Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before the Senator speaks--I have the last 10 minutes before the vote--so I ask unanimous consent the Senator get 2 minutes and then I be recognized.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, through the past few years in Congress we have lurched from one budget crisis to another, from one fiscal cliff to the next. When one countdown clock stopped, it wasn't too long before the next one got started. The uncertainty was devastating to our very fragile economic recovery. The constant crisis cost us billions of dollars in lost growth and jobs, and the continued across-the-board cuts from sequestration were hurting our families and our communities and cutting off critical investments in economic growth and national security programs. After the completely unnecessary government shutdown and debt limit crisis just 2 months ago, the American people were more disgusted than ever at the gridlock and the dysfunction. They were sick of partisanship, sick of showboating and saber rattling. They were tired of turning on their televisions at night and seeing elected officials saying: It is my way or the highway, and they had no more patience for politicians holding the economy and the Federal Government hostage to extract concessions or score political points. So when the government was finally reopened and the debt limit crisis averted, people across the country were hoping Democrats and Republicans could finally get in a room, make some compromises, and take a step away from the constant crises. That is why I was so glad that part of that crisis-ending deal was creating the budget conference that many of us on both sides of the aisle had been trying to start since the Senate and House passed our budgets 7 months earlier. The budget conference began at a time when distress between Democrats and Republicans could not have been higher. We had just 2 months to get a deal to avoid lurching toward another crisis, and most people assumed there was no way the divide could be bridged. But Chairman Ryan and I got together and we started talking and we decided that instead of trying to solve everything at once, the most important thing we could do for the families we represented was to end the uncertainty and start rebuilding some trust. We weren't going to spend the next 8 weeks sniping at each other from our partisan corners, we were not going to use what was said in the room to launch political attacks on the other, and we weren't going to try to tackle the larger challenges we both know are critical but aren't going to be solved right now. So we focused on what was attainable. We worked together to find common ground, and we looked for ways we could compromise and take some steps toward the other. We both thought the least we should be able to do is to find a way to replace some of the across-the-board cuts from sequestration and agree on a spending level for the short term so we could avoid another crisis. I know some of our colleagues want to keep the sequester caps. But Democrats and many Republicans believe it makes sense to replace these meat-ax cuts with smarter and more balanced savings. We spent 7 weeks working on this. I worked very closely with the House Budget Committee's ranking member Chris Van Hollen as well as my colleagues in the Senate on and off the Budget Committee, and I am very proud that last week Chairman Ryan and I reached an agreement on the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. This bill passed the House of Representatives Thursday on a vote of 332 to 94, with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans. I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to support this bill in the Senate and send it to the President so it can be signed into law. The bipartisan Budget Act puts jobs and economic growth first by rolling back sequestration's harmful cuts to education, medical research, infrastructure investments, and defense jobs for the next 2 years. If we didn't get a deal, we would have faced another continuing resolution that would have locked in the automatic cuts or, worse, a potential government shutdown in just a few short weeks. Over the past year, I have heard from so many people across my home State of Washington who have told me sequestration has hurt their families, businesses, and communities--from the parents of children whose Head Start Programs were shut down and seniors wondering whether Meals On Wheels would continue, the scientists and doctors whose investments in cutting-edge research and medical cures were cut off or threatened, the construction workers who lost their jobs when projects were put on hold, small business owners whose revenues were declining due to the cuts and uncertainty, and so many more. For them, the cuts from sequestration were senseless. They were real, they were hurting, and they were only going to get worse. So I am very proud that our bill replaces almost two-thirds of this year's sequester cuts to domestic discretionary investments. This will not solve every problem sequestration has caused, but it is a step in the right direction and a dramatic improvement over