Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2302

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe the Kyl amendment is in order.

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence with respect to the pending amendments be the following, and commence once this agreement is entered, with no further debate except as specified below: Harkin amendment No. 2300, Kyl amendment No. 2301, Gregg amendment No. 2302, Coburn amendment No. 2304, Vitter amendment No. 2303, and Isakson amendment No. 2306; that the previous order with respect to 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, prior to each vote, and vote time limitation, after the first vote remaining in effect; further that upon disposition of the pending amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would just let all Senators know that we are working to probably move to the votes fairly shortly, as soon as we get a unanimous consent agreement. So at this time I would suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. I withhold.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this amendment?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe the pending amendment is the Harkin amendment, and he has 1 minute.

Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe the Coburn amendment is the next in order.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the senior Senator from Minnesota for all her work helping to move this very critical and important nomination through the Senate. I am here to join her in support of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. States Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of many our nation's most important disputes. And as the Constitution provides for a lifetime appointment to the Court, a Supreme Court Justice has an opportunity to have a profound effect on the future of the law in America. That is why the Constitution directs that the Senate is responsible for providing advice and consent on judicial nominees. Naturally, I take my responsibilities in the nomination and confirmation process very seriously. But I take a special, personal interest in Supreme Court nominations. It was watching Supreme Court confirmation hearings many years ago that inspired me to challenge the status quo and run for the Senate. I was deeply frustrated by the confirmation hearings of then-nominee Clarence Thomas. I believed that average Americans did not have a voice in the process. There were important questions--questions that needed to be answered--that were never even raised to the nominee. So, I have worked for years to be a voice for those average Americans when it comes to judicial appointments--and make sure those questions are asked. I have had the opportunity to meet in person with Judge Sotomayor and ask her the questions that will most affect all Americans, including working families in Washington State. I have examined her personal and professional history, and studied her 17-year record on the Federal bench. I have followed her progress through the Senate Judiciary Committee and watched her answer a number of difficult questions. And with all of this information and her answers in mind, I am pleased to support her nomination. By now, many Americans have heard the remarkable life story of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor is truly the embodiment of the American dream. Though many Americans by now have heard Judge Sotomayor's story, some points bear repeating. Judge Sotomayor is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents. Her father died when she was 9, and she and her brother were raised by her mother in a public housing project in the Bronx. Sotomayor's mother, a nurse, worked extra hours so that she could pay for schooling and a set of encyclopedias for her children. After graduating from high school, Judge Sotomayor attended college at Princeton and law school at Yale. She spent five years prosecuting criminal cases in New York, 7 years in private law practice, and 17 years as a Federal judge on the U.S. District Court and Court of Appeals. Judge Sotomayor's story is an inspiring reminder of what is achievable with hard work and the support of family and community. Of course, a compelling personal story of triumph in tough circumstances is not itself enough. I have long used several criteria to evaluate nominees for judicial appointments: Are they ethical, honest, and qualified? Will they be fair, independent, and even-handed in administering justice? And will they protect the rights and liberties of all Americans? I am confident that Judge Sotomayor meets these criteria. She has 17 years of Federal judicial experience and unanimously received the highest rating of the American Bar Association--which called her ``well qualified'' based on a comprehensive evaluation of her record and integrity. And she has directly answered questions about her personal beliefs-- and prior statements. She has been clear with me, the Judiciary Committee and the American people that her own biases and personal opinions never play a role in deciding cases. More importantly, her 17 years on the bench stand as the testament to this fact. Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated her independence. She was nominated to the Federal district court by President George H.W. Bush and appointed to the U.S. court of appeals by President Clinton. Judge Sotomayor has received rave reviews from her fellow judges on the Second Circuit, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as strong support from a diverse cross section of people and organizations from across the political spectrum. Finally, it is clear to me that Judge Sotomayor is committed to protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans. She understands the struggle of working families. She understands the importance of civil rights. Her record shows a strong respect for the rule of law and that she evaluates each case based on its particular facts. Having followed the criteria by which I measure judicial nominees, I am confident Judge Sotomayor will be a smart, fair, impartial, and qualified member of the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe any individual or group from my home State could stand before her and receive fair treatment and that she will well serve the interests of justice and the public as our next Supreme Court Justice. I wish to come to the floor to join with many of my women colleagues in the Senate and let the people of Washington State know that, after reviewing her qualifications and her record and reviewing her testimony, I am very proud to stand and support this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. 