Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my strong opposition to any attempt to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job and protecting our families and our environment. The amendments being considered here in the Senate would hurt our environment and harm our national security by increasing our dependence on foreign oil. They would devastate our public health efforts, and take us in the wrong direction as we fight to compete and win and create jobs in the 21st century clean energy economy. The positions of leading scientists and doctors and public health experts are clear. Global climate change is real, it is harmful, and it has to be addressed. Rolling back EPA's standards would be devastating to the health of our families, and especially our children. These are settled issues in the scientific world. We shouldn't be spending time debating them over and over on the Senate floor. By the way, with the price of oil spiking and families paying more and more at the pump, we ought to be focused on ways to move our country away from our dependence on foreign oil. These amendments would do exactly the opposite. They will disrupt efficiency standards that sacrifice billions of gallons of fuel savings and increasing our foreign imports. They will derail the cooperative efforts of automakers and autoworkers and EPA and States to develop these unified, national standards that provide certainty for businesses to invest in new technologies. Frankly, they would be harmful to our national security. Every dollar we spend overseas to pay for oil is more money in the pockets of countries that are too often far from friendly to our national security interests, and that doesn't make any sense to me. But this debate isn't just about health and the environment, and it is not just about our national security dependence on foreign oil. It is also about jobs and the economy, which is exactly what we ought to be focused on right now. We are currently working on legislation on the floor to help small business owners to innovate and grow, to give them the resources they need so they can expand and add jobs and compete in a global economy. These amendments being considered to that bill will move our country in the opposite direction. First of all, they are going to cause massive uncertainty and upheaval for clean energy companies such as the McKinstry Company in my home State of Washington that is working right now to create jobs and grow and create a clean energy economy. If the rules of the game keep changing, businesses are never going to have the confidence they need to invest and add workers. Second of all, we all know America needs to move quickly into the 21st century clean energy economy. Other countries such as China and India are pouring resources into investments that are creating jobs and building infrastructure. We need to make sure we position ourselves to compete and win in this critical sector. That is why instead of harmful legislation and amendments that would take us in the wrong direction--instead of doing that--we should be talking about policies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil, support our national security objectives, and unshackle our economy, so we can tap the creative energy of our Nation's workers and support good family wage jobs, and make sure our workers continue leading the way in this 21st century economy. That is the direction our country needs to be moving--toward a healthy and clean environment and toward the clean energy jobs of the future. We can't bury our heads in the sand and expect our energy and our environmental problems to somehow disappear. The longer we put off dealing with these issues, the more it is going to cost us in the future, and that is exactly what the amendments on the floor today will do. They are bad for the environment, they are bad for the economy, and they are dangerous to our family's health. The science on these issues is very clear and it is something the people in my home State of Washington take very seriously. Because when families across America go outside for some fresh air or turn on their tap and hope to have a clean glass of water, they expect these resources to be just that: clean. Once again, I strongly oppose any attempt to take away the EPA's ability to do their job, and I hope we can work together to find real solutions to the critical problems that face our country. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to mark the 1-year anniversary of a terrible tragedy in my home State of Washington, and to once again honor the memories of those who were killed. On April 2, 2010, a fire broke out at the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, WA, and claimed the lives of seven workers: Daniel J. Aldridge, Matthew C. Bowen, Donna Van Dreumel, Matt Gumbel, Darrin J. Hoines, Lew Janz, and Kathryn Powell. These were men and women who were taken too young, with so much life to live and with so many people to live it with. They were workers who took on tough jobs, worked long hours during difficult economic times to provide for their families. They were people who made tremendous sacrifices and who embodied so much of what is good about the community they lived in. They have been dearly missed. Even now, 1 year later, there is nothing we can say to make the pain go away for the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, coworkers, and family members who still bear those deep scars of loss. But the Anacortes community is strong, and while they have endured more than their fair share of pain over the years, their resiliency and compassion have carried them forward. Over the past year, we have seen homes and hearts and pocketbooks open to the families who lost so much because this community understands the pain of a loss such as this can't be overcome or forgotten. They know these families should never have to bear that pain alone. We owe it to the Anacortes community to honor those they have lost. We owe it to them to do everything we can to make sure that such tragedies never happen again. State investigators have determined that tragedy could have been and should have been prevented. The problems that led to what happened were known beforehand and they should have been fixed. That is heartbreaking. Every worker in every industry deserves to be confident that while they are working hard and doing their jobs, their employers are doing everything they can to protect them. I want you to know I will keep working to make sure the oil and gas industry improves their safety practices, because we owe that to our workers and to their families and to communities such as Anacortes all across our country. One year after that tragedy, my thoughts and prayers and condolences remain with the families who have endured so much pain, and my profound thanks goes out to the Anacortes community that has been with those families every step of the way. I am proud to submit a Senate resolution with my colleague, Senator Cantwell--which we will do later today--to recognize the anniversary of this tragedy on April 2, 2011, and I urge my colleagues to join in remembering those workers in Anacortes who were taken from us far too soon. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. May I request of the Senator how long she intends to speak?