Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under quorum calls be equally divided between the majority and the minority.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as many in this Chamber know, I am very proud of the many ways my home State of Washington is leading the way. Our State is an economic leader. We are home to the American aerospace industry, we have a thriving agricultural sector, and dozens of companies creating new products and new jobs with cutting-edge technology. We are a leader in protecting the environment and educating our children. Washington State is also the place that tens of thousands of servicemembers and veterans call home. Last, but not least, I could not be more proud of our State's history of protecting the rights of all of our citizens, including members of the LGBT community. We know in Washington State that it is wrong to discriminate against people. We know that a person's race, religion, or gender have nothing to do with their worth as a human being, and we know that actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity don't either. We get that in my home State of Washington, but we can't stop working until the same is true in all 50 States, and that is why I have come to the Senate floor today. I want to share with everyone a story about a young man by the name of Kris. Kris will be the first to tell you he has not led the easiest of lives. After turning 18 years old and aging out of the foster care system in Texas, Kris found himself homeless at 18 years old in Houston and sleeping on whatever park bench or apartment roof was available to him that evening. As luck would have it, one night while Kris was searching for a public restroom to use, he stumbled on an admissions fair for the University of Houston's downtown campus. Kris had always had ambitions to go to college, but because of his very unstable childhood and minimal income, pursuing higher education was never a priority. Once he learned that night that tuition for the school was waived for foster system alumni, this dream seemed more like a reality so Kris decided to enroll. He went to school, declared his major in social work, and settled into college life. He made friends and participated in extracurricular activities on campus. In fact, Kris got so involved that one of his good friends, Isaac, invited him to be his running mate for the upcoming student government election. Kris was very excited about that idea and realized it was his opportunity to make a real difference for many of the students on campus who had been through some of the same trying experiences he had. Kris and Isaac kicked off their campaign and pursued elective office. Then 1 day--in fact 1 year ago this month--Kris was called into the dean of students office. Kris sat down and the dean reached into his briefcase and pulled out a stack of fliers with Kris's photo on each and every one of them with a big X across his picture. In big, bold letters across the top of the flier, it read: ``WANT AIDS?'' Across the bottom of that flier it read: ``Don't Support the Isaac and Kris Homosexual Agenda.'' On the back of the flier--unbelievably--was a copy of Kris's official private medical record displaying in plain view that Kris was HIV positive. Stunning. I am sure every one of you are as stunned as I was. The dean then informed Kris that these had been found all over the campus. As if the situation couldn't get any worse, the dean told Kris that there is nothing the university or the administration could do about it--nothing. At one point Kris said the administration even accused him of being responsible for these acts. Kris was told the administration's sole responsibility was to simply inform him this was going on and nothing more. They just had to make sure he knew about it. Kris was told that words such as homosexual or AIDS were proper terms, protected speech, and not grounds for punishment. As you can imagine, Kris was devastated. He didn't attend class for weeks after that. His friends, family, and loved ones started to seriously worry about his well-being. In the meantime, the word of this and Kris's status as HIV positive, as you can imagine, spread like wildfire across the campus. While Kris had been out to a small group of friends, there was no going back once the local paper picked up on the story which eventually circulated in the national media. Thankfully, there is a happy ending to this heartbreaking story. In yet another example of how the younger generation in our country is swiftly helping to turn the tide against intolerance, Kris and Isaac won that election, and Kris served a term as the student body vice president. Kris has now moved on to serve in a different but somewhat similar capacity, and that is as a congressional intern here in my office in Washington, DC. I am proud to say that Kris is here with us on the floor today. And just like the fate he found that one night in search of a public restroom, Kris now has another chance to be part of a life-changing experience because today I have come to the floor to reintroduce the Tyler Clemente Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2014. As many of you may remember, this legislation is named after Tyler Clemente. He was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University. Back in 2010, without his knowledge, Tyler's roommate streamed video footage on the Internet of Tyler in his dorm room being intimate with another male. After his roommate and another student invaded his privacy in such a serious way and continued to harass him over the Internet, Tyler leapt off the George Washington Bridge and sadly took his own life. When I sat down and spoke with Kris about this recently, he told me how his story was very close to ending just like Tyler's story. He didn't have anyone on campus to turn to. Since the administration said they were unable to do anything about this hate crime, Kris felt he had no opportunity for closure. Kris told me: For most young people, when things like that happen, we have got to have people who are going to be proactive in helping them. And not someone telling them there's nothing we can do to help you. Quite shockingly, despite statistics telling us that LGBT students are nearly twice as likely to experience harassment when compared to their heterosexual peers, there is no Federal requirement that colleges and universities have policies to protect their students from harassment. That is why I feel so strongly about this legislation. The legislation I am introducing will require colleges and universities that receive Federal aid to establish anti-harassment policies for students no matter who they are or what they identify with, and they will be required to have the language of those policies easily accessible. It will recognize cyber bullying of all kinds as serious means of harassment. Finally, the Tyler Clementi act authorizes competitive grants for schools to initiate or expand programs to prevent these kinds of things from happening, to provide counseling for victims of the accused, and to train everyone on campus about how to prevent this in the future. When I was back home last week in Spokane, I told Kris's story, just as I did today, and talked about the desperate need for these kinds of protections. I am sure, as with many of those listening, most of my constituents were pretty surprised to learn these policies aren't already in place at all of our institutions of higher learning. I couldn't agree more. Why aren't colleges and universities across our country all being proactive in establishing these programs and points of contact for students such as Tyler or Kris who have experienced or could experience such a life-changing event? While many schools currently have successful prevention and counseling programs in place, students shouldn't have to take their health and safety into account when they decide where they are going to study in this country. Kris recounted for me how each day during this horrible experience he would awaken, and there were 5 or 6 seconds where he would feel normal again, as if nothing had happened. But then reality would set in, and it felt as though a ton of bricks had fallen on top of him. Fortunately for Kris, he was able to lean on the campus LGBT community for support during this very trying time. But he said: If I hadn't reached out to the community, I probably wouldn't be here today. Every day going to school felt like a battlefield. Unfortunately, there are others similar to Kris who don't have that point of contact on campus--a supportive parent or a tight-knit group of friends who help them get through these kinds of experiences. I am very proud to be here today, with the support of my outstanding cosponsor, Senator Baldwin, to take a major step to change this. I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to pay tribute to my friend Senator Frank Lautenberg and his staff for their tireless work to craft this original bill which serves as a tremendous honor to the life of Tyler Clementi. No student, whether they are gay or straight or Black or White or Christian or Muslim, should have to face discrimination and harassment in pursuit of their education. While I know it is impossible to eradicate all bad behavior from our society, we have to arm our campuses with the tools and resources necessary to not only efficiently and effectively support the victims but also to take action against those who have perpetrated such senseless crimes. That is why I am here today. I am very proud to introduce this legislation. I wish to thank Kris for his courage in speaking out and his ability to be here today to make sure no other student in our country ever has to go through what he did.