Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. We just want to see what it is. Amendment No. 3641

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object only because we have not seen the amendment. If we can see it fairly quickly, then I am sure we can proceed with it. So I would just call for a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New York and 15 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to report on some of the progress we have made in our effort to secure our Nation's ports and our cargo container system. This morning, I testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs about the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act which I introduced last year with Senators Collins, Coleman, and Lieberman. That critical and effective bill is on the fast track both in the House and in the Senate. While that hearing was starting, we received another urgent reminder of why we need to improve our cargo security in this Nation. This morning, this very morning at the Port of Seattle, 21 Chinese nationals were discovered. They had been smuggled into the United States in a cargo container. That incident is a stark remainder that we today are still not doing enough to keep our cargo container system secure. This appears to have been a case of human smuggling, but that cargo container could have been filled with anything from a dirty bomb to a cell of terrorists. Today our country is vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Time is not on our side. I will spend a few minutes this afternoon outlining the threat and explaining how our legislation helps. By using cargo containers, terrorists can deliver a one-two punch to our country. The first punch would create an untold number of American casualties. The second punch would bring our economy to a halt. Cargo containers carry the building blocks of our economy, but they can also carry the deadly tools of a terror attack. Today we are not doing enough to keep America safe. In the Senate it can feel as though the dangers at our ports are millions of miles away, but in recent years some in our Government have said they could never have imagined the devastation caused by recent disasters. Let me make this crystal clear. On March 21, 2 weeks ago, a container ship called the Hyundai Fortune was traveling off the coast of Yemen when an explosion occurred in the rear of that ship. Here is a photo of what happened next. About 90 containers were blown off the side of the ship, creating a debris field 5 miles long. Thankfully, there were few fatalities and the crew was rescued. They are still investigating the cause. It does not appear at this time to be terrorist related. Imagine this same burning ship sitting a few feet from our shores in New York, or Puget Sound, off the coast of Los Angeles, Charleston, Miami, Portland, Delaware Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine we are not just dealing with a conventional explosion but we are dealing with a dirty bomb that has exploded on America's shore. Let me walk through what would happen next. First, there would be an immediate loss of life. Many of our ports are located in or near major cities. If there was a nuclear device exploded at a major port, up to a million people could be killed. If this was a chemical weapon exploding in Seattle, the chemical plume could contaminate our rail system, Interstate 5, Sea-Tac Airport, not to mention our entire downtown business and residential areas. At the port there would immediately be a lot of confusion. People would try to contain the fire. But it is unclear today who, if anyone, would be in charge. Then, when word spreads that it is a dirty bomb, panic is likely to set in and there would be chaos as first responders try to react and people who live in the area try to flee. Next, our Government would shut down every port in America to make sure there were not any other bombs or any other containers in any one of our cities. That shutdown would be the equivalent of driving our economy right into a brick wall and it could even spark a global recession. Day by day we would be feeling the painful economic impact of such an attack. American factories would not be able to get the supplies they needed. They would have to shut their doors and lay off workers. Stores across our country would not be able to get the products they need to stock their shelves. In 2002, we saw what a closure of just a few ports on the west coast could do. It could cost our economy about $1 billion a day. Now, imagine if we shut down all of our ports. One study concluded that if U.S. ports were shut down for just 12 days, it would cost $58 billion. Next, we would soon realize we have no plan for resuming trade after an attack--no protocol for what would be searched, what would be allowed in, or even who would be in charge. There would be a mad scramble to create a new system in a crisis atmosphere. Eventually, we would begin the slow process of manually inspecting all the cargo that is waiting to enter the U.S. ports. One report has found it could take as long as 4 months to get it all inspected and moving again. Finally, we would have to set up a new regime for port security. I can bet you that any new rushed plan would not balance strong security with efficient trade. The scenario I just outlined could happen tomorrow. We are not prepared. Nearly 5 years after September 11, we still have not closed a major loophole that threatens our lives and our economy. Time is not on our side. We must act. I approach this as someone who understands the importance of both improving security and maintaining the flow of commerce. My home State of Washington is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. We know what is at stake if there were an incident at one of our ports. That is why I wrote and funded Operation Safe Commerce, to help us find where we are vulnerable and to evaluate the best security practices. It is why I have worked to boost funding for the Coast Guard and have fought to keep the Port Security Grant Program from being eliminated year after year. Right after 9/11, I started talking with security and trade experts to find out what we need to be doing to both improve security and to keep our commerce flowing. Ten months ago, I sought out Senator Collins as a partner in this effort. I approached Senator Collins because I knew she cared about this issue. I knew she had done a lot of work on it already, and I knew she was someone who would get things done. Since that day, we have worked hand in hand to develop a bill and move it forward. I am very grateful to Senator Lieberman and Senator Coleman for their tremendous work on this issue as well. The GreenLane Act, which we had a hearing on this morning, recognizes two facts: We must protect our country and we must keep our trade flowing. We know we are vulnerable. Terrorists have many opportunities to introduce deadly cargo into a container. It could be tampered with any time from when it leaves a foreign factory overseas to when it arrives at a consolidation warehouse and moves to a foreign port. It could be tampered with while it is en route to the United States. There are several dangers. I outlined what would happen if terrorists exploded a container in one of our ports. But they could as easily use cargo containers to transport weapons or personnel into the United States to launch an attack anywhere on