Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the latest attempt by the Republicans in the House of Representatives--and a few Republicans in the Senate as well--to hold hostage the basic operation of our government, once again, over politics. While I have several issues with the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that the House has sent to us, I will first discuss this strategy we are seeing from Republicans, as the former chair of the Budget Committee and as someone who has worked across the aisle to break through gridlock in Congress. Two years ago our country was moving constantly from one manufactured crisis to the next. We had debt limit scares that were rattling our businesses and the markets, we were headed toward an absurd and unnecessary government shutdown, and people across the country were losing faith that their elected officials could get anything done when it came to the budget and to our economy. But by working together, Congressman Paul Ryan and I were able to reach a budget deal that prevented another government shutdown and showed the American people that Congress could work together to get things done. Because of that deal we were able to then pass bipartisan spending bills for the past 2 fiscal years, including 11 of the 12 appropriations bills from last year. Although we have a lot of work to do, it is clear that stability in the Federal budget makes a difference for our economy. We have to work together to build on that growth, to continue that certainty, and to make sure our economy is working for all families, not only the wealthiest few. Across the country, businesses have added more than 11 million new jobs--over 58 straight months of job growth. The unemployment rate is now under 6 percent and trending downward, and we have reduced the Federal budget deficit by over two-thirds since 2009. So when I look at the Homeland Security funding bill that the House of Representatives has now sent to us, I see a few things. I see a bill--the way it is drafted and was sent to us will tear apart families who are working hard to make it in America. I see a bill that will put our security at risk, and I see a bill that seriously threatens all of the work we have done recently, Republicans and Democrats, to keep our government functioning because the bill the House has sent over is simply unacceptable. It will not pass the Senate. Republicans know that. Let's be clear about what this bill is, it is a calculated, political gamble from our Republican colleagues. This looming showdown over funding the Department of Homeland Security is no accident. In fact, it is actually a risk they have been planning since last year all because of political pressure from the extreme anti-immigration right wing of their party. If Republicans are willing to risk funding for the Department of Homeland Security for political reasons, I believe the American people deserve to know exactly what that does mean because funding the Department of Homeland Security doesn't only keep the lights on the DHS headquarters, that funding protects our country from terrorist attacks at a time when the world is as dangerous and volatile as ever. It protects our country and American businesses from cyber attacks, a threat that is all too real as we have now seen in recent months. It supports basic security measures at our airports, at our seaports, and along the border. It even supports our Federal emergency management resources that are on call for every community in America. In my home State of Washington, this funding supports the Coast Guard, which protects shippers and sailors throughout Puget Sound, and Customs and Border Protection, which helps facilitate billions in international trade moving through my State, the most trade-dependent State in the country. Not funding these programs is a risk we cannot afford to take. It is reckless and irresponsible and, more than anything else, simply counterproductive for Republicans to put all of this on the line just to score some political points with the tea party and the far right. Unfortunately that appears exactly to be what they are doing. Once again Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans have decided they are willing to break up millions of families and deport millions of DREAMers who are victims themselves of a broken system. They have decided they are willing to stop the President's policy of focusing our law enforcement on national security threats, gang members, and violent criminals. Once again they have decided they are willing to make bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that much more difficult to achieve. This is much more than only an annual funding bill. This legislation is a message which has been sent to us loud and clear from House Republicans and Speaker Boehner that they are willing to continue pushing us from crisis to crisis. They are willing to play politics with our national security, and they are willing to turn their backs on millions and millions of children and families. For years now we have seen that strategy doesn't work--it doesn't work. It holds us back. But I have to say I was encouraged when Majority Leader McConnell said that at the end of the day the Senate will fund the Department of Homeland Security. It is clear the House bill will not pass the Senate, so I truly believe it is time for the majority leader to show, as he has promised, that he will let the Senate and Congress work efficiently. It is time for the majority leader to bring a clean DHS appropriations bill to the floor. Let's get it done, passed, and move on to the work that is so important to us. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a century ago, President Lyndon Johnson returned to his old elementary school in rural Texas with a major piece of legislation. At a picnic table on the lawn of his school and sitting beside his very first teacher, President Johnson signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA. Our Nation has always held the ideal of education for everyone. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote: By far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness. The idea of a strong public education for every child was woven into the fabric of this Nation. But ESEA put that idea into action. It aimed to close the gaps between rich and poor, Black and White, children growing up in the crowded neighborhoods of Philadelphia, to the rural districts of Texas, children with every advantage in the world and kids with disabilities. This law moved our country in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go to close those gaps. In the coming weeks and months, Congress will have the opportunity to make sure we continue moving our country toward this ideal and to work together to fix the broken No Child Left Behind law, because we as a nation still believe every student should have access to a quality public education, regardless of where they live or how they learn or how much money their parents make. Education and fighting on behalf of children is what drew me to public service in the very first place. When my kids were much younger, I found out their wonderful preschool program might close because of budget cuts. I knew how valuable that program was and how much it was helping our local children, so I put my two young kids in my car and I drove off to the State capitol to explain to our legislators why they couldn't just cut this program. When I got there and was finally able to get one of the legislators to listen to me, he said something I will never forget. He said to me: You can't make a difference. You are just a mom in tennis shoes. Well, I couldn't believe that, and I was furious. I drove all the way home telling my two little kids in the car that I was going to change that. So I got home, picked up the phone and started calling other parents, and they called other parents, and we held rallies, and we wrote letters. Finally, after it was all said and done, the legislature voted to keep the funding for that preschool program. Throughout my career, as a preschool teacher, to serving on the local school board, the Washington State Senate, and here in the U.S. Senate, I have been committed to expanding educational opportunities and making sure every kid has someone fighting for them and their future. But that battle is far from over. Now is the time to take another big step forward, putting the ideals of our Nation into action. The current law, No Child Left Behind, is badly broken and it is time to fix it. The good news is this doesn't have to be a partisan issue. Nearly everyone--Democrats, Republicans, teachers, parents, business leaders--agrees this law needs to be rewritten. So today I wanted to come to the floor to lay out some pretty basic but very important principles I think should guide any bill to fix No Child Left Behind. For one, we need to work to reduce redundant and unnecessary testing so educators focus on preparing students for college and their career and also ensure we know how all of our students are progressing. We need to continue to hold schools and States accountable for delivering on the promise of a quality education for all our kids so they can compete in the 21st century economy. We need to improve our schools and give them the resources they need so every student does have the opportunity to reach their potential. And I believe we need to expand access to early childhood education so students can go to kindergarten ready to learn. What is clear to nearly everyone is that No Child Left Behind is not working. For