Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, one of the many values that make America so great is that no matter where we start off from in life we believe that we all deserve to have a shot at the American dream. We all deserve an opportunity to work hard, support our families, and give back to the Nation that has been there for us all of our lives. This is an American value I cherish. It is one I feel very strongly we ought to maintain and strengthen. And it is why I stand here today to talk about the DREAM Act, which would help us do exactly that. The amendment we proposed was a narrowly tailored piece of legislation that was developed with Democrats and Republicans working together. And I was extremely disappointed that Senate Republicans refused to even allow us to begin debate on this critical issue. The DREAM Act would give a select group of undocumented students the chance to become permanent residents if they came to this country as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, and attend college for at least 2 years or enlist in the military. Under this bill, tens of thousands of well-qualified potential recruits would become eligible for military service for the first time. These are young people who love our country and are eager to serve in the Armed Forces during a time of war. And the DREAM Act would add a very strong incentive for them to enlist by providing a path to permanent legal status. It would also make qualified students eligible for temporary legal immigration status upon high school graduation, which would lead to permanent residency if they attend college. And most importantly, it would allow the young people who want to give back to America an opportunity to do so. This is about our values as a nation. But it is also about real communities. And real people in my home State of Washington and across the country. I want to share a few stories I have heard that demonstrate why the DREAM Act is so critical. I got a letter from a young man named Carlos, who was brought to the United States when he was just 2 years old. Carlos' mom went to work every day to provide for her son, but she never told him that he was undocumented. It was only when he wanted to go overseas on a school community service trip that he found out. Carlos excelled academically and helped his family out with money by selling hot dogs after school. And by the end of high school, he was student body vice president and had received a scholarship to attend the University of Washington, where he is scheduled to start this year. Carlos is going to continue selling hot dogs to pay for textbooks, and his dream is to go to law school and become a civil rights lawyer when he graduates. I also heard from Judith, from Tacoma, another undocumented immigrant. Judith recently graduated from high school and she told me that she dreams of joining the Navy and serving her country. And I heard from Luis, a junior at Whitworth University in Washington State. Luis is excelling at school, but because he is undocumented he has been unable to apply for work-study programs, internships, or federally funded scholarships. He told me he wants to graduate and give back to the community by working with young people. That is his dream, but he is afraid that his status will prevent him from achieving that goal. Luis told me he lives in fear of being deported, that the United States is his home, and that he wants nothing more than to be given a shot at the American dream. The only way that can happen, the only way any of these young people can get that shot, is if we pass the DREAM Act. The stories I told here today are of just three of the young people whose lives this affects, but I have received hundreds of stories just like theirs. And this issue touches so many more across the country. The amendment we proposed would have allowed us to take a first step toward fixing an immigration system that is clearly broken with real solutions that will help real people. And for me, this is not just about immigration, it is about what type of country we want to be. America has long been a beacon of hope for people across the world. And I believe that to keep that beacon bright we need to make sure young people like Carlos, Judith, and Luis are given a shot at the American dream. The dream that was there for me, that is there for my children and grandchild, and that is there for millions of others across this great country. So once again, I am extremely disappointed that Senate Republicans blocked our attempt to begin debate on the legislation this amendment was attached to. I am going to keep fighting for the DREAM Act. And I am going to keep working toward comprehensive immigration reform that helps our economy, affords the opportunities we have offered to generations of immigrants, maintains those great American values that I hold so dear, and improves our security. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to speak in strong support of the DISCLOSE Act, which would close the glaring campaign finance loopholes that have been opened by the Citizens United ruling. This Supreme Court ruling was a true step backward for our democracy. It overturned decades of campaign finance law and policy. It allowed corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of their money influencing our democracy and opened the door wide for foreign corporations to spend their money on elections right here in the United States. The Citizens United ruling has given special interest groups a megaphone they can use to now drown out the voices of average citizens in my home State of Washington and across the country. The DISCLOSE Act would tear that megaphone away and place it back in the hands of American people, where it belongs. I am extremely disappointed that Senate Republicans continue to block this critical legislation. This is a very personal issue for me. When I first ran for the Senate back in 1992, I was a long-shot candidate with some ideas and a group of amazing and passionate volunteers by my side. Those volunteers cared deeply about making sure the voices of Washington State families were represented. They made phone calls, they went door to door, they volunteered hours of time, they talked to families all across my State who wanted more from their government. We ended up winning that grassroots campaign because the people's voices were heard loudly and clearly. But, to be honest, I don't think it would have been possible if corporations and special interests had been able to drown out their voices with an unlimited barrage of negative ads against candidates who did not support their interests. That is exactly why I support this DISCLOSE Act. I want to make sure that no force is greater in our elections than the power of voters across our cities and towns, and no voice is louder than citizens who care about making their State and country a better place to live. The DISCLOSE Act helps preserve those American values in a lot of ways. First of all, it shines a very bright spotlight on the entire process. The DISCLOSE Act will make corporate CEOs and special interest leaders take responsibility