Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I would add this amendment has been offered seven times, virtually every year since 1996, on this exact bill, the Department of Defense authorization.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield for 30 seconds.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand the Senate is waiting for a ruling from the Parliamentarian of the relevancy of the amendment I sent to the desk and I ask if that ruling is ready.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. I have not offered it yet. I am about to make a request to do so.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. This is a real slap in the face to the women who serve us overseas in the military, who are asked every single day to protect us, to fight for what we believe in, to fight for our freedoms. They are being told they are second-class citizens and, worse yet, they are irrelevant in the Senate.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. I hear the Senator, and I absolutely agree. And I will join with any Senators who object to any bill coming up when the word ``relevant'' is being used. I have been in public policy for almost two decades now, and ``relevancy'' and ``germaneness'' have meant specific things to all of us, and we have offered relevant amendments, including the amendment I meant to offer tonight, and they have always been relevant. They have been relevant on this bill six times already, even postcloture. It seems to me now we have a definition for ``relevancy'' that is above the definition of ``germaneness,'' and that is simply unbelievable to me. I concur with the Senator, the only thing we have left is to not agree to any unanimous consent requests that use the word ``relevancy.'' But I say to my colleague, it seems to me the word ``relevancy'' is now putting a lot of people into being irrelevant: veterans, when it comes to concurrent receipt; communities that are trying very hard to keep stable, when it comes to base closures; and now women--we are all irrelevant. I find that extremely upsetting.

Mrs. MURRAY. That has always been my understanding of the issue of germaneness and relevancy. So I am at odds with the definitions we have been presented with at this time.

Mrs. MURRAY. The rules have definitely changed, I say to the Senator, because I have offered this amendment postcloture and it has been considered relevant before.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct. We have submitted it to the Parliamentarian, who told us it was not relevant. We came back and worked to try to change the language. We were told it needed to touch four corners. I don't have a clue what that means, but we were told it would be ruled irrelevant.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct. There is no other piece of legislation that is before us where this is relevant. In fact, I have offered this six times on the Department of Defense authorization bill, even postcloture, and it was considered relevant. I am shocked and amazed that women are being told today they are not relevant. I am furious that women are being told they are not relevant when it comes to the Department of Defense, when it comes to their health care, and when it comes to the Senate.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. MURRAY. I have always understood the definition of ``relevancy'' to be a lower standard than the issue of germaneness.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reclaiming my right to the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I find that simply astounding. Department of Defense bills are essentially language that changes for different military programs, all kinds of things in the bills. But certainly the issue of whether or not a woman has a right to have safe and legal health care overseas when she is serving her country has been ruled as germane in the past. It seems obviously pretty out of order and extraordinary that that would be where we are tonight. Let me just do this, because I think all of us agree this amendment is one that has been considered on the bill before. It does deal with a woman's ability to have safe health care. It is one that has been ruled germane twice in postcloture times. I would just ask unanimous consent that the rule on relevancy at this time be waived so I can offer the amendment tonight, because I think it is important that we allow a procedure that has been done many times before to continue under this bill. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. These fellow citizens are out of work through no fault of their own. They need our help, and by extending their benefits, we will also help stimulate our struggling economy. In my own State of Washington, we have lost over 80,000 jobs since 9/ 11. The Kennedy amendment would help some 102,000 workers in my state who will exhaust their benefits over the next few months. It will help nearly 4 million workers nationwide. These are people who want to work and who are looking for jobs but can't find them in our slow economy. It is not easy to find a job in this economy. Just listen to these statistics. The average number of jobs for which unemployed adults have applied is 29. The average for those who have been unemployed for 9 months or more is 39, and unemployed adults over 44 years old apply for an average of 42 jobs before they find work. Despite these efforts, these workers are now being threatened with mortgage foreclosures and repossession of their vehicles. One in four unemployed workers has had to move to other housing or move in with friends or relatives. They are facing problems in health care. For instance, one-third of the unemployed were once covered by health insurance, but now they have lost these benefits because they have lost their jobs. They are spending less on food, medical care and clothing for their children. I know these workers will help provide a real and immediate stimulus for our economy because they will buy groceries, pay their utility bills, make house payments and pay for other essential needs for their day to day existence. Nearly 80 percent of these workers say that unemployment benefits have been very important in helping their families meet their basic needs. In fact, a recent study by Economy.com found that the single most effective stimulus measure would be an extension of unemployment compensation benefits. The study also found that each dollar dedicated to extending the program would boost the economy by $1.73, while each dollar connected to reducing the taxation of dividends would boost the economy by just nine cents. So I urge my colleagues to extend unemployment benefits for these workers. They need and deserve our help, and helping them will directly help our economy. Amendment No. 557