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, for her tremendous work on the bill in front of us today, the small business bill. It is so important that we keep focusing on what is most important right now for families and small business owners across the country; that is, to continue working to create jobs and boost the economy. That is exactly what this bill is all about. Last month our economy added over 200,000 private sector jobs, and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest in 2 years. We have a long way to go, but I am confident we have turned the corner and we are now beginning to move in the right direction. But we have to continue to make progress. That is exactly why I strongly support this long-term reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which supports research and development efforts by small businesses that will help them grow and create jobs. That is why I will continue working with all of our colleagues to make sure we pass a budget for this year that cuts spending responsibly while continuing to invest in programs that create jobs and boost our economy. The Small Business Innovation Research Program, or SBIR, is a bipartisan bill that has been successfully creating jobs since it was signed into law by President Reagan in 1982. The resources this program has provided to small businesses over the years have led to new products, new ideas, and new innovations. In fact, small business tech firms that receive SBIR grants produce 38 percent of our country's taxes, they employ 40 percent of America's scientists and engineers, and they have produced many of the most important innovations that have driven our economy forward. This program has been especially important in my home State of Washington, for over 200,000 grants have been awarded to small businesses totaling close to $700 million. One company that received the support of the Small Business Innovation Research Program is Infinia, in the Tri-Cities area of my State. Infinia was founded in 1985 as an R&D firm, but they have been able now to successfully transition to commercial production and have emerged as a leader in our State's clean-tech industry. With support from SBIR's other programs, Infinia has been able to develop their products and grow from 30 employees to over 150. These are good family-wage jobs in that community. This is such a great example of what small businesses can do with just a little bit of support. There are thousands of companies across the country with similar stories that have received a critical boost from SBIR. Unfortunately, the Small Business Innovation Research Program has been operating now under a short-term authorization over the last several years, and that creates uncertainty and makes planning very difficult for companies that do want to participate in this program. I hope we support this long-term legislation that will help our innovative small businesses develop their products and expand and create jobs and we do not continue to see all these extraneous measures added onto it that will stop us from getting it passed in the Senate and moving to a place that can help create jobs and grow our economy. I also want to mention another issue we are going to be discussing on the floor because it is directly connected to Senate Democrats' efforts to get workers back on the job; that is, the need to pass a long-term budget bill to keep the government open through the end of this fiscal year. I am disappointed that the same Republicans who came into office saying they were going to focus on the economy have now put forward a very damaging and short-sighted budget proposal that would literally destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and devastate our workers and small businesses and undermine our fragile economic recovery. I am disappointed that at a time when our middle-class families still need some support to get back on their feet, Republicans have proposed this very highly politicized slash-and-burn budget that is going to pull the rug out from under these families at a critical time. I am disappointed that while on this side, Senate Democrats have put forward some ideas to make responsible and prudent budget cuts that will allow us to continue to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our competitors, that we need to do, we are seeing a Republican budget proposal that is going to hack away at the investments that strengthen our ability to compete right now and improve the quality of life for all of our families in this country. The proposal they put forward would slash programs such as Head Start. It would decimate housing and economic development. It would eliminate community health centers that the Presiding Officer has worked so hard to put in place. It would cut off critical investments for our workers and our infrastructure. Independent analysts have said their plan would destroy up to 700,000 American jobs. That includes 15,000 in my home State. That is a hit we cannot take right now. It would be devastating. Senate Democrats are trying to put forward a proposal that goes in a very different direction. We will cut spending billions of dollars, but we will do it in a responsible and measured way to protect our middle- class families and not kill jobs and continue making the investments we need to compete and win in the 21th-century economy. Unfortunately, as we all know, we were not able to pass that proposal last week. Now, unfortunately, we are back to passing a short-term funding bill just to keep the government from shutting down. I have to tell you, weekly spending bills are no way to run the government. I am hopeful that moderate Republicans will say no to the extreme members of their party and come to the table to work with us to pass a responsible long-term budget that will help us create jobs and invest in middle- class families and workers across the country. That is what this is all about: creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, and setting our country up for continued success and prosperity now and in the future. That is exactly why this debate is so important, and it is also why having the Small Business Research Investment Program is so critical. I urge my colleagues today to support this reauthorization, to support small businesses and investment in innovation and growth. I hope we can get rid of these extraneous matters for all of us to come together and do something that helps create jobs and gets our economy back on track rather than diving into all the political debates of the past and offering all the amendments we can think of in order to slow it down. This bill is important, and I hope we can move it forward to final passage. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about legislation that I have introduced that is essential to the academic success of millions of vulnerable children and youth. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act responds to the growing crisis of homelessness in our nation. The legislation will help homeless children and youth thrive in school, despite the constant moves, trauma, and loss associated with homelessness. The recession has contributed to homelessness among two groups of students: children who are homeless with their families, and youth who are homeless on their own. This reality was brought starkly to light in a recent CBS 60 Minutes special about homeless children. The series documented several Florida families that have fallen on hard times, yet are doing their best to make ends meet and keep their children in school. It was heartbreaking to see these families who are struggling. However, it increased my resolve and determination to introduce this legislation, which will provide much-needed support for kids across the country. The numbers of homeless children are shocking. During the 2008-2009 academic year, there were almost 1 million homeless children enrolled in public schools across the nation. That was a 41 percent increase over the previous two years. Unfortunately, this alarming trend shows no sign of abating. Many states are reporting increases between 5 and 35 percent for the 2009-2010 school year. We owe it to these children to provide them with a safe place where they can learn and become successful adults. We know that school offers homeless children and youth structure, normalcy, support, and hope--it is a place where they can obtain the skills that they will need to avoid poverty and homelessness as adults. Yet these students face great educational challenges. High mobility, precarious living conditions, and severe poverty combine to create major barriers to school enrollment and regular attendance. Many homeless children and youth lack basic supplies and a reasonable environment where they can do homework. As a result of their circumstances, homeless students often perform below their peers in math and reading and are more likely to be held back. We must do more to assist these students so they do not continue to be left behind. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act of 2011 would do just that. The bill amends the McKinney- Vento Act's Education for Homeless Children and Youth program. It makes a strong law even stronger by reinforcing and expanding the law's key provisions: school stability, enrollment, and support for academic achievement. My legislation will enhance the right of homeless children to stay in the same school, so that children who have lost their homes do not also lose their schools. It will assist schools in meeting the challenges of transporting homeless students by increasing the authorized funding level and allowing other federal funds for educating low-income students to be used for homeless transportation. When staying in the same school is not possible, or not in a child's best interest, the legislation will help the student make a seamless transition to a new school. One of the most successful features of the McKinney-Vento program is the requirement for every school district to designate a liaison for homeless children and youth. Liaisons identify homeless students, ensure their enrollment and attendance, and connect them to community resources. Liaisons are the backbone of this program, the unsung heroes who have become a lifeline for children and youth in crisis. Yet most liaisons do not have the capacity to carry out their required duties; they wear many hats and struggle to meet the growing demands of this population. As a result, too many homeless children and youth are falling through the cracks and missing out on school. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act will strengthen the critical position of homeless liaison by ensuring that liaisons have the time, resources, and training to fulfill their mandated duties. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act also recognizes the unique needs of certain groups of homeless children: preschool-aged homeless children, and unaccompanied homeless youth. Young children who are homeless have higher rates of developmental delays and other problems that set them back as they start out life, yet they face numerous barriers to participating in early childhood programs. They miss out on services that can mitigate the harmful effect of homelessness on their development. This legislation will increase homeless children's participation in preschool programs by requiring public preschool programs to identify and prioritize homeless children for enrollment, and to develop the capacity to serve all identified homeless children. Unaccompanied homeless youth struggle to go to school without the basic necessities of life or a parent to guide them. We must assist unaccompanied homeless youth to overcome the unique educational challenges related to being without a home and without a parent or guardian. This legislation will help ensure that unaccompanied homeless youth have the supports necessary to stay in school, graduate with their peers, and move on to a brighter future. The history of litigation under the McKinney-Vento Act makes clear that we must do a better job helping educators learn about homelessness and support them in implementing the law. To this end, the legislation provides funding for technical assistance and training, and requires participation in professional development activities. As we work on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must recognize that children who do not know where they will sleep at night, or where their next meal will come from, face far greater challenges than simply remembering to do their homework. We must acknowledge that children who bounce between schools with each change of residence have little hope of taking advantage of even the best school programs. The most qualified teacher, or the most exceptional math or reading program, will not benefit children who are not enrolled in school, not attending regularly, and not assisted to overcome the barriers caused by homelessness. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act builds upon the proven successes of the McKinney-Vento Act's Education of Homeless Children and Youth program, while addressing remaining challenges. It is critical legislation that will help ensure that the homeless children of today do not become the homeless adults of tomorrow.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about legislation that I have introduced that is essential to the academic success of millions of vulnerable children and youth. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act responds to the growing crisis of homelessness in our nation. The legislation will help homeless children and youth thrive in school, despite the constant moves, trauma, and loss associated with homelessness. The recession has contributed to homelessness among two groups of students: children who are homeless with their families, and youth who are homeless on their own. This reality was brought starkly to light in a recent CBS 60 Minutes special about homeless children. The series documented several Florida families that have fallen on hard times, yet are doing their best to make ends meet and keep their children in school. It was heartbreaking to see these families who are struggling. However, it increased my resolve and determination to introduce this legislation, which will provide much-needed support for kids across the country. The numbers of homeless children are shocking. During the 2008-2009 academic year, there were almost 1 million homeless children enrolled in public schools across the nation. That was a 41 percent increase over the previous two years. Unfortunately, this alarming trend shows no sign of abating. Many states are reporting increases between 5 and 35 percent for the 2009-2010 school year. We owe it to these children to provide them with a safe place where they can learn and become successful adults. We know that school offers homeless children and youth structure, normalcy, support, and hope--it is a place where they can obtain the skills that they will need to avoid poverty and homelessness as adults. Yet these students face great educational challenges. High mobility, precarious living conditions, and severe poverty combine to create major barriers to school enrollment and regular attendance. Many homeless children and youth lack basic supplies and a reasonable environment where they can do homework. As a result of their circumstances, homeless students often perform below their peers in math and reading and are more likely to be held back. We must do more to assist these students so they do not continue to be left behind. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act of 2011 would do just that. The bill amends the McKinney- Vento Act's Education for Homeless Children and Youth program. It makes a strong law even stronger by reinforcing and expanding the law's key provisions: school stability, enrollment, and support for academic achievement. My legislation will enhance the right of homeless children to stay in the same school, so that children who have lost their homes do not also lose their schools. It will assist schools in meeting the challenges of transporting homeless students by increasing the authorized funding level and allowing other federal funds for educating low-income students to be used for homeless transportation. When staying in the same school is not possible, or not in a child's best interest, the legislation will help the student make a seamless transition to a new school. One of the most successful features of the McKinney-Vento program is the requirement for every school district to designate a liaison for homeless children and youth. Liaisons identify homeless students, ensure their enrollment and attendance, and connect them to community resources. Liaisons are the backbone of this program, the unsung heroes who have become a lifeline for children and youth in crisis. Yet most liaisons do not have the capacity to carry out their required duties; they wear many hats and struggle to meet the growing demands of this population. As a result, too many homeless children and youth are falling through the cracks and missing out on school. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act will strengthen the critical position of homeless liaison by ensuring that liaisons have the time, resources, and training to fulfill their mandated duties. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act also recognizes the unique needs of certain groups of homeless children: preschool-aged homeless children, and unaccompanied homeless youth. Young children who are homeless have higher rates of developmental delays and other problems that set them back as they start out life, yet they face numerous barriers to participating in early childhood programs. They miss out on services that can mitigate the harmful effect of homelessness on their development. This legislation will increase homeless children's participation in preschool programs by requiring public preschool programs to identify and prioritize homeless children for enrollment, and to develop the capacity to serve all identified homeless children. Unaccompanied homeless youth struggle to go to school without the basic necessities of life or a parent to guide them. We must assist unaccompanied homeless youth to overcome the unique educational challenges related to being without a home and without a parent or guardian. This legislation will help ensure that unaccompanied homeless youth have the supports necessary to stay in school, graduate with their peers, and move on to a brighter future. The history of litigation under the McKinney-Vento Act makes clear that we must do a better job helping educators learn about homelessness and support them in implementing the law. To this end, the legislation provides funding for technical assistance and training, and requires participation in professional development activities. As we work on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must recognize that children who do not know where they will sleep at night, or where their next meal will come from, face far greater challenges than simply remembering to do their homework. We must acknowledge that children who bounce between schools with each change of residence have little hope of taking advantage of even the best school programs. The most qualified teacher, or the most exceptional math or reading program, will not benefit children who are not enrolled in school, not attending regularly, and not assisted to overcome the barriers caused by homelessness. The Educational Success for Children and Youth Without Homes Act builds upon the proven successes of the McKinney-Vento Act's Education of Homeless Children and Youth program, while addressing remaining challenges. It is critical legislation that will help ensure that the homeless children of today do not become the homeless adults of tomorrow.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, our Nation's budget is a statement of our values, our priorities, and our vision for what kind of country we will be handing off to our children and grandchildren. Working together to pass a responsible and forward-looking budget that works for the American people is one of the most important jobs we have in the Senate. The outcome of this process we are talking about will affect millions of families across our country, and the decisions we make this week are going to go a long way toward determining if our economy is going to continue moving in the right direction. This morning I want to speak about two very different budgets being debated today, with two very different statements about what we should be focused on as a country, and two very different visions for how we need to be positioned to compete successfully and win the future. This should not be a partisan process. I am still hopeful we can work together on a budget plan that cuts spending responsibly and works for the American people. But I am extremely disappointed that Republicans, who came into office talking about the economy, have proposed an extreme budget that would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, devastate workers and small businesses across the country, and threaten that fragile economic recovery. I am disappointed that at a time when so many middle-class families still need support to get back on their feet after the Wall Street crisis Republicans have proposed a highly politicized slash-and-burn budget that will pull the rug out from families and children. I am disappointed that while the Senate Democratic proposal makes responsible and practical budget cuts that will allow us to continue out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building our competitors, Republicans are proposing a budget that would hack away at these estimates across the board and threaten our Nation's ability to compete now and into the future. We are going to hear a lot about big numbers today, and I will mention some myself. I think it is important we keep in mind that this debate is about more than dollars and cents; it is about real people with real lives. I recently heard from the South Central Workforce Development Council in Washington State, and they told me about a man they worked with named Damon. Damon had been laid off from his job testing machine equipment. He held that job for almost 10 years. He and his wife had to move back in with his father, and he said that no matter how hard he tried he could not find work that matched his skills. Damon had to do something about it. He went to his local one-stop career center and sat down with counselors who talked him through what local employers were looking for, and he decided he was going to learn computer networking. He studied hard and graduated from a local computer technology program. Despite this tough economy, he was able to work with the one-stop center to find a new job in a new field. Damon was able to get back on his feet and support his family because of this program. He is not alone. Millions of Americans depend on workforce training programs to get the skills they need to get back to work and help our economy grow, including nearly 400,000 in my State of Washington. House Republicans have proposed eliminating these critical programs and cutting off services for the workers who depend on them. At a time when so many workers are fighting to get back on the job, this would be devastating. I recently met with a woman named Tiffany from Chehalis, WA. She told me her stepson, Rodney, had some difficult family circumstances and had fallen behind his peers and that she and her husband could not afford the private education they thought he needed to catch up. Then she heard about Head Start from a friend and enrolled Rodney in that program. Tiffany told me she saw the difference within a few months. Just a short time later, Rodney was ready for kindergarten, and he is now the top reader in his first grade class. Tiffany and her family got the support they needed and they, too, are far from being alone. Nearly 1 million families and their children depend on Head Start. The Republican proposal we will be voting on this afternoon eliminates services for 218,000 children, including more than 3,000 in my home State. It will close 16,000 classrooms across the country, and it will cause up to 55,000 teachers and staff to lose their jobs. Again, this extreme slash-and-burn approach is wrong. It would hurt the most vulnerable of our children and families in our country and leave us at a competitive disadvantage in the future. The Republican proposal also slashes community development block grants by 62 percent. That would eliminate services and decimate housing and economic development programs in communities across our country. It cuts the community health centers so many Americans depend on for their health care, eliminating funding outright for 127 clinics in 38 States, reducing services at over 1,000 centers nationwide, cutting off health care for almost 3 million Americans that will cause 5,000 workers across our country to lose their jobs. Not only will the Republican proposal devastate middle-class families across this country, it would also halt the beginning of an economic recovery that our families and our small business owners desperately need to take root. Last month, our economy added over 200,000 private sector jobs, and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level in 2 years. We have a long way to go, but I am confident that we have turned the corner and are beginning to move in the right direction. Economists on both the left and the right have come out and said if the Republican proposal from the House were to pass, the economic recovery and millions of jobs across the country would be threatened. In fact, one independent analysis said the Republican plan could destroy up to 700,000 American jobs in this country, including an estimated 15,000 in my State of Washington. That would be devastating, and we cannot afford to let that happen. That is why the Senate Democratic proposal would take our country in a very different direction. It would cut spending--billions of dollars, in fact--but it would do so in a responsible and practical way that would protect our middle-class families, those who need it most. Our proposal continues to make the investments we need as a country to compete and win in the 21st-century economy. Take the highly successful TIGER Program that I helped create. Communities across our country have been competing very hard for resources from this program so they can invest in transportation projects that make significant contributions to the Nation, to their region, or their metropolitan area. Today, the TIGER Program is putting workers on the job and helping