one, the law requires States to set high standards for schools, but it didn't give them the resources they needed to meet those achievement goals. In effect, this law set up our schools for failure. It sets teachers up for failure. It set our students up for failure. That needs to change. I have heard from parent after parent and teacher after teacher in Washington State who have told me that not only are students taking too many tests, oftentimes the tests are of low quality and are redundant. That needs to change too. We are still facing inequality in our education system, where some schools simply don't offer the same opportunities. For example, African-American and Latino students are significantly less likely to attend a high school that offers advanced math classes. According to the Department of Education, 30 percent fewer students from low-income backgrounds reach proficiency or higher on assessments compared to their peers of affluent backgrounds. On average, kids from low-income neighborhoods don't have access to qualified and experienced teachers, as do students from wealthier neighborhoods. That needs to change. The current law is not working for our States either. I have seen firsthand how No Child Left Behind is not working for my State of Washington. The law is so bad the Obama administration began issuing waivers to exempt States from the law's requirements. Washington State had received a waiver but last year it lost it. As a result, most of the schools in my home State are now categorized as failing. That means that hard-working parents sending their kids to schools in communities such as Spokane in eastern Washington, the Tri-Cities in central Washington, and Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and many others in western Washington are receiving a letter in the mail that says their children aren't getting the type of education we expect in this country. Not only that, but Washington now has less flexibility in how to use Federal investments in education. That needs to change. I recently heard from a woman--her name is Lillian, who lives in Shoreline, WA--last year whose son was going into the fourth grade in the same school district where I used to serve as a school board member years ago. Her son has a learning disability. With the help of teachers and specialists in his elementary school he has shown great signs of progress. But then Lillian said she got a letter in the mail 2 weeks before school started describing the school as failing, and that left her worried about her son's education. Because No Child Left Behind is broken, so many parents and schools and districts across the State of Washington are facing a similar uncertainty, and that is not fair to our students. That needs to change too. It is time to rewrite No Child Left Behind with something worthy of this Nation's children and their future. In the coming weeks and months, these are some of the core principles I am going to be fighting for. Let us work with our States and districts to reduce unnecessary testing, especially by targeting redundant and low-quality tests. This is an obvious step we need to take and one you won't find much disagreement on. That doesn't mean we should roll back standards or accountability for schools to provide a good quality education. We need to make sure we establish expectations for our students that put them on a path to competing in the 21st century global economy. And let me be clear on assessments. We know if we don't have ways to measure students' progress, and if we don't hold our States accountable, the victims will invariably be the kids from poor neighborhoods, children of color, and students with disabilities. These are the students who too often fall through the cracks, and that is not fair. True accountability makes sure we are holding our schools up to our Nation's promise of equality and justice. This is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. Another reason assessments are important is they help parents monitor their kids' progress. If a school is consistently failing to provide a quality education year after year, parents deserve to know. We shouldn't forget this law provides the Nation's largest Federal investment in K-12 education. It would be irresponsible to ask our taxpayers to spend billions of dollars on education without knowing if it is making a difference in our students' lives. That is a good government principle which Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on and which the taxpayers should have every right to expect. So let's maintain strong accountability that measures the students' growth with statewide assessments. I believe annual assessments are one of the most important tools we have to make sure our schools are working for every student. We need to make sure these assessments don't lead to unintended consequences. But I would be very concerned about any proposal that rolls back this key student and taxpayer protection and accountability tool. I believe we need statewide assessments that give parents, civil rights groups, and policymakers the ability to see how students are doing from district to district. Furthermore, to make sure we are meeting our obligations to all of our students, let's increase funding for schools that have high numbers of children from low-income backgrounds. Rich or poor, every child should get a high-quality education. The ones who are on the frontlines of this noble work--let's make sure our teachers and principals have the resources they deserve to continue to build their skills so they can best help the students about whom they care so much. Let's improve schools through innovation and with coursework that challenges our students--not just so they earn a diploma but so their diploma means they are truly college- and career- ready. I believe Congress should only pass an education bill that expands access to preschool programs. This is a particularly important issue to me. As a mom and when I was a preschool teacher, I saw firsthand the kind of transformation early learning can inspire in a child not just to start kindergarten ready to learn but to succeed later in life. That is why law enforcement, business groups, military leaders, and so many others support expanding access to early childhood education. Congress needs to catch up with the Democratic and Republican Governors and legislators around the country who support investments in early learning, and we need to make sure the investments in our youngest kids that will pay off for generations to come are part of this bill. Those are just some of the core principles I am going to be focused on as we work together to revamp our Education bill. Providing an excellent education to all students is a national priority--not just because our children deserve it but because it is one of the best investments we can make to ensure long-term and broad- based economic growth. Businesses and entrepreneurs need the next generation of workers to come in and help them innovate, invent, build, and grow. That is something I hear from my Washington State businesses all the time. Making sure all students are able to take on the jobs of the 21st century is the only way our Nation will stay economically competitive in the years to come. Other countries are investing massively in education and their students, and we cannot afford to fall behind in this country. Let me be clear on another point. The only way Congress will be able to fix this law is by working in a bipartisan way. That means Republicans should come to the table ready to work with Democrats to get this done. I know the Republicans are the majority in the Congress, and I welcome our new committee chair, Senator Alexander. I listened carefully to his remarks and thank him for reaching out to begin this process. But parents across the country are expecting us to put partisanship aside and work together for the good of our children. Secretary Duncan, President Obama, and so many of us here in Congress have made it very clear that we aren't going to accept a bill that hurts students or doesn't live up to the ideals of our great Nation. There is no question, as Senator Alexander said, that there are some serious differences in the way the two parties approach this, but I am confident, just as we did with the budget last Congress, we can find common ground and move forward if both sides are willing to leave their partisan corners and work across the aisle. Everyone should be able to agree that this law needs to provide every student in every school in every State with a quality education, and that is what I am going to be fighting for. When President Johnson signed the Education bill, he said he envisioned ``full educational opportunity as our first national goal.'' Our Nation's commitment to that ideal is so important to me and my family. I would not be here in this Senate Chamber without it. When I was 15 years old, my dad was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. In just a few short years he could no longer work at the five-and-dime store he ran. Without warning, my family fell on hard times. But instead of falling through the cracks, my six brothers and sisters and I got a good education because of our public schools, and we all went to college with the support from the program we now know as Pell grants. My mother was able to get the skills she needed to get a job through a worker training program at Lake Washington Vocational School. Today I believe we need to continue to make education a national priority so more families can seize the opportunities that are only possible with access to a good education. So I am glad to be here on the floor today with the chairman of our committee, and I call on Democrats and Republicans to work together to fix this law. For the child who may not live in the best neighborhood or the kid whose parents are struggling to make ends meet, for every student who deserves the chance to learn, grow, and thrive--I hope we can work together to write a bill to make sure every child in this country gets a quality education. Let's make sure our country continues to have the best workforce the world over. Let's deliver on Jefferson's promise of education as the foundation for freedom and happiness. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic leader, I ask unanimous consent that Neysa Call, a fellow in Senator Reid's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which Congress passed a year ago this month, not only provided relief to families, servicemembers, and the economy from the harmful effects of sequestration, but also put an end to the recent fiscal crises and uncertainty by establishing a bipartisan budget for two years. Pursuant to section 116 of the Bipartisan Budget Act, I previously filed budgetary aggregates and committee allocations for budget year 2015. Today, I am adjusting those levels to account for H.R. 83, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits, while sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act allows the Chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. H.R. 83, which has passed the House, is eligible for the following adjustments: Division A. the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which includes $91 million in budget authority and $40 million in outlays that is designated as disaster funding, and $25 million in budget authority and $7 million in outlays designated as an emergency. Division C, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which includes $64 billion in budget authority and $30.476 billion in outlays that is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funding, and $112 million in budget authority and $119 million in outlays that is designated as emergency funding Division G, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which includes $1.484 billion in budget authority and $1.277 billion in outlays for program integrity initiatives, and $2.742 billion in budget authority and $933 million in outlays designated as an emergency. Division I, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which includes $221 million in budget authority that is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations. Division J, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which includes $9.258 billion in budget authority and $2.233 billion in outlays that is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funding, and $2.526 billion in budget authority and $468 million in outlays designated as an emergency. Because I previously filed adjustments for most of these bills after they were reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the adjustments I am making today takes into account those existing adjustments and reflect only the net difference. In total, I am revising the budgetary aggregates for 2015 by a total of $11.351 billion in budget authority and $3.983 billion in outlays. I am also revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the appropriations committee for 2015 by a total of $6.048 billion in revised nonsecurity budget authority, $5.967 billion in revised security budget authority, and $4.567 billion in total outlays. I am pleased to note that the funding in the omnibus appropriations bill is fully consistent with the bipartisan limits on discretionary spending agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the changes to the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the budgetary aggregates be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor this evening to take, first of all, a minute to thank my good friend and mentor Chairwoman Mikulski for her tremendous work on the product that is before us tonight. We want to get something done when we come here. In order to get anything done in Congress, we have to be willing to compromise. We have to fight hard for our principles and what we believe in. But at the end of the day it is a give-and-take. It is never easy, and no one never ends up with a bill they have written on their own. Chairwoman Mikulski deserves so much credit for what is in this bill that puts our country on a better track. Putting jobs and economic growth first is a principle she always speaks to, and she fought for them in this bill. She fought off so many policies and riders that were thrown at her. I know because I have spoken with her time and time again as she has tried to say: What can I absolutely draw a line in the sand on, and what can I put in here in order to make sure I am doing what is right for my country? It is not easy to do that. She fought off many riders that all of us on this side of the aisle would have found extremely difficult to ever vote for. She took those out. She maintained the budget levels Chairman Ryan and I agreed on last year. That was very hard to do. She is trying to put together a bill to fund our government across the board, from defense, to agriculture, to transportation, to so many areas that people take for granted every day until our government shuts down. Then they remember how much they rely on our national parks or our research and our investment or the protection that is so important in our Homeland Security bills. She worked hard under very strict requirements that we all supported in another compromise a year ago and maintained that in this bill. Critically, her work on this bill avoids another government shutdown. Running this place by crisis we know doesn't work. It hurts our economy. It hurts our families. Certainly, it hurts the stature of the Senate. So her work to put this together and have this bill before us tonight is truly a remarkable accomplishment and really is proof of the stateswoman she is. I commend her for that. I am especially grateful that she put so much into this legislation that really helps our everyday, average, middle-class families who are struggling so hard in this country and really lays down a strong foundation for long-term and broad-based economic growth. She did not forget that principle at all in what she fought for, and that is embedded within the legislation. There are, of course, provisions in this bill that any one of us can pull out and oppose, and there are certainly some provisions with which I do not agree. I am really disheartened that the House Republicans put Wall Street interests ahead of middle-class families and demanded a provision in this bill. I am very concerned that some of the provisions could increase health care premiums for our families and our businesses. And I strongly oppose the policy change that was slipped into the bill that could lead to a reduction in pensions for many of our retirees. I share the concerns of many of us on this side that that is in this legislation. This is a compromise piece of legislation, and we had to swallow and the other side had to swallow. Why? It is because at the end of the day, we do not want to run our country in continuing resolutions, in this economic upturn, in crisis management every 30 days or 60 days for the next 2 years. That is why we had to look to the greater good of this bill, and I am very pleased with some really significant pieces of legislation in this bill. I worked very hard with my good friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Collins, who is my partner on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee. Senator Collins and I worked very hard to find a compromise that makes significant investments in our transportation infrastructure to help our commuters and our families and our businesses and our economy. I want my colleagues on this side of the aisle to know that the investments in this bill that are in Amtrak, in public transit, in air traffic control modernization, and in airport improvements are very critical for all of our communities. I am going to vote yes for those tonight. The bill makes it possible for the FAA to keep sufficient numbers of air traffic controllers and inspectors on the job. This is a key safety issue that I will be supporting in this bill. And our bill puts to work new, targeted investments to help the Department of Transportation to do everything possible to keep our communities safe as the number of oil shipments by rail continue to increase in the country. I am especially proud of our part of this legislation that continues to support a very successful TIGER program, and so many Members have come to me and said they really appreciated that in this bill because it allows investments in critical pieces of transportation infrastructure in their home States that helps create jobs and boosts their regional economy. I know this has been important in my State. I know the demand is very high. We were not able to have the number we liked, we did have to reduce it, but it remains in this bill as a very strong investment in our communities, and I would be proud to be supporting that in this bill. On the housing side of our bill, we maintain the housing assistance for low-income families that is so important today that they have the support while they get back on their feet. To not pass this bill tonight means we put a lot of people who are struggling today at risk in their communities to not have the home that is so important