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as many in this Chamber know, I am very proud of the many ways my home State of Washington is leading the way. Our State is an economic leader. We are home to the American aerospace industry, we have a thriving agricultural sector, and dozens of companies creating new products and new jobs with cutting-edge technology. We are a leader in protecting the environment and educating our children. Washington State is also the place that tens of thousands of servicemembers and veterans call home. Last, but not least, I could not be more proud of our State's history of protecting the rights of all of our citizens, including members of the LGBT community. We know in Washington State that it is wrong to discriminate against people. We know that a person's race, religion, or gender have nothing to do with their worth as a human being, and we know that actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity don't either. We get that in my home State of Washington, but we can't stop working until the same is true in all 50 States, and that is why I have come to the Senate floor today. I want to share with everyone a story about a young man by the name of Kris. Kris will be the first to tell you he has not led the easiest of lives. After turning 18 years old and aging out of the foster care system in Texas, Kris found himself homeless at 18 years old in Houston and sleeping on whatever park bench or apartment roof was available to him that evening. As luck would have it, one night while Kris was searching for a public restroom to use, he stumbled on an admissions fair for the University of Houston's downtown campus. Kris had always had ambitions to go to college, but because of his very unstable childhood and minimal income, pursuing higher education was never a priority. Once he learned that night that tuition for the school was waived for foster system alumni, this dream seemed more like a reality so Kris decided to enroll. He went to school, declared his major in social work, and settled into college life. He made friends and participated in extracurricular activities on campus. In fact, Kris got so involved that one of his good friends, Isaac, invited him to be his running mate for the upcoming student government election. Kris was very excited about that idea and realized it was his opportunity to make a real difference for many of the students on campus who had been through some of the same trying experiences he had. Kris and Isaac kicked off their campaign and pursued elective office. Then 1 day--in fact 1 year ago this month--Kris was called into the dean of students office. Kris sat down and the dean reached into his briefcase and pulled out a stack of fliers with Kris's photo on each and every one of them with a big X across his picture. In big, bold letters across the top of the flier, it read: ``WANT AIDS?'' Across the bottom of that flier it read: ``Don't Support the Isaac and Kris Homosexual Agenda.'' On the back of the flier--unbelievably--was a copy of Kris's official private medical record displaying in plain view that Kris was HIV positive. Stunning. I am sure every one of you are as stunned as I was. The dean then informed Kris that these had been found all over the campus. As if the situation couldn't get any worse, the dean told Kris that there is nothing the university or the administration could do about it--nothing. At one point Kris said the administration even accused him of being responsible for these acts. Kris was told the administration's sole responsibility was to simply inform him this was going on and nothing more. They just had to make sure he knew about it. Kris was told that words such as homosexual or AIDS were proper terms, protected speech, and not grounds for punishment. As you can imagine, Kris was devastated. He didn't attend class for weeks after that. His friends, family, and loved ones started to seriously worry about his well-being. In the meantime, the word of this and Kris's status as HIV positive, as you can imagine, spread like wildfire across the campus. While Kris had been out to a small group of friends, there was no going back once the local paper picked up on the story which eventually circulated in the national media. Thankfully, there is a happy ending to this heartbreaking story. In yet another example of how the younger generation in our country is swiftly helping to turn the tide against intolerance, Kris and Isaac won that election, and Kris served a term as the student body vice president. Kris has now moved on to serve in a different but somewhat similar capacity, and that is as a congressional intern here in my office in Washington, DC. I am proud to say that Kris is here with us on the floor today. And just like the fate he found that one night in search of a public restroom, Kris now has another chance to be part of a life-changing experience because today I have come to the floor to reintroduce the Tyler Clemente Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2014. As many of you may remember, this legislation is named after Tyler Clemente. He was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University. Back in 2010, without his knowledge, Tyler's roommate streamed video footage on the Internet of Tyler in his dorm room being intimate with another male. After his roommate and another student invaded his privacy in such a serious way and continued to harass him over the Internet, Tyler leapt off the George Washington Bridge and sadly took his own life. When I sat down and spoke with Kris about this recently, he told me how his story was very close to ending just like Tyler's story. He didn't have anyone on campus to turn to. Since the administration said they were unable to do anything about this hate crime, Kris felt he had no opportunity for closure. Kris told me: For most young people, when things like that happen, we have got to have people who are going to be proactive in helping them. And not someone telling them there's nothing we can do to help you. Quite shockingly, despite statistics telling us that LGBT students are nearly twice as likely to experience harassment when compared to their heterosexual peers, there is no Federal requirement that colleges and universities have policies to protect their students from harassment. That is why I feel so strongly about this legislation. The legislation I am introducing will require colleges and universities that receive Federal aid to establish anti-harassment policies for students no matter who they are or what they identify with, and they will be required to have the language of those policies easily accessible. It will recognize cyber bullying of all kinds as serious means of harassment. Finally, the Tyler Clementi act authorizes competitive grants for schools to initiate or expand programs to prevent these kinds of things from happening, to provide counseling for victims of the accused, and to train everyone on campus about how to prevent this in the future. When I was back home last week in Spokane, I told Kris's story, just as I did today, and talked about the desperate need for these kinds of protections. I am sure, as with many of those listening, most of my constituents were pretty surprised to learn these policies aren't already in place at all of our institutions of higher learning. I couldn't agree more. Why aren't colleges and universities across our country all being proactive in establishing these programs and points of contact for students such as Tyler or Kris who have experienced or could experience such a life-changing event? While many schools currently have successful prevention and counseling programs in place, students shouldn't have to take their health and safety into account when they decide where they are going to study in this country. Kris recounted for me how each day during this horrible experience he would awaken, and there were 5 or 6 seconds where he would feel normal again, as if nothing had happened. But then reality would set in, and it felt as though a ton of bricks had fallen on top of him. Fortunately for Kris, he was able to lean on the campus LGBT community for support during this very trying time. But he said: If I hadn't reached out to the community, I probably wouldn't be here today. Every day going to school felt like a battlefield. Unfortunately, there are others similar to Kris who don't have that point of contact on campus--a supportive parent or a tight-knit group of friends who help them get through these kinds of experiences. I am very proud to be here today, with the support of my outstanding cosponsor, Senator Baldwin, to take a major step to change this. I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to pay tribute to my friend Senator Frank Lautenberg and his staff for their tireless work to craft this original bill which serves as a tremendous honor to the life of Tyler Clementi. No student, whether they are gay or straight or Black or White or Christian or Muslim, should have to face discrimination and harassment in pursuit of their education. While I know it is impossible to eradicate all bad behavior from our society, we have to arm our campuses with the tools and resources necessary to not only efficiently and effectively support the victims but also to take action against those who have perpetrated such senseless crimes. That is why I am here today. I am very proud to introduce this legislation. I wish to thank Kris for his courage in speaking out and his ability to be here today to make sure no other student in our country ever has to go through what he did.