Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there is no doubt the childcare is an issue that is very difficult for many families, and to provide all this support for every family is something that will be extremely difficult. We all acknowledge that. But there is a specific group of families serving us overseas today in Iraq and Afghanistan who are absolutely excluded from any help whatsoever. My amendment assures that they are not excluded.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, as my colleagues know, I have been working for several months on proposals to help ease the burden on Guard and Reserve families who have a loved one serving our country. Today, I am offering an amendment to help families get childcare so a parent can go back to work while their spouse is deployed overseas. This amendment applies to activated only, and it is discretionary. I want to make sure that is clear. I think there was a misunderstanding with regard to that issue. It is for activated soldiers, and it is discretionary. This will help relieve the childcare squeeze that is hurting so many families who are silently sacrificing for all of us. Hopefully, with the success of this amendment, the Senate will then have adopted several proposals to help our Guard and Reserve families get health care through TRICARE, pay for their equipment, help them stay on their payrolls through employer tax credits, and, today, with a critical piece on childcare. Each one of these steps is part of the much larger effort to help ease the burden on families who are trying so hard to make ends meet while their spouse serves our country overseas. Six months ago, on January 9, I sat down with members of the Guard's 81st Armored Brigade and their families at Camp Murray in Fort Lewis, WA, and at that meeting Guard and Reserve members told me about the tremendous challenges their spouse and their children would face once they were deployed. I could see how worried and concerned they were that they would not have time to get their families on sound footing with a job, with childcare, and with health care before they deployed to Iraq. I listened closely to all of their concerns, and I spent several weeks crafting a bill to address a number of those issues. On February 12, I introduced S. 2068, the Guard and Reserve Enhanced Benefit Act. That is a comprehensive bill that will minimize the challenges at home when these brave men and women leave their jobs, leave their schools, and leave their families to protect our homeland and fight terrorism. Since that meeting back in January, many of the Guard and Reserve members with whom I met have now been deployed to Iraq. Currently, more than 5,400 brave Washington National Guard and Reserve soldiers have been activated, including 3,200 members of the 81st Armored Brigade who are serving in Iraq today. They are part of the more than 168,000 Guard and Reserve troops who have been called to active duty from States around the country. Our Washington Guard and Reserve troops are among the more than 22,000 total troops from Washington State who are supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. As I have talked with family members since the deployment, I have learned a lot about the tremendous challenges they are facing. Today, I want to report back to them on the steps we have taken in the Senate to help ease their burden. I am proud that in the past month, the Senate has delivered on three of those challenges I outlined in my bill back in February. The first one we delivered on was health care. My bill proposed providing access to TRICARE for all members of the Guard and Reserve, and their families, regardless of their employment or insurance status. That is an issue that Senators Daschle, Reid, Graham, and others have been working very hard on over the years. I was a cosponsor of that TRICARE amendment. I voted for it on June 2, and I am very pleased that it passed the full Senate. Now we need the House of Representatives to agree that our citizen soldiers and their families deserve health care. Secondly, we made progress on another challenge: the strains facing those who employ Guard and Reserve members. My bill offered tax credits to employers to encourage their support of activated Guard and Reserve. It is something that Senator Kerry and Senator Landrieu have worked on. I was the original cosponsor of an amendment to provide a tax credit to employers who continue to pay active Reserve and Guard employees, and that passed the Senate with my support on May 11. Third, we have provided help for soldiers and families who had to provide equipment because the military did not provide it to them in a timely fashion. Back on October 17, on the Senate floor, I told the story of SPL Ian Willet, who was deployed to Iraq on his 21st birthday last September. His father David wrote to me and told me that Ian and his family will have to buy equipment that the military should have provided. This week in the Senate we did the right thing for soldiers such as SPL Ian Willet and his family. On Monday, I voted for an amendment directing the Secretary of Defense to provide reimbursement to soldiers who face this hardship. I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Dodd amendment that passed this body by an overwhelming margin. Today, the Senate has the opportunity to pass the Murray childcare amendment, and that will be another important and critical step forward for families who are sacrificing for all of us. I have raised these issues time and again on the Senate floor because I believe if the American people are told about the silent sacrifices that so many families are making, they will demand that we do more. President Bush is visiting Fort Lewis in my State tomorrow, and I hope during his visit he shines a bright light on the sacrifices that families are making while their loved ones serve our country overseas. I think it is critical that he hears directly from these families, as I have, about the burdens our Guard and Reserve are facing today. It is important that he support the steps we have taken in the Senate to help those families with health care, payroll, equipment, and, today, childcare. I hope the President will make it clear to those in the House of Representatives that the support we provided in the Senate cannot be removed from the Defense bill in the dark of night. One critical support we need to take care of is this amendment on childcare that I am offering today. I offer this amendment in honor of all the Guard and Reserve troops who are sacrificing for us overseas, and I offer this amendment in honor of their spouses and their children who are sacrificing so much for us at home. Let me explain why childcare is such a challenge for many of our military families. Often when a member of the Guard or Reserve is deployed overseas, the remaining spouse has to go to work to support the family and to make up for the income their spouse has given up because of their military service. Unfortunately today, as we all know, high-quality childcare is very expensive and often out of reach of a single parent. In addition, many Guard and Reserve families do not live anywhere near a military installation, so they cannot use the services that are available. I will tell my colleagues about a Washington wife and a mother whose life was turned upside down when her husband was called to active duty. Danielle and Jack Lucas have three children. They worked opposite shifts to avoid the cost of daycare. In February, Jack was told to report to the 81st Armored Brigade at Fort Lewis. Danielle scrambled to figure out how to keep her job and care for her children, including a newborn. Unfortunately, as so many of us find, the cost of daycare was prohibitive and she was forced to quit her job, after 10 years of work, when her husband was deployed. Jack's monthly military pay was $1,000 less than his civilian job. So when it became impossible to make ends meet, Danielle moved to another part of my State where rent was less expensive. She has now gone back to work, but the cost of daycare is still not affordable. She juggles today with help from her family and her friends to watch her three children, and she often has as many as three different people watching her children in one 8-hour period. While SPL Jack Lucas is taking the same risks as all Active-Duty soldiers in Iraq, his family has faced emotional and financial turmoil that will be alleviated with the Murray amendment. We cannot continue to ignore the needs of our Guard and Reserve families. Unfortunately, Danielle's situation is not an isolated case. When MAJ Jake Callahan was called back to duty, his wife Kathleen and two small children were suddenly faced with a childcare dilemma. Kathleen's job requires her to travel and attend work events on weekends and evenings, but her son has special needs, and the cost of childcare is financially out of the question. Kathleen struggles with the stress of abandoning her career now or continuing to rely heavily on her family for childcare. Kathleen is not alone. Lisa Palmer made the difficult decision to quit her job as a registered nurse when her husband was deployed to Iraq with the 81st Armored Brigade. After her husband was deployed, her two sons began experiencing severe emotional problems due to their father's departure. Lisa believed it was important for one parent to be at home to help her sons through these challenges. Her son's depression, his nightmares, his overwhelming sadness require constant assurance and support by her. Lisa has now started to work part time at the hospital to help lessen the tremendous financial strain of their greatly reduced family income. However, like Danielle and Kathleen, Lisa is only able to do so by leaning heavily on her family and friends to provide childcare. All three of these women tell me they honestly do not know how they are going to make it through until their husbands return home. The current support system for our deployed and activated Guard and Reserve families is broken. We need a fix to keep our families strong while their spouses serve our Nation. Unless we soften the tremendous burdens they face, we may have trouble retaining the soldiers we have and recruiting the new soldiers we need. This amendment is about easing the burden on those who serve us today, recognizing that we ask more of them so we need to provide them with more support, ensuring that we can recruit and retain our Guard and Reserve members for our future security. I have heard some of my colleagues argue that some of these Guard and Reserve proposals are too expensive. We may hear that claim again today. But I think we need to look at the costs of abandoning these families who are serving. We need to look at how much pain it causes them. I have talked with these families. They are trying to serve our country honorably, but they cannot do it when they are so worried about how they are going to keep their children safe and secure while they work to keep their families financially capable. We need to look at how this issue threatens our ability to recruit and retain the voluntary military we need to protect us. We are spending $5 billion a month on the war in Iraq, and virtually all of this spending goes right to the deficit that our grandchildren are going to inherit. Supporting our Guard and Reserve families is not cheap but we need to do it if we still want to have a Guard and Reserve system after all of these long, extended deployments. These families are part of our war effort. They are part of the war on terrorism. They are part of the war in Iraq. They are part of our homeland security efforts. All of our military families are sacrificing today. Our Guard and Reserve troops are doing the right thing. They are meeting their obligations. They are protecting our people and they are serving our country with honor. We have to acknowledge that our unprecedented deployment of Guard and Reserve Forces is creating tremendous new hardships that we have not had to deal with before. The amendment before the Senate now gives us the opportunity to do the right thing for these families and for the loved ones who are serving. We are asking so much of our Guard and Reserve members and their families. We have an obligation to make it easier for their spouses and their children during these long deployments. The Murray childcare amendment and the other steps we have taken tell our Guard and Reserve soldiers that they can serve our country overseas, even on long deployments, and know their families will be financially secure and they will be able to get childcare and health care. So my message to our Guard and Reserve families is: We gave you access to health care through TRICARE. We made sure you were reimbursed if you had to buy protective equipment. We made sure employers can continue to keep your loved ones on the payroll by providing employer tax credits. Today, this body will assure you that you have an ease of mind when it comes to your children that you left behind, that they have the childcare that is so critical to the well-being of your family. We made progress. We have much more to do. We need to keep the pressure on to make sure when we get to conference behind closed doors these measures are not lost. There are several other elements of my original comprehensive bill that have not been addressed yet, but today I think it is extremely important that we adopt this amendment. The DOD is supportive of this amendment. It is for our activated soldiers. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment today. I hope we can do it efficiently and quickly because I think we will send a strong message to those who are serving us so honorably overseas today.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this would allow the DOD Secretary of Defense to promulgate the process for the families to go through. It would be discretionary for him.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cantwell amendment. I thank my colleague from Washington State for her tireless effort on this issue and her commitment to assuring the Federal Government meets its responsibility to the people of our State by fully cleaning up the Hanford site. Today, on the Senate floor, there is an unprecedented attack on my State's ability to ensure that we clean up the nuclear waste that threatens the families I represent. I am here to fight it. I am here to send a clear message to the administration: You should be back at the table working with all the States and all of Congress instead of trying to get the Senate to bail you out of a court case that you lost. The handwriting is on the wall. The White House wants Washington families to accept a lower cleanup standard. They are holding our funding hostage. They are fighting us in court. They are pushing misguided legislation right here on the Senate floor. If the White House wins this attempt to leave more nuclear waste untreated, then Washington State families will lose. That is why I am on the Senate floor with my colleague from the State, Senator Cantwell, fighting the bill's nuclear waste provisions and standing up for my State. I know my colleague from Washington agrees that the fastest, most effective way to clean up America's contaminated nuclear sites is for the DOE to work as a partner with the States. But sadly, we are here today seeing a new attempt by the White House to overreach its authority, to circumvent a court case it lost and blackmail my State into accepting a lower cleanup standard. That threatens the families I represent, and I am not going to stand for it. What is at stake is the cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation in the tri-cities in Washington where we developed the plutonium that helped our country win World War II and the cold war. My grandfather settled in the tri-cities in 1916. My dad grew up there. My dad saw how much those communities sacrificed to help our Nation have a strong military. Our country has an obligation to make those communities whole, not leave them with high nuclear waste that has leaked from underground tanks. Any time someone has threatened our cleanup efforts, I have taken them on, and it doesn't matter if they are Democrats or Republicans. In the 1990s, when the Clinton administration proposed inadequate budgets for the Hanford cleanup, I took them on, and I used my position in committee and on the Senate floor to get my State the funding we needed. Every time the Bush administration has tried to cut Hanford funding, it had a fight on its hands from this Senator. It is one of the reasons I joined with my colleagues in 2001 to create the Senate Nuclear Cleanup Caucus so that all communities across the country that are dealing with nuclear waste will have a strong bipartisan voice in the Senate. Time and again I have taken on this White House when it tried to hurt the families I represent, and I have the scars to prove it. In fiscal year 2002, the Bush administration tried to cut Hanford funding by $57 million. I worked in committee and on the floor to deliver $145 million more for Hanford than the President's budget. Then in fiscal year 2003, the Bush administration tried to cut Hanford funding by $300 million. They also tried to hold our cleanup dollars hostage unless we would jump through the hoops they set out for us. With my support, the Senate rejected the White House's misguided attempts. And through my work on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, instead of a $300 million cut, we added $433 million to the President's budget for Hanford. Time and again I have used my position on the Budget Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee to protect my State, and I have gone toe to toe with this administration over nuclear cleanup. In February of 2002, I sharply questioned the President's budget director on their plans to shortchange Hanford. In April of 2002, I chaired a hearing of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee to review the Bush administration's work at Hanford and other sites. So don't think for a minute that we in Washington State are going to accept these attacks on our ability to get a fast and thorough cleanup of the nuclear waste that is at Hanford. For more than a year, the Department of Energy has been trying to change the ground rules so it can leave more waste untreated, declare victory, and walk away from our Nation's most contaminated nuclear sites. They tried to do it in the courts, and they lost. Today they are trying to do it on the floor of the Senate. As my colleagues know, I have been raising warning flags about this effort by the administration for many months. I warned about it in August of last year. In September, upon passage of the energy and water bill, I once again raised concerns about this matter. But this attempt is part of a much longer and disturbing effort. I want to take a few minutes to review the history because it shows an administration that is venturing far outside the standard practice in ways that threaten my State and many others. Let me first offer some background on the Department of Defense bill that is before the Senate. The underlying bill contains two provisions dealing with high-level nuclear waste and the Department of Energy's authority for cleaning up nuclear waste sites in our country. One provision seeks to withhold funding from States that don't agree to give up their regulatory oversight of certain high-level waste. The second provision deals directly with the cleanup of the Savannah River site in South Carolina. But in reality, it has serious implications for every nuclear waste site in the country. The Department of Energy is making a great deal of noise about a court case it lost. The DOE is claiming it cannot proceed with cleanup sites in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington State until legislation is passed that essentially overturns that court's decision. I believe it is important to look at how we came to this position today, because it clearly illustrates how DOE has refused good-faith offers to resolve this issue between the original litigants, six States, and the Department. So let me give you all a short history of how the issue developed. In 1999, the Department of Energy issued regulations giving itself broad authority to reclassify nuclear waste. Essentially, the Department wanted to make unilateral decisions about what it needed to treat and remove from leaking underground storage tanks and what waste it could leave in the ground forever. This would be a dramatic departure from our current system where DOE must work with State and Federal regulators on such matters. To prevent that type of game playing, the Natural Resources Defense Council brought a lawsuit against the Department of Energy in Idaho district court. Before that case went to trial, the NRDC and the States offered to settle the issue. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy did not appear to take that effort seriously, and they rejected that cooperative approach. This is an important point. When the NRDC and the States offered to work out these issues outside of the court system, DOE rejected their offer. So the case went forward and DOE lost. They lost in July of 2003. One would expect at this point that DOE would go back to the plaintiff and the States to settle the issues. But that is not what happened. Instead, the Department appealed to the ninth circuit and immediately came running here to Congress asking for legislation to do what the Idaho court had rejected. Shortly after that decision, the Idaho district court sent out an order asking parties to consider mediation. The NRDC and the States quickly agreed to the court's request. Amazingly, DOE rejected the court's request. I believe this is an absolutely critical point because it demonstrates the Department has never approached this issue with a mindset open to considering the States' concerns or those of the winning plaintiff. This is the second time DOE rejected offers by other interested parties to cooperatively address this issue. This was a tremendous opportunity to try and reach broad consensus, and DOE passed it up. The court's mediation offer would have had a neutral court- appointed mediator and a very good forum for resolving differences. In fact, this could still happen, and it should. My point in walking through the history of the issue is to highlight the fact that the Department of Energy has had many opportunities to resolve this issue with the States and with the original litigants. It rejected State offers to resolve issues before litigation went forward. And more amazingly, it rejected the Idaho district court's request for parties to use mediation after it lost the case. The States and litigants accepted the court's offer. DOE rejected it, and that is inexcusable. Bluntly, to me, it appears that DOE has allowed this issue to be taken over by its legal people. Recently environmental management Assistant Secretary Jesse Roberson testified to us that DOE and Washington State have agreed upon a plan for cleaning up the tanks, and that is largely correct. My State is very eager to work through this and for this work to proceed. The fact is DOE seems to be the only one that feels new legislation is needed. It is not. The original litigants and States want to proceed with cleanup and don't believe the Idaho district court ruling presents any obstacles. Unfortunately, this tactic of fighting the states and trying to do an ``end run'' around the other partners in the cleanup is not new for this administration. The truth is that the fastest, most effective way to clean up these sites is for the DOE to work in partnership with the states and Federal regulators. Time and time again, however, this administration has tried to go it alone to the detriment of the residents who live near these contaminated sites. The Department of Energy needs to get back to working in partnership with the states and federal regulators. A unilateral approach will simply cost more money and will only create further delays. Governor Kempthorn of Idaho and Governor Locke of Washington are both opposed to the legislative language currently in the underlying bill. In fact, I have a letter last month from Governor Locke of Washington state outlining his concerns. For years, Senators and Congressmen with these waste sites located in their states and districts have had to fight tooth and nail to get adequate funding to ensure cleanup of these sites. Further, as a group we have had to fight back simplistic notions of erecting fences and calling the sites clean and safe. This constant struggle on behalf of our States and districts brought together bi- partisan groups of Members in both the House and Senate to fight on these issues. The House and Senate Nuclear Waste Cleanup caucuses have made a tremendous difference in how the administration and our fellow congressional members view the cleanup program. I believe the strength of these caucuses have been our unity and commitment to protect our state and citizens interests in cleanup. We have worked together to make sure the federal government lives up to its responsibility to clean up these sites. But the language in this bill is a license for the federal government to walk away from those very responsibilities. Leaving more waste permanently in the ground is not a real cleanup. What should be of equal concern to every member of this body is the attempt to make such a dramatic legislative end run around the Nuclear Waste Policy Act without any hearing. This is a real, substantive weakening of a carefully crafted law. Yet, we are weakening it without any broad consensus in this body, any hearing before a Senate committee, or any mark-up before the committee of jurisdiction--the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I propose to my colleagues that we--remove the offensive language in the underlying bill, allow cleanup to proceed at all three sites, and then set about carefully considering any new legislation. We need more time to address this issue in a more thoughtful manner. There is plenty of time for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold a hearing on this issue and move consensus legislation if necessary. We should not give in to DOE's efforts to leverage out of Congress bad policy that gives away the legal protections our states and citizens have currently. The blatant attempt by DOE to withhold funding and stop work should not be accepted by this Congress. Six States have filed an amicus brief opposing DOE's efforts. The Governors of Idaho and Washington object to DOE's efforts. The House has not accepted DOE's language. I urge my colleagues to support our States and citizens, uphold the Federal Government's responsibility to full and real cleanup, and not reward DOE's unilateral approach to cleanup. This isn't just about court orders and bureaucratic agreements. This is an obligation that we have to communities in my state that produced the plutonium that helped our country win World War II and the cold war. And there is no way that I am going to let the Bush administration or the Department of Energy or Senators from other States do things that threaten the families I represent. I have got a message for anyone who tries to threaten my State and force us to accept a lower standard for cleanup. Don't you dare try to tie our hands as we work to protect our communities. The only way we are going to clean it up--quickly and thoroughly is through a real partnership with all of the players. I urge the Department of Energy to get back to its job of cleaning up the waste, rather than wasting valuable time seeking help from Congress over a court case that it lost. I urge my colleagues to reject the administration's approach and support this amendment. Don't tie the hands of communities who are working hard to clean up nuclear waste. Don't reward the Department of Energy's heavy-handed tactics. Don't leave the families I represent with untreated waste that threatens their health and safety. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for her excellent statement. I rise today to talk about the state of education in America today, and I want to pose a simple question, as my colleague from Michigan did: Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? Let us look at the facts. Four years ago, we were making record investments in education. We were giving students, parents, and teachers the tools they needed to succeed. We focused on results and we got them. We focused on our classrooms and improved them. We focused on our students and we helped them on a path to lifetime learning. Today, we find ourselves in very different circumstances. Today, the focus is on process, not on results. Today, the focus is on centralizing authority instead of the classroom. Instead of focusing on our students, the current administration is simply passing the buck. During the Clinton administration, we focused on improving the economy and giving every American the tools they needed to succeed. We recorded the longest uninterrupted growth period in our Nation's history, and we helped the American people by getting the education, training, skills, and experience they needed to compete in a global economy. We created 26 million American jobs. Today, it is a very different story. We are facing dismal budgets, unfunded mandates for our schools, and constant attacks on the programs that disadvantaged families rely on. Instead of helping students, the administration has broken promises and failed to pay the Federal share for education. Let us start by looking at how this administration has underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We have seen programs that help students turn into unfunded mandates that burden our States. Over the past 4 years, States spent $72 billion to cover the unfunded mandates in IDEA and No Child Left Behind. In my home State of Washington, IDEA is underfunded by $746 million. No Child Left Behind is underfunded by $408 million. That makes a difference in every classroom and in every child's life. Two years ago, when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, I voted for it. Most of us in Congress agreed that accountability is important and that we need to make sure our kids are learning the things they need to succeed, like reading, math, writing, and science. But the No Child Left Behind Act said in exchange for that new accountability, schools would get the funding they needed. Today the accountability has been imposed but the funding has not. In fact, Federal funding for the No Child Left Behind Act has fallen $32 billion below the authorized levels since this act was signed into law. I have visited schools in every corner of Washington State and I know firsthand that educators are working harder than ever to help their students meet these new accountability requirements. But today, as we all know, our State and local budgets are stretched so thin our local communities cannot afford to make up the differences between what our schools were promised and what this administration's budget proposal actually provides. This year, the President's budget fell $9.4 billion short of fully funding this law. President Bush has proposed the smallest increase for education funding in 9 years and he even proposed eliminating commonsense initiatives like dropout prevention. In Washington State alone, the difference between the President's request and the promise of No Child Left Behind means nearly 28,000 low-income students will be left behind. That number skyrockets to 4.6 million nationwide. We can do better. That is why in fact I offered an amendment to the Senate budget resolution to fully fund that act. Regrettably my amendment failed on party-line votes. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress and the administration sidestepped the issues affecting our high schools. Our national high school graduation rate is an abysmal 69 percent. That number is even worse for students of color. Do you know roughly half of our minority students are graduating from high school? That means nearly half are dropping out. We need to keep better track of how minority students are doing by tracking dropout rates carefully. But today this Department of Education is not requiring disaggregation of data on dropouts. That would make it much harder for us to help vulnerable students or even to discover which students need help. With the right policies we can reduce the dropout rate. In fact, that is why last summer I introduced S. 1554, the Pathways for All Students to Succeed, or the PASS Act. This bill will reduce dropouts and help us close that achievement gap. My bill, the PASS Act, does three things. First of all, it will help students to learn to read and write by providing $1 billion to help our schools hire literacy coaches. Second, my bill ensures our students are taking the classes and getting the support they need to finish high school, and it provides $2 billion for academic and career counselors to ensure all of our students have a personalized plan for completing high school and then going on to college. Finally, my bill provides extra help to schools that need it the most by providing $500 million in grants to help improve our low-performing schools. I hope the Senate will pass the bill this year. These are critical steps we could be taking if this Congress were to finally focus on improving the lives of our students. Let me turn to the Federal role in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Nearly 30 years ago, the Federal Government made a commitment of equal opportunity to our Nation's children with disabilities. With that commitment, again we gave the promise the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the average per-student cost for every special education student. Today, however, the Federal Government is paying less than 19 percent of the costs. Over the past 4 years of fiscal crisis, Federal funding has fallen $40 billion short of that 40-percent promise. This hole in special education funding not only hurts our disabled students, it also hurts all of their classmates because in order to make up for Federal funding shortfalls, many districts have been forced to take money from their general education budgets and that affects all students. Over the past couple of years, IDEA has received increases in Federal funding levels. However, according to the Congressional Research Service, at increases of $1 billion each year the Federal Government will never fulfill the promise of funding at 40 percent. And even if increases were $1 billion plus inflation, we would not reach the promised level of 40 percent until 2035. That is another 30 years from now. Last week the Senate passed a reauthorized version of IDEA. Yet, despite clear support, the Senate did not pass an amendment by Senators Hagel and Harkin to fully fund IDEA through mandatory funding. Education must be a priority for our country if we want a stable economy and a brighter future. We need to focus not only on funding Federal mandates but on access to quality early childhood education and postsecondary education. This year, Congress is working on reauthorizing the Head Start law. I can tell you as a former preschool teacher, I know firsthand how these critical first early years are for our children's future learning, yet this year the President's budget barely allows Head Start to keep up with inflation. That amount is not nearly enough, especially in a year where we are examining new requirements for this program. Without a substantial increase in funding, these programs will have to shut the door to needy at-risk children who will then fall further behind before they even reach kindergarten. What troubles me more is this President's clear intention is to end this critical program. We all know proposals to block grant programs will eventually lead to decreased funding for the program. Block granting Head Start is not only supported and pushed by the President but also by the House of Representatives. I know I will continue fighting to protect this very critical Head Start Program that has made such a huge difference in the lives of millions of low-income children. Public education is the bedrock of our democracy. It helps create good, active citizens and it gives our families the tools they need to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. It also ensures each generation of Americans will have more opportunities than their parents and their grandparents did. There is so much at stake in making sure we are moving education forward for all of America's students. I turn back to the question I posed at the start of my remarks. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? Sadly, the answer is no. Our students deserve better. Our country deserves better. I am going to keep fighting here in the Senate to ensure that all of America's children get a good education. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today marks the anniversary of one of the most important milestones in American history. Fifty years ago today, on May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Brown v. Board of Education that separate was not equal in our schools. This landmark ruling established the principle of equality in our laws and launched a national wave of racial integration and progress toward racial equality. We are all familiar with the laws that have been erased from the books, mandating separate and inferior facilities, services and treatment for African Americans. Americans can be proud that we have made progress against the evils of segregation. Today African Americans can live in any neighborhood they want, send their children to integrated schools, eat, drink, read, sleep, travel and enjoy recreation and entertainment in all the places every other American can. These changes mark major progress, but the road to equality has never been quick or easy. James McClinton, the new African American mayor of Topeka, KS where the Brown case originated, was quoted recently in the Washington Post noting that the legacy of the decision is both fragile and incomplete. Just a year after the Brown decision, the Supreme Court issued another case known as Brown II, which led many school districts to drag their feet for years before integrating. We all remember when President Eisenhower had to send the military to Central High School to protect its first African American students, and the sacrifices African American students made to attend formerly all-white colleges and universities. The truth is, we still have a long way to go. Today is a day to celebrate the progress we have made, and the breakthrough Brown v. Board represented for racial and educational equality in America. But we cannot afford to just rest on our accomplishments since 1954. We must also look forward to 2054, and ask ourselves what opportunities we want our children and grandchildren to have then, and what they need us to do now to achieve those goals. In 2004, African American students--as well as their counterparts in the Hispanic and Native American communities--are not performing as well as white students in our schools. I want to cite some statistics to paint a clear picture of what is going on in our schools. We first must wake up to the established, continuing and disturbing trend of resegregation. Studies have found that our schools have reached their peak of integration and now may be moving back to becoming resegregated. As we commemorate the Brown decision, we cannot afford to ignore this continued segregation. The National Assessment of Educational Progress found that while 74 percent of white fourth-grade students were good readers, barely half that many--39 percent of black fourth-graders earned the same designation. We have school buildings in disrepair and overcrowded classrooms, which not only makes teaching difficult, but sends minority and low-income students a powerful message that we do not value them or their education. Minority students are also much more likely to be in special or remedial education. In 1994, 31 percent of African American, 24 percent of Hispanic and 35 percent of Native American high school graduates took remedial classes, while only 15 percent of white and Asian American high school graduates did. Minority students make up 40 percent of our school-age population but just 14 percent of their teachers are minorities. According to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, white students are significantly more likely to have access to advanced academic programs than minority children and children with disabilities in the same school district, regardless of how wealthy or poor the district is. Our national high school graduation rate is an inadequate 69 percent, but when you dig deeper you learn that we are graduating barely half our minority students in this country--just 53 percent of Hispanic students, 51 percent of Native American students, and 50 percent of African American students. It should surprise no one that if minority students don't perform well in high school, they will perform less well in college. As of 1999, white students were literally twice as likely as Hispanic and African American students to earn a Bachelor's degree. Both minority groups are underrepresented on America's college campuses. Not only is there a racial achievement gap, but that gap has actually widened in the last generation. In the 28 years from 1971 to 1999, the proportion of white high school students who earned at least a Bachelor's degree increased 13 points, to 36 percent. The proportion for African American students increased 5 points to 17 percent, and the share of Hispanic students rose 4 points to 14 percent. Imagine the larger social and economic consequences of these populations not going to or graduating from college, especially when our racial diversity is growing rapidly. We all know that you will earn a lot more money if you have a Bachelor's degree, and that American economic competitiveness in a globalizing economy depends on high-skill, high-wage jobs. We need to keep up our efforts to make sure that the color of someone's skin does not determine their opportunity to succeed. If we are to ensure that children of color have an equal opportunity to go to college, get their degree and achieve the American dream, we must address the academic deficiencies in our high schools. Roughly half our minority students are graduating from high school, which means that nearly half are also dropping out. The No Child Left Behind Act, which I supported, requires for the first time that much of the academic achievement data we collect on our schools be separated, disaggregated, by race, students with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and students from low-income families. This step forward is critical to track achievement gaps and their trends over time. Disaggregated data is an important tool we need to target assistance and resources to reduce and eliminate racial achievement gaps. Yet currently the Department of Education is not requiring disaggregation of data on dropouts. This information is critical if we really want to reduce dropout rates and improve graduation rates for all students. I strongly urge Secretary Paige and the Department of Education to report disaggregation of dropout data. We also know from numerous studies that the gaps between test scores of low-income and middle-income students could be eliminated if all students had highly qualified teachers. If fully funded, the No Child Left Behind Act would put highly qualified teachers in all our classrooms, but, unfortunately, an amendment I offered on the budget resolution earlier this year to fully fund the Act, failed on a party- line vote. But even when No Child Left Behind is fully funded, as I hope it is next year, our work will still not be done with regards to our high schools. That is why last summer I introduced S.1554, the Pathways for All Students to Succeed--PASS, Act. The PASS Act seeks to eliminate dropout, achievement and graduation gaps among our high school students. The PASS Act does three things. First, it will help students learn to read and write by providing $1 billion to help schools hire literacy coaches. Second, my bill ensures students are taking the classes and getting the support they need to finish school. It provides $2 billion for academic and career counselors to ensure students have a personalized plan for completing high school and going on to college. Finally, my bill provides extra help to schools that need it most. It provides $500 million in grants to help improve low-performing schools improve. I hope that the Senate will pass this bill this year. The Brown v. Board decision was a momentous achievement for our Nation, and I am honored to mark its 50th anniversary today. At the same time, we must take the momentum of this celebration to fulfill the promise of Brown by ensuring that all our children have access to the highest quality education worthy of our great Nation.

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.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer a bipartisan amendment with Senators DeWine and Feingold to ensure that our country's most vulnerable disabled students can reach their full potential. Today the Senate is discussing the IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. It is a bill that is based on the American principle of equal opportunity. IDEA recognizes that students have a civil right to a free, appropriate public education even if they have special needs that require additional resources. We still have a long way to go to meet the Federal Government's promise to fund 40 percent of special education, and we are working on that challenge. In the meantime, we need to address the unique needs facing three groups of disabled students, and I am honored to join with Senators DeWine and Feingold in offering this bipartisan amendment. Our amendment makes small but very important changes to IDEA to ensure that disabled students who are homeless or who live in foster homes or who have their education disrupted because of their family's military service get the help they need. I thank the following organizations for their help and support of this amendment: The National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, the Military Family Education Coalition, STOMP, the Specialized Training of Military Parents, the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, Children's Defense Fund, the National Education Association, the National PTA, the National Court Appointed Special Advocates Association, the Council for Exceptional Children, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Education Task Force. The consortium represents more than 70 national disability organizations, including the American Occupational Authority Association, the ARC, United Cerebral Palsy Association, Easter Seals, the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education and Teacher Education Division, and the Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder Association. All of those organizations understand the challenges facing our most vulnerable children, and all of them support this bipartisan amendment. Congress has a long and proud tradition of supporting and protecting educational opportunities for our most vulnerable young people. It is what we did when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. It is what we did when we created Head Start. And it is what we did when we started giving out Pell grants. It is time for us to step up once again and make the changes needed to make IDEA work for homeless and foster children with disabilities and children with disabilities in military families. I take just a minute to describe the special challenges facing these children and how our amendment will help them. Let me start with foster children. Today in America there are nearly 500,000 children in foster care. Thirty percent of them are in special education. We know foster children often do not function as well in school because of their experiences. Foster children have usually been separated from their biological families because of child abuse or neglect. That can leave both emotional and physical marks for life. Given the shortage of foster parents in our country, children in foster care are often shuttled between many different homes and schools. One young man shared with me his story of living in more than 100 homes throughout his childhood. Often, every new home means enrolling in a new school. And every new school means starting over again and getting the support and services they need. In addition to frequent absences and transfers, foster children often do not have parents to advocate for their educational needs. Almost every parent whose child has a disability will tell you that their role as advocate for their child directly impacts the quality of the education their child receives. Without a parent to advocate for them, foster children can languish for years with unrecognized disabilities or insufficient services to help them succeed in school. These experiences can leave children in foster care without the education and support to lead functional, productive lives. I will share the true story of two foster children in New York City who need the help this amendment provides. Eric and his sister Joanna have been in foster care for 6 years. They have been in four different foster homes and each home was in a different borough. Each time they moved to a new home they were taken out of school in the middle of the school year. Frequently, they were not reenrolled in their new schools for weeks or months, and their records were not transferred from school to school. Both Eric and Joanna have learning disabilities. Each time they arrived in a new school, the teachers did not know they needed special education services. So over the years, Eric and Joanna missed months of school and have only occasionally received needed services. Upon their last move to a foster home in Queens, Eric's new high school refused to enroll him because he was 16 and he had no credits. The Advocates for Children assisted Eric and Joanna's case worker in enrolling both students in school after they had been out of school for 3 months. Their advocates also secured records from 2 years ago that show that Eric had obtained 10 credits and passed a regent's exam. Because their records were never transferred, Eric had been placed in the ninth grade for the third time. Eric's current guidance counselor was informed at school and Eric's records are being transferred. Our amendment helps disabled foster children such as Eric and Joanna by ensuring that their records follow them from school to school quickly and that they have an advocate who is on their side in developing an education plan. Let me turn to another group of students our amendment will help. Homeless children in our country also face significant hurdles to succeed in school, and these hurdles are higher for homeless children who have disabilities. The Urban Institute estimates that 1.35 million children experience homelessness each year. A high proportion of homeless children with disabilities also need special education services. Yet many have trouble getting the help they need. Children experiencing homelessness are diagnosed with learning disabilities at twice the rate of other children. They suffer from emotional or behavioral problems that interfere with learning at almost three times the rate of other children. These mental and emotional difficulties often begin at birth as infants who are homeless have higher rates of low birthweight and need special care immediately after birth, four times as often as other children. Like other children and youth surviving in extreme poverty, homeless children and youth face appalling living conditions. Many of these horrific conditions directly contribute to physical, mental, and emotional disabilities. For example, students experiencing homelessness often suffer from poor nutrition, inadequate health care, higher rates of other health problems, and severe emotional stress related to conditions of extreme poverty and instability. Unfortunately, even though homeless children suffer from disabilities at a disproportionate rate, children who are homeless are underserved by special education programs. A recent study of children in homeless shelters in Los Angeles found that while 45 percent of the children met the criteria for special education evaluation, only 22 percent had ever received special education testing or placement. In 2000, 50 percent of States reporting data to the U.S. Department of Education reported that students in homeless situations had difficulties accessing special education programs. Children who experience homelessness desperately need stability in their lives. But they cannot stay in the same school or even the same district long enough for the individualized education plan to be developed and implemented. In addition, like foster children, some homeless youth have no legal guardian to watch out for their educational needs and to advocate for their special interests or their best interests. I share the story of a young girl in Virginia our amendment would help. She is a 13-year-old girl. Her mother fled domestic violence. Over the course of 2 years they moved to temporary living situations in several school districts. The girl suffered extreme trauma and was hospitalized on two occasions. The hospital evaluations clearly show that she qualified for special education, and her mother had requested special education services from several school districts. However, because they moved around, no school ever completed the evaluation process. Each successive school started the process from the very beginning. Even when the girl attended a single school for several months, the school did not complete the evaluation process. Instead, it chose to wait it out until the family moved again. Finally, the girl's mother found a special education attorney to take on her case. Our amendment would help students like her by ensuring that homeless students have continuous educational services no matter how many times they are forced to move. Finally, I turn to a third group of disabled students whose special circumstances are often overlooked. Children in military families often experience disruptions in their education because they move frequently. According to the Military Child Education Coalition, 13 percent of children in military families receive special education services or other special support. Further, children in military families move an average of every 2 to 3 years. That translates into attending six to nine schools from kindergarten until high school graduation. Children with disabilities in these highly mobile families need consistent services so they do not fall further behind each time they move. Especially in times of war, and when parents are serving our country on extended tours of duty, children in military families need support and stability in their lives and in their education. I would like to share some of the words I received from military families across the country who support my amendment. I received a letter from Natalie Cyphers of McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. Natalie writes: Thank you for your consideration of military families with special needs children. My husband is active duty Air Force and we have a 14-year-old with mild cognitive deficiency. I find one of the hardest parts of our son's education occurs every time we move. It is difficult to implement the current IEP and often the educators do not realize the importance of continuity for our children. Any assistance in these situations would be helpful to all of us. That is from Natalie Cyphers at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. I also received a letter from Kristina Rice of Boise, ID. Kristina is a parent of a disabled child and a case manager for children with disabilities. She wrote: The members of highly-mobile military families who suffer most educationally are children with disabilities as transitions are more difficult, and levels of service vary greatly from state to state. Evaluation processes are cumbersome, expensive and time- consuming, and the children being served do not have the time to wait while new teachers and service providers try to re- create a picture of their needs and re-determine eligibility. Once several months have gone by without adequate services, a child may regress so far that he or she can lose a whole school year. [The] suggestions in this amendment are practical, fair, and necessary. Military families already sacrifice enough to serve our country. They do not need the added burden of delayed services for their children. That is from Kristina Rice, of Boise, ID. These stories reflect just a few of the many disabled students who this amendment will help. So, again, specifically, our amendment will help students who change schools or school districts by ensuring that all students receive continued special education services when they transfer schools. Our amendment ensures that records are transferred quickly so students do not waste critical time. Our amendment increases opportunities for early evaluation and intervention for homeless and foster