to their family's stability. I am especially proud we are going to continue funding the HUD-VASH Program. It is a program so many Members have told me is important to them and takes the important steps of expanding HUD-VASH to Native Americans who are at risk of homelessness living on reservations. We increased the number of public housing units that can be part of the public assistance demonstration that allows public housing authorities to leverage private capital and to make capital improvements to more than 100,000 additional units of affordable housing. We worked hard to make sure this bill continues to support public housing and economic development projects in communities across the country through the CDBG Program. I will say that virtually every Member of the Senate has said we need to maintain the CDBG Program on how important it is. There are local communities to make decisions about the local communities, and the funding is absolutely critical. This isn't just about spending. Our legislation contains a number of reforms that are going to improve government and save taxpayer dollars. Let me repeat that. We are voting to save taxpayer dollars because we approved the process for administering emergency preparedness grants, and we make sure property owners are held accountable if they fail to take care of housing funded with taxpayer resources. We included a provision that supports efforts to improve the coordination between domestic violence service and housing systems to make sure our domestic violence survivors are getting the care and support they deserve. I know much has been made of the provisions that people don't like, and I share that angst. But I think it is so important that we, as adults, stand up to the responsibility we have, as the Senate and as Congress, to pass a funding bill through the next year that makes sure we don't have gridlock and dysfunction running this economy again. The alternative to a bipartisan compromise spending bill is just another short-term continuing resolution and another short-term continuing resolution. We cannot run this government by crisis or short-term resolutions. That is an irresponsible autopilot approach and would cut off our ability as Senators to make decisions about how our government operates. I again want to thank my colleague and my mentor, the amazing Senator from Maryland, the chairwoman of this committee, Barbara Mikulski, for the work she has done and for the drive she has. She never lost sight of what her goal is, despite some very difficult negotiations, and I want to remind all of us that tonight hopefully we will be voting on a compromise. I know personally that in this country what everybody says to me constantly is: We are tired of the partisan bickering. We want you to compromise. That is what this is. We want our country to work again. That is what this bill does. I urge our colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my constituent COL Robert J. McAleer for his exemplary dedication to duty and his service to the U.S. Army and to the United States of America. He has served his last 2 years in the Army as Chief of the Army's Senate Liaison Division, representing the Army on Capitol Hill. A native of Washington State, Colonel McAleer earned a commission as a distinguished graduate from the U.S. Military Academy in 1988. Colonel McAleer has served in a broad range of challenging operational assignments and an unusually diverse set of Army units: cannon artillery, rocket and missile, air defense, light infantry, cavalry, Ranger, Special Forces, and Stryker. Colonel McAleer spent more than a decade overseas, including two tours each in Germany and Korea, and two 15-month tours in Iraq. As a lieutenant, he completed critical assignments in austere locations on the Demilitarized Zone in Korea. As a captain and major with the Army Special Operations Command, he participated in the detention of Bosnian war criminals, served as a fire support officer for twenty AC-130 gunship and similar missions in Kosovo, an operation to rescue American hostages in South America, and numerous exercises that served as blueprints for post-9/11 operations. In Iraq, as battalion operations officer and, later, Squadron Commander, he worked to secure dangerous areas in southwest Baghdad, Abu Ghraib, and then Diyala Province. His units were marked by their discipline, determination, purposeful operations, and focus on the needs of the civilian population. He led efforts in intelligence, governance, essential services, and reconciliation. As a colonel, serving as Chief of Future Operations for Combined Forces Command in Korea, he synchronized the U.S. and South Korean response to North Korea's artillery shelling of Yong Pyong Island, the death of Kim Jong Il, and a North Korean ballistic missile launch. He led major joint and international planning efforts on the Korean Peninsula to prepare military forces and governments for contingencies, especially in the areas of rear area logistics, noncombatant evacuation, and countering and preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction. With the exception of his current assignment as an Army legislative liaison, Colonel McAleer spent his entire career in combat units, either in command or operations positions. He spent 6 years in command of four units: Bravo Battery 1-39 Field Artillery, Airborne; Bravo Battery 1-321 Field Artillery, Airborne; 2nd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery; and Fires Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment. A soldier's soldier, focused on his assigned mission and the wellbeing of those under his command, he touched thousands of lives, developing countless leaders and young soldiers in his units. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending Colonel McAleer for over 26 years of service to his country. He played a key role in defending our national interests while positively impacting the soldiers and families under his command. He has been an excellent Army liaison to the Senate. We wish Bob, his wife Kate, daughter Catherine, and son Colin all the best as they continue their journey of service.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about one of the most important issues facing our Nation as we have been hearing for the past 15 minutes; that is, our longstanding, desperate need to finally fix our Nation's broken immigration system. Too often in the debate about immigration it is difficult for some people to understand that the millions of undocumented families in our country are already an important part of our communities. Immigrants work hard and they pay their taxes, they send their children to American schools, and they make up a critical part of the fabric of our society. They are Americans in all but name. So when we talk about immigration reform, we are not talking about some vague philosophical issue. This is an issue that impacts families, it impacts our businesses, it impacts our national security, and it impacts what we stand for as Americans. It is not a new issue either. It is something we have been debating and arguing about for more than a decade, but it is something we have never been able to tackle, and that is not for the lack of trying. As everyone here remembers, more than 500 days ago now the Senate did something remarkable. Members from different backgrounds and different States and different parties came together to reach an agreement, and in the Senate we passed a real bipartisan coalition of 68 Republicans and Democrats, a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would finally start to fix our broken immigration system. As we heard from the Senator from New York, it would improve our security, provide businesses with the certainty they need, and provide a real path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants who are forced to live in the shadows. Not only was this bill a step toward fixing our broken immigration system, it was good for our economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate bill would reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion over the next two decades. So we sent the bill to the House of Representatives knowing the path forward there might not be easy, but we heard from Members of the House on both sides of the aisle that they also knew immigration reform had to happen this Congress. Back then, in June of 2013, we knew we had time on our side. Speaker Boehner had a full year and a half to do one simple thing, bring the bipartisan Senate bill up for a vote. We knew then what we still know today; that if the Speaker brought that bill up for a vote, it would pass with bipartisan support and become law. But instead of doing that, the Speaker sided with the Tea Party and refused to move our country forward. He has made it very clear that the House will refuse to act this Congress and ignore the historic opportunity we have. For years and years millions of immigrant families who have played by the rules--paid their taxes, raised their children in the United States--have waited and waited for action. They have organized, they have hoped and they have prayed and they have trusted the system would eventually work. The system has failed. So now it is time to act. President Obama has made it clear that because the House refuses to act--because the House refuses to act--he will take administrative action before the end of the year to improve our immigration system, and I support his decision to do that. The President's authority to take action is well established. In fact, every President since