Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Leahy, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have risen tonight to express my deep concerns about the budget that is before us. I am concerned that the budget that this Senate is now considering does not pass the test of protecting our homeland. It does not pass the test of promoting fiscal responsibility. And it does not pass the test of fighting for our middle-class families. Let me start by putting this discussion in the right context. The budget decisions that we make now will either empower us or tie our hands when we turn to write the appropriations bills this year. That means you cannot vote for an unrealistic budget now and then act surprised in the summer and fall when painful cuts are required. Just look at what happened last year. The logjam that we experienced at the end of last year was not a surprise. It was the logical outcome of decisions that were made regarding the budget. Starting last March, many of us saw that there was no way we could meet our obligation to our veterans, honor our commitment to America's working families, enact huge cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, enact another round of tax cuts, and continue to cut our Nation's deficit. And when you added the growing cost of the war and Hurricane Katrina, the legislative train wreck was entirely predictable. I hope we do not repeat the same mistakes this year-- starting with the wrong priorities and unrealistic assumptions here in the budget process which will lead to constrained appropriations bills that will end up hurting our American families. Mr. President, a budget is more than just a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper. It is a statement of our values, and it reflects our priorities. The budget this Senate is now considering closely follows the President's budget, and it is based on the wrong priorities. It is clear to me that we need to invest here at home to make our country strong again. That means investing in education and in health care, in infrastructure and housing, in safety and security, and on each of those fronts the Bush priorities have been time and again misguided, adrift, and downright painful for millions of Americans. You know, Mr. President, when I am at home in Washington State or here in the Nation's Capital I hear a lot of concern from the business community, from local governments, and from families across the United States about us losing our global competitiveness. They talk to me about the challenges they face in keeping and growing good jobs right here at home, and they tell me that education is one of the elements for our success. But last year's budget, the fiscal year 2006 budget, set us on the path of undermining our competitiveness by weakening educational programs at all levels, and I fear that this budget, the fiscal year 2007 budget, will do the exact same thing. Last year's budget, the 2006 budget so constrained education, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill failed once in the House and almost did not pass at all. In the end, the programs faced one last hit, a 1-percent across-the-board cut that further hindered education at all levels. At a time when our schools are facing the increasing requirements of No Child Left Behind, our families are facing rising college tuition costs, and employers are crying out for highly skilled, educated workers, this is no time for our Nation to be shortchanging education. Because of laws Congress has passed and President Bush has signed, school districts are facing increasingly rigorous academic standards and working very hard to meet the new requirements for highly qualified teachers. How has Congress responded? Well, a majority in this Congress cut funding for the No Child Left Behind Act by 3 percent, or $13.1 billion below what was promised when we passed that bill. The fiscal year 2006 budget from last year also led the Government to slide backwards on its commitment to students with disabilities for the first time in 10 years. The Federal share of educational costs dropped from 18.6 percent in 2005 to 18 percent in 2006. Funding for disadvantaged students eligible for title I was inadequate. The fiscal year 2006 funding from last year is $9.9 billion less than what Congress and President Bush committed to spending in that law. That bill would leave behind 3.1 million students who could be fully served by title I if the program were funded at the level to which we committed. The reason I feel the need to talk about last year's budget at length is to put this year's budget proposal in context because the budget we are considering, the 2007 proposal, continues that dangerous trend. The President proposed the largest cut to education in 26 years. Sadly, this budget resolution makes it impossible to restore those proposed cuts. It would eliminate vocational and technical training efforts and college prep programs that have been so successful, such as TRIO and GEAR UP. This year, unless we change course, $11.9 billion is going to be cut from student loans, loans that help our low-income and middle-income families pay for college, and 70 percent of those cuts is going to come right out of the pockets of students and their families. Those cuts, by the way, will not go for balancing the budget. They are going to go for tax cuts for those who need them the least. We are trading the higher education of the Nation's families for our majority's misguided fiscal policy. Tuition and fees increased by 7.1 percent this year for 4-year public universities and 5.9 percent for private universities. The policies that are pursued in this budget are not just wrong for our country, they are going to cost our Nation dearly in the long term. Today, one- third of the U.S. workforce has a postsecondary education--one-third. But it is estimated that 60 percent of the new jobs in the 21st century are going to 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 are more likely to have jobs with benefits like health care and retirement and pension plans. We should be helping to break down the barriers to a college education, not building them up with this budget. We will not succeed in preparing our students for the 21st century by cutting their support, and we will put our country at a competitive disadvantage as we confront the world's challenges unless we change course. On the workforce issue, the GAO has said that business and customer satisfaction with our workforce system has never been better. But this President is now proposing hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts that effectively dismantle our local one-stop system of providing training and employment services for our workers. I have 5,000 people in my home State of Washington who are desperately seeking training right now, and there are over 50,000 jobs that employers are looking to fill. We should be increasing our investment in worker training--not ensuring that all of our good-paying jobs are going to be outsourced abroad. Finally, this budget fails to adequately protect our miners and our other workers from health and safety dangers they face in their workplace. On housing, this budget resolution will mean painful cuts--housing for the elderly cut 26 percent, housing for the disabled cut 50 percent, community development block grants cut by more than $1 billion. Those are the wrong priorities. We should be providing more help for the disabled and the elderly and for community development. Everywhere I travel in Washington State, I hear from families struggling to find a safe and affordable place to live. Whether it is a young couple looking to buy their first home or a family searching for rental housing close to their job or a senior citizen who wants better access to social services, it is harder than ever to find affordable housing. Across the country, public housing agencies and nonprofit organizations are working hard to help families find a place they can call home. At the same time, they are contributing to community revitalization efforts that will bring new jobs and opportunities. But a lack of funding threatens the achievements that have been made and the work that is yet to be done. This budget resolution that is before us assumes the President's proposal to cut the Community Development Fund, which includes the Community Development Block Grant Program, by more than $1 billion. That, by the way, is on top of a $.5 billion cut the program received this year. Every Senator here knows how successful the Community Development Block Grant Program is. You can see its impact in communities across the country. Whether it is construction of new affordable housing or supporting community revitalization, CDBG is bringing hope and opportunity to some of our country's most vulnerable. The budget resolution we are looking at this week does not restore funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program. That will make it virtually impossible to restore cuts in housing and community development, including that $1 billion reduction in CDBG. I refer my colleagues to the views and estimates filed on the Budget Committee resolution from the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and I want to quote directly from those views: We reiterate that unless the committee--the Appropriations Committee--receives substantial relief from these unachievable assumptions, the committee will be unable to fund the President's request much less items of Congressional interest. I think that is wrong. I am going to be offering an amendment, with the support of many of my colleagues, to restore that funding. I believe it is also critical that we continue to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. Recent cuts in transportation spending are threatening to weaken our airline safety. They are imposing new transportation costs on American businesses, and they cost tens of thousands of construction jobs. Investing in our Nation's transportation infrastructure helps reduce congestion, improves safety, and supports continued economic growth. On veterans, this budget does not keep America's commitment to our veterans because it is built on making it harder for veterans to get the health care they have earned. The Bush administration wants to close the doors of VA hospitals to 1.1 million veterans. It is going to keep another 200,000 from accessing the VA. The Bush administration is imposing new fees, copayments, and blocking access, and that is just wrong. The committee resolution will simply make it impossible to fully fund VA health care without additional cost sharing. The resolution assumes the President's increase for VA health care, but this increase is matched in part through higher premiums and copayments. I offered an amendment during markup to restore full funding for VA health care without forcing our veterans to pay for the care they earned. Unfortunately, it failed in committee, but we are going to try again on the floor. One of the biggest flaws in this budget is in homeland security. I know a lot of Senators recognize the inadequacies of the administration's approach, with the chairman of the Budget Committee, who also serves as chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, characterizing it as ``gross malfeasance.'' I thank the chairman for recognizing this and for making a gesture in the budget toward addressing this gaping hole. But gestures are not enough, and if the Senate passes the caps proposed by the administration and contained in this budget, no Senator should be under any illusion that we will have any other choice but to once again underfund our Nation's defenses. In recent weeks, we have all heard about the issue of cargo and port security. It is looming large, and we have had a vigorous debate here and across the country. No matter the particular outcome of this one transaction, this country is not adequately prepared to confront the threats we face to our security through our trading system. Sadly, this budget continues that regretful trend. On health care, the President wants to cut 2.2 percent from HHS. That is going to reduce our investment in medical research, in disease prevention, and in important safety net programs such as urban Indian health. During the Budget Committee, I actually offered an amendment to try to provide some direction and flexibility to the Finance Committee to act on legislation aimed at addressing the problems with the Medicare Part D benefit, to provide them with a deficit-neutral reserve fund to deal with the copayments our States are facing. It is only a matter of time and our States are going to revolt, and our pharmacists are already paying the price. I hope we again address that. Let me conclude by saying this budget is neither fiscally responsible nor disciplined. Under the assumptions in this resolution, the deficit is actually going to get worse. Debt is going to continue to increase. The only fiscal constraint included in this resolution is a cap on discretionary spending that will make it almost impossible to meet our country's needs or our appropriations deadline of October 1. I will have more to say. Let me end by saying that this budget is based on unrealistic spending targets and lacks any real fiscal discipline. Simply providing unrealistic caps on domestic spending while assuming additional tax cuts is not fiscally responsible. I believe this budget is neither honest nor responsible. We have a lot of work to do to make our country strong again. We need a budget that reflects our priorities and values. And we cannot forget that the choices we make today will empower us--or entrap us--months from now. I hope we can work together on both sides of the aisle to create a budget that protects our homeland, ensures fiscal responsibility, and stands up for our middle-class families. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about the budget that is before the Senate. But before I do, I want to add my voice to my colleagues who have come out here to express their condolences to our colleague, Senator Inouye, on the loss of his wife and long-time partner. Certainly, as the Senator from New Jersey said, Senator Inouye is the most respected Senator in this body, and he served his country well. Mrs. Inouye, too, has served her country by allowing Senator Inouye to be such a historic figure in this country and such a great leader and by all the time that was demanded by that. She has served her State, she has served her country, and we are all grateful. And to Senator Inouye, he and his family are in my thoughts and prayers as well.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about International Women's Day, which was yesterday, March 8. The theme this year is ``women in decisionmaking.'' As I contemplated the meaning of this, I thought about how important it is for women to be involved in the decisionmaking about their own bodies. And in this vein I would like to talk about the global gag rule. When President Bush took office in 2001, he signed an Executive order known as the global gag rule. It denies U.S. funds to any overseas health clinic unless it agrees not to participate in any activities related to abortion services. Those activities include: providing legal abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is endangered; and offering advice and information regarding the availability and benefits of abortion and providing referrals for abortion services. The global gag rule denies U.S. funds even if the overseas health clinic is using its own privately raised funds for these services. What that means is that if you are a medical professional living in an impoverished country trying to help people and save their lives, you are gagged from even talking about certain reproductive health services. The gag rule places limits on women and doctors that we have deemed unacceptable here in the United States. Last year, the Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act to reverse the President's policy and ensure that health care clinics for women and families receive this much needed funding. Unfortunately, this legislation has not been passed by the full Senate. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill last year contained $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund, UNPA, for this purpose. But in order to ensure that this money goes toward funding health care clinics for women and families in poor countries, we must overturn this global gag rule. In many poor countries around the world, nongovernmental organizations and medical professionals are working to make things better. They have set up clinics and reached out to the women and families in poor communities. They are doing great work. But their hands are tied, because the Bush administration has imposed a political ideology on the world. Overturning the global gag rule is about safe access to health care for women. Hundreds of thousands of women are dying each year from complications from pregnancy. These women do not have access to the health care that they need, especially reproductive health care. I will continue to speak out about the importance of providing safe access to health care for women all over the globe until this dangerous policy is lifted.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as we return from the President's Day recess, the Senate will be debating the future direction of our country. This debate will come in the form of the discussions we have on the Federal Government's budget. A budget is a statement of our priorities. Families across our country make difficult decisions every day while living within their own budgets, choosing one priority over another and working hard to fulfill their own American dream. Likewise, our national budget and the way we spend tax dollars reflects our priorities as a Nation. We make difficult choices, establish priorities and try to set our Nation on a course to prosperity. Unfortunately, the President's recent submission of his fiscal year 2007 budget and subsequent request for supplemental appropriations for the ongoing war in Iraq do not reflect the priorities our Nation needs to move ahead, and it makes the wrong choices in spending and saving. Taken together, they represent a callous disregard for fiscal reality and a failure to prioritize our country's most important needs. No American family would dare manage their finances this way, and I am on the floor today to say that we must take a different course. In the 3 years since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our country and Congress have stood with the President in staunch support of our troops. While we are both proud and duty-bound to provide the resources our men and women in uniform need to do their jobs safely and effectively, it is disingenuous to continue to ask for ``emergency'' spending to pay for military action that has been ongoing for years. Year in and year out, the President asks the Congress to provide the resources for his Iraq policy outside the bounds of the traditional budget process, and in each one of those years, concerns over accountability swell and demands for a plan that will allow our troops to fulfill their mission and return home go unanswered. Like every American, we all want to succeed in our mission in Iraq. We want to achieve our military and policy goals, and to bring our troops home safely. We know that this will require sacrifice and that a U.S. presence will be required for some period of time. Despite these obvious facts, the administration continues to operate from the pretense that the cost of this ongoing war is unknowable and thus requires emergency spending. The continued adherence to this policy deliberately misleads the American people about the cost of this war. But it also misses a central point, the real emergency is here at home in our classrooms, in communities from the Gulf Coast to the Pacific Northwest, in our hospitals, and in our firehouses. The Senate has shown unwavering support for our men and women fighting overseas. These heroes deserve every bit of aid we can provide--be it the best body armor, the best equipment, or the best pay and health care. Time and again Democrats have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Bush administration to do just that--and in many cases we have pushed to provide more than the President requested for our troops, our veterans, and their families. My concern--and I know many of my colleagues share it as well--is that while we provide the best for our men and women overseas, we are doing far less for the men, women and children fighting to get ahead on our own shores. They too deserve the best--the best education, the best health care, and the best protection from terrorist attack. I don't think anyone in this Chamber today can honestly say that we are achieving that goal. I am here to say that this Senator will not stand idly by as we send billions to support and protect the heroes overseas while cutting basic needs for the heroes waking up every morning across our great Nation trying to provide themselves and their children a better life. We can and must do both. So, as the Senate prepares to consider the budget and support our troops, I am going to ask that we stand up to protect and support hard working American families right here at home. That means: Providing affordable, accessible health care for every American, ensuring the best education for our young people, taking care of our veterans when they return home, pointing our Nation down a path toward energy, independence, and protecting our homeland from both terrorists and natural disasters. The costs of mismanagement, corruption, and lack of investment at home are creating a crisis of confidence in our current path among the American people. We must change course. There is precedent in our Nation's history for future oriented investment during difficult times--in fact, troubled times demand that we don't just wallow in current events, but better prepare for our future. In 1862, our great Country was torn apart. The Civil War defined our Nation and determined our future. But war was not the only thing that was debated that year, and war was not the only thing that determined our Nation's fate: 1862 was also the year that legislation creating the land-grant college system was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lincoln. Think of it, in the midst of war, when the Union's very existence was in question, our leaders took the forward looking step of establishing a path by which average Americans could improve themselves and contribute to the welfare of our Nation. And you know what--it worked. Today, those same land-grant colleges and universities are the envy of the world because of the great education they provide many Americans and the economic benefit they provide to our country. Today, we too, are in the grip of war, and there are forces arrayed against us that seek to do us real and lasting harm--we must combat our enemies with every ounce of energy we have. But like previous generations of American leaders, we also have an obligation to prepare the American people for the challenges we will confront in the future and to ensure that we are strong and secure in meeting those challenges head-on. Today, our efforts in this regard are woefully inadequate. To be strong in the future--to have the ability to fight the wars of the future, create the economy of the future, and lead the world in human liberty and freedom--we must create an environment of hope and opportunity here at home. And yes, this is an emergency. We all support our troops, and we will support the President's efforts to provide for their well-being and to ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to carry out their missions. But, candidly, we must be able to both support our troops and create a country full of hope and optimism for them to return to. To accomplish this we need to make changes in policy and allocation of resources, and I am going to demand that we consider these important questions when we debate the budget and the Iraq war supplemental appropriations request. As I have said before on this floor, the Federal budget is the statement of our priorities as a people, and it should be a moral, thoughtful document. Today, America's need for sound fiscal policy and a solid commitment to prosperity at home is not being met. We can do better. If the President and the majority won't lead our country toward a more hopeful, prosperous future, then we will. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a week ago we all listened as the President laid out his priorities in the State of the Union. At the time, I noted that what he says in his speech is a lot less important than what he does in his budget. Yesterday, he sent us his budget, and I am deeply concerned about what it means for our country, our people and our future. Later today, I will raise some of my concerns directly with the budget director, and I will come back here to the floor time and again to talk about what we should be doing. But this morning, I want to step back and take a broad look at the significance of the budget and the choices before us. I want to remind my colleagues that what we do now will affect us, and the American people, months from now. The budget decisions we make now will either empower us, or tie our hands, when we turn to write the appropriations bills. I am speaking on the floor today to warn my colleagues that you cannot vote for an unrealistic budget in the spring and then act surprised in the summer and fall when painful cuts are required. At the end of every year, Congress crams several important pieces of legislation through in a rush to head home for the holidays. This past year was no different. In a matter of days, we finished appropriations bills, authorization bills, and even spending cuts. Unfortunately, the logjam we experienced at the end of last year was not a surprise to many of us who work closely on the budget process. Starting in March, many of us began raising concerns that we were headed in the wrong direction. We knew that there was no way we could honor our commitment to America's working families, enact huge cuts in entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, enact another round of tax cuts, and continue to cut our Nation's deficit. When you add in the growing cost of war and Hurricane Katrina, the legislative train wreck was entirely predictable. But no matter what the hurry, make no mistake these bills have serious consequences, and their impact will be felt for years to come. They set funding levels, cut and grow programs, and set important policy for agencies and programs touching nearly every American. But it is more than that. Collectively, they represent our priorities and reflect our values. They provide the direction we intend to lead the country. And what too few Americans know--and too few Senators seem to remember--is that one single document serves