for their acts. When candidates put up campaign commercials on television, we put our faces on our ad and tell every voter we have approved the message. We don't try to hide what we are doing. But right now corporations and special interest groups don't have to do that. They can put up deceptive or untruthful ads with no accountability and no ability for the public to know who is trying to influence them. The DISCLOSE Act also strengthens overall disclosure requirements for groups who are attempting to sway our elections. Too often, corporations and special interest groups are able to hide their spending behind a mask of front organizations because they know the voters will be less likely to believe their ads if they knew the motives behind the sponsors. The DISCLOSE Act ends that. It shines a light on this spending and makes sure voters have the information they need so they know what they can trust. This bill also closes a number of other loopholes that have been opened by the Citizens United decision. It bans foreign corporations and special interest groups from spending in our U.S. elections. It makes sure that corporations are not hiding their election spending from their shareholders. It limits election spending by government contractors, to make sure taxpayer funding is never used to influence an election. It bans coordination between candidates and outside groups on advertising so that corporations and special interest groups can never sponsor a candidate. This DISCLOSE Act is a commonsense bill. It should not be controversial. Anyone who thinks voters should have a louder voice than special interest groups ought to support this bill. Anyone who thinks that foreign entities should have no right to influence U.S. elections ought to support this bill. Anyone who agrees with Justice Brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant should support this bill. And anyone who thinks we should not allow corporations such as BP or Goldman Sachs to spend unlimited money influencing our elections ought to support this bill. Every 2 years we have elections across this country to fill our federally elected offices. Every 2 years voters have the opportunity to talk to each other about who they think will best represent their communities and their families. Every 2 years it is these voices of America's citizens who decide who gets to stand right here representing them in the Congress. That is the basis of our democracy and it is exactly what the DISCLOSE Act aims to protect. I am very proud to support this bill and I urge all our colleagues to stand up against special interests and for voters in their States and allow this bill to finally pass. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Brownback to introduce a bipartisan amendment to the Defense authorization bill that will save and create jobs in one of the most important sectors in our economy--our aerospace industry. Our amendment is about protecting skilled family-wage jobs-- manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs, and jobs with technical skills and expertise that are passed from one generation to the next. These are jobs that not only support families during this difficult economic time but that are also helping keep entire communities above water-- jobs in communities such as Kansas, Connecticut, California, and in my home State of Washington. They are jobs that support small businesses, pay mortgages, and create economic opportunity, and are jobs that right now are at risk because of illegal subsidies that undercut workers and create an uneven playing field for America's aerospace workers. The amendment Senator Brownback and I are offering is a commonsense, straightforward way to protect American aerospace jobs from unfair European competition, and it is an amendment 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 amendment says that in awarding that tanker contract the Pentagon must also consider any unfair competitive advantage aerospace companies have. And there is no bigger unfair advantage in the world of international aerospace than launch aid. As you may know, Mr. President, launch aid is direct funding that has been provided to 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 roll the dice and lose. And it is what separates them from American aerospace companies such as Boeing, which bets the company on each new airplane line. In short, it is what allows them to stack the deck against our 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 is--a trade-distorting, job-killing, unfair advantage. In what was 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 American companies and it needs to end. Specifically, the WTO found that European governments have provided Airbus more than 15 billion Euros in launch aid, subsidizing every model of aircraft ever produced by Airbus in the last 40 years, including the model they plan to put up for our tanker competition. They 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 1 billion in shared transfers and equity infusions into Airbus. They ruled that European governments provided over 1 billion Euros in funding between 1986 and 2005 for research and development directed specifically to the development of Airbus aircraft. In fact, the Lexington Institute estimates that launch aid represents over $200 billion in today's dollars in total subsidies to Airbus. Launch aid has had very real consequences. It has created an uphill battle for our workers and for 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 in the communities that support them. I have been speaking out against Europe's market-distorting actions for many years because I know and understand that these subsidies are not only illegal, they are deeply unfair and anticompetitive. My home State of Washington is 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 anyone. 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 have used billions in illegal launch aid to fund it. They are going to do just about anything to keep those illegal subsidies in place. We saw evidence of that in recent days in news on Airbus's attempts to distract and hide their job-killing subsidies through their retaliatory WTO case against Boeing. Unfortunately for them, it was a smokescreen that failed. News reports and analysts have all shown that the two WTO decisions are worlds apart. In fact, leading aerospace analyst Loren Thompson wrote after the Boeing ruling that it ``found nothing comparable to European launch aid.'' The most recent WTO ruling really only reinforces that American aerospace workers have been at a competitive disadvantage, and that needs to change. Let me be clear about one thing. Our objective here is not to limit competition; our objective 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 that we will take every action to stop them because this is not only about the future of aerospace, right now it is about jobs that will help our entire economy recover. In fact, as we look for ways to stimulate job growth and keep American companies innovating and growing, we should look no further than this amendment. This amendment is commonsense policy. It makes sure the 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 the U.S. Department of Defense is ignoring that position as we look now to purchase a 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 DOD needs to take that ruling into account. When I talk to our aerospace workers back home in Washington State, I want 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 job opportunities. I want them to know that while they are working to secure our country by producing the best airplanes in the world, their government is doing everything it can to make sure there are fair opportunities that will keep them on the job. I know our workers will win a fair and open competition, and I urge the DOD to do the right thing to make this competition fair and open by considering illegal subsidies in awarding these critical contracts. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment when we adopt it and help us protect our American aerospace jobs as a result. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the last several months I have been pushing very hard for this legislation that would help small business owners in my home State of Washington access the capital they need to expand and create jobs. I stand here today to urge all of our colleagues to put politics aside and finally allow this critical legislation to pass. I spent the last month crisscrossing my home State of Washington talking to families and small business owners about ways that we can create jobs and grow the economy. What I heard again and again from so many of these small business owners is that one of the major factors that prevented them from growing is their inability to access credit. Banks were not lending their money to the small businesses that were doing better than they have ever done before. I recently spoke with a small business owner named Alton McDonald who owns a grocery store in Tacoma. He told me he wants to hire new employees. His business is primed to grow. But when he went to the bank to get a loan he was turned down. I spoke with a small business owner named Peter Aaron, who owns the Elliott Bay Bookstore in Seattle which has been a local institution for decades. He is doing his best to keep his head above water in these tough economic times. But he told me that finding a lender to lend him the money he needs to stay in his business is an ongoing challenge. Right now he is struggling to get the financing he needs to put books on his shelves for the holiday season so that when people come in to buy there is something for them to buy. I had the opportunity to speak with Timothy Robinson. He owns a small manufacturing company in Snohomish County. His small business today employs about 14 people and he is doing well. But he told me that despite his best efforts, he simply cannot get access to the credit he needs to expand. If he could get a bank to give him a loan, Timothy told me he could add 30 people right away, 30 new jobs in Snohomish County. What I heard from these small business owners and dozens more over the last several weeks was clear: If small businesses were given access to credit, they would be able to expand their operations and add new jobs--as simple as that. Small businesses such as the ones I visited in Washington State can be the engines that drive our economic recovery. But that engine needs fuel in the form of credit to run, and that fuel is not flowing right now. In communities across my home State of Washington, it has been community banks that have taken the lead in providing that fuel for small business growth. They understand the communities they work in, and they work closely with local small business owners to make sure that their needs are met. But the sad fact is that for far too long our community banks been ignored in our economic recovery. Since this recession began, we have seen banks fail one after another, lending drying up to our small businesses, and job growth suffering. Meanwhile, Wall Street institutions such as AIG and Goldman Sachs were deemed too big to fail. The collapse of our community banks has apparently been too small to notice. That is why last year I introduced the Main Street Lending Restoration Act, which would direct $30 billion to help jumpstart small business lending. It is why I spoke directly to Secretary Geithner about this several times. It is why I have been pushing my colleagues hard to make small business lending a priority. It is why, when President Obama came to Seattle last month, I introduced him directly to several small local business owners and we specifically talked about this issue. I believe strongly that we need to focus more on community banks if we are really going to make progress and bring true recovery to Main Street businesses. I am proud to stand here today in support of the small business lending legislation now before us. This bill takes the most powerful idea from my Main Street Lending Restoration Act. It sets aside $30 billion to help local community banks--those under $10 billion in assets--get the capital they need to begin lending money to small businesses again. It would reward banks that are helping small businesses grow by reducing interest rates on capital they receive under this program. It would help support small business initiatives that are administered by States across the country struggling today because of budget cutbacks. It does all this while saving taxpayers an estimated $1 billion. When I met with small business owners across my State, I spent a lot of time talking with them about this bill. I talked about how it would help them create jobs and grow their businesses. Every single small business owner with whom I spoke thought this was a very important idea. Many of them had a question for me--a question to which I wish I had a better answer. Their question: Who would oppose this bill? Who would oppose a bill that seems to be such a commonsense solution to a most pressing problem, a bill that would create jobs and help small businesses grow, boost our economy at a time when it is so desperately needed? Who would stand up and say no? I was asked that constantly. Unfortunately, I suspect it comes down to some old-fashioned political games. I fear too many of our Republican colleagues are afraid that a victory for small businesses is a victory for the Democratic Party. They don't want that to happen this close to an election. I think that is truly a shame because I believe the challenges small business owners face today transcend partisan politics. The truth is that this is a nonpartisan bill. It is a bill that puts credit back into the hands of small business owners. It is a bill that puts people back to work. It is a win for small business. It isn't a win for a political party. It is a win for the economy, our workers, and our country. I urge my colleagues to put partisan politics aside, listen to the voices of their constituents, listen to small business owners, and support this critical legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I agree.