Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 39 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on October 31, 2002, the U.S. Customs Service published regulations requiring sea carriers to provide cargo manifests 24 hours prior to the lading of containerized cargo at foreign ports for shipment to the United States. In short, since December 2, 2002, the Customs Service has been asking for a detailed list of all cargo entering a U.S. port and detailed information regarding the shipper. This will allow Customs agents to identify at- risk cargo, thus making our ports safer. My State of Washington includes the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. These ports combined represent the Nation's third largest intermodal container gateway. So I applaud this initiative, which will allow customs agents the opportunity to identify at risk cargo, while expediting the process for low-risk cargo. Having said that, I am concerned that if this rule is not adopted by the Customs authorities in countries with whom we share a border, we could actually make our borders even less secure. There is a substantial flow of overseas containerized goods coming over the Canadian and Mexican borders, especially the Canadian border, into the U.S. annually. If those goods are not subject to the 24-hour rule, as overseas containerized goods coming through U.S. ports are, we have defeated the intent of the rule. In addition, we are actually providing an incentive for shippers to use the Canadian or Mexican gateways instead of bringing their goods through U.S. ports. This scenario hurts us in two ways. First, it diminishes the security at our borders if the same rules do not apply to overseas containerized goods coming through Canada or Mexico, and second, if shipping lines flock to ports located in our northern and southern neighbors to bring goods into the U.S. due to the ``hassle factor,'' it takes jobs and the potential for economic growth from our communities. For this reason, I am gratified to learn that the Canadian government is in the process of considering port security regulations of its own. U.S. Customs has thus far been able to work successfully with Canadian Customs on programs such as the Smart Border Accord, the Container Security Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism effort. So I am asking the distinguished Senators from Colorado and North Dakota regardless of whether the Canadian Government does or does not implement a similar advanced manifest information requirement, to with me to see our Government require the same manifest information on all container traffic that is destined to the United States on a through- bill-of-lading via a Canadian or Mexican port.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Reed, Clinton, Bingaman, Dodd, Stabenow, and Cantwell. The amendment I have called up is very simple. It restores the $120 million to the Community Access Program that was cut in the managers' amendment. This $120 million level is exactly the same level as we appropriated in fiscal year 2002, and it is the same level that was included in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill which we marked up last year. The Community Access Program helps increase the capacity and effectiveness of community health care institutions and providers that serve patients regardless of their ability to pay. It is a community-based program that seeks to coordinate care for the uninsured. It has been very successful, and it enjoys broad bipartisan support. It is difficult for me to understand why the President's budget eliminates a program that seeks to get care for the uninsured at a time when the ranks of the uninsured continue to grow. Without a coordinated community-based approach to accessing care, the uninsured simply end up in our emergency rooms or go without care, and both of those results add to our growing health care crisis. I know firsthand how successful this program has been. Washington State has four CAP grantees that have worked to expand access to quality, comprehensive care for those who have no health care safety net. They are based in Spokane, Wenatchee, Olympia, and Seattle. As I have met with our CAP grantees, they have shown me a glimpse into what I think is the future of health care. In October I visited the Odessa Brown Children's Clinic. I saw a doctor, a dentist, and a psychologist in the same room, not just treating body parts but actually treating the whole child in a comprehensive, compassionate way. Today that project is known as ``Kids Get Care,'' and it is connecting more than 3,000 children to comprehensive health care. These kinds of efforts are making a real difference for low-income families, and they need more investment. Our CAP grantees have worked to ensure that our increased investment in community health centers reaps the greatest benefit possible. They have worked with vulnerable populations to tear down barriers to care and not just economic barriers. They use the small investment to better serve the uninsured. We should be strengthening efforts like this right now, not eliminating them. Currently in my home State of Washington, one in nine residents is uninsured. And with my State's ongoing economic crisis--and I am sure across the country--demand is going to grow for programs that provide care for the uninsured. We need to meet the immediate needs of these families who today can only get access in the emergency room. CAP provides the seed money that gives community health