infants and toddlers with disabilities, and for children with disabilities in military families. Our amendment also ensures that these vulnerable children are represented on the State policy committees that decide their future. In addition, our amendment expands the definition of ``parent'' to include relatives or other caregivers who are equipped to make sound decisions in a child's best interest when there is no biological parent available to do so. Finally, our amendment improves the coordination of services and information so educational and social services agencies can work together more efficiently to help these students. As we reauthorize IDEA, we have an obligation to pay extra attention to these children and to provide the resources and support they need. The real test of how we treat children in America is measured in how we treat the most vulnerable among us. This amendment gives us a chance to do the right thing. I urge the Senate to join with more than 70 national disability, military family, foster, homeless, and education organizations in supporting the bipartisan Murray-DeWine amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to fully fund IDEA offered by Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel. Nearly 30 years ago the Federal Government made a commitment of equal opportunity to our Nation's children with disabilities. With that commitment, we promised that the Federal Government would uphold its end of the bargain and pay 40 percent of the average per-student cost for every special education student. Today, however, the Federal Government is paying less than 19 percent of that cost. Over the past couple of years, IDEA has received significant increases but, according to the Congressional Research Service, at increases of $1 billion each year, the Federal Government will never fulfill its promise of funding at 40 percent. Further, if annual increases were $1 billion plus inflation, we would not reach the promised level of 40 percent until 2035, more than 30 years from now. The Harkin-Hagel amendment increases IDEA funding over 8 years by $2 billion per year through mandatory funding. Mandatory funding is what it is going to take because local schools today are already struggling with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, the lack of promised Federal funding, and the dismal financial picture still facing many of our States and local governments. It is going to take real funding through mandatory spending to make up for all of those gaps. This gap in special education funding, by the way, doesn't just hurt disabled students; it hurts their classmates as well because we are forcing schools to make difficult decisions with regard to which kids get funding. In order to make up for the Federal funding shortfall, many school districts have been forced to take money from their general education budget, which affects every single student. I know we can do better for America's disabled students. Let us not make them wait another 30 years to fully fund this law. I urge my colleagues to fulfill the promise of IDEA and support the Hagel-Harkin amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I asked Mr. Crosby to again justify the claims regarding the EADS and Airbus contributions to this country on jobs, suppliers and economic contributions. For more than a year, his company has refused to answer my questions and the requests from the Department of Commerce. I asked Mr. Crosby to make public the EADS 2002 tanker proposal submitted to the Air Force. We know the Air Force said the proposal was high risk, more expensive than Boeing, and could limit U.S. force projection worldwide. For 2 years, EADS and Airbus have been able to access Boeing proprietary information about its technology and pricing, that came available during the tanker program review. Now, after spending $90 million to develop a tanker it previously did not have, Airbus wants to reopen the tanker contract after it has already seen all of Boeing's cards. Airbus has learned an awful lot about Boeing and tankers and it has used that new technology to best Boeing in a recent tanker competition for Australia. Mr. Crosby will not talk about his 2002 proposal. He wants to compete with Boeing based on everything Airbus has learned about Boeing over 2 years and an additional $90 million investment in tankers. Finally, I asked Mr. Crosby to provide a full accounting of Airbus' involvement with the tanker lease program on par with the various information subpoenaed from both the Department of Defense and Boeing. I also asked Mr. Crosby to provide a full accounting of Airbus' lobbying activities, including support given to tanker opponents. I await a reply from Mr. Crosby. Let me say that given the tremendous damage Airbus has done to the commercial aerospace industry in this country, and particularly in Washington State, I have real questions about the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer dollars going to strengthen Europe's competitive position and hurting American aerospace workers. I have talked in great detail tonight about why EADS and Airbus are threats to the U.S. aerospace leadership and to American workers. Europe has a plan to take over global leadership in aerospace. Europe views aerospace as a social program, a jobs program for the benefit of Europeans. Airbus and EADS are the prime example of Europe's vision for its citizen and its aerospace industry. There are real consequences for U.S. national security in what happens here. We have to retain our supplier base, our skilled workforce, and our technological advantages to project force and to defend our Nation. We have a decision to make in Washington, DC. U.S. policymakers on behalf of the American people have to decide whether we want to sit idly by as Europe hopes we continue to do or whether we want to commit ourselves to a future in global aerospace. I conclude by talking briefly about a few things we must do to keep American workers at the forefront of commercial aerospace. Let me offer three specific suggestions. First of all, we should hold Europe accountable for its market- distorting actions. We have to look seriously at a trade case to challenge Europe's failure to adhere to its treaty obligations. We have to recognize the future of aerospace is larger than a trade case or a Boeing dispute with Airbus. Only a determined Federal commitment to aerospace will assure our children and our grandchildren opportunity to compete for the high-skill, high-wage aerospace jobs of the future. Second, we should not reward EADS and Airbus for their market- distorting, job-killing behavior. Airbus wants U.S. policymakers and the public to buy its campaign that it is a good U.S. citizen. That is baloney. They are trying to mask the real harm they are posing to American workers. Europe wants to further weaken U.S. aerospace competitors by accessing U.S. taxpayer-funded defense programs. And, most offensively, Airbus is working to undermine both the Air Force and the Boeing Company to kill the tanker program so it may ultimately outsource tanker manufacturing to Europe. It is long past time to shine a very bright light on Airbus and its lobbying efforts in Washington, DC. If we reward their underhanded methods, if we let them steal the tanker contract away from our American workers, the American taxpayers will be paying Europe to help finish off our aerospace industry. I don't see how we can let a subsidized foreign company use our tax dollars to put Americans out of work. But if they get away with their lobbying, their bogus claims, and their PR campaign, we will have bought Airbus a sledgehammer to whack away at our aerospace industry. That is outrageous. We cannot let it happen. We need to hold Europe accountable for what it has done and we need to make sure Airbus is not rewarded for its bad actions. Finally, we should act boldly to embrace many of the recommendations from the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry. The administration is acting on a number of fronts. Congress must do more, as well. As a first step, Congress should create a Joint Committee on Aerospace. I intend to introduce legislation to create that joint committee. It will help Congress recognize our future is very much tied to aerospace and commercial aerospace, in particular. A dedicated group of House and Senate Members with a targeted agenda can help the administration and the country recommit itself to the next century of global aerospace leadership. I have sounded the alarm. No Member of Congress can claim they did not know what European governments and Airbus are doing to American workers. This is a critical industry. They are jobs worth fighting for. I am not willing to surrender our leadership in the second century of flight. There is a battle for the future of the aerospace industry. Europe is putting its full support, subsidies, and power behind Airbus, and it is working. We have to get off the sidelines. I am committed to working in the Senate to make sure American workers have a fighting chance to lead the world in aerospace. I know if we focus on the challenge before us, our country will recover from this, just as Seattle recovered from the downturn in the 1970s. We have a bright future ahead if we take the steps I have outlined and hold on to our leadership in commercial aerospace. Aviation was born in America 100 years ago. Let's make sure Americans are leading it 100 years from now. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me read one passage from my letter. I wrote: Airbus' corporate behavior on this matter cannot be tolerated by the U.S. government. Its actions are further delaying our ability to meet a key military requirement, and if successful, will result in the outsourcing of thousands of American manufacturing jobs to a foreign corporation that is unfairly subsidized by European governments and that unfairly competes with the only U.S. aircraft manufacturer. Such an outcome represents ill-conceived public policy, and will also unfairly punish the nearly 30,000 workers who will be employed should the Air Force tanker lease program proceed with a domestic manufacturer, as currently planned. I have not received a reply from Secretary Rumsfeld, but I did receive a shocking reply from someone else. Two days after writing to Secretary Rumsfeld, I received a letter from Mr. Ralph Crosby, the Chairman and CEO of EADS North America. So I sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, and I got a reply from the head of Airbus. There's something very fishy about that. It got even more outrageous as I read Mr. Crosby's letter. Mr. Crosby stated that EADS is committed to being a ``strong U.S. citizen,'' and he repeated the same statistics that EADS refuses to verify to either me or to the Department of Commerce. I want to refute a few claims in Mr. Crosby's unsolicited letter. First, Mr. Crosby had the gall to suggest that EADS is a ``strong U.S. citizen.'' Their history tells a much different story. Airbus and EADS have been willing suppliers to nations that the United States considers either rogue states or state sponsors of terrorism. According to one news article dating back to 2001: The Airbus Industrie Consortium views those countries against which US or UN sanctions are in place--Libya, Iran, Iraq and North Korea--as potentially representing major opportunities, Noel Forgeard, CEO, indicated yesterday. The same article quotes an Airbus Vice President as saying: We might have been looking to place a total of 180 aircraft--100 with Iran, 50 with Iraq and 30 with Libya--with at least 140-150 orders feeding through. It was widely reported that Airbus was in close contact with Iraqi airways during the period of UN sanctions following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Apparently, Airbus was in discussion with the state run-- Saddam Hussein run--Iraqi airways to sell 20 Airbus aircraft. It was also widely reported that personnel from Iraqi Airways were taken to Jordan and Malaysia for three month training courses on Airbus equipment. Airbus still carries a five-plane deal with Saddam Hussein on its order books and has said the deal is still valid. While American troops are rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and trying to build a peaceful, democratic future for the Iraqi people, Airbus wants the new Iraqi government to honor Saddam Hussein's plane deal. To me, for so many reasons, EADS is not a ``strong U.S. citizen.'' Here is another claim from Mr. Crosby's letter that I must refute. He wrote: Should decisions by the U.S. government open a competitive procurement of aerial refueling tankers, EADS North America will respond. We will offer a superior, cost-effective aerial refueling solution that will be completed by American workers, on American soil, in the United States providing the Department of Defense and the Air Force the opportunity to select the product that provides the best capabilities to the U.S. armed forces. Let's remember that the Air Force already rejected Airbus's tanker proposal for the reasons I mentioned. The Air Force said Boeing was the cheaper option, and it deemed the A330 a ``significantly higher risk.'' But in Mr. Crosby's world, these failures somehow translate into what he calls a ``superior, cost-effective aerial refueling solution.'' There is another disturbing claim hidden in Mr. Crosby's statement that should set off alarm bells. He said that Airbus tankers would be ``completed'' in the U.S. Mr. Crosby says the A330 refueling tanker for the Air Force would be completed by American workers on American soil. Translated that means tankers will be built in Europe by European workers at U.S. taxpayer expense and then American workers can install the final components. Once again, EADS and Airbus are trying to use their market-distorting tactics to shift aerospace jobs to Europe to the detriment of American workers. I have a simple reply to the Airbus's campaign to build tankers in Europe paid for by U.S. taxpayers. No thank you. No thanks. Never. I wrote back to Mr. Crosby, and I ask unanimous consent that my letter to him be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the last aerospace worker leaving America turn out the lights? I ask that question to sound an alarm for every American who cares about our economy and our security. We are about to surrender our global aerospace leadership because we are sitting on our hands while Europe is doing everything it can to dismantle our aerospace industry. Today, I am sounding the alarm. Unless we wake up to this threat, we are going to lose an industry that Americans created and that has brought innovation to every corner of our economy. We Americans led the first century of flight, but we might not even have a role in the second century if we keep sleepwalking down this dangerous road. I am here on the Senate floor tonight to say: Wake up. Wake up to this threat before we lose another American industry. Wake up to this threat before we lose more high-wage, high-skill American jobs. Wake up to this threat before it is too late. Too many Americans, especially in our Government, are not aware of what Europe is doing to kill off our aerospace industry. I want to expose the unlimited assault that Europe and Airbus are leveling at America's aerospace workers. As my colleagues know, I have been troubled by Europe's market- distorting actions in commercial aerospace for many years. I have raised my concern with Senators, with foreign leaders, and with administrations of both parties. Tonight, I am detailing my concerns before the full Senate because EADS and Airbus have launched a deceptive PR and lobbying campaign to convince the U.S. Government that it is essentially an American company. The Airbus campaign of half-truths is on full display as the company works overtime in Washington, DC, to recreate a competition they already lost to build the next generation refueling tanker for the Air Force. I have come to the Senate floor tonight to set the record straight and to show how Europe's broader plan to dominate aerospace threatens our future. Tonight, I am going to focus on five issues. First, I want to explain why this is so important for our country. Secondly, I want to explain how the European view of aerospace as a social program to create jobs is helping Europe beat out our more traditional business perspective. Third, I want to expose, in detail, the underhanded things that Airbus is doing to dismantle our aerospace industry, from providing subsidies for launch aid, research, facilities and suppliers, to selling planes below cost, guaranteeing the future value of aircraft, tying sales to landing rights, and linking plane sales to other trade issues. Fourth, I want to expose the deceptive lobbying and PR campaign Airbus is using to reopen a competition it lost and the dangers that poses for American security. Finally, I want to talk about the steps we must take to retain our leadership of this critical industry. Let me explain the title of my speech, ``Will the Last Aerospace Worker Leaving America Turn Out the Lights?'' I have the great honor of representing the State of Washington which is one of America's great aerospace centers. We are very proud of our long history and our leadership. On July 15, 1916, Bill Boeing started his airplane company in Seattle, WA. Since that day, Boeing and Washington State have shared the ups and downs of the commercial aerospace industry. We have experienced extended periods of nearly full employment, and we have endured marked downturns that left tens of thousands unemployed. In the early 1970s, there was a particularly bad downturn. It seemed as if everyone was leaving Seattle. So two Seattle businessmen decided to post a billboard to put a lighthearted spin on all the layoffs. Here is the photo that ran in the Seattle Times in 1971. It shows a billboard with a light bulb and a string coming out of it. It says, ``Will the last person leaving Seattle turn out the lights.'' Anyone who lived through this difficult period in Washington State knows this sign. Eventually Seattle recovered, and since the 1970s we have experienced ups and downs. Today we are facing another severe downturn in the aerospace industry. But today it is not just Seattle or Washington State that is hurting. We are hemorrhaging aerospace jobs in Kansas, California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Colorado. This is a national problem, and we are not too many years away from asking, will the last aerospace worker leaving America turn off the lights? We have to take action before it is too late. Sadly, we are approaching a point of no return. Last week the top two executives of EADS revealed their plans to take over the global aerospace industry. According to a German newspaper on April 27, 2004, CEO Rainer Hertrich said: In ten years, we'll be number one, everywhere, worldwide. His CEO Phillipe Camus said: We're now ready for our final step: globalization. Some of my colleagues may wonder why I am speaking at some length tonight about the future of our aerospace industry. It is because this industry