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, our workforce has changed a lot in the last few decades. Thirty years ago the majority of families with children had only one parent working outside the home. More of the country's low-wage workers were teenagers earning some extra spending money. Today two-thirds of families with children rely on earnings from both parents, and millions of low-wage workers in our country are far less likely to be teens supplementing their allowance and far more likely to be adults struggling to support their families. It has also gotten a lot harder for young people just starting out to find work that puts them on a strong path. There is a very concerning pattern of young people dropping out of the labor force rather than keeping up their search. These are the kinds of trends we need to be thinking about as we look for ways to help today's workforce succeed in today's economy. There are many steps we can and absolutely should take to tackle the barriers our workers and our families are facing. We should start with raising the minimum wage because no one working full time in the United States today should live in poverty. Low-wage workers in today's economy, who are putting in very long hours while raising their children, paying taxes, and trying to pay the bills, deserve a better shot at success. But that is not the last step we should take. As we are looking for ways to expand opportunity for struggling workers and families, we should be using every tool in the box--including our Tax Code. Policies such as the earned-income tax credit have succeeded in helping millions of households lift themselves out of poverty, which is why Republicans and Democrats have come together to strengthen the EITC so many times in the past. But today too many struggling workers and families are left behind under our outdated Tax Code. It is time to build on these efforts to support work, including the critical expansions of the EITC in 2009, which should be made permanent, and we need to update our Tax Code so that it reflects the needs of today's workforce. I am proud to be here today to introduce the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act. It is a bill that would complement critical reforms, such as raising the minimum wage, by providing targeted tax cuts designed for today's workforce. It is paid for by closing wasteful loopholes that both Democrats and Republicans have proposed eliminating. The 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act would put in place a new tax deduction to help struggling families with two workers keep more of what they earn. The way our Tax Code is currently structured, the second earner in a household often pays a higher tax rate on his or her earnings. Making matters worse, when a second earner decides to enter the workforce, the family usually faces many new costs, such as childcare or transportation, and the family can lose eligibility for credits, such as the EITC and other benefits. Add it all up, and many struggling two-earner families today end up taking home a smaller percentage of their paycheck than many of the wealthiest households in America. These realities often discourage a potential second earner, such as a mother who is considering reentering the workforce to return to her professional career. Struggling families face a lot of challenges to getting ahead today. The very least we can do is keep our Tax Code from forcing families to take a half step backward for every step forward, and that is exactly the problem the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act will help to solve. This bill will give our working families a 20-percent deduction on the second earner's income. A mom or dad who goes back into the workforce and brings home an extra $25,000, for example, would get a $5,000 deduction. For a family in the 25-percent bracket, that means $1,250 back in their pocket for groceries, childcare, transportation, or retirement savings. The bill also reflects the reality that workers without dependent children and young workers who are just starting out are being left behind under the current EITC. My colleague Senator Brown has been a leader on this issue. He is a cosponsor of the bill I am introducing today. Unlike low-income workers with kids at home, workers without dependent children receive little or nothing from this credit. As workers file their 2013 tax returns this spring, a single worker with no dependent children is eligible for a maximum credit of only $487. She is entirely phased out of the credit once her income reaches $14,340, which is about what a full-time minimum wage worker would earn in a year. Young, childless workers under 25, who are starting out in a tough labor market, are not eligible at all. In an economy today where more low-wage earners are middle-aged and where young people are struggling to gain a toehold in the job market, it doesn't make any sense. Our bill, the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act, would increase the EITC for workers without dependent children to about $1,400 next year and expand the income range over which workers are eligible for the credit. It would also lower the eligibility age for the childless worker to qualify for the EITC from 25 years old to 21 so that young workers without dependents get the same incentives that have helped so many others get on their feet. The Treasury Department estimated that EITC changes similar to these would help more than 13 million struggling workers climb the economic ladder. As we expand the EITC, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure this credit is going straight to the workers and families who need it, and part of that responsibility is to make sure that the EITC claims are filed correctly. Professional tax return preparers complete 70 percent of these EITC claims. Under our bill, the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut, they would receive twice the current penalty if they don't follow due diligence requirements put in place by the IRS. Workers and families are playing fair, and the biggest corporations should too, and that is why this bill would be paid for by closing loopholes that the biggest corporations take advantage of. The 21st Century Worker Tax Cut would draw on a proposal from my colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is also a cosponsor of this bill. His proposal closes a loophole that lets corporations claim outsized tax breaks by paying their executives stock options instead of regular paychecks. This bill would also stop multinational corporations from shifting profits into tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share. There is bipartisan support for closing those loopholes. Both Democrats and House Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp have proposed eliminating each of them. Updating our Tax Code to give tax breaks to our struggling workers instead of big corporations is the right thing to do. As we continue this important debate about how to expand opportunity to those who are struggling today, we need to make sure we are giving today's workforce the best shot in today's economy. We should increase our outdated minimum wage to give millions of workers a raise, and then Democrats and Republicans need to come together to update our Tax Code and give today's struggling workers the tax relief they deserve. The 21st Century Worker Tax Cut would be a strong, fiscally responsible step toward that bipartisan goal, and I am hopeful we can get this done for our workers as quickly as possible.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, our workforce has changed a lot in the last few decades. Thirty years ago the majority of families with children had only one parent working outside the home. More of the country's low-wage workers were teenagers earning some extra spending money. Today two-thirds of families with children rely on earnings from both parents, and millions of low-wage workers in our country are far less likely to be teens supplementing their allowance and far more likely to be adults struggling to support their families. It has also gotten a lot harder for young people just starting out to find work that puts them on a strong path. There is a very concerning pattern of young people dropping out of the labor force rather than keeping up their search. These are the kinds of trends we need to be thinking about as we look for ways to help today's workforce succeed in today's economy. There are many steps we can and absolutely should take to tackle the barriers our workers and our families are facing. We should start with raising the minimum wage because no one working full time in the United States today should live in poverty. Low-wage workers in today's economy, who are putting in very long hours while raising their children, paying taxes, and trying to pay the bills, deserve a better shot at success. But that is not the last step we should take. As we are looking for ways to expand opportunity for struggling workers and families, we should be using every tool in the box--including our Tax Code. Policies such as the earned-income tax credit have succeeded in helping millions of households lift themselves out of poverty, which is why Republicans and Democrats have come together to strengthen the EITC so many times in the past. But today too many struggling workers and families are left behind under our outdated Tax Code. It is time to build on these efforts to support work, including the critical expansions of the EITC in 2009, which should be made permanent, and we need to update our Tax Code so that it reflects the needs of today's workforce. I am proud to be here today to introduce the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act. It is a bill that would complement critical reforms, such as raising the minimum wage, by providing targeted tax cuts designed for today's workforce. It is paid for by closing wasteful loopholes that both Democrats and Republicans have proposed eliminating. The 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act would put in place a new tax deduction to help struggling families with two workers keep more of what they earn. The way our Tax Code is currently structured, the second earner in a household often pays a higher tax rate on his or her earnings. Making matters worse, when a second earner decides to enter the workforce, the family usually faces many new costs, such as childcare or transportation, and the family can lose eligibility for credits, such as the EITC and other benefits. Add it all up, and many struggling two-earner families today end up taking home a smaller percentage of their paycheck than many of the wealthiest households in America. These realities often discourage a potential second earner, such as a mother who is considering reentering the workforce to return to her professional career. Struggling families face a lot of challenges to getting ahead today. The very least we can do is keep our Tax Code from forcing families to take a half step backward for every step forward, and that is exactly the problem the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act will help to solve. This bill will give our working