the status quo. Over the past year I have talked to workers at Joint Base Lewis- McChord and Fairchild Air Force Base and elsewhere who have been very much impacted by the sequestration and very worried about how another round of cuts would affect their jobs and families. I have heard from military leaders who told me sequestration would impact our national security if it continued and from companies that do business with the Defense Department that the uncertainty and the cuts were hurting their ability to hire workers and invest in future growth. So I am very glad this bill will prevent the upcoming round of defense sequestration and provide some certainty to the Pentagon for the upcoming years. Secretary of Defense Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey have both expressed support for this bill, as have a number of colleagues in Congress who have spent the last few years highlighting the impact of continued sequestration on national security and defense workers. The increased investments we get from rolling back sequestration over the next 2 years are fully replaced with a smarter, balanced mix of new revenue and more responsible spending cuts. Experts and economists have said the responsible thing to do is increase investments now while our economic recovery remains fragile and workers are still fighting to get back on the job, while tackling our deficit and debt over the long run. This bill moves us in the direction of exactly that. We have cut our deficit in half over the past few years, and this bill adds to the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction done since 2011 with an additional $23 billion in savings over the next 10 years. This bill is not exactly what I would have written on my own. I am pretty sure it is not what Chairman Ryan would have written on his own. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. This bill is a compromise, and that means neither side got everything they wanted and both of us had to give a bit. I was very disappointed we were not able to close a single wasteful tax loophole that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. I had hoped to extend critical support for workers who are fighting to get back on the job. I was very disappointed that Republicans refused to allow that to be part of this deal. I certainly would have liked to have replaced more of sequestration. I know it was difficult for many Republicans to accept any increases in the BCA caps at all. I know many Republicans had hoped this would be an opportunity to make the kind of Medicare and Social Security benefit cuts they have advocated in the past, but I fought hard to keep them out. This deal is a compromise. It doesn't tackle every one of the challenges we face as a nation, but that was never our goal. This bipartisan bill takes the first steps toward rebuilding our broken budget process and hopefully toward rebuilding our broken Congress. We have spent far too long here scrambling to fix artificial crises instead of working together to solve the big problems we all know we need to address. We have budget deficits that have improved but have not disappeared, and we have deficits in education, innovation, and infrastructure that continue to widen. There is so much more we need to do to create jobs, boost our economy, replace the remaining years of sequestration, and tackle our long-term fiscal challenges fairly and responsibly. I am hopeful that this deal can be just the first of many bipartisan deals, that it can rebuild some of the trust, bring Democrats and Republicans together, and demonstrate that government can work for the people we all represent. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. I thank Chairman Ryan for his work with me over the last several months. I thank a number of Members who have worked very closely with us, including Ranking Member Van Hollen and every Member of our Budget Committee here in the Senate who worked hard to pass a budget, start a conference, and get a bipartisan deal. When we come back next year, I will be ready to get to work with Chairman Ryan or anyone else from either side of this aisle who wants to build on this bipartisan foundation to continue addressing our Nation's challenges fairly and responsibly. It is not going to be easy, but the American people are expecting nothing less.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings and that the time during the recess count postcloture on the motion to concur in the House message to accompany H.J. Res. 59.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived with respect to the cloture motion relative to H.J. Res. 59.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Pennsylvania so I may respond.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Florida is correct. That is absolutely our intention. There is nothing in law that prevents the continued public release of the Death Master File while the Commerce Department sets up the certification program. This act simply exempts the Social Security Administration's death records from freedom of information requests under section 552 of title 5 of the United States Code, subsection (b).

