Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here today with the senior Senator from Maryland, a longtime champion for women in this country and their access to equal pay, because in our country, women in the workplace--no matter where they live, no matter their background, no matter what career they choose--on average earn less than their male colleagues. That wage gap even exists and extends to Olympic gold medalists and World Cup champions who are playing for our U.S. women's national soccer team. Today we are on the floor to show support for the women's national soccer team and to affirm the sense of the Senate that we support equal pay for equal work for all women in our country. Just last year we all cheered on the women's national soccer team as they beat Japan 5 to 2 to win the World Cup. In the past three Olympics, our women's team has brought home the gold, and their team is ranked first in the world. But despite all of those tremendous successes, these players do not get paid on par with their male counterparts. Think about the young girls who are watching who see these players at the top of their game valued less than men. These are some of the most visible athletes in the world. In 2015, 750 million people in the world tuned in to watch the Women's World Cup. Twenty-five million of those viewers were here in the United States. So this isn't just about the money. It is about the message it sends to women and girls across our country and the world. The pay gap between the men's and the women's national soccer teams is emblematic of what is happening across our country. On average, women get paid just 79 cents for every dollar a man makes. This is at a time when women more than ever are likely to be the primary breadwinner of their family. The wage gap isn't just unfair to women. It hurts our families, and it hurts our economy. Carli Lloyd is a cocaptain of the U.S. women's national soccer team. Last year she scored three of the five goals in the final World Cup match. A few months ago, she was one of the players who filed a wage discrimination case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Shortly after the news of that have case broke, Carli Lloyd said: ``We are not backing down anymore.'' I know my Democratic colleagues won't back down in the fight for equal pay, but on the Senate floor today, we have a chance to show our support for women athletes and women in the workforce who get paid less than their male colleagues. Two weeks ago, I, along with 21 of my colleagues, introduced S. Res. 462 to make clear that pay discrimination is wrong. This resolution urges U.S. Soccer to end pay disparities and treat all athletes with respect and with dignity, and it expresses our strong support to end the pay gap and strengthen equal pay protections. We are here to give the Senate the opportunity to take a stand with the members of the U.S. Soccer women's team against the pay gap and wage discrimination and to support this legislation. I will offer the resolution in just a minute, but before I do, I turn the floor over to my senior colleague. I hope that once this resolution is adopted, if we can get it adopted, we can support the equal pay for equal work that she has championed for so many years.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 462 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I know of no further debate at this time on this resolution and ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has now been months since President Obama first put forward a strong emergency funding proposal to respond to the Zika virus. We now know that more than 1,400 cases of Zika have been reported in the United States and territories. Just today, the Washington Post reported that according to a new study, the odds of having a child with microcephaly as a result of a Zika infection could be higher than even previously thought--as high as 13 percent for women who are infected early in their pregnancies. The researchers who conducted the study urged health care systems to ``prepare for an increased burden of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the coming years.'' The CDC is already monitoring almost 300 expecting mothers for possible Zika infections. Those numbers are unfortunately only expected to grow. This is a public health emergency, and it demands action. While it shouldn't have taken so long, Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree on a bipartisan downpayment on the President's proposal, which would get emergency funding into the hands of first responders and researchers right away. We passed that agreement last week and, unfortunately, it hasn't gone anywhere. Senate Democrats have urged our Republican colleagues to work with us on sending our bipartisan agreement to the House for a vote, but they have said they will only agree to do that if we agree to Affordable Care Act cuts. This is no time for quid pro quo politics or hostages. This is a time to protect our families. I am going to ask again that our Senate Republicans reconsider and join us to get this bill to the House. There, I hope that House Republicans will drop their partisan, underfunded billing and give our bipartisan agreement a vote. Then, I hope the President can sign it and we can get a serious response to this emergency underway. Families and communities are expecting us to act. Parents are wondering whether their babies will be born safe and healthy. In Congress, we should be doing everything we can to tackle this virus without any further delay. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last week the CDC announced it is monitoring nearly 300 pregnant women in the United States and territories for possible Zika infections. That means nearly 300 families across our country are living through a true nightmare for expecting parents. They are waiting for news about whether their newborn will be safe and healthy. Unfortunately, with almost 1,400 cases of Zika already reported, the number of expecting moms and dads in this awful position is only expected to grow. As a mother, a grandmother, and a United States Senator, I strongly believe it is our responsibility to act as quickly as possible for these families and the families who will unfortunately be impacted by the Zika virus in the weeks and months ahead. Just to be clear, mosquito season has already started in some parts of our country, and we do not have any time to waste. In fact, we should have been able to act much sooner. President Obama's emergency funding proposal to support the Zika response has been available for everyone to see since February. Similar to many of my colleagues, I was disappointed the Republican leader refused to even consider it and that instead they came up with one excuse after another to delay, even though public health experts and researchers have made it very clear this is truly an urgent public health crisis. Some Republicans said Zika wasn't something they were willing to give the administration a penny more for, others said they would think about more money to fight Zika but only in return for partisan spending cuts, and others spent more time thinking about how to get political cover than actually trying to address this problem, but many of us knew how important this was and we didn't give up. So I am very glad that after a lot of pressure from women, families, Governors, and scientists, and after a lot of pushing Republicans to get serious about dealing with this emergency, many of our Republican colleagues in the Senate finally joined us at the table last week to open a path for an important step forward. I appreciate the work of Chairman Blunt, who joined me to get this done, as well as all the Senators on both sides of the aisle who voted for it. While Democrats didn't get the full amount we had hoped for in this compromise, I am glad the Senate was able to pass a $1.1 billion downpayment on the President's proposal as an emergency bill, without offsets. Our agreement would accelerate the administration's work, and it would allow money to start flowing to address this crisis even as we continue fighting for more as needed. This agreement was supported by every Democrat and a little less than half of the Republicans in the Senate. So the Senate has a strong bipartisan first step ready to go. Unfortunately, House Republicans went in a very different direction. They released an underfunded, partisan, and, in my opinion, mean- spirited bill that would provide only $622 million--less than one-third of what is needed in this emergency--without any funding for preventive health care, family planning, or outreach even to those who are at risk of getting Zika. They are still insisting that funding for this public health emergency be fully offset, and the administration should somehow siphon money away from their critical Ebola response and other essential activities in order to fund the Zika efforts. House Republicans clearly feel this health care crisis is an appropriate moment to somehow nickel-and-dime and that it is a good opportunity to prioritize Heritage Action over women and families, but if you are 1 of nearly 300 mothers the CDC is monitoring for likely Zika infection or one of the almost 1,400 people infected so far or one of the millions of expecting mothers nationwide, I bet you would like to know your government is doing everything it can now to tackle this virus. So I am continuing to call on Senate Republicans to get our bipartisan Zika agreement to the House as quickly as possible. Senate Republicans have already said they would be willing to do this if we exchange it for Affordable Health Care Act cuts, and I think they should be just as willing to do it for the sake of women and families who are at risk. This agreement has strong bipartisan support. It can move through the House, and it can get to the President to be signed into law so our researchers, our scientists, and those in the field can get to work. This Republican-controlled Congress has already waited far too long to act on Zika. We should not wait any longer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House H.R. 5243, that all after the enacting clause be stricken; that the Blunt-Murray substitute amendment to provide $1.1 billion in funding to enhance the Federal response and preparedness with respect to the Zika virus be agreed to; that there be up to 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just say this. This Zika virus is an emergency now, and though my constituents don't live in Texas, we have people in Washington State who have traveled to infected countries, gotten Zika transmitted through mosquito, have come home, and now they need to have tests to determine whether they have been infected. Those tests will not be available until we provide this money. The Ebola response money that was just referred to needs to be there because Ebola is not eradicated and can come back at any minute, and we are doing everything we can as a nation to protect American citizens. What we are trying to do is move the bipartisan bill that has been approved in the Senate quickly to the House. Yes, it has been attached to an appropriations bill, but for us to sit back and wait until a conference committee is appointed on that and does the long negotiations over the summer into the fall is too late. We can deal with this now. That is what I ask to do today, and we will continue to push until we can assure people in our States across the country that we are doing everything we can as a nation to help protect our citizens from the Zika virus, particularly expectant mothers or possibly expectant mothers and families. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today Americans have enough to worry about. Questioning the advice they get for their retirement savings accounts should not have to be one of them. We finally have a new protection on the books that would help protect seniors' retirement savings from biased retirement advice. It is called the fiduciary rule, and it is pretty simple. It says if financial advisers are giving people advice on their retirement accounts, they should put their clients' best interests ahead of their own. But with the resolution that is before us, Republicans want to prevent that rule from ever helping people to save up for retirement. Instead, they are dead set on saving the status quo that has allowed financial advisers to line their own pockets at the expense of people trying to save for their retirement. After a lifetime of hard work, all seniors should have the chance to live out their golden years on firm financial footing and with peace of mind. Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield the floor. 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.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, after a lifetime of hard work, all seniors should have the chance to live out their golden years on firm financial footing and with peace of mind. A secure retirement is also important to strengthening our Nation's middle class and ensuring that our country works for all Americans and not just the wealthiest few, but for too long the deck has been stacked against people trying to save up for their retirement. That is especially true for far too many people seeking retirement advice. Until now, financial advisers and brokers were under no legal obligation to work in their client's best interest, and without this requirement, some financial advisers have lined their own pockets by steering clients toward complicated investments. Some have recommended that retirees make transactions that come with hidden fees and some advisers get a commission when they sell a financial product, even if it doesn't make sense for the client. We finally have a new protection that would right that wrong. It is called the fiduciary rule, and it is pretty simple. It says: If you are going to give people advice on their retirement accounts, you should put the client's best interest in front of your own. Unfortunately, we are here because Republicans want to block that new rule from helping families, and that is just wrong. It is not fair to people all over the country who are trying to put money away for retirement. Let's understand this new important protection and how it will help families. Many Americans are not financially prepared for retirement. Middle-class wages have been stagnant for decades, and it is getting harder and harder for people to make ends meet let alone save for their retirement. In fact, more than half of Americans have less than $10,000 in savings. Households with people between the ages of 55 and 64 only have a little more than $14,000 in their retirement savings account, and that is the group of people closest to retirement. Today families need every dollar they save for retirement to count. When people seek out retirement investment advice, many financial advisers do the right thing and put their clients first. They hold themselves to a higher standard than what the new law currently requires, but some others do not. Take the man who worked for 50 years as an electrical engineer for a utility company. His daughter shared his story anonymously, but I think it is an important illustration for anyone who wants to save for their retirement. The man built a retirement nest egg in stocks and savings. When he was 80 years old, he sought out advice from a financial adviser--someone he thought he could trust. That financial adviser recommended he switch his savings to more complicated investment products. Those products came with a commission, so the adviser was paid with each and every transaction. Those transactions ultimately whittled down the retiree's savings by more than two-thirds--two-thirds of his retirement savings. A few years of bad, biased advice from a financial adviser decimated 50 years of savings. The new fiduciary rule from the Department of Labor would close the loopholes that allow brokers and financial advisers to give their clients biased advice. Advisers will now make a legally binding commitment to the families they work with. Families today have enough to worry about. Questioning the advice they get on their retirement accounts should not have to be one of them. Unfortunately, instead of standing up for retirement savers across the country, my Republican colleagues are dead set on saving the status quo. Republicans want to roll back this new protection that would help retirees keep more of their retirement savings, and they want to make sure the Department of Labor can never again create a protection to prevent financial advisers from bilking savers out of their hard-earned money. We know what the Republicans will say to defend this outrageous position, so let me go ahead and address those issues point by point. Contrary to what my Republican colleagues will argue, this is a workable solution. The Department of Labor went to great lengths to create a deliberate process and took the feedback from consumer groups and the financial industry itself to make it easier for them to implement this new rule. Many firms and advisers are already, by the way, putting families first, so we know working in the client's best interest can work. That is No. 1. No. 2, the Department of Labor absolutely has the authority to create this important protection for families. In 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and that law gives the Department of Labor clear authority to define a fiduciary as it relates to retirement savings. Finally, this rule will help savers regardless of how big their retirement savings account is. Some of my Republican colleagues are arguing that financial firms will cut off advice for low- and middle- income savers, but I want to remind my friends across the aisle that many firms have already figured out how to help these so-called small savers, and these firms are doing it while also adhering to the fiduciary standard. Republicans say their opposition to the rule is all about helping small savers, but I guarantee these savings are not small to these families who rely on that money in their retirement. In fact, they have the most to lose through financial advisers' hidden fees and complicated financial products with lower returns. It is time we protect these so-called small savers from conflicted, biased advice. Over the years, millions of families have worked hard. They put their money away for retirement and have invested their savings to grow their retirement nest eggs. In short, they have tried to do everything right. Unfortunately, some financial advisers have not always done the right thing because they haven't had to, and that needs to change, but the resolution the Republicans are offering today would be a major step backward. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Instead of attacking a family's best chance of getting guaranteed, unbiased retirement advice, I hope my Republican colleagues will work with Democrats to ensure that more seniors can have a secure retirement, expand their economic security, and help our economy grow from the middle out, not from the top down. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a home is more than just a roof over someone's head; it is actually where a family builds their lives. In our country, we need to do everything we can to make sure families have options when it comes to finding a place to live, and they need access to affordable, safe, and fair housing. Unfortunately, today Republicans want to deal a significant blow to fair housing. The amendment they are offering would tear down the civil rights protections in the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and I am here today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it. Before the civil rights movement, African Americans faced an enormous amount of injustice and racism in housing. People of color were often relegated to substandard housing. They were denied mortgages, and rent in an African-American neighborhood was often higher than rent in a White neighborhood. When the Fair Housing Act went into effect in 1968, it not only banned discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing, it went a step further: A new Federal housing agency was charged with proactively rooting out discrimination and segregation in communities across the country. That is an important part of the law because today people across the country still face systemic and sometimes racially motivated barriers to housing. People with disabilities, people of color, families with children, and religious groups in many areas have limited housing choices. Last year the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD, issued a long-overdue rule to help carry out that mission to proactively eliminate housing segregation and discrimination. For States and local governments that get HUD investments, this rule would improve the quality and access to data on demographics, it would help researchers analyze the barriers people face to access fair housing, and it would help set priorities and goals for carrying out the mission to actively fight back against discrimination and segregation. Based on pilot programs from around the country, we know this rule can help expand opportunity to more Americans. One of those pilots was in Seattle in my home State of Washington. After an assessment of high- poverty areas in Puget Sound, the city saw that neighborhoods that historically have been disenfranchised lacked job opportunities. Armed with that data, the city is setting up a food distribution center and a job incubator in those neighborhoods. The city's work is helping to foster job growth in places where low-income residents live, and through that work, the city expanded economic security to more people. That would not have been possible without the data this long-overdue rule provided us. This is the kind of success this new rule will help further, but unfortunately we are seeing that some Republicans want to put a stop to those positive changes and backtrack on the gains we have made on civil rights in housing, and to me, that is unacceptable. Here in Congress, we should be clearing pathways for more Americans to access more housing, not blocking the away. I am here today to urge my colleagues to vote against that amendment, which we will be voting on later. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I wish to talk about another topic that is very important to me. I am very honored to come to the floor today with good news for thousands of military families, including three couples I met just last week here in the Nation's Capital. Each of the veterans I met with had suffered a catastrophic injury while fighting for our country, which changed the course of their lives and their families' lives forever. Matt Keil was shot by a sniper and paralyzed. Kevin Jaye was injured by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. Tyler Black was paralyzed during a firefight. What was the one thing each of these veterans wished for after he returned home and got out of the hospital? Well, like so many women and men in our country, they dreamed of having a family of their own. Even though each veteran suffered injuries that made it nearly impossible to conceive naturally, they have hope because in this day and age, the medical technology exists to make their dream of having a family come true. The most popular path is in vitro fertilization, known as IVF, but because of a policy enacted decades ago, the VA is barred from covering the costs of IVF, which forced Matt, Kevin, and Tyler, with their partners, to go down that road alone even though their injuries were caused while serving all of us overseas. Collectively, they have paid tens and tens of thousands of dollars out- of-pocket. Matt said to me that when he heard the VA wouldn't cover the one medical procedure he and his wife wanted so badly, he felt like his country had abandoned him. We are talking about a man who sacrificed his body for our country. I believe this is wrong. When this country sends brave men and women to work, we promise to take care of them when they return home. That is why I have been fighting to change this policy once and for all, and today I am very proud to see this effort take a big step forward with bipartisan support here in the Senate. My provision in the underlying VA appropriations bill will finally allow the VA to cover those costs and let our veterans know their country is there for them when they come home. It is the right thing to do for Matt and his wife Tracy, Kevin and Lauren, Tyler and Crystal, and every other military family in this country. As we move to pass this bill through the Senate, I call on my colleagues in the House to follow suit and get this done. This is not about politics or partisanship, and we shouldn't be cutting corners when it comes to our veterans and their families. This is a chance to support our veterans and the dreams they have fought so hard for--to have a family. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that Republicans refused to work with us to fully fund the President's emergency supplemental proposal, and it shouldn't have taken us so long to get to this point, but I am pleased that this will move us to a down payment on the President's emergency funding package through the Senate. I want to commend Chairman Blunt for his work with us on this and all the Democrats and Republicans who are supporting it. But I want to remind all of us, this is only a first step, and we have to make sure that this agreement gets through the House and to the President's desk in the least amount of time. I hope we can separate it from this bill and move it quickly. That was objected to yesterday over pay-fors, which are not part of this amendment, but this is a critical emergency. We need to move on this first step, and I hope we can do it in a timely manner. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that real long-term economic growth is built from the middle out, not from the top down, and our government and our economy and our workplaces should work for all of our families, not just the wealthiest few. Across the country today, millions of workers are working harder than ever without basic overtime protection. That is why I am very proud to come to the floor today to express my strong support for the new overtime rule to help millions of workers and families in our country. Back in 1938, Congress recognized the need for overtime pay. Without overtime protection, corporations were able to exploit workers' time to increase their profits. So the Fair Labor Standards Act set up a standard 40-hour workweek. By law, when workers put in more than 40 hours, their employers had to compensate them fairly with time-and-a- half pay. But those protections have eroded over the past several decades. In today's economy, many Americans feel as if they are working more and more for less and less pay, and in many cases, they are. Right now, if a salaried worker earns just a little more than $23,000 a year, he or she is not guaranteed time-and-a-half pay. That salary threshold is much too low. In fact, it is less than the poverty level for a family of four. Workers should not have to earn poverty wages to get guaranteed overtime protection. It is clear that overtime rules in this country are severely out of date. Consider this: Back in the mid-1970s, 62 percent of salaried workers had guaranteed overtime pay. Today, just 7 percent of salaried workers have that protection. Big corporations use these outdated overtime rules to their advantage. They force their employees to work overtime without paying them the fair time-and-a-half pay. That might be good for a big corporation's profit, but it is a detriment to a working family's economic security. Today, the Department of Labor has issued a final rule to raise the salary threshold from about $23,000 to just over $47,000 a year. That will restore protections for millions of Americans, and it is especially important, by the way, for a parent. Think about what it would mean for a working mom, who right now works overtime and doesn't get paid for it. By restoring this basic worker protection, she could finally work a 40-hour week and spend more time with her kids or, if her employer asks her to work more than 40 hours a week, she would have more money in her pocket to boost her family's economic security. That is why this is so important for our struggling middle class. When workers put in more than 40 hours a week on the job, they should be paid fairly for it. That is the bottom line. I have heard from some of my Republican colleagues who don't want to update these overtime