Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time on our side be reserved.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleague, the chair of the Budget Committee. He has done an amazing job putting together a budget of which we can all be very proud. For the last 7\1/2\ years, the current administration has really mismanaged our economy and failed to make the kinds of investments that keep our country strong. We all know American families have really paid the price. We have gone from a budget surplus to a record deficit, our infrastructure is crumbling, and our economy is now nearing a recession, if we are not already there. So as we finalize this year's budget, we have to ensure that we are investing in our future and addressing our country's real priorities. It seems that every day the news we hear gets worse about job loss, about skyrocketing gas prices, about the number of families who risk losing their homes in the mortgage crisis. And in the eighth and final budget this President has sent to us, he has really sent us off on a fiscally irresponsible path. He has given us a dishonest budget that fails to own up to the true cost of the war, and it will require us to borrow billions of dollars from foreign governments to meet our expenses. I want to give a few examples of how out of touch President Bush's budget is. People today are struggling to pay for heat and rent. Yet President Bush sent us a budget that proposed to cut low-income heating assistance and housing and neighborhood revitalization programs, such as section 8 and CDBG, right when our constituents are fighting so hard to pay their mortgages to make sure they stay in their homes. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating thousands of new veterans every single year, many of them, as we know, with severe injuries and specialized needs. But President Bush sent us a budget that cut critical programs at the VA, including medical research and State extended-care facilities. More than 1 million people are going to lose their jobs this year. What did President Bush do in his budget proposal? He cut $484 million from critical workforce training programs. Health care continues to be out of reach for millions of Americans who don't have insurance or, in some cases, don't have access to doctors or nurses. Yet the President sent us a budget that freezes Medicare reimbursement levels for our hospitals and hospices, for our ambulance services, long-term care facilities, and he decimated funding for training programs for our health care professionals. It is past time that this administration joined with the majority in Congress and the majority of people in this country to make America's families, the working families, our first priority. The budget conference resolution makes responsible choices that will help get our economy rolling again and invest in our country's real priorities. With this budget which will be before the Senate shortly, Democrats are investing in programs that help families meet expenses and get ahead, things such as schools and health care and job training. Our budget makes up for President Bush's misguided proposals to flat line funding for education and rob students of the opportunities they need to get ahead. We are restoring the vital funding the President has slashed from our Nation's job training programs to help youth and adult and dislocated workers get the skills they need so they can succeed in our global economy. We are investing in health care by adding much needed funding for our health professions, the National Health Service Corps, our community health centers, and other programs that help to ensure Americans can see a doctor when they are sick. We are ensuring our communities at home are safe by funding the homeland security grants and restoring cuts to local law enforcement programs. Our budget fully funds the port security grants which the President proposed cutting in half. And it restores his dangerous proposal to cut almost $750 million from State homeland security programs and grants. Those are programs that help pay for security improvements, training, and equipment--all of the items that our first responders need so they can prepare for the worst in our communities at home. Democrats are making critical investments in infrastructure in this budget which will help boost spending and create jobs, while making much needed repairs to our roads and our bridges. We are also preventing a projected shortfall in the highway trust fund so we can keep our commitment to States and communities and ensure that our roads, bridges, and highways are safe and up to date. This budget ensures we are not turning our backs on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my home State or the many other States in our nuclear complex where workers sacrificed to help make nuclear material during the Cold War. Hanford and other sites like it are still home to millions of gallons of nuclear waste and other dangerous material, and the Federal Government has to live up to its promise to clean them up. The longer we stretch it out, the more the cleanup is going to cost over the long run. The budget that will be before us reverses the trend of failing to invest, and it is a big step toward getting us back on schedule. Finally, in this budget, we are doing the right thing for our veterans. The number of veterans is increasing every day, and the list of needed repairs and expanded facilities in the VA system is stacking up as well. But what does the administration send us? A budget that proposes new fees and increased copays that will essentially discourage millions of veterans from even accessing the VA. In his budget, the President also underfunded VA medical care, VA medical and prosthetic research, and he cut funding for major and minor construction by nearly 50 percent. I have made it clear over the last several years that I believe denying access or discouraging veterans from seeking care because of their income is morally wrong, and I believe it will also make it harder in the long run for us to maintain a strong voluntary military. Democrats are making sure that we keep our promise to the men and women who have served us so bravely. I thank our chairman, Senator Conrad, for his leadership and his tremendously hard work to get us to this point. I urge all of our colleagues to support this budget. This budget sets priorities and gives us critical direction as we begin the appropriations process. The American people desperately want us to take the steps that have been laid out in this budget. Our budget creates jobs, it rebuilds our roads and our bridges, it cares for our veterans, it invests in education, it helps our families meet their basic needs, and it gets us to surplus by 2012. After years of this President's unrealistic policies, Democrats with this budget are making sure that working families are again priority No. 1. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business and that Senators be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, farming is a critical part of the economy in my home state of Washington. Many people don't know it, but Washington is the Nation's 11th-largest farm State. And we are the third-largest producer of fruits and vegetables--which are also known around here as specialty crops. So the farm bill we are considering today will help keep my state healthy and strong. It will help them find markets for their crops here and abroad--and it will help fund research to ensure they have healthy and safe crops in the future. This isn't a perfect bill. But it is a very good bill for Washington state farmers. And that is why I rise today. The biggest victory for Washington state in this bill is the more than $3 billion to help farmers who grow apples, cherries, grapes, potatoes, asparagus, and many other fruits and vegetables. This is the first time Congress has passed a farm bill that includes comprehensive provisions addressing the needs of specialty crop farmers. This legislation will really help our farmers by carrying out programs that I have been pushing for over the last several years. And I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Harkin, Conrad, Chambliss, Baucus, and Grassley for their hard work on this bill. The farm bill conference report includes $224 million in block grants, which will allow local fruit and vegetable growers to increase the competitiveness of their crops and $15 million in badly needed aid for asparagus farmers. Asparagus farmers in my home State--and elsewhere--are struggling to compete with a flood of cheap asparagus being imported from Peru. I worked very hard through conference negotiations to make sure that this market loss program stayed in the bill, and I am very grateful to our conference chairs for keeping it in. This bill helps farmers find new markets abroad for their crops, which will allow them to better compete in the global marketplace. For example, it increases funding for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program, which helps our farmers overcome barriers that threaten our exports. And, farmers in my home State are really eager for this program. Last fall, I held a listening session in Yakima, WA, where I heard from cherry farmers who are trying to develop a new market in Japan. And this bill would help them build on those efforts. I am especially pleased that this bill includes $20 million for the National Clean Plant Network. Farmers who grow apples, peaches, and grapes depend on this program to ensure we have a source of clean plant stock to help prevent the spread of viruses. A single infected plant or grape vine can wipe out an entire established orchard or vineyard. So this is very important. Washington State University has been leading the effort to ensure our farmers have virus- and disease-free plant stock. And I am proud that they will be an important part of this national network. Now, a lot of people don't realize that the farm bill isn't just about farmers. Well over half of this bill authorizes funding for school lunches, food stamps, and other nutrition programs. And since obesity is one of the biggest nutrition challenges we face in this country, this bill specifically targets funding to ensure that families receiving food stamps, and kids getting school lunches will have more access to fresh fruits and vegetables. My home State of Washington would get $9 million in nutrition program funding next year alone. And finally, this bill will be a lifeline for food banks and other emergency food providers, which have struggled with rising food prices and the downturn in the economy. As I said from the beginning, this bill isn't perfect. I wish that we were able to include important improvements to the safety net that is so critical to our wheat farmers. I have been working for several years with wheat farmers in Washington State to improve the countercyclical payment program to really make it work for them. Unfortunately, we couldn't make significant changes in this bill. But I am happy that it continues to provide a safety net for our wheat growers. Now, I have just walked through numerous examples of how this farm bill is good for my State--and for the Nation. And that is why I am so disappointed to hear President Bush say that he plans to veto it. At the end of the day, none of us got everything we wanted in this bill-- including the administration. But the conference report does do a lot of good. It helps farmers, who are struggling as gas prices soar and foreign competition threatens their livelihoods. And it helps millions of low-income families, who are struggling just to put food on the table. Mr. President, we have got to get beyond politics on this. Making sure that our farmers and our kids both benefit from investments in the programs in this bill is absolutely critical. We are not just talking about numbers. These programs can make or break people's livelihoods. And I urge my colleagues to support them by approving this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, when our constituents make decisions about big purchases such as buying a house or buying a car, the first thing they do is consider how much money they have to spend, and then they shop for the best quality they can get for the most reasonable price for the item that best meets their needs. When the Government makes a purchase, they expect it to follow that same sort of analysis, whether it is buying a pencil or jet engines. But that is not what our military did when it made its decision to buy the next generation of refueling tankers from Airbus instead of from Boeing. Compared to Boeing's 767, Airbus's A330 is massive. The simple truth is that a bigger plane is going to be more expensive. The bigger plane the Air Force wants to buy is going to burn more fuel, it is going to take up more space, and it is going to require more people to maintain it. But our hangars, our runways, and our ramps today are all designed for a much smaller tanker. I also have serious concerns and questions about how much Airbus's tanker is going to cost in fuel and personnel and maintenance. In the months that have passed now since the military announced it had selected Airbus for this massive contract, I have repeatedly asked the Pentagon whether it considered how it will pay for the extra costs of a much bigger plane. I have been astounded that no one has been able to answer my questions. In other words, the military said it wants to spend more than $100 billion to buy bigger planes, but it has no idea where it is going to put them, it does not know who is going to maintain them, and it does not know how we are going to pay to operate them. That makes no sense to me. I am very concerned about how much this decision is going to cost us, and that is why I have come to the floor this afternoon. Let me explain why I am troubled about this decision. First of all, we do not know what the possible military construction costs might be for this purchase. It is estimated that these planes are too big for many of our hangars and that they are too heavy for many of our runways and our ramps. These tankers I am talking about are the backbone of our military. These refueling tankers make our global Air Force possible. Today, they are stationed around the world. So we are not only buying airplanes we can keep anywhere, the tanker has to be able to take off and land from almost anywhere in the world. The new tankers are supposed to be a replacement for our current fleet of medium-sized Boeing KC-135s. But compared to our current tankers and compared to the 767, the Airbus plane the Air Force has decided to purchase is massive. Airbus's A330 is 32 feet longer than Boeing's 767. The Airbus A330's wingspan is 41 feet wider. The A330 weighs about 20 percent more than the Boeing plane. Our military experts have said they think the A330 will be able to operate on only about half of the airfields the Boeing 767 can use--about half of our airfields. That means some of our infrastructure in this country and across this globe is going to be torn down and refitted to accommodate these new planes they have decided to buy. Secondly, oil and gas prices are a major factor of the cost of operating a refueling tanker. I am very concerned because a larger plane is obviously going to burn more fuel and cost dramatically more over the lifetime of these planes. In fact, because the Airbus A330 is larger and heavier than the Boeing 767, it is going to burn 24 percent more fuel. That means that fueling planes the size of the A330 will cost $30 billion more over the lifetime of this plane. That is astonishing when you think that the initial cost for this contract is $35 billion. Fuel alone is going to double the cost of these planes. Americans are up in arms today about the cost of gas for their own cars. How do you think they are going to react if our Air Force chooses to use their tax dollars, American tax dollars, to fuel massive airplanes when there is a cheaper option