care providers the ability to serve those who have nowhere else to go. As a member of the HELP Committee, I am disappointed that the majority has proposed eliminating this program. The HELP Committee worked in a bipartisan manner, under the leadership of Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Frist, and secured passage of a 4-year health care safety net authorization bill. Last year that provided an authorization of this CAP program. That legislation was, in fact, unanimously adopted by the Senate in October of 2002 and signed by the President on October 26, 2002. The purpose of the authorization is spelled out now in Public Law 107-251. I want to read the committee report. The purpose is: To provide assistance to communities and to consortia of health care providers, in order to develop or strengthen an integrated health care delivery system that coordinates health services for individuals who are uninsured and individuals who are underinsured and to develop or strengthen activities related to providing coordinated care for individuals with chronic conditions. Those are goals we must achieve. I understand the fiscal pressures facing the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Chairman Specter, but we are facing a major health care crisis in this country. This is not just a crisis of the uninsured but a crisis of increasing costs. The impact of this will only mean higher Federal expenditures in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the human toll on our uninsured citizens. I applaud the recent comments by the new majority leader in discussing the racial inequities in our health care delivery system, and I look forward to working with him to address this injustice and to ensure greater access to care for all Americans. Fair and just access to care is a civil rights issue. Being uninsured does not have to mean going without. We can offer a safety net to provide comprehensive care to the uninsured through programs such as CAP and community health centers. I believe that CAP provides us a model for closing the gaps in health care and eliminating racial inequities. If we truly hope to provide fair and equal access, we must not eliminate CAP in this bill. CAP is certainly not the only solution, but we all know that in order to address our health care crisis, we have to find innovative solutions that use our resources more effectively, and CAP does just that. It supports innovative community-based programs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I remind them, it was authorized by the full committee last year, unanimously passed the Senate, and has broad bipartisan support. We need to back our words in that bill with the resources for these communities to provide care for the uninsured and the growing ranks of uninsured across this country. We need to strengthen our fragile health care safety net across this country, and this amendment will help us do that. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. The President is asking for a $674 billion tax cut that essentially means we can no longer afford the $1.5 billion increase to title I funds that we promised in No Child Left Behind at the same time he is giving 226,000 millionaires a $20 billion tax cut.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I came to the floor last night to give extensive remarks about the tremendous importance of the amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd in the area of transportation for port security, airport security, and transit security. I have been listening to the debate this morning. I wanted to come to the floor to refute a critical misstatement that has been made about the amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd. It was argued by my friends on the other side of the aisle that the funds in this bill are all over and above the funding requested by President Bush. I need to tell my colleagues that in the area of transportation that is just simply not true. In the underlying bill, the funding level for the Transportation Security Administration is some $460 million short of what is needed to fully fund all of the congressionally directed initiatives, as well as fully fund the security requests of the Bush administration. It is a simple mathematical fact. This amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd provides $460 million for the TSA needs to fully fund what President Bush has requested for the Transportation Security Administration. Without the amendment offered by Senator Byrd--if we enact this without that--the TSA will have to cut $460 million to make way for the congressional mandates that all of us have worked on, supported, passed, and told our constituents are coming. The only way to fully fund what President Bush has requested for screening passengers at our airports and purchasing the explosive-detecting machines is by providing the funding for the Byrd amendment. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me a minute to clarify this critical point--that we need to have this amendment to fully fund President Bush's request, particularly in the area of transportation security. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I simply ask for 1 minute, or 2, I say to the distinguished Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that this is not one of those situations where we can just make everything OK in conference. My colleagues need to know that while the House of Representatives never passed a transportation bill for the current fiscal year, the House Appropriations Committee did report a bill to the floor, and it included only $762 million for Amtrak. So if we do not restore the funding needed to keep Amtrak alive today, Members should not expect this will be rescued later. For those of my colleagues who don't want to accept the word of Amtrak's president or even my word on what will happen to Amtrak without this funding, they can look to the words of the Department of Transportation Inspector General. The DOT IG's office conducts an annual audit of Amtrak's finances. They are as familiar with Amtrak's books as anyone in this country. The DOT IG's office was asked to review every element of Amtrak's request for $1.2 billion. What they concluded, after an extensive review, was that the budget request was indeed flawed. The Inspector General concluded the budget request was $12 million too low. One thing we know for sure is that Amtrak is not going to get its final appropriation level until almost half the fiscal year has been completed. No observer of Amtrak's financial situation--not the Secretary of Transportation, not the Federal Railroad Administrator, not the DOT IG, no one on the Amtrak board of directors, including the three Republican appointees on that board--no one has put forward a credible argument that Amtrak can absorb a funding cut of this size in the middle of the fiscal year and do anything other than declare bankruptcy. So let me remind my colleagues that we are not talking about a bankruptcy like we are experiencing with some of our airlines, such as USAirways and United. Amtrak will not keep operating with the benefit of bankruptcy protection. It will stop the trains, and they will shut their doors. Members will recall last summer when we faced an Amtrak crisis. The railroad was days away from running out of cash, and we were still working on a supplemental appropriations bill, a bill that would eventually provide $205 million in additional cash for Amtrak to continue operations. It was not just Amtrak service that was at risk; it was not just the tens of thousands of Amtrak passengers that were going to be left standing on the platform; there were hundreds of thousands of daily transit riders utilizing commuter rail systems from Boston to San Diego, from suburban Virginia to Seattle, WA--systems that depend on Amtrak remaining a viable entity in order to continue their daily operations. Thankfully, due to the enactment of the supplemental appropriations bill, and a $100 million temporary loan that was extended by the Bush administration, we avoided an Amtrak catastrophe last summer. However, if we enact the bill currently before us without getting the additional $374 million called for under the amendment that is pending, we will once again face that crisis in just a few months' time. Some of my colleagues in the Senate continue to press their position that Amtrak needs to tighten their belt. Well, Amtrak has been tightening their belt. Since David Gunn took control of the company 8 months ago, hundreds of employees have been let go, certain trains have been eliminated, and dramatic efforts have been initiated to rid the corporation of unnecessary costs. But we need to recognize that the funding level included in the underlying bill for Amtrak is not an exercise in tightening the company's belt. It is a death sentence. Those who would impose these cuts on the Amtrak budget may have forgotten the experience of September 11, 2001, when our aviation system was brought to a halt for almost a week and travelers flocked to Amtrak trains in order to get to their destinations. The Senate needs to have a meaningful debate about Amtrak. We need to have a debate that is based on facts. We need to focus on the fact that Amtrak is burdened with a huge debt. We need to focus on the fact that Amtrak has billions of dollars in capital needs on the Northeast corridor and no way to pay for them. We need to focus on the fact that terminating Amtrak's long distance trains effectively saves the railroad almost no money. We need to have that fact-based debate without the distraction of another Amtrak funding crisis every few months due to congressional budgetary shenanigans. I was hopeful last year we were going to have that debate. Last year the Senate Commerce Committee, by a vote of 20 to 3, reported an authorization bill for Amtrak calling for funding of just under $4 billion in fiscal year 2003. Not only a majority of Democrats on the Commerce Committee but also a majority of the Republicans on the Commerce Committee supported that bill. The returning chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, did not support that bill. However, he did introduce his own Amtrak authorization bill calling for Amtrak funding in fiscal year 2003 to be at the level of $1.3 billion. My amendment would not succeed in providing that level of funding. It would only succeed in providing $1.2 billion. There is a widely held myth that the principal financial drag on Amtrak's finances is the long distance trains that travel across this country. One of those trains is the Empire Builder which originates in Chicago but provides service between eastern and western Washington, as well. The fact is, the long distance trains pose a comparatively little cost to Amtrak each year because they carry with them extremely small capital costs. These trains run over tracks that are owned and maintained by the Nation's freight railroads. By comparison, the Northeast corridor between Boston and