American soil. The programs we have in place today are totally inadequate. Last May, thanks to the insistence of Senators Collins and Coleman, the Government Accountability Office found that C-TPAT was not checking to see if companies were doing what they promised in their security plans. Even when U.S. Customs inspectors do find something suspicious at a foreign port, they cannot today force that container to be inspected. So we have a clear and deadly threat. We know current programs are inadequate. The question is, what are we going to do about it? We could manually inspect every container, but that would cripple our economy. The real challenge here is to make trade more secure without slowing it to a crawl. That is why Senators Collins, Coleman, Lieberman, and I have been working with the stakeholders and experts to strike the right balance. The result is the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. That bill provides a comprehensive blueprint for how we can improve security while we keep trade efficient. At its very heart, this challenge is about keeping the good things about trade--speed and efficiency--without being vulnerable to the bad things about trade--the potential for terrorists to use our engines of commerce. Our bill does five things. First, it creates tough, new standards for all cargo. Today we do not have any standards for cargo security. Secondly, it creates what we call the GreenLane option, which will provide an even higher level of security. Companies that join it have to follow the higher standards of the GreenLane cargo. Their cargo would be essentially tracked and monitored from the moment it leaves a factory floor overseas until it reaches the United States. We will know everywhere that cargo has been. We will know every person who has touched it. And we will know if it has been tampered with. The GreenLane essentially pushes our borders out by conducting inspections overseas before cargo is ever loaded onto a ship bound for the United States. We provide incentives for companies to use the highest standards of GreenLane. Third, our bill sets up a plan to resume trade quickly and safely, to minimize the impact on our economy. Fourth, our bill will secure our ports here at home by funding port security grants at $400 million. And, finally, our bill will hold DHS accountable for improving cargo security. DHS is long overdue in establishing cargo security standards and transportation worker credentials. We need to hold DHS accountable, and our bill provides that infrastructure to ensure accountability and coordination. I thank all of our cosponsors and our partners. I especially thank Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership. She chaired the hearing this morning, and her expertise and her commitment were clear to everyone in the hearing room. I also thank Senator Coleman for his leadership and his work as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator Coleman has helped expose our vulnerabilities and has worked to develop solutions. I also thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership and support. I commend our cosponsors, including Senators Feinstein, Snowe, and DeWine. I would add, we are also beginning to see progress on the House side with the SAFE Port Act. I thank Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane Harman for their leadership on that side. Today we have a choice in how we deal with cargo security challenges facing us. But if we wait for a disaster, our choices are going to be much starker. Let's make the changes now, on our terms, before there is a deadly incident. Let us not wait until a terrorist incident strikes again to protect our people and our economy. Two months ago, the people of America woke up and spoke out when they heard that a foreign government-owned company could be running our ports. That sparked a critical debate. Now we need to set up a security regime that will actually make us safer. Until we do so, none of us should sleep well at night. A terrible image such as this one--a burning container ship with a dirty bomb in one of America's harbors-- could be on our TV screens tomorrow. So this Congress must act today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is now engaged in a spirited debate about reforming our immigration policy. I rise today to share my perspectives and my priorities. Let's remember, though, that this is not just about immigration; it is about the type of country we want to be, what we stand for, and what type of future we all want to build. It is easy to get caught up in the specifics of one policy or another, but I encourage my colleagues to not lose sight of the bigger picture. This debate touches nearly every aspect of American life, from our economy to security, from our classrooms to our workplaces. I know there is a lot of pressure to do something about immigration, especially in an election year, but if we do the wrong thing, it will have a painful effect on millions of families, on our economy, and on our future for generations to come. Let's take the time to do it right. Perhaps the biggest mistake we could make is to think that addressing enforcement alone will create the changes we want to see. I approach this debate with a clear understanding of what is at stake, frankly, with some skepticism that Congress can achieve this delicate balance in a heated political environment. But I will keep pushing for the right policies. These policies are based on my own personal experiences, on people who have shared their life experiences with me, and on the unique perspective Washington State provides. Washington State does have a lot at stake in this debate over immigration reform. I have led discussions around my State with key stakeholders who have experiences in areas such as border security, labor needs, agriculture, education, and housing that have all helped form my perspective. First of all, Washington State is a border State. We know the dangers of an insecure border. For years, I have fought Federal policies that steered critical resources away from the northern border to the southern border. Year after year, I have fought budgets that were biased against the needs at our northern border. My border communities have struggled with inadequate staff, equipment, and facilities. Tragically, it took the September 11 attacks to finally get the Federal Government to listen to what we had been saying all along: you cannot keep America secure if you shortchange the northern border. Since then, we have made some progress. I have worked with Chairman Gregg and others to secure the money to triple the number of agents along our northern border. I helped to fund the northern border air wing that is in my State to patrol our skies and to provide enforcement and surveillance. I should note that we still need to extend their patrol hours beyond just 40 hours a week. We have made progress but not nearly enough. Just this week, we learned that Federal investigators were able to smuggle parts for a dirty bomb across the northern border into Washington State. That is unacceptable. As we have increased enforcement at the northern border, new challenges have emerged. Federal agents are arresting more people for smuggling and other crimes, but the Feds are just handing those suspects over to local officials for holding and prosecution. As a result, communities like Whatcom County on the foreign border