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. We intended for Commerce to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in the establishment of the certification program.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, first, as many of my colleagues here know, I have dedicated much of my career to fighting for our Nation's veterans and our military families. I am the daughter of a World War II veteran. I am the first woman ever to chair the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have worked tirelessly time and again to safeguard the health care and the benefits and services that those in our uniforms have sacrificed for. So obviously any provision that impacts them or the benefits our servicemembers have earned is of great concern to me. As is true with any very difficult compromise, there are certain policy changes in this bill I would never have made on my own. Thankfully, though, we wrote this bill in a way that will allow 2 years before this change is implemented--2 years--so that Democrats and Republicans can keep working together to improve this provision or find smarter savings elsewhere. In that time I know there is an armed services-mandated military retirement commission due to report their findings, which would give both Chambers time to legislate a solution before any COLA change is ever implemented. I also know the senior Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has indicated he is going to move forward with efforts to review this change before it takes effect, and I support that effort. I am quite sure other Members of the Senate will look for ways to replace these savings in a different way. In other words, we can and we will look at other hopefully better ways to change this policy going forward. But opening this bill to changes today, after the vast majority of Congress has voiced their support for a deal that ends the repeated crises we have faced in this Nation, is not the solution. In fact, jeopardizing this deal right now only threatens our national security, and it will force layoffs of those very servicemembers and civilian military personnel so many Members have come out here to speak on behalf of. As with any bill, the oversight process in Congress will move forward the moment we pass it, and there is no doubt that improvements will be made where they are needed. But this motion, I say to my colleagues, is an effort to bring down this bill, to stop us from moving forward, and for that reason alone it should be voted down. Therefore, Madam President, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would suggest that the Senator ask that question to Chairman Ryan. But I would say again, as many of us have talked about here today, this is not the deal Democrats would have written on our own. It is not the deal Republicans would have written on their own. Nobody got everything they wanted, and we each had to give up some things to get to where we are today, again, to bring us back to a time of certainty because without a budget moving forward today, we would be facing a time in a few short weeks where there would be dramatic changes and cuts to, in particular, our Department of Defense, meaning furloughs and layoffs and a threat to our national security, as so many Members of the military have told us. So I hope we can move forward. I know we are going to go through some parliamentary inquiries and a motion here in a minute. But I hope our Members would take the time to say, ``What is the end process here.'' and vote with us to not change this at this point and to allow us to go forward and bring certainty to so many families across this country at this holiday season time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would just state to all of our colleagues that this motion is an effort to bring this bill down----

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Section 401 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 creates a new category of employee called a further revised annuity employee and would require further revised annuity employees to contribute additional amounts into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. It is the intent of Congress for the Office of Personnel Management to create a new normal cost for the further revised annuity employees, and to ensure that the retirement plan not be underfunded. Additionally, it is the intent that for the new further revised annuity employee plan that the only determinant of whether an individual is a Federal Employee Retirement System, FERS, employee or Member, as opposed to a FERS revised annuity employee or FERS further revised annuity employee, is through application of the FERS revised annuity employee test. And that the new further revised annuity employee test only differentiates between FERS revised annuity employee coverage and new FERS further revised annuity employee coverage. Transboundary Agreements

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question, and I appreciate his leadership as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I understand his concerns and can assure him that the language in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 was not intended to alter or negate the Foreign Relation Committee's jurisdiction.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is quite clear by the extensive work the committee has done on the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement that the committee has an expertise in international agreements and should play an integral role in the oversight of future transboundary hydrocarbon agreements. The language in the Bipartisan Budget Act was not intended to undermine the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's jurisdiction with respect to any matter that would be properly before it.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont is correct. It is my intent that existing contracts to use the services of not-for- profit servicers are not terminated by this bill and that they will be permitted to compete with the Department of Education's title IV servicers for additional accounts. I know several of my colleagues also feel strongly about this issue. I would like to recognize the following Senators to also join in on the colloquy: Senators Leahy, Harkin, Alexander, Hatch, Shaheen, Begich, Grassley, King, Baucus, Tester, and Murkowski.