families a 20-percent deduction on the second earner's income. A mom or dad who goes back into the workforce and brings home an extra $25,000, for example, would get a $5,000 deduction. For a family in the 25-percent bracket, that means $1,250 back in their pocket for groceries, childcare, transportation, or retirement savings. The bill also reflects the reality that workers without dependent children and young workers who are just starting out are being left behind under the current EITC. My colleague Senator Brown has been a leader on this issue. He is a cosponsor of the bill I am introducing today. Unlike low-income workers with kids at home, workers without dependent children receive little or nothing from this credit. As workers file their 2013 tax returns this spring, a single worker with no dependent children is eligible for a maximum credit of only $487. She is entirely phased out of the credit once her income reaches $14,340, which is about what a full-time minimum wage worker would earn in a year. Young, childless workers under 25, who are starting out in a tough labor market, are not eligible at all. In an economy today where more low-wage earners are middle-aged and where young people are struggling to gain a toehold in the job market, it doesn't make any sense. Our bill, the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act, would increase the EITC for workers without dependent children to about $1,400 next year and expand the income range over which workers are eligible for the credit. It would also lower the eligibility age for the childless worker to qualify for the EITC from 25 years old to 21 so that young workers without dependents get the same incentives that have helped so many others get on their feet. The Treasury Department estimated that EITC changes similar to these would help more than 13 million struggling workers climb the economic ladder. As we expand the EITC, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure this credit is going straight to the workers and families who need it, and part of that responsibility is to make sure that the EITC claims are filed correctly. Professional tax return preparers complete 70 percent of these EITC claims. Under our bill, the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut, they would receive twice the current penalty if they don't follow due diligence requirements put in place by the IRS. Workers and families are playing fair, and the biggest corporations should too, and that is why this bill would be paid for by closing loopholes that the biggest corporations take advantage of. The 21st Century Worker Tax Cut would draw on a proposal from my colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is also a cosponsor of this bill. His proposal closes a loophole that lets corporations claim outsized tax breaks by paying their executives stock options instead of regular paychecks. This bill would also stop multinational corporations from shifting profits into tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share. There is bipartisan support for closing those loopholes. Both Democrats and House Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp have proposed eliminating each of them. Updating our Tax Code to give tax breaks to our struggling workers instead of big corporations is the right thing to do. As we continue this important debate about how to expand opportunity to those who are struggling today, we need to make sure we are giving today's workforce the best shot in today's economy. We should increase our outdated minimum wage to give millions of workers a raise, and then Democrats and Republicans need to come together to update our Tax Code and give today's struggling workers the tax relief they deserve. The 21st Century Worker Tax Cut would be a strong, fiscally responsible step toward that bipartisan goal, and I am hopeful we can get this done for our workers as quickly as possible.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to address an issue that has really been on the hearts and minds of those back home in my home State of Washington. On Saturday, as I am sure many of my colleagues heard, the town of Oso, WA--a small, tightly knit town alongside the Stillaguamish River-- was directly hit by a massive landslide. That landslide cut off the town of Darrington, which is just a few miles down State Road 530. Houses over a square mile were simply swept away. We already know we have lost several people, and yesterday we learned there could be well more than 100 who are still missing. So right now in Washington State there are dozens of families who simply don't know if their loved ones are even still alive. Even though Oso and Darrington are 2,300 miles away from the Nation's Capital, our hearts and prayers are with them and their families. I want them to know that in the coming days and weeks and months--and even years, if that is what it takes--all of us will stand with the people of Oso and Darrington and provide any resources they need to recover and rebuild and that they have the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this country, from their Washington to this one. Affordable Care Act Let me change gears a bit and address one of the most significant pieces of legislation for women in my lifetime--the Affordable Care Act. On Sunday this law celebrated its fourth anniversary, serving as a very stark reminder of where our Nation's health care system was just 4 years ago. Four years ago our health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called preexisting conditions such as pregnancy or being a victim of domestic violence. Four years ago women were permitted to be legally discriminated against when it came to insurance premiums and often were paying more for coverage than men. Four years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care, such as mammograms or prenatal screenings and much more. Four years ago insurance companies had all the leverage and all the power, and too often it was women who paid the price. Now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, for the first time women--not their insurance companies or their employers--are fully in charge of their own health care. In fact, women make up over half of the 5 million people who have already signed up for coverage in the new marketplace, and over 47 million women have already gained guaranteed access to preventive health services thanks to the Affordable Care Act. That is why I feel so strongly that we cannot go back to the way things were. While we can never stop working to make improvements, we owe it to the women of America to make progress and to move forward and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs. Unfortunately, there are efforts underway all across the country-- including here today in our Nation's Capital--to severely undermine a woman's access to some of those most critical and lifesaving services that are provided under the Affordable Care Act. No provision of this law has faced quite as many attacks as the idea of providing affordable, quality reproductive health services to the women of America. For this reason I was very proud to lead Members of my caucus in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the two cases being considered there today. Those cases were brought by CEOs who want to take away their employees' right to insurance coverage for birth control, which is guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act. As was the case in the many attempts before this case, there are those out there who would like the American public to believe this conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. To them, it is a debate about freedom--except, of course, freedom for women's access to care. It is no different than when we are told that attacks on abortion rights somehow are not an infringement on a woman's right to choose but it is somehow about religion or States rights; or when we are told that restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting women's ability to make their own family planning decisions, it is somehow about protecting pharmacists; or just like last week when an Alaska State senator proposed placing State-funded pregnancy tests in bars but ruled out providing contraception because ``birth control is for people who don't necessarily want to act responsibly.'' The truth is that this is about contraception. This is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care. This is about women. Allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age. It takes us back to a place in history when women had no voice and no choice. In fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service in the Affordable Care Act on the recommendation of the independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families. After many years of research, we know that ensuring access to effective birth control has a direct impact on improving the lives of women and families in America. We have been able to directly link it to declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health care outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all share. What is at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO's personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low- cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act. I strongly believe every American deserves to have access to high- quality health care coverage regardless of where they work or where they live, and each of us should have the right to make our own medical and religious decisions without being dictated to or limited by our employers. Contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of Americans, who understand how important it is for women and families. In weighing this case, my hope is the Court realizes that women working for private companies should be afforded the same access to medical care regardless of who signs their paycheck. We can't allow for-profit, secular corporations or their shareholders to deny female employees access to comprehensive women's health care under the guise of a religious exemption. It is as if we are saying that because someone is a CEO or a shareholder in a