rules. If you listen closely, it sounds as though they are trying to argue that businesses in this country can't operate unless they are able to exploit workers' time and refuse them overtime pay. Well, Democrats fundamentally disagree. In fact, when workers have economic security, when they are able to make ends meet and succeed, businesses succeed, our economy succeeds. That virtuous cycle is part of what makes America great. If Republicans want to take away these basic worker protections, they will have to answer to millions of hardworking Americans putting in overtime without receiving a dime of extra pay. They can try, but I know that I and many others are going to be right here fighting back for the workers and families we represent--families like Meryle's from Bellingham, WA. She said that early in her career she worked low-wage jobs and oftentimes her overtime hours went unpaid. When Meryle heard about the Obama administration updating overtime protections, she wrote in to comment on that new rule. She said those unpaid overtime hours hurt her pocketbook, but she said she lost more than money. She was working overtime without being paid fairly for it on top of missing out on important time with her daughter. Boosting wages and expanding economic stability and security is good for our families, and it is good for our economy. By the way, that is exactly what we should be focused on here in Congress to help build our economy from the middle out, not the top down. For workers who want fair pay for a day's work, for the parents--like Meryle--who have sacrificed family time for overtime and not seen a dime in extra pay, for families who are looking for some much needed economic security, I urge all of my colleagues to support restoring these important overtime protections. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3038 I have to say that I am really disappointed that Republicans once again rejected the administration's full emergency supplemental package. It has been more than 3 months since President Obama first put forward a proposal to fight this Zika virus. He laid out what he thought he needed to respond to a crisis in a way that protected our families the best. His administration was here. They testified at hearing after hearing after hearing about the details of this proposal and made it clear that there was absolutely no reason for Congress to wait. But, for months, our Republican leaders did nothing. They delayed. They came up with one excuse after another. They ignored the experts, ignored the scientists, and ignored the facts. Some Republicans were saying that Zika wasn't something they were willing to give the administration a penny more for. Others said they would think about more money to fight Zika but only in return for partisan spending cuts. And others spent more time thinking about how to get political cover rather than actually trying to address this enormous problem. But many of us knew how important this was, and we were not going to give up. We kept the pressure on. We kept pushing to get serious about dealing with this emergency, and we made sure that the mothers and fathers across the country who are scared and who wanted their government to fight this horrific virus had a voice in this process. So while it shouldn't have taken so long, I am glad that this week many of our Republican colleagues in the Senate did finally join us at the table to open up a path for an important step forward. This was a compromise proposal, and it certainly isn't what I would have written on my own. For example, I want to note that throughout this process, I have made it clear that a top priority of mine is making sure that women do have access to reproductive health care in light of the impacts of this virus. So I was disappointed that the Republicans insisted on including unnecessary language that simply reiterates the preexisting ban on Federal funding for abortions. But this bipartisan agreement that we voted on yesterday would support community health centers and other providers in making sure that women have access to contraception and other critical health care. It would help make sure that women in Zika-affected areas have the ability to plan their families and prevent these tragedies, like so many we have already seen, especially compared to the House legislation that includes no support for preventive health care or outreach for family planning. I believe these resources are extremely critical, and I am going to keep fighting to continue getting us to expand this to the full range of reproductive health care that women need. We also didn't get the full amount we had hoped for in this compromise. Democrats still believe that Congress should give the President the full funding this administration has asked for and needs. But I am glad that, with every Democrat and 23 Republicans willing to do the right thing, we are going to pass a $1.1 billion down payment on the President's proposal and do it as an emergency bill without offsets--the way it ought to be. So I want to thank Senator Blunt, who worked with me to get this done, as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted for it. Our bipartisan agreement will provide direct investments with a Zika response in Puerto Rico. It will ramp up prevention and support services for pregnant women and invest in foreign aid for Latin America and the Caribbean. It will help accelerate development of a vaccine and backfill nearly $100 million in funding the administration was forced to reprogram due to the Republicans' refusal to act. Our agreement would accelerate the administration's work and allow money to start flowing to address this crisis, even as we continue to ask for more as