Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am out here again today to urge the Senate to pass the bipartisan joint funding resolution that is before us. It is H.J. Res. 20. As I mentioned yesterday evening when I was out here on the Senate floor, President Bush's Transportation Secretary, Mary Peters, testified before us last week that we will see ``drastic consequences'' if we fail to pass this funding resolution that is now in front of us. We are going to see painful cuts to aviation safety, highway safety, and highway construction. I also can tell my colleagues we will see painful and unnecessary cuts in housing, law enforcement, and veterans health care. I want to make sure every Senator understands the importance of the vote we are going to have and understands the difference between the continuing resolution that our Government is currently running on and the joint funding resolution, H.J. Res. 20, that we are currently debating. If we fail to pass H.J. Res. 20, the bill before us, and, instead, extend the current continuing resolution for the rest of this year, we are going to see families across this country lose their housing. We are going to see airline safety inspectors who are furloughed. We are going to see air traffic controllers who will be furloughed, highway construction will be cut, and, as a result, some States are going to have to wait until the next construction season to deal with very critical safety and congestion problems. In short, failing to pass H.J. Res. 20, the issue before us, we are going to hurt our communities severely. That is why it is so important we pass this resolution, which is a bipartisan bill, that has been very carefully crafted to address the most critical funding shortfalls across our entire Government. We have to pass H.J. Res. 20, and we need to do it this week, by this Thursday. Communities across our country need more help in fighting crime, and that is one reason we have to pass this joint funding resolution. Without this resolution, without this bill, our State and local law enforcement will be cut by $1.2 billion. The joint funding resolution we have before us will prevent that drastic cut, and our resolution adds money for Byrne grants and COPS grants, providing a $176 million increase over last year for those two programs. That money will go straight to our local communities to help them fight crime. When I go home and sit down with our law enforcement officials in my home State of Washington, they tell me they need more help from all of us in the Federal Government. A few months ago, I was out in Yakima, WA, listening to our local law enforcement officials talk about their tremendous efforts to fight meth and gangs. They told me that Byrne grants are absolutely critical to their efforts. There is a huge difference for Byrne grant funding under a continuing resolution--that we would be under if we do not pass this joint funding resolution--and the joint funding resolution. Under the joint funding resolution, the Byrne Grant Assistance Program is funded at $519 million. That is an increase of $108.7 million over fiscal year 2006. Under our bill, the COPS Program is funded at $541.7 million. That is an increase of $67.9 million over fiscal year 2006. Those programs are exactly the type of support that our local law enforcement officials need. But they will only get that--they will only get that--if we pass the joint funding resolution that is now before the Senate. Our resolution also supports national efforts to fight crime. Under a continuing resolution, the FBI would have to lay off 4,000 special agents. Let me repeat that for my colleagues. If we go under a continuing resolution and fail to pass the funding resolution that is before us, the FBI will have to lay off 4,000 special agents. Now, at a time when violent crime is rising, when robberies are up nearly 10 percent nationwide, when the FBI is working very hard to fight crime, do we really want to lay off 4,000 FBI agents? Of course not. That is why the resolution provides the FBI with an additional $216 million over fiscal year 2006. That means the FBI will not have to lay off those special agents if we pass this funding resolution. If we do not pass H.J. Res. 20, those FBI agents will be furloughed, sitting at home, unpaid, rather than out working to fight crime. Also the Justice Department's Violence Against Women office is funded at $382.5 million in our resolution. That is nearly $1 million over their funding of fiscal year 2006, critical dollars for a very important initiative to fight violence against women. The joint funding resolution will also help us to cut off funding to terrorists. The Treasury Department today is working very hard to block the flow of money to terrorists. Last year, Treasury hired new intelligence analysts in that effort. Under a CR, those new analysts would be furloughed. Talk about a step backwards in the fight against terror. Our joint funding resolution, however, ensures that those analysts will stay on the job and keep disrupting terror financing. In short, we have to pass H. J. Res. 20 so we prevent cuts in local law enforcement, so we prevent the layoffs of thousands of FBI agents, and we keep our Federal law enforcement efforts on track. This vote coming up is very critical. Either you vote to support funding law enforcement at an appropriate level or you are voting to cut funding to your local law enforcement community. That is the choice every Senator will have to make. America's veterans also have a great deal at stake when the Senate votes on this joint funding resolution. I just came from a hearing with VA Secretary Nicholson this morning. It is absolutely clear to me that we are not doing enough yet to meet the needs of those who have served our country so honorably. Veterans today are facing long lines for health care. Veterans who need mental health care are being told they have to wait to see a doctor. The VA is not prepared for the many veterans who are coming home with serious physical challenges. We need a VA budget for the current year that meets their needs. If we pass a continuing resolution, veterans are going to get less funding and, with it, fewer medical services, less funding for medical facilities, and more delays in getting the benefits they have earned. We owe our veterans more than cuts and delays. Under the joint funding resolution, total funding for VA medical care is $32 billion. That is an increase of about $3.5 billion over the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. Let me talk about one other VA account in particular. Under the joint funding resolution we have before us, VA medical services are funded at about $25 billion. That is an increase of $2.965 billion over the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. That money is going to help our veterans with medical care, including inpatient and outpatient care, mental health care, and long-term care. Under our bill, there is an extra $70 million for the VA's general operating expenses, and some of that money is going to help our Veterans Benefits Administration deal with the massive backlog of benefit claims. The VA has told us they wanted to hire a net of 300 more employees so we can cut down this waiting time all of us are hearing about from our veterans when we go home who can't get the benefits they need. Without the joint funding resolution, the VA will not be able to hire those new employees, and veterans are going to continue to tell us they face long delays for the benefits they have earned and deserve. I also want to talk about the effect that not passing the joint funding resolution would have on critical programs under my own jurisdiction in the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee. If we do not pass the joint funding bill, our air traffic controllers are going to be furloughed. Our air safety inspectors will be furloughed. If we fail to pass this bipartisan bill, we are going to see a decline in our ability to provide railroad inspections, pipeline safety inspections, and to make sure we get truck safety inspections across the country. Simply put, if we don't pass this bipartisan bill, the safety of the people we represent is going to be put in danger. We are also going to feel the consequences in the critical area of housing. If we don't pass this funding resolution, hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to face a housing crisis. In fact, 157,000 low-income people could lose their housing; 70,000 people could lose their housing vouchers; and 11,500 housing units that are housing the homeless could be lost. Those are only some of the consequences Americans will face if this Congress fails to act in the next 2 days to pass this joint