are struggling to deal with the huge new burden of Federal prosecutions. Whatcom County is spending $2 million a year to process federally initiated cases. Whatcom County is not being reimbursed, but communities along the southern border are. That is not fair, and it is something I am working to correct. Washington State understands the importance of border security. I believe any bill we pass has to treat the northern border fairly. Our communities need help to combat the scourge of drugs and violence that accompany rampant smuggling operations. We cannot wait until a terrorist tries to move a dirty bomb across our northern border. Washington State also has a great stake in how immigration reform affects one of our largest industries--agriculture. We rely on immigrants to harvest the crops that put food on our table and bring our State billions of dollars a year in economic activity. Last week in Moses Lake, WA, I heard personally from farmers and orcharders who had to leave fruit on the trees last season because they could not get enough help to pick it fast enough. This costs our farmers and our entire State economy. Already, many farmers have told me that the 2005 season was the worst season they have had in trying to get the employees they needed. It is estimated that 700,000 undocumented workers are living in Washington State. That means Washington State has the highest per capita concentration of undocumented workers of any State in the Nation. We know how important laborers are for our economy. Washington State public schools and universities are also impacted by our Nation's immigration policies. I hope we can all agree the children of immigrants deserve a decent education which builds our communities and our economy. For years, I have worked to increase educational opportunities for all students living in this country. I am a proud supporter of the Dream Act, which helps make higher education more accessible to the children of immigrants. I have been proud to celebrate with young students through the Latino Educational Achievement Project and other organizations in my home State of Washington that break down barriers to education. Our educational policies have to ensure that immigrants and the children of immigrants are not denied the opportunity to share in the American dream. Housing is another area that is connected to our immigration policy. Many communities in Washington State are struggling with the lack of affordable housing. That can mean families are trapped living in unsafe or substandard housing. We also have to address the housing challenges in agricultural communities. For several years, I have been working on a farmworker housing initiative to help address a tremendous shortage of safe and affordable housing for the people who work on our farms. All of these experiences--the northern border, agriculture, education, labor needs, and housing--help inform me on my view on immigration policy. I believe from that, that we need a holistic approach. Enforcement is important. Securing our borders is important, but if we leave out things such as education and job training, if we ignore the tools families need to rise above their circumstances and build a better life, we will be missing the big picture and we will be throwing away the ladders of success generations of Americans have relied on to make their families and, subsequently, our country stronger. Comprehensive immigration reform should do seven things: it should improve enforcement; it should treat the northern border fairly; it should include a guest worker plan which includes a path to citizenship; it should provide a path forward so that people who are here have an opportunity to become citizens and realize the American dream; it should protect the rights of victims and refugees; it should not turn into criminals those compassionate souls who care for their wounds, teach their children, or feed their families; and finally, it should provide the resources to help families rise above their circumstances through education and training. Let me take a minute to talk about each of these priorities. First of all, we should improve our enforcement, and that means providing personnel, equipment, facilities, and resources to enforce our borders. In the wake of September 11, security at our borders and enforcement of our immigration rules are now more critical than ever. That is why I have pushed for years to hire more Border Patrol agents, deploy more resources along the border, including the northern border air wing, and to make sure we are using the latest technology to secure our Nation's borders. We must continue to make investments in securing our border and protecting ourselves from those who seek to do us harm. Second, we have to treat the northern border fairly. We will not be shortchanged as we have in the past. If we are going to secure our borders, we cannot leave the northern border behind. Third, immigration reform should include a guest worker plan to keep our economy moving forward. We have tremendous labor needs in our country, especially in labor-intensive fields such as agriculture. Our economy cannot survive without access to the workers we need. A responsible guest worker program can help address our country's economic needs. As one farm leader in my State put it, we need reform, but we cannot commit economic suicide in the process. I am cosponsor of the bipartisan AgJOBS bill which allows current workers to retain citizenship and which would set up a guest worker program that will really work. I hope we can follow a similar path. But whatever we do, we can no longer tolerate a system that expects our farmers to be experts in document verification. Our farmers should not be turned into criminals. One option is to provide a way to electronically verify someone's identity. If we pursue that approach, we must not put a new financial burden on our farmers who are just trying to follow the law and do the right thing. We have to establish a realistic system that allows employers to legally hire the help they need. And agriculture is not the only sector that would be affected by these proposals. It would also affect the construction and hospitality industries as well. Fourth, immigration reform should provide hope and a path forward for a resident to be able to earn--earn--legal status. Fifth, any legislation must protect the rights of victims and refugees to access the courts. Over the years, we have worked to protect victims and refugees, but if we enact an expedited removal process, we could undo all that work and cause tremendous human pain. We have worked very hard through the Violence Against Women Act to protect victims no matter where they come from or what their legal status is. The act allows victims of domestic violence to petition to stay in the United States. We should keep those humane protections in place. Sixth, we should not make felons of those who seek to help the most vulnerable. Churches and other support groups should not be threatened with jail time for showing compassion toward anyone who needs help. It is not the job of hospital workers or teachers or priests to enforce our immigration laws, nor should it be. We should not block any emergency room doors, any classroom, or any police station to the needs of all of our residents. Finally, we need to invest in the things that help immigrants and all Americans rise above their circumstances. I