available? Third, the larger A330 is going to require bigger refueling and ground crews. Because buying a larger plane means it will not be able to use standard-size military pallets, the military, in making this purchase, is now going to need more personnel and airmen to load and unload every A330 tanker. Finally, these larger planes are going to cost the military more to maintain. Not only will the A330 simply need more maintenance over its lifetime, larger crews are going to be needed to work on them. Because the planes are bigger, they are going to have to be packed in closer at our bases, and packing them in closer is going to make maintaining and getting them off the ground more dangerous for our airmen and airwomen. Now, I have been asking some pretty tough questions about how we got to this point, how the Air Force chose the Airbus plane over the Boeing plane, because it does not make sense to me that we would send this contract overseas when we have the capability and the right plane right here at home. I have specifically asked about the military's construction costs. At four hearings now, four hearings in the last 3 months, I have asked our military officials whether they can tell me if they did an analysis of the potential construction costs of buying these larger planes before they reached their decision. Do you know what. I was shocked by their answer. It was: No. No. No. They did not do an analysis of how much it would cost for these larger planes. That means the Pentagon launched a major contract to replace a plane that we will have for decades that is going to cost us billions of dollars, but apparently it never did a complete, independent analysis of the potential military construction costs of buying that much larger plane. I am concerned that even though I have asked for an estimate of these costs and even though several of my colleagues here in the Senate and the House have asked for the same information, we do not have an answer. I first asked Air Force Secretary Wynne about these costs on March 12. I asked him: What will be the associated costs for our military construction budget, and can these Airbus planes fit in the hangars we have today? That is what I asked. At the time, Secretary Wynne could not answer me. He only said to me that the RFP did not indicate any size. So I asked again on April 24, this time with two Pentagon officials, Comptroller Tina Jonas and Under Secretary of Defense Wayne Arny, and they said they were not part of any decisionmaking process and could not comment. So on May 8 and then again today, I asked what the cost of this larger tanker would be for the National Guard and Reserve. Today, the Guard promised to get back to me with an answer. Well, I hope they do. I am extremely frustrated that we cannot get this information. We are talking about spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, and we are talking about a decision that affects our global military power. I am baffled as to why the Pentagon did not do a top-to-bottom analysis of every aspect of this very expensive decision. ``I don't know'' is not an acceptable answer when we are asking American taxpayers to foot the bill for purchasing these planes. Now, this process has been flawed from the start. As a result, it is now being appealed to the GAO. But regardless of the GAO's findings, I think we, as Members of Congress, as representatives of the American people, should be very concerned about the way the military reached this decision. No family would buy an 18-wheeler if all they needed was a station wagon. And the military should not be buying a jumbo jet that is extremely expensive when what it really needs and what it has told us it needs is an agile refueling tanker. It is common sense. I think we need some real answers about why the Pentagon believes this decision is worth the taxpayers' money. I hope our colleagues will join with me in demanding that we get that information before we make a mistake that will cost us billions of dollars that we cannot afford to waste. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 46 years ago, President Kennedy designated this week to honor our first responders, particularly police officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. This week is National Police Week, and Thursday is National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Here in Washington, DC, and across the country, our communities are honoring the contributions of their public safety officers. I think all of us in this body would agree that our police officers, our firefighters, paramedics, and all of our first responders are heroes. Their jobs are dangerous and they are extremely demanding. Unfortunately, they too often do not get the respect and gratitude they deserve. And that is why I rise this afternoon to urge my colleagues to support the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act, which would take a small step toward repaying that sacrifice. In most States around the country, our police and firefighters have the right to form unions. In fact, my brother was a firefighter in my home State of Washington. He is a proud member of his local union. But even so, there are still several communities in which our first responders do not have the ability to negotiate. They do not have the ability to bargain for better wages or hours or working conditions or benefits. The bill we are considering on the Senate floor this afternoon would ensure all of our first responders have the power to organize and stand for their rights. And I believe it will make a real difference for our public safety officers and for all of our communities. I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for their work on this legislation. Their work truly has been a bipartisan effort, and I hope it is a sign the entire Congress is willing now to come together to ensure our first responders have a right most workers in our country already enjoy. I believe this bill will make our police and fire departments stronger and our communities safer. Everyone in our communities gains when our police and firefighters are working together with their employers. Having a voice in their work schedules, in their safety procedures, in their pay scales and benefits helps our police and fire departments. It helps them improve safety and reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the job, and it makes most departments more efficient. A department that is safer and more efficient is a department that is then better able to respond to a crisis. I believe there is another reason we as Members of Congress should vote now to guarantee the right for all first responders to organize. Ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks, we have called on our first responders to play an even greater role in keeping our homeland safe. Increasingly, as every one of us knows, our police, our firefighters, our troopers, our paramedics are the eyes and ears on the ground in our cities, counties, and States where they serve, no matter how large or small their communities. So I think as we ask our first responders to do more for our entire Nation, we owe it to them to ensure that across the country they have the same collective bargaining rights. This bill is pretty simple. The new law would only affect States that do not already allow their public safety forces to bargain collectively. It does not set up a new system of legislation. In fact, it is designed to ensure States have as much freedom as possible to decide how to implement this law. And it specifically allows States to keep enforcing their right-to-work laws. States that are affected would have 1 year to create a process for discussions with workers. If they have not acted by then, the Federal Labor Relations Authority would establish a way to give employees the ability to choose whether to form a union. And that is it. Unlike some of the false rumors you may have been hearing, it does not encourage police and firefighters to go on