as the blueprint for these additions, subtractions and everything in between each year. I'm speaking, of course, about the Federal budget resolution. Every year, with much fanfare and even more detail, the administration sends Congress a spending and revenue plan for the next 5 years. Congress is required to draft a similar spending and revenue plan. Our work begins on the day we receive the President's budget and is supposed to be completed by April 15. From early February, until April we debate, mark up, and offer a multitude of amendments. Most of the time, we complete this process and move to the next phase of the budget process on May 1. The congressional budget resolution sets the tone for the entire budget process, including appropriations. I have served on the Budget Committee for my entire Senate career. It's a very important committee, one that I take great pride in working on. But its work is not often considered newsworthy or particularly interested for the press and public. While this process may not always draw front-page coverage, its importance could not be greater. This one document is more than numbers and charts. From health care to energy, security to the economy, this one document is the vehicle that allows us to act on each and every priority the Government will have for an entire year. The Federal budget is the statement of our priorities as a people. It should be a moral, thoughtful document. It should carefully consider its impact on the Nation's best-off and worst-off. Too often, I fear, this impact is overlooked in all the details and process. Its impact is lost in the time from the budget's passage to the enactment of the final appropriations bills. That is why this year, with the benefit of our action at the end of 2005, with upcoming votes on left-over items from last year, and with the President's new budget, I wanted to come here to the floor to ensure that we all know the stakes of this great debate. And I intend to be back, saying much the same, I fear, in the weeks and months ahead. This year's budget, and the priorities it enacts, will not be lost to time, if I have anything to say about it. It is simply too important to forget. As I listened to the President's State of the Union, I felt a real disconnect between his priorities and the challenges facing working families in Washington State, Americans across our country, and those fighting for our freedom abroad. We all want America to be strong again and that means we must invest in our people and in our infrastructure. What the President said last week matters much less than what he does in his budget. That budget is a document of values, and it will tell us if he is really intent on creating a brighter future for America or just giving us more of the same. It is time to put the needs of America's working families first. We need a government that reflects our values and provides real economic incentives to encourage job creation. We can do that by investing in our infrastructure, providing affordable, accessible healthcare, supporting energy independence, providing education for all of our children, and protecting our ports and borders. These are the priorities that will make our Union and our families strong. We also have a moral obligation to ensure that our troops who serve and protect all of us have the resources they need on the battlefield and when they return home. Unfortunately, if last year's budget and this year's speech are any indication, the President's priorities are simply not in line with those of the American public. Almost exactly 1 year ago, the President previewed his FY 2006 budget in the State of the Union Address. He said: My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 Government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all. A week later, we received a budget from President Bush that slashed health care programs, punished veterans, cut education aid, and increased the long-term financial obligation we'll leave to the next generation. His ``non-essential priorities'' were made quite clear. In choosing to vote against that budget, I said: Families in Washington State and across the country are concerned about the security of their jobs, their communities, access to affordable health care and a quality education. Unfortunately, rather than inspiring confidence, the budget we are voting on tonight leaves too many Americans questioning the future. On issue after issue, this budget falls short of what our communities and our country need to move forward. I know what responsible budgets look like because I've worked with chairmen of both parties to create them. Unfortunately, this Republican budget fails to create jobs, improve security and meet our country's needs. Mr. President, last year's budget proposal was a disaster. It cut Medicaid--the health care for our most vulnerable. It cut education. It cut veterans funding. And incredibly, once again, it increased the deficit. The President has rightly been focused on our Nation's security, but his budget didn't reflect the type of priorities that keep Americans safe. Speeches are one thing, but they ring hollow if not matched with a real commitment of funding. In fact, in his budget proposal last year, the President tried to cut firefighter grants, funding for U.S. search and rescue, and the port security grants that help keep cities such as Seattle and Tacoma safe. If we are serious about our security, then each of these should be priority for this President. And after that budget passed--by the slimmest of margins, I might add--we felt the pain it inflicted. In appropriations debate after appropriations debate Democrats, and in some cases even some Republicans, fought to provide the basic funding for services that make a difference in every American's life--the most important programs needed. Several times Republicans invoked the budget, saying we couldn't provide the necessary dollars because of its constraints. The budget and the Bush priorities were taking their toll. As if these painful cuts weren't enough, the Bush team actually used the budget to ensure more hardship for the least among us, while handing out more perks to the best-off. Through reconciliation, Republicans ``saved'' billions of dollars on the backs of the poor. Again, by the slimmest of margins in each Chamber, they cut Medicaid, Agriculture, and retirement security programs. Reconciliation is intended as a tool for reducing the deficit. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has pushed reconciliation bills that actually make the deficit worse and pass the burden of tax cuts for the wealthy and the cost of the war on the backs of poor children, the disabled, and our Nation's seniors. I will say again what I said when they brought this immoral bill to our committee: At a time when communities along our gulf coast are hurting, when we are facing the implementation of a confusing new prescription drug law, when our roads and bridges and railways are aging, when millions of Americans are concerned about how they are going to pay for heat in their homes this winter, and when the men and women who have sacrificed to serve us overseas cannot find health care or jobs when they return home, we should be focused on protecting our most vulnerable, not handing them further burdens. There is one particular area that warrants mentioning because we have heard a lot about it in recent days, and that is health care. We heard the President talk about his health care priorities in his State of the Union Address last week. But every American knows that actions speak louder than words. One of the most serious challenges facing all working families today is the escalating cost of health care. Instead of addressing the increasing cost of health care and its impact on the uninsured, last year's failed budget strategy only made this situation worse. In the reconciliation package the House approved, half of the cuts come from Medicare and Medicaid. We know from a recent CBO report that an estimated 65,000 enrollees in Medicaid will lose coverage under the Republican budget reconciliation bill. The reconciliation bill shifts greater costs to working families and could reduce Washington State's share of Medicaid funding by $185 million. The package requires higher copayments and premiums for low- income children. It eliminates the focus on prevention benefits and early screening for children. Medicaid is an essential safety net program for seniors, for the disabled, and for our children. Without Medicaid, there are very few options available for receiving care. Nationwide, in fact, 40 percent of all births are paid for by Medicaid. Where will these people go for care? Who is going to pay? The reconciliation bill cuts $35 billion from services that make America stronger and make our communities more secure, all while burdening our children with massive debt. Rather than being good stewards of taxpayers' dollars and helping our Nation become stronger and more secure, and rather than paying down the debt, Republicans are back to the same game: They want to keep shoveling money right back out the door in the form of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to point out that they cut spending by $40 billion, but they did so by cutting student aid, cutting health care for the poor, and cutting other programs that are critical to working families, and they did it all while increasing the deficit. As our outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once said: If you are going to lower taxes, you should not be borrowing essentially the tax cut. That over the long run is not a stable fiscal situation. I agree. Imposing painful cuts on hard-working families to pay for more tax cuts and then passing the cost on to our children is clearly wrong. We can and we must do better. And let's not forget higher deficits also mean a larger debt. It is no surprise that we soon will be asked to raise the borrowing authority yet again for the Federal Government to over $8 trillion. That is going to mean less capital for small businesses to expand and it means higher interest rates for every working family. Once again the budget and Bush priorities will take their toll. As I look at the challenges facing our country and as I listen to the people in my home State of Washington, it is pretty clear that the top priority now must be making America strong again. And to do that, we need to invest here at home. That means taking care of education, health care, infrastructure, housing, safety, and security, and on each of these fronts, the Bush priorities have been time and again misguided, adrift, and downright painful for millions of Americans. I believe that in order to make America strong, we need to make investments here at home in our people, in our infrastructure, and in our communities. Everywhere I travel in Washington State, I hear from families who are struggling to find a safe and affordable place to live. Whether it is a young couple looking for their first home or a family searching for rental housing close to their job or a senior citizen who wants to find better access to social services, it is harder than ever in this country to find affordable housing. Across the country, public housing agencies and nonprofit organizations are working to help families find a place they can call home. At the same time, they are contributing to community revitalization efforts that will bring new jobs and opportunities. But a lack of funding threatens those achievements that have been made and the work that is yet to be done. It is also critical that we continue to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. Recent cuts in transportation spending threaten to weaken airline safety, impose new transportation costs on American businesses, and cost tens of thousands of construction jobs. Investing in our Nation's transportation infrastructure will help reduce congestion, improve safety, and support continued economic growth. I urge this President to support these critical investments and put action behind his good rhetoric. When I am home in my State of Washington and here in DC, I hear a lot of concern from the business community, from local governments, and families over the United States losing its global competitiveness. In fact, we heard a lot from President Bush the other night on this very subject. But last year's budget set us on a path that weakened education programs at all levels, and the new budget that was sent to us yesterday does the very same thing. Last year's budget so constrained our education programs that the Labor-HHS appropriations bill failed once in the House and almost did not pass at all. In the end, programs faced one last hit again, a 1- percent-across-the-board cut that further hindered education at every level. In a time when our schools are facing increasing requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act and families are facing rising college tuition costs, this is no time to be shortchanging education. Last year's budget resulted in funding levels that represented the smallest increase in education in a decade, and this year the President is proposing the largest cut to education in 26 years. This year, $12.7 billion is proposed to be cut from student loans that help low-income and middle-income families pay for college. Seventy percent of those cuts will be paid for by students and their families. Those cuts will not go for balancing the budget either; they are going to go for tax cuts