Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to yield the floor for my colleague from Washington State, Senator Cantwell.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very proud to be here this morning with the other Democratic women of the Senate in urging the leadership to talk about the issues that are the true priorities of the American people. The issue I am talking about today is so important, and that is the treatment of our Nation's veterans. Our military men and women and their families are sacrificing every day for all of us. It should be our duty to honor that sacrifice, whether it is with jobs or training, support or health care. But on this issue, the Republican leadership has failed miserably. Today, the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to be overwhelmed and underfunded. Listen to what we know. The VA is currently seeing 38 percent more Iraq war veterans than they budgeted for--38 percent more. In fact, in fiscal year 2006, the VA expected to provide medical care to 110,000, but that number is now closer to 170,000, and those veterans are waiting over a year to get the specialty care they need and deserve. In Seattle, we have VA medical centers with over 2,000 veterans on waiting lists to get an initial doctor's appointment. Veterans around the country are waiting 18 months just to get their benefits. On Monday it was reported in the New York Times that veterans' spouses are being faced with an impenetrable wall of bureaucracy as they try to collect their survivor benefits. To me, and to my women colleagues, that is simply intolerable. We are also woefully unprepared for the rising toll of post-traumatic stress disorder and other battlefield-related mental illnesses that are hitting our troops. Right now, it is estimated that one-third--one- third--of the 1.3 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing mental health challenges when they get home. The Department of Veterans Affairs recently revealed to us that it is on a pace to see nearly 20,000 new cases of postcombat stress this fiscal year among troops. Guess how many they estimated to see: 2,900. So they thought they would have 2,900, but they are on a pace to see 20,000. A VA Under Secretary noted that some of our VA clinics don't provide mental health care, or if they do, she said, waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible. Our service men and women, veterans, and their families deserve more than virtually inaccessible care. We have to do more. On top of that, we have to be working to pass Federal legislation that addresses the employment needs of veterans who are coming back home from the battle front. Do my colleagues know that among 20- to 24- year-olds, unemployment for veterans is double that of nonveterans, and it is three times the national average? That is unacceptable. Iraq war veterans are coming home, they are losing their jobs, they are not getting medical care, they are having a hard time accessing benefits, and they are struggling to just get by. We have a job to do in this Senate, and that is why the Democratic women are here today to talk about our checklist for change and focusing on our veterans. Last week, I successfully amended the fiscal year 2007 Agriculture appropriations bill to include $160 million to deal with the data theft of 26.5 million veterans. We have to make sure that our veterans don't have the double whammy of losing their data and then losing their health care to pay for it. Our service men and women deserve a new direction. So today we challenge the Republican leadership to include the real cost of care for our veterans when they submit their budget and to do right by our veterans and our military families by holding hearings on the holes in transition assistance, mental health care, and health care that our veterans and families need. Caring for our veterans is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it is an American issue. We call on this Congress to right now do the most patriotic thing we can do, and that is to fulfill our promise to our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to Senator Frist from all of the Democratic women outlining our checklist for change and our call for action.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in the coming weeks, we are entering an important crossroad in the future of commercial aerospace. I wish to explain this morning what is at stake for our country and for American workers. Down one road, American workers will be left to fight for their jobs with one hand tied behind their backs. They will face unfair competition, and our economy and our future could suffer. Down the other road, our Government will make it clear that we will fight for fair trade, and our economy and our workers will win as a result. That is the crossroad we are approaching, and which path we take will be determined by two things: whether Europe decides to provide illegal subsidies to Airbus and EADS and whether the U.S. Government works aggressively to keep that from happening. For decades, Europe has provided subsidies to prop up Airbus and its parent company EADS. Those subsidies have created an uneven playing field and have led to tens of thousands of layoffs in the United States. In the past few years, the United States has stood up to Europe, and I have been proud to work with the Bush administration in that effort, first under U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, then under Rob Portman and now, of course, under USTR Susan Schwab. We have demanded that Europe stop the subsidies and play by the rules. With the threat of a WTO trade case, we got the Europeans to the negotiating table, and I was hopeful that we could make