am concerned that many important issues are being left out of this debate we are now having. As leaders, it is our duty to protect and foster the American dream for all of our citizens as well as those on the path to citizenship. We need to invest in primary and secondary education. All of our children should have the opportunity to become more successful than their parents. We need to invest in adult education and literacy programs. Immigrants on the road to earned adjustment should have the opportunity to improve themselves and learn the English language. We also need to invest in workforce training. All of our citizens should have the opportunity to increase their skills and earning power and achieve a greater share of the American dream. We need to invest in health care and secondary education if this path to earned citizenship will truly allow all of our neighbors to participate in the American dream, while also allowing our economy to grow. We are not talking about charity for someone else. We are talking about investments that help every American family achieve their dreams. Throughout our history, the United States has been a beacon of hope for people throughout the world. That light shines as bright today as it ever has. As we work here to reform our immigration policy, let's make sure our actions reflect our security, our economy, and the opportunity America has offered generations of immigrants. Let's take the time to get this right. Our country's future depends on it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution, which would have provided immediately for a $4,500 Pell grant for needy students. My amendment would have redirected the savings generated by the HELP Committee as part of reconciliation back to student aid, as originally intended and passed by the committee and the full Senate. Last year, through Chairman Enzi's leadership, the HELP Committee drafted a bipartisan Higher Education Act reauthorization and reconciliation instructions. The committee was instructed to find savings of $13.7 billion--$7 billion of which was to be generated from education programs. The committee developed reconciliation instructions that included savings of over $20 billion. As a member of the HELP Committee, I can say that we purposely generated additional savings with the intent that a portion of the savings would be returned to students in the form of grant aid. Accordingly, the committee created two programs for Pell-eligible students. We allocated $2.25 billion for SMART grants to target aid to students who study math, science or a critical foreign language. We also allocated $6 billion to the Provisional Grant Assistance Program, or ProGAP. These increases in the Pell grant program are critical, given that tuition has increased rapidly. This year alone, tuition rose by 7.1 percent at public colleges and 5.9 percent at private universities. Yet students and families have seen no growth in the Pell grant program in the past 4 years; the maximum Pell award has been stagnant at $4,050 since fiscal year 2003. ProGAP would have immediately provided current Pell recipients with a $4,500 maximum grant. However, when the Deficit Reduction Act returned to the Senate from conference with the House, ProGAP had been eliminated and was replaced by Academic Competitiveness grants. The majority will claim to have increased grant aid for needy students through Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants. However, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that less than 10 percent of Pell-eligible students will be able to take advantage of the Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants in 2006. The percent of eligible students rises slowly, from 10.3 percent in 2007 to a paltry 13.5 percent in 2010. Given the existence of both Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants in the conference bill, adopting my amendment would have allowed us to help both needy Pell students and target math and science programs. The intention of the committee was for the savings generated from changes to the student loan programs go towards deficit reduction and student aid. Not only did the final bill significantly reduce the aid going to students, the savings are clearly going for tax cuts that will not help the families we sought to help in the bill we passed in the Senate. In fact, even with the savings generated through the Deficit Reduction Act, the tax cuts cost more than the savings we generated. The newest tax cuts yet again result in an increase to the deficit. Currently only one-third of the U.S. workforce has a postsecondary education, but it is estimated that 60 percent of new jobs in the 21st century will require a college education. Workers who have attended college on average have higher incomes and lower rates of unemployment than those who don't. And those with a college education also are more likely to have jobs with benefits like health care, retirement and pensions plans. My amendment would have restored our original intent of the Senate by redirecting the savings generated by the HELP Committee into the pockets of needy students, not the pockets of the wealthy benefiting from the tax cuts. Mr. President, I withdrew my amendment after we had a huge victory for education--the overwhelming passage of the Specter-Harkin amendment which would provide $7 billion in increased funding to health and education programs. As an appropriator, I know first hand how critical that funding will be for education programs in fiscal year 2007. But we must all fight to retain that funding when the budget resolution is conferenced with the House. We should not accept a final budget resolution that does not contain the funding provided through the Specter-Harkin amendment. While I withdrew my amendment today, I will continue to fight for increasing Pell grants and student aid. We can do better than level funding for our nation's needy college students.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is unfortunate the Senate just defeated the amendment that would actually add real money to CDBG and allow our communities across the Nation to invest in the critical infrastructure to bring hope and opportunity back. The amendment we are now going to vote on is a sham, and I refuse to be part of a continuing sham that says to all of us that we are going to have CDBG money. Our recipients deserve a lot more. This amendment is for show, as I quote from the Wall Street Journal of today: `` . . . for show since no money has been added above the cap''--leaving us, next October, November, in the appropriations bill to either fund CDBG or cut transit and Amtrak, which I know is important to many Senators, and many other critical housing programs. I urge my colleagues to say no and to put a stop to this continuing sham of amendments that do nothing for our communities that deserve a lot better.