blocked the announcement. Ms. Whitman wrote that she is responding on behalf of OMB. I can only ascribe this to OMB's desire to remain unaccountable and to hide the role it played in these decisions. Ms. Whitman's response was woefully inadequate. She failed to explain the nature or the substance of OMB's involvement. She also wrote that it is not possible to know how many homes contain vermiculite insulation even though HER OWN AGENCY has estimated it may be between 15 and 35 million homes, schools, and businesses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Administrator Whitman's letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my colleagues may be curious about why I am so interested in EPA's decisions regarding vermiculite from Libby. This issue is important to me because residents in my State are being exposed to asbestos from Zonolite. And, Mr. President, constituents in your state and every other State in America may also have this insulation. I am deeply concerned that most people with Zonolite in their homes are completely unaware of this problem. I am afraid most will not learn of it until they have already been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. And I am most concerned that this administration may be stifling EPA's efforts to warn homeowners, consumers, and workers because of pressure from W.R. Grace. And I must remind my colleagues: there is no safe known level of exposure to asbestos. Deadly diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma can develop decades after just brief exposures to high concentrations of asbestos. Ultimately, I believe Administrator Whitman wanted to do the right thing by warning homeowners nationwide to be careful if they have Zonolite in their homes when the agency began removing Zonolite from homes in Libby, MT. But she was stopped. The reasons may never be known--the excuse may be buried in ``executive privilege.'' So where do we go from here? First, I hope my colleagues will support efforts to get to the bottom of what stopped the EPA from warning the public. We have to increase pressure on EPA, NIOSH, and other public health agencies to raise public awareness about Zonolite. Second, I hope my colleagues will support legislation to ban asbestos in America and to warn people about the potential dangers posed by Zonolite insulation. I appreciate the support for this legislation I have received from Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, and our late colleague, Senator Wellstone, who were original cosponsors. I have been working to raise awareness about the current dangers of asbestos for over 2 years. In July of 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. In June of 2002, 2 days after introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act, I testified at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Libby held by Senator Baucus. My colleagues may wonder whatever happened to Ralph Busch and his wife Donna. After reading about Zonolite in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mr. Busch went to get the asbestos removed from his home. He learned it would cost $32,000 to do so. When he tried to secure compensation from his homeowners insurance to pay to clean up the contamination, his insurance company rejected the claim. He got nowhere with the company that had inspected the home before he purchased it. They hadn't known about Zonolite, either. When he talked to his realtor about trying to sell his house, Mr. Busch's realtor emphasized that Mr. Busch and his wife would be responsible under the law for disclosing the presence of Zonolite to any potential buyer. According to Mr. Busch, even his realtor--and I quote--``. . . expressed apprehension over entering the house saying he has young children and was fearful of asbestos exposure without a proper respirator . . . this about a house we were living in every day.'' In the end, having exhausted all of his options, Ralph Busch and his wife Donna sacrificed their home to foreclosure, having lost thousands of dollars and their good credit rating. They didn't feel that it was safe to live there anymore, or to bring other people into their home. Finally, they decided to move out of their ``dream house'' in Spokane. To this day, that home remains vacant. Apart from the tremendous economic loss, Mr. Busch and his wife are concerned for their health. They are left wondering what long-term negative health effects they may suffer as a result of their exposure to asbestos fibers from the insulation. Mr. Busch has told me, ``I feel like the poster-child for the unsuspecting homeowner who unknowingly set off a time bomb in the process of remodeling his home.'' To this day, Mr. Busch is haunted by words he read in the Spokesman- Review almost three years ago. The March 12, 2000, article, entitled, ``Zonolite's Effects Outlive Plant,'' said this about mesothelioma. [The disease] inflicts one of the most torturous deaths known to humankind. Some people require intravenous morphine to numb mesothelioma's pain. Some need part of their spinal cord severed. Some are driven to suicide. If there is a role for Government in people's lives, then it should include protecting the public health. We have an opportunity to protect the public's health so that Ralph Busch and thousands--perhaps millions--of other Americans won't have to be needlessly exposed to the time bomb sitting in their homes, schools, and businesses. And meanwhile, if you are planning to do work in your attic, look at your insulation carefully first to see if it is vermiculite. You can see pictures of what this insulation looks like by going to EPA's web site, which is www.epa.gov/asbestos/insulation.html. If you think you have Zonolite, immediately contact EPA to get additional advice about how to handle it. According to EPA's web site, if you think you have Zonolite insulation, leave it alone and not disturb it. And then contact your Representative in Congress and ask him or her to pass legislation to ban asbestos, something we all should have done decades ago. We can make a difference, but we must act today.