progress. But over the past few months, Airbus and EADS have been in a tailspin over unsuccessful planes, production delays, and management scandals. Airbus is finally beginning to see how difficult it is to compete in the marketplace without the cushion of government subsidies. And it is floundering. But now, rather than letting Airbus compete on its own in the marketplace, European governments seem poised once again to rescue Airbus with market-distorting subsidies. If we want to keep a strong aerospace industry in America, we cannot let that happen. Every time the European government underwrites Airbus with subsidies, American workers get pink slips. If we want to lead the world in commercial aerospace, our message to Europe must be strong and clear: No more illegal subsidies to prop up Airbus. Airbus must compete in the marketplace just like everyone else. I first sounded the alarm on this important issue in March of 2004 when I spoke about my concerns here on the Senate floor. For those who have not been following the debate, I wish to provide some background. Only two companies in the world make large passenger airplanes: the Boeing company, with its commercial air operation headquartered in Renton, WA, and Airbus, which is headquartered in Toulouse, France. Airbus is a division of the European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company, known as EADS. The distance between Airbus and Boeing's headquarters is about as big as the disparity between how the United States and Europe view the commercial aerospace industry. For us in America, commercial aerospace is a private industry, one that must respond to the needs of the marketplace and the demands of its shareholders. It is a difficult business, and many times manufacturers such as Boeing ``bet the company'' on a new airplane. In Europe, on the other hand, commercial aerospace is viewed as a job-creation program. Airbus has been shielded from the dangers of the marketplace by decades of government subsidies. In fact, Europe doesn't seem to care if Airbus loses money as long as it produces jobs and those jobs come at the expense of American workers. The history of Airbus and EADS is a history of government subsidies that have sheltered it from competition and real pressures of the marketplace. It has allowed Airbus to develop new aircraft with virtually no risk. This government assistance takes many forms, including launch subsidies, research subsidies, facilities subsidies, and supplier subsidies. These subsidies create an uneven playing field and allow Airbus to do things that normal private companies cannot afford to do. Because of those subsidies, Airbus has grown to become a market power without assuming any of the financial risk and accountability U.S. firms have to contend with every day. As a result of this government support, Airbus has been able to erode Boeing's market share. Airbus's market share was once in the teens, but today Airbus claims to supply more than 50 percent of the industry. But European government support of Airbus doesn't stop there. It includes everything from bribes to threats. There are reports of state airlines being promised landing rights at European airports if they buy Airbus planes, and we have seen countries threatened that they will not be let into the European Union unless they buy Airbus planes. There are reports of Airbus using deep discounts and guaranteeing to airlines that Airbus planes will hold their value. To date, Airbus has received more than $15 billion in launch aid. But despite this massive infusion of government cash, Airbus and EADS are still hemorrhaging money and are undergoing a crisis in leadership at the highest levels. In fact, if anybody was to scan the newspapers this week, they could read about any number of problems Airbus and EADS have been confronted with. The Airbus A350 model has been widely condemned by major airline purchasers. It requires an expensive redesign, which is estimated to now cost between $9 billion and $10 billion. The A380 mega-jetliner, which Airbus spent more than $13 billion on developing, has secured only a small list of customers. Now it is plagued by delivery delays which could result in canceled orders and financial penalties for Airbus. In fact, according to recent reports, Airbus is facing the possible loss of orders worth more than $5 billion. The delays could reduce Airbus's annual earnings by $630 million between 2007 and 2010. EADS also has a huge liability on its hands. It needs to buy out BAE Systems' share of Airbus, which is estimated to cost about $4 billion. On top of all of that, the co-chief executive of EADS, Noel Forgeard, is under investigation for insider trading. By all accounts, Airbus is struggling. It is also losing credibility with its customers. In fact, when news broke about the A380's production delay, Singapore Airlines cast a no-confidence vote in Airbus by ordering 20 Boeing 787 Dreamliners. One important customer who is taking notice is the U.S. Department of Defense. With Airbus's financial house of cards on the verge of collapse and no current U.S. manufacturing presence, it is becoming clear that EADS will not be able to give the U.S. Air Force the tanker of the future. I am pleased that the Air Force has asked the right questions. In its request for information for the tanker contract, the Air Force asked potential bidders to provide them with information about launch aid and subsidies, including details about any government support, tax breaks, debt forgiveness, or loans with preferential terms they might have received. The Air Force clearly understands the need for transparency and a level playing field. Any new subsidies to Airbus for tankers or other programs should