for those who need them the least. Tuition and fees increased this year by 7.1 percent for 4-year public universities and 5.9 percent for private universities. Not only is cutting student aid the wrong priority for our country today, but it will cost our Nation dearly in the long term. Today only one-third of the U.S. workforce has a postsecondary education, and it is estimated that 60 percent of the new jobs in the 21st century will require college education. Workers who have attended college have higher incomes and lower rates of unemployment than those who do not. And those with a college education are more likely to have jobs with benefits, such as health care and retirement and pension plans. We should be helping to break down the barriers to a college education, not building them up with this budget plan. I want to talk about veterans funding because with so many of our brave men and women fighting for us overseas, I believe our most fundamental priority has to be to take care of those who sacrificed so much for all of us. I have said time and again that actions speak louder than words, but it was, nevertheless, very troubling to me when President Bush failed to even mention our veterans in the State of the Union Address. I hope he will not forget them in the budget process. I am concerned that the President's fiscal year 2007 budget that was just sent to us is not based on real numbers and does not reflect the real demand for VA services. I am convinced that without real budgets based on real numbers, the VA is going to face a shortfall again this year and more veterans are going to be denied the care they have earned. The rising utilization rates, increasing costs of medical care, and the influx of veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq are going to require more VA funding. In addition, the new Medicare prescription drug program has added more demands on the VA. Many seniors who are veterans are now being told they should go to the VA for their prescription drugs. Surely, this influx of new VA patients will have a major impact on the VA system and will inevitably delay access for veterans. Finally, much of the increased demand on the VA system is due to the nationwide health care crisis. As veterans lose their health care coverage from their own employers, they are coming by the thousands to the VA to get care for the first time. The longer the health care crisis continues to grow, the more the demands will be on the VA to take care of the veterans population. As my colleagues will remember, last year I was told the VA didn't need any more funding. The administration told me everything was fine and that they could handle the demands brought about by the Iraq war. I tried time and again to increase funding for the VA to maintain veterans' access to the health care they were told they would get, and I was fought at every level. Then finally in June, Secretary Nicholson announced the VA was, indeed, facing a $1 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2005 and that the VA miscalculated demands in the VA by over $3 billion between fiscal year 2005 and 2006. In June, when I asked whether the administration had adequately planned for the impact of the war, I was told the VA underestimated the number of Iraq war veterans by over 300 percent. I finally was able to work with my colleagues to attach $1.5 billion in emergency funding for the VA on the fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations bill and another $1.2 billion in the fiscal year 2006 military construction bill to finally cover this shortfall. Since the war in Iraq began, there have been 2,245 casualties and 16,548 wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Our men and women in uniform--past, present, and future--will time and again answer the call to duty, and at the very least they deserve a budget that fulfills our commitment to them and to their families. I look forward to debating the President's budget this week. I truly believe it is one of the most important actions that we take every year because it sets the tone for everything else we do. Tuesday night last week the President told Congress and all Americans that: In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. I couldn't agree with him more. Our future and our character are at stake. A budget reflects our priorities and our values. Let's make sure our budget for the coming year reflects the best of both, and let's remember that the decisions we make now will tie our hands months from now. Mr. President, 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 came to the floor this afternoon to spend a few minutes speaking in support of the Bingaman-Rockefeller- Murray Medicare drug REPAIR amendment that we will be seeing this afternoon. I came to the floor to urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can address the immediate crisis facing our most vulnerable citizens. I wish we were here debating a real fix to the Medicare Modernization Act, but unfortunately the Senate leadership has placed a lot higher priority on tax cuts than on providing reliable access to prescription drugs for low-income seniors and the disabled, so we are here today debating that. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee was on the floor earlier talking about the relevance of this amendment, the Bingaman-Rockefeller-Murray Medicare drug REPAIR amendment, but this is the first piece of legislation that we have had on the floor since the rollout of the Medicare prescription drug bill. Offering this amendment on this tax bill is our only option. What this amendment does is ensure that our low-income seniors and our disabled--who are often technically referred to as duals--are at least ensured of a 30-day supply of lifesaving drugs, regardless of any communication or data exchange problem. It simply ensures that States and pharmacies and beneficiaries who have had to provide coverage to those who have fallen through the cracks in this rolling out of the Medicare prescription drug bill receive just and fair reimbursement. Finally, it will end the confusion facing any of our duals. And for any of my colleagues who have not been out in their States since January 1, I will tell you there is tremendous confusion and conflict and people are falling through the cracks and we need to end that confusion so they know whether, in fact, they qualify for assistance. Because of the tremendous data and outreach problems, many of these so-called duals have been told they have to meet a $250 deductible before their plan is going to cover their prescription drugs. If they are eligible today for Medicare and Medicaid, they are assumed eligible at the drugstore. I have listened to Secretary Leavitt and CMS Administrator McClellan reassure all of us that they are acting to fix these problems. I am here today to applaud their attention and their commitment and their recognition of the tremendous challenges out there, particularly for our duals, as this prescription drug rollout bill is occurring. I only wish they had listened last November when I offered an amendment to provide a 6-month transition and predicted the dire straits that we are now in before this was rolled out. I will say they have been responsive since January 1. But all of the steps that have been implemented are worthless if there is no education of our pharmacists and our seniors, or if there is no aggressive oversight and enforcement. Saying that they are just going to work to ensure the plans honor their commitment is not the same as saying plans will be required by law to honor that commitment. It doesn't do a senior any good to be told we are going to hold plans accountable, and they still do not have any access. There are a number of problems with this flawed structure, but I think it is critical that we address the immediate crisis for those people who have very few options. If anyone on this floor today thinks this is fixed, or these problems are going to go away, I want them to know they are sadly mistaken. I have traveled around my home State of Washington since August. I am not hearing that things are getting any better. I have people come to forums that I am holding where I try to give them information, and every forum I have had, time after time, there are new problems, new challenges: pharmacists are falling through the cracks, doctors who don't know how to deal with their patients, long-term care facilities that are at their wits' end, and certainly the mental health advocates who are telling us we have people who could be in serious crisis very soon if we don't address these problems. There is a lot of frustration. There is a tremendous amount of panic for these dual eligibles that they are being denied access to lifesaving drugs, and to low-income seniors, especially those in group homes, who can't afford the added burden of copayments. It is wrong for us to sit here and say this is going to get worked out. I think it is our responsibility to stand up today, at our very first opportunity, and make sure we fix this Medicare prescription drug plan. This week, my Governor, as many Governors who have been facing this at home on the ground, joined with me in urging the Federal Government to fix this mess. I want to quote her. She said: All we are asking is don't make these people worse off than they were. Our Governor's office, as many Governors' offices, has been flooded with calls about this prescription drug plan. She says some of these people are telling her they would rather take their own life than deal with the situation. I have sat in forums in my State where people have said that to me, to my face, as well. These are people with mental health problems, they are elderly, they are having trouble working through the system. It is too much for them. They cannot deal with the copayments for the first time--and that is not what our country should be about. It does not sound to me like things are getting better and the kinks are getting worked out. Congress promised in 2005, they promised to people in this country access to affordable prescription drug coverage. It is clear they are not getting that today. We know these problems cannot be fixed through some kind of administrative action alone. We here in Congress have an obligation to act and not follow CMS. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to those who are living, literally, in fear today that Congress is not going to wait and we are going to do the right thing. I do not agree that this is not the bill to deal with this issue. I wish we had another bill in front of us. I wish we had an actual fix in front of us. But we cannot wait to work through the next several weeks and then the budget process and everything else coming down the pike to deal with this issue. We are talking about real individuals in real communities who are not getting access to their prescription drugs because of the challenges that CMS is facing as this plan is rolled out, and we have an obligation to act. I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman-Rockefeller-Murray drug REPAIR amendment and get a fix in place so people's lives are not in crisis. We have an obligation to do this, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit this resolution designating the week of February 2, 2006 as ``National School Counseling Week,'' on behalf of my colleagues, Senator Biden, Senator Dorgan, Senator Johnson, and Senator Dodd. This resolution honors and celebrates the important work of school counselors, which the Senate has recognized since 1965 through the inclusion of school counseling in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Across the country, there are approximately 95,000 school counselors, including 2,100 in Washington State. School counselors are critical components of a successful school and contribute significantly to the growth and success of students. In fact, school counselors were instrumental in helping students, teachers, and parents deal with the trauma of terrorism on September 11, 2001, and its aftermath. However, despite their important service, counselors are expected to serve, on average, 485 students each, and are overwhelmed. The American School Counseling Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association recommend the ratio of students to school counselors be 250 students to 1 school counselor. I want to share just a few examples of how school counselors throughout America are helping students. In a middle school in southern California, school counselors realized that 257 students were in danger of not passing on to the next grade. They discovered that only 15 percent of the students understood the promotion and retention requirements. The school counselors presented a series of individual and small-group lessons on promotion and retention criteria. After the lessons, 100 percent of the students understood the requirements. As a result, 72 of the 257 students, about 28 percent, avoided retention that year. In a high school in Racine, WI, a math teacher realized that 100 of his students failed algebra in the first quarter of the year. He asked a school counselor for help. Together, they discovered some of the reasons why students were failing. They initiated several programs, such as peer tutoring and homework assistance. As a result, 93 of the 100 students passed algebra by the end of the year and were able to move on to the next level of math. A school district in Kentucky realized that the retention rate among ninth grade students was unacceptably high. School counselors, teachers and administrators worked together to develop and implement strategies targeted at helping ninth graders move to tenth grade. As a result, retention rates improved in 16 of the 17 high schools in the county in just 1 year. One school saw the retention rate improve more than 25 percent. This resolution, though, is merely the beginning of what we need to be doing to support school counselors. We need to reduce the ratio of students to counselors to, at the most, 250 to 1. We need to help schools maintain their funding so that school counselors are not cut from school budgets. And we need to support our school counselors so that they can continue to be integral in the fabric of our schools and help our students achieve success in high school and beyond. School counselors design and implement comprehensive developmental school counseling programs that are integral to the success of every student. They help students improve academic achievement, develop personally and socially and prepare for successful careers that will enable them to be contributing members of society. National School Counseling Week focuses public attention on the unique contribution of professional school counselors and highlights the tremendous impact that school counselors have in helping students achieve success in school and beyond.