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on the Murray amendment which is the only amendment before this Senate that will restore actual dollars to the $1 billion cut to the Community Development Block Grant Program. We will see another amendment that is paid for by a 920 account that is now $10.5 billion in the hole--not real money. When our Committee on Appropriations gets that next fall, all of the Senators will be asking: Why are we cutting CDBG? We did not put real money in to restore that cut, unless we pass the Murray amendment that is paid for by closing tax loopholes. Real dollars are the difference between this and next fall when our Senators are asking us about CDBG money and why it is being cut. We will relate it directly back to this vote on this amendment. Let everyone know where the real vote is. If no one believes me, read the Wall Street Journal article, ``Republican Budget Plan Advances as Challenges By Democrats Fail,'' outlining that Republicans in tighter reelection races are offering amendments that are not paid for. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for clarifying that. I think it is important for all of us to understand that. These votes we take today will have real consequences. How do I know that? Not just because of the respect I have for the ranking member and his explanation, because this is exactly what happened on this floor last year when the Senators on the other side of the aisle offered a ``don't worry, be happy'' amendment to restore funding for community development block grants, critical money for neighborhood restoration, for low-income housing for our communities across the country. Do you know what happened when we got to Appropriations? We didn't have the flexibility because our subcommittee also has to fund Amtrak, airlines, transit, and other housing programs. There was no way to do it despite what the Senate voted on. They ended up having to cut $.5 billion from the community development block grants. It is a sham to me to watch these amendments march through here on an account that has no money, that is deficit spent already, and try to sell to their constituents that we are doing something about it when every Senator on this floor knows we ran into a train wreck last year which lasted well into this year on the Appropriations bills. Who was hurt? Not the Senators who voted for it, but our neighbors and friends, mayors and city councils and people on the ground across this country who are trying very desperately today to try make sure that the most important citizens have critical housing infrastructure, that we create jobs, that we have economic development, and that our communities become strong again. I have said time and time again on this floor that we need to make our country strong again. The most important way we can do it is to invest real dollars in our infrastructure. The CDBG Program is one of the best ways to do that. Every Senator here knows it. The votes we will take later today will be for sham accounts or a real vote. And when will it count? Next fall, when our friends and neighbors see the reality of these amendments and the budget impact on it. I will conclude by saying that I have been around my State talking to many mayors, talking to many community developers, hearing story after story about how our communities have taken this small amount of money from the Federal Government and invested it wisely, created jobs, created housing, improved the lives of our citizens. I know this CDBG cut, if we don't pass real money, will mean that Pennsylvania will lose $46 million in funding. It means Minnesota will lose $15 million in funding. In my home State, it means $16 million. Those are not just items on a budget; those are real dollars that make a difference in the lives of our friends and neighbors and communities across the country. This afternoon we will have an opportunity to cast votes for a real amendment--the Murray amendment--that restores funding and makes sure our Appropriations Committee has the allocation that will allow us to fund the CDBG, or we can take a political vote and be happy for a day. But it will not change anyone's life at home, and it will not restore hope and opportunity that this country so desperately needs today. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, that sounds completely irresponsible to me, to send a false promise by some kind of sham vote that you are supporting veterans or Community Development Block Grant Programs or all the other programs that we hear from the other side. I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania say this will just tell the Appropriations Committee that this Senate says you are to spend that money. I am the ranking member on the Transportation-HUD subcommittee. We are already looking at a transit cut of $100 million, an Amtrak cut, which I know the Senator from Pennsylvania cares about, a cut of $394 million, and the FAA is cut by $561 million, a safety factor. I say to my colleague from North Dakota, I am completely worried about the irresponsible message that these amendments are sending and the sham that they are. I heard last night when I offered my amendment, the chairman of the Budget Committee said we were raising taxes to pay for our amendments on this side. I want to ask this of the ranking member on the Budget Committee. My amendment I am offering today is to restore Community Development Block Grant Programs at a real, significant number. The $1 billion cut in the budget is irresponsible. Trying to pay for it out of sham money that is not there is irresponsible. We are asking for $1.3 billion by closing corporate tax loopholes. I heard those on the other side say that is raising taxes. I know my colleague, who happens to be the ranking member, who happens to be one of the most fiscally responsible Members on this side, is also a member of the Finance Committee. I would like to ask him, through the Chair, how he would respond to that being a tax increase.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, then am I to assume that function is now $11 billion in the hole? And we are hearing our colleagues on the other side say: Don't worry, be happy; simply take it out of the function where there is no money? I ask my colleague, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, is that real?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here because the Senator from Pennsylvania came to the floor this morning and offered an amendment on funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs. First of all, I am delighted that the other side recognizes that the assumption in this budget, to cut $1 billion from Community Development Block Grant Programs, is absolutely unacceptable. Their assumption is absolutely accurate. Across our country today, mayors and other community leaders are up in arms about the billion-dollar cut to Community Development Block Grant Programs that is in this budget, on top of what I might remind all of my colleagues was the $500 million cut from last year. We all know these essential programs. They are essential for housing, an absolutely critical part of our infrastructure, making sure we help develop many of our neighborhoods across this country with that critical seed money that brings those communities back up to standard and makes sure people have adequate housing while it creates jobs and economic development in communities across our country. Robbing those communities of those funds right now when our country is struggling to get back on its feet is the wrong thing to do, and the Santorum amendment recognizes that. Here is my problem. Last night I was on the floor of the Senate. I offered a real amendment to restore the funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs. It provides $1.3 billion, and it does it by adding real money to the budget amendment by closing corporate loopholes. The amendment offered by Senator Santorum is simply a ``let's not worry, be happy until after the election'' amendment and doesn't provide one dollar. How do I know that? I keep hearing the other side go to the floor and--whether it is veterans or Community Development Block Grant Programs or defense--say we are going to take money out of function 920. I went to the budget resolution book and I looked up 920 to see how much money was left. I was astounded to find out there is no money in function 920. In fact, they are half a billion dollars in the hole right now. I see the ranking member, Senator Conrad, on the floor. If he wouldn't mind, I wanted to ask him a question because he knows this budget better than anybody. I ask, through the Chair to the ranking member, am I wrong, in looking at this budget resolution, that the Republican Members are coming to the floor offering amendments to pay for funding for CDBG or veterans or defense, when there is no money? I ask my colleague if he could respond?