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for engaging in a colloquy with Senator Lincoln and me and would also like to clarify that this provision is in no way intended to impact reimbursement to retail pharmacies participating in the Medicaid Program. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. I reserve 1 minute of our time and ask that the quorum call be equally divided between both sides and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have several Senators coming to the floor, if the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to continue speaking at this time. Mr. President, I will make a few comments then. We do have several Senators on their way at this time. I listened with interest to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to oppose the amendment that is being offered, and it is surprising to me because, as everyone knows, we are in a very tough economic recovery right now. All of our States, all of our communities, all of our families are struggling to get back on their feet. We have been working for some time now to help get our economy back on track. As I outlined earlier, we have come forward to the Senate floor a number of times with small business bills and other bills to try to move the economy forward, and we have been blocked every time. On this amendment, where we have been trying to make sure that 130,000 teachers are not lost--and it is not about the teachers unions; it is about kids in the classroom. This is about the future of the United States of America. Are we going to punish these students and give them less of an education because of the economic time they happen to be in in the first grade or the fifth grade or the eighth grade? That doesn't make sense to me as a mom or as a former teacher or as a Senator. This is about making sure our kids are not hurt in this tough economic recession. It is at a time when the States are struggling with their budgets, and it is at a time when we have told them we are trying to help them fill the gap, a gap they have in Medicaid spending. We went to our colleagues. They blocked the bills when we brought them because they said they were too big. We made them smaller. They said they were not paid for. We went back and worked hard and brought pay-fors now. Yet with all of this compromise, our Republican colleagues have come to the floor today to say that now they have a new idea why they are opposing it--that we have not allowed States to have flexibility within their funding. I remind all of us that Medicaid funding for a lengthy amount of time has had strings attached. I would suggest to all of our colleagues that if we just had open-ended funding out to our States, we would not be hearing: Oh, you are sending money to States with strings attached; we would be hearing the opposite: Oh, you are sending our States money without any strings attached. So I say enough is enough with the politics. Enough is enough with finding excuses. This is about people in our States who are struggling today to get back on their feet. This is a basic measure that we can pass, fully paid for, at a time when our States--not just our States but our children, our families, and our communities need it the most. I urge our colleagues to work with us, to do what a legislative body does. When you compromise and you compromise and you compromise and you have reached an agreement that makes a difference for people, let's move it forward and start to help our families get back on their feet. That is what this amendment is about, and I hope we get to the 60 votes and then can move, before we all go home for an August recess, to make sure people are breathing a little bit easier--the kids who are going to go off to school and the parents who are worried they are not getting the right kind of education; in our States, the many communities of people who are worried, who are in poverty, who are going to lose their health care; state employees who work in our jails or provide very important functions for our States that we count on. They are invisible. We don't see them all the time. But they make sure our lives are safe, that we can go to work and be cared for. That is what this amendment provides our States with the ability to do. We all want our economy back on track. We all wish we were not here having to do this. But we are naive if we think our States are at a point where this Federal Government, our United States, can start ignoring them. That is what this amendment is about, and I urge our colleagues to vote yes. I see my colleague from New York has arrived, and I yield him the remainder of the time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. President, recently we have had the opportunity to consider several bills in the Senate to help ease the burdens for our middle-class families and small business owners that they are facing in this recession. In late June, we brought a bill to the floor that would provide key targeted tax breaks, including a sales tax deductibility for families in my home State, as well as tax breaks to end our dependence on foreign oil. In July, we introduced a Wall Street reform bill that included the strongest protections for consumers ever enacted and a guarantee that taxpayers would never be on the hook for bailing out Wall Street again. A few short weeks ago, we worked to extend unemployment benefits to help stimulate economic growth and those who are in desperate need. Last week, we introduced a bill that would have provided a new small business lending fund to help the backbone of our economy, our small businesses, grow and hire. It would have jump-started community bank lending and small businesses, while saving taxpayers $1 billion. All those bills had broad across-the-board support. In fact, outside the Senate, they had a lot of support. The conservative-leaning National Federation of Independent Business voiced their support for the small business lending funds. Hometown community bankers in my State stood to support Wall Street reform. Economists of all political stripes got behind the long-proven benefits of extending unemployment, and so many others around the country found common cause with the benefits of those critical bills. These bills would help create jobs, put money back in the pockets of taxpayers and small business owners and ease the difficult choices struggling Americans face every day. But at every turn in the Senate, we have been opposed by those on the other side of the aisle who seem to have long ago made their own choice about anything and everything that comes to the floor. It was a choice that favored politics over people, Wall Street over Main Street, and the status quo over the struggles our families are facing. It was a choice to say no, no matter what, no matter when, no matter who was hurt. I go home to Washington State every weekend and I talk to the people I represent. I try to explain what we are working on. To be honest, it is hard to understand why, when big banks and Wall Street were on the brink of failure and threatening to blow up our entire economy, Republicans immediately came together to help us step back from the brink then. But now that Wall Street is fine and regular families and communities are struggling, those