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss my vote on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., to the U.S. Supreme Court. After meeting with Judge Alito and studying his record and comparing his answers to my criteria for judicial nominees, I have decided to vote against confirming Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The next Justice will have the power to change the Court, change the country, and change our rights for generations. Judge Alito has a very troubling record. In his hearing and in our private meeting he did not show that he will be an independent judge who will uphold the rights and liberties of all Americans. With our rights and freedoms on the line, I will not take a chance on Judge Alito because I have serious questions about his independence and his commitment to protecting our rights and our liberties. As with past nominees, I have evaluated this nominee based on my longstanding criteria, which ask: Is the nominee qualified, ethical, and honest? Will the nominee be fair, evenhanded, and independent? And will the nominee uphold the rights and liberties of all Americans? Personally, I got involved in politics because of another Supreme Court nomination, that of Clarence Thomas. At the time, I was frustrated that average Americans didn't have a voice in the process that affects them so much. I have worked to be the voice of working families in my State, and I have asked the questions they would ask. I am voting to protect their interests. I recognize the significance of a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Constitution directs Senators to provide advice and consent on all judicial nominees, and the people of my home State of Washington have trusted me to be their advocate to safeguard their rights as I vote on judicial nominees. I take that responsibility very seriously. That is why I have reviewed Judge Alito's past writings, studied his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and asked to meet with him in my office. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a tremendous grant of unchecked power. If the Supreme Court rules incorrectly, there is no option for appeal. There is no backstop. Any seat on the Supreme Court can affect our rights for generations. But there are three factors involved in this particular nomination that make it even more significant. Those factors are the times, the seat, and the process. First, I am well aware that we are living in historic times. Each day, it seems that the rights of the individuals and the power of government are being tested. We are at war overseas, we face threats from terrorism here at home, and the current administration is pushing the bounds of governmental power in remarkable ways. The Bush administration has arrested U.S. citizens and held them without access to the courts. It has run secret prisons around the world. It has expressed views on torture that put our own troops at risk. As we recently learned, the administration has been spying on American citizens without prior approval from a court. These are grave issues which will likely come before the Supreme Court. How that Court rules will affect the rights of our citizens, the balance of power between the branches of our Government, and the balance of power between our citizens and Government. So as I make my decision on this nominee, I am very mindful of the historic times we are living in and the serious questions this Supreme Court will address in the coming years. Secondly, I am very mindful of the seat that is open on the Supreme Court and its significance. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a pioneer in the field of law, and her decisions will shape the lives of the American people for generations to come. As I said when she announced her resignation, we live in a better America due to her 24 years of service on the Court. Justice O'Connor was often a swing vote on those critical decisions. Her successor could easily change the balance of power on the Court, which could dramatically shift the Court's ruling on so many issues. Because this is a swing seat that could tip the Court's balance of power, we need to make sure that the person we confirm is someone who will protect our rights and liberties. Some have suggested that I should just go along and support the President's nominee. That is not the way I make decisions. I have criteria that I use to evaluate all judicial nominees, and Judge Alito is no different. Third, I am also well aware of how Judge Alito came to be the President's nominee. The President, as we all remember, had nominated his counsel, Harriet Miers, to the High Court, but Ms. Miers was not acceptable to the rightwing of the President's party. I found it very interesting that before her nomination, Republicans were demanding an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor for anyone the President nominated. But when President Bush nominated Ms. Miers, suddenly we stopped hearing that urgent call for an up-or-down vote. In fact, Ms. Miers' nomination was killed by the President's own party, apparently because she did not meet the ideological test of the extreme right. I recount this history tonight not to diminish Judge Alito but to point out that his nomination comes before the Senate in the context of an ideological battle that has been created by the rightwing. When the President nominated Judge Alito, the rightwing cheered, confident that he would vote their way. That reaction gives me pause as to whether this nominee can keep an open mind on the issues that come before him. If the rightwing is so confident that he is going to vote their way, how can all of us be confident that he will put our country's needs first? That alone does not suggest that Judge Alito cannot be fair, but it did lead me to explore those questions diligently. Given the importance of the Supreme Court and the background of the times and the seat and the process, I began to evaluate how Judge Alito measured up to my standards for judicial nominees. Judge Alito's record contains some disturbing statements, rulings, and pronouncements that require detailed explanations. Does he still hold some of those views? In many cases, we don't know. I wish Judge Alito had been more forthcoming during his hearing. At the same time, many of the things he said and refused to say spoke volumes. As I noted earlier, my standards are simple: Is the nominee qualified, ethical, and honest? Will the nominee be fair and evenhanded and independent? And will the nominee uphold the rights and liberties of all Americans? I am very comfortable that Judge Alito is qualified, he is honest, and he is ethical. But whether he will be fair and evenhanded is another question. And, as was discussed at his hearing, he does have a troubling record for fighting for the government and corporations and against individuals. He seems to favor the entrenched power over the little guy. His record does not give me the confidence that everyone who comes before the Court will be treated fairly. I am also deeply concerned about Judge Alito's independence. We rely on our courts as a critical check and balance against government abuse. That independent check helps to protect our rights. This is especially important today because of the growing questions of the expansion of Executive power. The Supreme Court will need to evaluate whether recent Executive actions are constitutional. Here Judge Alito's unbalanced minority view of the scope of Executive power tells me he does not have the independence to be an adequate check on the Government's abuse of our rights. Finally, I have serious doubts that Judge Alito will uphold our rights and liberties. One example is his hostility to the right of privacy. In the hearings, he refused to say that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he did not adequately explain his 1985 statement that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion. Last year, when I voted to confirm, yes, Chief Justice John Roberts, I said I was choosing hope instead of fear and that Judge Roberts, through his answers, inspired such hope. Judge Alito, through his writings, his rulings, and his nonanswers, does not inspire confidence in me that he will protect all our rights. Because so much is on the line, because I do not believe he will be sufficiently independent or will uphold our rights and liberties, I will respectfully vote against his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from teachers around the country who have opposed this nomination.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the December 7 Korean Fair Trade Commission, KFTC, decision against Microsoft. A major employer in Washington, Microsoft is being unfairly penalized by Korea, but this decision goes well beyond Microsoft as the Korean Fair Trade Commission's decision is ultimately a decision against free and fair trade. When the European Commission issued its competition decision against Microsoft in March 2004, I was one of many Members who expressed serious concerns about the decision and its impact on one of America's most innovative companies and its workers. Like many of my colleagues, however, I was also alarmed at the broader policy implications of the decision--that Europe would adopt a decision whose negative impact on trade was so clear, and which diverged so markedly from the Department of Justice's remedy addressing the same conduct. I believe that the December 7 decision of the Korean Fair Trade Commission against Microsoft is yet another warning sign that our trading partners are limiting competition in order to benefit their domestic interests. In this case, the Korean Fair Trade Commission not only followed the EU's market-distorting, anticonsumer approach, but appears to have gone substantially further than the EU remedies in several respects. The KFTC's decision makes me wonder whether the Microsoft case is not a unique case but instead indicates the beginning of a trend among some of our key trading partners to use competition law as a means to pursue protectionist agendas or advance domestic industrial policy goals. If so, this should be of tremendous concern to every member of this body. Last week I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Portman about this issue, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to place that letter into the record. The letter urges Ambassador Portman to work with others in the administration--including at the White House and the Departments of Justice, State, and Commerce--to develop and implement mechanisms for addressing these issues in a more coherent and effective fashion. At the same time, I urged Ambassador Portman to work with others in the administration to take whatever steps are still available to advance the U.S. perspective in the Microsoft case, so that the anticonsumer, anti-innovation decisions do not establish a precedent that harms U.S. competitiveness for years to come.