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will take one additional minute and then yield back my time. But I did want to say, while I had the floor, that I added myself as a cosponsor to the Menendez port security amendment. This is a critical amendment. It is an issue I have been working on since September 11. I have joined with Senator Collins to introduce the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. I think what we have all learned over the past week is that our ports and our cargo containers are a huge hole in our Nation's security. We cannot fix it with more rhetoric from this floor. We can fix it if we fund it adequately. This Senate will have an opportunity to vote on that tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment when it comes to the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I will yield back my time in order to move to the next amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk tonight, that we will vote on tomorrow, restores the $1 billion cut in funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs that are assumed in the budget resolution that is before the Senate this week. For more than 30 years, the Community Development Block Grant Program, known as the CDBG, has served as a tremendous catalyst for change in communities across the Nation. It has brought hope and opportunity to families and to residents and to communities everywhere we look in this country. For both cities that are urban and rural, CDBG has supported efforts to expand affordable housing. It invests in neighborhoods, and it supports local economic development projects that have literally revitalized communities. But tonight, as we look at this budget resolution, that future, that hope is really being diminished. The actual opportunity that so many families have seen is threatened by the work that will not be done if this budget resolution passes in its current form. The budget resolution we are now considering assumes the President's proposed cap on domestic discretionary spending. And that includes a $1 billion cut to the Community Development Block Grant Program. By the way, that is on top of a $500 million cut that this program received last year. Now, every one of my colleagues knows how successful this CDBG Program is. You can see its impact in every community back home. Over the past 4 months, I have had the opportunity to talk with mayors and housing authority officials and other local leaders to see how they are using CDBG, and there are some great examples I want to share with the Senate tonight. The city of Spokane, WA, used $220,000 in CDBG funds and helped remodel and expand the Native Health Clinic and Community Center. This is a clinic in Spokane that provides medical care, substance abuse treatment, mental health and counseling services to economically disadvantaged children, youth, and adults. This money made a difference. In Vancouver, WA, in the other corner of my State, the Vancouver Housing Authority used CDBG funds to help fund the Esther Short Commons. This is a mixed-use, mixed-income building with 160 units of affordable workforce housing. It is home to businesses in the Vancouver Farmers Market. That building is a very important part of downtown Vancouver's redevelopment. Those funds made a critical difference. In Bremerton, in Kitsap County, Kitsap Community Resources is using $950,000 in CDBG funding to help build a new facility that will serve the needs of low-income people in Bremerton and Kitsap County. That facility houses a WIC clinic and employment and education programs and is a great addition to the city's efforts to revitalize its downtown. It is a great investment of Federal dollars. And in Seattle, the Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association received $850,000 in CDBG and home funds from the city of Seattle and developed the Croft Place Townhomes. That is a development that is now providing good housing for 21 families at or below the 30- and 50- percent of median income, including families who were previously homeless. These are just a few examples of how these Federal dollars leverage a difference in our home States. I know every one of my Senate colleagues has heard from their mayors and their communities about the importance of the flexibility of this money and the critical difference it makes in the lives of so many. As I have said on this floor many times, if we want to be strong abroad, we have to be strong at home. And investing in our infrastructure, bringing new economic revitalization, making sure that affordable housing is available for families, is an absolutely essential part of making sure our country is strong at home. Any one of us can tell you that if a family does not have a place to call home, then they are not going to be strong, and they are not going to feel their family has opportunity in the future. If you are a young woman trying to raise a family alone, you know you need to have a place to live or those kids are not going to do well in school and your opportunity to send them to college is minimized. Every one of us knows that a senior citizen who does not have a place to call home that is convenient to services they need--whether it is their doctor or physical activities--is not going to be able to have the dignity they deserve at the end of their life. And every one of us knows that for families who cannot afford housing in many communities across our States--my State and across the Nation-- if they do not have a place to call home that is close to a job, they are not going to be economically self-sufficient. These CDBG funds have made an incredible difference in people having the security of housing, a place to call home, and financial stability. At the same time, they are bringing economic development, new jobs, new businesses, new economic revitalization, to many of our communities. Cutting these programs by $1 billion is a disservice to those families, but it is a tragedy for this Nation because we cannot be strong if our families are feeling insecure at home because of the lack of housing. These dollars, we all know, make an incredible difference. This program has changed lives and changed communities. Now, tomorrow our colleagues on the other side are going to offer an amendment they say will do the same thing. First of all, I thank them for recognizing the budget resolution is not sufficient and does not do the job when it comes to CDBG. But