Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased that Chairman Harkin and Senator Lugar accepted my amendment on rural telecommunications to the Farm Bill that passed the Senate yesterday. My amendment simply adds a small planning component to the scope of acceptable activities for grants in the bill to help rural communities get connected to broadband telecommunications services. Specifically, my amendment would provide access to broadband planning and feasibility grants to rural communities, with a maximum of $250,000 for statewide grants and $100,000 for regional grants. The total resources would be no more than $3 million per year for this purpose. State governments, regional consortia of local governments, tribal governments, cooperatives, and State and regional non-profit entities would be eligible to receive the grants. As small and rural communities across the country try to get connected to advanced telecommunications services, they need help in the planning stage. And this amendment will give them the help they need. Three years ago, I formed several working groups in my state to identify the primary needs of our rural communities and to find ways that our government can help meet those needs. We learned that many rural communities don't have access to advanced telecom services, like high speed Internet access. That lack of access is hampering their economic development and quality of life. So I developed another working group to look for ways to help communities get connected to advanced telecommunications services. The members of my Rural Telecommunications Working Group held forums around the state that attracted hundreds of people. We tapped the ideas of experts, service providers and people from across the State who are working to get their communities connected. They found that while urban and suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the services they need. We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced telecommunications like high speed Internet access. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services. Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is already turning some small companies in rural communities into international marketers of goods and services. Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble getting the access they need. Before areas can take advantage of some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work together and go through a community planning process. Community plans identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future, and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to develop. This amendment would provide those funds. Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get stuck on that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working Group came up with a solution: have the Federal Government provide competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their plans. I took that idea and put it into a bill that I introduced in June 2001, S. 1056, the Community Telecommunications Planning Act of 2001. The basic structure of that amendment was incorporated into the Farm Bill. When you think about it, it just makes sense. Right now the Federal Government already provides money to help communities plan other infrastructure improvements, everything from roads and bridges to wastewater facilities. The amendment would provide rural and underserved communities with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments and other analytical work that needs to be done. With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for access into real access that can improve their communities and strengthen their economies. This amendment can open the door for thousands of small and rural areas across our state to tap the potential of the information economy. I will work to ensure this provision is included in the final bill along with the other critical telecommunications initiatives that passed the Senate yesterday. butter/powder tilt

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on two tribal forestry amendments that were included in the Farm Bill that passed the Senate yesterday. I was pleased to work on these amendments with Senators Inouye, Daschle, Cantwell, Baucus, and Wellstone. The purpose of these amendments is to improve coordination between the United States Forest Service and Native Americans in managing and protecting our natural resources. The Forest Service owns millions of acres of forests and grasslands that share borders with land owned by tribes and by individual Native Americans. It is in the national interest for the Forest Service and tribes to coordinate their efforts to protect and manage these resources. It is also the Federal Government's fiduciary responsibility to assist tribes in managing trust lands and to ensure that tribal treaty rights on Forest Service lands are upheld. While over the years the Forest Service has adopted many policies regarding relationships with tribal governments, these policies have not been implemented consistently. In 1999, the Chief of the Forest Service created a National Tribal Relations Task Force to make recommendations to strengthen policies and improve coordination. The Task Force, which included representatives from the Forest Service, the Intertribal Timber Council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, found that, ``Specific legal authorities, authorizing legislation, regulations, manuals, and handbooks, must be modified to expand the foundation necessary to build long-term working relationships with Indian Tribes.'' These amendments build upon the recommendations made by the Task Force. The first amendment expands the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act to