funding resolution. Don't take my word for it. Last Thursday I held a hearing with President Bush's very able Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. At that hearing, she talked in very clear terms about the consequences of not passing this joint funding resolution. I asked Secretary Peters what it would mean for safety and hiring if we did not pass this joint funding resolution. She said to me: [W]e will see a serious decline in the number of safety inspectors: truck safety inspectors, rail safety inspectors, aviation inspectors across the broad range in our program. That is directly from the Transportation Secretary. Does any Senator want to be responsible for voting for a serious decline in the number of truck safety inspectors, rail safety inspectors, aviation safety inspectors? How would you ever explain that to your constituents, that you voted to undermine their safety as they travel by car or train or plane? We also need to pass this joint funding resolution because without it, our States will not be able to address their most pressing highway, bridge, and road problems. In fact, Secretary Peters, President Bush's Transportation Secretary, warned us last week that some States could miss an entire construction season if we do not pass this bill this week. She said: It is especially important to those States who have a construction season that will be upon us very, very shortly, and if they are not able to know that this funding is coming and be able to let contracts accordingly we could easily miss an entire construction season. All of us better recognize that our constituents are going to feel the impact of this vote on their roads and bridges and highways if we do not pass the joint funding resolution. The bill before the Senate provides an additional $3.75 billion in formula funding for our Nation's highway and transit systems. That funding will serve to create almost 160,000 new jobs, and it will help us alleviate congestion, an issue many of us face in our States. It is going to be an important infusion of cash for the States to address their needs. I ask unanimous consent that a table that has been provided to me by the Federal Highway Administration which displays the highway funding increases that will be seen by each of our States be printed in the Record.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I understand some of our colleagues have apparently suggested we should not adopt this new joint funding resolution. Instead, they have advocated we simply just extend the current existing CR for the remainder of this year. Well, they are saying we should forgo these desperately needed funds for our highways and transit. They are saying we should allow the FAA to furlough all its safety personnel for 2 weeks. They are saying we should allow our aviation, truck, railroad, and pipeline inspection workforce to dwindle. If we want to keep our air traffic controllers on the job, we have to pass this bill. If we want to keep our air safety inspectors on the job, we need to pass this bill. If we want to keep highway, pipeline, and truck inspections on track, we need to pass this bill. If we want to help our States address their most urgent bridge, road, and highway problems, we have to pass this bill. And if we want to keep our vulnerable families from losing their housing, we have to pass this bill. The consequences are very high. That is why I came to the floor this evening, to outline to my colleagues, under just my jurisdiction, on the transportation and housing bill, how important this joint funding resolution is and to urge my colleagues to help us move it through this week by the Thursday deadline. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate to talk about my strong support of the House Joint Resolution 20 that is the joint funding resolution for the current fiscal year we are considering this week. I am very concerned because we are fast approaching the wire on getting this important resolution passed. If we don't pass this bipartisan bill, the safety of American citizens could be put in danger. If this bill is not passed this week, our air traffic controllers will be furloughed. Our air safety inspectors will be furloughed. It we don't pass this bipartisan bill in the next several days, we are going to see a decline in our ability to provide railroad inspections, pipeline safety inspections, and truck safety inspections. As chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing on Appropriations, I am very concerned. I am here to talk about some of the consequences if we don't get our work done on the CR this week. We are going to be feeling the consequences in the area of housing. If we don't pass this bill, hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to face a housing crisis. Mr. President, 157,000 low-income people could lose their housing if we don't get this bill passed in the next several days; 70,000 could lose their housing vouchers; 11,500 units that are housing the homeless could be lost. Those are some of the consequences Americans will face under my jurisdiction if this Congress fails to pass the joint funding resolution in the next few days. But don't take my word for it. Last Thursday, I held a hearing with President Bush's very able Secretary of Transportation, Mary Peters. Secretary Peters is not a newcomer to transportation. She has spent her entire career working to ensure safety and execute infrastructure projects, largely in her home State of Arizona, but she also served as the Federal Highway Administrator. Secretary Peters told us last week, in very clear terms, how safety would be affected if we failed to pass this joint funding resolution. I share her exact words from a few days ago. Secretary Peters told the Senate: [I]f we were funded at the '06 levels . . . it would have drastic consequences, not only at the FAA, but as you mentioned with our other safety programs, such as our rail safety programs, our truck inspection programs and of course the air traffic controllers and inspectors at maintenance facilities for the aviation community. The Bush administration's Transportation Secretary is warning of drastic consequences if we fail to pass this continuing resolution. I am here tonight to talk about some of those consequences. I asked Secretary Peters what it would mean for safety and what it would mean for hiring if Congress doesn't pass this joint funding resolution. President Bush's Secretary of Transportation said: [W]e will see a serious decline in the number of safety inspectors: Truck safety inspectors, rail safety inspectors, aviation inspectors across the broad range in our program. That is directly from the President's Transportation Secretary. I don't think any Senator wants to be responsible for voting for a serious decline in the number of truck safety inspectors, rail safety inspectors or aviation space. I don't think Members want to explain to our constituents we voted to undermine their safety as they travel by car, train or plane. Let me be clear: No one can say Members didn't know how your vote would hurt a State because we have very clear warnings from the Transportation Secretary herself. The first reason we need to pass this joint funding resolution is to keep our critical safety inspectors on the job, protecting the American people, as they are doing today. We also need to pass a joint funding resolution because, without it, States will not be able to address their most pressing highway, bridge, and road problems. In fact, Secretary Peters also warned us that some States could miss an entire construction season if Congress does not enact this bill. She said that State transportation commissioners need to know how money will be available to them this year. So she said to us last week at the hearing: It is especially important to those states who have a construction season that will be upon us very, very shortly and if they are not able to know that this funding is coming and be able to let contracts, accordingly, we could easily miss an entire construction season. That is what this joint funding resolution is about. Let me be very clear. Your constituents, my constituents, all of our constituents will feel the impact of our vote on roads that are not fixed or roads that remain clogged or congested or unsafe. Those are a few of the safety consequences if we fail to pass the bipartisan joint funding resolution in the next several days. The failure to pass H.J. Res. 20 will also have a painful impact on housing for hundreds of thousands of Americans. In this bipartisan bill, we worked very hard to make sure vulnerable families would not be thrown on the streets or face out-of-reach rent increases. We provided some critical support for