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to share a story with my colleagues. It's a true story about a family who happened to live in a neighborhood in Spokane, WA. They could have easily been in Memphis or Minneapolis or Midland as well. But they lived in my State, in Spokane, a typical American city in Eastern Washington. Mr. President, as part of realizing their American dream, Ralph Busch and his wife Donna bought a house. They were newlyweds, and this was the home they bought after getting married. They soon discovered that it needed roof repairs, and so Ralph spent quite a bit of time in the attic, working on his roof. The following year they found they had to renovate an addition that was put on the house in the 1950s. They both had full-time jobs, so they spent many nights and weekends working on their home. They knocked down walls and tore through the old insulation, drywall and wood. They sanded and hammered and spent two entire years fixing up the place. One morning, Ralph was reading the newspaper. Just by chance, he came across a story about a company that manufactured a household insulation called Zonolite. This insulation, he read, was tainted with deadly asbestos. Ralph suddenly realized that Zonolite was in his home. Ralph Busch was stunned as it dawned on him. He had just spent two years in his own home handling Zonolite insulation and he and his wife may have unknowingly been exposed to deadly asbestos. What would happen from his and his wife's exposure? How come no one had told him he had asbestos in his attic? The Zonolite insulation was a product from the little town of Libby, MT. It was produced by the W.R. Grace Company. W.R. Grace mined vermiculite from the hillside near Libby. The company turned the ore into insulation known as Zonolite by heating vermiculite to expand it into light granules. The process was similar to popping popcorn. After sorting the popped vermiculite, W.R. Grace poured it into bags and sold it to use as insulation. The company marketed Zonolite as ``perfectly safe''. . . But laced throughout the vermiculite in the ground near Libby, another mineral was present: asbestos. W.R. Grace's process to make Zonolite and other products could not, and did not, remove all the asbestos from the end product. Zonolite insulation contains between .5 percent and 8 percent asbestos. The community of Libby has suffered immensely from decades of mining the deadly vermiculite ore used to make Zonolite insulation and other consumer products. At least 200 men and women from Libby have died from diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite, and hundreds more people from the town are sick. When inhaled, asbestos can cause deadly diseases, from asbestosis to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lung that is almost always fatal. In fact, mesothelioma kills at least 2,000 people each year and is caused only by asbestos. The diseases induced by exposure to asbestos result in horrible deaths and they are nearly always fatal. Treatment is harsh and debilitating. These diseases can take years to strike. The late Congressman Bruce Vento and the father of the modern Navy, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt both died from asbestos they had been exposed to years earlier. The asbestos-tainted insulation manufactured by the W.R. Grace Company was used in homes throughout the country for decades. Vermiculite from Libby first started being sold commercially in 1921, and W.R. Grace bought the mine in 1963. Reviews of invoices indicate that more than 6 million tons of Libby ore was shipped to hundreds of sites nationwide for processing over the decades. This chart behind me shows more than 300 sites across the Nation, where ore was processed, in many cases to make Zonolite insulation. In internal memos and e-mails, the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that as many as 35 million homes, schools and businesses may still contain this insulation. Moreover, W.R. Grace knew the Libby mine contained asbestos when the company purchased it in 1963. But Grace made millions of tons of Zonolite anyway and unabashedly marketed it as ``safe.'' If the manufacturer of this insulation knew it was contaminated with asbestos, why didn't it or the Federal Government make sure that Ralph Busch and millions of others across the country knew to leave it alone? The answer to the first question is that W.R. Grace still claims its product isn't harmful. The answer to the second question is more complicated. According to published reports and internal EPA documents, the EPA was preparing to tell the American people about the dangers of Zonolite insulation. But it didn't happen. An investigation by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Andrew Schneider found that last spring while it was addressing the public health crisis in Libby, MT, the EPA was preparing to tell the American people about the dangers of Zonolite insulation in millions of homes across this country. But first, EPA had to deal with Libby. EPA decided it needed to minimize the