Washington, DC, is owned by Amtrak and burdens Amtrak with hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs every year. Using generally accepted accounting principles, Amtrak's Northeast corridor has not yielded profits, as some are fond of saying. It never has and it never will. In fact, just last year, Amtrak's Northeast corridor lost a total of $367 million. It is also estimated that the Northeast corridor has a critical maintenance backlog of between $5 and $6 billion. Even the Bush administration concedes that fact. During a hearing I held on Amtrak's finances last year with the administration and the DOT Inspector General, I asked them about the comparative financial burden of the long distance trains versus the Northeast corridor. DOT Inspector General Ken Mead made the following statement: Some have suggested that Amtrak's financial woes would go away if you would cut out the trains outside the Northeast corridor. That is not true. In fact, the annual net operating subsidy that is required to continue Amtrak's most unprofitable trains is less than one-third of the annual capital subsidy that is required to operate the most profitable trains in the Northeast Corridor. To those who would say that Amtrak just needs to eliminate its long distance trains to get its finances in order, I tell them to look at the numbers. Amtrak's own financial analysis of savings associated with eliminating 18 of the long distance trains--those are 18 trains that are considered the worst performers in the national system--would effectively yield zero savings in the first year. In the second year, the net savings of eliminating all 18 of those trains would only be about $18 million. Only after 5 years would the elimination of those trains yield savings that exceed $200 million. Let me say that again. If we eliminated all of Amtrak's 18 long distance trains, the railroad would eventually yield savings of $200 million--only after 5 years. However, the underlying appropriations bill would call on Amtrak to absorb a cut of some $400 million right now, today, with only 9 months left in this fiscal year. These are the unpleasant facts that no one wants to face. So I encourage all Members to support this amendment. I would love to tell my colleagues there is an easy way to make significant savings in the Amtrak budget--such as the company could absorb funding reductions this year and next year--but the fact is there is not. So I ask that we provide stability for Amtrak while we debate the larger issues regarding the company's future. I ask that we provide some surety to the millions of Amtrak riders and commuter rail passengers across the country who depend on a solvent Amtrak. I ask that we provide sufficient funding so Amtrak can approach the level of funding it received in total in fiscal year 2002. Mr. President, I know there are a number of colleagues who wish to discuss this amendment as well. I thank Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee, for agreeing to accept this amendment at this time. I understand his need to have a reauthorization. I look forward to working with him on that.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina such time as he may need.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, and I ask the Senator from Arizona if he wants to use time before us since he has not had time on his side.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time do I have remaining on my side?

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be listed as a cosponsor on the amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time does Senator Carper need?

Mrs. MURRAY. Five or less, and the Senator from Illinois would like 3 minutes. And I believe that is all we have. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware and 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains?

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York be given 2 minutes of my remaining time and the Senator from Delaware be given 3 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Maryland makes an absolutely critical point. He knows as well as I do that we sincerely miss Senator Paul Wellstone who I know would be sitting next to Senator Ted Kennedy-- actually, he would be roaming up and down this aisle saying: I told all of you this No Child Left Behind hype is a sham if we do not provide the resources. Providing accountability on one hand and not providing resources on the other hand says we only did half what we promised.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. Many State legislatures are looking to cut back the school week because of lack of resources for education at this time because of the effects of the economy.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. On his point on the Pell grants, I remind us again that our States are suffering severe budget crises. Some people estimate as much as a $100 billion shortfall in our State legislative budget this year. Those State legislatures are going to have to look toward increasing revenue in their States at this difficult time because they have to balance their budget. Many of those States will do as my State has done--raise college tuition. At the same time, if we do not have Pell grants available to students under this appropriations bill presented to us, we are going to have kids say: I cannot afford to go to college. That is the wrong message for our students at this time in our Nation's history.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield.