Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce an important piece of legislation called the Guard and Reserve Enhanced Benefits Act of 2004. This bill is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors: Senator Leahy and Senator Reid of Nevada.

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.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit a resolution designating the week of February 2, 2004, as ``National School Counseling Week,'' on behalf of my colleagues Senator Biden, Senator Dorgan, Senator Johnson and Senator Dodd. This resolution would honor and celebrate the important work of school counselors, which the Senate has recognized since 1965 through the inclusion of school counseling in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Across the country, there are approximately 95,000 school counselors, including 2,100 in Washington State. School counselors are critical components of a successful school and contribute significantly to the growth and success of students. In fact, school counselors were instrumental in helping students, teachers, and parents deal with the trauma of terrorism on September 11, 2001, and its aftermath. However, despite their important service, counselors are expected to serve, on average 485 students each, and are overwhelmed. The American School Counseling Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association recommend the ratio of students to school counselors be 250 students to 1 school counselor. I want to share just a few examples of how school counselors throughout America are helping students. In a middle school in southern California, school counselors realized that 257 students were in danger of not passing onto the next grade. They discovered that only 15 percent of the students understood the promotion and retention requirements. The school counselors presented a series of individual and small group lessons on promotion and retention criteria. After the lessons, 100 percent of the students understood the requirements. As a result, 72 of the 257 students, about 28 percent, avoided retention that year. In a high school in Racine, WI, a math teacher realized that 100 of his students failed algebra in the first quarter of the year. He asked a school counselor for help. Together, they discovered some of the reasons why students were failing. They initiated several programs, such as peer tutoring and homework assistance. As a result, 93 of the 100 students passed algebra by the end of the year and were able to move on to the next level of math. A school district in Kentucky realized that the retention rate among ninth grade students was unacceptably high. School counselors, teachers and administrators worked together to develop and implement strategies targeted at helping ninth graders move to 10th grade. As a result, retention rates improved in 16 of the 17 high schools in the county in just one year. One school saw the retention rate improve more than 25 percent. This resolution is merely the beginning of what we need to be doing to support school counselors. We need to reduce the ratio of students to counselors to, at the most, 250 to 1. We need to help schools maintain their funding so that school counselors are not cut from school budgets. And we need to support our school counselors so that they can continue to be integral in the fabric of our schools and help our students achieve success in high school and beyond. School counselors design and implement comprehensive developmental school counseling programs that are integral to the success of every student. They help students improve academic achievement, develop personally and socially and prepare for successful careers that will enable them to be contributing members of society. National School Counseling Week focuses public attention on the unique contribution of professional school counselors and highlights the tremendous impact that school counselors have in helping students achieve success in school and beyond.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am voting to help Washington State restart our economy, create new jobs, and invest in our future by voting to move this Omnibus appropriations bill forward. I am deeply angry that the White House and the Congressional Majority are trying to use this must-pass bill to sneak through some atrocious policies that the Senate has already rejected, but I know that this bill is not the last word. Since the first days of this administration, I have fought attempts to threaten workers, undermine our environment and weaken consumer protections, and I'm not going to stop now. While I continue my fight against the bad things that are in this bill, I will not let my State lose out on the many good things I worked to include. In fact, my experiences over the past few weeks have shown me just how big a difference these investments will make throughout my State. I have spent the past month meeting with people in every corner of Washington--from teachers and students in Pasco, to farmers in the Skagit Valley, veterans in North Central Washington, and seniors in Aberdeen and Ballard. I sat down with the people who grow our produce, run our ports and operate our public utility districts. Together we celebrated our victory in landing the Boeing 7E7 and in opening new centers for research and tourism. No matter where I went or with whom I met, one thing was clear. In every corner of Washington, neighbors are coming together to create jobs, rebuild our economy and create a better future. They are working to help our children, assist our seniors, and support our veterans and military families. They are working hard to turn things around, and they need the investments this bill will make in our schools, our infrastructure, our economy, and our people. Washington State is talking about moving forward. We have been hit hard by the recession and lost 75,000 jobs over the last 3 years, but we are making progress. We had some great news in December when Boeing decided that Washington workers would build the 7E7, the next generation airliner. We are moving forward on transportation investments that will create jobs and improve our productivity, economy and quality of life. And we're moving forward with new growth industries from biotechnology to wine. All across my State, I heard the message loud and clear. Washingtonians want to get our economy moving again and create new jobs. They're concerned about our men and women serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the world, and want to make sure we provide for our veterans and military families. So, as we begin the second session of the 108th Congress, I'm working here in the Senate to help us move forward, and it starts with our economy. I am not satisfied with the economy and particularly job creation in my State. I am disappointed that this administration's economic policy created just 1,000 jobs in the month of December while hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers abandoned job searches altogether. I am outraged that the majority in Congress and the administration allowed 85,000 unemployed workers, including 7,500 in Washington State, to lose unemployment compensation just before the holidays. Over the next few weeks, an additional 37,000 unemployed workers in Washington State will lose their extended unemployment benefits. I am not satisfied with the Omnibus Appropriations measure now before the Senate. The fiscal year started more than 3 months ago, and we still haven't finished the important business of passing appropriations bills to fund some of the most important functions of our Government. We are unanimous in support of our troops fighting the war on terrorism, yet we haven't passed the VA-HUD bill with its critical increase in funding for veterans' health care. The President travels the country celebrating the second anniversary of the No Child Left Behind legislation, but the funding we fought so hard to secure is still not at work on behalf of our kids. The money contained in this bill is not nearly enough to allow schools to make the reforms needed for our students to succeed. Important transportation projects are stuck in neutral--jeopardizing their ability to move forward and create construction jobs now and to support long-term economic recovery. We should be talking about reauthorizing the 6-year highway bill rather than finally approving the long overdue funding measure for one fiscal year. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am outraged that the hard work of the committee has been delayed and compromised by the Majority and the administration who are jamming Senators to force through bad policies. I want to commend Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd for their hard work to pass the appropriations bill. We are here to debate an omnibus appropriations bill that the Appropriations Committee worked so hard to avoid. I understand why many of my Democratic colleagues have chosen to oppose this bill. I share their anger at the administration's role in this process and our Republican colleagues' willingness to abandon issues like overtime protections that they voted for right here on the Senate floor. I seriously considered voting against this measure. But I am a realist, and I am passionate about the needs of Washington State. People need jobs, transportation improvements need to move forward, veterans need health care, our students need support, and that is what I am voting for today. As awful as some of the administration-backed provisions in this bill are, defeating the Omnibus appropriations bill will put our economy, our schools and our health care system at even greater risk. It is a horrible choice the majority is forcing us to make. But today, I am voting for the jobs, security and growth that this bill will bring to the people of Washington State. I will vote for cloture and final passage of the Omnibus because I know my State needs the investments in this bill, and I do not want to deny or delay important Federal assistance to my State. Before I close, I want to talk about some of the harmful and hurtful provisions that Republicans have inserted into this bill--particularly those targeting workers and consumers. The only reason they attached them to this must-pass bill is because they know these horrible policies cannot stand on their own. In fact, with my support the Senate has defeated the administration's plans to erode overtime pay for workers and to increase media concentration. And we led the fight in the last Farm Bill to give consumers important country of origin information about our food supply. Despite the Republicans' maneuvers, this bill is not the last word on these policies. The fight is not over. I am particularly outraged that the administration and the Republican leadership ignored the will of the majority of Members in both Chambers by removing the Harkin overtime amendment from the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. The Harkin amendment would have protected hard-working Americans who rely on overtime pay, like our first responders--our police, firefighters and nurses. One international police association estimates that 200,000 midlevel police officers will lose about $150 million in overtime pay if the new draft overtime regulations are implemented. The Bush administration will also prevent more than 230,000 licensed practical nurses from getting overtime pay. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the Bush overtime rule will mean a pay cut for up to 10 million working Americans. Even more astounding, the Bush administration had the gall to actually give employers detailed suggestions on how they could cut workers' pay. To me it is unbelievable that our Government would proactively look for ways to hurt American workers. These families are working hard, they are playing by the rules, they are trying to make ends meet, but the Bush administration and the Republican majority in this Congress are squeezing them once again. Apparently, it wasn't enough for this administration to preside over a dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs. It wasn't enough for this administration to let out-of-work Americans lose their unemployment benefits before the holidays. Now this White House is attacking the take-home pay of those Americans who are lucky enough to even have jobs. It's appalling, it's wrong, and I'm going to keep fighting this administration's attacks on working families. I am deeply disappointed that this bill diverts taxpayer dollars away from struggling public schools and spends them on a vouchers scheme in the District of Columbia. I will continue my fight against vouchers and my efforts to give our public schools the resources our students need. In the end, I am confident that we will win because these awful Republican policies cannot stand up to public scrutiny. We will have more votes on the overtime issue. We will have more votes on the country of origin labeling and important food safety issues, and we will have more votes on vouchers and media concentration. I vote for this bill today because of the many programs funded in this Omnibus bill. Throughout my State, people are working hard to get our economy moving, and I am voting for this bill to give them the Federal support they deserve.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to alert my colleagues and the public to a secret effort by the White House to quash the rights and eliminate the jobs of thousands if not millions of Federal workers. Right now, the White House is actively working behind the scenes--in closed-door meetings--to reverse a bipartisan agreement that House and Senate appropriators reached just 12 days ago. And I regret to say, the President's operatives appear to be succeeding. I rise to expose these backroom efforts because I believe all taxpayers should be made aware of the White House's efforts. If the White House prevails in this scheme, Federal jobs could be contracted out even if it costs taxpayers more money, Federal workers will have to compete to keep their jobs with their hands tied behind their backs, and Federal workers will not be able to appeal a decision to contract out their job while private companies can appeal a decision that doesn't go their way. If the White House gets everything it wants, Federal workers could actually lose their jobs and see that work shipped overseas. This administration has sent enough good American jobs overseas. It is outrageous that this White House is now questioning our agreements which ensure that the work of the American Government is done by workers here in America. When it comes to allowing Federal workers to compete to keep their jobs, the White House does not want a level playing field. That's why they're engaging in all these backroom deals, and that's why the White House has seen to it that the bipartisan Transportation/Treasury conference report has never been filed. What kind of Federal workers am I talking about here? I am talking about people who protect our borders and keep terrorists off U.S. soil; people who purchase and maintain equipment for our troops, both here and overseas; people who help us get the Social Security checks, or price support payments, or unemployment insurance payments that we are eligible for; people who make sure our food is safe; and many, many more. These are hard-working Americans that serve the taxpayer everyday and deserve a fair shot at keeping their jobs. But, as my colleagues know, for some time the Bush administration has been trying to eliminate Federal jobs through what it calls ``competitive sourcing.'' This policy is highly controversial and with good reason. Just look at what happened to Federal employees of the Defense Finance Accounting Service in Ohio: Their work was contracted out to a company in Dallas, TX in January 2002; then the Pentagon's inspector general found that the move saved no money and actually cost the taxpayer an additional $20 million; and now that work is being shipped to yet another contractor. So this entire policy of contracting out Federal work needs much more scrutiny and oversight. But instead of allowing a balanced set of rules to be put in place to avoid the situation I just described, the Bush administration is working to undermine it. Let me review some of the recent events to show why this effort by the White House is so disturbing. On May 29 of this year, the Bush administration issued revisions to OMB's Circular A-76. This is the circular that dictates the terms and conditions through which executive agencies can privatize activities currently performed by Federal employees. These revisions were highly controversial and were designed in many ways to undermine the efforts of Federal employees to keep their jobs. The fairness of these revisions was questioned, and not just by Democrats and the Federal employee unions. Several House and Senate Republicans identified flaws, including the chairmen of the relevant authorizing committees and subcommittees. When the Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill was brought to the House Floor, Representative Van Hollen offered an amendment to address these flaws. The Van Hollen amendment was adopted on a bipartisan vote of 220-198. The Van Hollen amendment effectively suspended the President's new OMB circular. It required any contracting out activities to be conducted according to the older A-76 rules. Immediately, the White House threatened a veto, so the Senate took a different approach. During Senate debate, we adopted an amendment offered by Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins, the authorizing committee chairman. The Senate also adopted an amendment offered by Senator Thomas and Senator Voinovich, the authorizing subcommittee chairman. The substance of both amendments centered on putting some basic fairness into the contracting out process--especially the process through which Federal employees and private contractors submit bids to retain Federal work and how those bids are compared. In some cases, the amendments reflected language that the President had already signed into law or that the Congress had already adopted on the Department of Defense and Department of Interior appropriations bills. When the conference committee convened to reconcile these two very different bills, we all recognized that the Van Hollen amendment could not be included in the conference report because of the President veto threat, so we put together a thoughtful and fair compromise. Our compromise was designed to provide a level playing-field between Government contractors and Federal employees. Our compromise ensured fairness in five ways. First, the compromise ensured that the rules pertaining to all the Federal agencies would be the same. Second, the compromise ensured that the administration would have to demonstrate that there are real cost savings that would result from a privatization effort before Federal employees lost their jobs to the private sector. Third, the compromise ensured that Federal employees--and not just private contractors--would have the opportunity to appeal a potentially wrongful decision to contract out work. Fourth, the compromise ensured that no jobs that are contracted out would be transferred overseas. And fifth, the compromise ensured that Government employees have the opportunity to put together their best and most efficient bid in order to compete to keep their jobs. In other words, they do not just need to submit a bid based on the way they currently operate. They could propose new efficiencies to make their bid competitive so that all taxpayers benefit. As I said, this was a thoughtful, carefully crafted compromise in which neither side got everything they wanted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the bill language reflecting this bipartisan compromise be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am placing this language in the Record because I have been given reason to believe that some very different language will appear in the omnibus appropriations act, once it is actually filed. A lot of credit belongs to Chairman Istook, Chairman Stevens, and Chairman Shelby for allowing the conferees on the Transportation/ Treasury bill to work through the issues and develop our original compromise. When I left the Capitol building late in the evening on Wednesday, November 12, all the conferees expected that compromise to be incorporated into the conference agreement on the Transportation/ Treasury bill that was to be filed the next day. Each and every Senator, Republican and Democrat, that participated in that conference agreement was content with the compromise and signed the conference report. What has happened since then has been one of the most astonishing and deplorable process that I have ever witnessed in my 11 years in the Senate. When the Bush White House learned that the conferees decided to insist upon a level playing field and some demonstration of taxpayer benefits for Federal jobs to be contracted out, they began a quiet but relentless campaign to the gut the compromise. Despite the fact that the conference committee adjourned well over a week and a half ago, the White House has seen to it that the bipartisan conference agreement has not been filed in either the House or Senate while they work to emasculate the compromise. The administration's alternative language makes their true motives clear. One language change that the Bush administration has been promoting would effectively eliminate the requirement that the administration