end once and for all Airbus's campaign to access the U.S. Treasury. To protect taxpayers and national security, the Air Force must exercise extreme caution if it continues to consider an Airbus tanker proposal. As many of my colleagues know, my home State of Washington has a very proud and long history of aerospace leadership. On July 15, 1916, Bill Boeing started his airplane company in Seattle, WA, and since that day, Boeing and Washington State have shared the ups and downs of the commercial aerospace industry. In fact, just a few years ago, Boeing found itself struggling to keep up with Airbus, but through the sacrifice and hard work of more than 62,000 Boeing employees in Washington State and many more around the country, the company pulled itself up by its bootstraps. It recovered to once again evenly share the marketplace with Airbus, and it did so by producing a plane, the 787, which was just what the marketplace wanted. Airbus, on the other hand, ignored the market's demand and produced a plane that few people wanted, and now they are being punished by the marketplace for their mistakes. But rather than take their lumps, they are likely to seek an illegal government bailout that would negate the hard work and sacrifice of Boeing employees. Recently, an EADS spokesman called launch aid ``indispensable'' and said, ``Launch aid is the only available system right now'' to deal with Airbus's floundering market and design problems. How can aerospace workers in America compete with a competitor that never has to face the consequences for its failures? Last week, President Bush met with EU leaders at a summit. Before his trip, I wrote to the President and urged him to raise the issue with European leaders. Time is running out. We are quickly approaching the Farnborough Airshow on July 17 when European Ministers are expected to decide whether to provide EADS with more launch aid. I have supported this administration's willingness to go the distance at the World Trade Organization in its fight for fair markets. They stood up for American aerospace workers after it became clear that negotiations with the Europeans were going nowhere. As a result, the WTO is now considering the subsidies case through its dispute settlement body. The Senate is on record against Airbus subsidies. On April 11, 2005, the Senate unanimously passed S. Con. Res. 25. That is a resolution which called for European governments to reject launch aid for the A350 and for President Bush to take any action that he ``considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States in fair competition in the large commercial aircraft market.'' The resolution also specifically encouraged the U.S. Trade Representative to file a WTO case unless the EU eliminates launch aid for the A350 and all future models. The production of large civilian aircraft is now a mature industry in both the United States and Europe. It is now time that market forces-- market forces, not government aid--determine the future course of this industry. That crossroad I mentioned is coming up on us quickly. One road will leave American workers in a fight for their jobs, with the game stacked against them. The other road will give us a fair playing field where American workers can win through their hard work and American ingenuity. I hope for our country's future that we choose the right course, and it begins by sending a clear message from our government to Europe that the United States will not tolerate another round of illegal subsidies that kill American jobs. The clock is running, and the choice is ours. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for 15 minutes under the Democratic time.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today marks the 34th anniversary of title IX. Since 1972, title IX has opened doors to athletics, education and success for millions of young women across our Nation. For 34 years, the program has increased participation under Republican and Democratic administrations, because title IX is not about politics it is about helping young women realize their dreams. The statistics are amazing--millions of young women breaking down barriers. But behind these numbers, the lives of these women have been improved because of the changes brought about through title IX. I have seen how title IX has changed the experience of women in my own family. When I went to school 30 years ago, the atmosphere was much different. Back then at Washington State University, I could only participate in a few sports, and women receiving athletic scholarships was unheard of. The difference between my daughter's generation and my own could not be more stark. Women of my generation never had the chance to go to college on a sports scholarship, even though many deserved them. Some of my daughter's friends have done just that. I am so proud of my home State of Washington, which is the first State in the Nation to boast two women Senators and a woman Governor. It is also home to WNBA champions the Seattle Storm. There is no doubt that title IX has opened doors for women over the past 34 years. The challenge for all of us today is to make sure that those doors of opportunity stay open for our granddaughters and great- granddaughters. As we celebrate the anniversary of this important law, I urge President Bush and Secretary of Education Spellings to protect existing title IX policies and give every young girl in American the chance to experience the roar of a crowd--and not just cheer from the sidelines.