corporation, their rights are more important than the employees who happen to be women. As I sat inside that Supreme Court chamber this morning listening to the arguments being made on both sides, I couldn't help but think: If these CEOs are allowed to evade this law, what would happen to the other legal protections for employees? Could a boss decide not to cover HIV treatment? Could an employer opt out of having to comply with antidiscrimination laws? Corporations should not be able to use religion as a license to discriminate. I am proud to be joined in filing the brief by 18 other Senators who were in office when Congress enacted the religious protections through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 and again when we made access to women's health care available through the Affordable Care Act in 2010. We are Senators who know that Congress did not intend for a corporation or its shareholders to restrict a woman's access to preventive health care. We all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and good economic policy. We know it will mean healthier women, healthier children, healthier families, and a healthier America. And we all know it will save money for businesses and consumers. I know many of our colleagues believe that repealing the Affordable Care Act and access to reproductive health services is somehow a political winner for them. But the truth is that this law and these provisions are winners for women, for men, for children, and for our health care system overall. So I am very proud to stand with my colleagues who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law do not get taken away from the women of America, because politicians and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women get the care they need at a cost they can afford. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am sure all our colleagues have seen the news over the past few days from my home State of Washington where we are suffering from a devastating natural disaster. For those who haven't seen the coverage, on Saturday the town of Oso, WA--a very small, tightly knit community on the Stillaguamish River-- was hit by a massive landslide. It has cut off the town of Darrington just a few miles up State Road 530, and houses over a square mile have been swept away. We know already we have lost eight people. This morning we learned there are more than 100 people still missing, and right now in my home State of Washington there are dozens of families who do not know if their loved ones are still alive. These are moms and dads, they are sons and daughters, they are neighbors and friends who in the blink of an eye saw water and earth wipe away their homes and their entire community, and now many of them don't know if their loved ones survived. I was in Arlington, WA, yesterday, where the search and rescue operations are being coordinated. It is just down the road from where the slide hit, and I want to talk for a few minutes this evening on the Senate floor about this tragedy. Oso and Darrington are very small towns like a lot of others in this country. The population of Oso is 180 people. These are the types of places where everyone knows everyone, where they stop to say hello, and where everyone lends a helping hand. It is impossible to describe the scope of this devastation. There isn't a single person who hasn't been impacted in some way by this tragedy. There also isn't a single person anywhere who isn't doing everything they can to help. I saw neighbors who were there providing food, providing shelter, offers of all kinds of hope, help, hugs, and prayers. First responders are risking their lives every minute, braving very dangerous conditions to look for survivors. People across my State are offering help and donations, anything they can to assist these communities that are experiencing the unthinkable. We have grocery stores offering food to the families who need it and to the rescue workers. The Red Cross is there on the ground. Tribal leaders from the local community are coming to offer what they can. I wanted my colleagues to know that this weekend I saw some of the worst devastation I have ever witnessed in my home State. At the same time I also saw firefighters who hadn't slept. They refused to stop as they searched for survivors. I saw families refusing to give up hope, and I saw communities that need our entire State and our entire country to stand with them now. Even though Oso and Darrington are 2,300 miles away from the Nation's Capital, our hearts and prayers are with the families in those communities tonight. In the coming weeks and months--and even years if that is what it takes--all of us need to stand with the people of Oso and Darrington and Arlington and provide the Federal resources they are going to desperately need in this recovery and rebuilding operation. I want them to know they will have the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this country going out to the real Washington as they see this through. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I come to the floor today to thank the bipartisan leadership that has brought us to the place where we are considering reauthorizing this important child care and development block grant bill. In my home State of Washington there is a young woman named Janelle who is a single mom. She lives in southeast Seattle and was looking for opportunities to support her family. But before she could go back to school or participate in a job-training program so she could advance her career, she had to find affordable childcare for two of her children. Thankfully, with the assistance of this Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, she was able to get some subsidies to help cover the costs. She now works. She works part-time, and she is attending school and becoming a surgical tech. This Federal grant program expands opportunities to parents such as Janelle and so many families across our country by helping them with the cost of childcare. That is why I support this effort to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program. We all know the cost of childcare has soared in recent decades. The Census Bureau found that childcare costs have nearly doubled since the 1980s, and that high cost hits low-income families especially hard. For working families who live below the poverty line, the cost of childcare can eat up more than 30 percent of their monthly income. For single parents, if they only have one income, it is an even bigger burden. When low-income parents don't have access to reliable and affordable childcare, they can't work. They can't go back to school. They can't advance their skills with job training. They are stuck. That, as we know, is particularly problematic for women. Women are more likely than men to cut back their hours at work or quit their jobs all together so they can take care of their children. In the long run, that puts women on an uneven playing field with their male counterparts, both in terms of earnings and of opportunities to advance in the workplace. We have to break down those barriers. We need to make sure that working doesn't become cost prohibitive for parents, and we have to strengthen access for low-income families so they can get affordable, quality childcare. This bipartisan Child Care and Development Block Grant Act is part of the solution. These grants expand opportunities for parents with low income. It allows them to work, to go to school or to get job training--all with the peace of mind that their kids are taken care of in a safe childcare center. In 1990 President George H. W. Bush signed this grant program, as we know it, into law. Today it helps 1.6 million kids get childcare. To participate a parent has to have a job or be enrolled in school or in a job training program. That has helped countless parents across our country. I want to mention a woman who has contacted us. She is a single mom whose name is Star. She lives in Skagit County, a rural part of my State. She wants to advance her skills to support her family, as so many people do today. With this assistance she is able to go to a community college 1 hour away from home, knowing that her kids are OK in a reliable childcare program. There is nothing more important to a parent than the safety and well-being of their child. I have said many times: You do a better job at work if you know your kids are safe. If you are worried about whether your kids are OK, you can't do a good job at work. Reauthorizing this program is a critical part of this, and it helps parents such as Star feel comfortable when they are away from their kids. In this reauthorization bill we are looking at ways to improve these grants. We know that stability is critically important for a young child's development. But before kids could lose their spot in childcare, if their parents didn't meet the eligibility requirements, even temporarily, that disruption in care is exactly what we need to work to avoid. I have seen this a lot in my work on behalf of foster kids, military students, and homeless children. These are highly mobile populations. Now with this legislation and the work that has been done, we have ensured that these kids have a mandatory 12 months to access that care so they don't have that disruption of stability in their lives. That is critically important. This bill also reduces barriers for homeless families to access childcare and will train more childcare providers in identifying and serving homeless kids and families so they can get the support they need. I truly appreciate the inclusion of those provisions. For many families it can be very difficult, as we know, to find quality childcare. This legislation authorizes a toll-free hotline and a Web site so parents can get and find good-quality care in their own community. Those provisions are why I am such a strong supporter and so delighted we are at the point where we are able to pass this critical piece of legislation. Let me end by saying in Washington State there is a young couple named Edward and Constance. They are struggling to make ends meet on a very low income. They are working, and they are studying to ensure that times won't always be as tough as they are today. Because of childcare assistance with this grant money, Edward now works full time. When Constance is not working at her part-time job, she is training to become a dental assistant. Supporting parents such as this couple, giving them these opportunities to make sure their kids are in a safe, quality childcare program is what the grants are about in this program. I urge our colleagues to support this legislation, and again, I thank the Senators who have participated in making this a strong bipartisan proposal. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the issue of climate change is a pressing issue and so I wish to commend the work of my colleagues, and to reiterate my concerns. Climate change is real. Unfortunately, while so many of my colleagues across the aisle talk about the need to address our debt to avoid burdening future generations, too many of these same Senators refuse to take action to address the climate debt we are passing on. Most frustrating of all, we know what can be done to fix this problem. We know the solutions to reduce pollution and emissions that cause climate change create good-paying jobs. Jobs that put money back in families' pockets through low-cost energy sources and increased efficiencies in homes. These solutions make our Nation more energy independent, and our businesses more globally competitive. They give us cleaner air and water, and protect the health of our children and grandchildren. I know that we can take these steps because I have seen it in my home State of Washington. In Washington, our biodiesel producers are replacing imported oil with clean, renewable, home-grown fuels. Companies like McKinstry, who have made a home in the Northwest, are leaders in helping cities, hospitals, and others create energy efficient, sustainable buildings. In the past, the United States has led the world in innovative ways to create energy, but recently we have ceded our clean energy leadership to countries like China and Germany because too many have stood in the way of making necessary investments. When we passed the Bipartisan Budget Act this past December, we proved that Democrats and Republicans can put ideology aside and work together to make progress on our Nation's challenges. Climate change is no less a challenge than any of the other issues we face, and we have a moral obligation to address it. As I have said, addressing this challenge will create good-paying jobs here at home in fields like pollution management, energy efficiency, and renewable energy goods. And best of all, we can pass a healthier planet on to our children. I'm hopeful that Republicans and Democrats can find common ground and come together to move us forward.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to recognize our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives who last week cast the 50th vote in their effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act--their 50th. I know it is a tradition to give gold in celebration of a 50th milestone. I instead would like to gift my colleagues on the other side of the aisle with a reality check. More specifically, today I would like to talk about a certain group of people who arguably stand to lose if their antics continue. So I have come to the floor this afternoon to set the record straight on the Affordable Care Act and how it is working for women in America. It is not much of a stretch for me to say the Affordable Care Act is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation for women in my lifetime. Not because of the battles we fought to get it to the President's desk, not necessarily because of the size or scope of the law, but because of the tangible and positive impact it has had and will continue to have on the health and well being of women in America. Four years ago health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called preexisting conditions such as pregnancy or being a victim of domestic violence. Four years ago women were permitted to be legally discriminated against when it came to insurance premiums and were often paying more for coverage than men. Four years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care, such as mammograms and prenatal screenings and more. Four years ago the insurance companies had all the leverage. Four years ago too often women were the ones who were paying the price. That is why I am proud today to highlight just how far we have come for women in the past 4 years. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, women have been treated fairly with increased access to affordable health insurance, benefits, and services. Deductibles and other expenses have been capped so a health care crisis does not cause a family to lose their home or their life savings. Women can use the health care marketplaces to pick quality plans that work for them and their families. If they change jobs or have to move, they are able to keep their coverage. Starting in 2012, we saw these benefits for women expand even further. Additional types of maternity are now covered. Women are now armed with proper tools and resources in order to take the right steps to have a healthy pregnancy. Women now have access to domestic partner violence screening and counseling, as well as screening for sexually transmitted infections. Now women finally have access to affordable birth control. As public servants here, it is our job to help our constituents access Federal benefits available to them, particularly when it comes to health care. Since 80 percent of women are not only making health care choices for themselves but also their families and loved ones, it is our responsibility to serve as a guide when it comes to understanding how to best access these benefits. It might mean putting them in touch with a navigator to ensure they are getting the most affordable health insurance available or making them aware of an enrollment event where they can get information on available coverage options. But our responsibilities do not end there. It is our job to have an open, honest discussion about what the Affordable Care Act means for our constituents and to talk about ways to responsibly improve it. Instead, as we saw in the House last week, others have spent the better part of the last 4 years trying to take away the critical benefits that I just talked about, trying to score cheap political points on an issue that can literally mean the difference between life and death. I can understand why some of our colleagues disagree with certain parts of this law or maybe how it was implemented, but what I cannot understand is why anyone elected to Congress would decide to simply ignore real life stories of their own constituents whose lives were changed the day this law took effect. It is people like Susan Wellman. She lives in Bellingham in my home State of Washington. She is self employed. She has had to pay for individual insurance. Every year she has watched her health care costs rise higher and higher. It got to the point where she was paying $300 monthly premiums with an $8,000 deductible, all for a plan she described as ``paying for nothing.'' So as soon as Susan could access health care through the Washington State health care exchange, she jumped at the chance. She spoke on the phone with a real live person. She was able to sign up for an affordable plan in a matter of minutes. Now Susan is on a plan that costs her $125 a month instead of $300. It is a plan that has a $2,000 deductible that actually pays for things. Guess what. She can afford to go to the doctor, not just in the case of an emergency but for a physical or a mammogram that could save her life, not to mention thousands and thousands of dollars in health care costs. That kind of preventive care is good for women like Susan. It is good for her family, and it is good for this country because when more people have access to preventive care, it makes health care cheaper for every single one of us. It is also good for women like Carrie Little. She is a certified organic farmer who lives in Orting, WA. A few weeks ago she was working outside when one of the rams on her farm attacked her, leaving her with bruises and a broken leg. Fortunately, because of her new health plan, her visit to the emergency room was painless. Well, as painless as it could be with a broken leg. But her hospital bills, her cast, and her visits to the orthopedic physician were paid in full. Until last year, Carrie had been spending half of her income for a catastrophic-only health plan, forcing her to pay out of pocket for even the most basic of care. Carrie wrote an op-ed, and I want to quote from it. She said: What a welcome relief that my new health plan covers preventive care, like mammograms, immunizations, and yearly doctor visits. I can keep the primary care doctor I have been seeing for years. And I no longer worry about family members getting kicked around due to pre-existing conditions. Thank goodness. In agriculture, profits and losses shift like the weather, so for our community, it is crucial that health premiums stay affordable. Or women like Ingrid Gordon. Ingrid is a small business owner from Seattle who immediately enrolled in coverage when it became available. After an hour on the Web site, she told us, with minimal technical difficulties, Ingrid was enrolled and received her insurance card in the mail a few days later. Since her coverage began on January 1, Ingrid had her first dental and physical exams in 14 years. She cured a skin disorder thanks to prescription medicine. She scheduled a colonoscopy now that she is 50, and finally had her bothersome knee x- rayed. All of those exams, visits and prescriptions would have cost Ingrid thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket just 1 year ago. But thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Ingrid paid a grand total of zero dollars in copays. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, women like Susan and Carrie and Ingrid are now fully in charge of their own health care, not their insurance company. That is why I feel so strongly that we cannot go back to the way things were. While we can never stop working to make improvements, of course, we owe it to the women of America to make progress and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs. As we all know, unfortunately, there are efforts underway all across the country, including here in our Nation's capital, to severely undermine a woman's access to some of the most critical and life-saving services that are provided by the Affordable Care Act. No provision of this law has faced quite as much scrutiny as the idea of providing affordable, quality reproductive health services to the women of America. We have seen attempt after attempt to eliminate access to abortion services and low-cost birth control all while restricting a woman's ability to make personal decisions about her own care. I guess we should not be surprised. The truth is that the tide of these politically driven, extreme efforts continues to rise. In 2013 our Nation saw yet another record-breaking year of State legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to reproductive services. In fact, in the past 3 years the United States has enacted more of these restrictions than in the previous 10 years combined. That means that now more than ever, it is our job to protect these kinds of decisions for women, to fight for women's health, and to ensure that women's health does not become a political football. For this reason I was very proud to lead members of my caucus in filing a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., where a secular corporation and its shareholders are trying to get in between a woman and her health. Just like the many attempts before this case, there are those out there who would like the American public to believe that this conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. To them it is a debate about freedom, except of course freedom for a woman to access her own care. It is no different than when we are told that a tax on abortion rights is not an infringement on a woman's right to choose; they are about religion or State's rights; or when we are told that restricting emergency contraception is not about limiting a woman's ability to make her own family planning decisions; it is about protecting pharmacists; or just like last week, when an Alaskan State Senator said he did not think there was a compelling reason for the government ``to finance other people's recreation.'' That was in reference, of course, to contraception coverage in health care. In fact, after doing some research, this State Senator concluded that since birth control costs about ``four or five lattes'' the government should really have no reason to cover this cost to women. The truth is that this is about contraception. This is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access her own health care. This is about women. Allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age, and it would take us back to a place in history when women had no voice and no choice. In fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service in the Affordable Care Act on the recommendation of an independent, nonprofit institute of medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families. After many years of research, we know ensuring access to effective birth control has a direct impact on improving the lives of women and their families in America. We have been able to directly link it to declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all should share. But what is at stake in this case now before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO's personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Every American deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage, regardless of where they work. Each of us should have the right to make our own medical and religious decisions without being dictated to or limited by our employers. Contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of Americans who understand how important it is for women and their families. In weighing this case, my hope is that the Court realizes women working for private companies should be afforded the same access to medical care regardless of who signs their paychecks. We can't allow for-profit secular corporations or their shareholders to deny female employees access to comprehensive women's health care under the guise of religious exemption. It is as if we are saying: Because you are a CEO or a shareholder in a corporation, your rights are more important than your employees', who happen to be women. That is a slippery slope that could lead to employers cutting off coverage for childhood immunizations if they object to that idea or prenatal care for children born to unmarried parents if they think it is wrong, or blocking an employee's ability to access HIV treatment. I was proud to be joined in filing the brief by 18 other Senators who were here when Congress enacted the religious protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and who were also here when Congress made access to women's health care available under the Affordable Care Act of 2010. They are Senators who know Congress did not intend for a corporation or, furthermore, its shareholders to restrict a woman's access to preventive health care. In the coming weeks, as the Supreme Court prepares to begin oral arguments in this case, these Senators and our colleagues who support these efforts will echo those sentiments, because we all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and good economic policy. It means healthier women, healthier children, healthier families, and it will save monies for our businesses and consumers. I know many of our colleagues here believe that repealing the Affordable Care Act and access to reproductive health services is a political winner for them. But the truth is this law and these provisions are a winner for women, for men, for our children, and our health care system overall. I am very proud to stand with my colleagues who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law don't get taken away from the women of America, because politics and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women get the care they need at a cost they can afford. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, I am very proud to join with all of our colleagues to talk about an action which is needed. Climate change is real. We have seen it in the overwhelming scientific evidence which is occurring today. It is not just about science. It is impacting all of us. We see the rise in asthma attacks. We see the impacts in my home State of Washington. I hear this concern from my constituents, and we know rising sea levels are threatening all of us. We see it in our rural communities where we are seeing drought. We are seeing it in our forests where the dry weather is turning our woods into kindling. We see it in our local fishing communities where ocean acidification is hindering our shellfish development. These impacts have enormous costs. They are devastating to our families and communities who are suffering from droughts, superstorms, and wildfires. But it is not just an environmental issue; it is not just a health issue. It is a budget issue. It is not just about rising temperatures; it is about rising costs. As chair of the Budget Committee, I can tell you this issue is a burden to our taxpayers. Federal disaster recovery spending alone has increased year after year as the number and size of weather-related disasters rise. These costs will continue if we don't act.

Mrs. MURRAY. We know the jobs we can create with new economic opportunities of climate change will help bring us out of the budget deficits we face. I congratulate all of our colleagues who are here tonight to talk, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on Tuesday I came to the floor to talk about one issue that we are rarely divided on in this building; that is, our duty to keep the promises we have made to provide not only care but opportunity to all those who have honorably served in our Nation's Armed Forces. The comprehensive veterans legislation that is now before us is really the test for many Members of Congress. Can we all put politics aside for the good of our Nation's veterans to keep that promise? Can we show these heroes that despite our differences, we will work as diligently toward getting them the benefits and care they have earned as they worked for our Nation? Now, unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are indicating they would now prefer to put politics over promises, under the guise of an alternative to this bill. Given what we have seen recently on other bills--supported, by the way, by a majority of Americans--we should not be surprised, but I truly did think and hope this bill would be a different story because it contains ideas from both Democrats and Republicans and because this is an issue which has historically united this body and because we have all pledged to do whatever it takes on behalf of our veterans. So once again where we are today is that some of our colleagues have decided to use unrelated issues to sour this entire effort for our veterans and their families who stand to benefit the most from this comprehensive legislation we are offering. With their alternative bill they have now proposed to strip away life-changing programs for veterans who are looking to take the skills they learned on the battlefield to the boardroom. With this alternative, they have decided to halt the expansion of opportunities for our caregivers who are integral to the health and well-being of some of our most vulnerable heroes. But among these and many other examples of the Republican effort to derail this landmark legislation, there is one issue I find most egregious; that is, their shameful opposition to provide our catastrophically wounded heroes with access to reproductive services they so desperately need to start a family. This shouldn't be a political issue. This is about giving veterans who have sacrificed everything every option we have to help them fulfill a simple dream of starting a family. As we all know, our men and women in uniform have become increasingly susceptible to reproductive, spinal, and