Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. No, I will not agree to that.

Mrs. MURRAY. Then, I will yield time to the Senator from Louisiana to ask the Senator from New Hampshire a question.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire has strewn a number of arguments across the floor that need to be responded to. Every one of them has a very legitimate, responsible answer. I used to teach preschool, and I am reminded of the kids who came in and threw all their toys on the floor and then trying to figure out which one to pick up first to try to make it look better. Frankly, there are so many arguments out here that I want to respond to--and I know the Senator from Louisiana wants to respond to--but every one of these arguments can legitimately and clearly be denied. First, let me respond that this amendment does not raise taxes despite the rhetoric from the other side. This amendment closes loopholes, just as the Republican budget requires within itself in order to pay for this. That is legitimate. It is not raising taxes. It is closing loopholes. I think it is an argument all of us in the Chamber understand. Senator Landrieu has been listening carefully to the Senator from New Hampshire on his argument about funding and funding increases, and she is going to respond to that. I will yield her time to do that. But let me point out, when President Clinton came into office in 1993 and 1994--and the Republican chart that was up only talked about 1993 and 1994; it did not talk about the tremendous increases later--the President's No. 1 priority at that time was to balance the budget, which was extremely out of whack. President Bush, when he came into office--and that chart was showing us the numbers of increases at that time--his No. 1 priority was to cut taxes. That is the difference. I remind my colleagues on the other side, the reason the budgets for education were increased is because Democrats demanded it. I know they have forgotten this, but Democrats were in control in the Senate from about June of 2001 until January of 2003, when much of those increases were in place, because we came to the floor and said it needed to be done. I know my colleague, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, is here. I yield to her such time as she needs to respond.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would be delighted to give the Senator from North Dakota 2 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Wyoming is on the floor. I want to set up some time allotment for our side so we can go back and forth. Under our time, I yield 10 minutes to the Senators from Delaware, 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, and 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. We will alternate time with the other side as they require.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Sarbanes and Senator Bingaman as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator has 10 minutes. I assume that is equally divided. If you need more than that, I am happy to yield it.

Mrs. MURRAY. And our side has 8 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for that clarification. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota and all of our Democratic colleagues who have spoken. When the Senator from Minnesota was speaking, I couldn't help but think of someone he remembers well. During the whole debate of No Child Left Behind, Senator Paul Wellstone, who was on the floor during that debate saying: We are giving a promise I don't believe we are going to keep. Everyone assured him: No, no, we will put this accountability in place. We will fund this. The Senator from Minnesota speaks from his heart, as I know Senator Wellstone would have admired him for, in reminding all of us what is happening to our children and to our schools because we haven't kept the promise all of us said we would keep when the debate took place several years ago. How much time remains on both sides?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me ask my colleague from New Hampshire if he intends to use any more time on their side. I have a few more minutes I would like to speak.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this year marks the 95th anniversary of National Women's Day and the 93rd anniversary of International Women's Day. Since the first decades of the 20th century, when women in the United States, Western Europe, and Russia fought for the right to vote, tremendous progress has been made in advancing women's rights. Unfortunately, many women here at home and abroad still suffer. In the last year, through America's increased involvement in foreign countries, our attention has been drawn to both the gains and shortcomings in the advancement of women's rights. In Afghanistan, although more girls are attending school than ever before in the country's history, tremendous security concerns remain. In rural areas especially, many women and girls choose to remain indoors because they are frequently targeted by armed warlords. This makes it impossible for them to attend school, go to work, or actively participate in the country's reconstruction. Afghan women are also concerned with the widespread prevalence of forced marriage, and rape. In some cases, girls as young as 8 years old are forced into marriage with much older men. Although I am glad to see that the new Afghan constitution guarantees equal rights for all, I recognize the difference between putting high ideals down on paper and putting them into practice. Women's programs in Afghanistan have not been funded at proposed levels and it is unacceptable. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been a strong supporter of Afghan aid, especially for women. I worked very hard to include an amendment to provide $60 million for Afghan women's programs in the fiscal year 2004 Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill, because it is of the utmost importance that women play an active role in the country's political and economic reconstruction. In Iraq as well, we must demand that the promises made to women become a reality. The interim constitution sets a 25 percent quota for women in the transitional assembly, and the preamble of the document makes clear that Iraqis are equal without regard to sex, sect, religion or other considerations. However, this is far removed from what women's groups initially asked for. The 25-member Iraqi Governing Council has only three women members, only one women sits in the Iraqi Cabinet, and of the 18 provincial governors, none are women. This has resulted in a vast shortage of women from all the decision-making bodies in the new Iraq. In addition to following through with our commitment to women in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must also do a better job of drawing attention to the other millions of women around the globe who suffer from legal and political discrimination, domestic violence, inadequate medical care, illiteracy, and other social injustices. The worldwide theme for International Women's Day this year is ``Women and HIV/AIDS.'' This is because the disease is having an increasingly devastating impact on females. Throughout the world, girls and young women now make up nearly two thirds of those below the age of 24 living with HIV, and new infections are rising fastest among married women infected by their husbands. In order to stem this trend, women must be involved in the solution. This will involve providing women with better education and better healthcare. The U.N. properly recognizes that no enduring solution to any of society's social, economic and political ills can be found without the full participation, and the full empowerment of women. In Africa alone, poor healthcare and poor education among women is one of the greatest challenges to development. Because women are the primary caretakers of children and the elderly, families face an additional burden when mothers are in poor health and poorly educated. Unfortunately, it has taken a global pandemic to remind us how important it is to support education and healthcare improvements for women. Domestic violence is another enormous problem facing women. Not only abroad, but here at home as well, countless women are the targets of brutality simply because of their gender. The impact of domestic violence toward women is profound and it is often overlooked. The World Health Organization asserts that domestic violence causes more deaths and disabilities among women between ages 15 and 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war. Every day, thousands of women are made to be victims of rape, genital mutilation, sexual assault, honor killings, sexual trafficking, female infanticide, forced sterilization, and forced abortion. These things are very unpleasant to talk about, and for most of us, their occurrence is hard to comprehend. Many ask, how is it possible that in this age of technology and global communication, so many still suffer from the barbaric practices of the past? As a global leader, the United States has a responsibility to bring attention to these types of questions, because progress can only be made by recognizing and addressing the unfortunate realities that still exist. In the upcoming year, as the international community seeks to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as bring stability to other tenuous parts of the world, let us renew our focus on the importance of advancing the causes of women. Today, as we recognize International Women's day, I am reminded of the inscription on the Women's Suffrage Monument in the Capital Rotunda. The inscription reads: Principle not policy, Justice not Favor, Men, their rights and nothing more. Women, their rights and nothing less.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his tremendous leadership on the Budget Committee over the years and for his leadership in making sure we do the right thing in terms of deficits and also investments for this country. I have served on the Budget Committee for the past 11 years, through recessions and economic expansions and during periods of surplus and periods of deficit. I know what responsible budgets look like because I have worked with chairmen from both parties. I believe this Republican budget doesn't do what we must do to create jobs, improve our security, and to meet our country's needs. I think we can do better. That is why I am speaking out on the floor this evening. It is why I offered amendments in committee last week, and it is why I will be offering amendments on the floor this week. Mr. President, this is a critical time for our country, and we need a Federal budget that meets our needs. We are facing many challenges today, from supporting our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, to improving our security at home, to recovering all the jobs that we have lost, and addressing the growing deficit. This budget resolution should help us meet those challenges, but instead it offers the wrong priorities. It favors tax cuts over our Nation's security. It favors boardrooms over classrooms. It favors deficits over job creation. Frankly, this budget offers too little help for families in my State of Washington. My State still has the fourth highest unemployment in the Nation. This budget does not give families in my State the support they deserve as they work to turn our economy around and build for the future. The people of Washington deserve a real Federal commitment because they work to create jobs and provide health care and improve our security and transportation. On the issues important in my State, this budget comes up short. I am particularly disappointed that the President's budget doesn't fulfill the Federal commitment to secure our ports, care for our veterans, to invest in education, to improve health care, or to provide the infrastructure we need to move our communities forward. Not only is this budget bad for Washington State, but it is also bad for our country's economic future, lining up massive deficits for years to come. I hear many in the majority speak of the need for ``fiscal discipline,'' but the rhetoric in this budget doesn't meet the reality. This budget continues the fiscal policies that have put our Nation's priorities in jeopardy. Two weeks ago, Americans learned that the majority's policies are threatening America's retirement security in order to pay for their own irresponsible fiscal policies. Rather than backing away from a misguided economic policy that has cost us millions of jobs, the administration now appears ready to cut Social Security benefits for millions of hard-working Americans. I am not willing to tell the people of my State that they must suffer because of the