same Republicans are nowhere to be found. I don't have an answer for our families. Quite honestly, I don't understand it myself. Today, as we prepare for a final week of votes before we go home to face our constituents, those on the other side of the aisle have one last opportunity to show this is not just a political calculation and that we in this Senate can put people first. The amendment I have offered, and which we will soon vote on, saves jobs and makes sure our kids are not paying the price for this recession. It avoids painful cuts to critical services. And, very importantly, it is fully paid for. For every dollar this amendment invests in saving teacher jobs, reducing class sizes, and avoiding cuts to State programs, we have found targeted spending cuts. This amendment includes help for our States in every corner of this country and will help make sure that our most precious resource--our education system--is protected. Every day brings more reports about the continuing wave of layoffs affecting our school districts across the country. According to recent estimates, over 130,000 teacher jobs will be lost this fall alone. In my home State, there are nearly 3,000 at risk. That means 3,000 teachers in Washington State who are right now in limbo, who are spending this summer not knowing if they are going to be able to return to a classroom or face a pink slip in the fall. We have to remember that every time we lose a teacher, it is not only the teacher and economy that suffers, it is the kids in every one of our States. I received a letter recently from a special education teacher named Connie Compton in Kent, WA, who told the story of recently having to say goodbye to a young, talented, energetic music teacher because of budget cutbacks. She told me how this was just one of six teachers in her school alone who have had to be let go. In her letter she talked about how it is the kids who only get one shot at a music class or an afterschool program or arts or sports or even subjects such as social studies or history who lose out. She also talked about whether it is through larger class sizes they are seeing, scaled down services, fewer subjects being offered, or even shortened school weeks in some of our communities, too often it is our most vulnerable who are paying the price for this recession. My amendment is a fiscally responsible way to make sure our States' schoolchildren and the hard-working teachers who get up every day to improve their lives are not the victims of struggling State budgets. My amendment provides $10 billion to school districts throughout the country to save the over 130,000 teacher jobs that are at risk, and it does so without adding to the deficit, and with a prohibition on the use of this funding for general expenses. It is a very targeted and responsible way to help make sure that as our kids head back to school, our teachers are not entering the ranks of the unemployed. It is also a way to make sure we are not paying a lot more in the long run for adults who have been failed by school systems with too few teachers and too many cuts to services. It is August. Our kids are about to go back to school. We cannot afford for them to go back to huge class sizes where they cannot learn, with fewer subjects being taught, and we certainly cannot afford to wait to address this very immediate problem. Another immediate problem facing States such as mine is the huge State budget hole left by Federal Medicaid payments promised to States but never delivered. Without this critical Federal funding, these States are now faced with the difficult decision of whether they slash thousands of jobs, raise people's taxes, or stall economic recovery. The amendment we are about to vote on includes a fully offset $16.1 billion investment to help our States avoid job losses and cuts to Medicaid and tax increases. In my own State, it will help avoid a costly emergency session of our State legislature or across-the-board cuts to jobs and State services and health care for so many who have lost it when they lost their jobs. In fact, according to the Community Health Care Network in my State, without this extension, health care services for tens of thousands of people in my State will be under threat. Failure to adopt this amendment could also mean layoffs to corrections officers, health care workers, cuts to end-of-life care for low-income people, cuts to State-supported financial aid programs that will deny up to 5,800 full-time students in my State alone an opportunity to go to college and universities next year. It will increase the risk of a double-dip recession and result in reduced consumer spending at a time we can least afford it. Ultimately, failure to adopt this amendment will lead to more spending, not less, because of an increased demand for unemployment benefits and subsidized health care and food stamps. The bottom line is that without this amendment, much of the progress States have been making to get back on the right economic track will be endangered. This is no time to risk our recovery by playing politics with help for our hard-working families. This amendment that we will vote on shortly is the last best chance for teachers and the economic stability of so many of our States. Over the last several weeks, we have tried to work with the other side on every concern they have brought to the table, on every bill we have brought to the floor. We have compromised and we compromised again and then again. Today's amendment is another compromise. It may not include all we would have wanted on this side to save jobs and services in States across our country, but it does include enough to avoid jeopardizing our recovery. We have done all that we can. Ultimately, this is about where our priorities lie. Are our priorities with hard-working families who every day have to grapple with tough choices about how to afford the things they need? Are they with our home States that are faced with laying off workers or raising taxes? Are they with our teachers who have been left with no choice but to find a new job without this help? Are priorities based on political choices--choices guided by polling or party doctrine, choices made long ago to say no, no matter what? This amendment, which is critically important, is focused on what we can still do for our constituents and our States, not what we cannot or will not. It is about solving the big problems that are still threatening our recovery. And it is about showing the American people that when commonsense legislation does come before us, we can make commonsense choices. I urge all of our colleagues to put our families, to put our communities, and our States above partisan politics and work with us to adopt this critical amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pulmonary Fibrosis Research Enhancement Act. Even though pulmonary fibrosis, or PF, kills almost as many people as breast cancer every year, it has not received the attention it deserves. Imagine being told by a doctor that you have a life-threatening disease with no known cure, no consistent standard of care, and no reliable prognosis. Though