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the exception of Senator Grassley for up to 20 minutes; further, that the time count postcloture.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to an exemplary leader, an accomplished Soldier, and an extraordinary American, as she retires from Active Duty with the U.S. Army. LTC Kelly Marie Laurel has dedicated nearly 25 years of service to our great Nation and has set the very standard of leadership, strategic thinking, and selfless service that we expect of our finest Army officers. Culminating her career as the hand-picked Deputy Chief of the Secretary of the Army's Strategic Initiatives Group, Lieutenant Colonel Laurel has served and excelled at every level of our Army, and she exemplifies the patriotism, fidelity, and commitment to which every citizen should strive. From her early enlisted career as an airman in the Wyoming National Guard to her Active-Duty service in key positions ranging from medical platoon leader and company commander to personally advising the Army surgeon general and the Secretary of the Army, Kelly has been exceptional in every respect. Examples of her ever-increasing responsibilities include medical platoon leader, 61st Area Support Medical Company at Fort Hood, TX, company commander, Headquarters, 52d Medical Evacuation Battalion; and later the chief of the Management Division, 18th Medical Command in Korea; and the chief financial officer for the widely dispersed Heidelberg Hospital and its nine outlying clinics in Germany. Her work and potential was so great that then-Major Laurel was soon personally selected to serve the Army's surgeon general as the senior budget analyst, the chief of the Financial Health Policy Division, and finally as the senior congressional affairs coordinating officer. Fortunately for me and so many Members of Congress, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller soon recognized her outstanding abilities and selected Kelly to serve as the Army's senior budget legislative liaison. I and my colleagues in both Chambers have personally benefited from Kelly's extraordinary intellect, keen analysis, and unmatched determination. During her tenure in this position, Kelly routinely worked the most sensitive, complex, and critical Army actions involving the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. Her wisdom and unmatched expertise led the Army to extraordinary success in obtaining vital funding for the most critical medical, environmental, and behavioral health programs and ensured that our soldiers and their families had the necessary support they needed during these years of war. Moreover, she was instrumental in obtaining vital funding for the restructuring and expansion of the Army National Cemeteries Program. Most recently, recognizing her leadership and exceptional intellect, the Secretary of the Army selected Kelly to be his deputy chief of strategic initiatives. In this capacity, Kelly advised the Secretary and other Army senior leaders on the development and implementation of critical service-wide policies and programs that will benefit the Army for many years to come. Kelly's superb career and character is also a true testament to the exceptional support and example provided by her family. As the daughter of first-generation Americans, Kelly was taught early the value of hard work, commitment, and selfless service by her parents Jose and Dolores Montemayor. Moreover, as a child of a career military family, Kelly learned to embody the values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage before she even knew there was an Army. As she has repeatedly demonstrated, to Kelly, these are not ideals but character traits; not platitudes, but requirements and expectations of every citizen. Clearly, her character, work ethic, and patriotism are examples to us all. We owe the highest praise and tribute to this great American and her family. Accordingly, on behalf of a very grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending LTC Kelly Marie Laurel for nearly 25 years of service to this country. Although, to the Army, Kelly is irreplaceable, I am certain this exceptional citizen will continue to make great contributions to the United States as she embarks on the next chapter of her life.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Maine for helping to bring so many of us to the floor today to talk about an issue that cuts across partisan lines and has plagued our Nation's military and has gone unaddressed for far too long. Military sexual assault is an epidemic and it has rightly been identified as such by the Pentagon. It is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow servicemember, the person you rely on to have your back and to be there for you, would commit such a terrible crime. It is simply appalling that they could commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform, but what is worse and what has made change an absolute necessity is the prevalence of these crimes. Recent estimates tell us that 26,000 servicemembers are sexually assaulted each year and just over 3,000 of those assaults are reported. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, about one in five female veterans treated by VA has suffered from military sexual assault; one in five. That is certainly not the act of a comrade. It is not in keeping with the ethos of any of the services, and it can no longer be tolerated. That is why the women of the Senate have been united in calling for action. There has been made much of the fact that there are now 20 women in the Senate, a historic number that I think we all agree can still grow. But it is important to remember that the number alone should not be what is historic. Instead, it is what we do with our newfound strength to address the issues that are impacting women across the country. With this bill, the first Defense authorization of this Congress, we are doing exactly that. We are taking historic action to help servicemembers access the resources they need to seek justice without fear. One way this bill will do just that, help protect our servicemembers and assist victims and punish criminals, is through the inclusion of a bill I introduced across party lines with Senator Ayotte. Our bill, which is included in the base bill, creates a new category of legal advocates called special victims' counsels. They would be responsible for advocating on behalf of the interests of the victim. These special