exposure of Libby residents to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite, and the agency drafted a press release announcing its decision. This document said that EPA: . . . will spend $34 million to remove dangerous asbestos- contaminated vermiculite insulation from 70 percent of residential and commercial buildings in Libby. I am glad that EPA has taken aggressive steps to protect people in that small Montana town. Senator Baucus deserves tremendous credit for the work he has done to bring Federal resources to Montana to help people in Libby. And EPA deserves credit for doing the right thing, and going in to remove the insulation from Libby. But what about the rest of the country? What about the millions of other homes with Zonolite insulation? Since EPA decided to help Libby, the agency anticipated the logical follow-up question of what about the millions of homes nationwide that contain the same Zonolite insulation as homes in Libby. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the EPA had drafted news releases, and drawn up lists of public officials to notify. The agency was preparing to embark on an outreach and education campaign to let people know about this hazard in their homes. But what stopped EPA from following through with its warning? It may have been the same person or people who blocked another government health agency from warning workers about asbestos exposure. Last April, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health--NIOSH--was preparing to release new guidance for workers who come into contact with insulation in the course of their daily work. NIOSH was preparing to alert workers, such as electricians, plumbers and maintenance workers, about how they can better protect themselves from exposure to asbestos in Zonolite insulation. These materials were prepared last April, but they still have not been released. Let me read from a ``Pre-Decisional Draft'' of a NIOSH Fact Sheet dated April 11, 2002. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record in its entirety.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it says: Thank you for your efforts to alleviate my concerns. Here are just a few edits, which are necessary to avoid the problems we discussed earlier. Please be sure to observe the deletion of the citation of Sect. 104 (a) (4). What is Section 104 (a) (4)? It is a clause in the Superfund law, which enables the EPA to declare a public health emergency. And why did OMB tell the EPA to ``delete the citation'' to Section 104 (a) (4)? We don't know for sure, but if EPA had issued the public health emergency for Libby under Superfund, then the agency would have had to answer questions about asbestos-tainted insulation from every other homeowner in the country. Here is what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation concluded: The Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But, at the last minute, the White House intervened, and the warning has never been issued. The Post-Dispatch got reaction from an EPA staffer about OMB's intervention: It was like a gut shot,'' said one of those senior staffers involved in the decision. ``It wasn't like they ordered us not to make the declaration, they just really, really strongly suggested against it. Really strongly. There was no choice left. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the St. Louis Post- Dispatch article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 25 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I join my colleagues in expressing our gratefulness to the seven heroes who were lost on the Space Shuttle Columbia Saturday as they completed a mission of science to benefit the world. I also share my thoughts and prayers with the families they've left behind. Over the past few days, we have seen an outpouring of support from people all over the world for these seven remarkable individuals, and the work they carried out so selflessly. From formal memorial services--like the one held in Houston today--to more spontaneous tributes throughout America, Israel, India and other nations, people around the world have shared their words of loss and appreciation. Frankly, there is little I can add to the chorus of eloquent voices we have heard over the past few days. But what I can do--and what I am honored to do on behalf of the people I represent--is to share with the Senate how two members of this amazing crew touched the lives of many in my home State of Washington. Columbia pilot William McCool was a Commander in the United States Navy. He served two tours at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Washington State. Commander McCool was an EA-6B pilot serving in both the Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 133 and the Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 132. His colleague, Columbia Payload Commander Michael Anderson, was a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force. Colonel Anderson had long ties to the Spokane area in Washington State. Both of these astronauts touched lives in Washington State. Both were accomplished pilots. Both were pillars in their communities. Both were strong family members. On Saturday afternoon, I called the Commander of the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Over the years, I have had an opportunity to work with the fine crews at NAS Whidbey Island. I have shared both good times and bad times with them. When I called on Saturday just a few hours after the disaster, I knew the air crews and the families would be struggling with Commander McCool's death. I spoke with