is critical for jobs, for our economy, for our security, and for our future. The commercial aerospace industry employs more than 2 million Americans with an average salary of $47,000. But unfortunately, we are losing these good-paying jobs at a rapid rate. In the past 15 years, we have lost 700,000 American aerospace jobs. These are scientific and technical jobs; 700,000 high-skilled, high-wage jobs are gone. Unless we wake up, we are about to lose more. We spend a lot of time in the Senate talking about how American jobs are being shipped overseas in search of cheaper labor. Aerospace is a little different than some of the other industries we have discussed. Aerospace jobs are not low-wage, low-skill jobs that move to where the labor is cheapest. These are high-wage, high-skilled jobs we need to keep in America. But we are being aggressively challenged by Europe for those jobs. Aerospace is also important for our overall economy. Our leadership in commercial aerospace has helped American industries, from health care to automobiles, become safer, more efficient, and more productive. According to John Douglas, president of the Aerospace Industries Association of America, the aerospace sector ``generates economic activity equal to nearly 15 percent of the nation's gross domestic product and supports approximately 11 million American jobs.'' Mr. Douglas notes that aerospace also led the Nation in net exports with a $30 billion surplus in 2000. The Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry found that in 2001: . . . more than 600 million passengers relied on U.S. commercial air transportation and over 150 million people were transported on general aviation aircraft. Over 40 percent of the value of U.S. freight is transported by air. Aerospace capabilities have enabled e-commerce to flourish with overnight and parcel delivery and just in time manufacturing. Not only is this about jobs, it is also about security. It is irresponsible to let our country surrender our aerospace leadership. Once our plants shut down, once our skilled workers move to other fields, once the infrastructure is gone, you can't recreate that overnight. It took 100 years to build our aerospace leadership, and we could lose it all in the next 10 years. Finally, commercial aerospace is important for our future. Europe is working hard to overtake our leadership of aerospace because they know it is the future, the future of the worldwide economy and the future of human exploration. Europe wants to lead the future. And if we stay on this track, they will. This industry is worth saving because it is important for our jobs, our economy, our security, and our future. I should explain by way of background there are only two companies in the world that make large passenger airplanes. One is the Boeing Company. Its commercial air operation is headquartered in Renton, WA. The other is Airbus which is headquartered in Toulouse, France. Airbus is a division of the European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company also known as EADS. Throughout my remarks tonight, I will refer to Airbus and EADS interchangeably. So it is one European company and one American company competing for control of the commercial aerospace industry. Next I want to talk about how the United States and Europe view commercial aerospace, because we have two very different visions. Unfortunately, their vision will allow them to overtake us unless we realize what they are doing. Let me start at home. For us in America, commercial aerospace is seen as private business. Some companies will win; some companies will lose. We will let the marketplace decide. But for Europe, aerospace is a jobs program. The European governments will fund and support their domestic industry because creating aerospace jobs in and of itself is considered a priority. They don't care if Airbus loses money. They don't even require Airbus to pay back loans on failed products. They don't care as long as they are creating jobs for Europeans. Europe views aerospace as a long-term investment. They are aggressively subsidizing the industry and pressuring and rewarding customers without regard to making a profit or following the business rules American workers must follow. Simply put: They are willing to pay any price to take over American leadership. Don't take my word for it. Look at what EU leaders have said. Here is what British Prime Minister Tony Blair had to say last year: As a result of over 500,000 pounds in launch aid, Airbus is today in a position where it can take over the leadership of the large aircraft market from Boeing in the United States. That would be tremendous for British manufacturing and for European industry. It is not just Tony Blair. Here is what a 2001 report to the European Commission, titled ``European Aeronautics, a Vision for 2020'' states: European aeronautics has grown and prospered with the support of public funds, and this support must continue if we are to achieve our objective of global leadership. The same report goes on to say: Total funding required from all public and private sources over the next 20 years could go beyond 100 billion euros. Simply put, Europe views aerospace jobs as a priority. According to the European Aerospace Industry Association, there are at least 407,000 direct jobs in Europe's aerospace sector, more than 1.2 million total jobs supported by aerospace in Europe, and there are more than 80,000 firms in the European aerospace supply chain. Europe has maintained a $20 billion annual trade surplus in aerospace goods since 1996. Europe has an aggressive investigation for the future of aerospace. It wants to use significant public investment to create and sustain jobs, largely at the expense of U.S. competitors and workers. Here is how the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace industry put it in 2002: Unfortunately, it appears that European officials intend to continue directly subsidizing EU companies. The recently unveiled EU aerospace policy strategy calls for an increase in subsidies to continue building market share, largely at the expense of U.S. companies. So Europeans are willing to do anything to subsidize Airbus and distort the market so it can beat Boeing. But here in the United States, our Government is sitting on the sidelines. We are following a normal business model, and we are getting creamed by the Europeans, who are following a social welfare model, where it doesn't matter if they lose money if their products fail. As long as they are employing Europeans and taking over America's market share, they don't care. That is not competition; that is subsidized slaughter. We have to wake up before it is too late for America's aerospace companies and workers. This is not a truly competitive market. Private U.S. companies, responsible to their shareholders, are confronting subsidized companies funded by governments who don't care if they make a profit as long as they create jobs. Understanding how the Europeans approach aerospace is the first step to helping American workers survive this onslaught. The next step is to understand how the Europeans are putting their vision into action, and that is what I want to focus on next. Tonight, I want to explore the unprecedented means that Airbus and the Europeans are using to overtake American workers. Europe is taking over America's aerospace industry through aggressive, unfair market- distorting measures. Specifically, European governments are supporting Airbus on the development side, as Airbus creates new aircraft, and on the sales side, as Airbus pressures airlines and foreign governments to buy their aircraft. Let's start with the development side, where we find massive market- distorting subsidies at every stage. Let's remember that Airbus was created by European governments in 1967 specifically to challenge Boeing and U.S. aerospace dominance in the manufacture of large civil aircraft. EADS gets subsidies at nearly every stage of aircraft development. They benefit from launch subsidies, research subsidies, facility subsidies, and supplier subsidies. These aggressive subsidies give Airbus virtually unlimited backing to overtake the American aerospace industry. It is like an American worker stepping into a boxing ring only to find out that, instead of one opponent, he is up against the full force and power of the entire European Union. It is not a fair fight. Europe's abuses have been well documented by our own Government. Here is what the U.S. Trade Representative said about Airbus subsidies in its 2003 report on trade barriers: Since the inception of Airbus in 1967, the governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK have provided direct subsidies to their respective Airbus member companies to aid the development, production, and marketing of Airbus civil aircraft. Airbus member governments have borne a large portion of development costs for all Airbus aircraft modes and provided other forms of support, debt rollovers, and marketing assistance, including political and economic pressure on purchasing governments. These subsidies create an uneven playing field and allow Airbus to do things that normal private companies cannot afford to do. Airbus has grown without assuming any of the financial risk and accountability that U.S. firms have to contend with every day. Here is how a top aviation analyst put it: Airbus cares a lot less about returning value to shareholders. Boeing is the classic American shareholder- driven corporation. Europe's approach is working, too. Today, EADS is the second largest aerospace company in the world. In the last decade, Boeing has seen its market position globally erode significantly. At one time, Boeing sold 75 percent of the aircraft purchased worldwide. Airbus was in the teens. Today, Airbus claims to supply more than 50 percent of the industry. Mr. President, I have made the case with statistics, data, trade reports, and official Government findings. Let me put it a little more simply: Airbus has a sugar daddy named Europe, who will keep forking over money until Airbus has demolished America's aerospace industry and put hundreds of thousands of skilled American workers on the unemployment lines. We cannot sit back and continue to let that happen. But it is not just the support and development side in the form of subsidies for launching facilities, research, and suppliers. Europe's market distortions go much further on the sales side. Tonight I want to expose some of the ways that European governments are supporting Airbus sales. Airbus uses a series of incentives and threats to steal customers away from Boeing--everything from bribes and landing rights, to discounts, value guarantees, and trade threats and rewards. Airbus has a history of graft and corruption. But don't take my word for it. Look at what the Economist magazine, on June 14, 2003, said in a special report, entitled ``Airbus's Secret Past; Aircraft and Bribery": Up until 2000, Airbus and other French companies were allowed to take a tax deduction for bribes. Imagine that--bribing someone to buy your airplane and then you take a tax deduction for the bribe you paid. The Economist article details Airbus sales campaigns in India, Syria, and Canada that involved corruption and bribes. The article notes that, in 2001, the Under Secretary for Commerce for International Trade testified before Congress on U.S. competitiveness in aircraft manufacturing. The Under Secretary warned that bribery remains a threat to U.S. competitiveness. He said: This is an industry where foreign corruption has a real impact. Bribery by foreign companies can have important consequences for U.S. competitiveness because of the critical role governments play in selecting aircraft suppliers; and because of the huge sums of money involved in aircraft purchases, this sector has been especially vulnerable to trade distortions involving bribery of foreign public officials. His remarks were directed squarely at Airbus and the European nations that aggressively back Airbus sales campaigns throughout the world. This article also notes that, according to a 2001 European Parliament report, the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted faxes and phone calls between Airbus, Saudi Arabian Airlines, and Saudi Government officials in early 1994. The NSA found that Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official to ensure that Airbus received a $6 billion order to modernize the Saudi Arabian airlines fleet. Bribes and corruption have long been a part of their standard operating procedure for getting other countries to buy their airplanes. Those are just a few of the many techniques they have used to beat out American workers. Let me turn to another one. Airbus purchases have long been linked to landing rights at Europe's busiest airports; a very attractive incentive to offer them to buy their airplanes, but it is a very questionable practice. I want to share four documented examples. In 2002, an airline named easyJet placed a big Airbus order and then received favorable landing spots at Orly Airport in France. In 2002, Malaysia Airlines received landing rights at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris 3 days after buying 6 Airbus A 380s. Emirates Airlines and Qatar Airways both received extra landing rights after buying Airbus airplanes. A source close to Emirates Airlines said: It seems that Airbus leans on Air France, which has the slots at Paris Charles de Gaulle and the slots are given to the airline that has bought airbus. . . .This has been known for years. Airbus sells one of its planes to a customer and promises to do its best to get slots for that airline. But landing rights are not the only trick Airbus uses to sell their planes. Airbus also aggressively discounts the purchase price of its planes, often at the last minute, and often below the cost of production. Airbus regularly makes a late final offer to an airline after Boeing has made its best offer. Time and again, Boeing has lost a commercial sale because Airbus doesn't have the same commercial accountability. Airbus regularly sells aircraft below the price of production simply to gain market share and to take customers away from Boeing. The 2000 easyJet deal I just mentioned a moment ago is a prime example of Airbus's willingness to discount airplanes to win sales campaigns. Airbus does not reveal its discounts or the particulars of a given order. However, it was widely reported that Easy Jet got a 50-percent discount on its Airbus purchase. Boeing said the deal was below the cost of production. Airbus sold its planes below cost. Airbus got the order at Boeing's expense, and the Europeans got at least 10,000 direct jobs. It is a great deal for Europe; it is a horrible deal for American workers. It happened because of all the financial backing, subsidies, and special deals that Airbus gets from its European sponsors. Let me share another way that Airbus distorts the marketplace. Buying new aircraft is a big expense for any airline. Airlines want to make sure the planes they buy will hold their value for years after their purchase. Normally, the market price decides the value of a used airplane, just like the marketplace decides the value of a used car. But Airbus uses its deep pockets to override the marketplace. When Airbus sells a plane to an airline, it often promises the airline that the plane will hold its value in the future, and if it does not, Airbus will pay the difference to the airline. For example, Airbus will tell an airline that the plane it buys will be worth $60 million in 10 years. The market only pays $40 million. Airbus will pay the difference to the airline. It is a very attractive incentive for an airline, but it is also unfair because it allows one company to completely distort the marketplace. These Airbus guarantees allow the company to use their government subsidies to buy market share. If this happened in another field such as cars, this Congress would be up in arms. Imagine going to a Toyota dealer and a salesman makes you a guarantee that in 10 years your car will be worth a certain amount of money far above its actual value. As a car buyer, you love that dealer. Airlines like Airbus's guarantee. But if a foreign carmaker did that, every representative from U.S. carmakers, suppliers, and dealers would be here in Congress demanding fairness. The same abuse is taking place today in the aircraft market, but Congress is not responding. That is why I am exposing all of these techniques. Let me share two specific cases where Airbus used these value guarantees to distort the market and take sales away from American workers. In 2003, Boeing and Airbus competed to sell planes to Iberia Airlines of Spain. At the last minute, Airbus stepped in and undercut Boeing's price. It then offered Iberia a residual value guarantee on the future value of the aircraft. Airbus got the deal. An official with Iberia Airlines said Airbus got the deal because of the ``extraordinary conditions'' it offered at the last minute. Once again, because of its government support, Airbus was able to do things that a private for- profit company could not. Airbus used that same market-distorting approach with easyJet, a low- cost carrier that had a fleet of all Boeing aircraft. In 2002, easyJet agreed to buy 120 planes from Airbus and take options on an additional 120 planes. Airbus offered a significant price discount and a residual- value guarantee to win that deal. These are just a few examples of how Airbus, backed by European governments, is taking jobs away from American workers through market- distorting tactics. But it is not just the bribes, corruption, the landing slots, the discounts, and the value guarantees Airbus is using to undermine American aerospace. Airbus also steals sales by making threats and rewards on unrelated trade issues. Airbus and European government officials regularly link Airbus sales to other trade issues. There is constant cooperation between Airbus and European leaders to pressure foreign airlines and governments to buy Airbus aircraft. Let me share a few documented examples that span the globe. First, Europe gives special rewards to countries for buying Airbus planes. It happened with Russia 2 years ago. After the Russian airline Aeroflot bought Airbus planes, Russian exporters were given greater access in the European market, and Russia was given use of the EU space launchsite. It happened in Thailand as well. Following a 2002 Thai Airlines Airbus purchase, Airbus lobbied the EU to lower trade barriers to Thai chicken and shrimp exports. Time and again, Airbus links their plane purchases to other trade deals. But Airbus is not content to just use trade rewards. It also threatens to punish other countries unless they buy Airbus planes. Let me share a couple examples that first involves Pakistan. In April 2003, Pakistan media reported that EU retaliated in textile negotiations against Pakistan following the Boeing 777 purchase. Airbus is not competing on the merits of its product. Instead, it uses threats of retaliation to pressure countries into going along. Another example of these