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate has just taken a step in the right direction to address the economic crisis that is facing many of our States and communities by adopting the Collins-Rockefeller amendment. But I think all of us know our States are facing a very severe crisis; in fact, the most severe economic crisis since the Second World War. Many of our State legislatures are facing cuts in health care, education, and even law enforcement. Our States are facing deficits as high as $80 billion total, and we are very concerned because they are threatening to eliminate the health care coverage of more than 1.7 million Americans. Today when health care is one of the most difficult decisions our State legislatures have to make, we need to take the next step so we do not lose more doctors, more hospitals; that patients do not see continuing increased costs to their health insurance; and we have Medicaid patients who are losing coverage. My amendment takes the next critical step by providing $40 billion for the relief package. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive that act for the purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment that will help address the real needs of families in cities and States all across this country. I thank my cosponsors Senators Daschle, Baucus, Rockefeller, Wyden, Kohl, Schumer, Edwards, and Corzine. As I look at the current tax proposal, I do not see much that will provide an immediate stimulus to our economy or help working families who are struggling during this recession. In fact, today's Washington Post said that even some Republicans consider this plan ``bizarre and economically suspect.'' This tax bill ignores the real needs that families are facing, and it dramatically increases the deficit, all to give massive tax cuts to a very few. That is an approach that has already failed us. Simply put, this tax bill fails America's families. So tonight I am offering an amendment to put some stimulus and relief into this no-stimulus bill. The Murray amendment provides direct help where it is so badly needed--in our States and in our local communities. My amendment addresses a crisis in health care that jeopardizes access for all Americans. Currently, the underlying bill, as we just heard, offers $20 billion in aid to the States. By the way, that funding is only there because Democrats fought for it. That is a major accomplishment considering the President's plan included nothing for our ailing States, and the House also failed our States. While $20 billion is a victory in our current political environment, we all know it is not enough to help our States recover quickly. So my amendment offers an additional $20 billion for our struggling States and local governments. In total, my amendment provides $40 billion in immediate assistance to our ailing States. Here is how the money will be divided: $20 billion will go to general revenue sharing. Of that, $16 billion is for State governments, including Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico; $4 billion is for local governments, and each State will receive a minimum of $100 million. The other $20 billion goes to States for Medicaid relief. This provision would temporarily increase the Federal matching rate for Medicaid. If we are going to help our economy recover, we need to help our States and local governments get through this crisis. All of my colleagues know the plight of our States. My home State of Washington continues to suffer real economic problems, and it illustrates the importance of adopting the Murray amendment. Washington State has the second highest unemployment rate in the Nation at 7 percent. My colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, who is going to be speaking in just a few minutes, shares the distinguished record of having the highest unemployment in the Nation go back and forth between Oregon and Washington in the last 2 years. In Washington State, since the spring of 2001, we have lost tens of thousands of jobs. In fact, one in nine Washington residents does not have health care coverage today, and 150,000 people in my State have lost health insurance in the last 2 years. In the last 2 years alone, we have faced in my State an earthquake, an energy crisis, declines in our technology sector, the downturn of Boeing, and the loss of thousands of jobs. And now we face a State budget deficit of $2.7 billion. That translates to dramatic cuts in education, health care, transportation, and social services. These programs are more important now than ever because times are so tough. Unfortunately, as we all know, many other States are facing very similar challenges. In fact, today our States are experiencing the most severe economic crisis since World War II. Nationwide, States are facing deficits totaling $70 billion to $85 billion. Experts are warning us that 1.7 million people nationwide risk losing Medicaid coverage as States cut their budgets. In fact, in Washington State, according to our insurance commissioner, 60,000 children will lose access to health care unless we help. That is 60,000 children in Washington State alone. Unlike the Federal Government, States do not have the option of deficit spending. Instead, States are forced to cut existing programs or raise new revenues to balance their budgets. To add to the State's budget crises, the Federal Government has created costly new mandates in areas such as education and homeland security. The ``No Child Left Behind'' law required States to implement new accountability measures, but the assistance that was promised has never been delivered. On homeland security, State and local law enforcement must work overtime whenever the threat level is raised. For