needed. Unfortunately, now we know that House Republicans have gone in a very different direction. They released an underfunded, partisan--and, frankly, in my opinion--mean-spirited bill that would provide only $622 million, which is less than a third of what is needed for this emergency, without any funding for preventive health care or family planning or even outreach to those who are at risk of getting the Zika virus. They are still insisting that funding for this public health emergency be fully offset and that the administration should siphon the money away from the critical Ebola response and from other essential activities in order to fund Zika efforts. The choice between the Senate and the House Zika bills is a choice between acting to protect women and families and doing nothing at all. It is a choice between a bipartisan compromise that takes an important step forward to address this emergency and a partisan embarrassment that is intended to do nothing more than provide Members with political cover. That doesn't solve this emergency. The partisan House bill is a nonstarter, but we do have a path forward. The Senate bill has the support of Democrats and Republicans. It can move through the House, it can be signed into law, and it can get resources moving quickly to tackle this emergency quickly. So let's get this bill to the House as quickly as possible. Every Democrat and a little less than half of the Republicans supported the bill. Let's send it to the House right now and urge them to pass it as quickly as possible. There is no reason to keep it attached to this bill we are on and allow House Republicans to get it and slow-walk it into the fall, as our leader suggested would happen. There is no reason this funding cannot be approved and signed into law next week in time for the summer and the peak of mosquito season, which the Senator from Florida knows is coming very rapidly. It has the support of the Senate on its own. Let's send it to the House on its own. Women and families in this country have been looking to Congress for action on Zika for months, and we here in the Senate-- and House Republicans--should not make them wait any longer. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 157, H.R. 3038; that all after the enacting clause be stricken; that the Blunt-Murray substitute amendment to enhance the Federal response and preparedness with respect to the Zika virus be agreed to; that there be up to 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just say that the spending bill that this has now been attached to may take months--into the fall or even into the winter months--before it is approved. The Zika virus isn't going to wait for the winter months. The mosquitoes are here now, and they will continue to move very rapidly across the country, as our leader has outlined before. So taking it out of this bill--it has now been approved by a number of Senators on a bipartisan basis--and moving it quickly to the House and getting it to the President's desk means they will have the resources as quickly as possible to deal with this and to begin to deal with this in a responsible way. Secondly, let me just say that the request that the Senator from Texas has just broached means that we are going to have to fight over cuts--cuts to women, cuts to families, cuts to critical health care efforts in order to fight the Zika virus. That is objectionable. This is an emergency supplemental, as we agreed to yesterday, and it needs to move forward that way. So I object.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a mother and a grandmother, I know that one of the most frightening questions an expecting parent has to ask their doctor is, ``Is my baby safe?'' Too many parents are asking that question right now because of the Zika virus. There are now more than 1,200 reported cases of Zika in the United States and the three territories--more than 100 of these are pregnant women--and on Friday, Puerto Rico announced its first case of Zika-related microcephaly. Unfortunately, those numbers are only expected to grow in the coming months. So this is an emergency, and public health experts have repeatedly made it clear that as we get closer to the summer and to mosquito season, we cannot afford to delay. We need to better control mosquitoes that carry the Zika virus. We need to raise awareness to make sure families are informed about this disease, and we need to expand access to family planning services and accelerate the development of a vaccine. The President laid out a strong emergency funding proposal to accomplish each of those goals in February. I support that plan. I was very disappointed that instead of acting on it as quickly as possible, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply refused to even consider it. Instead, they found reason after reason to delay. First, they said the administration should take funds from the ongoing Ebola response to combat Zika. Then, they said they needed more information about the President's proposal, even though Zika has been discussed in 55 congressional hearings, even after briefings by senior administration officials, and even though the administration's 25-page proposal had been available for months for anyone to see. House Republicans have released a proposal that would provide a very meager $622 million, less than one-third of what is needed for this emergency, without any funding for preventive health care or outreach to those who are at risk of Zika, and they are still insisting in the House for the funding for the offset. In the face of all of that partisanship and inaction and with public experts making it clearer every day how much we need to act before mosquito season is in full effect, I was encouraged