to lay down a strong foundation for economic growth in this country. But the Republican proposal would not only eliminate that program completely and slam the door on communities that want to invest in their infrastructure, it would also take back every penny of funding-- all funding already--promised in last year's budget. That will halt 75 projects in 40 States that are ready to go and put 33,000 jobs at risk. It doesn't make any sense. The Democratic proposal would protect that critical investment. The Republican proposal would also jeopardize public health and the environment by gutting the laws that keep our air and water clean. It cuts nearly $2 billion in funding for clean water infrastructure, which our local communities need to keep our families safe, so when you turn on that water in your kitchen you will know it is safe. It slashes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which, by the way, uses revenue from offshore oil leases to protect some of the most treasured places in our country. But that is not all. The extreme Republican proposal would also slash investments for students and children, including a $700 million cut to title I funding, which will affect 2,400 schools serving over 1 million students. It cuts Pell grants by 15 percent, which will make it so much harder for kids to go to college today. The House Republican proposal would even slash some of the bipartisan programs we have created to keep our families safe, including 66 percent cuts to both the Transit Security Grant Program that helps make sure our trains and subways are safe, as well as the Port Security Grant Program that helps protect our critical economic and national security assets across the country. That does not make sense. If a terrorist attack were to occur at one of our ports or transit systems, it would be absolutely devastating for our families and our economy, which is why the Democratic proposal protects these critical investments. Those are just a few of the examples of the radical and irresponsible cuts that are proposed in the Republican budget. We, of course, need to cut spending. We need to bring down the deficit. We all agree on that point. But we have to do it responsibly, and we cannot do it on the backs of our middle-class families who are struggling. I urge my colleagues this afternoon to support the Democratic proposal, and if we cannot pass something today, I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table and work with us to pass a responsible long-term budget that really does reflect our priorities, gets our workers back on the job, and invests in America's future. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for being our fearless leader and making sure women have had a voice at the table for many years. I wish to thank her for leading this important debate and discussion today about how H.R. 1 will affect women and children in this country in a very dramatic and very troubling way. Since Wall Street came crashing down on Main Street, I have been very proud to work with so many of my colleagues on efforts to get our economy back on track and our workers back on the job. We all know we have a long way to go. So many families in our country today are fighting to stay in their homes. Small businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. Many of our workers are still trying desperately to find work or they stay up at night wondering what would happen to them and their families if they are the next ones to get a pink slip. So that is why I am so disappointed that at the very moment we need to be working together to invest in our future, cut spending responsibly, and support those American families, House Republicans have decided to take a slash-and-burn approach to the budget that would devastate our economy and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. While many Republicans came to this Congress this year promising to work with Democrats to focus on the economy, they have now chosen instead to push their extreme, antichoice agenda of a minority of Americans who want to go further than ever to restrict health care options for women and families. So I am here this afternoon with my women Senate colleagues to talk about that aspect of the budget proposal they sent to us because this assault on women's health will be truly devastating if it is acted, and this extreme agenda does nothing--nothing--to further our goals of getting our economy back on track. The House Republican-proposed budget they sent to us completely eliminates title X funding. That is funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention. And it includes an amendment that completely denies funding for Planned Parenthood. That is so wrong. It would be absolutely devastating for 3 million men and women across the country who depend on those services. I recently got a letter from a woman named Elizabeth. She lives in Bellingham, WA. She is 28 years old. Elizabeth told me she is uninsured, and she depends on her local Planned Parenthood for her annual checkups and for family planning. She told me that cervical and breast cancer run in her family, and she does not know what she and her husband would do if she was not able to access this care that Planned Parenthood provides. Elizabeth is not alone. I have received hundreds of letters just like hers, women telling me about the health care they got at Planned Parenthood and the critical services title X allows them to access. Title X supports cancer screenings, family planning, and preventive services for more than 5 million low-income men and women and families across this country. In my home State of Washington, more than 100,000 patients who otherwise would not have access to care are able to receive treatment thanks to these services. The House Republican plan would devastate this for women, and honestly, it just does not make sense. In my home State alone, family planning services at title X- funded health care centers prevent over 21,000 unintended pregnancies every year. Without these services, our States and the Federal Government would end up spending far more in services for low-income families over the long run. So cutting off these important programs would be wrong, and I am going to do everything I can to stop it right here in the Senate by fighting alongside my women colleagues. That is not all the House Republicans are proposing in their extreme budget. They want to slash nutrition programs for women and children by $747 million. That would end support for close to 10 million pregnant women, new moms, and infants in the country. That is not what we stand for. They want to cut funding for prenatal care by $50 million. That is going to jeopardize care for 2.5 million women and 31 million children. That is not what we stand for. They want to cut $39 million from the childcare and development block grant that would end the child support many low-income families need so the parents can go out and work and put food on the table. That is not what this country stands for. They want to slash $1 billion from Head Start. That not only cuts off comprehensive early childhood services for nearly 1 million children, but it puts tens of thousands of teachers and staff out of a job. Guess what. Most of them are women. The House antifamily agenda is wrong, and we are not going to stand for it. We do need to cut the budget. We do need to work together to bring down the deficit. But we are not going to do it on the backs of women and children. We are going to do it responsibly. We are going to do it right. I have said many times on this floor a budget is a statement of our values. It is a reflection of our priorities as a nation. I feel very strongly that we do need to work together to invest in our future and get our economy back on track, put people back to work, and make sure families get the support they need so they feel secure again. The House Republican spending fails to meet those goals. It fails our women, it fails our families, it fails our communities, and it fails our Nation. So I urge my colleagues to reject the House Republican slash-and-burn approach on the backs of women and children and families and work with us to propose a responsible long-term budget reduction plan that reflects the values for which this country stands. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for the 112th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to take 10 minutes of the Republican time unless a Republican Senator comes to the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are here on the floor debating an amendment by the Senator from Kentucky. It is very important for the American public to understand. Everyone agrees we have to take some smart steps to cut waste and reduce our debt and deficit, but cutting back doesn't mean cutting blindly. It doesn't mean indiscriminately cutting programs that not only create jobs but, importantly, keep our country and people safe. Make no mistake about it: The Paul amendment we are considering and that we will be voting on shortly directly impacts the safety of air travel in this country. We all know the FAA has a very specific mission. It is responsible for keeping air travel safe. It oversees the safety of our airline operations. It certifies the equipment they use to meet safety standards. It is responsible for the air traffic controllers who guide our planes, and to make sure the pilots who are responsible for our safety are fit to fly. That is what the FAA does. But under the amendment we are considering this afternoon, the FAA's ability to do that job would be dramatically hampered because under that amendment, the FAA would lose hundreds of its safety inspectors and would have to use furloughs to reduce the work hours of its entire safety inspector workforce. The FAA controls air traffic every hour of every day. Under the Paul amendment, the FAA would have to furlough its air traffic controllers for significant periods of time because we wouldn't be able to afford to pay for the controller workforce to make sure we have safety in the skies. That doesn't make any sense. It would mean stretching a thinner workforce that bears the burden of keeping millions of air travelers safe every day. The Paul amendment would force the FAA to continue controlling air traffic with outdated equipment. That is not what we should be doing today. We all know the FAA is currently in the midst of a long-term initiative called NextGen to modernize our air traffic control system which the Senator from Washington just spoke about--a system that will increase the capacity of our aviation system. It will reduce delays and cancellations that everybody knows are hampering our air traffic right now. It saves fuel, and it lowers emissions. It is a modernization effort that is long overdue. Right now, our air transportation system still relies on radar technology that was developed during World War II. That is right. If you are flying today, you are relying on radar technology that was developed during World War II. The cell phones in everybody's pockets make use of satellite positioning, but we still haven't moved the FAA to a satellite-based system that could guide our planes with increased efficiency. Every one of us uses computer networks every day in our lives, but we are still making the investments to move the FAA to network-enabled operations that will help the agency coordinate more effectively with Homeland Security and the Defense Department. We all rely on our BlackBerries to communicate with each other through e-mail and text messages, but we are still making the investments necessary to help the FAA rely less heavily on voice communication between pilots and air traffic controllers. If you are on a flight and if you listen on your headphones when the pilot is talking to the air traffic controllers, and you know they step on each other, we know the system is not efficient. Under the Paul amendment being offered today, that entire modernization effort would face significant delays. With goals for reduced delays and fuel savings in sight, we would be stepping on the brakes. Ironically, that would increase the cost of these NextGen investments over the long term, forcing all of us as taxpayers to put in more money to reach those necessary goals. This amendment would not only impact the safety of our travelers in this country, it would create a major impact on our efforts to create jobs and boost the economy. I told my colleagues this amendment would furlough or eliminate the jobs of workers across the country, and they are not nameless, faceless bureaucrats. These are people who are air traffic controllers who are right now controlling the planes in the sky as we speak. These are the safety workers who are responsible for keeping watch over our airlines and certifying our pilots to make sure that plane they are flying and any repair that is made is done correctly. They are the researchers who are working to find cleaner and quieter aircraft technology and alternative aviation fuels. But this amendment wouldn't just impact those workers we all rely on, and that is because when we are forced to continue flying with fewer air traffic controllers in the tower under older technology, we are going to face huge delays and inefficiencies that will lead to billions of dollars in lost revenue. Ask anybody in the hotel business or restaurant business or tourist business what happened after 9/11 when our air traffic was shut down. The impact on our economy is huge. We need to make sure when we make cuts to our budget, we do it wisely. The Paul amendment that is before us affects our economy, affects jobs, and critically affects the safety of the American public. That is not wise or responsible. The most recent statistics show that civil aviation accounts for about $1.3 trillion in economic activity in this country. Even more importantly, aviation provides jobs for hard-working Americans. A few years ago, 11 million Americans were employed in an aviation-related field. They earned about $400 billion. This is not the time to put this vital job sector at risk by cutting back on our effort to modernize and innovate, and we should never be willing to put the safety of our skies and our airports and Americans at risk. This amendment is a misguided attempt at providing savings that comes at too high a cost. We all know and we all agree we need to be prudent about our spending, but we can't undermine the FAA as our first attempt out here and put the American public at risk. That is not wise; that is not prudent; it is not what we should be doing. I urge the Senate to consider the very real danger this amendment poses to our safety and our economy and oppose this amendment. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are here today to debate the FAA reauthorization bill, very important legislation. It will create thousands of jobs and put in place the infrastructure for us to make sure we are competitive in the future. It is disheartening to me that this bill has now been hijacked by a political debate, an amendment to repeal health care reform. Not every bill has to become political. Unfortunately, that is what we have today because we have an offer of an amendment to repeal health care reform. Let me speak to that amendment. Last year, I watched as President Obama signed health care reform into law with a young man by the name of Marcelas Owens. He stood just a few feet away from the President. I met Marcelas a few months earlier at a rally in Seattle, and he told me a story that stayed with me throughout the health care debate. I want to mention it again. Marcelas, a little boy, came up to me at this health care rally. He leaned in close to me and he said he wanted to tell me about his mom named Tifanny. She was a single mom, working hard. She got sick and lost her job. Because she lost her job, she lost her health care. Because she lost her health care, she lost her life. Little Marcelas looked up at me and said: Please don't let this happen to any other little boy. Please pass health care. I was proud when that health care reform law was passed and is now working to make sure Marcelas and thousands of other little kids do not get into that terrible situation through which he has lived. He was not alone. I heard from thousands of people from my home State of Washington who were demanding reform to the system we have. I heard from small business owners who wanted to cover their employees but they could not continue to do it because of the skyrocketing premiums. I heard from moms and dads who wanted to cover their children but they were getting rejected because their son or daughter had a preexisting condition. I heard from seniors who were desperate because they had fallen into the doughnut hole. They did not know how they were going to afford the drugs they needed to take so that they could have dignity of life in their senior years. I heard from men and women in every part of my State, some barely holding on to their health insurance and a lot