demonstrate any cost savings before throwing Federal employees out onto the unemployment line. Indeed, the loophole language they are promoting would allow them to award Federal work to private contractors even if the contractor's costs are considerably higher than letting Federal employees keep the work. Could it be that we are seeing yet another attempt by the Bush/Cheney administration to use Federally appropriated resources to reward their friends? I am told that the administration has even voiced reservations about the language in our compromise prohibiting Federal jobs from being shipped overseas. Where does it stop. This administration seems to see no problem with senior citizens picking up a phone to call Social Security Administration and the phone being answered by a Federal contractor in India--and it could actually cost taxpayers more. That's absurd. On another provision, the administration is objecting to language allowing Federal employees to put forward their best and most efficient bid in order to keep their jobs. Why? Because the administration doesn't want Federal employees to retain this work no matter what the benefit to the taxpayer. This is the first year that I have served as the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Subcommittee overseeing these government-wide procurement issues. Over the course of this year, I have been increasingly appalled by the disrespect and disdain that the Bush administration holds for the thousands of Americans that come to work for our Government every day. As of today, I regret to inform the Senate that the Bush administration appears to be making meaningful progress in its campaign to gut the bipartisan compromise that was agreed to as part of the Transportation/Treasury conference. My subcommittee staff was present with language that was intended to be included in the omnibus appropriations bill. That language guts our original compromise in three fundamental ways. First, the rules included in the Transportation/Treasury bill will no longer apply to all Federal agencies. They will only apply to the agencies funded in the Transportation/Treasury bill. So these provisions will apply only to jobs being contracted out in the Department of Transportation, the Treasury Department, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and a few smaller, related agencies. None of these protections will apply to the hundreds of thousands of employees in the other major Federal civilian agencies, such as the State Department, Commerce Department, Agriculture Department, Labor Department, and the Health and Human Services Department. There will be a distinctly different set of rules for jobs in the Department of the Interior and still different rules for jobs in the Department of Defense. This makes a sham of our Federal contracting-out policy, but the Bush administration certainly doesn't seem to care. The first major change is in the scope of the agreement. Instead of applying to all civilian agencies, it would just apply to a few. The second major change undermines the fairness of our agreement. The language being slipped into the omnibus bill would now deny Federal employees the legal standing to appeal a wrongful decision to contract out their jobs. Under current regulations, only contractors can appeal a decision that doesn't go their way. Federal employees who are losing their jobs have no such right. The administration obviously does not want its decision to ever face a truly fair appeals process. The third major change effectively eliminates the requirement that there be any meaningful cost savings to the taxpayer before jobs are contracted out. That is deplorable. No wonder the Bush administration will only push for these changes in back rooms. I think this result is bad enough. However, I am now being told that the administration has not given up on weakening our provision even further. As I stand here today, the conference agreement on the omnibus appropriations bill, including the Transportation/Treasury section, has still not been filed. The back-room dealing continues and the basic principle of fairness and respect for our Federal employees continues to be under attack. I have to say that in my many years on the Appropriations Committee, I have never witnessed such a cynical effort to undermine a fair and equitable conference agreement. I want to emphasize that it is not the fault of Chairman Istook, Chairman Shelby, Chairman Stevens, Chairman Young, or any of the other members of the Transportation/Treasury conference. Those honorable gentlemen reached a deal at the conference room table and, I believe, had every intention of standing by our compromise. This attack on Federal workers, on fairness and on taxpayers has only one source--the administration of George Bush. It is the White House that is keeping our compromise from being enacted--or even filed--so that the American public can read and understand it. Next year, I hope that our Transportation/Treasury Subcommittee will hold hearings with the appropriate administration officials so that they can explain to us why it is so important to them to deny Federal employees even the most basic rights when competing to keep their jobs. I hope they will explain why it is important to the Bush administration that different Federal workers be subjected to a hodgepodge of differing rules depending on where they work. Perhaps they could also explain why they think it is appropriate that only contractors--and not Federal employees--have the right to appeal a ``contracting out'' decision. This issue will not go away. I can guarantee you that efforts will be made on next year's Transportation/Treasury bill to rectify this situation and restore a government-wide policy based on fairness and savings for the taxpayer. I only hope the Bush administration will have the decency to articulate its position before the public--and on paper--rather than in the back rooms in the dark of night. Exhibit 1 final a-76 compromise language for conference report on the transportation, treasury and independent agencies appropriations act Sec. 7 . (a) Limitation on Conversion to Contractor Performance.--None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act shall be available to convert to contractor performance an activity or function of an executive agency, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, is performed by more than ten federal employees unless the (1) the conversion is based on the result of a public- private competition plan that includes a most efficient and cost effective organization plan developed by such activity or function; and (2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers for performance of the activity or function, the cost of performance of the activity or function by a contractor would be less costly to the executive agency by an amount that equals or exceeds the lesser of-- (A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or function by federal employees; or (B) $10,000,000. (b) Exceptions for the Department of Defense.-- (1) This section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 2461 of title 10, United States Code do not apply with respect to the performance of a commercial or industrial type function of the Department of Defense that-- (A) is included on the procurement list established pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Isn't it true that you intended that the demonstration ensure that the Secretary preserve physician and beneficiary treatment options by providing for equitable coverage of all qualifying products?

Mrs. MURRAY. I also want to thank Senators Baucus and Grassley for their support of the Conrad-Murray language that would have eliminated this discrimination against self-injected biologics. Our amendment would reward companies who innovate their treatments to meet their patients needs, not Medicare reimbursement policies. Many of these patients suffer from rheumatoid arthritis and MS, two disabling conditions that can restrict mobility and make it very difficult to even get to a physician's office. As my colleagues know, I have spent the last 4 years working to end this outrageous disincentive in Medicare reimbursement policies.

Mrs. MURRAY. I just want to be sure that we provide the greatest degree of relief for patients and their families. I was disappointed to learn of this error in the final report language, and it does undermine the entire negotiations for this provision. It certainly undermines the intent of the Conrad-Murray amendment adopted by the Senate during consideration of S. 1. I appreciate your working with me to rectify that error. Cost Containment Provisions

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have been fighting for a real prescription drug benefit for years. In the 106th Congress, I helped draft the MEND Act, and year after year I have used my seat on the Budget Committee to set aside money for a good drug benefit. I voted for several Medicare prescription drug bills, including S. 1 last June and the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill in the last Congress. I have written and I have introduced legislation to make Medicare more fair to the people of my home State of Washington. I have worked to improve health care for seniors on the HELP Committee, on the Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee, and here on the Senate floor. After all of these years of work, no one wants prescription drug benefits more than I do. But I am very troubled by the proposal that is now before us. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan could force seniors and the disabled into an overly restrictive health care rationing regime in which they could lose their choice of doctors just to get a pretty meager drug benefit. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan could tell our seniors they must give up the good retirement health plan they have worked all of their lives to earn. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan could leave our seniors and disabled at the mercy of ever-increasing premiums. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan could tell patients who have complex medical conditions they cannot get direct access to specialists they need to see. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan could tell patients with MS, or Parkinson's disease, or ALS they can't get the drugs they need because their plan will not cover them. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan could tell our rural seniors they will have to roll the dice on how they receive health care coverage because this is not a real choice in their communities. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan would tell disabled Americans who are fighting poverty that the drugs they get today can be off limits tomorrow. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan would tell seniors if their drugs cost more than $2,300, they won't get a dime of help until they pay $3,600 out of their own pockets. I am unhappy at the prospect that this plan could break the promise that Medicare has had for our seniors and our disabled since 1965. This isn't just about plans and formularies and medical services areas; this is about people. It is about our parents and our grandparents and generations of Americans coming behind us. I have sat down with seniors in my State, and I have heard how badly they need a real drug benefit. Just last August, I met with more than 200 seniors in Edmonds, WA, at the South County Senior Center. They told me in their own words just how important the drug benefit is. During this debate, I have listened to my colleagues. I have listened to seniors and the disabled in Washington State. I have heard from doctors and hospitals at home. I have read the key provisions in the package, and I have reviewed the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Without a doubt, this is one of the most complex and controversial proposals this Congress has considered. One needs only to review what happened in the House a few days ago to see how controversial and political the vote was. What occurred during that vote speaks volumes about the failures of this bill and the lengths the majority will go to in order to pass this flawed measure. At the end of the allocated time for that vote in the House, the bill had been rejected. But the majority leadership refused to close that vote. They held it open for many more minutes, and those minutes turned into hours, and finally at about 6 o'clock in the morning, after holding that vote open for 3 hours, the majority managed to pressure a few Members to switch their votes. An issue this important deserves a thorough debate. I am troubled that it appears as though this bill is being railroaded through Congress on twisted arms and backroom pressure. When I look at Social Security and Medicare, I don't just see a program, I see a promise. It is a promise from one generation to the next. It is a promise from our Government to our seniors. And it is a promise that reflects our values. Coupled with Social Security, Medicare is the most important antipoverty program ever. In fact, before Medicare, in 1963, 44 percent of our seniors were uninsured. Today, it is just 1 percent. In 1966, 29 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, it is down to about 10 percent. Since 1960, life expectancy for those over 65 has increased by 25 percent. Medicare is a success story. It promised our seniors that they will have health care security, regardless of their ability to pay, regardless of where they live, and regardless of their medical condition. Not only has Medicare helped seniors, but it forms the foundation of all of our health care. Medicare helps train our doctors. Medicare payments help keep our rural hospitals open. And Medicare helps keep emergency rooms and neonatal units operating. Medicare is open to every doctor and every hospital. It doesn't force providers into restricted networks. It lets doctors make decisions based on what their patients need--not on some mandate from some accountant. It is troubling to think of what rural America would be today and whether inner-city trauma centers would even be in existence today without Medicare. Let us not forget the reason we created Medicare in the first place. The market failed our seniors. I approach this debate with a clear understanding of the importance of Medicare to our seniors and to our entire health care system. When I look at this bill, I want to know what it means to the seniors I represent. So far, I have found five big dangers for Washington State seniors. First, this plan jeopardizes the health benefits retirees have earned during their working years. In Washington State, 47,250 seniors could lose their retiree health benefits. In return, they get much less coverage and they will pay for more than they had planned. This plan is an unpredictable benefit that requires huge out-of- pocket costs and has massive gaps in coverage. This bill changes the ground rules on seniors in the middle of their golden years, and that is just not right. Second, seniors could be forced into an overly restrictive health care rationing regime if they want a drug benefit. On paper, it looks as if seniors have a choice. That is what the proponents keep repeating. When we take a closer look, we see what is going on. Supporters claim that seniors can stay in traditional Medicare, but that is only if insurance companies decide to offer drug-only plans. They could offer drug-only plans, but the affordability of those plans is unknown and unknowable. That is because there is no limit on how much a plan can charge, so seniors will not be protected from price gouging. On paper it may look as if seniors get a choice, but in reality many will face a new system that rations their health care in exchange for a very small drug benefit. Seniors could get fewer choices and less coverage than they have today. They will face fewer choices because of an imposed system of rationing that may not let them pick their own doctor, and they will have less coverage because the plans they will be forced into do not need to cover every drug that is medically necessary. Third, if you get a chronic, life-threatening disease such as cancer or AIDS, you are not guaranteed the drugs you need. Here is what one client of The Lifelong AIDS Alliance in Washington State had to say: The current bill as it is written will affect me personally as it limits the drugs I can have access to because it only allows for up to two drugs under the prescription part of the bill. Since I am on a multiple-drug regimen, I will not have access to the other life-saving drugs that I will have to take to stay HIV healthy. Those are the chilling words of one of my constituents who is HIV positive and understands what this bill will mean for him. That is why AIDS service providers in my State oppose this bill. In addition, if you need access to a clinical trial, forget it. This bill does not require any plan to give you access to experimental treatments. This plan will mean fewer choices and less coverage for millions of seniors. Fourth, this bill is especially bad for seniors and disabled Americans who are fighting poverty. Today, about 6 million Americans are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Through these two programs, they get the coverage for the drugs they need. But this new bill we are looking at strips away what is known as wraparound coverage. In Washington State, that means about 92,000 people will get less coverage than they have today. That is just in my State. Those are the most vulnerable among us, the very people Medicare and Medicaid were designed to protect. Fifth, there is a huge gap in coverage. Many seniors will see a big hole in their coverage. Payments will not stop. What you have to pay will not stop, but your coverage will. If your drugs cost you more than $2,250 a year, you will get zero help until you spend a total of $3,600 out of your own pocket. You get no coverage, but you still have to pay the premium. When you look at what the average Medicare beneficiary spends for drugs, this coverage gap gets even worse. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2003, the average Medicare beneficiary paid $2,322 for prescription drugs. If you spend the average, you are already in the coverage gap. Those figures were included in the Los Angeles Times article that appeared in the Seattle Times on November 21. They show that the average senior will end up with a gap in coverage from which few seniors will ever emerge. When I ask, what does this bill mean for the seniors I represent, I am pretty troubled by the answers. I am troubled this could force 47,000 seniors in Washington State to give up the retiree health benefits they have worked for their entire lives. I am troubled this could force seniors in Washington State into overly restrictive health care rationing, to get a limited drug benefit and to lose their choice of doctor. I am troubled this could force patients with cancer, AIDS, and other life-threatening diseases into a system that will deny them the drugs they need. I am troubled this could force 92,000 low-income seniors or disabled Washingtonians out of Medicaid into a market where they lose access to the drugs they get today. I am troubled this could force millions of seniors into a coverage gap where they have to spend more than $3,600 out of their own pocket without getting coverage or benefits. This bill is also bad for Washington State in seven ways: It could result in unequal benefits throughout Washington. It could force providers and seniors to reevaluate their participation every single year, and they will get very little in return for that added unpredictability. It could encourage seniors who are healthier and financially secure to leave traditional Medicare. It could undermine Medicaid in Washington State. It could require my State to send to the Federal Government a very large chunk of the savings it realizes. It could force Washington State to manage new bureaucracies to test the assets of seniors in my home State. And it could put Washington State even further down the list in Medicare reimbursements per beneficiary. Let me walk through how this program would work to show how it is bad for my home State. Under this plan, the country will be divided into as many as 50 regions. States such as Washington could be divided into as many as three regions. Within these new, undefined regions, private insurance plans would be able to run the Medicare Program--not just the drug benefit, but Part A and Part B of the Medicare Program as well. Washington State will be an attractive market for the PPOs and HMOs because we have areas that are healthier and wealthier and a tradition of health care delivery. Currently, Washington State has one of the highest Medicare+Choice participation rates in the country with 18 percent of Medicare beneficiaries receiving Medicare through a Medicare+Choice plan. Washington State also has a long tradition of managed and efficient care, so we will be a prime target for the new PPOs and HMOs. That means Medicare benefits in my State, just within my State, will vary from region to region and county to county depending on where you live. In theory, seniors in my home State may have more choices, but they give up a guarantee of a defined benefit. Providers in Washington State could also face the same changes and uncertainty. Every year, seniors in Washington State would have to evaluate each insurance plan to find the one that best meets