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, on behalf of Senator Tester, I ask unanimous consent that his science fellow, David Szymanski, be given floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a few moments ago, the Republican leader, on the floor, talked about a concern about ``rushing'' to a health care reform debate and bill. I want to assure everyone that no one is rushing to anything. Everyone is working hard to come up with a good, strong health care reform bill that addresses an urgent need in this country. In fact, last week, President Obama spoke to the Nation about the urgent need to reform the health care system. He spoke about premiums that have doubled over the last decade. He talked about the out-of- pocket costs that have been shooting up by over a third. He talked about deductibles that all of us have seen skyrocket. He talked about the families and the small business owners who have to work harder and harder to stay afloat. President Obama spoke about the work that has been done to put a health care reform plan together. I sit on the health care committee in the Senate. We spent months having hearings and working through some of the tough, difficult challenges. We spent weeks and hours working through a debate on a health care reform package. We looked at hundreds of amendments, many of them Republican, a lot of them accepted into our health care bill before it passed out. We are working very hard now with the Finance Committee for them to work through the challenging issues and come up with a solution, as the House is as well. We are working hard to come to a solution with the health care reform plan that protects patient choice, that reins in those costs I talked about, and provides coverage for millions of Americans who don't have any today. The President of the United States spoke frankly about some of our Republican colleagues who are speaking out for the status quo. President Obama spoke plainly to Americans about the devastating costs of inaction--the devastating costs of inaction if we do nothing, and what will happen if we maintain the status quo. I am telling you what would happen if we do nothing: Premiums are going to continue to rise, benefits will continue to erode, out-of-pocket costs are going to continue to skyrocket, and more and more employers will do what I have seen too many in my State have to do: drop coverage for their workers. We talk about 47 million Americans today who don't have coverage at all. That will seem like the good old days if we do nothing. Despite what some of our colleagues wish us to believe, Americans do want health care reform. They need health care reform desperately, and they are not going to accept another year of talking and bickering and stalling. Last month, I sent a letter to families across my State of Washington asking for their help as we work very hard to reform the health care system. I told them I wanted to pass a plan that protects existing coverage when it is good, improves it when it is not, reins in costs today, and lowers them long term, and guarantees care for the millions of people who don't have health care today. I asked my constituents to share with me their stories and ideas about how to make this vision a reality. I told them that I know health care is a very personal issue, but I also told them their personal stories have the power to change minds and transform debate. The response I got was overwhelming. I came to the floor last week several times and shared some of the over 5,000 stories that have now poured into my office from my State. I underscored the need to fix this broken health care system and do it this year. I come to the floor to share a few more stories, and I want to talk about a specific aspect of health care reform I have been working very hard on, and that is, as we reform this health care system, we have a skilled health care workforce that is ready to step up and provide the care we need. Judy Allen, from Moses Lake, WA, sent me a story about her son. She said he had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at the age of 5 and was given a 50-50 chance of making it to his ninth birthday. Judy said she and her husband had good health insurance, but they had to travel over 3 hours to get to a clinic with the resources her son needed. They could not move close to this facility, because moving would force them to switch health care insurance providers, and they knew if that happened, they would get rejected because of their son's preexisting condition. Sadly, Judy's son died 3 years ago, but the reforms we are working on will help mothers such as Judy across the country. We want to stop insurance companies from spending our premium dollars on figuring out ways to exclude people from coverage. We are going to ensure that nobody will be denied health care coverage even if they have a preexisting condition. Unfortunately, Judy's story is not unique. Millions of Americans who have insurance today--good insurance--struggle with a broken health care system. They struggle with the skyrocketing costs, with the complicated system that works for the insurance companies but not for the patients. So I agree with President Obama that we need to reform the health care system this year. As we work to provide quality affordable health care coverage to all Americans, we have to make sure there are enough health care professionals to provide that care. We can write and pass a bill that improves the coverage and reins in the costs, but without an educated, accessible system of doctors, nurses, x-ray technicians, physical therapists, and other health care professionals, that coverage isn't going to mean much. If we provide health care coverage without the workers, it is like building schools and not hiring any teachers. So it is common sense, but it makes economic sense as well. Not only does this shortage make it hard to access care even if you have insurance today, it makes it more expensive. That is why we have made a number of investments that are going to create and sustain good- paying jobs and ensure access to care so that Americans stay healthy and productive. We all know today that too few medical students are going into high- demand general care fields. Many students enter specialty fields, in part to pay for the cost of medical school, and because they tend to be more lucrative long term. So the health care bill we passed out of committee on health care includes incentives such as loan repayment programs, scholarships, and grants to encourage students to go into high-need fields and to work in underserved areas. It invests in education, training, and retention efforts, not just for new health care workers but for all of those who are already providing quality care in this country. Investments in our health care workforce create jobs, ease the strain on overworked health care professionals, and keep Americans healthy, so they can be productive on their jobs. I am going to keep working to make sure these investments remain a priority. Quickly, before I yield the floor, I want to reiterate the critical need I talked about a minute ago to fix the health care system. I want to share a story. Sharon Alexander wrote to me from Steilacoom, WA, about her battle with brain cancer--the same type Senator Kennedy suffers from. Sharon had health insurance, but she wrote and told me that while she was running from doctor to doctor and undergoing radiation treatments, she and her husband had to spend a great deal of time navigating different copayments and acceptance policies of all of her doctors. She told me she was lucky she had insurance, but she still had to jump through hoop after hoop to get the care she needed. Sharon discovered that in our broken health care system, high-priced insurance doesn't guarantee high-quality health care. That is why we need to act. We need to lower the cost of health care, we need to ensure Americans have affordable health care and, in these difficult times, with all of the challenges Americans have with premiums rising three times faster than wages and every day 14,000 more Americans losing their health insurance, we are not rushing; we are working hard to get this right, and it needs to be done this year. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. 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, if you look at the front cover of newspapers across the country this week or watch cable news each day, it is pretty clear that the rhetoric on health care reform is really heating up. Whether it is threats from the other side of the aisle to ``break'' a President who has made health care reform a priority or whether it is the million-dollar ad buys from interest groups we are seeing or whether it is political pundits, health care rhetoric is reaching a fever pitch. In fact, the discourse here in Washington, DC, has gotten so loud that the voice of American families is being drowned out. These days, those who need reform the most are the ones being heard from the least. That is why 3 weeks ago I sent an e-mail to many of my constituents asking them to share with me their personal stories of dealing with our health care system and asking them for their ideas for reform. So far, I have received in just a few short weeks over 5,000 e- mails into my office with deeply personal and often very painful stories from every corner of my State. Yesterday, I came to the floor to share several of those stories. They were the stories of women who had lost their insurance, and due to an inability to get care when they needed it most, they lost their lives. Many of the letters I have received, such as those I spoke about yesterday, tug at the heart strings. But today, this evening, I wish to talk about what so many Americans are concerned about right now: their purse strings. I understand many Americans are satisfied with the level of care their insurance provides. These are the Americans who can get in to see a doctor when they need one, and they receive good, quality care. These are the Americans who want to know what is in it for them: What will I get out of reform? And with all of their other problems, why should we pay for it right now? These are good questions to which the American people deserve a good answer. It is not just the uninsured who are impacted by not being able to access preventive medicine or having to seek costly care in the emergency room. These costs get passed on to those with insurance in the form of higher insurance premiums. In fact, it is estimated that a family of four today here in this country is paying an added $1,000 in premiums a year to help pay for those who don't have any coverage. Essentially, families with health insurance today are paying a hidden tax. That tax is hurting our families who are insured, it is hurting our businesses, and it has to end. Health care reform will do that. By creating a competitive pool of insurance options, including a public option, we can bring down the costs and the premiums to families in the long run. We are going to be moving to a system that rewards innovation and healthy outcomes, and because Americans will have a choice of insurance plans, insurance providers will be forced to lower costs so they can be competitive. The existence of a pool of insurers to choose from means that if you lose your job, you don't lose your insurance. If you want to change jobs or maybe even start a business, there is a health care option for you. And we make it easier for small businesses to provide coverage for their employees by having them pay for up to half the cost of health insurance for businesses with 50 or fewer workers. Accordingly, we also prohibit insurance companies from charging higher premiums for women or for the elderly, and we end the practice of denying coverage to those people with