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want the same thing all Americans do, for our troops to complete their mission in Iraq and return home safely and quickly. To accomplish that, the President must define what our current mission is and how that mission serves our Nation's security interests. The men and women of our military have done everything we have asked them to do. They looked for weapons of mass destruction and found none. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We helped the Iraqis hold elections and set up their government and security forces. So what is our mission today? Right now, our Nation's policy on Iraq is adrift. Instead of addressing this head on, the administration and this Congress continue to build on the miscalculation and incompetence of the past and are dismissing any serious discussion of the challenge the American people now face. Instead of working to unite this Nation behind a common purpose in defense of our security and freedom, the President and his aides are using the war as political fodder for the next election cycle. Instead of being honest with the American people about the costs of our effort and the sacrifice necessary to support them, the Congress continues to hand a blank check to the administration to continue the status quo. That approach has left us with heated rhetoric and a long series of bad choices. True security for the American people depends on an honest assessment of the threats we face, a very clear mission, and an honest discussion about the costs of confronting those threats. On Iraq we do not have any of those components. Continuing the status quo is unacceptable. We need the President to tell us what the mission in Iraq is so we, as Congress and as a country, can decide if it is worth the continued price we are paying. Like all of us, I want the troops home as soon as possible. In fact, I think they should start coming home this year. It is absolutely time for a new strategy in Iraq. An arbitrary, specific date for full withdrawal, however, could force us to ignore facts on the ground, facts that have a direct impact on the security of our troops or the interests of our Nation. I appreciate those who ask for a date certain. I, too, am frustrated with where we find ourselves today. But what we do need is change. What we do need is leadership. What we do need is a defined mission. And what we do need is a plan for success. The troops on the ground, as well as the American people, deserve an honest discussion and a plan for victory and a goal to achieve that. That is why I support the Levin amendment. This administration, this Congress, and this Nation should be focused like a laser on how we can be successful and bring our troops home safely. Our troops and the American people deserve a plan that brings us all together to accomplish that goal. I yield my remaining time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase the minimum wage. Not only is it the right thing to do for working families, but my State has shown that a living wage is compatible with a growing economy. The facts speak for themselves, and they speak loudly. Let's just take three numbers: 9, 37, and 50. Nine is the number of years since the minimum wage was last increased. This is the longest time the Nation has gone without raising the minimum wage since it was implemented in 1938. The real value of the current minimum wage is already $4 below what it was in 1968. Thirty-seven is the millions of Americans--37 million--who are currently living in poverty, including 13 million children. Fifty is the percent by which poverty has increased in the past generation--freezing out an ever larger portion of our working citizens from the advantages of a higher standard of living that most of us enjoy. I believe these numbers are a very strong signal that we are long past the time for the Nation, as a whole, to raise the level of the Federal minimum wage. I am proud that my home State of Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country, and it is indexed yearly to ensure that our workers are properly compensated for their hard work. We in Washington State offer direct proof that a living minimum wage is compatible with a growing economy. May marked our 34th consecutive month of job growth. Our unemployment rate, even with the highest minimum wage in the country, is essentially at the national average. Our poverty rate stands at 11 percent, which is significantly below the national average of 12.5 percent. Our median household income stands at $48,000, much higher than the national average of $43,000. Good labor policies make for good labor productivity and a healthy state economy. Ever since the Fair Minimum Wage Act was passed in 1938, opponents have kept raising the same baseless arguments. Even 68 years ago, opponents tried to paint a bleak picture of disastrous effects, like ``factories closed,'' ``industries forced into bankruptcy,'' and ``people who will be thrown out of employment.'' It wasn't true then. It is not true today. The fact is that this wage provides more economic opportunities for people to support their families and contribute to their communities. Opponents often cite a negative impact on jobs as their prime argument to oppose an increase in the minimum wage. This tired argument is simply not true. In fact, the 4 years following our last minimum wage increase marked the strongest economic growth in three decades, creating almost 12 million new jobs. In contrast, during the past 4 years we have only seen the creation of about 4.7 million new jobs. As elected representatives, it is our job not only to represent the people in our States, but also to stand up for the millions of Americans whose voices cannot be heard. Just since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by a stunning 5.4 million people. A minimum wage employee, working 52 weeks a year for 40 hours a week, makes almost $6,000 