their needs. Here are some of the things seniors every year in my State will have to figure out. While not knowing what medical conditions they may confront, they will have to figure out how much they have to pay out of pocket. Without knowing what their future holds, they will have to predict what providers they will be able to see. Without knowing, they will have to figure out what doctors have dropped out of their plan or may drop out, what restrictions will be on drug coverage, what their copayments will be, what plan formulary includes expensive new drugs, what hospitals are in their network. That is an awful lot to figure out, especially since health plans, as we all know, are never written in plain English and no one knows what medical conditions they may confront in their future. Today, Medicare provides predictability. An 85-year-old woman in her home knows what Medicare provides. Under the Medicare+Choice plan, seniors got more than they gave up. I do want to state there have been some managed care success stories in my home State. We have some great providers in Washington State that led the way in providing innovative, comprehensive care that puts the focus on patients, not profits. But overall, we need to think how this plan would expand the Medicare+Choice model. Medicare+Choice has worked only in limited parts of Washington State. A total of 131,391 seniors in Washington State participate in these plans. But they are not open to all seniors and they are limited to a very few select regions. Even in this limited program, we have seen significant changes and instability just within Washington State. I am not at all convinced this is a model we should now expand for all seniors and disabled. If these new plans that are coming in attract higher income, healthier seniors, we need to ask, what will be left of traditional Medicare? I am afraid traditional Medicare will begin to look more and more like Medicaid. The prospects for this plan are deeply troubling. They could have a massive financial impact on Washington State. I will turn to how this plan will affect Washington State and its Medicaid Program. I received a letter from the Democratic Governors' Association. It is signed by three Governors, including Governor Locke of Washington. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we should be on the floor today debating a prescription drug benefit package, not a proposal to radically alter Medicare. This should be a fight about providing good, affordable, stable coverage, not about experimenting with Medicare. I do want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Baucus, for his efforts. I know he worked hard to do the best he could. Senator Baucus understands the importance of Medicare for seniors and the disabled, and I know he fought against incredible odds. He was sitting across the table from Members of Congress who tried before to privatize Medicare, and many who still hope to turn Social Security over to Wall Street. He faced an impossible task. I know he did all he could, and I thank him for his fight. Mr. President, I do want to note there are some things in this bill that I fought for that are important. It does prevent additional cuts in payments to doctors who are scheduled to take effect early next year. The scheduled reduction of 4.5 percent, as we all know, is unacceptable. I worked hard to prevent that scheduled reduction of 4 percent in 2003, and I do applaud the conferees for meeting our demands on this issue. The package also provides additional relief for rural hospitals, home health care agencies, and rural health care providers. This relief is truly a life line for saving rural health care. I have always supported these provisions, and I will continue to fight for fair and equitable rural payments. I can promise health care providers and patients in my home State that regardless of the outcome of this legislation, I remain committed to stabilizing Medicare payments. Now, Mr. President, I know many organizations representing doctors and hospitals think we can come back in 2006 and correct the mechanisms in this bill that undermine Medicare. That is a pretty dangerous gamble. Not only that, but we don't know what the people who put this bill together will demand down the road in exchange for changes-- premiums support or vouchers for States; larger gaps in coverage; more copayments; more restrictions on access; more deals on the House floor in the middle of the night? We do not know what the pricetag will be to undo the damage that this bill will impose. I assure everyone, it will not be easy. I had looked forward to the day when the Senate would pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That day is upon us, but I believe that the price of this benefit is far too high. In the coming months and years we will see the theory behind this bill put to practice. As more and more people discover what this bill and this President have done to their health care, I am confident we will hear from seniors as we have never heard before. This is a difficult decision. The $400 billion in this bill does represent a step forward. The provider payments contained in this bill are needed in my State, and seniors deserve the prescription drug coverage they have been asking for. Passage of this bill and being signed into law is not the end of the story. A tremendous amount of work will be required to fix the deficiencies in this bill. I will be there, as I have been all these years, working the best I can to do the right thing for the people I represent in my State and the people across this country. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Democratic Governors' Association, Washington, DC, November 21, 2003. Members of the U.S. Senate, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: As you know, the near 700-page Medicare reform bill was unveiled yesterday. As a consequence, states have not thoroughly reviewed the language or seen individual cost estimates needed to make an accurate determination of its benefits and/or costs. Late yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released numbers portraying a net savings to states of $17 billion over ten years. Notwithstanding this projected rosy scenario, neither CBO, nor any other independent entity has completed a state-by-state impact analysis of this legislation. Even CBO is projecting that states will be $900 million in the red in the first year of the Medicare's program implementation in 2006. States need to ensure that their reading of the legislation confirms that the projected new state costs have not been underestimated by

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Governors' letter urges Congress to give the States time to determine the impact on their Medicaid programs before enacting sweeping changes in how we treat Medicaid beneficiaries and how States pay for coverage for low-income seniors and the disabled. So under this plan, if States save money by shifting drug costs from Medicaid to Medicare, States have to give a portion of those savings that they get back to the Federal Government every year. Many States, such as Washington, have stepped up to the plate and have tried to fill the gap in Medicare by providing affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage through Medicaid for people who are eligible for both programs. Over the past 10 years, as drug costs have rapidly increased, this burden has become overwhelming. Many States are now being forced to scale back their coverage in access. In 2002, Washington State spent an estimated $212.8 million on drug costs for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. That was a huge strain on my State. Under this plan we are considering, the States will see some relief by shifting Medicaid beneficiaries to Medicare for drug coverage. But, unfortunately, the plan gives with one hand and takes back with the other. Washington State, under this plan, will be forced to surrender much of the savings it sees back to the Federal Government. That could reduce Washington State's Federal Medicaid dollars by almost $2 billion from 2006 to 2013. That could devastate the entire program and result in further Medicaid reductions for low-income children and families. It could force the State to again implement reductions in provider payments for doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes. A $2 billion give-back, just for my State, will mean more uninsured, lower provider payments, and more children losing any health care safety net they have today. Let's not forget that States will be handed a massive new administration burden under this plan. Washington State will now have to administer new asset tests to determine who qualifies under Medicare for low-income assistance. These tests are extremely restrictive and will result in many low-income seniors being pushed into higher income categories. Under the conference agreement, assets will be limited to $6,000 for a single person and $9,000 for a married couple. In order to get any additional financial assistance under this plan, many seniors and the disabled will be forced to impoverish themselves and give up almost everything they have worked so hard to earn. Even if the States want to provide a more humane benefit or assistance, they will not be allowed to do so. Now, many of us fought to provide relief to States just this year by temporarily increasing the Federal Medicaid match. This was a critically important fight to save Medicaid and prevent massive Medicaid cuts on doctors and hospitals. Our success in achieving a small measure of relief is now being undone by imposing an even greater burden on the States. Finally, Mr. President, this bill will punish Washington State even further in Medicare payments. For several years, I have been working to address the geographic disparities that punish providers and seniors in my State of Washington. For years, Washington State has received unfair treatment. Today, Washington State ranks 41st in the Nation in Medicare payments per beneficiary. We are being penalized because we have a tradition of low-cost, efficient health care, and healthy seniors. Medicare should reward that. Instead, its outdated reimbursement formulas are causing doctors to leave my State or close their practices to new Medicare patients. I have spoken at great length on the Senate floor before about this, and I have introduced legislation to correct that inequity. But under this bill, the situation would be even worse. Washington State would fall from 41st in the Nation to 45th in the Nation. Even though there will be a slight increase in payments to Washington, because of what happens to other States, we end up falling even further behind. This is a fundamental shift in the Medicare entitlement, in exchange