section 8, homeless assistance grants, housing equity conversion loans, HOPE VI, and the Public Housing Operating Fund. For Section 8 project-based assistance, this spending resolution we will be considering this week provides an increase of $939 million over last year's fiscal year 2006 level. It provides $300 million over the President's 2007 budget request. This is essential, I want my colleagues to know, to preserve affordable housing for 157,000 low- income households. Without this increase, without us acting in the next several days, many of these low-income residents are going to become homeless or be displaced or face unaffordable rent increases. For section 8 tenant-based assistance, this spending resolution provides an increase of $502 million, equal to the President's 2007 budget request, to continue to renew expiring vouchers. Without this increase, without us acting in the next several days, more than 70,000 housing vouchers are going to be lost. That means residents may become homeless or displaced or forced into overcrowded housing. For homeless assistance grants, this funding resolution we are considering provides an increase of $115 million to meet expiring contracts for homeless individuals and their families. Without this increase, without us acting in the next several days, as many as 11,500 units will not be renewed--not be renewed--forcing these homeless individuals and families back onto the street. The joint resolution also helps thousands of seniors to stay in their homes because it supports the housing equity conversion loans. Currently, 90 percent of all reverse mortgages for the elderly fall under this guarantee program. Without this language, this popular program will shut down, and it will hurt the ability of thousands of elderly individuals and couples to remain in their homes and pay for critical living expenses. The joint resolution we are considering this week also extends the authorization for the HOPE VI Program, which is helping us across the country knock down the most deteriorated public housing units and replace them with new, safe housing units for families. If this funding resolution is not adopted this week, not a single dollar will go out for this popular program for the rest of this year. Finally, this resolution will help housing authorities meet their soaring expenses. This resolution supports the Public Housing Operating Fund. It provides an increase of $300 million over the 2006 level to meet the tremendous shortfalls being faced by our public housing authorities when it comes to meeting things such as increased energy costs and providing necessary security to help them prevent crime. Recently, more than 700 public housing authorities have announced layoffs. According to HUD, without this increase--without this resolution--public housing authorities will receive only 76 percent of their true operating needs in this fiscal year. So the consequences will be severe for very vulnerable families if this Congress fails to pass the joint funding resolution by this Thursday. Mr. President, I want to step back for a minute and share how we developed this bipartisan bill we are considering and how we worked to make sure those critical needs are met. Today, every agency in the Federal Government, with the exception of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, are operating under what is called a continuing resolution. That freezes almost every Federal program at last year's level. If a program is not frozen at last year's level, it is operating at a level consistent with the cuts that were adopted by the House of Representatives last year. So at present, almost all of our Federal agencies are operating under a funding formula that makes no accommodations for the true needs of our agencies or the true needs of the American people. What that means is we are not addressing critical education needs, health care needs, the needs of our veterans, the needs of law enforcement, transportation, housing--you name it. The current continuing resolution expires this Thursday, February 15. The time has now come for us in this Congress to finally stand up to our responsibility and implement a spending bill that will meet the needs of the American people. And that bill will be in front of us this week. It is H.J. Res. 20. That bill passed the House of Representatives by more than a 2-to-1 margin. The time has now come for us in the Senate to finally fulfill our responsibility. H.J. Res. 20 was developed by both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees on a bipartisan basis. The joint funding resolution, for the most part, freezes programs across the Government at their 2006 funding level. Importantly, however, the bill also makes necessary funding adjustments to deal with critical programs that cannot and should not endure a funding freeze. In the case of the Transportation Department, we were not about to ignore our responsibility to ensure safety in our skies or on our highways or on our railways. This bill provides funding increases totaling more than a quarter billion dollars to ensure there are adequate numbers of personnel to control air traffic--control air traffic, critical to all of the American flying public. It also provides funds to make sure we inspect and enforce safety rules governing our commercial airliners, trucks, railroads, and pipelines. Without this additional funding--if we do not pass the CR this week-- the FAA Administrator told us that she would be required to put every air traffic controller and every aviation inspector on the street for 2 weeks without pay between now and the end of September. The joint funding resolution before us this week also boosts funding for Amtrak to $1.3 billion. Operating under the current continuing resolution, Amtrak's funding would remain $200 million lower than it was last year. If we do not pass this funding resolution which is before us, we will endanger our passenger rail service across the country, as well as the annual maintenance expenses that must be made to ensure safe operations in the Northeast corridor. Finally, the bill pending before the Senate provides an additional $3.75 billion in formula funding for our Nation's highway and transit systems. That funding will serve to create almost 160,000 new jobs while alleviating congestion. It is an important infusion of cash to our States to help them address their most pressing bridge replacements, highway widenings, and safety enhancements. When you look at all the highway needs across just my home State of Washington, that additional $71 million our State will receive is urgently needed and will be put to work right away. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table provided to me by the Federal Highway Administration that displays the highway funding increases that will be enjoyed by each and every State be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at this time I will object. I will suggest the absence of a quorum--

Mrs. MURRAY. Parliamentary inquiry: I assume the Senator from Texas can only yield for a question at this time; is that not correct? Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, what we do on the floor is allow Senators to go back and forth. Senator Kennedy has also been waiting. He is not on the floor, but he has been waiting his turn. I again ask if the Senator will allow us to go ahead and let your two Republican Senators speak, then allow Senator Kennedy to speak, and then go back to your side of the aisle?

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent Senator Kennedy be allowed 15 minutes after Senator Chambliss.

Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object. I ask to amend the request of the Senator to limit each Senator to 15 minutes apiece, under her order. But I also request Senator Kennedy be inserted after your first two speakers, so the order I believe--your first two speakers were?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, a bill to protect some of Washington's most unique and remarkable public lands for families today and for future generations. For more than six years, citizens, community leaders, groups and organizations have worked together with Representative Rick Larsen and me to make this proposal a reality. I am proud to offer our bill here in the Senate on their behalf. This is the fourth time I've introduced this bill, and I'm really excited about finally moving this bill across the finish line this year. The Wild Sky Wilderness Act reflects the best values of my home State of Washington--environmental protection, stewardship of our land, and community partnership. It also respects the economic and recreational interests of the people of Snohomish County. Our bill will protect an important area while keeping it accessible for recreation and enjoyment today and for generations to come. For many years, I've been concerned by the rapid growth taking place in Western Washington. It's no surprise that more people want to live and work in the region, but we need to make sure that development does not destroy the natural beauty that is such an important part of our State's identity and our quality of life. We also need to ensure that growth and development do not destroy native species of plants and animals that have flourished here for centuries. So several years ago, I began to consider new wilderness legislation. I learned that we haven't added any new wilderness areas in Washington state since 1984. I knew that if we were going to protect public land, I wanted to do it in an inclusive way by seeking input from local communities and stakeholders and working with them to develop a sound proposal. I am proud to say that the fruits of our labor are now before the United States Senate. My partner in the House of Representatives, Congressman Larsen, and I worked alongside all of the local stakeholders every step of the way to select these particular areas in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest. The Wild Sky Wilderness will protect wildlife and promote clean water by preserving the landscapes that host many native plants and animals. We can still find many of the species that have historically called this area home, but their populations are much smaller today. If these animals are going to be here centuries from now, we must protect their habitats. This wilderness designation is especially critical for threatened species of salmon, steelhead and trout, and it will protect the upper reaches of water to ensure prime habitat and clean water. In addition, our bill ensures that the public will have access to these remarkable, protected places. It's estimated that 2.4 million people live nearby in King, Snohomish and Skagit counties. Our bill will ensure they have new recreational opportunities in the Wild Sky Wilderness. In this hectic, fast-paced time, more and more people and their families are turning to outdoor recreation on our public lands. This bill will provide new opportunities for the public to use this land by directing the U.S. Forest Service to develop a series of hiking and equestrian trails. In addition to the environmental protections and recreational opportunities, the Wild Sky Wilderness Area will be good for the local economy. Every climber, hiker, hunter and angler setting out for the Wild Sky Wilderness will be stopping at hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and stores in the gateway communities of Index, Skykomish, Monroe, Miller River, Startup, Grotto, Baring, Sultan, and Gold Bar. Over the years, so many people have worked hard to make this bill possible. I can't name all of them, but I do want to recognize one great leader who is not with us to see the progress she helped make possible, Karen Fant. Anyone involved in wilderness protection knows the legacy that Karen has left us through her years of advocacy for our state's natural places. Early on, Karen recognized the need to bring together and involve local people in efforts to protect wilderness. She co-founded and directed the Washington Wilderness Coalition, and she was instrumental in forming a statewide community of wilderness advocates. To those who knew her--and especially those lucky enough to sample her famous cookies--Karen provided never-ending inspiration and enthusiasm to continue working to protect wilderness and wild lands in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I cannot summarize Karen's amazing four decades of service, but I think some of her many friends said it best when they wrote: ``There are thousands of miles of trails and millions of acres of wilderness that are protected due to her work and the work of others she organized to make a difference. As we walk these trails and gain renewal from these lands, we should all remember the work we shared and the fun and camaraderie we all experienced with Karen.'' With Karen's passing, we've lost a pioneer in the fight to protect our wild spaces, but thankfully she's left a clear trail and a generation of inspired, empowered advocates to continue her work. I urge my colleagues to help my State take a great step forward in protecting our environment, improving recreation and supporting economic development by supporting the Wild Sky Wilderness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, a bill to protect some of Washington's most unique and remarkable public lands for families today and for future generations. For more than six years, citizens, community leaders, groups and organizations have worked together with Representative Rick Larsen and me to make this proposal a reality. I am proud to offer our bill here in the Senate on their behalf. This is the fourth time I've introduced this bill, and I'm really excited about finally moving this bill across the finish line this year. The Wild Sky Wilderness Act reflects the best values of my home State of Washington--environmental protection, stewardship of our land, and community partnership. It also respects the economic and recreational interests of the people of Snohomish County. Our bill will protect an important area while keeping it accessible for recreation and enjoyment today and for generations to come. For many years, I've been concerned by the rapid growth taking place in Western Washington. It's no surprise that more people want to live and work in the region, but we need to make sure that development does not destroy the natural beauty that is such an important part of our State's identity and our quality of life. We also need to ensure that growth and development do not destroy native species of plants and animals that have flourished here for centuries. So several years ago, I began to consider new wilderness legislation. I learned that we haven't added any new wilderness areas in Washington state since 1984. I knew that if we were going to protect public land, I wanted to do it in an inclusive way by seeking input from local communities and stakeholders and working with them to develop a sound proposal. I am proud to say that the fruits of our labor are now before the United States Senate. My partner in the House of Representatives, Congressman Larsen, and I worked alongside all of the local stakeholders every step of the way to select these particular areas in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest. The Wild Sky Wilderness will protect wildlife and promote clean water by preserving the landscapes that host many native plants and animals. We can still find many of the species that have historically called this area home, but their populations are much smaller today. If these animals are going to be here centuries from now, we must protect their habitats. This wilderness designation is especially critical for threatened species of salmon, steelhead and trout, and it will protect the upper reaches of water to ensure prime habitat and clean water. In addition, our bill ensures that the public will have access to these remarkable, protected places. It's estimated that 2.4 million people live nearby in King, Snohomish and Skagit counties. Our bill will ensure they have new recreational opportunities in the Wild Sky Wilderness. In this hectic, fast-paced time, more and more people and their families are turning to outdoor recreation on our public lands. This bill will provide new opportunities for the public to use this land by directing the U.S. Forest Service to develop a series of hiking and equestrian trails. In addition to the environmental protections and recreational opportunities, the Wild Sky Wilderness Area will be good for the local economy. Every climber, hiker, hunter and angler setting out for the Wild Sky Wilderness will be stopping at hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and stores in the gateway communities of Index, Skykomish, Monroe, Miller River, Startup, Grotto, Baring, Sultan, and Gold Bar. Over the years, so many people have worked hard to make this bill possible. I can't name all of them, but I do want to recognize one great leader who is not with us to see the progress she helped make possible, Karen Fant. Anyone involved in wilderness protection knows the legacy that Karen has left us through her years of advocacy for our state's natural places. Early on, Karen recognized the need to bring together and involve local people in efforts to protect wilderness. She co-founded and directed the Washington Wilderness Coalition, and she was instrumental in forming a statewide community of wilderness advocates. To