with no coverage at all. Each one of their stories had a common thread: The health care system we have in this country did not work for them. It failed their families one way or another, and they wanted it to change. That is why I fought so hard with so many of my colleagues to reform that broken health insurance system, to fight for our families who needed help and were desperate and to level the playing field for people who needed a little bit of support. We got that done for our families, and we can never go back. We cannot go back to a time when millions of Americans stayed up at night worrying about what would happen to them and their families if they lost their job and their health insurance; when insurance companies put unreasonable and unfair lifetime caps on coverage for our families; when women were not able to get equal access to coverage; when small businesses could not afford health care; and when so many seniors who could not afford it had to pay the full cost of expensive medications. We cannot go back to that situation. My question for Republicans today is, why would they want us to? The changes we made require insurance companies to cover preventive services with little or no cost sharing on the part of patients. It gives families access to new streamlined assistance to help them appeal services they have been denied or not covered adequately, something so many families got lost in prior to passage of this legislation. It helps anyone who has ever been buried under a blizzard of forms from their insurance company and denials for coverage they need to have. It helps our small businesses to afford care for themselves and their employees who are now getting a tax deduction. As they fill out their forms, they say: I did not know this was in the health care bill. And we are going to vote to take that away? I ask, why do Republicans want to take away the benefits as part of the business of the Senate as we just get started to get our economy back on track? In my home State of Washington, the Republicans' plan would mean nearly 900,000 seniors who have Medicare coverage will be forced now to pay more for regular checkups and important preventive services. It would mean they will lose out on the 50-percent discounts on some of their prescription drugs. And it would mean that insurance companies would no longer be required to allow young people to stay on their policies until they are 26 and that, by the way, is going to be especially harmful now when so many of those young people today are having trouble finding a job. Our families are depending on the changes we made within this health care reform law. It is why I supported reforming our health care system. It is why I fought so hard for so long to make sure it worked for our families and small business owners. And it is why I am going to keep fighting to make sure we do not go back to the way things were, that we continue to make progress and do this right. I am happy to work with anyone--Democrat or Republican--to improve this law, but I will do everything I can to fight a full repeal that will devastate our families and small business owners across America. I urge my colleagues to vote no against this full repeal of health care reform. One final point. We hear so many people talking about the deficit today and how important it is that we get our hands around the budget and our budget deficit. It is astonishing to me that this first amendment brought by the Republicans will cost our Federal Government $1.5 trillion and put us deeper into a deficit hole. Progress is important. Getting our families back on track is important. Making sure that our economy is moving within the FAA bill we are talking about on the floor is important. And it is important that we continue to make sure the health care reform insurance system we put in place works for our families. That is what I will be voting on later today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will.

Mrs. MURRAY. Of course, I will.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 7 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to recognize and congratulate my good friend from Maryland, Senator Barbara Mikulski, on today becoming the longest serving female Senator in the history of the Senate. This is an achievement that takes courage and passion and commitment, three things all of us who know her so well know she has in abundance. Even more important than honoring my friend on the length of her service today, I believe it is important to recognize what she has done with that service. The senior Senator from Maryland, over her 24 years, has established herself as a trailblazer, a legislator, a leader, and, above all, a fighter for her people and her State. But to me and to all the other women Senators who have followed in her footsteps, she is simply a mentor. She is the Senator who has offered us guidance, taught us to be fearless, and who has set a standard for all women Senators to follow. From the first time I ever spoke to Senator Mikulski, one thing was clear. She didn't run for the Senate to be one woman Senator. She ran to be one of many. I first came to the Senate in 1992, the so-called year of the woman. I can remember a lot of the press that year being about how our incoming class of four women Senators would open the door to changes in the culture of the Senate. But when I got here, I quickly realized that door had not only already been opened, it had been broken down by Senator Mikulski. She was the first female Democrat to serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and she was also the very first one to take all the new women Senators under her wing. Senator Mikulski realized back then there was no rule book for women in the Senate. So she took it upon herself to help guide the way. She drew on her own experiences to make the transition for all of us easier. She organized seminars, taught us about working together, taught us about the legislative process and the rules on the floor and the many more subtle rules off the floor. In short, she showed us the ropes, and she has been doing it ever since. But her work doesn't end with helping women Senators get their foot in the door. I don't know if it is because she was a social worker before she came to Washington, but one thing Senator Mikulski knows is that relationships matter. That is why she has worked to make sure that once women Senators get here, we are working together on both sides of the aisle. It is why she brings Republican and Democratic women together for dinners, so we can find common ground and help solve problems. While Senator Mikulski knows it is important and courageous to be the first, she also understands the first ones have to be responsible and successful so others can and will follow. It is because she has done her job so well that other women have been able to follow in her footsteps, and she has done her job well. Senator Mikulski is here today as the longest serving woman Senator not by accident or by happenstance. She is here because she earned it, because the people of her State know she is an indispensable champion for their causes, because she works across party lines, because she delivers results and because, as she has said to us so many times, she is always ready to square her shoulders, put on her lipstick, and suit up for the people who need it most. Whether it is leading the fight for the very first bill President Obama signed into law that guarantees women cannot be paid less than men for doing the same job or fighting for seniors who rely on Social Security or delivering investments for firefighters, police officers, and first responders or standing up for all those in Maryland who depend on her State's environmental resources for their livelihood, there are few others I want in my corner like her and there are few others who work as hard as she does to give a voice to those who would not otherwise have it. Since Senator Mikulski was elected in 1986, she has helped guide the way for 22 more women Senators. Today there are 17. But she will also be the first one to tell us we are not yet where we need to be, that more women need to serve in this body. That is why she has built a team of women Senators behind her that continues to grow--every generation, every election, every year. Today, Senator Mikulski makes history by serving longer than any other woman. But I know many years from now women will have achieved a larger, more representative role in this body than we now have, Senator Mikulski will be at the very top of the list of people to thank, the person who not only cut the path but who went back and guided so many of us down it. Thanks to her, one day the remarkable accomplishment we are celebrating today may no longer be such a remarkable thing for a woman to achieve; it will be commonplace. That will be her true and lasting legacy.