fiscal mistakes of this administration or this majority in the Congress. I want to turn to a few of my top concerns with this budget: port security, veterans, education, health care, and transportation. In Washington State, we depend on our ports. One in 4 Washington jobs rely on international trade, and our ports are critical economic engines. Unfortunately, as we all know, in today's world, America's ports are vulnerable. A terrorist attack launched on or through our ports could bring our commerce to a standstill, threatening lives and jobs and really our economic future. We have an obligation to improve the security of our ports. Unfortunately, this budget tells our communities that the Federal Government will not be a full partner in port security. This budget literally sticks our local ports and communities with unfunded mandates at a time when local and State budgets are already stretched incredibly thin. The President's budget undermines port security in 4 ways: First of all, it eliminates Operation Safe Commerce. Second, it underfunds the Maritime Transportation Security Act by 93 percent. Third, it doesn't provide the Coast Guard with the funding it needs to meet its growing missions. Finally, the President's budget cuts port security grants by 63 percent. Last week in the Budget Committee markup, I offered an amendment to stop the President's cut to port security grants. My amendment failed on a party-line vote. This fight is not over. I will continue to push this White House to pay its share of port security instead of passing those bills on to our local communities. Mr. President, this budget also shortchanges our veterans. Washington State is home to more than 670,000 veterans today. They rely on services they were promised when they signed up for service to our country. But the President's budget is $2.6 billion below the independent budget recommendation for the VA. The VFW, in fact, called the President's budget ``harmful to veterans.'' The Disabled American Veterans called it ``utterly disgraceful.'' This is the wrong message to send at a time when the next generation of combat veterans is today risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last week, I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to increase the VA construction account by $400 million. Last year, Congress authorized the VA to take money out of its health care budget for these construction projects that will begin in this fiscal year. Unless we can increase that construction account, our veterans are going to face a $400 million cut in their health care services. The amendment I offered in committee would have protected our veterans from that cut. Unfortunately, the veterans amendment was defeated in the committee on a party-line vote. Our American veterans deserve better, and I will keep fighting for them. Let me talk about education. I really believe this budget fails, as we all know, to provide the funding that was promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. This Republican budget comes up $8.6 billion short of what our local schools need to fully fund No Child Left Behind. I represent nearly 28,000 Washington State students who will be denied title I services this year under the President's budget request. The President's budget falls $84 million short of the title I funding that was promised to my State under the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's budget also freezes funding for impact aid, dropout prevention, school counseling, afterschool programs, teacher quality, migrant education, and rural education. How can we expect our students and teachers to succeed when we fail to provide them with the resources they need? That is why I offered an amendment to provide $8.6 billion to help our local schools implement the No Child Left Behind Act. Once again, in committee my amendment failed on a party-line vote. We cannot expect our schools to do everything we required of them under the No Child Left Behind Act without the support we promised to them. Let me talk about health care. I believe this budget also seriously jeopardizes health care for many in my home State of Washington. This budget could jeopardize critical support for community health centers, the community access program, NIH, and the CDC. This budget also reduces our commitment to Medicaid. That is a program we should be expanding and strengthening to address the rising number of uninsured and increasing costs of health care. Today, Washington State is struggling to keep its commitment to low- income children through the Medicaid and CHIP programs. Medicaid cuts could result in another 74,000 uninsured individuals in my home State alone. We need more help from the Federal Government and, frankly, this budget falls short. Finally, let me say a word about transportation. Less than a month ago, this Senate passed a strong, bipartisan bill to invest in our Federal highways, transit, and transportation safety programs for the next 6 years. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming support of the Senate, the budget that we see now before us today cuts $62 billion for investment in our surface transportation needs. That is about jobs and about economic growth. It is estimated that for every $1 billion we spend on transportation infrastructure, we create over 47,000 good paying family wage jobs. We know that investing in our transportation priorities today will help us not only improve our quality of life but will provide for our future economic growth. If this Congress truly cares about investing in jobs, we will provide the funding agreed to by the Senate less than 1 month ago today. As I see it, as this budget is written today, it fails our families in areas such as security, veterans, education, health care, and transportation. I am hopeful that we can improve this resolution through the amendment process this week and really create a budget that makes the right investments, that is fiscally responsible, and reflects the priorities of working families across this country. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout this week to address those issues. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his work. I see the chairman of the Budget Committee. I know this is the last budget he will shepherd through the Congress. I thank him for his commitment to our country as well.

Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Sara Hagigh of Senator Lieberman's staff have privilege of the floor during debate of S. 1637.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I rise today to join with Senator Hatch to strengthen and extend the research and development tax credit. We are all concerned about our slow economy. Every day we learn of more American jobs that are being shipped overseas. We worry about American companies losing out in the global marketplace and the impact that has on our workers and on our economy. Today, we are offering a way to fight back and help our workers and companies continue to lead the world in innovation. Today, I am proud to offer an amendment that will support high-wage jobs for American workers at home and make our products more competitive around the world. Anyone who wants to support good-paying American jobs, and anyone who wants to help American companies compete and win in the global marketplace should vote for the Hatch-Murray amendment. We all know research and development is a critical part of any business's success, but investing in R&D is not cheap. Our foreign trade competitors offer substantial tax and financial incentives to encourage American companies to make their research investments elsewhere. But we need those jobs in the United States and this amendment gives us a chance to support American workers in the face of foreign competition. That is why the R&D tax credit is so important. It provides a real incentive for companies to increase their investment in U.S.-based research and development. The credit helps stimulate innovation, wages, and exports which all contribute to a stronger economy and a higher standard of living for American workers. This is about investing in America. Because this tax credit is only available for R&D performed in the United States, it provides a discount on qualifying expenditures, and it is a proven incentive for U.S. companies to increase their R&D investment in the United States. Unfortunately, the existing research and development tax credit will expire this June. Unless we take action, in just a few months we will be throwing away one of the best incentives for spurring investments at home. I have always supported making the R&D tax credit permanent, but because of budget constraints, we are not in a position to do that today. But we can do the next best thing and extend and strengthen this incentive. The Hatch-Murray amendment does three things: First, it extends the traditional credit for 18 months through December 31, 2005; second, it increases the alternative incremental credit rate starting in January of 2005; and finally, again starting in January of 2005, it provides an alternative simplified credit to encourage even more research-intensive businesses to spend more on research in the United States. The R&D tax credit is a great example of how we make the Tax Code work for American workers and American families right here at home. I have a letter from the R&D Tax Credit Coalition, and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this letter is actually signed by over 500 companies and associations and urges Congress to permanently extend the R&D tax credit and make the modifications contained in S. 664. I share with my colleagues a portion of the letter: The technological innovations made possible by the R&D Credit enable companies to bring more products and services to market, increase employment, and raise the standard of living for all Americans. R&D helps manufacturers and services companies with U.S. operations maintain a competitive edge over lower-cost foreign competitors. It allows a small, medium or large company to reduce its financial risk in expensive, labor-intensive R&D investments. Since the credit was created in 1981, investments in technology and innovation have spurred economic growth and contributed greatly to our country's high standard of living. Continued R&D spending is a necessary element in our country's ability to invest for our future. This is not some abstract economic principle. It is a real incentive that creates jobs and helps workers in America. I have seen it firsthand at companies throughout Washington State. This year, Microsoft plans to invest $6.8 billion on R&D. Because this tax credit is targeted almost exclusively at wages, the credit will translate into additional jobs in Washington State and in the United States. That will mean jobs not just at Microsoft but at many other local companies. In fact, according to a February 25, 2003, article in the Seattle Times, one study found that every job at Microsoft supports 3.4 other jobs in the economy. It also found that from 1990 to 2001 Microsoft was responsible for more than a fourth, 28.3 percent, of King County's growth. That is an example of how one company's investment in R&D is supporting good family wage jobs throughout the region. That is just one company. There are many other companies engaged in R&D in Washington State and in the United States. Their investment in R&D will help our workers and help our economy. I want to share some other figures that show the importance of R&D investment, especially in Washington State. In the year 2000, companies performed almost $200 billion in R&D; $9.8 billion of that research was performed in Washington State. Let me shed some light on types of employers that are doing that work. Thirty-three percent of the research done in Washington State was performed by manufacturers. We have seen a terrible loss of manufacturing jobs over the years, and this credit is one way to help them stem the tide. Mr. President, 11.4 percent of the research done in Washington State was done in the professional, scientific, and technical service industries. This is about moving our economy forward. Technological innovations have accounted for more than one-third of our Nation's economic growth during the last decade. We know innovation is critical to sustained growth in the future. Extending and improving the R&D tax credit is one of the most important steps we can take right now to foster investment at home and job creation throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to give American workers a fair shot in the global marketplace by voting for the Hatch-Murray amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 R&D Credit Coalition, Washington, DC, February 9, 2004. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Rangel, Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Max Baucus, Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairmen Thomas and Grassley, and Ranking Members Rangel and Baucus: We urge you to make the enactment of a permanent research tax credit (R&D Credit) with the modifications contained in companion bills H.R. 463/S. 664 an early legislative priority in 2004. As you know, the technological innovations made possible by the R&D Credit enable companies to bring more products and services to market, increase employment, and raise the standard of living for all Americans. R&D helps manufacturers and services companies with U.S. operations maintain a competitive edge over lower-cost foreign competitors. It allows a small, medium or large company to reduce its financial risk in expensive, labor-intensive R&D investments. Since the credit was created in 1981, investments in technology and innovation have spurred economic growth and contributed greatly to our country's high standard of living. Continued R&D spending is a necessary element in our country's ability to invest for our future. The growth of our economy is inextricably tied to the ability to companies to make a sustained commitment to long- term research. Congress has consistently demonstrated support for the R&D credit. This year, in order to provide stability and to ensure that all companies performing intensive research in the United States are able to benefit from the credit, Congress should make the credit permanent, increase the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIRC) rates, and provide an alternative simplified credit calculation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General Government, I also must insist that this technical correction be adopted immediately. The provision in question simply ensures that the program will be administered in the same manner as it has been in previous years. It must be enacted into law at the earliest possible date.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that there was an error in processing my amendment to increase funding for, and make other improvements to, the Federal Highway Administration Ferry Boat Discretionary Program. My amendment was included in the SAFETEA authorization bill, and I want to confirm with my colleagues the correct funding level for the record so there is no confusion. Prior to my amendment being sent to the desk, I had reached agreement with all the majority and minority managers of the bill to increase funding for the ferry program to the level of $120 million per year in the SAFETEA authorization bill. Unfortunately, it appears that, in the processing of the final amendments to the bill, the amendment making this change was not the amendment that was sent to the desk and enrolled by the bill clerk. To clarify the record, I would like to ask my colleague, Chairman Inhofe, what is his understanding of the level that is agreed upon for the ferry program in the SAFETEA authorization bill?

Mrs. MURRAY. I also ask Senators Bond, Jeffords and Reid, whether that is their understanding?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to again join my colleague, Senator Cantwell, in introducing the MediFair Act of 2004. My bill will restore fairness to the Medicare program and provide equity for health care providers participating in Medicare. Most importantly, it will open doors of care to more seniors and the disabled in my State. Today, unfair Medicare reimbursement rates are causing doctors to limit their care for Medicare beneficiaries. Throughout my State, seniors and the disabled are having a hard time finding a doctor who will accept new Medicare patients. Unfortunately, the recently-passed Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 further compromises health care in Washington State because it reduces Washington State's per beneficiary payments from 42nd to 45th nationwide. This reduction places health care providers in my State at an economic disadvantage and further limits access to health care in Washington State. My bill will reduce the regional inequities that have resulted in vastly different levels of care and access to care by ensuring that every State receives at least the national average of per-patient spending. This measure will encourage more doctors to accept Medicare patients and will also guarantee that seniors are not penalized when they choose to retire in the State of Washington. In addition to ensuring that no State receives less than the national average, my legislation will encourage healthy outcomes and efficient use of Medicare payments. The current Medicare system punishes health care providers who practice efficient healthcare and healthy outcomes. Physicians and hospitals in my State are proud of the pioneering role they have played in providing high quality, cost effective medicine. Unfortunately, they have been rewarded for their exceptional service by being paid a fraction of their actual costs. On the other hand, States that are inefficient and that over-utilize the system are rewarded with higher states of reimbursement. As we grapple with an ever-increasing budget deficit. We need to make sure that every dollar spent on Medicare is used as effectively as possible. I ask each and every one of my colleagues to join me in restoring fairness to the Medicare program and increasing access to health care for Medicare beneficiaries by supporting the MediFair Act. I want to acknowledge the lead sponsor of the MediFair bill in the House, Representative Adam Smith, as well as the other cosponsors, Representative Baird, Representative Dicks, Representative Inslee, Representative Larsen, and Representative McDermott. I have been working on addressing the issue of inequitable Medicare reimbursement policies for a number of years, and I am pleased that we have made inroads in addressing this issue. I especially appreciate the efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reward healthy outcomes, and I look forward to working with HHS in the future to meet these goals. Medicare should reward States like Washington that have a proven tradition of efficient and effective health care. Passing the MediFair Act will go a long way to improving health care access for seniors in States like Washington and ensuring that Federal health care dollars produce the best results possible for our patients.