below the Federal poverty guidelines for a family of three. At this rate, it will be a long time before we see significant progress against the scourge of poverty for America's families. By raising the minimum wage to $7.25, we can put an extra $4,400 a year into the pockets of these workers, enabling them to better support their families. This meager amount can make a world of difference to the poor among us. It could mean 19 months of utilities, 15 months of groceries, 8 months of rent or tuition for a community college degree. These are the basics, not the luxuries, of life today. It is important to continually remind ourselves who is going to benefit from an increase. Here are some numbers to help set the record straight. This amendment will benefit nearly 15 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are adults, not teenagers trying to earn some extra spending money. In fact, more than one-third of these adults are the sole source of income for their families. And let's not forget the 7 million children of those minimum wage workers who will benefit from this increase. This Congress has substantially cut the tax rates for the wealthiest people in this country, saving them millions of dollars over the last 5 years. But so far, this Congress has been unwilling to spend a few cents more to help the poorest of our working citizens. I have carefully considered all aspects of this amendment and have come to the conclusion that we have no acceptable alternative. I see the growth of the job market and the strong economy in my State. I see how we have worked in Washington State to ensure that low-wage workers share in this success. I know that this is what our Nation needs. We should follow the lead of my State and the other 20 that have already increased their minimum wages and allow all Americans to share in these benefits. Overall, this slight increase in the minimum wage would allow a significant portion of our Nation, people who are working hard and playing by the rules, to have an increased opportunity to share in the American dream. They will be able to better support their families and will not have to make unacceptable decisions like whether to buy groceries or pay the rent. If any of my colleagues oppose this amendment, I would like them to consider living on $10,700 a year--and not just living on it, but rather, trying to raise a family of 4 on that low income. That would mean having about $7 a day per person, not adding in all the bills. Now just think about how much you spent on your last meal. If we think of the debate that we are having in these terms, it is clear that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to increase the minimum wage. Let's show them that we have got our priorities straight, and let's finally give low-income workers the raise that they are long overdue. It is the right thing to do for workers and the right thing to do for our economy.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I do agree that we must ensure fair treatment of both groups in these fisheries, and would support including such language in these changes. Do I have your commitment that you will include these changes to Section 416 in the Coast Guard Conference Report before final passage in the Senate, or, if not procedurally possible, in another bill that will be enacted this year, including the final version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization?

Mrs. MURRAY. In view of our agreement on these points, do you agree to authorize the council and the Secretary to establish incidental catch limits for these fisheries without prohibiting the council from providing the CDQ program with an incidental catch allowance.

Mrs. MURRAY. We are both justifiably proud of the success of the pollock cooperatives established under the American Fisheries Act, AFA, and particularly their low bycatch rates. However, it is my understanding from speaking with NOAA and council staff that making this directed fishing allowance in statute for the CDQ portion of these other BS/AI groundfish fisheries would deprive the council of its current authority to limit incidental catch associated with these allocations, although it would retain such authority for the non-CDQ allocations. I am concerned that this lack of authority could unintentionally promote increases in incidental catch for CDQ groups. In addition, any unconstrained growth in incidental catch under the legislatively directed fishing allowances could result in less available catch allowance for the non-CDQ groups subject to incidental catch controls, which seems contrary to your intent that each set of groups be subject to the same management controls. While the pollock fishery has very low incidental catch rates, in 2005 its incidental catch was only 0.16 percent above the directed fishery allowance, the directed fisheries of the BS/AI, other than halibut, sablefish, pollock, and crab, have a relatively higher level of bycatch. The council has taken actions to limit and reduce the amount of incidental catch allowance to all directed fishery participants in order to reduce overall bycatch levels. Prohibiting the council from establishing an incidental catch allowance is antithetical to current public policy and resource management in the BS/AI. Moreover, it is not consistent with provisions included in the Senate's version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, S. 2012. I suggest Section 416 (MSA section 305(i)(1)(B), as amended) be modified to include this explicit authority. Do you agree with me that the council should retain its ability to set incidental catch allowances for the CDQ groups in the fisheries affected by section 416's amendment to MSA section 305(i)(1)(B)?