include a section creating four programs for tribal governments. Currently, tribes are eligible to participate in the Forestry Incentives and Forest Stewardship programs created by the Act, but there are significant barriers to tribal involvement in these programs, which were designed primarily for state governments. This amendment would allow the Secretary to facilitate tribal consultation and coordination on issues related to tribal rights and interests on Forest Service land, management of shared resources, and tribal traditional and cultural expertise. It would also authorize the Secretary to provide assistance with: conservation awareness programs on tribal forest land; technical assistance for resources planning, management and conservation; and tribal acquisition of conservation interests from willing sellers. The second amendment to the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act would create an Office of Tribal Relations within the Forest Service. The purpose of this Office is to provide advice to the Secretary on Forest Service policies and programs affecting Native Americans, to ensure coordination between the Forest Service and tribes and to administer tribal programs set up by the Forest Service. The amendment also requires the Office to coordinate with other agencies within the Agriculture Department, as well as with the BIA and the Environmental Protection Agency. Finally, the amendment requires the Office to create an annual report on the status of these efforts to increase partnerships between the Forest Service and Native Americans. There is widespread support for these amendments authorizing greater collaboration between the Forest Service and Native American tribes. The Department of the Interior is in favor of these amendments, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has signed off on them as well. I have heard from several Washington state tribes asking me to be an advocate for these additions to the Forestry Title of the Farm bill. I am especially grateful for the Makah Tribe and the Intertribal Timber Council, which brought these ideas to me last year. Also, I greatly appreciate the assistance I have received from Senators Daschle, Inouye, Cantwell, and Baucus in working on these amendments. I also appreciate help I received from Senators Harkin and Lugar so these amendments could be included in a manager's package of amendments to the Farm Bill. On behalf of the numerous tribes with forest and grasslands bordering Forest Service lands.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California for her remarks. I would ask the Senator from Iowa if he supports raising MAP funding to $200 million as soon as possible in the final Farm Bill that is sent to President Bush.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his strong support for the Market Access Program and the specialty crop growers in my state.

Mrs. MURRAY. I want to begin by thanking Senator Feinstein for her strong advocacy for additional Market Access Program funding. I also want to commend the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, for writing a strong trade title in this Farm Bill. It is clear to me that Senator Harkin understands how critical USDA trade programs are to our farmers and ranchers, and to hungry nations around the world. I am concerned, however, about the level of funding for the Market Access Program in the early years of this Farm Bill. I was prepared to offer an amendment to the Farm Bill to add $145 million to the Market Access Program, so that we would fund MAP at $200 million sooner than in the underlying bill. Unfortunately, some controversy arose over the offset for my amendment. I would ask Senator Feinstein if she believes we need to fund the Market Access Program at $200 million as soon as possible in the final Farm Bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I filed to the farm bill that would enhance funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Market Access Program. I appreciate the support and cosponsorship of Senators Feinstein, Craig, Cantwell, Boxer, and Wyden on this amendment. Last year, the House of Representatives passed Trade Promotion authority by one vote, and the World Trade Organization meetings in Doha wrapped up with an agreement to begin a new round of trade negotiations. In Washington, D.C., and in the capitals of nation's around the world, it appears that momentum is building to expand trade. But in rural areas in my home State, the support for new trade agreements is declining. Apple growers in Omak, WA and asparagus growers in the Yakima Valley are asking tough questions about our trade agreements. Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the nation. I have supported opening new markets for our products, whether it's airplanes or apples. I have also been a strong supporter of giving our farmers and businesses and tools they need to compete. The global marketplace is tough, extremely competitive, and not always based on free market principles. Foreign governments have taken an aggressive posture in promoting their products. We need to be aggressive too. One way we can be aggressive is to fully fund the Market Access Program. MAP helps nonprofit industry groups and other qualifying entities to conduct market promotion in foreign markets. MAP funds can be used for advertising and other consumer promotions, market research, and technical assistance. In my home State of Washington, I have seen how MAP can help farmers, cooperatives, and small businesses. For example, each year, the apple industry receives roughly $3 million in export development funds from the USDA Market Access Program. These funds, matched by grower funds, are used to promote U.S. apples in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since 1987, when the apple industry first used MAP funds, apple exports have increased by 88 percent. Nearly one-quarter of fresh U.S. apple production is exported each year, with an estimated value of nearly $400 million. If we are not aggressive, we will not gain market share. My amendment would have modified the Senate Farm Bill to fund MAP at $200 million by 2004, and brought the Senate bill more in line with the House-passed Farm Bill, which funds MAP at $200 million beginning in fiscal year 2002. While it may not be possible to fully fund MAP at $200 million in fiscal year 2002, I strongly support funding MAP at this level beginning in fiscal year 2003.