victims' counsels would advise the victim on the range of legal issues they may face. For example, when a young private first class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by threatening her with unrelated legal charges such as underage drinking, this new legal advocate would be there to protect her and tell her the truth. Since January, the Air Force has provided these advocates to over 500 victims through an innovative new pilot program. Ten months later, the results are speaking for themselves. Ninety-two percent of victims are extremely satisfied with the advice and support their SVC lent them through the military judicial process, 98 percent would recommend other victims request these advocates, and 93 percent believed these advocates effectively fought on their behalf. In describing their experience with an advocate, one victim shared that: Going through this was the hardest thing I ever had to do in my life. Having a Special Victim Counsel helped tremendously. . . . No words could describe how much I appreciate having one of these advocates. Through our bipartisan effort, the Defense authorization bill will also enhance the responsibility and authority of DOD's sexual assault prevention and response office, known as the SAPRO. This improvement will help provide better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across the Armed Forces. SAPRO would also be required to regularly track and report on a range of MSA statistics, including assault rates and the number of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of the individual services. Some of the stat collection is already being done so this requirement is not going to be too burdensome, but it will give the office authority to track and report to us on the extent of the problem. I believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who wear that uniform. It is the courage of these Americans who volunteer to serve our country that are the Pentagon's greatest asset. I know it is said a lot but take a moment to think about that. Our servicemembers volunteered to face danger, put their lives on the line, and protect our country and all its people. When we think of those dangers, we think of IEDs and battles with insurgents. We should not have to focus on the threats they encounter from their own fellow servicemembers, and we should never allow for a culture in which the fear of reporting a crime allows a problem such as this to fester year after year. These are dangers that can never be accepted and none of our courageous servicemembers should ever have to face them. Earlier this year I asked Navy Secretary Ray Mabus about the sexual assault epidemic, and I was glad he told me that ``concern'' was not a strong enough word to describe how he feels about this problem. He said he is angry about it. I know many of us in the Senate are angry as well, particularly our female colleagues who have dedicated so much time to this issue and share this feeling and want to put an end to this epidemic. I am hopeful we can work quickly to do right by our Nation's heroes. When our best and brightest put on a uniform and join the U.S. Armed Forces, they do so with the understanding that they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. But that sacrifice should never have to come in the form of abuse from their fellow servicemembers. I am proud the women in this Senate have taken this issue head on, and what should never be lost in the effort to enact the many changes that have been proposed is that for too long this was an issue that was simply swept under the rug. That is no longer the case thanks to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated advocates, and the voices of countless victims who have bravely spoken. We are poised to make a difference on an issue that women everywhere have brought out of the shadows, and I am proud of the women who have worked so hard on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the issue that got me into politics many years ago in the first place-- early childhood education. I thank my friend and colleague Chairman Harkin, whose leadership on this critical issue is unparalleled. I am delighted he is on the floor today as well. I also thank Senators Casey and Hirono for their strong support of early childhood education. They are great partners in this work as well. Of the 535 Members of Congress, I have to say each one of us comes to Washington, DC, with our own unique background. We are a collection of military veterans, farmers, business owners, and a lot more. As for me, I come to Congress as a mother and preschool teacher. When my kids were much younger, I found that their wonderful preschool program was being closed down by my State because of budget cuts. When my children were very young, I put them in my car and traveled to Olympia, our State capital, which is 100 miles away, to explain to these legislators, whom I did not know, why they could not cut this important program. When I got there, legislators told me there was nothing someone like me could do to save that preschool program. One legislator in particular told me I was just a mom in tennis shoes and had no chance of changing anything. He said I could not make a difference. Well, that made me slightly mad. I drove home, picked up my phone, started calling other moms and dads, and they called moms and dads from around our State. Over time--about 3 months--we organized thousands of families in our State. We wrote letters, held rallies, and when all was said and done the legislature listened to us and reinstated that preschool program. I went on to teach in that program as a preschool teacher and then to serve on my local school board. When I eventually did come to Washington, DC, as a U.S. Senator, I knew firsthand that if we want to strengthen our economy and give our kids a brighter future, we could not wait until they were teenagers or adults to invest in them. I had seen in my own classrooms that when young children get the attention they need, they are miles ahead of their peers on the path to success. I saw that my own students who knew how to raise their hands or ask questions or stand in line to go to recess were the ones who were then able to go on and tackle a full curriculum in school. That is why this week I joined a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce legislation that will give every American child access to high-quality early