Mrs. MURRAY. No, my concerns relate to Section 416's amendment to MSA section 305(i)(1)(B), which would increase CDQ group allocations for certain BS/AI groundfish fisheries, including Pacific cod, mackerel, and flatfish species, from 7.5 percent to 10 percent, and treat this allocation as a directed fishing allowance, which does not include incidental catch. All allocations in these fisheries, including the CDQ allocations, are currently-managed as total quotas, not as directed fishing allowances, which obliges all participants to keep both the directed and incidenteal catch within a ``hard cap.'' Did you intend to change the current manner in which the council sets CDQ allocations in these fisheries, from a hard cap allocation to a directed fishing allowance allocation?

Mrs. MURRAY. I am familiar with this program, which originated in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in 1992, and I support its goals of providing economic opportunities for rural coastal communities in Western Alaska. It is my understanding that section 416 ensures the CDQ groups will continue to receive the same annual percentage allocations as they do now under existing Federal law, and that it would preserve existing treatment of such allocations--consisting of a directed fishing allowance if that is the current law, i.e., the BS/AI pollock fishery, or including both directed and non-target fishing in fisheries where that is the current practice. Is that correct, Senator Stevens?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. Presdient, as part of the conference report on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, which is expected to be passed by the Senate shortly, there is a provision in section 416 that amends section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)), which authorizes the Western Pacific Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program for fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BS/AI).

Mrs. MURRAY. I fully support passage of S. 2012, your and Senator Inouye's bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly in view of your commitment to make these changes to section 416 of the Coast Guard Conference Report. Senator Inouye, are you in agreement with Senator Stevens and me on these points?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do want to talk for a minute about Senator Byrd and recognize he has set a record in the Senate, as many of my colleagues have noted on the floor. He marked his l7,327th day in office yesterday and became the longest serving Senator in history. That is truly a remarkable accomplishment, and I personally have many fond memories of working with Senator Byrd and look forward to many more. I remember well when I came here as a freshman Senator 13 \1/2\ years ago. Senator Byrd at the time brought in all of us freshmen Senators to sit across from him in his very important office and looked down at us and told us that we would be presiding, as is the Presiding Officer today, and told us about our responsibilities and made it very clear he would be watching from his office, and if we were reading any other material or talking to anyone, it would be noted. I certainly did remember that during the many hours I spent in the Presiding Officer's chair because I knew he was watching. But I think it was a simple reminder to all of us as to the importance of the office we hold here and the respect we have to have for our colleagues. I remember as well that he invited me to lunch several months later with the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, a Republican, to sit down and talk with me about the responsibilities I had as a Senator. And I was so impressed sitting in the room with Senator Byrd and Senator Hatfield, never in my life expecting to have that kind of opportunity. At that meeting they impressed upon me the importance of working across the aisle and respect for the minority and how important everybody's voice is here. It was an important lesson and one I think we all should be reminded of more often. But just that simple act of inviting me to lunch with two incredible leaders in the Senate is a memory I hold dear, and I thank my colleague for doing that. But, frankly, I think what I most will remember Senator Byrd for--and is a good reminder to all of us, too--is several years ago when my husband came out here to Washington, DC--he lives in Washington State. I go home every weekend. But he came out here because it was our wedding anniversary, and instead of me having to fly home, he flew out here. He was coming up the steps of the Capitol, and I met him as Senator Byrd was walking out to his car. Senator Byrd saw my husband, and he said: Welcome. Nice to have you here at this end of the country. What brings you here? And my husband said: Well, it is our wedding anniversary. And Senator Byrd, who, as we well know, lost his beloved wife just a few short weeks ago, was about to celebrate I think it was his 67th wedding anniversary. He looked at my husband and said: Which anniversary is this? And my husband said: It is our 32nd. Senator Byrd paused and said: Well, it is a good start. I think the message of that is important for all of us in our everyday lives, in our responsibilities as spouses, and as Senators, to remember it is a good start every day, and you can't rest on your laurels and think back: Well, we have done this for 32 years. The next 32 will be easy. Every day you have to come out and work hard at whatever role you are in at the time. I certainly say to my good friend, Senator Byrd, how much I respect him and admire him. And today, as he marks his l7,328th day in office, I say to him: It is a good start.