preexisting conditions. And for the first time, we put a priority on prevention and wellness. If we invest in community-based programs to improve nutrition or prevent smoking or increase fitness, we are going to save taxpayers nearly $16 billion a year within 5 years. So health care reform, when we talk about it here, will make health care coverage more affordable, portable, and undeniable. Let me give a real-life example of someone who has health insurance today but would benefit greatly from the health care reform we are talking about. One of the letters I recently received is from Patricia Jackson, who lives in Woodinville, WA. I suspect her story will sound pretty familiar to most Americans. Patricia and her family have private insurance that is paid for each month through premiums that come directly out of Patricia's paycheck. But as is the case with many middle-class families, the burden of those premium payments is rapidly rising. To provide care for her family of four, Patricia paid $840 a month in 2007. Then last year her payments jumped to $900 a month. Today she is paying $1,186 in premiums to provide care for her family every month. Unfortunately, for too many families, Patricia's story isn't the exception, it is the rule. It is exactly what they are seeing in their homes with their premiums. Health insurance premiums for working families in Washington State have skyrocketed in recent years. In fact, according to a study by Families USA, from 2000 to 2007, premiums increased by 86.6 percent. Let me say that again. Over an 8-year period, premiums in my home State of Washington increased by 86.6 percent. But over that same period of time, wages in my State only grew by 16 percent. Health care premiums are taking a bigger and bigger chunk out of families' paychecks. Health insurance premiums rose over five times faster than median earnings, and that problem is not going away. For a lot of our average middle-class families who are struggling to make mortgage payments or to send their kids to college today, this is a situation that cannot continue. They can't afford it. If we don't have meaningful health care reform, it is a trend that is going to continue indefinitely. This reform can't come a moment too soon. Two weeks ago, Patricia's-- who I just talked about--insurance company, which is the largest private insurance company in my home State, announced another dramatic increase in premium. They told Patricia, and a lot of other families in my State, that starting on August 1, this company is going to raise premiums for 135,000 enrollees by an average of 17 percent more--17 percent more from what I just told you. A front-page story in the Seattle Times, the day after that hike was announced, quoted Gail Petersen, who lives in north Seattle, who says that news means her premiums are going to rise by $300. She said: I would love to see insurance companies have a little competition. So would Patricia Jackson. In fact, Patricia recently contacted my office again to let me know that, starting on August 1, her new premiums will be over $1,400 a month. That is unaffordable. It is unsustainable for Patricia, for America's families, for our businesses, and for America's future economic strength. Health care reform isn't just for the uninsured, it is for people such as Patricia and Gail and the millions of others who have health insurance right now, who have played by the rules, but whose paychecks and futures are being gouged by a system that lacks accountability, lacks competition, and lacks reason. Unfortunately, we are hearing from some of our friends on the other side who want to prevent meaningful, comprehensive reform from ever moving forward. Just as unfortunate are their motives. We heard a Member of our Senate say he wants to protect the status quo. He said: If we are able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo, it will break him. Mr. President, that type of posturing is playing games with real lives and real people in order to score cheap political points. Blocking health care reform won't break the President of the United States of America, but it will break American families, it will break American businesses; it will break the bank. America deserves better. Congress knows that most Americans like their doctors, their providers, and their coverage. On the days they need to see a doctor, they are glad they can provide their families with coverage for booster shots, checkups, preventive, and even emergency care. But on payday, it is a very different story. For those of our colleagues who ask how we can afford to pay for this, I want to tell them to ask Patricia Jackson--or any of their constituents--because the real question is: How can we afford not to? Especially at a time when the economy is struggling and the costs of care are rising, we need to do everything we can to rein in those costs, prevent people from losing their coverage and having to seek more expensive care in our emergency rooms. Tonight we will hear from our President. He knows that doing nothing is not an option. The time is right, the time is now. Patricia, her family, and the millions of hard-working, taxpaying Americans across the country simply cannot wait any longer. I urge our Senate colleagues to set aside the rhetoric and begin to look at the issues and help us solve this problem so we can move this forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding time on this important debate. As we consider the future of the F-22 program, it is important for us to remember the most fundamental goal we have for our defense industry and the way we have met that goal for many decades. That goal is to give our men and women in uniform technology and equipment that is far superior to that of our enemy so they can protect themselves and defend our Nation. It has been our mission from the time of the Wright brothers to the days of Rosie the Riveter, to the era of stealthy technology. But maintaining that technology has depended on an important partnership and that is a partnership between the Pentagon, which determines the needs of our war fighters, and industry, which does the research and design and builds the next