Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008 that the Senate is going to move to proceed to will shine a light on those trading markets. It will increase oversight and reporting on oil trading, and it will significantly improve the resources available to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. While addressing speculation is not the silver bullet that will bring prices down at the pump, we do believe that by increasing our oversight and regulation, we will ensure that consumers are better protected in the months and years to come. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, our friends on the other side have their message down pretty pat now. They say no to any reasonable solutions we offer, and then they turn around and say we just need to drill more. We say fast-track our domestic production. They say no. We say increase the supply of oil now. They say no. We say accelerate investments in alternative energy to help break that addiction to oil. They say no. And now we say end excessive speculation. I hope they won't say no again. Do they offer anything more than no? Well, yes. They say drill, drill, and drill--a plan that even their party's leaders said has mainly psychological benefits, a plan that even President Bush's own team says will not affect our oil prices, and a plan that will not produce a drop of oil for 7 to 10 years. Unfortunately, their plan on that side is nothing more than a continuation of the Bush-Cheney big oil love affair that got us into this mess in the first place. Republicans seem committed to fattening big oil's bottom line. Well, Democrats are more worried about your bottom line. The oil companies made $250 billion last year. It is time for us to deal with consumer prices. We have tried to do things the Republican way for 8 years now and unfortunately what we hear from them today is more gimmicks and tired old ideas, the same status quo. With record gas prices and our economy spiraling deeper into recession, Democrats think it is long past time for a bold new direction. We hope our Republican counterparts will join us today and move this bill forward. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I say to the majority leader that the people of my State are a very generous people. If there were a real national crisis that we could solve from my home State by drilling off our coast, my constituents would be willing to sacrifice that. But we know that drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf will have a huge economic impact in my State with no result of reducing gas prices. So that is a sacrifice they should not be asked to give at this time. As a matter of fact, what I see happening is that the oil companies in this country that hold 68 million acres of land they can drill today, that they are not drilling, are just looking at this crisis we have today as a land grab, that they can reach out, scare all of us, and have this Congress give them more land, including the pristine shores off my State of Washington, never intending to use them. I was on the Senate floor with Senator Biden yesterday as we discussed this issue. He made a very cogent argument. The fact that if we all decided this was it, this was it and we absolutely had to drill everything, and we gave the oil companies the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Washington and Oregon and California and his State of Delaware, that a minimal amount of oil in 20 or 30 years may be drilled, but who among us thinks that OPEC--which actually controls the price of gas--if a 3-percent increase in oil came about as an effect of that drilling, wouldn't reduce their capacity by 3 percent in order to keep their prices high and their profits at maximum level? Let's not sell the American people a bill of goods. Let's not promise them something that cannot be delivered. No one wants to hear empty rhetoric or to give up something that is extremely important to them if the facts are not there to back it and only, by the way, to give oil companies more excessive profits. Let's do something that is real--and that is what the bill the majority leader and others have introduced does--to deal with the issue of excessive speculation; to do what many experts have told us to bring the price of gas down. Then, for the long term, we, as a body, have to say: What are we going to invest in in this country for the long-term future so we are not so dependent on oil, so that the next generation behind us doesn't come back and hear yesterday forever, drill, drill, drill, as Senator Dorgan has said time and time again is the solution that doesn't work. We need to get off our dependence on oil. We need to do that in the long run. But in the short term let's deal with the speculation issue and let's pass responsible legislation in a bipartisan way, not as a silver bullet. No one thinks that is the ultimate answer to bring gas prices to what they were a year ago, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a responsible step to meet the important crisis that we face today, coupled with looking at what we will do long term. The Senator from North Dakota has been a leader on this issue. I know he is the chair on the Energy appropriations bill, where he is looking at the investments we can make in alternative energy so we can get off of the same argument of yesterday forever and really begin to be responsible leaders at a critical time in our Nation's history. It is so easy to come out here and say drill on the Outer Continental Shelf. But I will tell you, in a State such as mine, Washington State, that has an economy that is dependent upon our