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is going to be considering in just a few minutes the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. I do want to be clear that like most of my colleagues, I will be voting for this bill because it does provide the funding for our troops that is critically needed to carry out their mission and because it supports recovery efforts along the coast. I do wish to express three concerns I have with the conference report. First, this bill continues the charade that this war should be funded off budget. Instead of including the money our troops need in the regular budget as requested by the President and sent to us, we keep getting sent emergency supplemental requests. It is clear to me, having been here for 13\1/2\ years, that emergency spending bills used to be for emergencies, things we could not foresee such as natural disasters. The need for funding for the war in Iraq is not a surprise. It is not like responding to an earthquake or tornado. By funding the war off budget, I fear we continue to hide the true cost of the war. It is imperative that the Senate and the House get a budget from the President that gives us the true cost of what we need to be funding. In addition, the administration should not have the sole authority to decide what is worthy of emergency funding and what is not. We have emergencies in our backyard as well as overseas. We should not hand over to the President the final authority on what deserves emergency funding. The second concern I have is that this bill leaves out very critical funding for areas we considered and adopted in the Senate. They were removed once the bill went to conference. Funding for health care, for port security, emergency transportation assistance in the gulf coast-- much of the progress we made in the Senate was thrown out. Why? To meet an arbitrary limit set by the President. That is going to hurt many of our communities in the coming months. Part of what we did in the Senate in April was to overwhelmingly pass the Murray-Akaka amendment that ensured our veterans would get the help they need. That amendment had broad bipartisan support on the Senate floor. It was removed in conference in the middle of the night. That is a huge setback for the men and women who are coming home from the war today and entering a VA system that is overwhelmed and underfunded. In March, the VA told us they are seeing 38 percent more Iraqi war veterans than they budgeted for. Veterans now have to wait a year to get the specialty care they deserve. Some are waiting more than 18 months before they get the benefits they have been promised. On top of that, we have waiting lists that are thousands of names long at major VA hospitals. I am frustrated that the funding we secured for America's veterans is no longer in the bill before us. Our veterans deserve better. Funding was also removed for emergency transportation relief in the gulf. In the Senate, we passed $200 million in emergency assistance for transit authorities in the gulf region. FEMA, which is helping to fund transit service in New Orleans, is going to stop the funding for that at the end of this month. That is going to force New Orleans to cut back transit service even more. Cutting off transit routes is not going to help our gulf coast cities recover. Throwing busdrivers on unemployment lines is not going to help them recover. Another item cut from the legislation was tenant-based rental assistance for the gulf. That funding was intended to serve about 44,000 families, including families that received HUD funding prior to Katrina and many homeless families. The bill we passed in the Senate expanded the purposes of that money to include the reconstruction and repair of HUD projects in the afflicted region, many of them damaged considerably. It provided vouchers for about 4,500 needy citizens in the region, particularly the disabled and homeless. That funding is now gone, and we are going to see some pretty vulnerable families in the gulf coast without any ability to stay in the homes in which they currently are trying to stay. Finally, this bill improperly includes a budget ceiling that is going to affect every single spending bill we do this year. I believe the supplemental emergency spending bill is the wrong place to enact a budget that never passed the Senate floor. It is going to be hard enough to produce appropriations bills this year that will get broad bipartisan support at the levels the Senate approved back in March. It will be almost impossible to do so if we ignore amendments adopted on the Senate floor and impose the spending ceiling proposed by the President that is now included in the bill. I am frustrated that the administration keeps funding this war off budget. I am frustrated that critical investments which we approved in the Senate were removed from the bill. I am very frustrated that this bill is now going to result in our hands being tied throughout the appropriations process. I hope in the future we can do much better. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do want to talk for a minute about Senator Byrd and recognize he has set a record in the Senate, as many of my colleagues have noted on the floor. He marked his 17,327th day in office yesterday and became the longest serving Senator in history. That is truly a remarkable accomplishment, and I personally have many fond memories of working with Senator Byrd and look forward to many more. I remember well when I came here as a freshman Senator 13\1/2\ years ago. Senator Byrd at the time brought in all of us freshmen Senators to sit across from him in his very important office and looked down at us and told us that we would be presiding, as is the Presiding Officer today, and told us about our responsibilities and made it very clear he would be watching from his office, and if we were reading any other material or talking to anyone it would be noted. I certainly did remember that during the many hours I spent in the Presiding Officer's chair because I knew he was watching. But I think it was a simple reminder to all of us as to the importance of the office we hold here and the respect we have to have for our colleagues. I remember as well that he invited me to lunch several months later with the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, a Republican, to sit down and talk with me about the responsibilities I had as a Senator. And I was so impressed sitting in the room with Senator Byrd and Senator Hatfield, never in my life expecting to have that kind of opportunity. And at that meeting they impressed upon me the importance of working across the aisle and respect for the minority and how important everybody's voice is here. It was an important lesson and one I think we all should be reminded of more often. But just that simple act of inviting me to lunch with two incredible leaders in the Senate is a memory I hold dear, and I thank my colleague for doing that. But, frankly, I think what I most will remember Senator Byrd for--and is a good reminder to all of us, too--is several years ago when my husband came out here to Washington, DC--he lives in Washington State. I go home every weekend. But he came out here because it was our wedding anniversary, and instead of me having to fly home, he flew out here. He was coming up the steps of the Capitol, and I met him as Senator Byrd was walking out to his car. Senator Byrd saw my husband, and he said: Welcome. Nice to have you here at this end of the country. What brings you here? And my husband said: Well, it is our wedding anniversary. And Senator Byrd, who, as we well know, lost his beloved wife just a few short weeks ago, was about to celebrate I think it was his 67th wedding anniversary. He looked at my husband and said: Which anniversary is this? And my husband said: It is our 32nd. Senator Byrd paused and said: Well, it is a good start. I think the message of that is important for all of us in our everyday lives, in our responsibilities as spouses, and as Senators, to remember it is a good start every day, and you can't rest on your laurels and think back: Well, we have done this for 32 years. The next 32 will be easy. Every day you have to come out and work hard at whatever role you are in at the time. I certainly say to my good friend, Senator Byrd, how much I respect him and admire him. And today, as he marks his 17,328th day in office, I say to him: It is a good start.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, every Senator on this floor should take a few minutes to read those letters from the families who have been impacted by mining disasters. I would say to my colleagues and to the President that we ought to be thinking we have to put someone in place in this agency who is going to wake up every single day he is on the job and say, What am I doing to make sure that in my responsibility of taking care of hundreds of miners every single day, I am moving the ball forward. I have to say to the Senator from Massachusetts, there was no passion when I saw the presentation. I did not see someone in front of me who understood the tremendous responsibility that he was being given and who would wake up every single day and say, What am I doing to improve mine safety? That is my responsibility. That is the kind of person I want in charge of this agency, I say to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would just say to the Senator from Massachusetts, I want in charge of this agency someone who will stand up and say, We are going to make the mines safer for the families who send a loved one there every day. I went to that hearing, and all of what the Senator from Massachusetts just presented and the attitude this nominee presented-- to me, this is not someone, despite his background, who is going to stand up and lead. I believe that we need to send this nominee back and we need to have somebody who we can proudly say is going to lead this agency at a most critical time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would answer the Senator in saying, that is absolutely correct. Prior to any action by this body and the House in passing tougher laws, this nominee said no changes were needed.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts through the Acting President pro tempore, I couldn't agree more. I think the country sat at its dinner tables and watched the mine accidents that have occurred increasingly over the past year. So we understand what it takes in this country is leadership at an agency. Just look back at what happened with Katrina with the head of FEMA. It takes leadership in an agency. It takes all of us to put laws in place. But if there is not someone at the head of that agency who is sending a direction down through the ranks that our miners' safety and health has to come first, any law we pass will just be something written in a book.