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of all the citizens of Washington State, I am delighted to congratulate the Washington State Labor Council on the 100th anniversary of its original formation. Washington State has a rich labor tradition. On January 17, 1902, 120 delegates representing 114 local unions and five central labor councils from around Washington State gathered in Tacoma and voted to affiliate with the American Federation of Labor. This local organization eventually merged with the Washington State Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1957, the same time the national AFL and CIO merged, to form the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO. There have been many challenges faced during their first one hundred years, yet each challenge was faced with dignity and courage, knowing that the struggles faced would build a better life for working men and women. Union members throughout Washington State have risked their own livelihoods to stand up for decent wages, safe working conditions, and job security. I have enormous respect for the past and present leadership of the Washington State Labor Council. We stand together in the ongoing battle to give working families the strongest possible voice. For the past 100 years, Washington State's labor community has been a powerful force for progress. Their tireless efforts are indispensable in the daily battles for worker's rights. Countless families across Washington State are better off today because of their commitment. The Washington State Labor Council has also been at the forefront of the effort to pass fair increases in the state minimum wage, setting standards for the rest of the country to follow. Simply put, the Washington State Labor Council has been there in the trenches, making progress happen. I look forward to working closely with the Washington State Labor Council on all the great causes we share. Washington State has made real progress because of their work, and will continue to do so with their help now and in all the years ahead.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Donald and Anne Pavel of Shelton, WA, in celebration of their 50th wedding anniversary on January 31, 2002. Mr. and Mrs. Pavel are life-long residents of Shelton. Mr. Pavel graduated from Shelton High School and went on to a 20-year career in the U.S. Air Force, which included decorated service during the Korean conflict. In 1969, he retired from the Air Force as a Master Sergeant. Following his service to this country, Mr. Pavel started his own successful dump truck business, Pavel Trucking. His company worked on many major projects in Washington State, including the ``Loop'' around the Olympic Peninsula. Mr. Pavel operated Pavel Trucking until his retirement. Mrs. Pavel also graduated from Shelton High School and then received her nursing degree from St. Joseph's Hospital in Tacoma, WA. In addition to raising her family and pursuing her nursing career, Mrs. Pavel, a member of the Skokomish Tribe, was active in tribal politics. She was the Skokomish Tribe's first Judge and served as Chairwoman and General Counsel President of the Tribe for a number of years. Mrs. Pavel also served as the Tribe's first Health Director, overseeing the first dental and health clinics on the reservation. Mr. and Mrs. Pavel have six children: three daughters, Victoria, Barbara, and Mary; and three sons, Joseph, Michael and Gregg, whom they lost in 1997. They are also blessed with nine grandchildren. All of the Pavel children graduated from Shelton High School and attended college and/or graduate school in Washington State. Today they are engaged in fulfilling careers, ranging from fisheries management to education. I ask the Senate to join me in sending my warmest congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Pavel for this very important wedding anniversary. I wish them many more happy years together. It is an honor and a privilege to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I agree with my colleague from Kansas. The aging of our military air refueling tanker fleet has become a critical military operations issue-one that requires a bold solution now. The Air Force's fleet of over 500 KC-135 air refueling tankers is, on average, more than 40 years old. In fact, the oldest of these tankers--100 KC-135E models--are close to 45 years in age. New 767 air refueling tankers are already under development and could begin replacing the KC-135 Es within 2 years. There would be no up-front development costs to the military.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from Hawaii, would you agree that a general purpose aircraft that will meet the general requirements of many customers; that can operate as a passenger aircraft, a freighter, a passenger/freighter ``combination'' aircraft, or as an aerial refueling tanker; and is available to either government or private customers meets the definition of a general purpose, commercially configured aircraft?