waters, whether it is our fisheries or our environment or tourism but a place that our Nation should say is absolutely one of critical importance--not just my coast but the rest of the coastal States--we should not jeopardize it to get nothing--to get nothing because, as the Bush administration itself said: The impact on wellhead prices from opening the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the gulf waters to drilling ``is expected to be insignificant.'' Let's focus on doing something that is responsible, that is not just empty rhetoric, that obviously is not a silver bullet to the energy crisis in total but is sincerely a step in the right direction. I am proud to join my colleague as we move this legislation forward. I look forward to working, I hope, with Members on both sides of the aisle to move forward on this critical piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. As the majority leader knows, I travel home a long distance every week to Washington State and get in my car and drive for several hours to get to my home. I have been paying these increased gas prices like my constituents. It is shocking. Last weekend I paid $4.45 a gallon to fill up my tank in my car. This is impacting absolutely everybody in my State, my region, just as it is the rest of the Nation. My constituents say to me: I have been hearing all this talk about drilling. Please tell me that will bring my gas prices down. I have told my constituents, as we all know--in fact, not just me but the Bush administration's Energy Information Office, this is the Bush administration: The impact on wellhead prices from opening the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the gulf waters to drilling ``is expected to be insignificant.'' I have not said that. This administration, the Bush administration's Energy Information Administration Office, has said that. I say to my constituents, the drill, drill, drill or, as the Senator from North Dakota called it, ``the forever yesterday policy of drill, drill, drill,'' is not going to have a significant impact at all on their gas prices. I thank the majority leader for coming forward with a package that we do believe will have an impact on gas prices and deal with the excessive speculation that is in the market today. We met last week with a number of experts in this field. We have listened to our Republican counterparts as well who agree that speculation is an issue that we can all come together on and on which we can have an immediate impact in passing a bill. I come to the Senate floor today to thank the majority leader and to ask him, as he puts this bill together, to deal with excessive speculation with the hope that it will, as the experts have told us, begin to reduce gas prices, that we as a caucus, and I hope as a Senate, will begin to look also at the longer term issues affecting energy and investing in alternative energy so we do not continue to be so dependent on oil. I ask the majority leader his comments on that.

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the majority leader yield?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Delaware raises a good point. Of course he hasn't gotten that kind of commitment from the OPEC countries. Of course he has not. They are focused on a profit, as they are doing quite well today. The Senator is right. If we were to go ahead and use this moment in our history when we have some big decisions to make to just say: Oh, we will drill more, there is absolutely no guarantee that OPEC will not control that supply.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my friend from Delaware for joining me. We have been listening to this debate now. The President weighed in from his podium this morning. Much as we would like to hand our constituents tomorrow morning a lower gas price, we in this Senate have to be realistic about today, tomorrow, and far into the future. Even the Energy Administration Agency has said the impact on wellhead prices from opening the Pacific, Atlantic, and gulf waters to drilling ``is expected to be insignificant.'' Let's not, here on the Senate floor, talk about empty promises to our constituents at a time when they are really hurting. Let's take this opportunity and time to make long-term investments that put our country on a path to being less dependent on oil. Those are the right investments that we ought to be making. Yes, they are hard. Yes, they are difficult. Yes, they are challenging. It is not easy to come up with compromises on them when we are all from very different parts of the Nation. But let's not just sell a bill of goods to the Nation when we are hurting. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. So it goes there today.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning to comment on the press conference that President Bush had just moments ago where he renewed his call for more oil drilling, saying that more drilling is the answer to spiraling prices. I have to tell you, unfortunately for all of us who are suffering from these out-of-control prices at the pump, what I hear is the President coming out and talking real tough but offering no solutions to the real crisis in front of us. Americans are hurting today. In my home State of Washington, we are paying $4.45 a gallon. But I cannot go home and tell my constituents that we are going to go drill off the coast of Washington State and lower their prices at the gas pump. That is not true. In fact, the President's own Department of Energy says to us that lifting the moratorium is not going to have an impact until 2030. Even then, in 2030, there is no guarantee