generation of military equipment that meets those needs. It is a partnership that is vital to our military strength, to our economy, and to the health of our domestic industrial base. Unfortunately, it is also a partnership that is being weakened by amendments such as the one we are considering today. Instead of treating military procurement such as the partnership that it is, this amendment envisions it as a one-way street. This amendment cancels a vital military program without adequate thought of the men and women we rely on to design and build the equipment our war fighters depend on without any consideration of the fact that if we end the F-22 program, we are cutting a link in technology that we will not be able to repair overnight. As many of you know, this is not the first time I have come to the floor to talk about the erosion of our Nation's industrial base. It likely will not be the last. That is because protecting our domestic base is not about just one company or one program or one State or one industry. This is about our Nation's economic stability, it is about our future military capability, and it is about the ability to retain skilled family-wage jobs in communities throughout the country. Just last week, the Aerospace Industries Association issued a major report that finds the Pentagon failed to consider industrial effects when choosing strategies. That report urged the Pentagon to take into account the impact decisions such as the one to stop production of the F-22 make on our manufacturing base. That report also noted that our manufacturing base was not taken into account in past Quadrennial Defense Reviews, and when Secretary Gates unveiled his program cuts in April, he specifically said defense industry jobs were not a factor in his decisions. As our country faces two difficult but not unrelated challenges-- safeguarding our country in a dangerous world and rebuilding a faltering economy--ignoring the needs of our industrial base should not be an option. Whether it is the scientists who are designing the next generation of military satellites or whether it is the engineers who are improving our radar systems or the machinists assembling our war planes, these industries and their workers are one of our greatest strategic assets. What if they, all of a sudden, were not available? What if we made budgetary and policy decisions that did not take into account the need of making sure we have a strong domestic workforce in our country? Actually, that is not impossible or even unthinkable. It is actually happening today. We need to be clear about the ramifications of amendments such as the ones we are considering today because once we give up on producing this technology, once we say that certain research and development is no longer needed, we lose that. We lose it and we cannot rebuild it overnight. Today, as we consider a critical tool for the future of our military across the globe, we have to also remember the partnership we have built with our industrial base because, unless we consider the needs of that partnership, we are not only going to continue to lose some of our best-paying American jobs, we are going to lose the backbone of our military might. Supporting continued F-22 production will help defend against potential threats, it will protect family-wage jobs, and, most importantly, it will preserve our domestic base. That is important because we do not know what conflict will come in the future. We don't know what our challenges will be 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years from now. If we lose our engineering or our production base and we face a challenge in the future and go back to rebuild that, it will never happen. We will be at a disadvantage in whatever future conflict we might face. I urge our colleagues to think about the long-term interests of this decision. I oppose the amendment and I look forward to further debate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago I sent a letter to families across my home State of Washington asking for their help as we reform our broken health care system. I told them I wanted to pass a plan that protects existing coverage when it is good, improves it when it is not, and guarantees care for the millions who have none. I asked them to share their stories with me and ideas about how to make this vision a reality. I told them that I know health care is a very personal issue, but also that personal stories have the power to change minds and transform debates. The response to my request has been simply overwhelming. I wish to share some of the stories that have been pouring into my office--over 5,000 so far--because they underscore not only the desperate need to fix our broken health care system but also the dire necessity to get it done this year. For too many families today, health care reform can't wait. I wish to share a story from a letter I received from Rita from Seattle who sent me a story about her sister Janet. Janet was unemployed and had lost her health insurance when her throat began to hurt one day back in 2004. She paid out of her own pocket to visit a health clinic and was sent home with antibiotics. Well, weeks later, she was still in a lot of pain and finally managed to get an appointment with a specialist, but she was told she had to wait 6 weeks more to come in to get help. Only after begging them for an appointment was she seen by the specialist 3 days later and was told that the pain she had been living with was in the late stages of an aggressive form of throat cancer. Janet died not long after that. It was a death that would have been prevented had she been able to see a specialist earlier. Janet is not alone. A woman by the name of Kathleen from Puyallup, WA, sent in a story about her friend Kelly. Kelly had just been laid off from work when she came down with what she thought was the flu. She didn't have any health insurance because she had been laid off from her job and she couldn't afford to go to the doctor, so she waited. Two weeks later she felt even worse, so she finally made an appointment to go in for a checkup. Kelly never made it to the doctor. Her 7-year-old son found her