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President. I rise to lend my strong support to the Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report. And I do so with great admiration and respect for the leadership demonstrated by Chairman Daniel Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens. They have done great work, and I encourage the Senate to embrace this appropriations conference report. I do want to briefly address the issue of tanker replacement which has been hotly debated here on the floor. I support the tanker leasing provisions in the bill, and I am again grateful to Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for their work on the Boeing 767 leasing provisions. Many Senators worked on this issue. There were many hurdles to address and overcome. And we worked through them all together in a bipartisan fashion. I want to again quote the Secretary of the Air Force from a letter he wrote to me in early December. Secretary James Roche says and I quote, The KC-135 fleet is the backbone of our Nation's Global Reach. But with an average age of over 41 years, coupled with the increasing expense required to maintain them, it is readily apparent that we must start replacing these critical assets. I strong endorse beginning to upgrade this critical warfighting capability with new Boeing 767 tanker aircraft. The record is clear. The Air Force has been a contributing partner and fully supports the tanker replacement program contained in this appropriations bill. The existing tankers are old and require costly maintenance and upgrades. The K-135s were first delivered to the Air Force in 1957. On average, they are 41 years old. KC-135s spend about 400 days in major depot maintenance every 5 years. The tanker replacement program contained in this bill will save taxpayers $5.9 billion in upgrade and maintenance costs. The record is clear. We need to move forward on tanker replacement. Our aging tankers have flown more than 6000 sorties since September 11. Our ability to project force depends on our refueling capabilities. We can no longer ignore these old and expensive aircraft. The record is also clear on my State of Washington. This will help the people of my state. Washington now has the highest unemployment rate of any state in the nation. I am here to do everything I can to help my constituents. Any Senator, including critics of the leasing provisions in this bill, would do the same thing. But this is not just about my State. Every state involved in aircraft production will benefit. In addition, it is in our national interest to keep our only commercial aircraft manufacturer healthy in tough times, to keep that capacity and to keep that skill set. The Air Force has identified this as a critical need. We rely on refueling tankers. Now is the time to move forward with tanker replacement. I again commend Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator Cantwell, Senator Conrad, Senator Roberts and the many others who worked so hard to move this program forward. Shortly, we are all going to go home for the holidays to be with our families. Senators can go home knowing that they have sent a very powerful message to the families of our service members. We have acted today with this bill to equip our personnel now and in the future with best equipment and the best technology available to our armed forces. I will proudly vote for this conference report.

Mrs. MURRAY. I rise to engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the Boeing 767 leasing provision included in the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Then would you say that a commercial market exists for these aircraft?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I thank Senator Kennedy, and all of his staff, for the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours they have put into making this bill a success. I do rise today to express my support for the ESEA conference report and to highlight some of my concerns with the bill. Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has helped students in our schools have more equal access and be more effective than ever before. It is important we renew our Federal education policies in order to keep up with the growing challenges that face our schools. While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I do believe Congress must move forward with education reform to provide the support that our students need today. Throughout this process, five principles have guided my consideration. First, I believe we have to invest in what we know works. Second, we have to protect disadvantaged students and make sure they get the extra help they need. Third, we have to make sure taxpayer dollars stay in public schools. Fourth, we have to help our students meet national education goals. And finally, we have to set high standards and provide the resources so all students can meet them. On balance, I believe this bill meets all of my principles. This is a bipartisan win for our students. I am proud that as we moved forward we left behind some of the most troubling proposals: from vouchers to Straight A's. This bill requires high standards for all children and provides flexible Federal support that focuses on the things that we know work, including smaller classes, high-quality teachers, afterschool programs, technology and technology training for our teachers, support for students with limited-English proficiency, a strong Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, guarantees of a quality education for homeless students, and more resources for disadvantaged students. While I support the bill overall, I do continue to have significant concerns about some of the mandates in the bill. I believe Congress must now closely monitor how this bill impacts students. My top concern, of course, is the funding in the bill. While