environmental factors, including occupational exposure to pollutants, are believed to play a role in its onset, PF has no strong demographic profile. In most cases, the doctor can't even tell you what has caused you to get sick. That is exactly the situation faced by the 48,000 people who are diagnosed with PF every year in the United States. Pulmonary fibrosis attacks the lungs, causing them to stiffen, thicken, and scar. As the disease progresses, it becomes harder and harder for oxygen to enter the bloodstream to feed the brain and other vital organs. Currently, the median survival rate for a person with PF is only around three years, and the disease kills roughly 40,000 people every year in the United States. That translates into someone with PF dying every 13 minutes. Perhaps the core obstacle in the fight against PF is how shockingly little we know about the disease. Because the research on PF is still in its infancy and awareness of PF is less than it needs to be, more than half of the cases are initially misdiagnosed. The Pulmonary Fibrosis Research Enhancement Act will start shedding light on PF so that researchers and doctors can start to figure out how to treat it effectively. This bill will also make sure health care professionals have the information they need to make accurate diagnoses of their patients, catching PF in the early stages and allowing for earlier treatment. The Pulmonary Fibrosis Research Enhancement Act will do two major things to bolster efforts against this disease. First, the act will establish the National Pulmonary Fibrosis Advisory Board. The Advisory Board is charged with consulting with and advising the Director of the Centers for Disease Control to create a National Pulmonary Fibrosis Action Plan and with presenting the plan to Congress within one year of the bill's passage. Members of this Advisory Board will come from government agencies, volunteer health organizations, patients and patient advocates, and leading scientists. Second, the act will create the first National PF Registry to gather the data about PF prevalence, risk factors, and development that will help scientists make progress against this disease. This registry will allow researchers to see where those diagnosed with PF are located, which can help determine if there clusters of cases and shed light on any environmental factors. This registry will also be made available to all researchers, including the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and will allow researchers to build on each others' work to develop treatments in a more streamlined and well- informed manner. PF attacks Americans in all walks of life it knows no boundaries and can affect anyone. The prevalence of PF has increased more than 150 percent since 2001, and is expected to continue rising as the population of the United States ages. With that in mind, it is clearly time for Congress to take this first, long overdue step in the battle against PF. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can begin to bring relief to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who suffer from PF.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pulmonary Fibrosis Research Enhancement Act. Even though pulmonary fibrosis, or PF, kills almost as many people as breast cancer every year, it has not received the attention it deserves. Imagine being told by a doctor that you have a life-threatening disease with no known cure, no consistent standard of care, and no reliable prognosis. Though environmental factors, including occupational exposure to pollutants, are believed to play a role in its onset, PF has no strong demographic profile. In most cases, the doctor can't even tell you what has caused you to get sick. That is exactly the situation faced by the 48,000 people who are diagnosed with PF every year in the United States. Pulmonary fibrosis attacks the lungs, causing them to stiffen, thicken, and scar. As the disease progresses, it becomes harder and harder for oxygen to enter the bloodstream to feed the brain and other vital organs. Currently, the median survival rate for a person with PF is only around three years, and the disease kills roughly 40,000 people every year in the United States. That translates into someone with PF dying every 13 minutes. Perhaps the core obstacle in the fight against PF is how shockingly little we know about the disease. Because the research on PF is still in its infancy and awareness of PF is less than it needs to be, more than half of the cases are initially misdiagnosed. The Pulmonary Fibrosis Research Enhancement Act will start shedding light on PF so that researchers and doctors can start to figure out how to treat it effectively. This bill will also make sure health care professionals have the information they need to make accurate diagnoses of their patients, catching PF in the early stages and allowing for earlier treatment. The Pulmonary Fibrosis Research Enhancement Act will do two major things to bolster efforts against this disease. First, the act will establish the National Pulmonary Fibrosis Advisory Board. The Advisory Board is charged with consulting with and advising the Director of the Centers for Disease Control to create a National Pulmonary Fibrosis Action Plan and with presenting the plan to Congress within one year of the bill's passage. Members of this Advisory Board will come from government agencies, volunteer health organizations, patients and patient advocates, and leading scientists. Second, the act will create the first National PF Registry to gather the data about PF prevalence, risk factors, and development that will help scientists make progress against this disease. This registry will allow researchers to see where those diagnosed with PF are located, which can help determine if there clusters of cases and shed light on any environmental factors. This registry will also be made available to all researchers, including the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and will allow researchers to build on each others' work to develop treatments in a more streamlined and well- informed manner. PF attacks Americans in all walks of life it knows no boundaries and can affect anyone. The prevalence of PF has increased more than 150 percent since 2001, and is expected to continue rising as the population of the United States ages. With that in mind, it is clearly time for Congress to take this first, long overdue step in the battle against PF. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can begin to bring relief to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who suffer from PF.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to support the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate has few responsibilities more important than our constitutional obligation to advise and consent on the President's Supreme Court nominees. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and the decisions they make affect the lives and livelihoods of every single family across the country. From the laws governing the role of corporations and special interests in our electoral process, to the rights of women over their own reproductive health--we have seen clearly over the years the impact of this Nation's highest court. So I am very glad that President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to fill this critical position. I met with Solicitor General Kagan and talked to her about how she envisioned her role on the Court. I asked her about her judicial philosophy, and what she felt the Court's role was in protecting ordinary Americans. I followed her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was extremely impressed with what she had to say. Elena Kagan has proven herself to be someone who understands the importance of a fair and independent approach to rendering justice. She is committed to making sure the voices of families across the country are represented in the chambers of the Supreme Court. And she possesses an evenhanded view of our justice system that gives me every assurance that any individual or group from Washington State could stand before her and receive fair treatment. Solicitor General Kagan also has a strong legal background and is without a doubt a highly qualified choice for the Supreme Court. Following her graduation from Harvard Law School she served as a law clerk for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S Court of Appeals, before moving on to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. After spending some time in private practice, Elena Kagan went back into public service to work for President Clinton on the Domestic Policy Council. She then went back to Harvard Law School to teach and ultimately became the first woman to serve as dean of the school, where she cemented her reputation as a fairminded leader who reaches out to all sides and builds consensus. When President Obama was elected he called Elena Kagan back into public service to serve as Solicitor General. In this new role as the so-called 10th Justice, she argued before the Court on a broad range of issues, including a vigorous defense of the government's right to limit the influence of corporations and special interests in the electoral process. When I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that Elena Kagan lacks the experience to sit on the Supreme Court because she has never been a judge, I find that a little hard to believe. Forty-one Justices have served on the Nation's highest court without having any prior judicial experience. Democrats and Republicans alike have expressed the notion that prior judicial experience is not a prerequisite for serving on the Supreme Court. In fact, for most of the Court's history there was a diversity of career experiences represented on the bench. Most recently, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who never served as a judge before he was nominated to the highest court. Neither did Justice Powell or Justice White. Nor did Justices Black, Warren, Jackson, or Marshall. So I find it interesting that the standard was changed with this nomination. Elena Kagan is clearly qualified, and she is going to make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. Her nomination is also another step forward toward making sure that we have a Supreme Court that is reflective of the country whose laws it safeguards. We are now on the verge of having the most women to serve together on the court at any one time. While we still have work to do to achieve a court that is truly representative of the full diversity of American experiences, I am proud that we are taking this strong step forward toward that goal. After meeting with Solicitor General Kagan, hearing her testimony, and examining her record, I am confident that she has the judgment and impartiality to serve our Nation honorably on the Supreme Court. She is thoughtful and fairminded in her approach to some of the most pressing legal issues we face as a nation. She understands the struggles working families face and the role of the Supreme Court in protecting them. And she is committed to protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans. I am proud to represent families from my home State of Washington and I am proud to join with my Democratic and Republican colleagues to cast my vote to confirm Elena Kagan as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, on Tuesday, I came to the floor to voice my support for this bill by telling the stories of small business owners in every corner of my State who have struggled so hard to get credit since this recession began. I talked about people who were driven by their passions, who want to grow their businesses, who want to hire, but who have been stymied by the lack of credit flowing from our banks. I talked about the drivers of our economy and job creation. But if small businesses are the driver of our economic recovery, then our community banks are the engine. Right now we all know that engine is in neutral. That is because for far too long, our community banks have been ignored in our economic recovery. Since this recession began, we have seen banks fail one after another, lending dry up to our small businesses, and job growth suffer. While Wall Street institutions, such as AIG and Goldman Sachs, were deemed ``too big to fail,'' the collapse of our community banks has apparently been ``too small to notice.'' Last year, I introduced the Main Street Lending Restoration Act which would have directed $30 billion to help jump-start small business lending. That is why I have spoken with Secretary Geithner and President Obama about this directly and why I have been pushing so hard to make small business lending a priority. I have felt very strongly that we have to focus more on our community banks if we want to make progress and bring true recovery to our Main Street businesses. It is why I am so proud to stand here today and support this bill. I thank Senator Landrieu and others for working with us in creating the Small Business Lending Fund and the State Small Business Credit Initiative. This Small Business Lending Fund takes the most powerful idea from my Main Street Lending Restoration Act and sets aside $30 billion to help our local community banks--those that are under $10 billion in assets-- to help them get the capital they need to begin lending to our small businesses again. It is going to reward the banks that are helping our small businesses grow by reducing the interest rates on capital that they get under this program, and it will help our small support business initiatives run by our States across the country that are struggling because of local budget cutbacks. And, as Senator Landrieu has told us, it will save taxpayers an estimated $1 billion. It is a bill that should have broad support and, in fact, it does from small business groups of all stripes, community bankers, and so many others across this country who have found common cause with this bill. Once again we are finding ourselves faced with opposition from the other side. Once again a commonsense bill that will save taxpayers money is being held hostage by political calculation. I think an editorial in yesterday's Seattle Times on this bill summed up some of the frustration in living rooms and communities