dead on the couch on the morning she was supposed to go in. She died from an untreated ovarian cyst. Because Kelly didn't have health insurance, that little boy no longer has a mother. I think the fact that these stories are possible in the greatest and richest country in the world is simply shameful. No son should lose a mother simply because she can't afford care. No family should have to watch a loved one suffer because insurance companies instead of doctors are making the decisions. That is why we so badly need to reform our health care system this year. Our country has been working on this issue for over 60 years and we have spent months and months this session alone working to put together a reform package that works for all Americans. We have had over 6 months of hearings. We went through over 50 hours of public markups. We debated over 200 amendments. So when I hear some of my colleagues from across the aisle saying we should slow down, saying we should take more time, or that we are trying to reform health care too fast, and when I see some of them shrugging off every attempt we have made at engaging them and bringing them into the process, I think of Kelly and I think of Janet and I think of all of the families out there right now with sick husbands or sick wives or sick kids. I think of all the small business owners I have talked to who can't cover their employees. I think of the people who have coverage, but are worried about losing it today in this uncertain economy. I think about all the working Americans who are paying a hidden tax today in the form of rising premiums in order to cover those Americans who don't have access to care. As a mother and as a Senator, I say enough is enough. Yesterday we heard some pretty ugly and blatant rhetoric. One Member of the Senate who wants to protect the status quo, who doesn't want to make any changes, said: ``If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.'' That is playing games with real lives in order to score cheap political points. Bucking health care reform isn't going to break the President of the United States. It will break American families. It will break American businesses. It is going to break the bank. Americans deserve better. The families of Janet and Kelly and the thousands of others who have written me deserve better. We can't play politics with what is most important to our Nation's families--the health of their loved ones. They say justice delayed is justice denied. Well, health care delayed is often health care denied. It was denied to Kelly, it was denied to Janet, and it gets denied to more Americans every single day we wait. I call on all of our colleagues here in the Senate to work with us to rise above partisanship. We have a good plan right now. We are working to listen and bring everybody in and make it better. It will rein in the costs with the goal of lowering them across the long term. It will make sure all Americans have high quality, affordable coverage. This issue is not going to go away if we don't do anything. It is not going to get better or easier if we wait. In fact, today, costs are rising at an unsustainable rate for those who do have insurance and more and more Americans are losing their insurance every day. We have been talking about reforming the health care system for a very long time. I go home to my home State of Washington every weekend, and I am asked often now if it is the right time to tackle health care reform. In these difficult and challenging economic times when people are worried about paying their bills, worried about losing their jobs, worried about what is coming around the corner, they ask me if we are biting off more than we can chew. I tell them: This is exactly the time we need to act. Premiums are rising three times faster than wages today. Every day, 14,000 more Americans lose their health insurance. In these already difficult times, I don't want to add losing health insurance to the list of concerns our families have to deal with every day. We know the current system is unsustainable. Even those people with good coverage today are faced with massive costs and rising premiums. That is why tackling this problem now has to be part of our long-term economic recovery program. Without health care reform, family budgets are going to continue to be strapped, more Americans are going to lose their care, and we are going to hear more stories like Janet and Kelly. I hope we can put aside the partisan rhetoric, I hope we can put aside the talk of: Slow this down; it is too fast. This issue is imperative, and I urge my colleagues to act. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in every corner of our country, communities have been working to end hate crimes. Despite the great gains in equality and civil rights throughout the last century, too many Americans today are still subjected to discrimination, violence, and even death because of who they are. That is why I have joined with many of my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will stand up for the victims of hate crimes and their families. I am glad it has been offered as an amendment and that we will now have a chance to act on it this week. It takes only a quick glance at a newspaper to see places around the world where people are regularly attacked because of their religion or the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. It is important to remember that even though we in America have made great strides in reducing discrimination, there is still plenty of work to be done. I am proud we are working toward ending these crimes once and for all in the memory of Matthew Shepard. Matthew, as many of my colleagues have stated, was a 21-year-old college student who was murdered because of his sexual orientation. That crime was not prosecuted as a hate crime because there was no applicable State or Federal hate crimes law that covered sexual orientation. Just this year we were all saddened by a horrific shooting of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, a few blocks away. But those are only two examples. And not all of these terrible hate crimes make headlines. In 2007, the last year for which