that drilling more oil off the coast of my State or any other will solve this gas price problem in 2030. The President says he wants to open more land for drilling to increase production. What he doesn't say is that the oil companies right now today hold 68 million acres of land, both onshore and offshore, that they could, if they wanted to, drill today. Let me say that again. While the President wants to hand out more leases, he wants all of us to come out here and hand more leases to the oil companies, they are already sitting on 68 million acres of Federal land doing nothing to explore and produce oil on those leases. Why? Because if they put more oil out there today, prices will drop, and they are doing pretty darn good today. I don't think we should be surprised. I don't think we should be surprised at this at all. These are the same oil companies that are making record profits, billions and billions each year, as a direct result of increasing oil and gas prices. It is no surprise they are telling us: More drilling, give us more to drill, give us more to drill, and making empty promises of lowering gas prices when that simply is not true. Given that there are two oil men in the White House today, I don't think any of us should be surprised. I don't think any of us should be surprised that millions of barrels of oil the oil companies pull from American soil today never enter the market. It is sold, by the way, not to the United States but to markets in China and overseas. So telling us this will lower our gas prices, to me, seems pretty out of touch when we know that if we were to come out here and allow them to drill more in the areas off our coast, having a huge impact on our fishing industries and our tourism industries and other important industries in the State today, that we would never see that oil even if we allowed them to drill it because it would be sold to markets overseas. There is no requirement that it would come here to the United States anyway. Families in my home State of Washington and across this country are pretty sick and tired of paying higher and higher prices at the pump. It is certainly impacting the economy of every small business, every family, every community. Those people deserve real solutions. They deserve solutions that are going to offer stability and controlled prices. What we are hearing from the President today is just going to give them more of the same: empty promises and failed policies. Over the past week or so, I have heard the Republicans saying: Find more, use less. That sounds pretty good to me, but I have a good solution to that. Have the companies find that ``more oil'' in the 68 million acres they currently hold by drilling today. Then let's invest in ``using less'' by passing the energy tax credits that Republicans have filibustered, by the way, time and time again on this floor. I think it is long past time that those new investments are made in renewable energy and fast-tracking alternative energy technology so we don't continually come out here and fall into this drill, drill, drill debate that sends empty promises to people who really are hurting today. I think we should have a policy that really works. I think we ought to look for solutions on this floor in ways that provide real solutions. But just getting into a debate that sends empty promises and listening to a President in the White House say give the oil companies lots more to drill and sending an empty promise to my home State of Washington and across this Nation, to me, is pandering at its worst.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. MURRAY. I remind the Senator, if we were to do that, that oil would not come to America where our constituents would be able to use it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning to raise a very important concern. As all of my colleagues are aware, our Nation's aerial refueling tanker fleet is aging and badly in need of repair and replacement. We are in the process of selecting a new plane right now that can serve our military for 40 years or even more. Those tankers are the backbone of our global military. They are stationed today throughout the world, and they refuel aircraft from every branch of the Armed Forces. I think everyone would agree, especially in a time of war, that as we work to replace that fleet, there is nothing more important than buying the best planes for our men and women and for our taxpayers. Last month, in its decision sustaining Boeing's protest of the competition, the Government Accountability Office found that the Air Force made significant errors when it evaluated the bids by Boeing and the European company Airbus. The GAO found that the competition was skewed toward Airbus even though Airbus failed to meet even basic requirements of that contract. I was pleased last week when the Pentagon announced that it would rebid the contest and take over the selection process. I had hoped it would ensure that we finally hold a fair and transparent competition and get this contract right. But instead of a fair do-over, I am concerned that it appears that the Pentagon may be planning to change the rules to benefit the already chosen winner--Airbus--by awarding greater benefits to a bigger plane. That would be shocking, given the significant number of flaws found by the GAO and how important this competition is to our servicemembers. Changing the rules of the game in overtime to benefit Airbus is not the kind of transparency the American taxpayer is looking for now in this process. So I wish to spend a few moments this morning explaining why this is the wrong decision for our