that Chairman Blunt and others on the Appropriations Committee were willing to work with Democrats on a first step to respond to this emergency. The agreement we have reached would put a down payment on the President's proposal into the hands of our first responders and researchers right away. It would provide much needed relief for Puerto Rico, backfill nearly $100 million in essential public health funding that the administration had been forced to reprogram, invest in prevention and support services for pregnant women and families at home and abroad, and put research dollars into developing a vaccine. I believe the Republicans should do what we have urged them to do for months and join Democrats in supporting the President's full emergency funding request. But if they continue to refuse, then at the very least, they should be willing to support a bipartisan first step toward protecting families from this virus, and Democrats will continue pushing for every necessary resource going forward. Families across the country are looking to Congress for action on Zika. They do not have time for lengthy debates about offsets, and they don't have more time to wait. So I hope we can move very quickly to get this emergency funding package through the Senate and the House and onto the President's desk. If we act now, we can help protect our families across the country from the truly tragic consequences of this disease, and there is no reason to delay. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor to once again urge my Republican colleagues to listen to the vast majority of the people across the country, do their job and allow us to do ours: fulfill our constitutional responsibilities, hold hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, and give him a vote. We owe that to the people we represent. It is simply the right thing to do. Two months ago, the President did his job. He selected a nominee. For 2 months, Judge Garland has been ready and willing to meet with any Senator who will make the time. Yesterday Judge Garland did his job by submitting a questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee outlining his background and his work history, which is standard for judicial nominees. What about the Senate? In complete disregard of what so many Members continue to hear in their home States across the country, Republican leaders are refusing to act. Senate Republicans will not say they are opposed to Judge Garland. They are refusing to even live up to their constitutional responsibility and consider him. This kind of pure obstruction and partisanship is so wrong. People across the country are not going to stand for it. We are now at an unbelievable 88 days into this Supreme Court vacancy. Especially after knowing what I do after meeting with Judge Garland and what many Republicans know after meeting with him as well, his distinguished career and work history show that he is, without a doubt, someone who deserves fair consideration by all of us in the Senate. Judge Garland led a massive investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing and supervised the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh. He called his work for the Justice Department, following the Oklahoma City bombing, the most important thing he has ever done in his life. His fairness and diligence earned him praise from Members of both parties, from victims' families, law enforcement officers, and even from the lead lawyer who was defending McVeigh. As a prosecutor, he ensured proper respect for the rights of criminal defendants. He was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 with a strong bipartisan vote of 76 to 23. Several of those who confirmed him in 1997 still serve in the Senate today. Clearly this is less about Judge Garland as a nominee and more about political obstruction and partisanship, especially after one Republican Senator admitted that if it looks as if Donald Trump will lose the November election, we should quickly confirm Judge Garland. This comes after weeks of saying the Senate should not do its job until we have a new President. Evaluating and confirming Supreme Court Justices is one of the most important roles we have in the Senate. I have heard from people all over my State of Washington who want the Senate to do its job. If Republicans continue to refuse to do their jobs, they aren't saying the people should decide; they are saying they believe the Republican Presidential nominee should. That is just wrong, especially after we heard from the presumptive Republican nominee last night on FOX News. Recently, he said that he thinks women should be punished for exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights. Last night he went a step further. He would only appoint ``pro-life'' Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Let me repeat that. The candidate Republicans would like to see in the White House nominating Supreme Court Justices has committed to taking our country back to the Dark Ages. That is appalling, and it is something I know millions of men and women across the country are scared of. It is just one more reason that people will continue demanding that Senate Republicans do their jobs now. Washington State families should have a voice right now. Families across America should have a voice right now. The tea party gridlock and dysfunction that has dominated too much of our time and work in Congress should be pushed aside right now. I hope Republicans will reconsider. I hope they will meet with Judge Garland, hold a hearing, and give him a vote. We need nine Justices serving on the highest Court in the land. The American people deserve a fully functioning Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.