across the country very well on the obstruction we see every day. The editorial first noted the importance of this bill we are considering by saying: Economic recovery is all about jobs. And American consumers, who help power the economy, are spending less in the shadow of a shaky employment market. Small banks lending to small businesses puts people to work. Access to credit is key. Helping Main Street rekindles hiring, boosts consumer confidence in overall economic conditions, and fuels the recovery. That is how the editorial started. It went on to say this is ``part of a larger package of legislation for small business and Main Street America that has attracted scant Republican interest or support.'' Then the editorial briefly, but very accurately, summarized what I think so many in our country are thinking when they return home from pounding the pavement, looking for work only to turn on their TV to see that a bill such as this is blocked from consideration. It said: Nothing should be more nonpartisan than putting people back to work. It is a line that speaks volumes in this Chamber because it is a line that truly represents how so many of our constituents feel. This is a nonpartisan bill. This is a bill that puts credit back into the hands of our small business owners. It puts people back to work. And nothing should be more nonpartisan than putting people back to work. I urge all of our colleagues to listen to the voices of their constituents and small business owners. Support this cloture motion. Let's get this sent to the President. Quickly, I do want to say that I worked very hard to include funding in this bill to help save over 130,000 teacher jobs. Again that effort has been blocked by Republican obstruction. I remind all of us, every day we see more reports about the continuing wave of layoffs affecting our school districts. This is not just about school districts. It is about losing teachers, and it may be the only teacher who touches a child in their classroom. It is about kids in every one of our States. We need to be sure we do not lose focus of this issue. I am going to continue to fight to ensure that our teachers return to the classrooms and our kids have the best instructors in September. Again I thank Senator Landrieu for her tremendous work on this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in strong support of the DISCLOSE Act, to close the glaring campaign finance loopholes that were opened by the Citizens United ruling. This Supreme Court ruling was a true step backward for this democracy. It overturned decades of campaign finance law and policy. It allowed corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of their money influencing our democracy. And it opens the door wide for foreign corporations to spend their money on elections right here in the United States. The Citizens United ruling has given special interest groups a megaphone they can use to drown out the voices of average citizens in my home State of Washington and across the country. The DISCLOSE Act we are considering will tear that megaphone away and place it back into the hands of the American people, where it belongs. This is a very personal issue for me. When I first ran for the Senate back in 1992, I was a long-shot candidate with some ideas and a group of amazing and passionate volunteers by my side. Those volunteers cared deeply about making sure the voices of average Washington State families were represented here in the Senate. They made phone calls. They went door to door. They talked to families across our State who wanted more from their government. Well, we ended up winning that grassroots campaign because the people's voices were heard loudly and clearly. But to be honest, I do not think it would have been possible if corporations and special interests had been able to drown out their voices with an unlimited barrage of negative ads against candidates who did not support their interests. That is why I so strongly support this DISCLOSE Act. I want to make sure no force is greater in our elections than the power of voters across our cities and towns. And no voice is louder than citizens who care about making their State and country a better place to live. This DISCLOSE Act helps preserve that American value. It shines a bright spotlight on the entire process. What the DISCLOSE Act will do will make corporate CEOs and special interest leaders take responsibility for their ads. When candidates put campaign commercials up on television--you have seen them--we put our faces on the ad and tell every voter we approve the message. We do not hide what we are doing. But right now, because of this Supreme Court decision, corporations and special interest groups do not have to do that. They can put up deceptive, untruthful ads with no accountability and no ability for people to know who is trying to influence them. The DISCLOSE Act strengthens overall disclosure requirements for groups that are attempting to sway our elections. Too often, corporations and special interest groups are able to hide behind their spending because of a mask of front organizations because they know voters would be less likely to believe the ads if they knew what the motives of the sponsors were. The DISCLOSE Act ends that. It shines a light on the spending and makes sure voters have the information they need so they know whom they can trust. This bill also closes a number of other loopholes opened by the Citizens United decision. It bans foreign corporations and special interest groups from spending in U.S. elections. It makes sure corporations are not hiding their election spending from their shareholders. It limits election spending by government contractors to make sure taxpayer funding is never used to influence an election. And it bans coordination between candidates and outside groups on advertising, so corporations and special interest groups can never ``sponsor'' a candidate. This DISCLOSE Act is a commonsense bill that should not be controversial. Anyone who thinks voters should have a louder voice than special interest groups ought to vote for this bill. Anyone who thinks foreign entities should have no right to influence U.S. elections should support this bill. Anybody who agrees with Justice Brandeis that ``sunlight is the best disinfectant'' ought to support this bill. And anyone who thinks we should not allow corporations such as BP or Goldman Sachs to spend unlimited money influencing our elections ought to support this bill. Every 2 years, we have elections across this country to fill our federally elected offices. Every 2 years, voters have the opportunity to talk to each other about who they think will represent their communities best. And every 2 years, it is these voices of America's citizens that decide who gets to stand right here representing them in the Congress. That is the basis of our democracy, and it is exactly what this DISCLOSE Act aims to protect. So I am proud to support this bill, and I urge all of our colleagues to move forward on this bill on the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Washington to go first and then I will follow her.