education. The bill, the Strong Start for America's Children Act, aims to significantly increase access to and quality of early learning programs that start when a child is born and last until their first day of kindergarten. This legislation authorizes a Federal program that supports our individual States' efforts to educate their youngest citizens. It ensures that early learning programs everywhere have quality teachers and meet high standards, but it also provides States, school districts, and preschool programs the flexibility they need to meet their local children's needs. Although I approach this issue today as a grandmother and mother and a former preschool teacher, many of my colleagues have their own reasons to support early education. Former law enforcement officers and lawyers and sheriffs whom I work with know that when we invest in our children at a young age, they are more likely to stay out of trouble and out of jail. Business leaders and economists know that when we spend $1 on a child's education in the first few years of their life, we save as much as $17 throughout their life. Our military leaders tell me that 75 percent of our Nation's 17- to 24-year-olds are ineligible to serve their country often because they are not able to pass the necessary math and reading. It is not only teachers who are fighting for pre-K, it is generals, sheriffs, and CEOs. Fifty years of research backs this up. We know that 80 percent of a person's brain development occurs before the age of 5. While China is aiming to provide 70 percent of their children with 3 years of preschool by 2020 and India is doing the same, we do not have a national strategy to get the youngest Americans ready to learn. Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, an advocate for early learning, says ``skill begets skill.'' This summer I traveled throughout my home State of Washington visiting early learning programs. I heard from a kindergarten teacher who told me that while some of her students in kindergarten are practicing writing their names on their work, others are learning how to hold a pencil. Those children, even at an early age, are already playing catchup. So when a child who has benefited from early education knows how to open a book and turn a page, someone can teach them to read. But in classrooms across our country, some children are falling behind. The gap between children who start school ready to succeed and those who don't has serious implications for our country's future. Although historically we have invested in education to build a path to the middle class, we are now falling behind. We now rank 28th globally in the proportion of 4-year-olds enrolled in pre-K and 25th globally in public funding for early learning. That cannot continue. In the coming weeks and months, I will be working with my chairman Senator Harkin, who is here today, and with many others to work toward making some smart investments in our educational system so we can move this legislation forward. Our country in very large part is the product of decisions that were made decades ago. The decision to make public education a priority now will have an extraordinary impact on the next generation. Every day we are choosing between being a country that is struggling to catch up or being a country that has the knowledge and power to continue to lead. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Blumenthal and Senator Boxer, who will be joining me in this conversation in a few minutes. I think that now more than ever, after we have emerged from this very damaging and completely unnecessary government shutdown, the American people want us to focus on jobs and the economy. That is what every poll says, that is what all of our constituents say, and that is absolutely what is needed at a time when families continue to struggle to make ends meet. Instead of working with us across the aisle on jobs and economic growth, it seems as if some Republicans are now focused on something else entirely--politics. In fact, in a short while, the senior Senator from South Carolina is going to be introducing a bill that is blatantly political, a bill that not only undermines a woman's access to her doctor but also restricts an array of reproductive health services. Today we wish to make it abundantly clear; that is, that this extreme, unconstitutional abortion ban is an absolute nonstarter. It is going nowhere in the Senate and those Republicans know it. I want to think that over the last 40 years, since the historic decision of Roe v. Wade, we have moved on from debating this issue. I wish to think that after four decades many of those who want to make women's health care decisions for them have come to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is settled law. After all, the many signs of progress are all around us. This year a record 20 women are serving in this body. One year ago yesterday women's power and voice at the ballot box was heard loudly and clearly. In fact, last year when Republican candidates running for office thought that rape was a political talking point, that idea and their candidacies were swiftly rejected, thanks in large part to the voices of women. Only this week we saw women in Virginia resoundingly reject the Republican candidate for Governor and his misguided and outdated agenda for women's health. Sometimes it is tempting to think that times have indeed changed, that maybe politicians have realized that getting between a woman and her doctor is not their job, that it is possible that rightwing legislators have a new-found respect for women's health care. The truth is that the drumbeat of politically driven extremist and unconstitutional laws continues to get louder. Apparently some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to make some noise about this so that their adoring audience of rightwing radio hosts, columnists, and activists is satisfied. In fact, here is an example of how blatantly political this restrictive ban is. One of the actual participants in the press conference to introduce their bill today had this to say to Politico about the strategy behind doing this. She said: ``It's a much better thing to be campaigning on rape and incest these days.'' That is an insult to women everywhere, and it is most certainly not what the Senator from South Carolina has called ``a debate worthy of a great democracy.'' This is a debate we have had. A woman's