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The unanimous consent agreement was that the Senator from Texas would proceed after I had yielded the floor, which I had not yielded.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe there was an agreement that the Senator from Texas follow my remarks.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would just ask what the order is at this point.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are asking for a level playing field with a bill that passed the House. This is a discussion we have had many times. It says that illegal subsidies from any company should be taken into account on a deal in front of the Pentagon. I will stand anytime and fight for fairness and competition. I am sorry this has been objected to, because it meant our country would have a fair competition. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, then I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to call on the Senate to move and pass H.R. 6540, which is the Defense Level Playing Field Act, a bill which was passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday. This is a bill that is identical to a bipartisan provision I have introduced here in the Senate with Senators Brownback, Cantwell, and others from States that know the value of American aerospace. It is a bill that will require the Pentagon to take into account illegal subsidies to foreign companies in our country, and that will finally deliver an even playing field in our procurement process. But above all, this is a jobs bill. It is about protecting skilled, family-wage jobs, manufacturing jobs, and engineering jobs--jobs with technical skills and expertise that are passed down from one generation to the next; jobs that not only support our families during a very difficult economic time but are also helping to keep our communities above water. These are jobs in communities in Kansas, in Connecticut, in California, and in my home State of Washington. They are jobs that support small businesses, they pay people's mortgages, and they create economic opportunity. These jobs right now are at risk. Why? Because of illegal subsidies that undercut our workers and create an uneven playing field for America's aerospace workers. This is a commonsense, straightforward way to protect American aerospace jobs from unfairly subsidized European competition. It is a bill that specifically targets a major job-creating project--the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker contract--as a place where we can begin to restore fairness for our aerospace workers. This bill says that in awarding that critical tanker contract, the Pentagon must consider any unfair competitive advantage aerospace companies have, and there is no bigger unfair advantage right now in the world of international aerospace than launch aid. As my colleagues may know, launch aid is direct funding that has been provided to the European aerospace company Airbus from the treasuries of European governments. It is what supports their factories and their workers and their airplanes. It is what allows them to price their airplanes far below those that are made here in the United States and still turn a profit. It is what allows them to literally role the dice and lose on a product and what separates them from American aerospace companies, such as Boeing, that bet the company on each new airplane line they produce. In short, it is what allows them to stack the decks against American workers. In July of this year, the World Trade Organization handed down a ruling in a case that the United States brought against the European Union that finally called launch aid what it really is: a trade- distorting, job-killing, unfair advantage. That is what the WTO said. It is one of our Nation's most important trade cases to date. The WTO ruled very clearly that launch aid is illegal, it creates an uneven playing field, it has harmed American workers and companies, and it needs to end. Specifically, the WTO found that European governments have provided Airbus with more than 15 billion Euros in launch aid, subsidizing every model of aircraft ever produced by Airbus in the last 40 years, including, by the way, the A330--the very model they are now putting forward in the tanker competition. The WTO ruled that France and Germany and Spain provided more than 1 billion Euros in infrastructure and infrastructure-related grants between 1989 and 2001, as well as another billion in share transfers and equity infusions into Airbus. They ruled that European governments provided over 1 billion in Euros in funding between 1986 and 2005 for research and development directed specifically to the development of Airbus aircraft. In fact, the Lexington Institute states that launch aid represents over $200 billion in today's dollars in total subsidies to Airbus. Launch aid has very real consequences. It has created an uphill battle for our American workers and American aerospace as a whole. Because of launch aid, our workers are now not only competing against rival companies, they are competing against the treasuries of European governments. At the end of the day, that has meant lost jobs at our American aerospace companies and suppliers and the communities that support them. I have been speaking out against Europe's market-distorting actions for many years because I understand that these subsidies are not only illegal, they are deeply unfair and anticompetitive. My home State of Washington is, of course, home to much of our country's aerospace industry, and I know our workers are the best in the world. On a level playing field, they can compete and win against absolutely anybody. But, unfortunately, Airbus and the European Union have refused to allow fair competition. Instead, they use their aerospace industry as a government-funded jobs program, and they use billions in illegal launch aid to fund it. So let me be clear about one thing. The objective of this bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday is not to limit competition; it is to make sure everyone can compete on a level playing field. Airbus has made it clear they will go to any lengths to hurt our country's aerospace industry. We need to make it clear we will take every action to stop them because this is not only about the future of aerospace; it is about jobs right now that will help our economy recover. In fact, as we look at ways to stimulate job growth and keep American companies innovating and growing, we shouldn't look any further than this bill. This bill is a commonsense policy. It makes sure U.S. Government policy translates to Pentagon policy because the fact is that the U.S. Government, through our Trade Representative, has taken the position that Airbus subsidies are illegal and unfair. Yet, on the other hand, the U.S. Department of Defense is ignoring that position as we look to purchase a new tanker fleet, and that does not make any sense--not for our country, not for our military, and certainly not for our workers. The WTO made a fair decision. Airbus subsidies are illegal and anticompetitive. Now the Department of Defense needs to take that ruling into account. When I go home and talk to our aerospace workers in Washington State, I want to be able to tell them we have evened the stakes. I want them to know their government is not looking the other way as policies continue to undercut their jobs and their opportunities. I want them to know that while they are working to secure our country by producing the best airplane in the world, their government is doing everything it can to make sure fair opportunities are there that will keep them on the job. It is time to take these job-killing subsidies into account. It is the right thing to do for our workers, for our economy, and the future of our airspace industry.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I come to the floor today--and before I speak, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer of California be the next Democratic Senator speaking after I conclude and Senator Hutchison has concluded on the Republican side.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.