Captain Steven Black. I had expected to hear stories of Willie McCool's service at NAS Whidbey earlier in his distinguished career. I heard that--and so much more--as Captain Black told me about this man who was so revered by his fellow Naval airmen at Whidbey. Willie was a role model to young flyers at Whidbey. They all followed his career and his many accomplishments in the Air Force and as an astronaut with NASA. Captain Black told me about his recent E-mails with Commander McCool. Just 2 days before, Commander McCool took the time to E-mail his friends and colleagues at Whidbey. Whidbey Island had an effect on Willie McCool. And Willie McCool had an impact on NAS Whidbey Island that lives on in the mission and the talents of the Naval personnel serving there. As Captain Black told a reporter, Willie flew the skies of Washington state. He was a talented pilot. He was very enthusiastic about his work. He had a contagious sense of awe and wonder at the science behind the flying he loved. And Commander McCool touched lives in communities beyond NAS Whidbey. One of those communities is Anacortes, WA, where he and his family lived and continue to own a home. Anacortes is north of Oak Harbor and NAS Whidbey. It is a small town that took immense pride in having Commander McCool as a neighbor, a parent, and a fellow outdoorsman. Commander McCool's appreciation for Anacortes and the local community was with him on the Columbia mission. He took with him a Douglas Fir Cone from the Little Cranberry Lake area. That cone represented the seeds of a future generation. Commander McCool's commitment and service to future generations is now represented on the sign outside of Fidalgo Elementary School. That sign says, ``Fidalgo salutes a legacy of a good friend, Commander William McCool.'' Let me now turn to another Columbia hero with ties to Washington State, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson. On Sunday morning, parishioners of the Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church in Spokane gathered to worship and pay tribute to him. Michael Anderson and his family are long time members of the congregation. Speaking of Lieutenant Colonel Anderson, Reverend Freeman Simmons offered words of comfort to friends of the Anderson family. Reverend Freedom said, He belonged to more than his family, more than his race, more than his different affiliations. He belonged to this age. Michael Anderson was born in New York State. He and his family came to Spokane, WA, during his father's Air Force service at Fairchild Air Force Base. He graduated from Cheney High School and came across the Cascades to attend the University of Washington. At UW, Anderson earned degrees in both physics and astronomy. He went on to a career in the Air Force as pilot and was selected to join NASA and the space program in 1994. Lieutenant Colonel Anderson was one of the veterans aboard Columbia. He previously spent 211 hours in space on the 89th shuttle mission in 1998 to the Russian space station MIR. On that mission, Anderson traveled 3.6 million miles in 138 orbits around the Earth aboard the shuttle Endeavor. Aboard the Columbia, Payload Commander Anderson was responsible for the incredible science being conducted during the mission. His mission was to manage 79 experiments on behalf of several space agencies and school children in many countries. Michael Anderson considered Spokane his hometown, and Spokane is proud of his service. Today, all across Spokane, the community has posted its respect and admiration for our lost astronauts. One sign on Division Street reads, ``NASA we mourn with you.'' Another reads, ``Remember our Astronauts.'' Lieutenant Colonel Anderson's many contributions to space and science will live as a lasting tribute to an accomplished and heroic American. Let me mention just one. Following Michael's successful 1998 shuttle mission, he returned to Washington State and the Spokane area. In May 1998, he want back to his alma mater, Cheney High School. He shared his experiences with students and he returned a school pennant which he had taken with him into space on that first mission. One of the teachers described his appearance at a school assembly saying: His message to the kids was so upbeat and so positive. ``It doesn't matter what your dream is. If you are willing to chart the course, if you are willing to do what it takes, you can achieve your dreams.'' When that assembly was over, no one wanted to leave. They all wanted to stay and talk to Mike. Both of these men left families. These men were spouses, fathers, community leaders, role models in service to our country. They will be missed by their families and a grateful nation. We will stand with the families as they grieve. We will be with them as the Nation seeks answers to the Columbia tragedy, and we will join them in honoring their loved ones as space exploration and discovery go forward. Willie McCool, Michael Anderson, and all of our Columbia astronauts gave so much of their lives in service and exploration. Our task now is to ensure their spirit continues to deliver the wonders of space that they explored on our behalf. I continue with the words from Willie McCool in an e-mail message to his colleagues at NAS Whidbey. Commander McCool spoke of seeing the Sun rise and set on the Earth from space and wrote: The colors are stunning. In a single view, I see--looking out at the edge of the earth: red at the horizon line, blending to orange and yellow, followed by a thin white line, then light blue, gradually turning to dark blue and various gradually darker shades of grey then black and a million stars above. It's breathtaking. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Cantwell in introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This important legislation will ensure that low income children in Washington State are not denied access to health insurance coverage. The legislation provides a fair and equitable distribution of unobligated State balances in the CHIP program. It ensures that States like Washington that have led the Nation in caring for their children are not denied access to vital CHIP dollars. It rewards Washington state for putting children first. Washington State is facing the greatest fiscal crisis since World War II. Between June 2001 and November 2002, Washington State lost more than 74,000 non-farm jobs. This economic recession has hit families in Washington state hard. In 2002, before the recession began, there were 155,000 uninsured children in Washington State. Current estimates place this number even higher. With additional layoffs and more families losing COBRA coverage, the number of uninsured children will only continue to grow. Washington State must have access to its CHIP dollars to prevent more children from losing their health care safety net. Because Washington State was so far ahead of the rest of the Nation in 1997, when CHIP was enacted, our state has been unable to use its full allocation. A majority of children who would be eligible for participation in CHIP were already covered in 1997 under the Medicaid program. As a result, Washington State has been unable to count these children as ``CHIP'' The federal share of CHIP is currently 67 percent as opposed to Medicaid, which provides only a 50 percent match for Washington state. If the State was able to provide coverage for some of these low income children under CHIP, it would reduce pressure on our state's Medicaid program. Without this relief, Washington State will face additional Medicaid reductions. Many of the children that currently have coverage will lose this coverage and join the ranks of the uninsured. Allowing the number of children without insurance to grow is both inhumane for our children and irresponsible for our society. Uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medication. Uninsured children are more likely to be treated in the emergency room than insured children. These children are showing up more and more in the emergency room to get basic primary care. The cost of providing this care only increases as their families are forced to delay care. We all pay when children go without health insurance coverage. This is not just a question of saving money. Providing comprehensive, prevention-based health insurance to children is a sound investment. Delaying this care only adds to the overall cost of health care, education and our criminal justice system. This legislation that we are introducing puts our kids at the front of the line. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this legislation. Let's send the right message to our States: If you do the right thing, you will no longer be denied your fair allocation. Instead, you will be rewarded for putting children first.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Cantwell in introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This important legislation will ensure that low income children in Washington State are not denied access to health insurance coverage. The legislation provides a fair and equitable distribution of unobligated State balances in the CHIP program. It ensures that States like Washington that have led the Nation in caring for their children are not denied access to vital CHIP dollars. It rewards Washington state for putting children first. Washington State is facing the greatest fiscal crisis since World War II. Between June 2001 and November 2002, Washington State lost more than 74,000 non-farm jobs. This economic recession has hit families in Washington state hard. In 2002, before the recession began, there were 155,000 uninsured children in Washington State. Current estimates place this number even higher. With additional layoffs and more families losing COBRA coverage, the number of uninsured children will only continue to grow. Washington State must have access to its CHIP dollars to prevent more children from losing their health care safety net. Because Washington State was so far ahead of the rest of the Nation in 1997, when CHIP was enacted, our state has been unable to use its full allocation. A majority of children who would be eligible for participation in CHIP were already covered in 1997 under the Medicaid program. As a result, Washington State has been unable to count these children as ``CHIP'' The federal share of CHIP is currently 67 percent as opposed to Medicaid, which provides only a 50 percent match for Washington state. If the State was able to provide coverage for some of these low income children under CHIP, it would reduce pressure on our state's Medicaid program. Without this relief, Washington State will face additional Medicaid reductions. Many of the children that currently have coverage will lose this coverage and join the ranks of the uninsured. Allowing the number of children without insurance to grow is both inhumane for our children and irresponsible for our society. Uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medication. Uninsured children are more likely to be treated in the emergency room than insured children. These children are showing up more and more in the emergency room to get basic primary care. The cost of providing this care only increases as their families are forced to delay care. We all pay when children go without health insurance coverage. This is not just a question of saving money. Providing comprehensive, prevention-based health insurance to children is a sound investment. Delaying this care only adds to the overall cost of health care, education and our criminal justice system. This legislation that we are introducing puts our kids at the front of the line. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this legislation. Let's send the right message to our States: If you do the right thing, you will no longer be denied your fair allocation. Instead, you will be rewarded for putting children first.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, and Senators Frist and Gregg and others who worked with us on the Community Access Program. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to request to enter into a colloquy with the chairman and the ranking member on the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished Senators from Colorado and North Dakota, regarding port security.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from the North. If I am correct, Madam President, we are trying to get some amendments on the table. I would be happy to ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment following Senator Specter.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to add my wholehearted support for the amendment offered by my friend from Connecticut. The passage of IDEA was a watershed event--for children with disabilities and for all Americans. By opening the doors of our public schools, we enabled millions of talented students to join their peers in becoming productive members of society. Equally important, we improved education for all students by allowing them to know the strength and richness that diverse people with different experiences, challenges, and abilities bring to our lives. Finally, we took yet another critical step on our journey to becoming a country that lives out our ideals of democracy, opportunity, and equality. Because we have not lived up to the commitments made in IDEA, the full promise of this law has yet to be fulfilled. Having failed to provide the full 40 percent of excess cost that was committed over 25 years ago, we have cheated students of the high- quality education they deserve. This amendment gives us another chance to right that wrong and move forward on a path to full funding. Last year during the ESEA debate, this body unanimously adopted an amendment that would have fully funded IDEA over the next 6 years. The Dodd amendment would add the first increment of the full funding to the appropriations bill. I hope my colleagues have not changed their minds about the importance of funding special education. I hope this amendment will also be adopted unanimously. Frankly, given my home State's projected budget shortfall of $2.4 billion, these funds are even more desperately needed to maintain and improve education for children with disabilities. We have all agreed time and again that it is important to fully fund IDEA. Now we can actually provide the dollars to back up those statements. With this amendment, we have the opportunity to make an important choice for our children's future. Are we going to make the investment in education that all our children deserve? Or are we going to offer another false promise? Cheating children of their education cheats them of their chance to succeed. This is especially true for children with disabilities, who already face a more challenging future. We must do everything in our power to ensure all children have that chance. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Mr. President, recently I received a note from an educator in my state reminding me what this money could mean for our students. Northport School District is a small, rural school district nestled between the Idaho panhandle and the border with British Columbia. It serves 202 students in grades K-12. Mary Swaim is both the special education director and the only special education teacher in Northport, WA. She has one aide, who spends the majority of her day giving physical therapy to six students. Mary told me that they currently have 15 special needs students with disabilities that range from Autism to muscular dystrophy and from Down's Syndrome to learning disabilities. According to Mary, one of these students costs the district $30,000 a year. They have spent a small fortune on therapeutic equipment that includes a Hoyer lift, tables, wheel chairs, walkers and therapy balls. But Mary's concern is not the cost of educating these children. She is worried that this small school cannot afford the staff to provide the quality education these students deserve. According to Mary, fully funding IDEA would give Northport the money to hire another special education teacher, and would greatly improve these children's chance to learn and to succeed. Mary told me: I've watched your legislation to keep class sizes small in general education but, in special education, we frequently have higher numbers than the general education classes and all of our students have far greater needs. More funding would mean quality education. Thank you so much for asking my opinion. I believe we need to do more than ask Mary's opinion. I believe we need to listen to her valid concerns and act, as we can today, to make a difference for the students about whom she is so rightly concerned. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mary Swaim be printed in the Record.