for a very weak benefit. Philosophically, this plan goes in the wrong direction. We should be strengthening the foundation of Medicare, not experimenting with imposing a new health care system on seniors. This plan undermines the role of the Federal Government in ensuring that every senior can live with the dignity and respect and stability they deserve. It could force seniors into an overly restrictive, ever- changing health system. Let's not forget why Medicare was enacted in the first place. It was created because the private insurance market failed seniors and the disabled. Coverage was sporadic, expensive, and unpredictable. Medicare, when it was enacted, changed all of that for our Nation's seniors. Now I am afraid we are flirting with that original failed model. I believe we can do better. During my time in the Senate, I have been proud to work on prescription drug coverage--from helping to draft the MEND Act in the 106th Congress to working on the Budget Committee over the past 4 years to fund prescription drugs. I was proud to support the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill in the 107th Congress that would have provided an affordable, reliable, comprehensive prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare. We had a chance to do much better. I believe a prescription drug benefit ought to be a seamless part of Medicare. It should be treated just like a doctor's office visit or an outpatient surgical procedure. By implementing a seamless, affordable benefit as part of Medicare, as we did when we added the Part B benefit, we would guarantee that all seniors have access to the same level of care, regardless of their health status or their age or their income or their assets or where they live. That access would be stable, and it would be predictable. I know we can do this. Many of us in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, have worked to significantly boost our investment in NIH funding. We have fought to reform and modernize the FDA to ensure timely approval of new, lifesaving drugs. I want all of my seniors and disabled constituents to benefit from those kinds of investments. Under the plan before us today, I cannot be sure they will reap the rewards of this Federal investment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, would you notify me when I have 5 minutes remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. This bill authorizes critical aviation infrastructure and operations spending for the fiscal years 2004 through 2007. The bill also makes important legislative adjustments for our aviation security program at the Transportation Security Administration. I represent a State with tens of thousands of aviation workers. I appreciate fully the essential contribution that our Nation's aviation industry makes to our national economic prosperity. As the former chairman and now ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I spend a considerable amount of my time seeing to it that the needs of our national aviation enterprise are adequately funded. As my colleagues are aware, consideration of this FAA authorization bill has been delayed for an extraordinary period of time over the issues surrounding the Bush administration's stated desire to privatize certain aspects of our Nation's air traffic control system. At one time, this legislation included language that specifically authorized the FAA Administrator to privatize the controller workforce at scores of air traffic control towers, including the air traffic control tower at Boeing Field in Seattle. Senators who are not familiar with the geography of the greater Seattle area may not be aware that Boeing Field sits right between Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and downtown Seattle. It is extraordinarily close to our port, our central business district, our major sporting venues--Safeco Field and the Seahawks Stadium. It is also a major installation for the Boeing Company and a busy general aviation airport. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, I cannot support a proposal to contract out the air traffic control function to the lowest bidder in the heart of this critically important corridor. Immediately after September 11, this Congress passed legislation to take the air passenger screening function out of the hands of private bidders and place it in the hands of a federalized screening force. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Bush administration wants to take the exact opposite approach when it comes to the highly skilled personnel that actually control the movement of our aircraft. The administration has also cited an interest in privatizing other aspects of our Nation's national air traffic control enterprise, including the employees at our Nation's flight service stations and the technicians that maintain our Nation's air traffic control equipment. These privatization ideas have not been adequately explained or adequately justified to the Congress or to the public. It has not been determined that such contracting out activities would actually improve upon the exemplary safety record that we currently enjoy with our air traffic control system. I, along with many of my colleagues, have deep- seated doubts about the safety ramifications, the security ramifications and whether there will be any real financial benefit to the taxpayer as a result of such a privatization scheme. It was for these reasons that I and 42 of my Senate colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, were required to vote against bringing debate on this bill to a close on November 17, and why I joined 55 of my colleagues in support of a measure to explicitly exclude privatization of our air traffic control towers during the initial debate on the Senate bill. At that time, we did not have what I considered to be adequate assurances from the FAA that they would not be launching into these privatization schemes in the very near future. I am pleased that we have now overcome this hurdle and the administration has given us assurances that they will not engage in any competition studies or outsourcing activities for air traffic controllers or for maintenance and technician personnel during fiscal year 2004. This will give the Congress some time to review the administration's plans in detail, which I intend to do during next year's appropriations' hearings process. Also, with the written assurance now in hand that no outsourcing activities related to our air traffic control system will take place in 2004, we can, if need be, work on putting sufficient safeguards in the 2005 Transportation Appropriations Act if we feel that the administration is heading in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting safety and security. It is for these reasons that I am relieved by the administration's new letter on this topic which I understand has already been put into the Record. I am glad that we have overcome this hurdle. This bill will provide investments in critical infrastructure and operations at our Nation's airports. Furthermore, it will allocate needed funding to continue our efforts to improve the security of aviation system. For these reasons, I support this important conference report today.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to take time to comment on the Energy bill before us today. It is disappointing that such a massive bill could do so little to promote our energy independence, national security, economy, or environment. It does nothing to protect our rate-payers from the type of energy crisis we faced in the Pacific Northwest and California. Those who claim otherwise are simply masking the real mission of this bill which is a taxpayer giveaway to the big energy companies. A 1,200-page bill has much to comment on, but I will not take time to detail every concern I have. I want to discuss the electricity title, the lack of a true energy policy, and threats to our environment. First let me discuss the electricity title of the bill. For those of us from the Pacific Northwest this title was of the utmost concern. For over 2 years the Pacific Northwest has been struggling against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's, FERC, effort to deregulate the transmission system through its promotion of regional transmission organizations, RTOs, and standard market design, SMD, rules. Two simple points: First, FERC had proposed a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist in the Pacific Northwest. Second, the one- size-fits-all approach being promoted by FERC would neither work nor be cost-effective in our unique hydropower based system. With those concerns in mind I have been working with many of my colleagues in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast, who have similar regional concerns, to keep FERC from moving forward with these plans. I am pleased that the bipartisan group has been successful in delaying until 2007 FERC's ability to move forward with SMD. While the bill delays SMD implementation, it does not permanently stop FERC from ultimately pursuing this power grab, and does nothing to stop RTO development. In fact, the bill is an outright endorsement of the RTO plan, going so far as to provide incentives to utilities for joining such transmission organizations. FERC has not demonstrated that such a system in the Pacific Northwest will be an economic benefit to the region and, to date, the majority of Washington State utilities remain opposed to the RTOs. Even with the SMD delay provision, this bill is a threat to the electricity system of the Northwest, and I cannot add my voice to this bill's support of RTOs. Also of great concern in the electricity title is the bill's failure to deal with market manipulation. The Pacific Northwest and California are still feeling the direct effects of the 2000-2001 energy crisis that we now know was caused, in large measure, by energy companies manipulating prices. Given the lessons we have learned over the past 3 years, one would have hoped that this Energy bill would aggressively attack these known methods of market manipulation. But that is not the case. This bill only bans one type of manipulation and ignores all the other methodologies we know were used. By remaining virtually silent on market manipulation, this bill is giving a nod to energy companies to once again employ Fat Boy, Get Shorty, and other infamous price-gouging schemes. This bill is an open invitation for companies to once again seek to fatten shareholders' wallets at the expense of ratepayers. This is more true now that the bill repeals the Public Utility Company Holding Act, PUHCA, without implementing any countervailing laws to protect against abuse in the industry. In total, this bill promotes schemes that are counter to Washington's rate-payers