access to her own doctor is settled law. We are not going to let attacks on Roe v. Wade such as this one change that. I wish to remind all of those who are even considering supporting this bill that real women's lives and the most difficult health care decisions they could ever possibly make are at stake. I wish for us to consider the story that Judy Nicastro from my home State shared so bravely with the New York Times last summer. In an op- ed she wrote only days after the House passed a bill that was virtually identical to the one that is being introduced today, Judy talked about being faced with every pregnant woman's worst nightmare. In describing the news that one of the twins she was carrying was facing a condition where only one lung chamber had formed and that it was only 20 percent complete, Judy captured the anguish that countless women in similar positions have faced. She wrote: My world stopped. I loved being pregnant with twins and trying to figure out which one was where in my uterus. Sometimes it felt like a party in there with eight limbs moving. The thought of losing one child was unbearable. She went on to say: The M.R.I., at Seattle Children's Hospital, confirmed our fears: the organs were pushed up into our boy's chest and not developing properly. We were in the 22nd week. Under the bill that is being introduced, the decision Judy ultimately made through painful conversations with her family and consultation with her doctors would be illegal. The decision to make sure, as she put it, ``our son was not born only to suffer'' would be taken from her and given to politicians. I am here to provide a simple reality check. We are not going back. We are not going back on settled law. We are not going to take away a woman's ability to make her own decisions about her own health care and her own body. Women are not going back to a time when laws forced them into back alleys and made them subject to primitive and unsanitary care. Senators such as me, Senator Boxer, Senator Blumenthal, and others who join me in opposing this effort are not going to go anywhere. Advocates and doctors who treat women every day and know that their health care must be protected are not going to go anywhere. Women who continue to believe that their health care decisions are theirs alone are not going anywhere. By the way, the Constitution is not going anywhere. Therefore, this bill is not going anywhere. This bill, as attacks on Roe v. Wade before it, will eventually be lost to history. But millions of American women will not forget. I welcome our colleagues on the floor to this debate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, there is no shortage of reasons why I am proud to represent my home State of Washington. Our State is an economic leader. We are home to the American aerospace industry and a thriving agricultural sector. Dozens of companies create new products and new jobs with cutting-edge technology. We are a leader in protecting the environment and educating our children. Washington State is a place tens of thousands of servicemembers and veterans call home. I am here today because I wish to speak about another way Washington State has set an example for the entire country; that is, our State's proud history of protecting the rights of all of our citizens, including members of the LGBT community. In 2006 Washington State passed one of our country's strongest antidiscrimination laws--one that serves as a model for the Federal legislation we are considering here today. In 2007 and 2008 we passed additional legislation to further protect the rights of same-sex couples, and 1 year ago today our State voted proudly to uphold landmark marriage-equality legislation. What we have to show for it is really two results. First, we have a thriving LGBT community made up of individuals and families who can feel safe and respected and valued as does anyone else. Second, we have a growing economy that is anchored by businesses that respect their employees and judge them by only that which matters: their hard work and ability. I rise today to simply ask my colleagues who don't yet support this legislation to take a look at my home State of Washington because in places such as Seattle and Spokane, we are proving every day that protecting the rights of our LGBT friends and neighbors isn't just the right thing to do; it works and it makes our country stronger. Some of my colleagues have said that extending employment protections for our LGBT friends and family members is too hard. Some of them said it will create problems for businesses and communities. Well, I invite them to come to Seattle and ask businesses there whether it has been problematic to respect their employees' rights. I would invite them to visit Amazon or Starbucks or Nordstrom or Microsoft--just a few of our State's successful businesses that have taken the lead in protecting the rights of their LGBT employees. We know in Washington State that it is wrong to discriminate against people. We know that a person's race or religion or gender has nothing to do with their ability in the workplace, and we know that sexual orientation and gender identity don't either. Most all of our constituents--four out of five Americans--falsely believe LGBT Americans already have the protections included in this bill, and most people believe that because denying Americans their rights doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that some men and women can be fired from their jobs just because of who they are or whom they love. We know it is not fair in my home State of Washington, but people in every State--from Virginia and Mississippi to Arizona and Idaho--know the same. Many of my colleagues have cited these statistics, but they are worth repeating. Two-thirds of all Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe in protecting LGBT citizens from employment discrimination. Despite that, more than half our country lives in States in which their rights are not protected. I am proud my State does protect those rights, but we can't stop working until the same is true in all 50 States. So for any of my colleagues who still aren't convinced that LGBT Americans deserve the same rights as all of us, my invitation to visit Washington State stands because it is not enough that my constituents are free from discrimination, their constituents deserve the same. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.