strike. In fact, it specifically outlaws that. It does not require State and local governments to adopt any particular terms. It excludes our elected sheriffs and other policymakers, and it will not affect an employee's right to work part-time or prevent them from volunteering. In short, this bill would be very good for our first responders and very good for our communities. But seeing this bill become law would not only be a victory for our first responders, it would be the first major victory for organized workers in the last 7 years. Unions have forged the way for millions of working families to share in the prosperity they helped create. Unions have helped balance the relationship between employers and employees. And they help to ensure that working families get their fair share of the economic pie. I am very proud to stand with working families to protect their right to organize and advocate for on-the-job safety, job security, and fair pay. As we recognize National Police Week, what better way to honor the sacrifice our police and other first responders have given us than by ensuring they have the right to collectively bargain. Allowing our first responders to negotiate with their employers is the fair thing to do, and it also happens to be the right thing to do. I hope all of our colleagues will support them and our communities by saying yes and passing this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate a tremendous and hard-fought victory. Today, a week after this Congress approved it overwhelmingly, President Bush signed the public lands bill that includes my Wild Sky Wilderness Act. And I couldn't be more thrilled. The path to creating the first wilderness in Washington State in more than 20 years has been long and sometimes rocky. But with the President's signature today, we have finally reached the top. Let me tell you, Mr. President, it feels great! This wilderness designation means that over 106,000 acres of rolling hills, rushing rivers, and low-elevation forest in the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest will be preserved for generations to enjoy. The bill has been the result of years of hard work by literally dozens of people in my home State of Washington who have been as passionate and excited about this bill as I have been. I could not be more proud of their hard work and enthusiasm. Even when progress seemed impossible, they never lost sight of their goal. They always believed that preserving this incredible land was possible. And this beautiful new wilderness is their reward. When I spoke on the floor after the Wild Sky bill passed this body, I promised to return once it was signed and thank the many people who have worked so hard with me over the years to make the Wild Sky Wilderness a reality. So I want to begin by thanking Congressman Rick Larsen. Nine years have passed since the first maps proposing this wilderness were unfurled at a meeting in my Seattle office. I have been working with Congressman Larsen in the House for more than 7 years on the legislation. And I couldn't have asked for a better partner. I would like to thank Chairman Bingaman and his staff--especially David Brooks and Bob Simon--for their help and unwavering support of Wild Sky throughout the years. I would like to thank Senator Maria Cantwell and Congressman Jay Inslee for their work in steering Wild Sky through their committees. And thank you to all of the cosponsors from the Washington delegation. Above all, I want to thank all of the people in Washington State who worked tirelessly to turn their vision into legislation and--finally into law. The following individuals have spent countless hours to make the Wild Sky Wilderness Area a reality: Mike Town, Tom Uniack, Larry Romans, Mark Lawler, Harry Romberg, Norm Winn, Don Parks, Charlie Raines, Jon Owen, John Leary, Michael Carroll, Rick McGuire, Bill and Sue Cross, Bob Hubbard, Conway Leovy, Mark Heckert, Kem Hunter, Aaron Reardon, Peter Jackson, Michelle Ackerman, Jennifer Ekstrom, Doug Scott, Bill Arthur, Doug Walker, Nalani Askov, Dave Sommers, Jennifer Stephens, and Cynthia Wilkerson; as well as Shannon Harps and Karen Fant, whose memories will live on through Wild Sky. And last but not least, I would like to thank the staff members who have also put their hearts and souls into this bill: John Engber, Karen Waters, Doug Clapp, Jaime Shimek, Jeff Bjornstad, Evan Schatz, Alex Glass, Pete Weissman, Matt McAlvanah, Rick Desimone, Rachelle Hein, Christy Gullion, Carrie Desmond, Jennifer Talhelm, Rita Beal, Shawn Bills, Jill McKinnie, Christian Gunter, Louis Lauter, Michael Dabbs, Kim Johnston, Brandon Hall, Amanda Mahnke, Charla Neuman, Abby Levenshus, Tracy Nagelbush, Amit Ronen, and Joel Merkel. Those of us who live in the Northwest are truly blessed to live so close to such breathtaking natural beauty. The people of Washington State have a great respect for our amazing natural heritage and millions of people spend their weekends hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and rock-climbing in our many parks and wild lands. The Wild Sky area is already a popular destination being enjoyed by hundreds of people from across western Washington. And today's wilderness designation means that their children and their grandchildren will be able to enjoy the land just as they do. Today's designation is a gift to young families, lifelong outdoor enthusiasts, and everyone in between. And I am so glad to see this proposal over the finish line. Now I can't wait to lace up my tennis shoes and take those first steps into the Wild Sky Wilderness!

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is estimated that 199 million Americans--or one in three--suffer from some kind of brain or nervous system illness, injury or disorder. Among these illnesses are debilitating diseases and conditions, including: Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, and traumatic brain injury. These diseases are challenging for the patients and for their loved ones, who often have intense caretaker burdens. In addition, our men and women fighting overseas are suffering from these conditions in record numbers. The signature injuries of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are brain and spinal cord injuries, such as traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and paralysis. For example, it is estimated that as many as 12 percent to 20 percent of servicemembers who have served in Iraq suffer from PTSD alone. The combined economic burden of these illnesses and disorders is estimated at $1 trillion annually--and this cost is rising quickly as our population ages and our military conflicts continue. Recent discoveries are revolutionizing our understanding of the human brain, and new uses for these discoveries are emerging almost every day. At the same time, researchers still have a limited understanding of the human brain and how best to diagnose, treat, and cure its diseases. The current research system for neurological diseases is disjointed and often limits this life altering research from reaching the patients in need. For example, compared to the average drug, it costs nearly $100 million more--and takes 2 years longer--to bring a drug that treats a neurological disease to the market. We need a targeted, coordinated, national effort to support the development of neurotechnology. It is vitally important that public infrastructure be developed to ensure that today's neurotechnology discoveries quickly become tools to improve the human condition. This research has the potential to transform highly specialized areas of medicine, computing, and defense. It could dramatically change Americans' everyday lives. The National Neurotechnology Initiative Act addresses each of these issues. I am proud to be an original cosponsor with my colleague from New Mexico. Under this proposal, the National Institutes of Health would receive funds to coordinate research and move research into innovative companies developing the next generation of