and fails to protect them against the manipulative practices that have already raised their rates. The bill also lacks a comprehensive energy policy. During the past 3 years of debate on energy I have acknowledged we should recognize the current importance of oil, gas, and coal in our energy production today. But to ensure America's energy security for the future, it must strongly promote energy efficiency, conservation, clean, and renewable energy sources, and should diversify our energy sources. But rather than aggressively promoting renewable energy and conservation, this bill maintains the status quo. This bill directs billions of taxpayer dollars to traditional energy producers who already have healthy market shares and hardly need Government support. Of the roughly $23 billion in tax credits in this bill, only $4.9 billion, or 20 percent, would go towards renewable energy or conservation. I support the production tax credits for wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass renewable energy in this bill, but unfortunately public power is left out of the equation. Many Washington residents are served by publicly owned utilities and cooperatives and they should receive the same incentives to invest in renewable energy as this bill gives to the for-profit utilities. Earlier drafts of the tax title included a tradable tax credit for public power investment in renewables. I know that Senate Finance committee members fought for this provision, but unfortunately the President and House objected to the provision. With so much of Washington and the Pacific Northwest served by public power utilities, it will be much harder to get these type of investments made. We hear constantly that we need to decrease our reliance on oil from the Middle East and yet this bill does nothing substantive to increase automobile efficiency standards. The United States is the most technologically advanced country in the world. There is no reason we cannot build and produce more fuel-efficient cars. Without addressing fuel efficiency standards, it is hard to praise this bill for promoting energy efficiency or national security. In the end, this bill does nothing more than preserve the status quo of energy production in the United States. We are not more secure, we are not more independent, and we have not truly diversified our production sources. All we have done is promote the traditional energy sources of oil, coal, and gas at the expense of our national security and environment. This bill does serious harm to our environment and our health by effectively turning back the clock on decades-old environmental protections. First, the bill includes a provision that would amend the Clean Air Act to allow more delays for adhering to the EPA's smog regulations. This provision is not just illogical, it is dangerous. Second, the bill's provisions for our coastal regions present a threat to an area my State wants protected. For Washingtonians, the coastal areas are some of the most pristine and cherished natural areas in the State. Under this bill, these areas, along with coastal areas in many other States, would be placed in serious jeopardy. The bill would grant new authority to the Department of the Interior to authorize energy development projects on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, including the transport and storage of oil and gas. At the same time, it would undermine the rights of States to manage their coasts. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA, States were given the right to have a say in Federal projects that impacted their coastal regions. This bill would severely compromise these rights. Third, the bill has alarming environmental implications for drilling and construction projects. It would allow an expedited application process for drilling on Federal lands by requiring the Department of the Interior to automatically approve applications once they have met certain standards, regardless of any outstanding environmental concerns. It also exempts companies from adhering to the Clean Water Act's runoff regulations for construction and drilling sites. Without adherence to these guidelines, the risk of ground water contamination increases dramatically. Fourth, I am concerned about a measure to provide legal immunity to chemical companies that produce the gasoline additive MTBE. The toxic substance is known to have caused ground water contamination, and this bill shifts costs for cleanup to taxpayers. Lastly, this bill contains huge amounts of subsidies for the oil and coal industries. Nearly half of this bill's incentives are given to the oil and coal industries, two of the most environmentally destructive fossil fuels that have contributed to global warming. This is not just irresponsible; it is wrong. We must actively work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but subsidizing the industries and rolling back environmental protections is not a logical methodology. In contrast, the bill provides less than one-quarter of its incentives to industries that produce renewable energy. The facts are clear. Renewables are simply not the top priority of this piece of legislation. These are some of the many reasons I cannot support this piece of energy legislation. Not only does it put consumers at risk by repealing necessary protections, but it seriously puts at risk our own health and the health of our environment with the special interest giveaways to the oil, gas, and coal industries. Finally, let me address the claims about job creation in this bill. For Washington State, a more aggressive promotion of renewable energy could have been a boost to local companies involved in this area of generation, but this bill did not provide that direction. Proponents have argued that the bill encourages the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, which would create jobs in Washington State. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide the guarantees needed for what could have been an important project. To construct the pipeline, its builders say they would need some protection against gas prices falling below a certain level. But, this bill provides no mechanism for risk mitigation, so according to its own builders, the pipeline will not be built. The negative aspects of this bill are overwhelming. It fails to adequately address the real problems that we all face. It threatens the environmental progress we have made in the past and the progress we hope to make in the future. Without measures that substantively promote responsible energy use, increased conservation, energy independence, consumer protection, and environmental safeguards, this bill is simply unacceptable. I cannot support legislation that puts us all in danger, and that is exactly what this bill does. The people of Washington State deserve better, and the people of America deserve better.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I oppose the motion to close debate on the FAA reauthorization bill. While I strongly support the bill's authorized funding for infrastructure and operations for our Nation's aviation system, I am troubled that this bill still gives the Administration too much leeway to privatize our Nation's air traffic control, ATC, system. We know this administration is eager to privatize government jobs even when it costs more money and does not improve productivity. We also know that air traffic control involves special considerations like safety, cost and flight delays. That's why both the House and Senate passed amendments to the FAA bill to explicitly limit the administration's ability to privatize FAA- controlled towers. I voted for the Lautenberg Amendment in June, and it passed the Senate 56-41. You would have thought that the White House would recognize that it was on the wrong side of this bipartisan issue. But instead of accepting this reality, the White House pressured the members of the conference committee to remove the limiting language during the first conference. Regrettably, a majority on the conference committee followed the White House's request. In its place, the conferees added new language that goes even further in supporting privatization. That new language would allow 69 of current FAA controlled towers to be eligible for privatization. Eleven of those towers are among the 50 busiest in the nation, including Boeing Field in Seattle. The conferees then presented that proposal, only to realize that it faced strong opposition in both Houses of Congress. The conferees were forced to take their first report back for further deliberation. Their second conference report, which is before us today, dropped the expanded privatization provision. However, it did not reinstate the initial language that both chambers supported, which would explicitly limit the administration's ability to privatize our air traffic control system. Given the administration's disregard for congressional intent, I believe that this limiting language is critical. As ranking Member of the Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, I have supported some privatization of ATC, but only at low-traffic airports that would otherwise not have a tower. This is not just a process or philosophical issue but raises questions about benefits, safety and cost. The countries that have privatized their ATC systems--Canada, Australia and the U.K.--have seen increased flight delays and--in the case of Great Britain--an increase in ``near misses'' that could result in accidents. In addition, this private control requires more resources than government-run systems. It is important to note that the Lautenberg amendment would have allowed the government to continue to provide private air traffic control to smaller airports. Senator Rockefeller has offered a simple 6-month extension of AIR-21, which will allow us to reexamine this issue and put together a package that reflects the will of Congress and the people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 more minute to my colleague from Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I conclude by saying in my home State of Washington, 70,000 people have been laid off. They want this Senate to deal with unemployment insurance extension, which we need to do before we adjourn.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from South Dakota who has been waiting.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am deeply disturbed to hear that. The Senate is going to be out of session shortly. Everyone wants to finish by Thanksgiving. I am sure the letters I have read from a few of the people in my State reflect a lot of people's concerns that these people are going to be facing Thanksgiving without knowing how they are going to be paying for their mortgage, their food, and their basic necessities.