we have made progress in securing an additional $4 billion, I fear the funding level will be short of what our communities will need to carry out the mandates in the bill. In part to ease this burden, I believe we must fully fund special education next year. Almost every member of our conference committee expressed a commitment to fulfilling the promise of full funding when IDEA is reauthorized. Keeping that commitment is critical to the success of education reform. I remain concerned, as well, about how the new tests will be used and about the Federal Government setting the formula to measure student progress. We now have a responsibility to make sure these mandates do not end up holding children back. If this bill leads to more crowded classrooms, fewer high-quality teachers, or a focus on testing instead of learning, then we will have to revisit these mandates. But, on balance, this bill takes important steps forward to improve our public schools. While I am not pleased with every provision, I do not want the Federal Government to miss this opportunity to help students throughout the country make progress. So, again, I thank Senator Kennedy and his staff and my staff, including Bethany Little, for the tremendous amount of work they have done to get us to this point.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my Pacific Northwest colleagues and I have mixed emotions about the recent move of our friend Bill Walters to Washington, DC. Although he will be sorely missed in our region, where he served in the Seattle office as deputy director for the National Park Service's Pacific West region, we realize that he will be playing a crucial role as associate to the Director for the National Park Service in its headquarters office within the Department of the Interior. We wish him much success in this new posting. After serving the Pacific Northwest so ably, Bill has demonstrated he is well suited for his new job. The regional leadership of the Park Service call him the ``regional dad.'' He has a charming way of being able to take care of things and make everyone feel good about the outcome. I imagine this is what the Director of the Park Service immediately sensed and why we lost a good person in the Northwest, but gained one at National Park Service Headquarters. Bill arrived in Seattle in 1992, just as the new administration was talking about downsizing. He shepherded a reasonable approach to efficient management, reducing the numbers of employees without an employee losing his or her job. More importantly, in consultation with me and other members of the congressional delegation, he maintained an office in Seattle, which provides direct service to the people of the Pacific Northwest. The upheaval created by this reorganization was considerable. His calm voice of reason and genuine compassion made it possible for all of us to work at finding improvement, efficiency, and value in maintaining an office in the Pacific Northwest. It was through this difficult process that I became acquainted with Bill. Since then, I have witnessed numerous examples of his good judgment and the gracious manner in which he brings people together around thoughtful solutions. He is a master statesman. Bill is one of the few park professionals who has experience at the local, State, and Federal levels. This experience and his rare personal qualities make him a perfect negotiator and an effective steward of the public trust. Bill developed a impressive working agreement with the State of Idaho for managing the city of Rocks National Reserve. I witnessed his skill firsthand when we worked together in the creation of the city, county, and national partnership for Washington's Ebey's Landing National Reserve, which is bringing new vision and energy to the management of this unique park. He was instrumental in helping to forge the partnership that resulted in the Vancouver National Historic Reserve along the Columbia River in my State of Washington. Without his personal involvement, the site would still be mired in controversy. Instead, we have Federal, State, local, and private entities working together to support a site that has 200 years of European history and countless years of pre-European archeology. There is a quiet competence and goodness about this man that enables him to work collaboratively with NGOs, environmental activists, employees, allies, community leaders, and opponents alike. I have always appreciated his honesty and forthright character. Many in the Northwest have come to respect and appreciate Bill's open and engaging manner and professionalism. Bill represents park interests in a way that has made partners out of adversaries. You can't go very far in the Pacific Northwest without seeing examples of Bill's effective problem solving and sound stewardship. We may have lost a skilled and trusted manager in the Northwest, but National Park Service Director Fran Mainella has gained a valuable associate who will serve her and the National Park Service well in the years ahead. We all benefit by having this man of integrity in Government service.