treatments. This legislation will also accelerate research and treatment of neurological diseases by removing key bottlenecks in the system. It will coordinate neurological research across Federal agencies, create a coordinated blueprint for neuroscience at the NIH, and streamline the FDA approval process for life changing neuro drugs--without sacrificing safety. All of this will mean more treatments faster for millions of Americans. This act is an investment in America's neurological health. Investigation into the mechanisms and functions of the brain will lead to vastly improved understanding of brain disease and injuries and human behavior. It will give us an unprecedented ability to treat and heal those in need. The act also will dramatically reduce healthcare costs while expanding the American neurotechnology industry and creating good American jobs. Finally, this bill will help us honor our debt to the brave men and women of America's armed forces. Today, I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Domenici. I thank him for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is estimated that 199 million Americans--or one in three--suffer from some kind of brain or nervous system illness, injury or disorder. Among these illnesses are debilitating diseases and conditions, including: Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, and traumatic brain injury. These diseases are challenging for the patients and for their loved ones, who often have intense caretaker burdens. In addition, our men and women fighting overseas are suffering from these conditions in record numbers. The signature injuries of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are brain and spinal cord injuries, such as traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and paralysis. For example, it is estimated that as many as 12 percent to 20 percent of servicemembers who have served in Iraq suffer from PTSD alone. The combined economic burden of these illnesses and disorders is estimated at $1 trillion annually--and this cost is rising quickly as our population ages and our military conflicts continue. Recent discoveries are revolutionizing our understanding of the human brain, and new uses for these discoveries are emerging almost every day. At the same time, researchers still have a limited understanding of the human brain and how best to diagnose, treat, and cure its diseases. The current research system for neurological diseases is disjointed and often limits this life altering research from reaching the patients in need. For example, compared to the average drug, it costs nearly $100 million more--and takes 2 years longer--to bring a drug that treats a neurological disease to the market. We need a targeted, coordinated, national effort to support the development of neurotechnology. It is vitally important that public infrastructure be developed to ensure that today's neurotechnology discoveries quickly become tools to improve the human condition. This research has the potential to transform highly specialized areas of medicine, computing, and defense. It could dramatically change Americans' everyday lives. The National Neurotechnology Initiative Act addresses each of these issues. I am proud to be an original cosponsor with my colleague from New Mexico. Under this proposal, the National Institutes of Health would receive funds to coordinate research and move research into innovative companies developing the next generation of treatments. This legislation will also accelerate research and treatment of neurological diseases by removing key bottlenecks in the system. It will coordinate neurological research across Federal agencies, create a coordinated blueprint for neuroscience at the NIH, and streamline the FDA approval process for life changing neuro drugs--without sacrificing safety. All of this will mean more treatments faster for millions of Americans. This act is an investment in America's neurological health. Investigation into the mechanisms and functions of the brain will lead to vastly improved understanding of brain disease and injuries and human behavior. It will give us an unprecedented ability to treat and heal those in need. The act also will dramatically reduce healthcare costs while expanding the American neurotechnology industry and creating good American jobs. Finally, this bill will help us honor our debt to the brave men and women of America's armed forces. Today, I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Domenici. I thank him for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think we would all agree, especially in a time of war, that nothing is more important than the safety of our men and women in uniform. And nothing should be more important to our military commanders at the Pentagon. But I come to the floor this morning because safety was not the priority when the military awarded the contract to build the next generation of refueling tankers. If that decision stands, if the contract goes to the European company Airbus, instead of Boeing, our servicemembers will be flying in planes that they and the military know are less safe. That has me very concerned. During the tanker competition, the Pentagon considered numerous factors, including survivability; that is, the ability to protect war fighters when they are in harm's way. But even though they found the Boeing tanker was much safer, the Pentagon chose the Airbus tanker anyway. Awarding a contract for a plane that is less safe makes zero sense to me. Why on Earth would our military choose a tanker that rated lower in safety and in survivability. That is the question I have come to the floor this morning to ask. It is one of the concerns I have raised in a letter I am sending today to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I know as well as anyone how important it is that we get these tankers up in the sky. I represent Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, WA. The air men and women at Fairchild fly those tankers. Refueling tankers are the backbone of our military. Everywhere we have troops in the world we have tankers. And right now our tanker fleets are in some of the most dangerous regions in the world. We know the war on terrorism will be long and it will be hard and that our servicemembers will continue to be in dangerous regions for some time to come. We owe it to them to provide planes that will enable them to do their jobs safely and that will keep our aircraft safe as they refuel them. But with this contract, the Pentagon did not make safety the top priority. Let me take a minute this morning to explain what I am talking about when I say that Boeing's plane was more survivable. Survivability refers to the ability to keep the war fighter safe. According to Ronald Fogleman, who is a former Air Force Chief of Staff and a retired general: The more survivable tanker would have the systems to identify and defeat threats, avoid threats, and protect the crew in the event of an attack. General Fogleman said he was surprised the Air Force selected the Airbus tanker, even though it ranked lower in all those areas. I wish to read you his quote: When I saw the Air Force's assessment of both candidate aircraft in the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw the KC-767 as the more survivable tanker. He added he believes the KC-767 is better for the war fighter and for the military. That is how he put it. He said: The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to air crews that must face real- world threats. By any measure, Boeing's tanker would be easier to operate under hostile conditions, and it would provide the crew with better protection. The KC-767 has the newest defense equipment available. According to the Air Force's own rating, it had better missile defense systems, better cockpit displays that allow our crews to recognize a possible threat, better armor for the flight crew and critical systems on the plane, and better protection against fuel tank explosion, amongst