Mrs. MURRAY. Is there an objection?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me add one final letter before I turn it over to my colleague from South Dakota who has been waiting in the Chamber. This is a letter from Bill Gilbertson of Sequim, WA. He says to me: Dear Senator Murray: Thank you for your support of S.1708, Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. Your comments to the Senate, describing the real life problems of being unemployed will hopefully encourage passage of this important matter. Please pass on my comments to your colleagues who don't know what its like to be jobless. Life without a job is a demeaning experience; it affects all aspects of your life. You have to be very careful with the little money you have, only necessities can be considered. Fear, low self image, feeling of lack, and despair of the future are some of the challenges you face when hit by unemployment. I have been unemployed now for over a year, it's been tough, but I won't give up till I get a job. Extension of S. 1708 would really help me thru this. That is Bill Gilbertson of Sequim, WA. We are talking about real people facing real problems. I think it is essential that this Senate deal with this issue now. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1853 Because of that, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the Senate proceed to legislative session and the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me read a letter from Laura Perry in Battle Ground, WA, a small community in southwest Washington. Laura wrote: I really need to know what is being done not only in the State of Washington, but in Congress to acknowledge workers who have lost their jobs. Millions of us are going to lose our homes! Throughout my life, I have done all the right things to stay current with the job market. In spite of this fact and having a college degree, I lost my job after 9/11 when my company closed the northwest branch office due to the economic downturn. Now, a year and one-half later, I find that I do not fit in all the niches for acquiring employment retraining because I am not on welfare, I haven't been employed by Boeing, I am not a dislocated homemaker, and I am not a veteran. Please let me know what is being done to help the unemployed in this country when the unemployment insurance runs out. For the first time in my life, I am also without medical benefits. I think Laura Perry deserves 30 hours of time on the Senate floor. Let me read a letter from Marshall Dunlap of Kent, WA, a suburb out of Seattle. He writes to me: Please support the upcoming bill to extend unemployment benefits to those who have lost our jobs. It doesn't help the economy when millions of us are about to become homeless. I would prefer a job but until the economy recovers I am finding this impossible. I am a high tech worker and have no other skills. I am 53 years old and have very few options. For every job I apply for there are hundreds of other applicants. Once the economy comes back, I'm sure I'll be able to support myself but without help until that happens I will lose my house. I know I am not alone so imagine the problem multiplied by millions. There are over 97,000 people unemployed in the Puget Sound are alone. Please help. That is from Mr. Marshall Dunlap, in Kent, WA. I think Marshall would prefer we were spending 30 hours talking about how we are going to help him get back into the workforce and able to provide for his family. Here is a letter from Ronnie Harper of Kingston, WA: Thank you very much for working to extend UI benefits in the state of Washington. I moved here 6 years ago to enter the technology market, which I did immediately upon my arrival. Unfortunately, things turned sour at Hasbro last year because people stopped buying toys, and I was laid off after 5.5 years of exemplary service. I have been working extremely hard over the past year to find another job; a job that is in the IT industry with a competitive compensation package. My efforts have been practically fruitless, with most employers even refusing to discuss their reasons for not considering me for their open positions, and many filling posted positions internally. At this point, I am on my last week of unemployment insurance, and I have mouths to feed. I hope very much that this bill is successful, please keep us posted! That is from Ronnie Harper in Kingston, WA. Unfortunately, I need to add that since he wrote this letter to me, Mr. Harper has now exhausted his benefits. That is why I think this Senate needs to act and why we should be spending 30 hours of debate time talking about how we are going to help Mr. Harper. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Presiding Officer to notify me when I have used 6 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this morning on the Senate floor I spoke at length about the importance of the Senate's role in confirming judges for lifetime appointments and talked of the success in the Senate confirming 98 percent of the judges sent to the floor. We have, I remind our colleagues, confirmed 168 judges on the Senate floor. That is pretty impressive. But all the Senate action that is important to occur before the end of the year is now being held up over four judges. I also talked this morning about the success we had in Washington State using a bipartisan commission to select and confirm qualified judges. This morning I noted that we should be spending our time on much more pressing issues like helping the many unemployed workers who are about to run out of unemployment benefits. We are wasting 2 days of the Senate's very limited time left in this session on four judges. We certainly have more important things to do. We were supposed to pass 13 appropriations bills by October 1. We did not. Today, more than half the bills that fund the Federal Government are incomplete, waiting for congressional action. We have a lot of work to do that affects millions of families. But instead, we are wasting 30 hours of the Senate, precious hours of time talking about four judges. What we are not doing is we are not helping laid-off workers in these 30 hours. We are not improving health care. We are not fixing roads across this country. We are not improving the economy. We are not helping our troops. And we are certainly not improving veterans care. We are not doing anything for the millions of Americans who need help today because the other side is tying the Senate in knots so nothing can get done. What we are doing right now reminds me a little bit of the behavior back in 1995 when the other side did not get exactly what they wanted on the budget, so they shut down Government. Boy, we really heard from people across the country when the Government was shut down. Federal services were shut down, people could not get their Social Security check, agencies were shut down. The needs of every American were set aside at that time so Republicans could complain about a budget with which they disagreed. The same thing happened here today. The needs of every American are being set aside so Republicans can complain about four judges they want confirmed. Forget the laid-off workers, forget health care, forget education. The other side wants to make a point, and they are shutting down the Senate and the needs of the American people so they can make that point. Each passing hour on this floor feels more and more like the Government shutdown of 1995. We cannot work on critical needs because the other side is holding things up. After 30 hours of hearing about this, the American people will get it. They will see that we are not working on the things that really do matter to them. I am sure many Americans are scratching their heads, wondering what is going on in the Senate. The answer is, we are not working on jobs. We are not working on education. We are not working on health care because the majority is upset we have confirmed only 98 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees. As I mentioned this morning, there are much more important things we need to be doing. We do need to extend unemployment benefits for laid- off workers. I tried to bring up the bill to help laid-off workers get unemployment benefits, but when I bring it up the majority says it is not the right time to discuss helping laid-off workers. I invite the majority to explain to laid-off workers in my State who are going to exhaust their benefits on December 31 why we are talking about judges instead of helping those laid-off workers? These hours that we are wasting on this manufactured crisis could be much better spent on the real crisis facing so many Americans. Two weeks ago I introduced legislation to extend unemployment benefits to workers who will run out of benefits on December 31, right after Christmas. For millions of Americans who cannot find jobs, the clock is ticking and every day counts. Unless this Congress acts, those families are going to start the new year without a job and without any help paying for the basics like housing and food and medicine. Two weeks ago I introduced the amendment in the Senate. If the majority wants to vote against helping laid-off workers, that is their choice, but we are going to force them to take a vote because working families should not be punished any more than they already have been in this tough economy. Congress cannot leave town for the year--and many people are talking about ending next week--we cannot end next week without extending the benefits on which these many families rely. We have extended benefits in past recessions and we need to do it in this recession because the clock is ticking. In my home State of Washington, we have the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation. It is 7.6 percent. Since President Bush took office, we have lost more than 70,000 jobs in Washington State. Those laid-off workers want jobs. They are eager to work. In King County alone, 10,000 people are on a waiting list for job training. They want to provide for their families, but they are about to get cut off unless the Congress does the right thing and extends unemployment benefits. If Congress does not extend those benefits, another 124,000 in my home State, Washington State, will exhaust their benefits by December 31. These families are draining their savings accounts just to hang on. Many of them have run out of options. But they still have to pay their mortgage. They still have to pay their medical bills. They still have to pay college tuition. That is why they need these unemployment insurance benefits. The bill I introduced will do three things. First, it will help families as they try to get back on their feet. These benefits simply will help them buy groceries, pay the mortgage, keep their kids in college. It will give them a little bit of cushion as they try to find work. Second, extending benefits will help stimulate the economy in every State and every Member wants their economy to be better in their State because when we send the unemployment insurance, people then have the money they need to buy things for every day. That will be a shot in the arm for the hard-hit States, for our hardware stores, for grocery stores, and all of our businesses like that. It means these people will have the money they need to keep those businesses going as well. Finally, extending benefits will help stimulate our Nation's economy. Every dollar invested in these benefits generates another $1.73 for our economy. Laid-off workers deserve a vote on this bill. They deserve a debate on this bill. They deserve time in the Senate on this bill. They need our help. We should be using 30 hours of time to talk about the unemployed workers, the difficulties facing them, and how we in this Congress are going to get them back on their feet. That is what we should be spending 30 hours on. It seems to me at a time when we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq, the very least we can do is give unemployed Americans a few hundred dollars a week. Congress cannot leave town without providing a life line to laid-off workers. The clock is ticking, time is running out, and we should be helping laid-off workers instead of squandering our limited time on the judges issues. To understand how serious this is, I will read some letters from the people I represent. How much time remains on my side?