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the Senator from North Dakota, the Budget Committee chair, for his strong remarks following the comments from the Senator from Arizona on the lease provisions of the 767s that are in the Defense bill before us. I am extremely concerned for our country, for our military and, of course, for my own home State. In my home State, we have Fairchild Air Force Base which is home to the 92nd Air Refueling Wing. There are approximately 60 air refueling tankers that are based at that base outside of Spokane, WA. I have been to Fairchild. I have visited personally with the families. I know the difficult missions these crews handle for each one of us every day, and I have the utmost respect for what they do. I should also mention, in September some of these crews and these tankers were deployed in our military effort. So when the Air Force tells me, and they have told us, and tells Congress, and they have told Congress, that replacing the old KC-135 tankers is critical, I know it is important and my constituents know it is important. My State is home to Boeing, which would build the tanker replacements. My friend from Arizona suggests the Senate should reject this proposal simply because it would benefit the manufacturer of the planes. Well, that argument ignores the facts. These tankers are the oldest planes in our fleet. They cost a fortune to maintain and they are often down for repairs. Since September 11, we rely on them more than before. We are going to have to replace these aging tankers anyway, and if we do it now, we will save at least $5.9 billion in maintenance and upgrades on these antiquated tankers. This is something the Air Force has been concerned about for years. It is clear we need to take immediate action to upgrade our overburdened tanker fleet, but do not take my word for it. Listen to what the Secretary of the Air Force, James Roche, wrote to me: The KC- 135 fleet is the backbone of our Nation's global reach, but with an average age of over 41 years, coupled with the increasing expense required to maintain them, it is readily apparent we must start replacing these critical assets. He ends: I strongly endorse beginning to upgrade this critical warfighting capability with the new Boeing 767 tanker aircraft. That is from the Air Force Secretary, James Roche. Will this help the people of my State? Absolutely. Because of the layoffs at Boeing since September 11 and the slowdown of our economy, my State now has the highest unemployment of any State in this Nation. The people I represent are hurting, and I am going to do everything I can to help them. This is not just about my State. Every State involved in aircraft production will benefit. Even the home State of my friend from Arizona would stand to gain if this program moves forward. It is in our national interest to keep our only commercial aircraft manufacturer healthy in tough times, to keep that capacity, and to keep that skill set. The Air Force has identified this as a critical need. Our ability to project force, to protect our shores, and to pursue terrorists in Afghanistan and around the world depends on our fighter aircraft and bombers being able to stay in the air for long periods of time, and that is only possible through in-flight refueling. Right now in the Afghanistan campaign, we rely on air refueling tankers known as KC-135s. In fact, since September 11, our use of these tankers is up significantly. We rely on these tankers to refuel our fighters over Afghanistan. We rely on them to refuel our B-2 and B-52 bombers on long-range missions. We rely on them to refuel the planes that view our troops in the region. Right now, in the skies over this Capitol Building and cities across America, we are relying on them to refuel the planes that are flying combat air patrols for homeland security. There are very real problems with our existing fleet of tankers. They are old. The KC-135s were first delivered in 1957. On average, they are 41 years old, and we are paying for it. They have been around longer than most of the people who are flying them. These tankers are too expensive to maintain. A 41-year-old aircraft runs on parts that are not commercially available. Corrosion is a significant problem. In fact, KC-135s spend 400 days in major depot maintenance every 5 years. This is an essential program. We will save $5.9 billion in upgrade and maintenance costs. By moving forward with this program, we can save $5.9 billion. These numbers come not from me but from the U.S. Air Force. This is a longstanding need, and it is made even more urgent by 9-11. I want to be clear. This is a serious need that was identified by the U.S. Air Force long before September 11. It is not a new idea, but given the ongoing war and the new challenges we face with homeland security, it is clear we need to speed up the procurement process because relying on these planes is what we are doing after September 11. We have worked hard for these provisions. I commend the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, who are managing this bill, who have worked long and hard hours to come together with an agreement on the critical replacement of these KC-135s with the new tankers. I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Domenici, the chair, and ranking member of our Budget Committee, who have worked long and hard also. I recognize my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, who, too, has spent many hours sitting in Senators' offices explaining to them the need both from the Air Force and from our home State. This is a critical program. It is the right way to do it. We have worked out a consensus among everyone who moves this program forward and, most importantly, it is for the men and women who serve us in the Air Force. When I go home when this session is over, and I go to one of our Air Force bases in my home State of Washington, I want to be able to look in the eyes of those young men and women we are sending a continent away to defend and protect all of us and say we have done everything we can to make sure they are safe when they are in the air. That is what this provision does. When the Senator from Arizona offers his amendment, I hope my colleagues remember the men and women who are serving this country.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas have 3 minutes, and the Senator from Washington 2 minutes, before the Senator from Iowa.