servicemembers and for our taxpayers, and I wish to begin by reminding my colleagues of the GAO findings. The GAO's decision was damning. It left no doubt that the Pentagon should start over and rebid the competition. The GAO found eight separate errors, and it described the competition as ``unreasonable, improper, and misleading.'' Among its findings was that the Air Force changed direction about which criteria were more important. It did not give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane, according to the Air Force's description of what it wanted. Yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities it did not even ask for. And the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposal even though it could not meet two of the key contract requirements. Airbus, first of all, refused to commit to providing long-term maintenance as specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force repeatedly asked for it. Secondly, the Air Force could not prove that Airbus could even refuel all of the military's aircraft, according to procedure. Some of my colleagues have tried to downplay the GAO's ruling. They say the GAO upheld 8 points of protest, not 25, not 100, so the results were somehow less significant. I think they ought to go back and read the GAO's report one more time because the list speaks for itself. The GAO found fundamental problems, including that the Air Force could not even prove the Airbus plane could actually refuel all of our aircraft by the books, and it determined that but for those errors, Boeing could have won. As Daniel Gordon, the Deputy General Counsel for the GAO said last week when he was asked about this issue before the House Armed Services Committee, he said: We don't focus on this being seven out of 100. We focus on the seven that we found that caused us to sustain the protest. I remind my colleagues about the GAO findings because after reading the decision, the next step should be obvious. The Pentagon should return to the original request for proposals and start this competition over. But instead, officials say they plan to change the criteria in order to benefit a larger airplane, and that is my first concern. When the right course for the Pentagon to take is so clear, I have to ask why in the world would it change the rules now, unless the Defense Department is hoping to skew the competition in favor of Airbus yet again. My colleagues will remember that compared to Boeing 767, Airbus's A330 plane is massive. Clearly giving greater benefit to a larger plane in the middle of the game would only help Airbus at Boeing's expense, and that would be blatantly unfair. Why should the Pentagon give extra credit only to Airbus? The Air Force itself found that the Boeing tanker was more survivable or better able to keep the warfighters safe. That is a clear advantage, and I think most Americans would agree that giving our air men and women the safest plane should count for more. I don't just object because the Pentagon's new criteria could unfairly skew this new competition. I am also very concerned that the Pentagon has lost sight of why it needs these tankers. It appears to me that by changing the rules in favor of a larger tanker, the Defense Department is pushing the military further and further away from the goals it had when it started this whole replacement process. I am not the only one who is raising this issue. Retired Air Force GEN John Handy, who is a former leader of the Transportation and Air Mobility Commands, pointed out in a recent article that the Air Force originally asked for a midsized tanker in its RFP because that is what the military needs to carry out its mission. The Air Force, by the way, already has a larger tanker, the KC-10, which has its own role in the Air Force. Midsized tankers are the Air Force's multitaskers. They are designed to respond to needs all over the world at a moment's notice. They have to be able to use our current hangars, our ramps, and our runways, and they must be flexible enough to allow our warfighters to refuel aircraft during combat or to haul freight and passengers and return home safely. General Handy is one of the many experts and observers who has questioned what the Air Force was thinking when it selected the larger Airbus tanker in the first competition because compared to the 767, the A330 simply could not do the job as well. I, too, have asked repeatedly for the Defense Department to justify that decision, and I have yet to receive any clear-cut answers--not from the White House, not from the Pentagon, and not from the Air Force. But I think General Handy has identified one possible reason. As he put it: Somewhere along this acquisition process, it is obvious to me that someone lost sight of the requirement. Unfortunately, it is our servicemembers and our taxpayers who are going to end up paying the price. The Defense Department's decision is not yet set in stone. It has not yet officially reopened this competition. The Pentagon still can make the decision to go back to the original RFP and run a fair contest, and it can ensure that our servicemembers get the best tanker possible, one that will allow them to do their jobs and get home safely. I come to the floor today to urge the Pentagon to rethink the decision to change the selection criteria. For the sake of our servicemembers, for the sake of our taxpayers, I hope they do the right thing--start this competition over using the original RFP, and get these planes into the field where they are desperately needed. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time remains on our side in morning business?