threats and pressure tactics involves Taiwan. During an aggressive 2002 competition between Boeing and Airbus for an important Taiwan sale, the Government of France threatened to terminate its satellite cooperation with Taiwan if Airbus was turned away. Let me share a final example of these trade tactics, and it is one of which I have personal knowledge. European governments have linked Airbus purchases to EU accession. I saw this myself on a trip to Central Europe that I took in 1998 when I visited Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. One Central European airline told me pointblank that they are under pressure from the Europeans to buy Airbus because it would ultimately make EU accession easier. This is just a sampling of the very aggressive competitor that my constituents and our aerospace workers confront every day in the global market. I note that this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have been briefed by some of our Government intelligence agencies, and the examples I shared are just a very small part of what is happening. I encourage all of my colleagues to be briefed by the appropriate agencies because it will shock you, just as it shocked me. Arrange a briefing and find out for yourself. I now want to turn to my fourth point. Airbus and EADS are now engaged in a slick campaign to market themselves as an American company to policymakers and to the general public. They are running a campaign of misinformation and half-truths to secure more U.S. business for European workers. Their campaign is particularly evident in Washington, DC, where Airbus is seeking to influence both the administration and this Congress. They have their lobbyists working to unravel the Boeing tanker contract, and their PR shop is making false claims about Airbus's impact on our economy. Simply put, they are trying to get us to see them as an American company. Airbus and EADS have hired a small army of lobbyists. At least 18 lobbyists at multiple lobbying firms are registered to represent Airbus and EADS in Washington, DC. Their lobbyists include the current chairman of the Republican National Committee, former Members of Congress, former staffers to a previous Senate majority leader, a previous House minority leader, and others heavily involved in congressional campaigns. Lobbyists with ties to the administration are also at work for Airbus, including former officials at the White House, Defense Department, Commerce Department, Transportation Department, Export-Import Bank, OPIC, and NASA. Airbus and EADS have also hired prominent Americans to help them gain entry into the U.S. markets and to put an American face on this European operation. Ralph Crosby is the CEO of EADS North America. Mr. Crosby was a longtime senior executive with the Northrup Grumman Corporation. EADS said Crosby's hiring was ``to enhance the access of EADS to all elements of the U.S. defense and aerospace marketplace.'' T. A. McArtor is the chairman of Airbus North America. He previously served as the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. David Oliver is the executive vice president and chief operating officer of EADS North America. Oliver was previously the principal Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. With this team of lobbyists and former U.S. Government officials in place, Airbus and EADS now want policymakers and the public to believe that Airbus is actually an American company. Here is what Airbus and EADS say in Washington, DC, and all over the country in speeches, in paid advertisements, and in other official materials: They say Airbus has created and supports 120,000 jobs in our country. They say Airbus subcontracts with as many as 800 U.S. firms in the United States, and they say Airbus now does $6 billion in business annually in the United States. For more than a year, I have called on Airbus to justify and document these assertions, and they have refused. Last year, I wrote to the Commerce Department and asked them to investigate these claims, and I want to share the results. On jobs, Airbus used to claim they created 100,000 U.S. jobs. The U.S. Commerce Department could not find any justification for that claim. Commerce asked Airbus to document these claims. Airbus refused. Now Airbus is inflating its bogus figures, saying it is responsible for 120,000 American jobs. Do my colleagues know what figure the Commerce Department came up with? Five hundred. Not 120,000, not 100,000, but 500 jobs is what the Commerce Department came up with. The truth is, Airbus in large part is responsible for the economic shock, consolidation, and dislocation that has hurt American aerospace workers over the last decade. Thousands of small businesses have gone out of business. Consolidation in the industry has brought enormous change, and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost throughout the industry. Let us set the record straight. Airbus does not create American jobs; it kills them. Airbus also makes false claims about the number of U.S. suppliers it uses. Airbus says it contracts with 800 U.S. firms. The Commerce Department, after looking into this request, can only come up with 250 firms, not 800. After that, Airbus did something kind of fishy. They revised their supplier figure down from 800 firms to 300 firms, but they increased the alleged value of its contracts from $5 billion up to $6 billion annually. We just cannot trust Airbus' funny numbers. When it comes to suppliers, Airbus deserves no credit for using U.S. suppliers, and that is because commercial aerospace--the airlines, not the manufacturers--select many of the suppliers. Clearly Airbus does not deserve credit for the choices that its customers make. So again, Airbus does not help American firms; it hurts them. Finally, Airbus claims it does $6 billion in business in the United States each year. They say that every chance they get, but here is something they do not say. EADS alone has a $6 billion trade surplus with the United States. I am not talking about another country; I am talking about one company running a $6 billion trade surplus with the United States. Airbus and EADS are not helping America's aerospace industry. They are destroying it. Already, 700,000 American workers have lost their jobs while Europe keeps adding new workers to the Airbus payroll. It is time for the Senate, for our Government, and for the American people to take a real close look at Airbus' real impact on the United States. The truth is that Airbus is a horrible investment for our country. According to EADS' documents, North America provides EADS with 35 percent of its revenues, about 10 billion euros, but North American workers only make up 2 percent of the company's jobs--just 2,400 jobs out of 107,000 worldwide. We give them a third of their business. What do we get in return? Two percent of their jobs. That is a bad deal. The truth is, Airbus and EADS are exporting U.S. jobs, suppliers, and dollars to Europe as fast as they can. It is clear to me that Airbus is making phony claims about its impact on the U.S. economy, hiring lobbyists and mounting a PR campaign so it can position itself to steal the tanker contract from American workers. I will turn to that tanker contract and some disturbing developments. As all of my colleagues know, I have been involved in the tanker contract from the very beginning. I have been proud to work with many other Senators on it. There is no question our Air Force needs new air refueling tankers. There is also no question that Airbus is trying to reopen a competition it lost 2 years ago. I want to make sure American policymakers understand how Europe is hurting American aerospace workers and what Airbus has been doing behind the scenes to undermine the Boeing tanker contract. If we allow Airbus to steal the tanker contract through its phony claims, we will be helping Europe dismantle our domestic aerospace industry and asking U.S. taxpayers to foot that bill. No one doubts the need for new tankers. Airborne refueling tankers allow our country to project military force around the globe. Most of our tankers are more than 40 years old. One-third of the fleet is unfit to fly at any given time due to mechanical failure. Each plane requires a full year of maintenance for every 4 years spent on duty. There is no question they must be replaced with new tankers. The only question is, who is going to build these tankers--American workers or French workers? If we give this contract to the French, we will be rewarding Europe's trade-distorting behavior, putting Americans out of work, and helping Europe dismantle our aerospace industry. Congress and the administration have wrestled with a variety of issues having to do with the tanker replacement program adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President 2 years ago. We are still trying to sort through all of the issues. It has been a unique and, frankly, at times a very frustrating process. We are all aware of the impropriety of a few Boeing employees surrounding this deal. There is no excuse for their behavior. I will not defend it. I will not excuse it. They are being investigated and I expect they will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. But the actions of a few do not lessen the merits of a tanker deal. The Air Force needs this equipment, and Boeing is the best company to provide it. Let us remember that the Air Force looked at a proposal from Airbus in 2002 and rejected it on the merits. In fact, the Air Force gave very detailed reasons why the Airbus proposal was inferior. Let me quote from the Air Force statement on March 28, 2002: The EADS offering presents a higher risk technical approach and a less preferred financial arrangement. First, EADS lacks relevant tanker experience and needs to develop an air refueling boom and operator station, making their approach a significantly higher risk. Second, a comparison of the net present values of the aircraft recommended by Boeing and EADS establishes Boeing as the preferred financial option. Third, the size difference of the EADS' proposed KC-330 results in an 81 percent larger ground footprint compared to the KC-135E it would replace, whereas the Boeing 767 is only 29 percent larger. The KC-330 increase in size does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air refueling offload. Finally, the EADS aircraft would demand a greater infrastructure investment and dramatically limits the aircraft's ability to operate effectively in the worldwide deployment. Those are the detailed technical reasons why Airbus lost the tanker contract. The Air Force essentially said that EADS and Airbus did not have a real tanker or tanker technology; their proposed aircraft was so large it required a larger footprint on the ground and a significant infrastructure investment. Their proposal was ``significantly higher risk,'' for the Air Force, and, their proposed aircraft couldn't operate worldwide--limiting our ability to project force. Finally, the Air Force said that Boeing was the ``preferred financial option,'' meaning the Boeing proposal was the cheaper alternative for taxpayers. So in March 2002, Airbus lost. For most people, it would be over, but not for a company like Airbus. Airbus continued its campaign to delay and if possible, kill the KC-767 tanker deal. Airbus lobbyists have continued to work on and off of Capitol Hill with tanker opponents. Airbus lobbyists worked to convince Members of Congress that Airbus should be recognized as an American Company. Airbus even used the United States Chamber of Commerce to sponsor trips to Paris and Toulouse, France for Congressional staffers. Airbus tried to derail the lease of four 737 aircraft to the Air Force for executive transport at the General Accounting Office. Airbus didn't care about the four 737's. They were testing the system to see if they could use a bid protest at the GAO to block the tanker lease. The GAO dismissed the Airbus bid protest. As the tanker deal was scrutinized, criticized and delayed, Airbus was regularly available to offer its tanker again to U.S. taxpayers and the Air Force. During the delay, Airbus spent $90 million to develop a real tanker. Now they are working as hard as they can to reopen the competition they lost. For Airbus, the tanker competition is not over. We see that in Airbus materials--that are riddled with references to the tanker program. Again and again, EADS and Airbus say they are prepared to bid for the tankers. EADS even went to Wall Street earlier this year to pitch the company to U.S. financial interests. As part of their pitch to U.S. investors, EADS says they still may compete for tankers in the U.S. Would they dare to say these things if they weren't hard at work to give EADS another opportunity at tankers funded by U.S. taxpayers? This week, EADS Joint Chief Executive Rainer Hertrich was quoted by Reuters saying: I see a realistic chance that the issue will be taken up again by the administration after the election. Mr. President, over the past few months, I have been very concerned about what Airbus has been doing. In late March, I sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld detailing my concerns with Airbus's campaign of distortion and misinformation to kill the tanker program. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Rumsfeld printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar, Calendar Nos. 619, 620 and 657. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Petty Officer Nathan B. Bruckenthal for his service to the United States Coast Guard and his commitment to his country. Petty Officer Bruckenthal was killed in action in Iraq on April 25, 2004, as he sought to intercept a marine vessel attempting to launch a terrorist attack. Petty Officer Bruckenthal's death reminds us of the dangerous mission that the Coast Guard performs every day, at home and overseas, in support of the Nation's defense. It is with a deep respect for the Coast Guard and the many valiant Americans who serve in the Coast Guard that I come to the floor today to pay tribute to the first Coast Guardsmen killed in Iraq. U.S. Coast Guard Damage Controlman Third Class Nathan B. Bruckenthal was killed along with two U.S. Navy sailors, Petty Officer First Class Michael J. Pernaselli and Petty Officer Second Class Christopher E. Watts, trying to protect oil terminals off the coast of Iraq. A coordinated suicide bombing attack struck members of the coalition Maritime Interception Operations team as they attempted to board a small boat that threatened the Khawr Al Amay Oil Terminal. This tragic loss of the first Coast Guard member killed in battle since Vietnam highlights the critical and often overlooked role of Coast Guard operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the height of combat operations, the Coast Guard had approximately 1,250 personnel deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom for port and coastal security, maritime law enforcement, humanitarian aid, maintenance of navigational waterways, contingency preparedness for environmental terrorism, and training the newly established Iraqi coast guard. Coast Guard support to Operation Iraqi Freedom continues today with approximately 300 people supporting these vital operations. Petty Officer Bruckenthal enlisted in the Coast Guard 6 years ago. I am proud to say his service included 2 years in western Washington at the Coast Guard Station Neah Bay. In addition to protecting the safety of lives at sea, he was a dedicated citizen of the Clallum County community. Petty Officer Bruckenthal made time to volunteer as a Neah Bay fire fighter, an emergency medical technician, a reserve police officer, and a coach for the Neah Bay High School. He was known for his terrific work with children and his passion for law enforcement. As many brave members of our armed forces, Petty Officer Bruckenthal was serving on his second tour in Iraq. He served from February 2003 to May 2003 in Operation Iraqi Freedom where he received the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Combat Action Ribbon. He returned for a second tour in Iraq beginning February 2004. This was an extremely difficult and complex mission; particularly trying to distinguish between the enemy and the average citizens. Coast Guard is carrying a very heavy load in protecting the northern Arabian Gulf and the oil fueling stations which are essential to the recovery of the Iraqi economy. I have long ties to the Coast Guard. In my leadership roles on the Transportation and Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittees, I have often noted the tremendous task the Coast Guard faces in terms of securing our Nation's ports and cargo terminals. I have applauded their efforts in addressing the security issues facing our country's ports. The 13th Coast Guard District is known as guardians of the Pacific Northwest. They have a presence in 14 locations throughout my State and are responsible for monitoring 200 facilities in Washington, including 60 designated water front facilities that handle oil and hazardous materials. We know that many fine young American soldiers, sailors and airmen have made the ultimate sacrifice in the fight against terrorism and terrorists and in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have personally written to 25 families of service men and women with ties to the State of Washington who have died while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Now, sadly, a proud member of the Coast Guard has joined the list of Americans killed in action in defense of our country. We extend our deepest sympathies and respect to Petty Officer Bruckenthal's family and friends. We join the Coast Guard family in honoring Petty Officer Nathan Bruckenthal. We will remember his brave service to the Coast Guard, to our Nation's defense, and to us all.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the week of April 19 as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. Primary immune deficiency diseases, PIDD, are genetic disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. The World Health Organization recognizes more than 150 primary immune diseases, which affect as many as 50,000 people in the United States. Fortunately, 70 percent of PIDD patients are able to maintain their health through regular infusions of a plasma product known as intravenous immunoglobulin, IGIV. IGIV helps bolster the immune system and provides critical protection against infection and disease. I want to share with my colleagues the story of one family in Washington State affected by PIDD, the Trump family, who have common variable immune deficiency, CVID, one of the more common forms of primary immune deficiency diseases. Gary Trump's first wife, Tracee, carried CVID for at least 18 years prior to diagnosis. During that time, she suffered repetitive infections, even life-threatening disease, but was never properly diagnosed. In 1993, 8 days after the birth of their second son, Christian, Tracee was struck down by viral encephalitis, and suffered through 4 years of pain, amnesia, and total disability prior to passing away in 1997. Their first son, Darren, also had numerous infections, almost from birth. Within a year of Tracee's diagnosis, Darren was tested and found to have CVID. Christian, who nearly died of viral pneumonia at 2 months of age, was also diagnosed with CVID. The Trump family is not unique with the difficulty and delay in diagnosis of primary immune deficiency disease. Despite the recent progress in PIDD research, the average length of time between the onset of symptoms in a patient and a definitive diagnosis of PIDD is 9.2 years. In the interim, those afflicted may suffer repeated and serious infections and possibly irreversible damage to internal organs. That is why it is critical that we raise awareness about these illnesses within the general public and the health care community. I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize the week of April 19 as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. I encourage my colleagues to work with us to help improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and their families.