Eisenhower, including Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, has used his authority to improve the administration of our immigration system and to focus enforcement resources on serious criminals rather than on hard-working immigrants with deep roots in our communities. When the President does act, I have encouraged him to do several things: expand the already successful implementation of deferred action for DREAMers to include people with strong ties to the United States who have not committed serious crimes; to change implementation of our laws to make immigration and border enforcement humane, nondiscriminatory, and respectful of due process; and, finally, I have asked the President to improve the legal immigration system to keep immigrant families together, to protect our workers, and to provide employers--from agricultural producers to high-tech firms--certainty in a system that has often left them without answers. But I also want to be very clear that administrative action is not a long-term solution. Plain and simple, the only way for us to permanently and effectively fix our broken immigration laws is through comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Administrative action is a bandaid, but it is better than nothing, and nothing is what the House Republicans are offering. So I also wish to say it has been deeply disappointing to hear that some of my Republican colleagues are now threatening to shut down the government just to keep families from getting some initial relief from the pain our broken immigration system is causing. That is the latest example of extreme Republicans creating uncertainty and threatening to hurt our economy if they don't get their way, and it is the exact opposite of the approach Congress needs to take going forward. We all know what happens when Tea Party Republicans go down this road. We saw it just last year when we had a 16-day government shutdown that brought the day-to-day workings of the government and businesses across the country to a screeching halt. That shutdown, we all know, was bad for our economy. It hit workers' paychecks, it made families across our country question whether their elected officials could get anything done at all. It was all because of a failed Tea Party political effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the umpteenth time. Look. Even children understand that flipping the table over doesn't help win the game. It just means someone has to pick up the mess they just made. When it comes to Tea Party political tactics, we have seen more than enough of that in this Congress. As we all remember, the budget deal I reached with Chairman Ryan wasn't perfect--I know Chairman Ryan would say the same thing--but it was an important step away from brinkmanship and toward bipartisanship on the budget. In the next week Republican leaders are going to have an important choice to make. They can choose bipartisanship and continue to push the Tea Party aside and work with Democrats on issues such as the budget and fixing our broken immigration system or they can go back to Tea Party-style governing by crisis, which hurts families and communities and our economy and will make it much more difficult to put in place the lasting comprehensive immigration reform we need. I urge them to take the bipartisan path. I am ready and willing to work with them if they do, and I know my Democratic colleagues are as well. I know our country will be stronger for it now and for decades to come. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the legislation we are considering regarding the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. As with too many controversial issues, we have lost track of the facts and the basic process for moving a project such as this one forward. So let's be clear. The legislation we are voting on today isn't just a bill to say yes or no to the Keystone Pipeline. This is legislation that would have us skip the established process for determining whether a major infrastructure project, with potential impact to millions of Americans, our economy, and our environment, should be approved. We are still in the middle of that process. But if this bill passes, it would mean we are bypassing all the scientists and engineers and experts who are evaluating the proposal. It would put an arbitrary, manufactured timeline on a project whose evaluation is incomplete and would short-circuit the process for the public to weigh in on this project. Regardless of how different Members feel about this, we should all agree that this is no way the U.S. Government ought to approve a project of this scope. So that is one reason I will be voting against this legislation. When it comes to protecting our environment, we should rely on facts, patience, and a fair process. There is no denying that the proposed Keystone Pipeline project has become larger than the sum of its parts. I understand the desire of my colleagues to expedite the projects they support, and I understand cutting through redtape to get things done. But when we are considering a project that could have significant impacts on our economy and our environment, making a decision before we have all the facts could be reckless and it could be dangerous. The Keystone Pipeline proposal is a great example of why our process for evaluating the potential consequences of projects such as this one is not only important, it is absolutely necessary. We simply cannot put expediency ahead of scientific facts regarding climate change because as a country we have done that for far too long and now we are paying the price. Earlier this year, as chair of the Budget Committee, I held a hearing on the impact of climate change on our country. We heard testimony from business leaders, from environmental experts, from industry leaders, and even from military officials. Their message was clear: The consequences of climate change are not hypothetical and they are not exaggerated. The impacts of human activity on our planet are real, they are significant, and they are happening right now. The Federal Government, for example, spent three times more on disaster relief in the past decade than it did in the previous decade. If we do nothing, continued climate change will result in more frequent and more intense episodes of extreme weather, just as we saw with Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The U.S. Department of Transportation today sends about $22 billion a year to State and local governments just to help them keep their existing transportation infrastructure in good repair. But hotter temperatures and more frequent flooding will wash out roads and will put added stress on bridge supports and public transit systems and will require substantial additional Federal investment. We know an uptick in temperature and heat waves will reduce annual yields of major crops and cause more livestock deaths. It will hurt farmers and agribusinesses, cause consumer food prices to rise, and really create a ripple effect that will increase costs to U.S. taxpayers. Our military experts say that climate change will act as a catalyst for instability and conflict around the world, creating additional threats to our country and adding to the cost of protecting our Nation's interests. So, Mr. President, with all we already know about the impacts of climate change, how can we possibly move this project forward before we have a thorough understanding of the environmental impacts that will result from building the Keystone Pipeline? How can we force the decision that could very possibly make the impact of climate change even worse? As a Senator from the State of Washington, I am very proud of my work to protect the environment, and I am proud of my State's leadership in combating climate change. Even though the Keystone Pipeline will not run through my State, Washingtonians know well that the pipeline's impacts could quickly reach our communities, from Seattle to Spokane. So I come to the floor today to oppose this legislation, and I will continue to oppose any efforts in Congress that ignore or brush aside the environmental consequences of our actions. For far too long we have put short-term interests ahead of our environment and long-term realities, and that has to stop. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Denise Dickenson, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor until January 26, 2015.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, Thank you for that explanation. I am pleased to hear that homeless children will be able to receive services while their families are taking actions to comply with immunization and other health and safety requirements. Regarding enrollment while other required documentation is obtained, the bill language requires that States use procedures to ensure such enrollment occurs after an initial eligibility determination is made. Yet, eligibility documentation is among the required documentation homeless families must produce. However, we know that homeless families struggle to produce documents, due to their poverty and mobility. Can Senator Mikulski, please clarify the intent of the phrase ``after an initial eligibility determination?''