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes to speak on the vote that will occur at 6 o'clock this evening.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 43 years ago, we created Medicare because this country recognized that no American should go without health care, especially once they reach retirement age. As President Johnson was signing the Medicare bill into law, he praised Congress for its ability to ``see beyond words to the people that they touch,'' to put politics aside, and to create legislation that truly transforms society. Well, today President Bush failed to heed those words, to see beyond politics and think of the seniors who have spent their lives paying into the Medicare system, and the doctors who treat them. Instead, he told millions of struggling American seniors, and military families as well, that he simply did not care. He vetoed a bill that would make vital improvements to the program that has helped ensure that millions of seniors and the disabled can get the care they need. One of the most important provisions of that bill would have postponed a 10.6-percent reimbursement payment cut for doctors. That was a cut that would have forced many of our doctors across this country to stop seeing Medicare patients and would severely limit their access to health care. I believe the President was wrong to veto that bill. Today, we can stand up for Medicare. We did it last week when we came together and voted for this bill by a veto-proof margin, and I believe we can do it today by overriding that veto. So I hope we can come together on the floor of the Senate today and override the President's veto and make sure that 44.1 million seniors who are enrolled in Medicare, as well as all the military families who rely on TRICARE, will continue to have access to health care. We have spent a lot of time in the Senate debating this. My colleagues have thoroughly explained the improvements this legislation would make, but I wish to speak for a few minutes this evening on some of the provisions that illustrate why it is so important to take this vote tonight and override the veto. First of all, many of our rural communities in Washington State and across the country are struggling today to provide health care services. This bill will help them strengthen their health care networks and extend the services that are available. Importantly, this bill puts an emphasis on preventive care that will help our seniors stay healthy, and it will help to keep costs down by enabling those patients to get care before they get seriously ill. This bill will improve coverage for low-income seniors who need expert help to afford basic care. It will help make sure our seniors get mental health care. Currently, the copays for mental health care are 30 percent higher than those for physical care. The legislation we are about to vote on and override the President's veto, if it is passed, will treat mental and physical health care the same. Also, importantly, as we have talked about, this bill will block the cut in reimbursements for providing Medicare services. It will block that cut and ensure that doctors can afford, again, to take Medicare patients. All the improvements I talked about are important, but it is critical we take action as soon as possible to ensure that the cut in payments to doctors does not go into effect. No doctor should have to choose between staying in business and taking care of their patients, but if we don't override this veto, that is exactly what will happen; our seniors and disabled will end up paying the price. Cuts in payments would mean seniors will face longer drives in order to find doctors, they will see closed doors, and they will see fewer choices, even though they have spent their lives paying into this Medicare system. Out in our rural communities, the problem, I know, would be even worse because out there we already face a shortage of doctors and nurses and health care providers. Finally, this cut would limit access to health care for our military retirees and our servicemembers at a time when we see many of our troops returning home from war. TRICARE uses the Medicare formula to pay their doctors, too, and doctors have said those lower reimbursements would force them to drop TRICARE patients. I think we can all agree this country cannot afford to jeopardize the health care for our servicemembers, especially during a time of war. So this country took a huge step forward when we created Medicare back in 1965--when we agreed as a nation that all seniors should have access to health care services. We cannot afford, at this critical time, to let our country take a step backward. We have the opportunity this evening to do the right thing. Let's support our seniors, let's support our military families, let's stand together and override the President's veto and keep our commitment to the people who depend on us. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, and thank him for his leadership on this legislation. As the chairman knows, I have been a long-time advocate of our Nation's job training programs as an effective tool to help people get the skills they need to secure family-wage jobs, improve their quality of life, and keep our communities healthy and competitive. In fact, I believe that giving workers the opportunity to grow their skills is one of the critical elements of our Nation's economic security. That's why I fought for the passage of the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 and will continue to push for its reauthorization and increased funding levels for its job training programs. Workforce boards around the country, including those in my home State of Washington, administer great job training programs that help millions of Americans get off unemployment rolls or out of low-paying, dead-end jobs. I think the program that my colleague described sounds like an initiative that is certainly worth study. Indeed, any ideas that could help even more people avoid the economic turmoil and emotional hardship foreclosures cause for themselves and their families should be considered.