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to again join my colleague, Senator Cantwell, in introducing the MediFair Act of 2004. My bill will restore fairness to the Medicare program and provide equity for health care providers participating in Medicare. Most importantly, it will open doors of care to more seniors and the disabled in my State. Today, unfair Medicare reimbursement rates are causing doctors to limit their care for Medicare beneficiaries. Throughout my State, seniors and the disabled are having a hard time finding a doctor who will accept new Medicare patients. Unfortunately, the recently-passed Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 further compromises health care in Washington State because it reduces Washington State's per beneficiary payments from 42nd to 45th nationwide. This reduction places health care providers in my State at an economic disadvantage and further limits access to health care in Washington State. My bill will reduce the regional inequities that have resulted in vastly different levels of care and access to care by ensuring that every State receives at least the national average of per-patient spending. This measure will encourage more doctors to accept Medicare patients and will also guarantee that seniors are not penalized when they choose to retire in the State of Washington. In addition to ensuring that no State receives less than the national average, my legislation will encourage healthy outcomes and efficient use of Medicare payments. The current Medicare system punishes health care providers who practice efficient healthcare and healthy outcomes. Physicians and hospitals in my State are proud of the pioneering role they have played in providing high quality, cost effective medicine. Unfortunately, they have been rewarded for their exceptional service by being paid a fraction of their actual costs. On the other hand, States that are inefficient and that over-utilize the system are rewarded with higher states of reimbursement. As we grapple with an ever-increasing budget deficit. We need to make sure that every dollar spent on Medicare is used as effectively as possible. I ask each and every one of my colleagues to join me in restoring fairness to the Medicare program and increasing access to health care for Medicare beneficiaries by supporting the MediFair Act. I want to acknowledge the lead sponsor of the MediFair bill in the House, Representative Adam Smith, as well as the other cosponsors, Representative Baird, Representative Dicks, Representative Inslee, Representative Larsen, and Representative McDermott. I have been working on addressing the issue of inequitable Medicare reimbursement policies for a number of years, and I am pleased that we have made inroads in addressing this issue. I especially appreciate the efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reward healthy outcomes, and I look forward to working with HHS in the future to meet these goals. Medicare should reward States like Washington that have a proven tradition of efficient and effective health care. Passing the MediFair Act will go a long way to improving health care access for seniors in States like Washington and ensuring that Federal health care dollars produce the best results possible for our patients.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today the Senate is voting on a political gimmick that will punish women and children and do nothing to address the real medical malpractice crisis that is crippling healthcare throughout our State. Doctors are facing escalating costs that are unsustainable, but instead of addressing this problem with a common-sense and immediate fix, the majority is engaging in a blame game. We don't have time for the blame game. Instead, we should be debating the bipartisan bill I support to provide immediate relief to doctors, stop frivolous lawsuits, and fix the broken insurance market. But this bill doesn't just fail to address the real crisis in malpractice insurance; it actually undermines the rights of women and children in the name of helping them. As a woman, a mother, and a Senator who has fought for the safety and welfare of mothers and infants, I am disturbed that the U.S. Senate would single out women and babies for different treatment than everyone else in America if they are injured through no fault of their own. This bill tells women that if we are injured, we don't deserve the same legal protections as men. The sponsors of this bill have spoken about the health and well-being of women and babies in hypothetical terms. But I have to tell you, the injuries and crimes that continue to plague female patients are all too real. Currently, in my State of Washington, we are following a high-profile case in which an OB/GYN has been accused of raping or molesting dozens of female patients under his care. This doctor is also accused of providing substandard care, ranging from performing unnecessary medical procedures to failing to prescribe prenatal vitamins to a pregnant patient with low iron levels. In one case, this doctor even performed a surgery despite the fact that his office was not licensed for surgery and did not have a supply of blood available in case of complications. I ask my colleagues to consider this case. If your wife or daughter or sister had been hurt, molested or worse by this doctor, would a $250,000 cap seem like a reasonable solution? These cases