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank Senator Mikulski for that important clarification. The intent of the bill as she describes it will greatly improve homeless children's access to childcare. I appreciate the Senator's dedication to this legislation, which helps expand opportunity for families and enhance the quality of childcare for young people across the country.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak about the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. I'm glad to say that the bill before us today contains a number of provisions intended to facilitate homeless families' access to quality child care. I appreciate the work of my colleagues, particularly Chairman Harkin, Senator Mikulski and Ranking Member Miller, in supporting these important new provisions. Unfortunately, young children who are homeless are more likely to have developmental delays, and more health and mental health problems, than low-income housed children. At the same time, their mothers are less likely to receive childcare subsidies than are poor mothers at- risk of homelessness. So I believe that this legislation will be important in helping rectify this inequity. However, I want to ensure there is a common understanding of who we intend to include within the definition of homeless families or homeless children. The most common Federal definition of homelessness is found in the McKinney-Vento Act's Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program, at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 11434A. That definition applies to public schools, including local educational agency preschool programs, and is used in the Head Start Act, Higher Education Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, among others. The definition includes children and youth who are staying in motels, or with others temporarily because they have nowhere else to go. Eighty percent of the homeless children and youth enrolled in public schools last year were staying in these situations when they were first identified. Is it the chairman's intention that the definition of homeless to be applied to the provisions of this bill be the definition from subtitle VII-B of the McKinney-Vento Act, the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator for that clarification, which will assist States in implementing the provisions of this bill by aligning definitions across Federal programs serving homeless families. This bill overlaps with the McKinney-Vento Act in another way which I would like to clarify. This bill requires State plans to describe how the State will coordinate childcare services with programs for children in preschool programs and other early childhood programs serving homeless children and children in foster care, in order to expand accessibility and continuity of care and assist children enrolled in early childhood programs to receive full-day services. The McKinney-Vento Act's Education for Homeless Children and Youth program is the only education program specifically designed to promote academic success for homeless students. The McKinney-Vento Act requires every local educational agency to designate a homeless education liaison, whose job includes identifying homeless children and youth and ensuring homeless children and families receive educational services for they are eligible, including Head Start and preschool programs administered by the local educational agency. In order for States to expand accessibility and continuity of care for homeless children, it is critically important that McKinney-Vento liaisons are among the professionals with whom States and child care providers coordinate. Is it Senator Mikulski's understanding and intention that McKinney- Vento homeless education liaisons be included among those programs for children in preschool programs and other early childhood programs serving homeless children with which States should coordinate child care services?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator for clarifying the bill's intent that McKinney-Vento liaisons be part of States' coordination of childcare services. I would also like to clarify the intent behind two related bill provisions. First, this bill requires State plans to include a certification that there are in effect in the State requirements applicable to childcare providers which are designed to protect children's health and safety, including the establishment of a grace period that allows homeless children and children in foster care to receive services while their families are taking any necessary actions to comply with immunization and other health and safety requirements. This provision is similar to language found in the McKinney-Vento Act and the Head Start Act. It recognizes that families experiencing homelessness have particular challenges in producing health records and other documents, due largely to their poverty and unstable living situations. At the same time, the bill requires States to use funds for activities that improve access to childcare services, including the use of procedures to permit enrollment--after an initial eligibility determination--of homeless children while required documentation is obtained. I would ask the chairman, is it the intent of the bill language that regardless of the procedures States use to permit enrollment while required documentation is obtained, States still must establish a grace period that allows homeless children to receive services while their families are taking any necessary actions to comply with immunization and other health and safety requirements?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I commend Senator Cantwell for her work on the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act and will continue to push this legislation forward with our colleagues in Congress. The 70th anniversary of the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor going critical is a fitting tribute and reminder that this landmark moment in history should be preserved for future generations through the creation of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Cantwell to commemorate the Hanford B Reactor in our home State of Washington as we approach the 70th anniversary of the world's first full-scale self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. An essential part of the Manhattan Project, on September 26, 1944, the B Reactor was successfully energized to convert uranium into plutonium, an event known as going critical. The entire facility was built in only 13 months, and only a handful of the 50,000 workers at the site knew what was being assembled. The speed and precision of the construction of the facility remain an engineering marvel today. It was not until later that the majority of these workers learned they had played a key role in the history of nuclear materials production in the United States and helped the U.S. win World War II and the Cold War. The B Reactor went on to operate for more than 20 years until 1968, making its mark on the 20th century. After ceasing operations, the B Reactor was to be encased in concrete like all the other reactors as part of the Hanford Reservation cleanup efforts. Given the B Reactor's historic role, I worked for many years with Senator Cantwell and the entire Washington delegation to ensure this piece of our nation's history is preserved for generations to come. After years of hard work, I was pleased when the U.S. Department of the Interior designated the B Reactor as a national historic landmark in 2008, and the B Reactor now receives more than 10,000 visitors a year from around the Nation and the world to see and experience this important part of world history. Today, the B Reactor remains a symbol for the Hanford Reservation, the entire Tri-Cities community, Washington State, and our Nation as a whole.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to commemorate its 50th anniversary this month. Fifty years ago, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, the House and Senate passed and President Johnson signed into law the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. And for 50 years now, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped protect and preserve our Nation's outdoor heritage all around my home State of Washington and across the country for our children and grandchildren. The LWCF contains a set of unique tools that empower local communities to increase public access to open space, conserve forests, and protect wilderness areas. These funds help secure permanent, public access to lands and waterways for hikers, bikers, campers, hunters, anglers, and other outdoor enthusiasts. Senator Henry Jackson, from my home State of Washington, was one of the drafters of the original legislation. During debate of the bill on this very floor, he reminded his colleagues of the importance of open space to Americans, that these public lands are ``the places they go to hunt, fish, camp, picnic, swim, for boating or driving for pleasure, or perhaps simply for relaxation or solitude.'' And that description still rings true today. There are many examples of the LWCF at work in my home State of Washington. LWCF support flowing through its State and local assistance grants, Forest Legacy Program, Federal Land Management Agency projects, and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund have helped protect over 120,000 acres of land and create or enhance hundreds of recreational facilities. These funds have gone to a wide variety of projects, from Federal wilderness to private working farms and forests, from scenic rivers to urban water parks. From the Straits of Juan de Fuca to the crest of the Cascades, from the Columbia River Gorge to the Little Spokane River, the LWCF has made my State a better place for future generations. But a common thread through all these projects has been the way LWCF funding has brought together local public officials, conservationists, farmers, business