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his question. We believe now, as we did when we passed the act into law, that for training to benefit working families and their communities, it must respond to the skills needs of thriving industries that lead to family- wage jobs. An example of this is the green jobs sector. Innovative States, such as my own State of Washington, are leading the expansion of career opportunities in the green economy, making sure that opportunities are readily available for workers to acquire the skills to qualify for these good jobs. In fact, Washington State set a new goal to increase the number of clean energy jobs to 25,000 in the next 12 years and committed to finance the necessary training. Innovative workforce boards across the country increasingly are providing training for green collar jobs that will be critical in meeting the demands of a low-carbon economy and providing workers with quality jobs. And Congress also is taking action. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I supported the recent passage the Labor/Health and Human Services bill; we reported that a greater training investment needs to be made in areas such as renewable electric power, biofuels, energy-efficiency assessment and environmentally sustainable manufacturing and directed the Secretary of Labor to competitively award community based job training grants in these areas. All of these programs will be instrumental in developing the skilled domestic workforce necessary to maintain our Nation's competitive edge.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, 3 weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office issued a blistering decision about the Air Force's handling of one of the most important defense contracts in our history. The GAO found that in the competition between Boeing and the European company Airbus to replace our military's aerial refueling tankers, the contest was unfairly skewed toward Airbus from the very beginning. It said that but for the Air Force's prejudice, Boeing would have had a substantial chance of winning. The GAO was clear and emphatic that the Pentagon should reopen the contract, get new proposals, and correct those errors. I rise today, because yesterday Defense Secretary Gates announced that he would follow the GAO recommendations and rebid that contract. I am very pleased that he says he is committed to a swift decision. But I have also been a close observer of the Pentagon's decisionmaking process for many years now, and I know the devil is always in the detail. We do not know yet many of the details of this latest decision, and unfortunately I am already skeptical about whether the Pentagon is on track to get this right. The Defense Department has a high hurdle to clear in order to ensure this competition is fair and is transparent. As I said earlier, the GAO raised serious questions about the Air Force's previous decision, and it described the competition as unreasonable, improper, and misleading. The GAO found that the Air Force changed direction midstream about what criteria were more important. It didn't give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane, according to the Air Force's description of what it wanted, yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities it didn't ask for. It said the Air Force deliberately and unreasonably increased Boeing's estimated costs. And when that mistake was corrected, it was discovered that the Airbus tanker actually costs tens of millions of dollars more than Boeing's. The GAO said the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposal even though Airbus couldn't meet two key contract requirements. First, Airbus refused to commit to providing long-term maintenance, as specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force asked for it repeatedly. Second, the Air Force could not prove that Airbus could refuel all of the military's aircraft according to procedure. Those are very serious findings. It is still unclear whether the errors were due to incompetence or impropriety, but the result was that the military chose a plane that didn't meet the fundamental requirements that were set out in their own RFP. That cannot happen again. The Defense Department must do everything it can do to ensure that this competition is fair and transparent. That means the Pentagon must go back to the original request for proposals. It must ensure that both of the companies get the same information throughout the entire competition. It must prove the tanker it selects can actually perform all of the missions that are required by the military. It must do a full accounting of all of the life cycle costs of flying and operating both planes. And it has to ensure that the companies can only earn credit as it was spelled out in the original RFP. That last point is extremely important. In its decision last month, the GAO said