I will call them on how they are going to fund it. Once again, we will see them funded with funny money, saying: We are going to take it from section 920. Well, already today, this Senate has gone on record taking $6.5 billion from the so-called 920 fund. And it is not there. Why do I know this? Because last year, at this same exact time, Senators on the other side offered an amendment to restore funding for CDBG, and come October, November, and December, when we were doing appropriations bills, this Senate cut half a billion dollars from CDBG. Why? Because the money offered in the amendment on their side was not real. The same thing is going to happen tomorrow. Senators will have an opportunity to pass a phony amendment and to go home and say to their constituents: Oh, I voted for CDBG. But the bill will come due in the fall, when we do an appropriations bill and that money is not available, and we will see CDBG cut dramatically. As ranking member on the TTHUD Subcommittee that has the funding on this, I know where this is going to go. I urge my colleagues, and I will tell this country, if you vote for the Murray amendment, you are asking for real dollars. You are telling your communities you are going to be there to help families with affordable housing and communities with redevelopment. If you vote for the amendment from the other side offered by Senator Santorum, you are going to get a nice vote for the day. All Senators will support it. But all it does is say, politically: Yes, I think CDBG is good. It will not provide one single additional dollar when we come to actually appropriating these funds. So this is extremely critical. Everywhere I go in neighborhoods across my State, I see the insecurity of so many families. They are worried about their jobs. They are worried about whether their kids can go to college. They are worried about whether their pension is going to be there. They worry about whether transportation infrastructure is going to be capable of getting them to their job or back home again. Part of that insecurity, and the most basic part of that insecurity, is housing. That is what these CDBG funds do. Every Senator on this floor knows it. When you invest in our infrastructure, whether it is housing or transportation, especially through funds such as this, you are creating new jobs, new economic development, and revitalizing communities in ways that I have seen no other dollars do. Mr. President, tomorrow, again, we will have an opportunity to do a political move if we vote for the Santorum amendment and say we are going to take money from this 920 fund that does not exist, or we can raise the cap, and then, when we are here next fall, actually fund CDBG at a promised level that this Senate will go on record on. It is a critical amendment. I urge its adoption by my colleagues tomorrow. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the amendment Senators Reed, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Schumer, Mikulski, Durbin, Rockefeller, and Akaka.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am ready to go with my amendment which follows this.

Mrs. MURRAY. I commend Senator Akaka, and I tell my colleagues, when we vote in a few minutes, you can vote for the Burns amendment if you want to say: I support veterans. But if you want to make sure we are there for our veterans when they come home with real dollars, you will vote for the Akaka amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Akaka and the amendment he has offered today that will truly and in reality help make sure we keep the promises we made to the men and women who serve this country overseas and who fought for us in the past and are fighting for us today and will be asked to fight for us in the future. These are people who have served our country. They have kept us safe. They have sacrificed for each and every one of us, and now they need our help. They need the support and the health care that was promised to them when they joined the service, and they need the health care and support in coming home and making sure that we have the services available to them. Unfortunately, the budget that is now before us is going to leave many of those veterans who have served this country so honorably without health care, without job assistance, and without the support they need to rebuild their lives on the homefront. Any of my colleagues who have gone out to their State and talked to these men and women, particularly the ones coming home today, you know they are having a hard time with getting jobs, dealing with health care issues, dealing with posttraumatic stress syndrome, facing lines at our veterans facilities, and not being adequately served, much less those veterans who are facing the same long lines and who are being ultimately denied care. Our veterans deserve better. That is why Senator Akaka and I are here today offering this amendment to provide $1.5 billion to keep that promise to America's veterans. There are two amendments in the Chamber, one offered by Senator Burns and one offered by Senator Akaka. Our colleagues need to understand that the amendment that has been offered by Senator Burns is window dressing. How do I know that? Because we were offered the same amendment last year by, I believe it was Senator Ensign. And what happened? As we warned our colleagues time and time again from the beginning of last year until June, we are billions of dollars short in health care. Finally, in June, the VA Secretary came to us and he said: You know what, you are right; we were $3 billion short. If we sit here in the Chamber and do an empty-promise amendment again, we are going to find ourselves back in the same position. The Akaka amendment adds real dollars. It puts real, actual money into the budget, so next fall, when we are writing our appropriations bills, we have the capacity within the veterans subcommittee to make sure we can provide the real services our veterans were promised. I believe our veterans deserve better, and I believe America can do better, and I believe the Senate ought to stand up right now when we are at war and tell those who are serving us that we are going to be there for them and support the Akaka amendment which provides real dollars. One of the real concerns I have with the budget that is in the Chamber today, that Senator Akaka is trying to amend, is it balances the VA health care dollars by assuming fees and copayments, new fees and new copayments to our veterans. I will tell you, I have talked to many people who have served our country. Not one of them signed a form saying, I will join the service and fight for my country with an asterisk on it, without the promise that we will provide the health care for them when they come home. It is a disservice to those veterans now for us to have a budget in the Chamber of the Senate that says, never mind, now that you have served, now that you are home, now that you need health care, we are going to charge you a fee, we are going to charge you copayments which will dissuade you from getting the health care that you need. That is really the wrong message to send. There is no fine print when someone signs up to serve our country saying ``exclusions apply.'' For us to impose those fees is wrong, and I hope this Senate goes on record today supporting the Akaka amendment that will make sure that next fall when our budget is tight, there is money there to make