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am excited to congratulate the women Huskies on their terrific win in the NCAA Championships. Not only has UW's women's volleyball team given the University a new championship trophy, but they have given young girls across our State new role-models and proof that they can reach their dreams. We need to ensure that any young girl who dreams of making the team, wearing a sports jersey or winning a college championship has the opportunity to succeed. That's why--as a Congress--we need to protect Title IX and the future of every girl in Washington State and around the country who wants to play sports. For the past 33 years, Title IX has opened doors to athletics, education and success for millions of young women across America. Title IX is not about politics, it is about helping young women--like the members of UW's women's volleyball team--achieve their dreams. I am proud of the UW women's volleyball team, their 32-1 record, and the fact that they became the first team in a 64-team NCAA tournament format to win all six matches by a sweep. I know I join volleyball fans statewide--and young female athletes everywhere--in congratulating them on their accomplishment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about developing countries around the world that are dealing with population explosions. As we near the end of the year, we are trying to wrap things up before the Senate goes out of session. But we continue to ignore this important issue. This topic does not get very much attention here on the Senate floor, but in the developing world, there is a population explosion. Some experts believe that the population of Earth may top 9 billion by 2050. Eighty-eight percent of Americans believe that international population growth is either a major problem right now or that it will become one in the future. Almost all of the growth is occurring in countries that are the least able to govern, ensure jobs for, and care for their citizens. But this is also about safe access to health care for women. Even though these countries are experiencing huge population growths, hundreds of thousands of women are dying each year from complications from pregnancy. These women do not have access to the health care that they need, especially reproductive health care. In many poor countries around the world, nongovernmental organizations and medical professionals are working to make things better. They have set up clinics and reached out to the women and families in poor communities. They are doing great work. But their hands are tied because the Bush administration has imposed a political ideology on the world. When President Bush took office in 2001, he signed an Executive order known as the global gag rule. It denies U.S. funds to any overseas health clinic unless it agrees not to use its own private, non-U.S. funds for anything related to abortion. What that means, is that if you are a medical professional living in an impoverished country trying to help people and save their lives, you are gagged from even talking about certain reproductive health services. The gag rule places limits on women and doctors that we would never accept here in the United States. Earlier this year, the Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act to reverse the President's policy and ensure that health care clinics for women and families receive this much- needed funding. Unfortunately, this legislation has not passed by the full Senate. I am pleased that the Foreign Operations appropriations bill contains $34 million for the United Nations Populations Fund, UNPA, for this purpose. But in order to ensure that this money goes toward funding health care clinics for women and families in poor countries, we must overturn this global gag rule. In closing, I would like to share the following article, which ran on December 3, 2005, with my colleagues because I believe that it provides some important food for thought as we continue to work on this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and the following article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Violence Against Women Act, which Congress has finally reauthorized after many delays. As my colleagues know, the final bill passed the Senate on Friday, it passed the House on Saturday, and it is now headed to the President for his signature. As domestic violence leaders in my home State of Washington will tell you, this reauthorization is long overdue. VAWA has been a critical tool for fighting domestic violence, and it should have never been allowed to expire. The Republican leadership finally recognized that, and now we will strengthen and expand that critical law. Today I want to discuss some of the improvements we have passed-- including new tools related to health care, housing, and abuse that involves police officers. I also want to share my disappointment that the economic protections I have worked to include were removed when this bill was considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have tried to advance critical economic protections at every turn, and I want to update my colleagues--and advocates in Washington State-- about where those efforts stand. I do want to thank several of my colleagues for their hard work on this bill, including Senators Leahy, Specter, Biden, Hatch, and Kennedy. The original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, created a national strategy for dealing with domestic violence. And that strategy has been very successful. VAWA brought together victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of domestic violence. This bill reauthorizes and strengthens those core programs. This bill also creates new programs that represent important steps forward in areas such as health care, housing and officer-involved abuse. The first new step concerns health care. For the first time, VAWA includes a national health care response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. It authorizes new grants to train health care providers to recognize and respond to domestic or sexual violence. These grants will help establish partnerships between victims service providers and health care providers in State hospitals and public health departments. It also provides funding for direct services for sexual assault victims, including 24-hour emergency and support services. Second, this law now addresses housing inequities for victims by providing new grants to help victims find long-term housing. It also protects the confidentiality of victims who are receiving assistance from Department of Housing and Urban Development-funded programs. VAWA also now includes provisions to protect mail-order brides and expands protections for immigrant victims. This legislation also addresses the issue of police officer-involved domestic violence. I have spoken about this issue on the Senate floor before because of a terrifying case in Washington state. In April 2003, Tacoma police chief David Brame shot and killed his wife, Crystal Judson Brame. Then he took his own life, all while their two young children watched. The final tragic act was the last in a long history of abusive events. In response to this incident, the City of Tacoma, the Tacoma Police Department, and others formed a task force to examine officer-involved domestic violence. They created a new policy for the Tacoma Police Department, and they helped pass a State law which requires that departments have policies on officer-involved abuse. This VAWA bill gives local communities new resources to deal with abuse that involves police officers. It funds the Crystal Judson Domestic Violence Protocol Program. It allows law enforcement agencies, victim service providers, and Federal, State and local governments to use STOP grant funds to create new protocols for handling officer- involved domestic violence. What happened in Tacoma is a tragedy that cannot be weighed. Out of that tragedy, Washington State changed its laws, and now the Federal Government is giving communities across the country new tools to address officer-involved abuse. So that new provision--along with the healthcare and housing measures--represent new progress in fighting domestic violence. But frankly, we have got a lot more work to do. I am deeply disappointment that the economic protections I have been fighting for since 1998 were not included in this reauthorization-- despite some early progress. If we are going to break the cycle of violence, we need to address the economic barriers that trap victims in abusive relationships. We know that financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence. Too often, victims don't have the financial strength to leave a violent relationship. As a result, they are forced to choose between protecting themselves and keeping a roof over their heads. When a victim cannot afford to move out, or cannot afford to pay the rent, or has lost a job because of abuse, that person is trapped, and Congress needs to help free them from that trap. In this bill, we had an opportunity to help victims. In the Senate version of the bill, I worked to include an unpaid leave provision. It was in the Senate version, but it was dropped by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In my view, that was wrong. It is like leaving someone trapped in a burning building. We should have knocked down the barriers and thrown open the exit doors, but the Senate failed and that will have a real impact on people trapped in abusive relationships. The protections I sought were reasonable. It would have allowed victims to take up to 10 days of unpaid leave per year to address domestic violence. Over 40 percent of American workers get no paid time off. They cannot use vacation time to address abuse, and missing work puts them in danger of losing their job. My provision would have allowed victims to take unpaid leave to get a protective order, see a doctor, or make a safety plan. But unfortunately, there was opposition and complaints about jurisdiction, and these protections were stripped from the bill during consideration in the Judiciary Committee. Once those protections were dropped, I kept fighting. I offered another tool to help victims escape abusive relationships. I asked the managers of the bill to include a provision on unemployment insurance. I asked them to provide victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking with unemployment insurance if they have to leave their job or are fired because of abuse. We know that a job is often the only way for victims to build up the resources to leave a violent relationship, but abuse and stalking can make it impossible for a victim to keep a job. Many of my colleagues may recall the story of Yvette Cade, of Maryland. As reported in the Washington Post, Ms. Cade's estranged husband showed up at her job at a wireless phone store, threw gasoline on her, and lit her on fire. A restraining order against her estranged husband had been dropped shortly before the incident, even though she had indicated he was still threatening her. Ms. Cade was burned over 60 percent of her body and remains in the hospital. There are many more cases of abusers who deliberately sabotage a victim's ability to work, placing harassing phone calls, cutting off their transportation, and showing up at the workplace and threatening other employees. When a victim loses a job because of violence, that victim should have access to unemployment compensation benefits. Some people might claim that it is too expensive to allow victims to access unpaid leave. But I would remind my colleagues that domestic violence imposes costs on a workplace too. When violence follows victims into the workplace, it doesn't just hurt victims--it hurts their employers. It means less productivity and higher insurance costs. So anyone who says it is too expensive to provide unpaid leave should also remember that domestic violence is expensive to businesses to in both lives and dollars. Providing the tools that will allow abused women to escape abusive relationships can help offset billions of dollars in costs that domestic violence imposes on businesses. Unfortunately, my efforts to include unpaid leave provisions were rejected as well. But I am not giving up. I have been at this since 1998 and I know who I am fighting for. I have been to the shelters in my State, and I have talked with the victims. I have met with their advocates, and I am not giving up on them. I am going to keep pushing for my SAFE Act, which stands for the Security and Financial Empowerment Act. It contains the protections victims need to break the cycle of violence. I thank Senators Leahy, Corzine, Dayton and Dodd for signing on as original cosponsors, and would invite all of my colleagues to sign on as well. I am going to continue to tell their stories because we need to hear their voices here in the Senate. It is easy to argue about jurisdiction, but that doesn't mean anything to someone who is getting beaten up every night. It is easy to argue about the cost of unpaid leave--but that doesn't mean anything to someone who needs to get a protective order so they can escape a violent relationship. This Congress has a lot of work to do to help victims, and I will come to this Senate floor as many times as it takes, until we finally give victims the help they need and deserve.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to implore my colleagues to heed the warning of the FAA Administrator and me. We have to reject this absurd and reckless policy. If we can declare an emergency under the Budget Act and provide the funding necessary to rebuild Iraq without offsets, then surely we can do the same when it comes to rebuilding Mississippi and Louisiana. We certainly should not be cutting essential services to all Americans across the country, especially low-income Americans, for the purpose of funding the needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Those cuts will simply create another wave of victims. As I just outlined, it will put the well being of Americans at risk.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have traveled throughout my home State of Washington throughout the past month. A lot of people have told me time and time again they want our country to be strong again, and to be strong we need to invest right here at home, in our people, in our infrastructure, and in our communities. But today the Republican leadership is trying to push us in the wrong direction by cutting those critical investments. Republicans today are attempting to interpose an across-the-board spending cut that will hurt our families, it will hurt our local communities, and it will even jeopardize the housing and safety of the American people. I am speaking out today to explain how those misguided cuts will affect housing for vulnerable families and the safety of every American who plans to fly this holiday season. I thank Senator Byrd for his tremendous leadership and his speaking out about this misguided Republican plan. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies, I am here today to tell my colleagues that an additional 1-percent to 2-percent cut across the board will not be harmless. It will chip away at the Federal safety net that protects our vulnerable neighbors, and it will undermine the safety of our commercial aviation system. Before I turn to those details, I want to make a broader point about priorities. There is something very wrong with the idea behind these broad, across-the-board cuts. Here is what the leadership in the Republican Party is saying with these cuts: When we need to rebuild in Iraq, we will pay for it out of the Treasury. But when we need to rebuild American cities such as New Orleans and Biloxi, we can only do it on the backs of vulnerable Americans. We can only do it by cutting other priorities at home. That is the wrong message. It is the wrong priority, and America can do better than that. That Republican idea should offend every American taxpayer who believes that the first and greatest responsibility of our Federal Government should be the well-being of our own people. Nonetheless, that is the position of the Republican leadership in this Congress. As a result, we are now being told that, if we want to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, we have to cut every Federal program across the board, no matter how much those cuts will hurt our safety, our economy, or our security. Some Senators may try to suggest that a small cut will not have a big impact. I can tell you, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, that is not the case. Let me talk about some of the specific ways these cuts will undermine American families in areas such as transportation and housing and in aviation. I know those areas well because I have worked on them as the ranking member on the Transportation and Treasury and HUD committee. First of all, these cuts will mean less progress in reducing highway congestion. We will lose more than $720 million in highway construction funds, and with that 34,000 good-paying jobs. Americans will waste more time in traffic, businesses will lose productivity, and our economy will suffer. Second, those proposed Republican cuts will make life harder for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and for the vulnerable families throughout our country. Hurricane Katrina revealed the harsh truth about poverty in America in 2005. Many people lost what little they had. There are still thousands of victims of that hurricane who are without adequate housing. Some of them are living in tents. Some are still in hotels, wondering when they are going to be thrown out. Others are doubled up with their relatives. And still others have been dispersed all across the country, wondering how they are going to pay for housing when they are earning no income. Neither FEMA nor HUD have done an adequate job addressing the critical housing needs of these Americans. So here we are trying to address those needs with a supplemental appropriations bill, and Republican leadership is saying if you want to help these Katrina victims, you have to cut housing assistance for other vulnerable families. I think that is the wrong way, to say the only way we will help the victims of Hurricane Katrina is by taking housing away from other needy families. Those cuts would mean that more than 35,000 families will lose the help in housing that they get today through HUD's tenant-based housing assistance program. Those cuts also threaten to eliminate transitional housing for 1,200 homeless citizens. Think about it. Cutting housing for the homeless, taking help away from 35,000 vulnerable families right before the holidays--that does not reflect my values and that does not reflect my priorities. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, public housing agencies across America opened their doors and sought to make emergency housing available to the citizens who had to evacuate New Orleans. I saw it even in my home State where housing agencies worked hard, thousands of miles away from the gulf coast, to help these families. Most of those housing agencies already had long waiting lists of low- income families waiting for a unit or for a voucher. By accommodating those Hurricane Katrina victims, those housing agencies effectively pushed their own local citizens further down that very long waiting list. We should not now make it worse by eliminating vouchers for 35,000 families in order to pay for the additional aid for the Katrina victims. We must not come to the aid of victims of Hurricane Katrina by creating still other victims around the country through these misguided cuts. These cuts will hurt jobs and transportation. They will hurt the homeless and other families who are living on the brink. And these cuts will affect the safety of our air travel in this country. I addressed the Senate on this issue of aviation safety on October 6, and I did so because I thought it was critical that all Senators understand the relationship between the funding levels we provide to the FAA and the ability of that agency to ensure that the American people are safe when they board an aircraft. The holidays are upon us. Thousands of American families are going to board planes shortly to gather with their families across America. When they do, they have the right to expect that we in Congress are doing everything in our power to ensure that they will continue to benefit from the safest aviation system in the world. Yet the reality is that the FAA is facing an unprecedented budget challenge in adequately staffing its air traffic control facilities with fully trained professionals. And the agency is also challenged when it comes to deploying an adequate number of fully trained aviation safety inspectors to oversee the safety practices of our Nation's airlines. As I explained back on October 6, over the last few years our national aviation enterprise, airlines, airports, and the FAA, have been under an unprecedented amount of financial pressure. We now have no fewer than six airlines in bankruptcy, and that number could grow. In the interest of cutting costs, airlines have been cutting back on staff, renouncing their pension plans, and outsourcing an increased percentage of their aircraft maintenance. I know many Senators like me who travel home every weekend have noticed those changes in the services the airlines offer. Staffing is leaner than ever, and flight delays and mechanical problems are on the rise. Airlines are now contracting out their aircraft maintenance work to third parties, including, my colleagues should know, many overseas vendors who are known as foreign repair stations. Let me say that again. Aircraft maintenance work is being contracted out to overseas vendors who are known as foreign repair stations. In the past, airlines maintained their planes with experienced veteran unionized mechanics. Today, they outsource more than 50 percent of their maintenance work to independent operators. Airlines, such as Northwest, send some of their aircraft as far as Singapore and Hong Kong for heavy maintenance. We have one major carrier, JetBlue, that sends a large portion of its all-airbus fleet to be maintained in El Salvador, Central America. That is where those planes have mechanics that work on them. America West Airlines, now merged with U.S. Airways, does the same thing. This outsourced work needs adequate oversight, and it needs inspection if the American people are going to be safe. How has the FAA responded to this growing threat to aviation safety? Because of across-the-board cuts in the prior appropriations bills, the FAA has actually downsized its safety workforce by more than 300 personnel, including more than 230 inspectors. That is right. We have gotten rid of more than 230 inspectors, the very professionals who are charged with ensuring that maintenance operations are meeting adequate safety standards. That was not the intent of the transportation appropriations subcommittee in either the House or the Senate. Indeed, just last year the Transportation appropriations bill provided every penny the President requested for the FAA's safety office. But the FAA still had to drop the number of inspectors because of the across-the-board cut that was imposed by the Republican leadership. It also resulted from the fact that Congress granted all civilian Federal employees a higher pay raise than the Bush administration asked for, but none of the appropriations subcommittees were given adequate funding allocations to fully fund those pay raises. Now we know the FAA's inspection efforts are falling short. We have troubling reports today from the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, from the Government Accountability Office, and the National Transportation Safety Board. Yet despite all those dangers, the FAA had to go ahead and decrease the number of FAA safety inspectors dramatically last year because of those across-the-board cuts. No one can stand up today and say that an across-the-board cut has no impact. Let us fast-forward to right now, this year. I am very proud to say that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have worked to address this safety vulnerability. Both committees provided increased funds over and above the levels requested by the Bush administration to bring the number of safety inspectors back to reasonable levels. In the fiscal year 2006 Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill that the President signed a few weeks ago, we provided $8 million dollars to boost employment in the FAA safety office by 119 inspectors. That is not going to restore all of the safety inspectors that we lost last year. But it will move staffing in this critical function in the right direction. But if Congress enacts an across-the-board cut, it will completely eliminate all of the progress we just made in ensuring safety in our skies. An across-the-board cut that threatens to be included in the final appropriations bill this year could cut the FAA's operations account by over $160 million and then put the FAA's budgetary situation right back where it was. That will require downsizing of the FAA inspector workforce while the critical workload continues to grow. The situation is almost identical when it comes to the FAA's efforts to avoid the continued attrition in the ranks of our air traffic controllers. It is estimated that 73 percent of the FAA's air traffic controllers will be eligible to retire over the next decade. In the fiscal year 2006 Transportation appropriations bill just signed into law, we provided almost $25 million to hire an additional 1,250 air traffic controllers. That funding is essential in order to replace the over 650 air traffic controllers who are expected to retire over the course of the next year and to build that workforce back up so we can handle retirements in the future. Another across-the-board cut this year will completely nullify our effort to hire an adequate number of air traffic controllers. Such a cut will put America's flying public at great risk. As I said, those across-the-board cuts have a meaningful impact, and they recklessly eliminate initiatives that are critical to the safety of American citizens. If Senators don't want to take my word for it, they need to listen to the word's of George Bush's FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey. I have had several discussions with her about this topic in the last few weeks. She recently sent me a letter. I will read a portion of it. It says: Over the past two years, we experienced a net loss of 1,000 controllers and 231 safety inspectors. I don't believe Congress intended that to happen, but that has been the impact of unfunded pay raises. I am concerned it is going to happen again if Congress adopts an across-the-board reduction in the final bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I received from the Bush administration's FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, to keep America strong, we need to keep our families and communities strong. That is why I am very concerned about the fiscal year 2006 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill. The Senate is scheduled to take up the final conference agreement on this bill, and it is bad news for the American people. This bill is filled with the wrong priorities for our country. If we pass this bill as a result, it will tear apart what is left of America's health care safety net and provide fewer investments in education and workforce training. Instead of investing here at home--in our people, our children, and our communities--this bill will move us in the wrong direction and will undermine America's strength. If we can rebuild schools and hospitals in Iraq out of emergency funding, why can't we provide the resources our own communities need here at home? We know that rebuilding safe and stable communities in Iraq requires investments in education, training, and health care. And the same is true in communities across America. If we want to be strong here at home, we need to invest here at home, but this falls far short of what we