leaders, forest owners, and engaged citizens to create and enhance public access to open space and natural areas and help keep sprawl in check, all while allowing for sustained economic growth and development. Funding from the LWCF were key in allowing for many of the individual acquisitions needed to achieve this, and I am proud to have supported many of these projects which have helped make these communities' visions a reality. It is important to remember that it isn't just rural areas in Washington that have been enhanced with resources from the fund. Dozens of projects in the hearts of our cities have given children access to much needed parks, sports fields, and swimming facilities. Families can now enjoy time together picnicking, biking, and even hiking in forests and other habitats, right outside their doorsteps. And we all benefit from the cleaner air and cleaner water that results from these high quality protected lands. Land and water conservation is good for our health, good for our families, and good for our souls. But we also know it is good for our economy. In 2012, Americans spent over $640 billion on outdoor recreation, and in Washington alone outdoor pursuits supported 227,000 direct jobs. Our Nation has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources. That is why it makes perfect sense that when we develop some of those energy resources to fuel our economy, we set aside a portion of the royalties generated from that development to protect those other natural resources. But these conservation dollars are more than just outlays, they are also good investments. Studies have estimated that each dollar invested in land conservation returns between $4 and $10 in economic benefits to the economy, and we will see this return on investment for generation after generation. Even with all the good that we see as a result of the LWCF, there is so much more that we could be doing. That is because in spite of all the benefits that we receive from LWCF spending, Congress has diverted the bulk of these conservation dollars to unrelated programs. We ought to fix that. Next year, the funding authority for the LWCF will expire. We need to permanently reauthorize this program, and create an independent, dedicated stream of funding for it. Doing so will benefit all Americans, both now and for generations to come.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I previously revised the allocations, aggregates, and levels pursuant to sections 114(d) and 116(c) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 for S. 2244, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2014. The Senate passed S. 2244 on July 17th. Since there has been no further action on this legislation, I am reversing the adjustments I made in July. For the information of my colleagues, I will refile these adjustments should the Senate again consider legislation that fulfills the conditions of the deficit- neutral reserve fund. I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the revisions be printed in the Record.

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 for 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk about an important piece of the Democrats' ``fair shot'' agenda: ensuring that women across America have access to the basic and often lifesaving health care benefits guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act. Just a few months ago five men on the Supreme Court decided that there should be a group of woman across America who are required to ask their bosses for permission to access basic health care and that a corporation should have more rights then the women it employs. Just a few months ago those five men rolled back the clock on millions of women across America. As the ink was still drying on Justice Alito's misguided opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, I made an unwavering commitment to do everything I could to protect women's access to health care since the five male Justices on the Supreme Court decided they would not. That is why I worked with my partner, the senior Senator from Colorado, to introduce the Not My Boss's Business Act to restore those lost benefits and protect women's health care. I am proud that in the months since we have received strong support from men and women across the country. Our straightforward and simple legislation would ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between you and your guaranteed access to health care, period. This should not be a controversial issue. In fact, nearly 7 in 10 people say health plans should cover birth control. The only controversy about birth control today is the fact that it is 2014 and we are still fighting for this basic health care that is used by 99 person of sexually active women in this country. Despite the resounding outrage we have heard from women and men across America, Senate Republicans stood with this misguided Supreme Court decision and blocked our efforts to right this wrong. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle thought their obstruction of the Not My Boss's Business Act in July would end this conversation, they were dead wrong. Since then, millions of Americans have taken action. They have voiced their outrage on social media. They have organized action in their communities. They will continue to speak out until our Congress in turn takes action. Unfortunately, it appears this message has fallen on deaf ears among some Senate Republicans. It has become increasingly clear on that side that some of the Members have decided to put the tea party ahead of women and have no intention of even allowing a debate on the Not My Boss's Business Act in the near future. I am extremely disappointed by that. I would have hoped our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have maybe--just maybe--spent a little time at home in August listening to women in their States. If they had, they would have heard the women across America asking Congress to fix this horrible decision that resulted from Hobby Lobby. By the way, it is not just women who want Congress to act. People across the country understand that if bosses can deny birth control, they can deny vaccines or HIV treatments or other basic health care services for employees and their covered dependents. I think what men across America understand is that it is not just the female employees at businesses who are affected, it is their wives and their daughters as well who share that health care plan. The data is clear. Ensuring access to contraception coverage is not just the right thing to do, it is also a critical part of making sure women and their families have a fair shot in the 21st century. Women and their family members should not be held back by outdated policies and unfair practices. As I said yesterday on the Senate floor, it is not just about access to contraception, it includes pay equity, access to childcare, a higher minimum wage, and it absolutely includes the right to make their own medical and religious decisions without being dictated or limited by their employer. The bottom line is this: Women use birth control for a host of reasons, none of which should require a permission slip from their boss. Unfortunately, Americans are most likely not surprised at what they are seeing. This obstruction is coming from Members of the same party that has been threatening to subject women to invasive and degrading ultrasounds; the same party that had candidates making outrageous statements, as we all remember, about legitimate rape and then defending those comments during their disastrous book tour; the exact same party that on Capitol Hill, in State houses across America, and in courtrooms at all levels is actively attempting to block women's ability to make their own decisions about their own health. They have shown they will go to just about any length to limit access to care. Just in the past few weeks we have seen last-ditch efforts from Republicans to distract from their embarrassing record on women's health by claiming to support ``cheaper and easier access to contraception'' by simply making it over the counter. Well, the reality is that these proposals would actually cost women more by forcing them to pay out of pocket for the birth control they are getting now at no cost thanks to the Affordable Care Act. This is a basic piece of women's health care. It should not be available only to those who can afford it. The American people are not fooled. In fact, just yesterday PolitiFact rated one Republican birth control claim as ``Mostly False'' given that it was ``lacking in concrete detail.'' Time and again Republican leadership has put politics between women and their health care. Now, with their continued obstruction, they have put employers between women and their access to free or low-cost basic health care under the Affordable Care Act. They have shown us they are not focused on what is best for women; they are focused on political calculations, appeasing the far right, and their continued efforts to do whatever it takes to pitch their extreme agenda even when it burdens working women and their families. Despite this disappointing turn of events, I stand here today to say the deck is stacked against them because millions of women who benefit from this basic and often lifesaving health care will not be silenced. They are still watching. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, over the last several weeks I spent a lot of time traveling across my home State of Washington hearing from workers and families about the challenges they face in today's economy. While there is no question the economy has made a lot of progress, I spoke with far too many people who are working as hard as they can and still feel as though they are running in place. Despite their best efforts, they have not achieved the kind of economic security that allows them to buy a home or save for retirement or start the new business they have been thinking about. I think we can all agree more Americans should have those kinds of opportunities. So I am proud that this year Senate Democrats have focused on legislation that would go a long way toward giving our families and Americans a fair shot. We have made the case for giving millions of Americans across this country a raise, helping students get out from the crushing burden of student loan debt, ensuring that in the 21st century working women get equal pay, and so much more. In the coming days we are going to bring these issues to the forefront once again and make another push for our Republican colleagues to join us. Each one of these policies would do so much for our families and for economic growth, and that is especially true because each would help women in today's workforce. I have come to the floor to focus on that last point in particular and talk about why each of these bills would make a real difference for women across the country. You may remember that my Republican colleagues blocked these bills the last time the Democrats brought them to the floor. So I am going to encourage my Republican colleagues to say something besides no when it comes to higher wages for workers or college affordability or pay equity, because if they have a reason for opposing legislation that would help women and families get ahead, I think the American people deserve to hear it. The role of women and families in our economy has shifted dramatically in the last several decades. Today 60 percent of families rely on earnings from both parents--up from 37 percent in 1975. Women today make up nearly half of the workforce, and more than ever women are likely to be the primary breadwinner in their families. Women are making a difference across the economy in boardrooms and lecture halls and small businesses, but our Nation's policies have not caught up with the times. In fact, today they are holding women back. Across the country women still earn 77 cents on the dollar on average compared to men. That difference adds up. In Seattle last year women earned 73 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts, and that translated to a yearly gap for women of $16,346. Nationwide, over a typical woman's lifetime, pay discrimination amounts to $464,320 in lost wages. The gender wage gap makes dealing with other financial burdens such as student loans even more challenging. This past spring I invited a woman from Massachusetts named AnnMarie Duchon to our Budget Committee hearing to testify about her own personal experience with pay inequity. AnnMarie told us that over the years she missed out on more than $12,000 in wages compared to a male coworker who was doing the same job. She told us she and her husband both have student loan debt and those lost wages--$12,000--would have covered 10 months of payments. AnnMarie said thinking about that setback was ``heartbreaking.'' AnnMarie said she was ultimately able to go back and convince her employers to give her equal pay, but unfortunately most women are not able to do that. Many don't even know they are earning unequal wages. That is a real loss, both for our families and for our economy as a whole. That is why we need the Paycheck Fairness Act to tackle pay discrimination head-on and help ensure that in this 21st century workers are compensated based on how they do their job, not on their gender. Another policy that needs an update is our Federal minimum wage. Two- thirds of minimum wage workers are women. Many of them are the sole breadwinners and sole caregivers for their family, and I know if you ask them how $7.25 an hour translates to a grocery trip for a family of four or shopping for school supplies or just paying transportation to and from work, they will give you a straight answer: It doesn't. Democrats know it is time they got a raise. Republicans disagree. They said no earlier this year to a raise for 15 million women, and I think the American people deserve to hear why. Women aren't the only ones affected by these challenges, because when working women aren't getting equal pay, when they haven't gotten a raise in years, when they are struggling to make ends meet, that means their families are too--and our economy as a whole is weaker for it. Democrats have put forward ideas throughout this year that would help level the playing field. It has been, I must say, deeply disappointing that time after time our Republican colleagues have simply said no--no to tax and pay discrimination through the Paycheck Fairness Act, no to giving millions of workers across the country--including 15 million women--a raise, no to legislation that would relieve some of the crushing burden of student loan debt, and the list goes on. Republicans rejected so much as a debate on each of those bills just a few months ago, and that is a shame because we know these are issues women and families truly care about. They rightly expect us to be working together to come up with solutions. If Republicans are just going to reject our ideas, I think their constituents deserve to hear what else they have to offer. When I was in my home State of Washington last month I spoke with an entrepreneur named Leilani Finau. Leilani has worked very hard to get her own business off the ground. She told me for the last 12 years she has only been able to pay the interest on her student loans. So more than a decade later she still owes the same amount of principal. I also talked to a woman named Veronica Donoso. She is an administrative specialist and a single mom from my home State. Veronica told me about the financial burdens she is dealing with--not only student loans but childcare for her daughter. She said, ``I try not to let my daughter see my struggles, but I feel terrible knowing that she is suffering too.'' I think women such as AnnMarie, Leilani, Veronica, and a lot of other women across the country deserve to hear more than just no from Republicans when it comes to legislation that could make a difference for them and their families. In the next few days Republicans will have an opportunity to take a different approach than they have so far this year. I am calling on the Senate Republican leader to take advantage of it. We should be able to debate these important issues. Democrats have put solutions on the table, a higher minimum wage, student debt relief, giving women more tools to fight pay discrimination, and more. If Republicans have more to say than no, it is time for them to do it. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I previously filed budgetary aggregates and committee allocations for budget years 2014 and 2015 pursuant to section 116 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. Today, I am adjusting those levels. Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits, while sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act allows the Chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. On August 1, 2014, the Senate passed one bill that is eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act: H.J. Res 76, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Resolution, 2014, which includes $225 million in budget authority and $150 million in outlays in 2014 and $75 million in outlays in 2015 that is designated as emergency funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Consequently, I am revising the budgetary aggregates for 2014 by a total of $225 million in budget authority and $150 million in outlays. For 2015 I am revising the budgetary aggregates by $75 million in outlays. I am also revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Appropriations Committee by $225 million in revised security budget authority and $150 million in outlays in 2014 and by $75 million in outlays in 2015. I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the changes to the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the budgetary aggregates be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I previously filed budgetary aggregates and committee allocations for budget years 2014 and 2015 pursuant to section 116 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. In addition, earlier today, I filed revisions to those levels for S. 2648, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2014. Those adjustments were made as a result of funding designated as emergency requirements in S. 2648 pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Because the Senate did not pass S. 2648, I am now reversing the adjustments I filed earlier today. Consequently, I am revising the budgetary aggregates for 2014 by a total of -$3.571 billion in budget authority and -$25 million in outlays. I am also revising the budgetary aggregates for 2015 by a total of -$2.888 billion in outlays. In addition, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Appropriations Committee for 2014 by -$3.346 billion in nonsecurity budget authority, -$225 million in security budget authority and -$25 million in total outlays. I am revising the outlay allocations to the appropriations committee for 2015 by -$2.888 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the changes to the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the budgetary aggregates be printed in the Record.