many other advantages. But survivability is not only about the equipment on that plane, a tanker has to be able to take off and land faster. It has to be able to handle itself in a hostile environment. The best tanker is the one that is harder to shoot down. Our tankers are most vulnerable in situations in which the enemy can use shoulder-fired missiles and smaller gunfire, such as when the tankers are taking off or landing. Compared to the Boeing 767, Airbus's tanker is massive. It is much bigger than the Air Force originally requested, and its size is problematic for many reasons. Not only are there fewer places for Airbus's tanker to take off and land, but as a larger airplane, it is a bigger target and it is easier to hit. The KC-767 is a much more agile plane, and it is safer for the crew and the aircraft that they are refueling. Americans want our war fighters flying the best, safest possible plane. So I am asking today: Why would not the Pentagon? Boeing has appealed the Pentagon's decision to award the tanker contract to Airbus. The GAO is now looking into that process. I look forward to seeing their decision. I think Congress has a responsibility as well. It is our job to check on the administration. We have to look out for the war fighter. Some of my colleagues have said we need to move the process along quickly so we can get these planes in the hands of our airmen and airwomen. I agree. Refueling tankers are vital to the Air Force. But that is also why it is as important that they get the right planes, the planes that will allow them to do their jobs and keep them safe. We have a responsibility to ensure we are making the right decision for years to come about the safety of our servicemembers and our Nation. That is why I am raising these concerns today. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to these bills en bloc.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk for a second reading.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the opening remarks of the Republican leader. The Senate is going to vote this afternoon on cloture on the FAA modernization bill. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. It is bipartisan. We agreed unanimously last week to go to this bill. It has been stalled on procedural motions ever since. This is a critical piece of legislation that all of us know we need to get to. I will be speaking later this morning on that bill. But I wanted to address the remarks of the Republican leader in particular, who said the Republicans were going to block the motion to invoke cloture this afternoon because of ``extraneous measures'' in the bill. I remind my colleagues, the majority leader was on the floor of the Senate last week offering numerous alternatives to the Republican side to allow them to offer amendments, to allow them to move forward on this bill, to come to some agreement to move forward. It is disappointing to hear they still object. Of the extraneous amendments, one has to do with the highway trust fund and the fact that we are out of money and need to address that issue. It is addressed in a bipartisan way in this bill. It is badly needed for roads, bridges, and highway construction, and it is a responsibility with which we should proceed. The other one has to do with reimbursing New York for money from 9/11. This is not controversial. It was agreed upon after 9/ 11. The budget the President sent to us says it is necessary, and it is in this bill because it is important that we get that done and move it forward. This legislation allows us the opportunity to do so. These are not controversial issues. It is important that we move forward on this legislation. I hope our colleagues will agree to do that this afternoon. Finally, I heard this morning that our Republican colleagues say that Democrats aren't going to deal with the gas tax issue. I assure everyone, we understand this issue. When we go home and see gas prices nearing $4 a gallon, when we hear from truck drivers and people who are trying to get to work or to grocery stores, the price is really hurting them. We are doing everything we can on this side--and have been--to try to move us forward in a way that addresses this crisis, but we recognize there are no short-term, easy, quick fixes. We know the same- old, same-old of promising drilling that would not produce anything for 10 years or giving away more money to the oil companies as an incentive is not the right way to get constituents to a place where they believe gas prices are again affordable. We are in the process of putting together a comprehensive piece of legislation that the Democratic leader will announce this week. I look forward to having our colleagues on the other side move forward with us on that comprehensive package to address the gas price issue facing our constituents. With that, we will be now moving to a period of morning business. I look forward to addressing the Senate later on the FAA authorization bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the FAA Modernization Act, which we are debating in the Senate today, makes critical improvements that will ensure our aviation system is safe and efficient. That will put us on a path to modernizing our air traffic control system. Now, in a short while, early this afternoon, the Senate will vote on whether we will finish this bill and send it to conference or whether Republicans are again going to refuse to work with us and force us to take this bill off the Senate floor. I hope we are going to vote to move forward this afternoon. My colleagues on the Commerce and Finance Committees worked very hard on this important bill because it is critical to our Nation's economy that our aviation system work smoothly. We have some serious problems that we need to address. Our air travel infrastructure is aging fast. It needs to be updated. The bill before us will help us modernize our aviation system to ensure that it continues to be the safest in the world. We also have to take action to help carriers deal with rising fuel costs and, of course, to protect our passengers by reducing flight delays and cancellations. Unfortunately, as we speak this morning, the Senate is essentially deadlocked. Republicans say they object to certain tax provisions, even though this bill, I remind everyone, was supported overwhelmingly when it was marked up in the Finance Committee. But our Republican colleagues insist that we strip out every provision that isn't directly linked to aviation. If that isn't done, they say they are going to filibuster this bill and keep us from ever getting to a final vote on it. The majority leader has said time and again that he would welcome amendments to the bill, but Republicans have refused. Instead of working with us to come to an agreement on the points they oppose, they are going to block the whole bill. What is most unfortunate about the Republican filibuster today is that this is a vitally important piece of legislation. Although my job as chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee is to deal with appropriations, not authorizations, I can also tell you that this FAA bill is not just a bill that would be nice to have, it is a bill we must have. Some of our most important aviation authorities expire at the end of this June. That means by the end of next month, if this bill is not enacted, the FAA will no longer have the authority to spend money out of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Every penny that has been appropriated for purchasing and modernization at the FAA is paid for out of that fund. So if this bill doesn't become law at the end of next month, billions of dollars in projects at the FAA are going to grind to a halt. If this bill doesn't become law, all of the employees who work on those projects will be told to stay home because the agency would not be able to pay them. Mr. President, that is not all. Republican obstruction of this bill would cost billions of dollars in capital projects at our Nation's