Mrs. MURRAY. It is my understanding I have 10 minutes under the time agreement.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas be allowed 3 minutes, and the Senator from Washington be allowed 2 minutes following my remarks, before the Senator from Iowa, on the same topic we are now discussing.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Kansas have 3 minutes, and the Senator from Washington State have 2 minutes on the topic of the 767s.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to bring before the Senate the conference report accompanying the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This conference agreement represents many weeks of negotiations with the House and the administration, and I am proud of the progress it will bring to our Nation's transportation system. This conference agreement has already passed the House by an overwhelming margin of 371-11. In total, the bill includes appropriations and obligation limitations totaling roughly $59.6 billion. While that is about $1.5 billion more than the fiscal year 2001 level, it is approximately $400 million less than the amount passed by the Senate on August 1. It was very difficult to pare $400 million out of the Senate bill, but we did so while carefully looking out for the needs of all of the critical agencies within the Department of Transportation as well as the Members' individual priorities. The conference agreement provides funding levels that are equal to or higher than the operating accounts for agencies such as the Coast Guard, the FAA, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Several important safety initiatives--that were included in the Senate bill--have been maintained, including: the hiring of new aviation safety and security inspectors, improvements to the Coast Guard's struggling search and rescue mission, and additional funding to increase seat belt use across the nation. The bill before us also includes a full $1.25 billion in funding to launch the transportation security act, which is the aviation security bill that was enacted just a few days ago. The act required that the revenues from its user fees be appropriated before becoming available. The security act includes many strict deadlines for the improvement of our aviation security system. And we expect the DOT to meet those deadlines. That is why we worked hard to get the $1.25 billion in user fees into the hands of the Transportation Secretary in this bill as soon as possible--rather than wait for the Defense supplemental. For highways, our bill includes $100 million more than the amount guaranteed under TEA-21. The bill also fully funds the levels authorized under AIR-21 for the FAA's air traffic control improvements and airport grants. When the Senate considered this bill, we spent a lot of time debating the safety of Mexican trucks entering the United States. While the conference agreement provides the administration flexibility in implementation, it carefully follows the safety provisions of the bill that passed the Senate in August. The safety requirements in this bill are considerably stronger than anything the administration had proposed, and anything that was presented to the Senate as an alternative during our debate this past summer. Let me mention quickly just a few of the safety provisions in the bill. Licenses will be checked for every driver transporting hazardous materials and for at least half of all other Mexican truck drivers every time they cross the border. Mexican trucks will undergo rigorous inspections before they are allowed full access to our highways, and they will be reinspected every 90 days. And trucking firms will need to demonstrate that they have a drug and alcohol testing program, proof of insurance, and drivers who have clean driving records before the first truck crosses the border. There are many people to thank for their contributions to this bill. The former chairman of the subcommittee and now its ranking member, Senator Shelby has been a stalwart ally and regular contributor to our efforts. Congressman Rogers, the chairman of the House subcommittee is not only an outstanding chairman, he is a true Kentucky gentleman as well. I also want to thank Representative Sabo of Minnesota, the ranking member of the House subcommittee, whose leadership on the Mexican truck issue was essential to our getting an outstanding safety regimen in place. As always, I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for their assistance throughout the process. I also thank the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittee staffs--along with some members of my personal staff who have worked a great many hours to bring together this conference agreement, including: On the Senate subcommittee on Transportation appropriations, for the majority: Peter Rogoff, Kate Hallahan, Cynthia Stowe, and Angela Lee; For the minority: Wally Burnett Paul Doerrer, and Candice Rogers, On the House subcommittee on Transportation appropriations, for the majority: Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Cheryle Tucker, Linda Muir, and Theresa Kohler; For the minority: Bev Pheto; On the chairman personal staff, Rich Desimone and Dale Learn; On the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Debbie Hersman. I thank all these people who spent a lot of time helping us to get to this point. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator to ask the time be equally divided and request he retain the remainder of the time of the chairman and ranking member toward the end.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.