the FBI has statistics, there were over 9,000 hate crime offenses. The thousands of people who have been victimized by hate crimes each receive inadequate protection under the law, and that is simply unconscionable. That is why this amendment we are considering this afternoon is long overdue. This amendment would strengthen our existing laws by providing the Justice Department with additional tools to investigate and prosecute crimes that were committed based on a victim's race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Communities across the country have been working to respond to hate crimes, and State and local law enforcement continues to bear the responsibility for prosecuting the bulk of these crimes. This is not a Federal takeover. However, States and localities would greatly benefit from the help the Federal Government can provide. If a State or local community is unable to prosecute a hate crime, this amendment would mean the Federal Government could lend a hand. This amendment would provide a number of other tools to help end hate crimes. It would provide States and local governments with grants designed for hate crime prevention. It would expand data collection about hate crimes so that law enforcement will have more information to help prevent prejudicial crimes committed against women. It would expand the legal definition of what a hate crime is, allowing for stronger prosecution and more cases for a violent crime that is clearly motivated by hatred. In that way, this amendment would put into law what we already know, that crimes are different when they are motivated by discrimination. Burning down a building is a horrible crime. But that crime takes on a new character when that building is a church or a synagogue or a mosque. It is wrong when one person attacks another person on the street, for sure. But it has a different meaning when violence occurs because the victim is a different race, or religion, or sexual orientation. We cannot stand idly by while Americans are subjected to discrimination, violence, and even death, simply because of who they are. Passage of this amendment would be another major victory for equal rights in our country. I come to the floor this afternoon simply to urge our colleagues to support this amendment when it comes to a vote later this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my opposition to the Levin-McCain amendment that would cut off production of the F-22 fleet and would hurt hard-working families in the aerospace industry across our country. I know many of my colleagues have come to the floor to echo their opposition to this amendment, and I have listened to them speak very convincingly about how it would limit our continued air superiority in the skies across the globe. I have listened to them talk about how allowing our air superiority to slip would mean we could lose our ability to safeguard our Nation in the years ahead. They have also noted that prominent military officials have been clear that cutting off production of the F-22 would put our Nation's defense at high to moderate risk. While I agree with my colleagues on all of these points, today I want to discuss on the floor, this afternoon, another negative consequence of this amendment that would harm our security, our economy, and our ability to respond quickly to threats in the future--a consequence that will hit home for so many in States such as Georgia, Connecticut, Texas, California, and Washington, where every day we are fighting rising unemployment. It is another area in which our country has had clear superiority but where today, because of actions like this amendment, we are slipping into deep trouble. Today, I want to discuss how this amendment will erode the health and long-term needs of our Nation's industrial base. As many here in this body know, this is not the first time I have sounded the alarm about our disappearing industrial base. This effort to prematurely cut production of the F-22 is simply the latest in a series of decisions that fail to take into account the men and women who work every day to provide for their families by building the equipment that protects our country. But, as I have said all along, protecting our domestic base is not just about one company or one program or one State or one industry. This is about our Nation's economic stability. It is about our future military capability and the ability to retain skilled family-wage jobs in communities throughout our country. Just a few months ago, we passed a long overdue bill in the Senate that reforms many of the Pentagon's procurement practices. In that bill, I worked with Chairman Levin and others to successfully add an amendment that draws the attention of the Pentagon leadership to consider the effects of their decisions on our industrial base and its ability to meet our national security objectives. I worked to include that provision because I believe it is time to start a serious conversation about the future of the men and women who produce our tanks, our boats, and our planes, the skilled workers our military depends on. It is a workforce that is disappearing before our eyes. Providing the equipment our warfighters need is a partnership. It is a partnership that requires the Pentagon to be actively engaged with the manufacturers that supply the systems and parts that make up our aircraft and defense systems. It is a partnership that requires the Pentagon to take into account how our workforce and manufacturing capability will be affected when they cancel vital programs. Unfortunately, today military procurement is a one-way street. In fact, just yesterday, the Aerospace Industries Association issued a major report. I have it here in my hand today. This report finds that the Pentagon has failed to consider industrial efforts when choosing strategies. Much like my amendment to the procurement reform bill, this report urges the Pentagon to take into account the impact decisions, like the one to stop production of the F-22, take on our manufacturing base. This report--and I urge my colleagues to take a look at it if you have not seen it--notes that our manufacturing base was not taken into account in past Quadrennial Defense Reviews and that when Secretary Gates unveiled his program cuts in April, he specifically said that defense industry jobs were not a factor in his decisions. Well, as our country faces two difficult but not unrelated challenges--safeguarding our country in a dangerous world and rebuilding our faltering economy--ignoring the needs of our industrial base should not be an option. Whether it is the scientists who are designing the next generation of military satellites or the engineers who are improving our radar systems or the machinists who assemble our warplanes, these industries and their workers are one of our greatest strategic assets. What if they were not available? What if we made budgetary and policy decisions without taking into account the future needs of our domestic workforce? Well, that is not impossible. It is not even unthinkable. It is actually happening today. We need to be clear about the ramifications of amendments such as the one that has been offered here today because once our plants shut down and once our skilled workers have moved on to other fields and once that basic infrastructure is gone, we are not going to be able to rebuild it overnight. Building an F-22 is not something you learn in school. It takes years of on-the-job experience. Ask any one of the workers from Forth Worth to Baltimore who are responsible for the intricate radar systems or the high-tech engine parts or the complex stealth technology. We have machinists today in this country who have past experience and know-how down the ranks for 50 years. We have engineers who know our mission and who know the needs of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines. We have a reputation for delivering for our military. It took us a long time to build this industrial base to the point where we have workers who can make fifth-generation air fighter planes. What we have left we have to work to keep because once our plants shut down, those industries are gone, and we not only lose the jobs but we lose the skills and the potential ability to provide our military with the equipment to defend our Nation and project our might worldwide. So today, as we consider a critical tool for the future of our military across the globe, we cannot forget the needs of our industrial base, because unless we begin to address this issue now and really think about it, we are not only going to lose some of our best-paying American jobs, we are going to lose the backbone of our military might. At a time when we are looking to create jobs and build the economy, eliminating the $12 billion in economic activity and thousands of American jobs that are tied to the F-22 production does not make sense to me. Supporting continued F-22 production will help defend against potential threats, and, of course, it will protect family-wage jobs, and, importantly, it will preserve our domestic base. So I urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment that has been offered. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize a very special member of my staff who has recently been confirmed by the Senate to take on a critical role in the Obama administration. Peter Rogoff has served on the Appropriations Committee staff for the last 22 years and he has been the committee's senior transportation adviser for the majority of those years. For the past 9 years, as I have served as either chairman or ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Peter. Peter has been a trusted adviser to me and a dedicated public servant to the constituents of both my home State of Washington and the constituents of every member of the subcommittee. I know that Peter's drive, knowledge, and experience will be an outstanding asset to President Obama and Transportation Secretary LaHood's team. Peter and I have worked together through many challenges over the years, none greater than the events of September 11 and the transportation security issues that we were confronted with after. Peter's efforts weren't just limited to aviation security but also included initiatives to strengthen security in passenger rail, transit systems, our ports and all the systems that connect them. During those difficult times, Peter's understanding of our transportation safety systems was fully evident. It is a knowledge that comes with experience. And not just the kind of experience you gain from studying policy at your desk, although I can attest that Peter has done a lot of that. It is the kind of experience you get from traveling out to accident sites, talking with inspectors, meeting with families, and working hands-on to ensure that we are taking steps to ensure that accidents are not repeated. In the time that I have worked with Peter, he has regularly traveled across the country to participate in aviation, rail and ship inspections, and he has voluntarily gone to many accident sites. The expertise gained from these experiences has served this Congress and our country well in some very critical situations. In fact, I still remember clearly the evening 2 years ago when we all watched in horror as the 1-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis. Immediately after that tragedy, I dispatched Peter to accompany Senator Klobuchar to the scene, because I knew that he could help her identify the core issues and how the Federal Government could help. Now I know that as FTA Administrator, Peter will face a set of wide- ranging challenges. But I also know that he has the transit know-how to hit the ground running. Peter will bring over two decades of working knowledge on financing, building, and safeguarding our country's transit systems. I thank Peter for the guidance, enthusiasm, and expertise he has shown in the years he has led my efforts on addressing our country's transportation, housing and urban development needs. I also wish him luck as he takes on this tremendous responsibility and opportunity. While his departure represents a big loss for our Appropriations Committee and my appropriations subcommittee, I respect and commend President Obama's decision to put Peter's expertise to work on addressing our country's transit future.