those who knew her--and especially those lucky enough to sample her famous cookies--Karen provided never-ending inspiration and enthusiasm to continue working to protect wilderness and wild lands in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I cannot summarize Karen's amazing four decades of service, but I think some of her many friends said it best when they wrote: ``There are thousands of miles of trails and millions of acres of wilderness that are protected due to her work and the work of others she organized to make a difference. As we walk these trails and gain renewal from these lands, we should all remember the work we shared and the fun and camaraderie we all experienced with Karen.'' With Karen's passing, we've lost a pioneer in the fight to protect our wild spaces, but thankfully she's left a clear trail and a generation of inspired, empowered advocates to continue her work. I urge my colleagues to help my State take a great step forward in protecting our environment, improving recreation and supporting economic development by supporting the Wild Sky Wilderness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, war is the most serious and the most consequential issue we can debate here in the Senate. American lives, American security, and America's future are all on the line when our country decides questions of war and peace. For years, we have been denied a real opportunity to fully debate this war in Iraq, a war that has now claimed more than 3,000 American lives with no end in sight. Last November, the voters sent us a message. They want a new direction. What do we hear from the President? More of the same. In fact, his plan is to escalate the war by putting up to 48,000 more Americans in the middle of a deadly civil war. They are two completely different approaches. On one side, we have the American people, the Iraq Study Group, generals who have spoken out, and a bipartisan majority of Congress. On the other side, we have the President and his supporters. In a democracy, we resolve these issues through debate. We in the Senate are ready for that debate. We are ready to move in a new direction, and it starts by putting this Senate on record as opposing the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. I have been looking forward to finally having this debate in the Senate, but apparently some of the Republicans have a very different strategy. They don't want to have a real debate. They don't want to consider the resolutions that have been offered. In fact, I think the discussion we just witnessed right now showed that to us. Last night, by voting against a motion to proceed to this debate, they said they didn't want to talk about this. Now, I am not here today to question their motives, but I do want to point out the consequences. Every day they block a debate, they send a message that Congress supports escalation. Every day they block a debate, they deny our citizens a voice in a war that has cost us dearly in dollars and in lives. And every day they block a debate, they are blocking the will of the American public. I am on the Senate floor today because I know this debate is long overdue, and I am not going to let anyone silence me, the troops for whom I speak, or the constituents I represent. Ever since the start of combat operations in March of 2003, I have been very frustrated that we have been denied a chance to hold hearings, a chance to ask critical questions, a chance to demand answers, to hold those in charge accountable, and to give the American people a voice in a war that is costing us terribly. We are going to have that debate whether some in this Senate like it or not. Four years ago, I came to the Senate to discuss the original resolution to give the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. At that time, I asked a series of questions, including: What is the mission? What will it require? Who is with us in this fight? What happens after our troops go in? How will it impact the Middle East? How will it affect the broader war on terror? And are we being honest with the American people about the costs of that war? After exploring those questions back almost 4 years ago, I announced on October 9 of 2002 that I could not support sending our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined solo mission with so many critical questions unanswered. Now, here we are today, 4 years later, $379 billion and more than 3,000 American lives taken. Now the President wants to send more Americans into the middle of a civil war against the wishes of the majority of the public and Congress? As I look at the President's proposed escalation, I am left with the exact same conclusion I met with 4 years ago. I cannot support sending more of our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined solo mission with so many critical questions unanswered. Today, President Bush wants to send Americans into battle without a clear mission, without equipment, without an endgame and without explaining the cost. When he tried it 4 years ago, I stood up and spoke out and I voted no. Again today, President Bush wants to send more Americans into battle without a clear mission, without equipment, without an endgame and without explaining the costs. Once again, I say: Not on my watch. We need a new direction, not more Americans in the middle of a civil war. I will vote for a bipartisan resolution to send a clear message that we oppose the surge. It is the first step in demanding a new direction in Iraq. No debate on Iraq can begin without first recognizing our men and women in uniform who risk their lives and all too often give up their lives to keep all of us safe. Whenever our country calls, they answer, no matter the cost to them or their families. They are our best. They are our brightest, they are our bravest, and I hope to give them a voice in this debate. While most Americans today are going about as normal, our troops and their families are quietly making tremendous sacrifices. The burdens of this war have not been shared equally, and we owe so much to those who shoulder those heavy burdens. I had a chance to visit servicemembers from my home State on the ground in Kuwait and in Baghdad. Every one of them makes us proud. I have sat down with servicemembers and their families at Camp Murray, at McChord Air Force Base, at Fairchild Air Force Base. I have talked with returning servicemembers in every corner of my State. I have worked to help give them the health care and the benefits and the transition and support they deserve. My home State of Washington has made tremendous sacrifices to help us fight and win the war on terror. To date, more than 59,000 servicemembers with the Washington State connection have served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently, there are nearly 10,000 people with the Washington State connection who are serving in OEF and OIF. According to the Department of Defense, as of January 20, for OEF and OIF, 702 servicemembers whose home of record is Washington State have been injured. That is 702 injured from my State. In addition, 66 servicemembers whose home of record is my home State of Washington have paid the ultimate sacrifice. The number is even higher when you include those who have a connection to Washington State. Each one of those brave Americans is someone whose mother or father, sister or brother, daughter or son, their families are never going to be the same. Their communities will never be the same. I offer my prayers for those who have sacrificed for our country. We owe them a debt that can never fully be repaid. After nearly 4 years of losses and misrepresentations and miscalculations, the American people have said they want a new direction in Iraq. Generals have spoken out calling for a new direction. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group called for a new direction. Yet President Bush has ignored everyone and is now pushing to send even more of our American troops into the middle of a civil war. He is wrong. And a bipartisan resolution is the first step we can take in helping to forge a new direction. But now what we have is Republicans who are denying the Senate a chance to vote for that new direction. In fact, they are preventing the Senate from even debating the merits of that direction. They may have stopped us from moving forward last night, but they cannot stop this debate forever. The American people would not allow it. If the Republicans stop their obstruction and start allowing the Senate to debate this misguided surge proposal, there are plenty of questions we have to ask. What would be the impact of a surge? How would it affect our men and women in uniform? Will it put more of them into the crossfire and cause more deaths and injuries? My home State is home to Fort Lewis and two of the Army Stryker Brigades. How is the surge going to affect them? Will some members see their current deployment extended? Will others see their deployment date moved up? Will all of them have the equipment they need when they are there? Those are the first questions we have to ask. How will the surge affect our ability to care for our returning veterans? We are having trouble meeting their needs today; how will we do the job in an escalated war? I have heard several Members on the other side demand ideas from Democrats, and my first response is simple: To discuss ideas, shouldn't we discuss, first, the President's ideas? He is, after all, the Commander in Chief. That is the point of the resolutions, to foster a debate on the President's plan for the future of Iraq. But the Senate Republicans would not allow that. The Republicans' obstruction and the President's decision so far have left us with very few options. I am looking at every resolution and every proposal. I am looking forward to having hearings and getting the facts and moving forward in a bipartisan way. Personally, I believe the way forward should include three steps. First of all, we should strategically redeploy our troops. Second, we should work with Iraq's neighbors and other countries in the area to build a regional framework. And third, we need the Iraqis to take ownership of their own country and their own future. We can send troops for decades and never have a peaceful, stable Iraq until the Iraqi people are willing to work together for a purpose that is larger than their own tribe or their own sect or their own self. We need to refocus our efforts on the war on terror, on fighting al- Qaida, and on addressing the other challenges that threaten our security. I am very concerned by the reports we hear about Afghanistan, that it is sliding backward and becoming more unstable. Those are some of the steps I would take to improve our security. That is the debate we ought to be having. Before I conclude, let me address two concerns. First, some people have suggested that if you question the President's policies, you are somehow hurting our troops. As the Vice President would say, hogwash. Supporting our troops means giving them a clear mission, making sure they have the equipment and support they need and making sure we have a clear endgame. If any of those critical ingredients are missing, it is our duty to question the policy until we provide our troops with what they need. Sending more Americans into the middle of a civil war without a clear mission, without equipment, without support, without an endgame, is endangering our troops, not supporting them. I don't shrink from war. I voted for the war in Afghanistan. My father served in World War II and he was injured in combat. I know war is sometimes necessary. But I also know that if we don't answer the critical questions, our troops pay the price. For too long, partisans have claimed to be speaking for our troops but have blocked the discussions that could truly protect them. I say, no more. Finally, some people say that a nonbinding resolution is not enough. And I agree. That is why this is a first step. We can't take the other steps until this Congress goes on record, in a bipartisan voice, telling the President the surge is wrong. Once we have done that, the ball is in the President's court. But today, Senate Republicans are preventing us from getting there. If he still will not change course, we will look at the other tools before us. Senators have discussed a wide series of steps that we could take. I will review all of them. We are also holding hearings to find out what options we can take. This is the first step. If the President doesn't hear us, we will take the next step. And the next step. And the one after that. I understand that many Americans are frustrated that our troops are in the middle of a civil war. I am frustrated. too. I wish we had been allowed to start this process, these hearings, these debates and votes a long time ago. But we are moving aggressively forward now. Democrats have been in charge now for 5 weeks. And already, finally, we are having more debates, more hearings, more progress, than we have had in the past 3 years. But I can promise you, this is only a beginning. We can't have these debates if the Republicans are blocking us in an open discussion of the war. The Republicans need to stop denying a real debate in the Senate, so that together we can move our country in a new direction. I believe for us to have an impact, Congress has to speak out in a clear, bipartisan voice. We could vote on hundreds of resolutions that make us feel better, but that would not help us change direction. It is a strong, bipartisan message from Congress to the executive branch and to the country that has the power to make progress. I am willing to take the time and do this right and to build the support we need so that at the end of the day we can have a real impact. I strongly oppose the surge. I believe escalation is the wrong direction. I will vote to put the Senate on record opposing the surge if the Republicans will end their filibuster. I will continue to fight for new direction in Iraq. For too long, the voices of our troops and our citizens have been blocked. Today, Senate Republicans are trying to continue that obstruction. I say, no longer. The debate must begin because our country will be better for it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used by the two leaders in the exchange on the floor not be counted against the 90 minutes on each side.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I asked the majority leader to yield for a question. I have been on the Senate floor and listened to the exchange between the majority leader and the Republican leader and, quite frankly, I was astonished and I want to understand if the majority leader heard the same thing I did. The Republican leader came back to you and offered to remove from consideration the McCain amendment, which is the pro-escalation amendment, essentially offering a vote on just the Warner and Gregg amendment. Leaving aside what this says about the lack of support of the proposal on their side, are we hearing from the other side that they do not even want a vote on whether they support the President's escalation? It seems to me we are hearing a phony debate request on who supports the troops. That is not a debate that we need to have. Everyone in this body supports the troops. I ask the leader if he heard the request from the Republicans the same way I did, that they no longer even want to have a vote on whether they support the President's escalation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the health care proposals President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union Address last Tuesday. For too long, our working families and our businesses have really struggled with rising costs and shrinking access, and Washington, DC, has virtually ignored that health care crisis. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, the President is finally bringing some ideas to the table and saying he wants to be part of the solution. Well, I want to thank him for joining the debate, and I hope he is serious about working with us to address the challenges that have only gotten worse over the past 7 years. There may well be valuable ideas in his proposals. I want to get more details than we heard in just the State of the Union Address because there may be areas on which we can agree. However, I have to say, from what I have seen of the President's plan so far, I do have some serious concerns that his initiatives will undermine the employer-based health insurance system; may push people into the risky and expensive individual insurance market; may fail to provide coverage for our most vulnerable; and may divert funds for the health care safety net to experimental programs. My first concern is that the President's proposal will jeopardize the employer-based health insurance system. The most stable form of health insurance for America's working families today is through their employers. Mr. President, 155 million Americans receive health insurance today from their employers. One of the primary reasons why employers offer health insurance to their workers is because those benefits are excluded from taxable income. But the President's proposal, as I hear it, would take away that incentive by putting all forms of health insurance on an equal playing field. Even if employers choose not to drop health care coverage, they may be forced to do so in the future as the healthiest employees drop out of their employers' plans. If insurance becomes