are not hypothetical. They are not frivolous. And this bill will not protect the health or increase the wellbeing of any of these patients. I find some sad irony in being told by this bill's sponsors that if I want to help women and babies, I should strip away their rights. I take a backseat to no one when it comes to standing up for women and children. I wish that the people who are pushing this bill today had shown the same interest when I was fighting to ensure women could get direct access to an OB/GYN during the Patients Bill of Rights debate, but instead, they killed that effort. I wish they had shown the same interest in 1999 when I offered an amendment to end drive-through mastectomies, but they killed that effort as well. I wish this bill's sponsors had showed the same concern when I was fighting to improve drug labeling for pregnant women, but instead, they killed that proposal as well. They weren't on the side of women during all those fights, but here they are today, using the real shortage of OB/GYNs and the real malpractice crisis as an excuse for punishing women and babies without giving doctors or patients the help they desperately need. If the sponsors of this bill are now serious about helping ensure healthy women and babies, I say ``Come on over!'' I've got a long list of legislation that they can sign onto today to really help women--like extending Family and Medical Leave, boosting the federal Medicaid match for OB/GYNs, and expanding Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, for low-income pregnant women. The single most important step to ensure a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby is prenatal care. Fully-funding and expanding CHIP would provide this care to low-income women who would otherwise go without. The saddest part of this exercise is that we should be spending this time discussing a real solution, like the bipartisan bill I am cosponsoring with Senators Graham and Durbin, the Better HEALTH Act, S. 1374. If the Senate leadership really wants to help doctors and patients, they will bring up the widely-supported Graham-Durbin bill for a vote and stop playing games at the expense of women and babies. Every day they deny a vote on this bipartisan bill speaks volumes about their interest in a real solution. The Graham-Durbin bill would give doctors an immediate 20 percent tax rebate on their malpractice premiums, provide federal help for a broken insurance market, and block frivolous lawsuits. That's the type of comprehensive, immediate and effective solution our doctors, patients and communities deserve. My action plan to fix the malpractice crisis has four steps. The first thing we have to do is get doctors and hospitals some immediate relief--because the clock is ticking. Even if proposals to cap non- economic and punitive damages were passed this year, it is impossible to predict when--if ever--doctors and hospitals would see relief. That is not good enough for me, and it is not good enough for the doctors in my community. I want doctors and hospitals to get immediate relief. Under the Graham-Durbin bill, doctors in high-risk specialties would be eligible for a tax credit that's 20 percent of their malpractice premium. Doctors in lower-risk specialties would get a 10 percent tax- credit. For-profit hospitals would get a 15 percent tax credit, and non-profit hospitals would get new grants. Immediate financial relief directly to doctors and hospitals must be part of any solution to the malpractice crisis. Second, we have to cut down on frivolous lawsuits. Under the Graham- Durbin bill, every plaintiff attorney that files a medical malpractice case would be required to include an affidavit by a qualified health care professional verifying that malpractice has occurred. No more launching lawsuits that don't have merit. And anyone who violates this affidavit is going to be punished with strict, and increasingly harsh, civil penalties. We are not going to tolerate frivolous lawsuits, and that's the second part of the Graham-Durbin bill. Third, we need to provide additional protections for doctors who are doing the right thing and serving patients through Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP. Doctors with a 25 percent caseload of Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, patients would be protected from punitive damages under the Graham-Durbin bill. Exemptions would only be allowed for cases involving sexual abuse, assault and battery, and falsification of records. Other than that there will be no punitive damages for doctors who are doing the right thing and serving Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP patients. Finally, the Graham-Durbin bill says the Federal Government should underwrite some of the risk in malpractice insurance--just as we have with terrorism and flood insurance. Doctors and hospitals should not have to shoulder the burden of a broken insurance market. If the Senate leadership is serious about helping doctors and patients, it will bring up the bipartisan Graham-Durbin bill. It provides immediate and direct financial relief to doctors and hospitals. It cuts down on frivolous lawsuits. It limits liability for doctors with high Medicaid caseloads, and it provides Federal help for a broken insurance system. As I have done for the past 10 years, I will continue to advocate for the policies that truly help women and infants and I will continue to stand up for my doctors, patients and communities who deserve an immediate, comprehensive solution to the malpractice insurance crisis. I welcome the support of any Senator who wishes to sign onto the legislation I have outlined today.