need. That is really a disappointment because this bill is the most direct tool we have each year to improve the health and education of the American people. More than any other appropriations bill, the Labor-HHS bill directly impacts almost every family and every community. This is a bill that funds all of the Federal commitment on education. It provides funding for our investment in biomedical research. It funds all of the Older Americans Act programs. And it provides the funding to retrain our workers to succeed in a very competitive global economy. This is an important bill and it should be used to invest in America, but instead--this bill cuts funding by $540 million from last year's level. When we add in the Medicare administrative funds, the total cut soars to $1.4 billion. That means we are moving in the wrong direction--and families are going to feel the impact in health care, education and job training. Let me start with health care. This bill cuts total health care funding by $466 million. It cuts programs that help the uninsured get health care, efforts like community health centers, the maternal child health block grant; health professions training, rural health, and CDC disease prevention programs. This bill also moves us in the wrong direction on disease research. We can all be proud of the National Institutes of Health. It is the leading source of biomedical research into deadly diseases like cancer, MS, Parkinson's, ALS, heart disease, and AIDS. But this bill provides the NIH with the smallest increase since 1970. It would move us backward in our fight against cancer and other terminal illnesses. How can we expect to be able to find vaccines for new global pandemics when we are cutting our investment in critical research? This conference report will also make it harder for uninsured families to see a doctor. Specifically, this bill eliminates the Health Community Access Program, which I have fought to protect for many years now. This is a program that helps our local communities to coordinate care for the uninsured and provide integrated health care services for vulnerable families. I have seen the Community Access Program at work in my home State of Washington, and I know it is making a tremendous difference. These are the very programs we should be investing in today. The HCAP program was authorized with broad bipartisan support in 2002. But this bill would eliminate this successful community-based model for helping the uninsured. Not only is this bill bad news for health care, it also moves us in the wrong direction on education. This bill represents the smallest increase in education in a decade. Today, schools are facing increasing requirements under No Child Left Behind. Today, family are facing rising college tuitions. Today is no time to shortchange education. We know the burdens on our local community are growing. In the coming year, school districts will face higher academic standards, and they will have to meet new requirements for highly qualified teachers. That means they need more help. But the conference reports cuts funding for the No Child Left Behind Act by 3 percent. Funding in the conference report is $13.1 billion below the authorized funding level. This bill also marks the first time in 10 years that the Federal Government will slide backward on its commitment to students with disabilities. The Federal share of special education costs would drop from 18.6 percent in fiscal year 2005 to a flat 18 percent in fiscal year 2006. Every time we cut back our investment in special education, we are putting a higher burden on local school districts, children, and their families. In addition, funding for disavantaged students-through title I--will receive its smallest increase in 8 years. In fact, the funding level in this bill is $9.9 billion less than what Congress and President Bush committed to provide. The bill would leave behind 3.1 million students who could be fully served by title I if the program were funded at the committed level. Many students are feeling the impact of higher tuition. This year, tuition and fees grew by 7.1 percent at 4-year public universities. But the conference report fails to increase the maximum Pell grant award for the fourth year in a row. It also fails to increase funding supplemental educational opportunity grants, the Work-Study Programs, and the LEAP Program, which supports State need-based aid. In addition, the conference report also fails to increase funding for GEAR UP and the TRIO Programs, which help disadvantaged students complete high school ready to enter and succeed in college. This bill also moves us in the wrong direction on helping America's workers. We hear a great deal about economic recovery and building a strong economy. Yet this conference report will cut adult job training by $31 million. It will cut youth training by $36 million. These programs serve over 420,000 people nationwide. How can we hope to strengthen our economy and help those who lost manufacturing jobs if we are reducing our investment in job training? All of the tools we need to build a strong economy--and a strong America--are on the chopping block in the Conference Reports. Worst of all, this is not the end. We know that there will likely be an across-the-board cut in all discretionary programs, including those funded in the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill. That means even more families will lose access to affordable health care, more children and schools will go without the resources they need to meet the Federal mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, and more workers will see the American dream slip away when their plant closes. This is not the right message to send to our families and communities. Let's show them that we want to make America strong again and that we are willing to invest here at home. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and force the Republican leadership to invest in making America stronger.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the tax reconciliation bill before the Senate today. Today, Americans are saddled with more than $8 trillion in national debt, an obligation being passed on to our children and grandchildren. And our Nation's expenditures--because of the War in Iraq, the global war on terrorism, Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters, and countless other challenges our Nation is confronting are far outstripping our tax receipts. The current administration has placed passing tax cuts for the few ahead of targeted tax cuts for the middle class and to grow business and has made us less able to address other important priorities, homeland security, paying for the war in Iraq, our nation's infrastructure, health care, and education. I believe we need a tax system that is fiscally responsible, helps business grow, and provides maximum relief to the middle class. That is why I support tax policies that work to achieve those goals, and that is why I voted for the Conrad substitute amendment, which would have fully paid for the cost of targeted middle class tax relief. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about passing a $60 billion tax cut bill at a time when we are cutting Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, and other domestic programs that will spur economic growth and help all Americans. Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate Republican leadership brought a spending cut to the floor to cut $35 billion from areas like healthcare and education. The budget that passed this body contains the wrong priorities. It imposes painful cuts on working families, as I said at the time. Mr. President, too many working families in American don't feel secure. They are worried about high gas prices and how they are going to heat their homes this winter. They are worried about how they will pay for their health insurance and their prescription drugs. And they are worried they won't be able to afford a home or college tuition for their children. Given all this, why would the Congress pull the rug from under these working Americans at exactly the time they need our support? The answer is before us today to make room for more tax cuts. Now, some of the tax cuts contained in the tax reconciliation bill are certainly helpful. The research and development tax credit, the deduction of State and local sales tax, and the deduction for teacher's expenses are all important provisions and should be extended. I have voted for and cosponsored bills that extend or make permanent some of these provisions. In fact, I voted to extend these tax provisions and all those expiring at the end of the year when I voted for the Conrad substitute amendment. That amendment fully paid for the tax cut extensions and the Hurricane tax relief over 10 years and did not cost the Federal Treasury a dime. I oppose cutting critical services to pass unbalanced tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy. The capital gains and dividend tax cut extensions, which primarily benefit those making more than $1 million, are not in the current version of this bill. But I know that when the tax reconciliation bill comes back from conference, it will have those provisions. We all heard Senate Majority Leader Frist when he said, and I quote ``I will not bring a conference report to the Senate floor that does not include this extension.'' So, Mr. President, we have a choice to make: will we invest in priorities like health care, education, transportation and job training that spur economic growth and keep families out of poverty, or will we continue to conduct business as usual and pass tax cuts in a fiscally irresponsible way? Based on the vote 2 weeks ago to cut $35 billion in critical help for Americans in the most need, it appears that the Republican-controlled Congress has chosen the latter. I understand the importance of a responsible Federal budget. Our nation's annual deficit is more than $300 billion. Foreign owned debt has increased by more than 100 percent over the last 5 years, and we will soon be asked to increase the country's debt ceiling by another $781 billion. At a time when we are facing such tremendous spending pressures and an increasing deficit, I think it would be wise to heed the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said during testimony before the Budget Committee last year: ``If you are going to lower taxes, you should not be borrowing essentially the tax cut. That over the long run is not a stable fiscal situation.'' Unfortunately, the tax reconciliation bill before us will increase the deficit and borrow money to do so. The Senate was presented with the option to extend the tax provisions expiring at the end of this year and pass the hurricane tax relief in a fiscally responsible manner. Unfortunately, the sound Democratic alternative we offered failed on a party line vote. Mr. President, these are very challenging times for our country and our people. Working families don't feel secure about their jobs, their health care, their pensions or their future. Many Americans are making tremendous sacrifices by serving in our military. We need to show that we are on their side. We need to help make America strong again. The way to do that is to invest in our people invest in their education, their job training, and their future. The Republican budget does just the opposite it cuts out those critical investments so that they can reduce taxes for a few at the top. Those are the wrong priorities. I believe America can do better, and America deserves better, and therefore I will vote against this misguided budget.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Bond, in supporting the conference report on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary and Independent Agencies Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. This bill is the product of many hours of hard work since the Senate passed the bill on October 20. First, I want to express my sincere gratitude for the cooperative spirit that my colleague, Chairman Bond, along with our House colleagues, Chairman Knollenberg and Congressman Olver, brought to bear during our conference negotiations. I am pleased to say that the conference agreement, like the Senate- passed bill, restores many of the more punitive cuts that were included in the President's budget for transportation, housing and drug law enforcement. We have funded airport grants at $3.55 billion rather than accept the President's proposal to cut this program by half a billion dollars. While the President sought to move the Community Development Block Grant program to another department and cut it by more than a third, this bill restores most, but not all of the annual funding for CDBG. While the President's budget effectively zeroed out Amtrak and proposed to eliminate rail service in our country, this conference agreement provides Amtrak with a $100 million increase and includes many of the reforms that were agreed to and included the bill reported by the Senate committee. This is a good bill that addresses many of the urgent needs facing our country. It includes critical investments in our Nation's transportation infrastructure and provides much needed housing assistance to our most vulnerable.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will not object, but I would amend the unanimous consent request by asking unanimous consent that Senator Collins and I have 40 minutes equally divided after the Senator from Kentucky speaks.