many States and localities, homeland security is on the verge of becoming another unfunded mandate. Unfortunately, in response to the crises in our States, the President proposed nothing to help them. It is like the famous newspaper headline: ``Ford to City: Drop Dead.'' The House of Representatives followed the President's lead in leaving States in crisis. It took Democratic efforts in the Senate to build bipartisan support for our States. I am proud of the work that Democrats have done to add $20 billion to the tax legislation to help our States get through this difficult time. I also commend my colleagues on the other side who are working on this issue. I applaud their work in the face of strong opposition from the President and the Republican party leadership. My amendment will help States deal with education, as many State universities and community colleges are facing double-digit tuition increases. My amendment will also help States address their Medicaid shortfalls by temporarily raising the Federal share of Medicaid payments. Given the fiscal crisis in our States, this additional support is critical today. This aid will allow our States to maintain health care coverage for our most vulnerable citizens. Some of my colleagues may hear the word ``Medicaid'' and think I am just talking about helping low-income families. That is true and it is critical, but it is much more than that. Yes, Medicaid does provide coverage for more than 42 million low- income, disabled, and elderly Americans, but let's not forget that Medicaid plays a major role in America's health care delivery system. It pays for about half of all nursing home care. It pays for 17 percent of prescription drug coverage. Hospitals, doctors and clinics in every State rely on Medicaid as a significant source of revenue. Cuts in Medicaid could close nursing homes. Cuts could make it harder for middle class families to pay for long-term care for their aging parents or relatives. It could mean lower wages for nurses in long-term care facilities. Finally, let me emphasize, it could have a major impact on women because 70 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries over age 15 are women. Unless we address the Medicaid shortfall, we will feel the impact everywhere. When poor kids, families, and moms do not have health care, kids show up at school sick, moms cannot care for families, and parents do not go to work. That affects everyone. It will add to the 41 million Americans who do not have health insurance, and that will add to the costs we all pay for health care. This affects families and businesses in the form of much higher insurance premiums. Finally, when Medicaid is underfunded, it puts more pressure on our doctors, hospitals, and clinics that are already struggling. We are losing doctors and seeing hospitals close today. We cannot afford to let things get worse. We need to improve the underlying tax bill so it addresses the real challenges facing families in our States and local communities. States are facing a fiscal crisis, and my amendment provides $20 billion in aid. States are facing a healthcare crisis, and my amendment provides another $20 billion to make up the Medicaid shortfall. This amendment is a chance to improve what has been called a ``bizarre and economically suspect'' tax plan. Before I close, I want to clarify something that we may hear during this debate. I want my colleagues to know that this is not about bailing out States that have overspent. We are talking about individual Americans and their access to services like vision and dental care, asthma medicine, hospice care, and physical therapy. So when my colleagues blame the States for this crisis, they are choosing their words carefully. They do not dare blame the disabled, the elderly, poor children and their parents, but that is who they are really talking about, the people who will lose access to health care unless we pass the Murray amendment. Let's not forget that our States have had to pick up the bills because the Federal Government has not done its job in certain areas. For example, because we have not reformed health care at the Federal level, States have had to deal with more and more residents on Medicaid. Because Federal assistance for tuition has been cut, there is more pressure on State-funded universities. To those pressures we can add the Federal Government's failure to fund the education law and new homeland security mandates. So this is not about bailing out States that have done something wrong. This is about recognizing our responsibility to pay for the things we have required at the Federal level. We know there is an economic crisis in our States, and this is a chance to provide some critical support. Unless we provide some real aid to our States, Congress and the President will just be passing the tax burden on to the local level. Let's do the responsible thing. I think that any Senator who votes against the Murray amendment will have a hard time explaining to their Governor, their mayors, and all their citizens why they left their State hanging in order to provide a massive tax cut to the few, which will not result in immediate economic growth. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Murray amendment, and I thank my co-sponsors. I yield 15 minutes to my colleague from Oregon, who is a cosponsor of this amendment and who knows in his State how much they are struggling as they try to meet a crisis, as so many other States are.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I know there are many other Senators on the floor who wish to speak to their amendments. Let me conclude this amendment debate by saying how important it is for our States that are struggling today with $75 billion or $80 billion in debt, that we do everything we can to get the economy going in a true economic stimulus package to provide funds for those States to assure they do not lose people off health care, that their education systems are intact, and they have the ability to deal with their budget crisis and we don't add to it with fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that preclude them from being able to provide the services that are so critical today. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.