sure we are not having to come forward with proposals to do that. That is why it is so important that we support the Akaka amendment. It is the real amendment in the Chamber. It is not an empty promise. It is not just a be-happy amendment, everything is great, we-supported- veterans amendment. It has real dollars in it, and it is absolutely critical. Senator Akaka has done an excellent job of defining what is in this amendment. It is really critical that we help our Iraq war veterans who are making the transition back home with the $231 million for transition assistance. Any one of us out talking to our veterans knows they are having trouble coming home and getting a job and getting health care. This is critical outreach money, increasing support for PTSD and menatl health care. Senator Durbin is on the floor. He has been a strong advocate for making sure we adequately fund PTSD for veterans out in rural communities who do not have access. I talked to a woman the other day who was talking about the fact that 80 percent of our Guard and Reserve are coming home and getting a divorce. Divorce should not be a result of serving your country. We ought to make sure we have the funds to help those in need, to make sure they transition back into our communities. This amendment includes support for our veterans clinics, $81 million. Anyone who has been out there knows we do not have enough clinics available, especially in our rural communities, to make sure those folks who have served us get the services they need. Importantly, this amendment and this amendment alone eliminates the fees and copayments that are a tax on our veterans, that this Senator says they should not have to pay. I heard my colleagues from the other side say this amendment raises taxes. What this amendment does is pay for this. Senator says they should not have to pay with real dollars by closing corporate tax loopholes. I would ask any one of us to go home and ask a corporation or ask a millionaire: Are you willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that those who served us are taken care of when they return home? I doubt any one of us will get a letter from any one of them saying: I am not willing to pay. The Akaka amendment is the real amendment. It provides real dollars, assures that when we are here next fall doing the VA budget that we actually have the dollars to make sure we are supporting our veterans. This amendment is supported by the independent budget. I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars in support of the Akaka amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of our time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Akaka for his tremendous leadership on this veterans issue. I couldn't agree with him more. This isn't about a bidding war; this is about getting it right. I want to, first of all, thank Senator Burns for his amendment because what it does is recognizes and acknowledges the serious problem we have today in making sure we have the funds available to pay for the services that our veterans not only deserve but were promised to them. We are at a critical time in our Nation's history. We are at war. What message does it send to those we have sent overseas if we are telling veterans today that they are going to have to pay copays and increased fees once they return? What message does it send to those who are serving us overseas today that the veterans who have gone before them are waiting in long lines, they are not getting help and the promises that were given to them? What I appreciate is that Senator Burns' amendment acknowledges the serious challenge we have within this budget in making sure we meet the rising demand for our veterans today. I know Senator Craig has said we have increased the VA budget dramatically. My colleagues all remember us last year having to come to the floor to add billions of dollars to the veterans budget because we were shorthanded. But, Mr. President, to many of us, you will recall, it was not a surprise. We have hundreds of thousands of men and women who are coming home from a war in which we are currently engaged who are now needing to access veterans health care facilities. Of course, there is an increased cost. At the same time, we have an aging Vietnam veterans population who are accessing our veterans health care services. At the same time, health care across the board is increasing the costs. Everyone who is providing health care has to pay increased costs. So of course the VA budget, as a health care system, has to increase its costs as well. I also should remind my colleagues that because so many employers today cannot afford the cost of rising health care, they are not providing health care to their employees, and those who are veterans are turning to the VA, increasing the numbers who access it, and they have a right to do that. On top of that, Medicare Part D, which we need to talk about, is already a problem. Our folks across the country are calling in to ask: Whom do we sign up with for Medicare Part D? And they are being asked by our own DHS: Are you a veteran? And if they say, yes, they say: Don't sign up for Medicare Part D, go to the VA. That is great. They deserve that, but it is increasing the numbers accessing our VA. Yes, of course, the budget has gone up, but does it meet the need? That is the test this country needs to consider and that we as Senators need to consider in this budget. Again, my colleague from Montana has acknowledged that in his amendment. Here is where we have a problem. How do you pay for it, and when you pay for it, is it a reality? This function 920 everybody is robbing from is merely saying that we are not going to increase the budget to pay for this, we are going to pretend there is money out there. That may work very well now, but it will not work when we get to next fall, probably after the election, and we actually are sitting down and writing our appropriations bills and passing them on this floor, within the cap of those appropriations bills, and there will not be the funding to increase this. So let's not do some imaginary proposal and all go home and get well on making sure we provide the services. We will be offering an amendment with Senator Akaka that actually provides the increased costs, to make sure we have the funding available. The acknowledgment is clear on this floor. Charging our veterans a fee and a copay for health care that they were promised is not the right way to balance this budget. Should we be providing tax cuts for the wealthiest or should we be providing within our budget the means to keep the promises that were made to those men and women who served our country honorably before and are serving it honorably today and, I might add, we will be asking another generation, no doubt in the future, to serve us. They will watch what we do on this floor. They will watch what we do and how it impacts us next fall and whether we have the actual money within our budgets to provide the health care that is promised when we ask them to sign on the dotted line and serve our country in the future. Although I commend the Senator from Montana for the sentiments in this amendment, I actually believe the amendment coming from Senator Akaka and myself is the right amendment because it is not an empty promise. It actually is a promise fulfilled, and our veterans deserve that. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?