the request for proposals was crystal clear about what kind of tanker the Air Force needed. Yet I have already heard that the Defense Department plans to reevaluate the life cycle costs of both tankers using a 25-year lifespan instead of a more accurate 40 years. It wants to revise the RFP to give greater benefit to a larger plane, even if that means the tanker it buys is not capable of meeting its own mission. That fundamentally changes the rules of the procurement and is not what is in the original RFP. I am very concerned about both of these proposals. Changing the rules of the game when we are in overtime is simply going to result in a repeat of the last contest--an unfair result, more protests, and more delays. I look forward to hearing a thorough explanation from the Defense Department about how it is going to carry out this new competition and how it is going to ensure that this contract is finally fair. Finally, I agree with Secretary Gates that it is vitally important that we move quickly to finish this contract. Air men and women who fly out of Fairchild Air Force Base, in my home State of Washington, fly these tankers. I know they need these planes. They need them now. But we also have to do this the right way. We have to have a competition that is not overshadowed by questions of ethics or competence. If we don't, we risk another challenge that is going to draw out this procurement process even further. Even more importantly, we have got to get the right plane. Our aerial refueling tankers--the ones we are talking about with this contract-- are the backbone of our global military strength. They are stationed today across the world, and they refuel aircraft from every branch of our Armed Forces. Before our taxpayers spend $35 billion, they deserve to know the planes we are buying can actually refuel our military's aircraft. Our service members deserve to know they are getting a plane that will enable them to do their jobs and return home swiftly. I welcome Secretary Gates' announcement yesterday that this contract is going to be rebid, but I remind all of my colleagues--those of us who have watched this procurement process for many years now--to follow the bouncing ball and see where it leads. We are going to follow this carefully. It needs to be rebid with the original RFP, not changed in overtime, to make sure this is a fair contract that results quickly in making sure our air men and women get the right aircraft as quickly as we can possibly bring it to them. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I have been listening over the last hour, as we have heard our colleagues from the other side come and excoriate us for not allowing them to bring a bill to the floor on energy and assailing the Senators on this side for prohibiting them from doing that. That was astonishing to me because, as the Senator from Illinois knows, I have been coming to the Senate week after week and saying how much I pay for gas when I go home. It is now up to $4.45 a gallon that I paid last Sunday. I have been a part of this majority that has tried to bring a bill to the floor to deal with renewable energy, to try to deal with the issue of speculation, and to try to deal with a number of issues. How many times now have we been blocked from bringing an energy bill to the floor to deal with these gas prices?

Mrs. MURRAY. Well, Mr. President, if the Senator will once again yield, didn't we do a bill several years ago to actually add 8 million acres to that, to allow more drilling?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield, if I am not incorrect, I believe that 68 million doesn't include the additional millions of acres off the shore of Alaska that they also are allowed to drill in and that they currently aren't drilling in.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for coming and highlighting the number of times we have tried to bring a bill to the floor to deal with the very critical energy crisis that is in front of us. There is no doubt this is harming Americans today. For our friends at home and for all of us, when we have to pay $4.45 a gallon, as I did last weekend, that means we will not have as much money to spend on other things. We are hearing about people who are cutting back at the grocery stores, not being able to even go to work because they cannot afford the price to put the fuel into their car to be able to go to work. This has a huge impact. It has an impact on our schools and our communities, that are trying to get their schoolbuses ready for the fall and wondering how they are ever going to be able to budget for that. It is affecting our truckdrivers in tremendous ways as they try to get their goods to market. It is affecting every single American family, every single business, every single community, every single government agency. It is an issue that we on this side of the aisle believe we have a responsibility to address. We have tried to bring a bill to the floor, not once, not twice, but three times, and have faced a filibuster from the other side. We are going to keep working and keep trying to get to a point where we can finally address this. I think all of us recognize there are two oil men in the White House and it is going to take an election for us to get to the long-term issues we need to address in this Nation. But there are things we can do today. We want to do them today. As Democrats we are going to keep working because America deserves it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.