airports. The entire Airport Improvement Program, or AIP, would be shut down, and billions of dollars in critical safety improvements at airports across the country would go unspent. Finally, our ability to collect ticket taxes from air travelers in order to fund our trust fund will run out. That would push the FAA's primary source of funding closer to bankruptcy. Mr. President, these are not just small things. These programs ensure that airplanes and airports operate safely, and nobody can argue that safety would not be harmed if we shut down the ability of the FAA to modernize its long-outdated radar infrastructure. I wish to talk about one of the nonaviation provisions that the Republicans say is a reason they are standing in the way of this important critical piece of legislation. I want to tell you why I believe it is critical to keep it in this legislation. The provision I am referring to addresses an urgent problem with the highway trust fund. If we don't act now, the highway trust fund will go bankrupt sometime next year. If that happens, it will put a stop to Federal road projects across our entire country. That means bridge improvements, turn lanes, highway widenings, and countless projects would no longer get the Federal funding that has been promised. These are vital projects to all of our communities. They ensure that our highways are safe. They are essential to commerce and economic development. It is critical to every State in our Nation and everybody who drives on our Federal highway system that we find a way to keep this trust fund solvent. I have been sounding the alarm over this looming disaster for almost 2 years. We are at a point now where we have to find a fix to ensure that we don't have to make disastrous cuts in our highway spending next year. Very early in this Congress, both Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley committed in writing to myself and my ranking member, Senator Bond, that they would make this fix that is now contained in this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to Senator Bond and myself be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. The agency's table shows all of us the amount of money each and every State will see cut next year if the highway trust fund were not fixed and if we are required to fix it through the appropriations process for 2009. No State will be spared. Look up your own State. Texas will lose $822 million. Kentucky will lose $175 million. Minnesota will lose $125 million. Maine would lose $44 million. The list goes on. Look up your State and learn what is at risk if we don't vote to move this bill forward and solve this problem. I remind my colleagues that the provisions in this bill do not fix the trust fund on the long-term basis. The fix that is in this bill will only be sufficient to keep the highway trust fund in the black through 2009. But cutting this provision would not just mean States would lose the ability to make urgent road improvements, it would also mean a loss of a half million jobs across our Nation. Many of my colleagues have talked about the terrible impact felt in the construction sector by the recent economic slowdown. Some have called for economic stimulus proposals to get the sector back on its feet. I have to say, stripping the highway trust provision out of this bill will have the exact opposite effect. It will mean layoffs at a time when our economy badly needs help. So I hope our colleagues take that into consideration when we vote this afternoon on whether to move forward on this bill. In addition, I hope my colleagues remember that earlier this year we learned some disturbing news about the FAA's handling of safety inspections at Southwest Airlines. We learned that the FAA had not reviewed Southwest's system for complying with certain agency safety directives since 1999. That revelation caused a great deal of concern about the FAA's safety inspections across the country, with very good reason. Those inspections are important because they help our airlines and the FAA discover potential problems and address them before there is a tragedy. But when Congress began looking into the problem, we found it was much more extensive. Last month, at a hearing with the Acting FAA Administrator, Robert Sturgell, and the Department of Transportation inspector general, I learned for well over 5 years the FAA had not examined whether Southwest was using the right safety systems for certain maintenance requirements. Now, you can imagine I was concerned to hear about that. So I asked him how many other airlines had missed safety inspections. Mr. Sturgell could not answer me. Well, I asked him to get it back to me. I finally received an answer. The FAA now tells us it has failed to perform dozens of mandatory inspections at seven other major air carriers. In fact, the FAA now says it has missed more than 100 of these required safety inspections at major airlines. Mr. Sturgell said that part of the reason might be ``inadequate resources.'' Well, I am not sure how that could be. I have been working, along with my colleagues, to increase funding for FAA inspections for the last 7 years--in fact and this is true of my appropriations subcommittee, whether I have been chairman or my Republican colleagues have been chairman, for the last 4 years. We have provided more funding for more safety inspectors than the FAA has ever requested of us. So this is a funding issue? The FAA hasn't been honest about the true needs of its agency. Now, I know Congress has been doing its part to build the inspection workforce without the benefit of a request from the FAA, and as a result, we have hundreds more inspectors across the country than the FAA has ever requested. Either way, I have serious concerns because the agency has insisted that the airlines must be the ones to guarantee the safety of their operations, and it is said that FAA inspectors are best used to ensure that the airlines have assistance to do the job. Now we are being told that the FAA is years behind in inspecting those very systems. The lesson from the Southwest debacle is that these safety inspections matter. They are one of the best indicators of whether an airline has its act together when it comes to maintenance and safety compliance. Clearly, the FAA needs to bring more focus and leadership to meeting its own self-imposed deadlines, and we will be looking for quarterly reports and answers on this as we move forward. So with all of these safety concerns as a backdrop, this afternoon we are now facing a filibuster from our Republican colleagues who want to bring down the FAA safety authorization bill. We have a bill before us that clearly offers us a chance to make a difference for safety, for our airlines, for our passengers, for our highways, and for our economy. We are talking about a bill that ensures the safety of our air travel. This is a critically important bill and, by the way, until recently a bipartisan one. But now we are hearing that the Republicans want to wage their 68th filibuster on a bill that is important to all of us. We have the ability to move forward. I urge our Republican colleagues to work with us and to not obstruct this bill this afternoon because anyone who has stood in an endless line at an airport or had their flight canceled or wanted to have important highway improvements done is counting on us to do the job. So I urge my colleagues to negotiate instead of blocking progress, and I hope they will work with us to do this quickly as we move to the bill today. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in the tax portion of the aviation bill, Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley are keeping their word. This provision in this bill authorizes that there will be enough money to continue highway projects under SAFETEA-LU--the Federal transportation planning bill. As I said, this addresses an urgent need. If the highway trust fund provision is stripped from this bill, my subcommittee could be required to cut highway spending for 2009 by $14 billion just to keep the trust fund out of bankruptcy next year. That will represent a cut of more than one-third in a single year. I think all of our colleagues should know exactly what is being put at risk if the highway trust fund provisions were to be stripped out of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a table that has been prepared by the Federal Highway Administration be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use leader time for our side.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today there will be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The Republicans will control the first half, the majority will control the final half. After morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2881, a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. At 2:30 p.m., there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment. As a reminder, the filing deadline for second-degree amendments on the FAA bill is 1:30 p.m. today. If cloture is not invoked on the substitute, we expect to vitiate the cloture vote on the underlying bill and immediately proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2284, a bill to restore the financial solvency of the national flood insurance fund.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, as I come to the floor to speak this afternoon, millions of Americans are struggling to hold on to their homes in the wake of the foreclosure crisis. Thousands of them have lost their jobs, just in the last couple of months. Millions more are finding it harder just to get by because sky-high oil prices are forcing many of our families to pay more at the pump, more at the grocery store, and more in their power bills. Yet while all of these working families are scrimping so hard today, the economic downturn has not even registered for one segment of America--big oil. The major oil companies reported their profits this week, and they are seeing record increases. ConocoPhillips reported first quarter profits of $4.1 billion. That beats their previous record by $600 million. Shell and BP are also reporting huge gains. Americans do not have to look very hard to figure out where the responsibility lies--why oil companies are seeing their profits soar-- while working families are watching their bank accounts bottom out. Over the last 7\1/2\ years, Republicans have backed an energy policy that does very little but gives big oil companies tax breaks and special favors. Meanwhile, our middle-class families today are paying the price, and they know it. In the first month of the Bush administration, oil prices averaged $29.50 a barrel. Almost 8 years later, that price has quadrupled. It is almost $120 a barrel this week. When President Bush first took office, Americans were paying just $1.46 a gallon to fill their gas tanks. Last week, gas prices averaged a whopping $3.60 a gallon. I went home last week--like I always do--to Washington State, where drivers are paying even more. A gallon of gas in Seattle, WA, costs $3.70; up in Bellingham, near the Canadian border, $3.80. Families across my State are telling me they are cutting back on everything from shopping errands to summer vacations, and they are pretty angry they have to pinch their pennies while oil companies are making record profits. When I travel around my State, gas prices are one of the first things people come up and talk to me about. They have written me countless letters about this. For example, there is a stay-at-home mom from Yakima, WA, who wrote me that she worries every single day because her husband now has started riding a motorcycle to work instead of his car in order to save money on their gas bill. She wrote to me, and I want to read to you what she said. She said: It is unnerving to think of him riding his motorcycle after working a 10-plus hour shift. . . . It does not seem fair that my middle class family has to choose between paying the doctor--or putting gas in [our] car--while oil companies are making record profits. High gas prices are not just affecting our drivers. Industries from shipping to trucking to commercial fishing in my State are all hurting. Our farmers in Washington State are especially concerned. We have thousands of farmers in Washington State. They grow everything from apples to wheat. They have to plow their fields and harvest their crops. Cutting back is not an option for them. They have no choice but to absorb the cost of fuel. One woman--from the southern Washington farming community of Goldendale--just wrote to me that she and her husband are finding it hard to pay for groceries. I want to quote what she said: We, the little people, are struggling. Meanwhile, the gas companies are still netting billions. When is it going to stop? Something needs to be done to stop the nonsense. That is how a farmer's wife from southwest Washington sees it. Republicans have supported the energy policy of tax breaks for the oil companies because, they say, oil prices would be higher without them. But even President Bush said that was not true. In April of 2006, he said: Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of certain geological and geophysical expenditures--or the use of taxpayers' monies to subsidize energy companies' research into deep-water drilling. That was President Bush. The reality is, not only have Republicans allowed oil companies to make record profits while gas prices have soared, but their policies have made us more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. That has put our economy and our national security at risk. The amount of money we have sent to OPEC countries, such as Saudi Arabia, has skyrocketed from $41 billion to $140 billion since 2001. Just this week, the president of OPEC said oil prices could go as high as $200 a barrel. Now, I come to the floor to talk about this today because over the last several days we have seen a parade of Republican Senators coming to the floor complaining about high gas prices. In many cases, they have been blaming Democrats for failing to address this crisis over the past 16 months. They are bringing out charts that show the price of gas when Democrats took over in Congress and the price now, and they ask all of us to simply forget the real reason for this crisis; that is, the misguided energy policy this administration has pursued for over 6 years. But I have to tell you, the people in my State and the American people are not going to forget. They are not going to forget it was this administration that asked oil and gas companies to write that energy plan. They are not going to forget that the only real idea coming from the other side is to drill our way out of this problem. And they will not forget this is an administration closer to the oil and gas industry than any in U.S. history. Now, we are not going to forget either, and that is why we are fighting for change. We have already won higher fuel economy standards and new investments in renewable energy sources. We all know we need to do more. We know that Americans cannot rely on big oil to solve our energy problems. People in my home State of Washington are worried. They are worried about the future. They want to be sure their kids are going to have economic security. They want a solution to our energy problems that is going to keep us safe and protect our environment for the long term. Democrats have been fighting for policies that will help cut our gas prices, help to create jobs, and help keep our air and our water clean and, importantly, our Nation secure. We are going to keep up that fight. We know it is not going to be easy. The oil companies and those who support them are not going to give up on the status quo. Still, I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will see what I see when I go home: Americans have had enough. I hope they will join us in investing in America's future and putting our working families first again. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.