unaffordable, employers may be forced to stop offering health care benefits. I think many of my colleagues agree with me that we should be strengthening the employer-based health insurance system, not taking steps that will jeopardize it. Secondly, I am very concerned that the President's proposal will push people into the individual insurance market. Today, when workers cannot get coverage through their employer, they need to purchase health insurance in the individual insurance market. But as any small businessman or self-employed woman will tell you, the individual insurance market today is not a good alternative to employer-provided coverage. In many States, insurers can cherry-pick applicants to avoid enrolling those with high health needs, or insurance companies can sell different policies to high- or low-risk individuals. If you have a chronic disease such as diabetes--or even any health problem--good luck getting reasonably priced, comprehensive coverage in the individual market today. Any proposal to increase access to health insurance should support the ability of Americans to receive affordable and comprehensive coverage, not force people into expensive, barebones insurance plans. Third, I am troubled that the President's proposal will not increase access to health insurance for the uninsured. We have 46 million uninsured men, women, and children in this country today. That is a staggeringly high number, and those people face daily challenges trying to avoid getting sick and going into debt when something unexpected happens. Every day, I hear from people in my home State of Washington who struggle to pay for their health care costs. Unfortunately, the President's proposal will not help those people because they do not pay enough money in taxes to benefit from this tax deduction he is proposing. That really makes me question whether the President's plan will actually reduce the number of uninsured Americans. Finally, I am very concerned that the President's plan will further chip away at our health care safety net because it would divert critical Medicaid dollars into an experimental grant program. Now, we do not have a lot of details yet, but it appears he is proposing to use Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments to give States the ability to experiment with health care reform. Those DSH payments keep the doors of our public hospitals open. Public hospitals are the foundations of our communities. They not only provide emergency care, but they train our doctors, they support rural health care, and they are the first lines of defense against pandemic flu or bioterror attacks. I am very concerned that his proposal could seriously jeopardize my State's Medicaid funds and, therefore, undermine those critical services. I want to give an example of how these proposals could exacerbate the worst parts of our health insurance system. Last week, I received a letter from my constituents Alice and Michael Counts. They live in Vancouver, WA. Their son Wesley was diagnosed with a kidney condition at age 16. Their family's personal health insurance insisted that his kidney disease was preexisting, and the insurer refused to pay for the medical tests that diagnosed his condition. His parents appealed to our insurance commissioner, and they won, but the insurer raised its rates far beyond the reach of a self-employed individual. So later, when Wesley was going through dialysis and a kidney transplant, his employer dropped insurance coverage because it had become too costly. Throughout all these medical and financial ups and downs, Wesley has worked and has now graduated from Clark College. Thankfully, his parents have been able to help him navigate a health care system that failed him. Wesley's parents wrote to me, and they said: We would rather pay higher taxes that give everyone affordable health care than live with the fear of losing everything through catastrophic illness. Wesley's story shows just how risky the individual market is and how people with serious health problems can be severely affected when an employer is forced to drop coverage. No patient--no one--should have to live in fear that their next dialysis treatment will not be covered by insurance. What Wesley deserves--and what all Americans deserve--is access to affordable, dependable, comprehensive health care. The President's plan does not guarantee that. It does not even come close. It just makes the health insurance market more unstable and more risky and leaves more people like Wesley vulnerable. He deserves better than that. I think all Americans do. So, as I said at the beginning of my statement, I welcome the President's attention to the health care crisis we are facing in this country. Last year, on the Senate floor we devoted 3 days--3 days--to health care. The President probably spent even less time talking about health care. So this is an improvement. We desperately need a serious and a very thoughtful debate about how we increase access to health insurance. My colleagues and I have put forward a number of good ideas about how to increase access to health care. One of the first things we can do is reauthorize and strengthen the State Children's Health Insurance Program--that is the SCHIP program--that provides quality health care to millions of uninsured children. Congress should give States the funding and the flexibility to cover more of our kids. Secondly, we have to fund community health centers so they can continue to provide quality health care to our uninsured. Third, I agree with the President, we should help States devise new ways to increase access to health care. My home State of Washington, like a lot of States, is working on innovative initiatives to expand coverage. But we can accomplish this in ways that do not chip away at the foundation of our public hospitals. Finally, we can expand health insurance for small businesses and the self-employed by creating Federal and State catastrophic cost pools in ways that will help us lower costs and still protect our patients. I look forward to working with Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Baucus and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the President on real health care reform. There are people like Wesley across the country in every one of our States who are crying out for change, and we owe it to them, in this body, to finally make the progress that is long overdue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the health care proposals President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union Address last Tuesday. For too long, our working families and our businesses have really struggled with rising costs and shrinking access, and Washington, DC, has virtually ignored that health care crisis. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, the President is finally bringing some ideas to the table and saying he wants to be part of the solution. Well, I want to thank him for joining the debate, and I hope he is serious about working with us to address the challenges that have only gotten worse over the past 7 years. There may well be valuable ideas in his proposals. I want to get more details than we heard in just the State of the Union Address because there may be areas on which we can agree. However, I have to say, from what I have seen of the President's plan so far, I do have some serious concerns that his initiatives will undermine the employer-based health insurance system; may push people into the risky and expensive individual insurance market; may fail to provide coverage for our most vulnerable; and may divert funds for the health care safety net to experimental programs. My first concern is that the President's proposal will jeopardize the employer-based health insurance system. The most stable form of health insurance for America's working families today is through their employers. Mr. President, 155 million Americans receive health insurance today from their employers. One of the primary reasons why employers offer health insurance to their workers is because those benefits are excluded from taxable income. But the President's proposal, as I hear it, would take away that incentive by putting all forms of health insurance on an equal playing field. Even if employers choose not to drop health care coverage, they may be forced to do so in the future as the healthiest employees drop out of their employers' plans. If insurance becomes unaffordable, employers may be forced to stop offering health care benefits. I think many of my colleagues agree with me that we should be strengthening the employer-based health insurance system, not taking steps that will jeopardize it. Secondly, I am very concerned that the President's proposal