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, I ask unanimous consent that Natalie Dupecher of his staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's debate.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today to share my serious concerns with the asbestos liability bill now before the Senate. As my colleagues know, this is not just another bill for me. This is something I spent years learning about, educating my colleagues about, and writing legislation to address. In fact, my work on asbestos started 3 years ago this very month when I asked the Senate HELP Committee to hold a hearing on asbestos exposure in the workplace. I started this as a very lonely battle with my good friend, Senator Paul Wellstone. We held press conferences, and it seemed like no one came. Senator Baucus and Senator Cantwell were with us, but it was a very lonely fight. That is why today it is so great to watch my colleagues, such as Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Dayton, and Senator Leahy moving this discussion to such a productive level. They have taken the time to listen to the victims, and I think if everyone did, we would have a much more balanced bill in front of us today. I am pleased that after working all these years with the victims, family members, and doctors, the full Senate is now engaged in a debate about asbestos. I am also pleased that many of the issues I have been fighting for have been included in this legislation. This bill does include a modified ban on asbestos, similar to the original ban that I first introduced 2 years ago. That is an important acknowledgment of what I told the Judiciary Committee did last June: If Congress is going to prevent any future lawsuits, then Congress must try to prevent any more asbestos casualties, by banning the use of asbestos. So I am pleased by some of the progress in this bill, but I am also deeply disturbed by what this bill will do to people whose lives have been torn apart by asbestos, to future victims, to family members, and to average Americans who are being exposed to deadly asbestos every day without even knowing it. After listening to the victims, hearing their stories, looking them in the eye, there is no way I could vote for this inadequate and unbalanced bill today. As I have learned about asbestos over the past 3 years, I have been troubled by the duplicity of some of the companies, by the negligence of our own Government, and by the absolute horror that asbestos inflicts on people. Throughout this process, I have also been touched by the commitment and the optimism of victims. Some of them realize it is too late for them, but they want to make sure no other American goes through the horror they have experienced. After working with them, I know I am not just standing on the Senate floor as a single Senator. I am standing here on behalf of all of the people I have been honored to meet and stand with over the past 3 years. I am standing here on behalf of people like Brian Harvey, Gayla Benefield, Bret Williams, Ralph Busch, Marv Sather, and George Biekkola. They were all exposed to asbestos through no fault of their own. I am standing here on behalf of the family members of asbestos victims, people like Sue Vento, the wife of the late Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota; Sue Harvey, and LTC James Zumwalt, the son of Navy hero Elmo Zumwalt. I am standing here on behalf of doctors who have labored to save their patients against a merciless killer, doctors like Michael Harbut, Alan Whitehouse, and Harvey Pass who not only provided medical care but worked to raise awareness and call for needed research. I am standing here on behalf of public health leaders like Dr. Richard Lemen, a former Assistant Surgeon General of the United States; Dr. Phil Landrigan, and people like Andrew Schneider and Barry Castleman who have worked to warn the public about these dangers. I am standing here on behalf of researchers and advocates, people like Chris Hahn of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation and advocates at the Environmental Working Group. All of these people have stood with me at press conferences and have testified before Senate hearings, calling for us to help the victims and to ban asbestos. We have a real obligation to them. I am standing on the Senate floor today to make sure the Senate does right by people who have been wronged. Let me share one of their voices with my colleagues. In July 2001, the HELP Committee held that hearing that I requested on workplace safety and asbestos exposure. One of the witnesses was Mr. George Biekkola of Michigan, a World War II veteran and a community leader who helped bring a hockey rink to the children of his community. Those of us who were at that hearing 3 years ago will never forget what he said. He broke down several times as he read his statement, but his message was clear. He told us he had spent 30 years working at the Cleveland Cliff Iron Company in Michigan. He operated a hard rock drill and was exposed to asbestos dust. He was forced to retire at the age of 60 because asbestos had scarred his lungs and reduced his lung capacity by one-third. At that hearing, he told us: I thought I'd be spending my retirement traveling out West with my wife, hunting deer up in the mountains. But today I can't. He said he could not exert himself because his heart was weak and that he had to be careful because a simple case of pneumonia could kill him. He told us: This isn't how I thought I'd be spending my retirement, but when I think about the other guys I worked with--I guess I came out lucky. He said: I'm here today to tell you my story so that maybe someone else working in a mine or a brake shop or a factory won't lose the things I have lost. He concluded his statement with these words: Senators, please make sure that what happened to me won't happen to anyone else. . . . Workers like me are counting on you to protect us. Please don't let us down. I am sad to report that George Biekkola died 2 weeks ago today from asbestosis and mesothelioma. Until the end, he was looking out for other victims. In fact, at his funeral last Saturday his family displayed a photograph of him testifying at that Senate hearing. George is not with us today, but his words ring as loudly now as they did 3 years ago: Senators, do not let us down. That is why I have been working on asbestos for the last 3 years and that is why I cannot support this inadequate bill. After all the things that Americans like George Biekkola have been through, after all they have lost, after all their families have lost, after all they have done to protect others, I will not let them down, and that is why I cannot support this bill. Before I turn to the specifics, I want to put this discussion in context. For decades we have been pumping this poison into Americans, on purpose and by accident. It has wrecked lives, families, and fortunes, and it has been a problem for many businesses. Asbestos is everywhere, and it is killing us. We have to stop putting this killer in products. We have to stop importing products that contain asbestos. We have to figure out a way to make whole everyone who has been affected by this epidemic, and we need to do it in a balanced way that gives certainty and equity to both victims and to companies. This process has been an education for me because like many Americans I thought asbestos had been banned a very long time ago. In 1989, the EPA did try to ban asbestos, but that effort was overturned in a lawsuit from the asbestos industry. Ten years later, in 1999, reporter Andrew Schneider and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published articles about a disturbing trend in a small mining town of Libby, MT. Residents there are suffering from extraordinarily high rates of asbestos-related disease. At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed and then shipped, waste rock left over from the expansion process was given away for free. I learned that people used this free waste rock in their yards, in their driveways, and in their gardens. This picture that I have with me today is Justin and Tim Jorgensen. They are climbing on waste rock that was given out by Western Minerals, Inc., in St. Paul, MN, some time in the 1970s. According to W.R. Grace records, this rock they are playing on contained between 2 and 10 percent temuline asbestos. This rock produced airborne asbestos concentrations 135 times higher than OSHA's current standards for workers. We need to do right by Justin and Tim, and those are the people I think about when I look at this bill. I learned, in fact, that our country is far behind others. The United States remains the only industrialized country besides Canada that has not yet banned asbestos. More than 30 million pounds of asbestos are still today right now consumed in the United States each year. I learned that asbestos is still found today in over 3,000 common products in the United States, including baby powder, cosmetics, brake pads, pipes, hairdryers, ceiling tiles and vinyl flooring. It is still legal in 2004 to construct buildings with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal today to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal today for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and linings. Workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, an estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposure on the job today. Asbestos, in fact, has taken a particularly large toll on the people of my State. According to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group, King County has the fourth highest number of deaths related to asbestos in the country. Three other counties, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish, all rank in the top 100 for asbestos-related deaths. Overall, Washington State ranks eighth in asbestos-related deaths nationwide. Just last week in Spokane, WA, our State department of health announced that 100 former workers at a vermiculite factory likely inhaled deadly asbestos fibers and should seek advice from their doctors. They also warned that children and spouses who lived with those workers could become ill from particles that were carried home with the loved ones on their clothing, on their hair, and their skin. Given the known dangers of this mineral, we should all be asking why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose where there are perfectly acceptable substitutes? Americans in every walk of life and in every corner of this country have been exposed, and we have to protect them. That is why I have worked to do a series of things over the past few years. On June 18 of 2002 I introduced the Ban Asbestos in America Act. I reintroduced that bill again last May as S. 1115. I do thank all the Senators who have cosponsored my bill: Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Daschle, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Reid. I have pushed the EPA to warn homeowners about the dangers of Zonolite insulation, which today is in the attics of as many as 35 million homes, schools, and businesses. I have urged the EPA to warn brake mechanics about the deadly asbestos dust they are exposed to on the job today. I have asked OSHA to increase its efforts to enforce existing regulations that attempt to protect automobile brake mechanics. I have shared my concern with legislators in Canada, the country that is the largest source of America's asbestos imports. I testified at a hearing on Libby, MT, and I testified before the Judiciary Committee last July. Asbestos liability is a real problem. It is a problem for victims, and it is a problem for companies. We need a balanced solution. Unfortunately, the bill that is before us today falls short in six ways. First of all, it is unfair to victims because the awards are too small, even smaller than many would get if they were allowed a day in court. Second, it could lock future victims out of getting help because the trust fund is inadequate. Third, it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos. It does not include the education campaign that we know is needed and that I have been pushing for over the past 3 years. Fourth, it falls short on research, tracking, and treatment for asbestos diseases. Fifth, it makes family members jump through too many restrictive hurdles. And sixth, it allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards family members receive, unfairly reducing the award they deserve, and treating them much differently than other Federal compensation programs. Let me take a few minutes to discuss each of those in detail. First of all, as I said, the awards are too small. Many people who had their lives torn apart by asbestos will actually do worse under this bill than they would in court. For example, awards for lung cancer victims who have more than 15 years of exposure to asbestos are limited to $25,000 to $75,000, even though most of those victims will die within a year. Victims with asbestosis who have lost 20 percent to 40 percent of their breathing capacity, many of whom will be disabled for life, will receive only $85,000. That is far less than their lost wages and medical costs. This bill gives them less than they deserve. At the same time, it blocks the courthouse door to victims who have staggering medical bills, lost wages, and other damages. I do not see how Congress can leave asbestos victims worse off than they are today, but that is what this bill will do. Second, the trust fund is too small to compensate all the victims, but that is just one of the problems with this trust fund. I believe a successful trust fund will provide fair and adequate compensation to all victims and would bring reasonable financial certainty to defendant companies and insurers. To do that, the trust fund must include four things: Fair award values, appropriate medical criteria, adequate funding, and fast processing. The system for processing claims must allow victims to get prompt payments, without the complications, time, and expense of a traditional lawsuit. Unfortunately, the trust fund in this bill falls far short of what is needed. I have already discussed how the award values are unfair. In addition, the trust fund is not adequately funded. In fact, the trust fund in this bill has been slashed dramatically from the original Hatch legislation. In the Judiciary Committee's bill the trust fund was $153 billion. But in this bill we are being asked to vote on the trust fund has been slashed by over $40 billion. Now, the trust fund didn't shrink on its own. It was reduced after closed-door negotiations that included only one side, the defendant companies and the insurance industry. It was not based on the actual needs of victims. Instead, it was based on what the insurers and businesses were willing to pay. This one-sided agreement reduced the funding provided in S. 1125 by more than $40 billion. Making matters worse, an additional $10 billion in contingent funds does not become available for 24 years. The Senate should not adopt a policy of adjusting award values just to meet an arbitrary and artificial limit reached in a back room with only one side present. Not only was this figure arrived at in an unfair way, but it is clear it is not enough to meet the needs of current and future asbestos victims. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of this bill at $134 billion. This bill provides only $109 billion. So there is a significant shortfall already. But there is very good reason to believe this shortfall will be even larger. Recent claims in the Manville trust show much higher than expected claims for many asbestos diseases. Those claims also show that recent mortality and morbidity data increase the likelihood that the number of asbestos-related diseases and related claims will exceed current estimates. If this fund becomes insolvent it will leave victims without the help they deserve and without the help they need. Because of that possibility, last year Senators inserted a number of protections during the Judiciary Committee markup. Tragically, very tragically, the bill before us today throws away all of those carefully crafted bipartisan protections. For example, we had protections for victims in case the trust fund became insolvent. Those protections in the Biden amendment were stripped from this bill. We had protections that guaranteed that asbestos victims would preserve their legal rights until the trust fund is operational. That is important because if this bill becomes law, it will end up in court and there will be no mechanism for victims and their families to get help while this law is tied up in court. We solved that problem with the Feinstein amendment, but again those protections were stripped from this bill. So overall this trust fund is inadequate. If we are going to lock the courthouse doors to victims, we have to be 100 percent certain the trust fund will have enough money to cover all of the 600,000 current claims and the thousands more that may be found later. This is especially important because asbestos diseases have a very long latency period, often decades long, making it hard for us to predict today who will need help in the future. If we pass this inadequate trust fund, my constituents and hundreds of thousands of Americans will be left out in the cold with only the fading memories of their loved ones to carry them through this tragic ordeal. My third concern with this bill is it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This bill completely drops the education campaign that was in both of my asbestos bills. One of the reasons why asbestos takes such a deadly toll is because people are unaware that they're being exposed to it. Ralph Busch, a constituent of mine, exposed himself and his wife to asbestos when he renovated his home. He never knew about the dangers until he happened to read a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Today, his dream house is abandoned, his credit is ruined, and his health is a constant worry. Ralph Busch didn't do anything wrong. He couldn't have known about the danger of Zonolite insulation. There is no way that Ralph Busch could have known that by buying and renovating an old house he would eventually expose his family to dangerous levels of asbestos. We must make sure others do know about this public health risk by providing additional resources to educate the American public about the dangers of worksite and home exposures to products that contain asbestos. We must also provide safety information to homeowners on what they can do to prevent asbestos exposures at home, particularly in the attic and basement. In addition to homeowners, many workers are exposed to asbestos on the job. Often they are not aware of the danger, and they don't have the protective equipment they need. I am heartened to hear that EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. But, I am very concerned that the EPA, prodded by a request from the law firm of the former acting agency administrator, is considering revising its ``Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics'' to convey the false impression that brake repair work is no longer a risk. Clearly, any effort by the EPA to downplay these risks flies in the face of current congressional intent regarding the inherent health problems with exposure to asbestos in the workplace. I sincerely hope that EPA will not bow to the pressure of the industry and in fact strengthen its guidance for brake mechanics. My fourth concern is that this bill does not do enough for research, tracking and treatment. I want to thank Senator Hatch for including some modest resources in his latest version of the bill--which should be used to establish mesothelioma research and treatment centers around the country. Yesterday I was pleased to hear Senator Hatch say that he would be willing to explore additional funding for asbestos research and treatment centers. These centers will be critical as the medical community works to develop new treatments and protocols for the variety of deadly cancers and diseases that exposure to asbestos brings to workers and their families. Unfortunately, not included in S. 2290 are the resources needed to track the victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos causing cancers, and to conduct additional research about the harmful effects of this deadly material. These are areas that doctors and other experts have told me time and again we must invest in. I heard from some of those doctors last month at a press conference I held, which Senator Reid and Senator Dayton attended. At the press conference, Dr. Bret Williams of North Carolina said, ``As a doctor, a cancer patient, a husband and father, I am asking my government to take a stand. Fix the problem. Give us hope. Fund a mesothelioma research program. Please invest in a cure.'' A surgeon from Detroit, Dr. Harvey Pass, told us that progress on asbestos diseases requires funding, and he said that funding, ``remains absolutely insufficient to set up the type of collaborative approaches that already exist with lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer.'' The fourth problem with this bill is its inadequate support for research, tracking and treatment of asbestos diseases. My fifth concern with this bill is the way it treats family members. Under this bill, family members of victims will be forced to jump through an additional series of hoops, reducing the likelihood they will ever receive an award. Let us remember that these family members have lost loved ones. In many cases they are vulnerable themselves because they came into contact with asbestos fibers through a family member. Take the case of Susan Lawes. Her father was a pipe fitter and was exposed to asbestos on the job. When he came home from work, asbestos fibers were still on his clothes. He would walk through the door after the end of a long day and give his daughter a hug. Last month, Susan was diagnosed with an asbestos disease. As she told me,'' I am literally dying because I hugged my dad.'' Susan and many people like her are not treated fairly under this bill. The children and the spouses of workers should not have to prove five years of exposure to asbestos from their husbands and fathers as they would under this bill. They also should not be forced to appear before a special Physicians Review Board in order to determine their medical condition and whether they are eligible for a compensatory award. It is the same for people in Spokane, WA. Spokane is one of the 22 sites that EPA has determined is still contaminated. Why are we forcing these innocent victims of take-home asbestos exposure to jump through extraordinary hoops to determine their eligibility of an award? My fifth concern is the unfair way this bill treats family members-- making them jump through hurdles that reduce the chance they will ever get the help they need. Finally, this bill allows insurance companies to reduce any awards that victims actually receive--something that is not found in similar federal plans. This bill allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards that victims and family members receive. I find it unconscionable that health insurance companies and other entities can recoup their costs by placing liens on the awards family members receive in compensation for their loss of a father, a husband, a son or a daughter. These workers were often the only breadwinners in their households, but this bill tells their surviving family members that they can be sued by their health insurance provider for a substantial part of an award--an award that as I've shown may already be inadequate. What is especially disturbing is other federal compensation programs do not allow this type of action, but for some reason, asbestos victims are being given fewer protections. For example, the awards provided to victims in federal compensation programs like the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act and the Ricky Ray Hemophiliac Relief Fund Act are not subject to liens by workers compensation insurers. I don't know why the authors want to treat asbestos victims differently, but I do know that it is not fair, and it's one of the reasons why I can't support this bill. In the end, this bill falls far short of what victims deserve. The awards are too small. The trust fund is inadequate. It fails to educate Americans about the dangers of asbestos. It falls short on research, tracking and treatment for asbestos diseases. It puts unfair burdens on family members, and it allows insurance companies to reduce a victim's award. I have been fighting on this for years, and it makes no sense that we could squander this moment with a bill that is so inadequate. George and Gayla and Ralph and Marv and Bret and Brian deserve so much better, and I will continue to fight for them. Regardless of what happens with this bill, the one thing we must do is ban asbestos, and I assure my colleagues that I will keep fighting for that. I do want to pass a law. We need a real solution. I don't want companies going bankrupt. I don't want victims going without the help they need. I still think we can do it, and I will continue to fight for a balanced and fair bill that will do right by victims across the country. We have an obligation to them and their families. I have been fighting for them for the last 3 years. No matter what happens this week, I am not going to stop now. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during today's session of the Senate Senator Harkin be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business; Senator Byrd for up to 40 minutes as in morning business; and Senator Inhofe for up to 30 minutes as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, since 1948, countries all over the world have recognized April 7 as World Health Day as a way to raise awareness of a specific health issue that has global significance. In previous years, World Health Day focused on issues such as the importance of creating healthy environments for children, addressing emerging infectious diseases, and reducing the stigma associated with mental health treatment. The theme for this year is road safety which is perhaps not something that is often thought of as a public health risk. However, each year motor vehicle crashes have a devastating and tragic impact on millions of families all over the world. In 2002, motor vehicle crashes killed nearly 1.2 million people worldwide and injured as many as 50 million more. If the current trend continues, the World Health Organization estimates that by the year 2020, road traffic deaths and disabilities will become the third leading contributor to the global burden of disease and injury ahead of strokes, tuberculosis and HIV. The toll of these crashes is no less significant here in the United States. Over 42,800 people were killed and nearly 3 million people were injured on our own country's roads and highways in 2002. That's one person--a parent, child, friend, or colleague--killed in a car crash every 12 minutes of every single day. Beyond the overwhelming emotional impact that these deaths and injuries wreak on our communities, they also cost our economy over $230 billion a year. Today as countries around the globe put a spotlight on the issue of road safety, it is equally important to examine what we are doing here in our own country to prevent these crashes. As the former chairman and now as the ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to improve transportation safety over the years and I would like to talk about some of the ways we can save lives and prevent injuries. To look at this in a very basic way, there are three categories of events that can go wrong on the road and have deadly consequences. First, there can be hazardous road conditions such as poor weather, narrow lanes or dangerous curves. Second, there can be a catastrophic failure in the vehicle such as a blown tire or worn out brakes. And finally, the driver's own behavior can mean the difference between life and death on the road, whether it is neglecting to wear a seat belt; driving while intoxicated; speeding; or, falling asleep at the wheel. The investments that we make in our roads, the standards that we set for vehicles and the laws that we enact to change driver behavior all can help reduce the number of fatalities on our Nation's roads and highways. Often when we talk about transportation funding, we focus on the highway construction jobs that will be created and the congestion that will be relieved. We also must mention how our transportation investments improve safety on our roads and highways. I would like to take the occasion of World Health Day to highlight two areas, in particular, where we hope our transportation investments will help change driver behavior. The Omnibus appropriations bill that passed the Senate a few months ago increased funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's drunk driving program by more than 40 percent. These funds will help States develop and implement a tracking system for those repeat offenders who drive drunk time and time again. They will also help better educate the judges and prosecutors that handle drunk driving cases so that sanctions will be applied in a consistent manner. It is well known in the highway safety community that the best way to deliver the message about the perils of drinking and driving is through high visibility enforcement programs. On the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with Senator Shelby to include funding for a national paid media campaign for NHTSA's ``You Drink and Drive. You Lose'' program. This media campaign, which coincides with impaired driving safety mobilization efforts, delivers the message to drivers that law enforcement is out in force conducting sobriety checkpoints and that if you are caught driving under the influence, there will be serious legal consequences. The Omnibus appropriations bill included $14 million for paid advertising; $2.75 million to support State-impaired driving mobilization efforts; and $3 million to pilot new and innovative strategies to combat impaired driving. This funding, in combination with strong State laws, provides us with an opportunity to reverse the unfortunate upward trend in the number of alcohol-related fatalities. Another contribution that the Omnibus appropriations bill made toward transportation safety is in the area of seat belts. The most important thing you can do to protect yourself in the event of a car crash is to wear your seat belt. In fact, in 2002, the year for which we have the most recent data, seat belts saved over 14,000 lives. The FY 2004 bill included $14 million for the ``Click It or Ticket'' program, which is a national paid media campaign similar to the impaired driving effort I just mentioned, however, its focus is on getting families to buckle up. This is the third year in a row that Congress has provided funding for ``Click It or Ticket,'' and we are seeing some positive results. Last year, NHTSA estimated that seat belt use had risen to 79 percent nationally, its highest use rate ever. My State of Washington led the country with nearly 95 percent of our citizens wearing their seat belts. Our efforts to reduce drunk driving and increase seat belt use are just two examples of the steps we are taking to address the safety challenges we face on our Nation's highways. As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I will continue to work to provide funding for programs that tackle these issues and take the opportunity on occasions such as this to highlight the importance of safety on our Nation's roads.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Snowe-Dodd amendment to increase funding for child care by $6 billion. We know that high-quality child care makes a real difference for children and their families. It allows parents to work, and at the same time it gives children a safe and productive place to learn. Today the need for child care is growing, but government support is not. In fact, because of the slow economy and State budget problems, many States are cutting back on their support of child care. This is having an especially painful impact on low-income families--the very families that are helped the most by child care. These are also the same families that will need more help because of the work requirements in the underlying bill. That is why we need to pass this amendment. The Snowe-Dodd amendment will increase funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant by $6 billion. Without this amendment, about 430,000 children will lose their child care assistance over the next 3 years. This amendment will make a real difference for families in every state. In my own home state of Washington, this amendment will mean nearly $140 million in increased child care funding for Washington families. Over the years, I have fought on this floor to increase child care funding, so I don't need to spend a lot of time reviewing what the research shows us. We know that safe, quality child care helps children start school ready to learn and keeps children safe while their parents work. Studies show that quality makes a real difference. Children in poor-quality child care have been found to lag behind in language and reading skills and to display more aggression. On the other hand, children in high-quality child care have greater math, thinking and attention skills. They also have fewer behavior problems than children in lower-quality care. The benefits of high quality child care are not in question; the only question is how many families can afford it? Full-day child care easily costs from $4,000 to $10,000 a year. That is at least as much as college tuition at a public university, and it's more than many families can afford. For example, if both parents work full-time for minimum wage, they only make $21,400 a year. Child care would be one- quarter to one-half of their income. Clearly, they need help. Today, nearly 16 million children under age 13--who are living in low-income families--are likely to need child care. But out of those 16 million, only one in seven low-income children receive the federal child care assistance for which they are eligible. Even worse, the need for child care is increasing because of our high unemployment rate and because of the increased work requirements in the underlying bill. Many out-of-work parents are looking for jobs, and they need child care to be able to look for a job. If this amendment fails and the underlying bill passes, about 430,000 children will lose their child care assistance by fiscal year 2008. Without this amendment, fewer and fewer children will get the child care they need. Because of inflation alone, States will need $5 billion over the next 5 years just to keep serving the same number of children. And that assumes that TANF funds will be available and that State budgets won't be cut. We already know that States are cutting back on child care funding because of their budget shortfalls. In 2000, States spent $3.8 billion in TANF funds for child care programs. By 2002, State spending had dropped to $3.5 billion. Many States have growing numbers of low-income families on waiting lists. Some States are turning low-income families away unless those families receive TANF, are moving out of TANF, or have other special circumstances. Other States have altered eligibility requirements so that only the very poor receive assistance. And some States have raised copayments. According to the General Accounting Office, 23 States have changed their child care policies since 2001 in ways that limit access for families, shutting the door on opportunities for parents to work. My own State of Washington has lowered the eligibility standard for child care subsidies from 225 percent to 200 percent of poverty. Washington State also increased monthly co-payments for families. In 2000, 54,000 children in Washington received subsidized child care. By 2001, the number had dropped to 51,200. As I mentioned earlier, this amendment will mean nearly $140 million in increased child care funding for Washington families. That help is desperately needed. Today we are considering a welfare reauthorization bill that is supposed to help struggling families become self-sufficient. I do not believe we can have a meaningful conversation about getting parents into jobs unless families have access to safe, quality child care. I urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-Dodd amendment to increase child care funding by $6 billion.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senators from Ohio and Utah and Wyoming express their concerns about the amendment as we have written it. I know the underlying bill was not marked up in committee either, so I find that argument hard to believe. I hear their argument. I understand they are going to defeat this amendment. I want to move forward on the issue of domestic violence. It is extremely important that when we are talking about the abuse of women, that we do something to prevent it. I want to make sure we do take a step forward. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to send a modified amendment to the desk.