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce a very important piece of legislation that will support hundreds of thousands of Americans who are making great sacrifices for our country. This bill will enhance the benefits that are offered to the brave men and women of the National Guard and Reserves and their families when they are called to service. The latest figures from the Pentagon show that more than 194,000 Guard and Reserves are currently serving on active duty. We have come to rely greatly on our Guard and Reserve Forces for extended durations. It is now time that we provide them with the support that is available to our regular services. Nationwide, we are experiencing the largest activation of Guard and Reserves since the Korean war. In my home State this is the largest activation of these brave men and women since World War II. Guard and Reserves make up almost 40 percent of the total U.S. force in Iraq. They play a critical role in our operations in Afghanistan, and they support a tremendous number of our homeland security missions. The Guard's 81st Armor Brigade is sending 3,600 brave Washington State citizens to Iraq in the next few weeks. I had the pleasure of meeting with many of these soldiers and their families in early January. During my visit with these soldiers, I heard many concerns about the well-being of their families who are going to be left to shoulder tremendous responsibilities while they are away. Many were concerned that they would leave before they could help their spouse find affordable child care. Others were concerned that their children would have to go to a new doctor who accepts TRICARE, and that type of change when one parent is overseas and far away can be very scary for a young child. My visit with the families offered a window into what they are facing as their loved ones serve on extended deployments. Their families were concerned about the loss of income between their spouse's civilian salary and their active-duty salary. Some of our activated soldiers were in school. Their families were concerned that they would have to begin repaying student loans while their loved ones served in Iraq. It is vital that Congress take steps to ensure all members of our Armed Forces and their families are taken care of, especially during extended active-duty deployments and upon their return home. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Veterans who volunteered or were drafted to serve our country were promised health care and other benefits. When they returned home they found those promises were not kept. In recent years, the administration has barred certain veterans from enrolling in the VA. The President's budget request for this year would require some veterans to pay additional fees for the services they are currently able to receive. This evening, I am introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation that will minimize the challenges at home when members of the Guard and Reserve leave their jobs, their schools, their homes, and their families to protect our homeland and fight terrorism. This legislation helps families by extending the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow spouses to take time away from their job to put together a single- parent household and prepare for their transition. My bill will help Guard and Reserve families with children by providing access to child care, especially during times of extended active duty. This provision would allow nonworking spouses with children to work while their spouse is being deployed, making child care more affordable. Education is a key part of this proposal. I have heard from Guard members who are worried that they had to leave their university to go to Iraq for a year. We have to ensure that when they return to school it will be without penalty, and that their student loans are deferred during their extended deployment. Several soldiers who work in the high-tech field said to me: Eighteen months away from my job in the high tech field means that I will not be ready to go back into my position when I return. That is why my bill will extend and update the GI Bill benefits for Guard and Reserve to keep better pace with the rising costs of education. This will encourage education and provide a competitive edge for Guard and Reserves when they return home to the private sector. My proposal will improve health care coverage by providing access to TRICARE for all members of the Guard and Reserves and their families, regardless of employment or insurance status. TRICARE only works if you are in a community that has TRICARE available. Guard and Reserves who are mobilized for extended periods need the option to maintain their private health care plans. So my proposal provides that option and covers their premiums during periods of extended deployment. Many members of the Guard and Reserves who are mobilized are seeing a huge decrease in their pay while they serve our country on active duty. My proposal ensures pay equity for Federal employees called to duty and provides tax credits to employers to encourage their support of activated Guard and Reserves. My proposal also reduces the age for Guard and Reserves to receive retirement pay to age 55. I am very concerned that we are burning up our Guard and Reserve units by placing a serious strain on their families and their finances. These brave men and women need the same kind of support that our regular services have when they are called away from their families and their jobs for extended deployments. By addressing these shortfalls now, we give the Guard and Reserves a valuable tool for recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest soldiers in the world. This bill tells our Guard and Reserve members that they can serve our country overseas, even on long deployments, and know that their families will be financially secure and able to get child care and health care. Spouses can take time off from work to prepare for a long deployment. In addition, Guard members won't lose their place at a university, and they won't be charged interest or have to repay loans until they resume their studies. I hope we can pass this bill and do everything we can to lessen the burden on Americans who are already sacrificing so much for our security. 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 children during these extended long deployments. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and help us move it quickly through the Senate. I yield the floor.