will push people into the individual insurance market. Today, when workers cannot get coverage through their employer, they need to purchase health insurance in the individual insurance market. But as any small businessman or self-employed woman will tell you, the individual insurance market today is not a good alternative to employer-provided coverage. In many States, insurers can cherry-pick applicants to avoid enrolling those with high health needs, or insurance companies can sell different policies to high- or low-risk individuals. If you have a chronic disease such as diabetes--or even any health problem--good luck getting reasonably priced, comprehensive coverage in the individual market today. Any proposal to increase access to health insurance should support the ability of Americans to receive affordable and comprehensive coverage, not force people into expensive, barebones insurance plans. Third, I am troubled that the President's proposal will not increase access to health insurance for the uninsured. We have 46 million uninsured men, women, and children in this country today. That is a staggeringly high number, and those people face daily challenges trying to avoid getting sick and going into debt when something unexpected happens. Every day, I hear from people in my home State of Washington who struggle to pay for their health care costs. Unfortunately, the President's proposal will not help those people because they do not pay enough money in taxes to benefit from this tax deduction he is proposing. That really makes me question whether the President's plan will actually reduce the number of uninsured Americans. Finally, I am very concerned that the President's plan will further chip away at our health care safety net because it would divert critical Medicaid dollars into an experimental grant program. Now, we do not have a lot of details yet, but it appears he is proposing to use Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments to give States the ability to experiment with health care reform. Those DSH payments keep the doors of our public hospitals open. Public hospitals are the foundations of our communities. They not only provide emergency care, but they train our doctors, they support rural health care, and they are the first lines of defense against pandemic flu or bioterror attacks. I am very concerned that his proposal could seriously jeopardize my State's Medicaid funds and, therefore, undermine those critical services. I want to give an example of how these proposals could exacerbate the worst parts of our health insurance system. Last week, I received a letter from my constituents Alice and Michael Counts. They live in Vancouver, WA. Their son Wesley was diagnosed with a kidney condition at age 16. Their family's personal health insurance insisted that his kidney disease was preexisting, and the insurer refused to pay for the medical tests that diagnosed his condition. His parents appealed to our insurance commissioner, and they won, but the insurer raised its rates far beyond the reach of a self-employed individual. So later, when Wesley was going through dialysis and a kidney transplant, his employer dropped insurance coverage because it had become too costly. Throughout all these medical and financial ups and downs, Wesley has worked and has now graduated from Clark College. Thankfully, his parents have been able to help him navigate a health care system that failed him. Wesley's parents wrote to me, and they said: We would rather pay higher taxes that give everyone affordable health care than live with the fear of losing everything through catastrophic illness. Wesley's story shows just how risky the individual market is and how people with serious health problems can be severely affected when an employer is forced to drop coverage. No patient--no one--should have to live in fear that their next dialysis treatment will not be covered by insurance. What Wesley deserves--and what all Americans deserve--is access to affordable, dependable, comprehensive health care. The President's plan does not guarantee that. It does not even come close. It just makes the health insurance market more unstable and more risky and leaves more people like Wesley vulnerable. He deserves better than that. I think all Americans do. So, as I said at the beginning of my statement, I welcome the President's attention to the health care crisis we are facing in this country. Last year, on the Senate floor we devoted 3 days--3 days--to health care. The President probably spent even less time talking about health care. So this is an improvement. We desperately need a serious and a very thoughtful debate about how we increase access to health insurance. My colleagues and I have put forward a number of good ideas about how to increase access to health care. One of the first things we can do is reauthorize and strengthen the State Children's Health Insurance Program--that is the SCHIP program--that provides quality health care to millions of uninsured children. Congress should give States the funding and the flexibility to cover more of our kids. Secondly, we have to fund community health centers so they can continue to provide quality health care to our uninsured. Third, I agree with the President, we should help States devise new ways to increase access to health care. My home State of Washington, like a lot of States, is working on innovative initiatives to expand coverage. But we can accomplish this in ways that do not chip away at the foundation of our public hospitals. Finally, we can expand health insurance for small businesses and the self-employed by creating Federal and State catastrophic cost pools in ways that will help us lower costs and still protect our patients. I look forward to working with Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Baucus and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the President on real health care reform. There are people like Wesley across the country in every one of our States who are crying out for change, and we owe it to them, in this body, to finally make the progress that is long overdue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I wish share with the Senate a tribute to Mr. Davis Moriuchi, a leader in the Pacific Northwest who is retiring after 30 years of service with the Army Corps of Engineers. During his tenure with the Corps, Davis has left an indelible mark on the environment, economy, and people of Washington State. His expertise and dedication will be sorely missed. My work with Davis over the years has served as a reminder of the difference dedicated individuals make in large and complex organizations like the Corps of Engineers. As we all know, the Corps tackles huge projects that have a widespread impact on our Nation. Davis's work has reaffirmed for me the importance of committed individuals on the success of those projects. Our State has been lucky to have been able to rely on his personal touch and expertise for so many years. In Davis, my staff and I have also found an invaluable resource whose devotion to the region is as great as ours. Time and again, Davis has taken the time to explain even the most detailed aspects of Corps initiatives. His patience, clarity, and honesty have allowed me to be a stronger advocate for programs that will have long-term consequences for the Pacific Northwest. While the extent of Davis's impact cannot be measured by projects alone, I would be remiss if I did not mention a few of the projects that he has taken on. We in Washington State will particularly miss Davis's leadership on water resource projects. From the new Navigation Lock at the Bonneville Dam to the ongoing Columbia River Channel Improvement Project, Davis's work on the health of our State's critical waterways will have lasting effects. Davis has also championed interim repairs of the Columbia River jetties. It was a very exciting day last August, when Colonel O'Donavon, Davis, a host of other stakeholders and I stood at the mouth of the Columbia River and saw interim jetty repairs. Davis was instrumental in making that day possible. Davis is ending his career as the deputy district commander for project management and the chief of Planning, Programs and Project Management Division for the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. It is a title that, while long in syllables, does not begin to grasp at the immensity of his service. But then again, Davis has never worked for titles or credit. His main concern has always been that the work of the Corps is well-executed and timely. Davis's devotion to the region will be truly missed. I would like to wish him the best of luck in an enjoyable retirement and thank him for his distinguished service.