traumatic brain injuries due to the changing weapons of war. But as we know, thanks to modern medicine, many of these servicemembers are being kept alive and they are returning home. In fact, as of the new year, there are 2,348 servicemembers who are living with reproductive, urinary or pelvic injuries as a result of this war. Similar to so many of our veterans, these men and women come home and want to return to their lives. They want to find employment and, importantly, they want to start a family. Yet what they find when they go to the VA is that the fertility services that are available don't meet their extremely complex needs. In fact, veterans who suffer from these injuries find that the VA is specifically barred from providing more advanced assisted reproductive techniques such as IVF. They are told, despite the fact that they have made such an extreme sacrifice for all of us, we cannot provide them with the medical services they need simply to start a family. These are families such as SSG Matt Keil and his wife Tracy. Despite returning home from Iraq as a quadriplegic, Staff Sergeant Keil and Tracy started talking about exploring the possibility of starting a family together, but because his injuries prevented him from having children naturally, Tracy turned to the VA and began to explore her options for fertility treatments. But because of that VA ban they were told no and turned away. They were out of options, and the Keils decided this was important enough to them that they were willing to pay out-of-pocket, out of their own pockets, for IVF treatment in the private sector to the tune of $32,000 per round of treatment. Thankfully, Staff Sergeant Keil and Tracy welcomed twins Matthew and Faith into the world after only one round of treatment. Tracy said after their birth: The day we had our children something changed in both of us. This is exactly what we had always wanted, our dreams had arrived. The VA, Congress and the American people have said countless times that they want to do everything they can to support my husband or make him feel whole again and this is your chance. Having a family is exactly what we needed to feel whole again. Please help us make these changes so that other families can share in this experience. Tracy and Matt aren't alone. There are many men and women out there who share this common thread of a desperate desire to fulfill their dream of starting a family, only to find that the catastrophic wounds they sustained while defending our country are now preventing them from seeing that dream through. It shouldn't be that way. Unfortunately, Republicans are indicating they will not join us today in overturning this absurd and antiquated ban. Apparently, they would rather our Nation's heroes spend tens of thousands of dollars of their own money in the private sector to get the advanced reproductive treatments they need to start a family. They don't see the problem in letting our veterans' marriages dissolve because of the stress of infertility, in combination of course with the stress of readjusting to life after such a severe injury, driving relationships to a breaking point. Any servicemember who sustains this type of extremely serious injury deserves a lot more. We came very close actually to making this bill a reality in the last Congress. In fact, Tracy Keil, whom I just talked about, watched from the gallery when we unanimously passed this legislation--unanimously. But I am, once again, imploring Republicans to stand and explain to our men and women in uniform--who I know are paying very close attention to this debate--why they now want to turn their backs on the catastrophic, reproductive wounds that have become a signature of these wars. Only yesterday I spoke to a crowded room of heroes from Disabled American Veterans and told them the heartbreaking story of the Keil family that I just shared and why this legislation is so important. If their cheers and applause are any indication, I would say they wholeheartedly agree our women veterans deserve this, our male veterans deserve this, and certainly our military families deserve this. I am on the floor to ask my colleagues a simple question: Are you willing to tell those brave men and women who didn't ask those questions when they were put in harm's way that you are going to let politics get in the way of our commitment to them? The catastrophic wounds we have seen from injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan have meant that our veterans' dreams to start a family have been put on hold because of the tremendous cost of IVF services. We believe that is a cost of war, and we believe the VA absolutely should cover it, and it is unacceptable to let unrelated issues stand in the way. Even the major veterans service organizations and their leaders have said to us that issues such as the Iran sanctions--that the other side wants to offer--have no place in this comprehensive veterans legislation, people such as American Legion Commander Daniel Dellinger, who said: ``Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but it cannot be tied to S. 1982, which is extremely important as our nation prepares to welcome millions of U.S. military servicemen and women home from war,'' or IAVA founder and CEO Paul Rieckhoff, who called this comprehensive legislation ``a game changer that will change the trajectory for millions of veterans for decades to come.'' As serious and as timely as they may be, unrelated issues such as Iran sanctions are just calculated attempts to dismantle our bipartisan effort to expand health care, education opportunities, employment, and benefits for our Nation's heroes. We can't allow our commitment to them to lapse or get caught up in separate issues of political grandstanding. I thank the Senator from Vermont and all of his staff for their tireless work on this comprehensive legislation they have brought to the floor. I truly hope our colleagues will reconsider opposing this commonsense and important step to give those who have sacrificed everything the reproductive treatments they need to start a family. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I come to the floor this afternoon to take some time to talk about a law this Chamber passed in 2009. I wish to talk a little bit about what it means to serve in this body, what our responsibilities are, and why our constituents sent us here in the first place. I have served in the Senate for more than 20 years and I have seen my share of controversial legislation. I have seen Democratic bills that Republicans couldn't stand; I have seen Democratic bills that Democrats wouldn't vote for; and I have seen bills that pretty much everybody opposed. But what I have seen in the last 4 years since the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress and signed by the President is something new altogether. Since the day that law passed, I have seen some of my Republican colleagues set reason, and some of their basic duties as public officials, completely aside, all in opposition of a law that means millions of Americans have access to affordable, quality health insurance they couldn't get before. It is a law that means millions of young people, many of them fresh out of college, are able to stay on their families' insurance plans. It is a law that says it is illegal for insurance companies to charge women more money just because they are women. It is a law that has provided millions of Americans with access to free preventive screenings and health care such as colonoscopies, mammograms, and flu shots. It is a law that says if you are an American and you have a preexisting condition, it is illegal for an insurance company to turn you away. Since 2009, I have seen some of my colleagues simply refuse to acknowledge those facts about the law. I have watched them time and time again not listen to or hear stories of people in their own States whose lives have been changed by the Affordable Care Act and others who simply need access to get the benefits that are theirs. Some of my colleagues have even passed laws that make it harder to get covered under the Affordable Care Act. One of our responsibilities as Senators, as public servants, is to help our constituents access the Federal benefits that are available to them, particularly when it comes to health care. That might mean, perhaps, putting someone in touch with a navigator to help make sure they are getting the most affordable health insurance plan. It may be helping them become aware of an enrollment event in their State where they can learn how to get covered. But our responsibilities don't end there. We also have to have an open, honest discussion about what the Affordable Care Act means for our constituents and talk about ways to improve it. Instead, what we have seen is some of our colleagues who have spent the better part of 4 years try to turn this law into a bogeyman and trying to score cheap political points on an issue that can literally mean the difference between life and death. I can understand why some of our colleagues disagree with parts of this law, and I have heard from some people who had challenges, honestly. We have to look and say can we fix this in a way that makes it work better for you. But what I can't understand is why anyone elected to Congress would decide to simply ignore real-life stories of their own constituents whose lives were changed the day this law took effect. I can't understand why anyone would ignore an opportunity to make this law better, because that is not why we were sent here. We were sent here to listen to our constituents and fight to make sure our laws work for them. I want to give some examples from my home State of Washington about people whose lives have been changed by the Affordable Care Act, people whose stories have been pretty much ignored in Washington, DC. I know later this afternoon several of my colleagues will be doing the same thing, so I hope everybody can turn off Fox News for a little while, not listen to Rush Limbaugh, and listen to some real stories of real live Americans who have been impacted by this law. I encourage them to go home and listen to some of the men and women in their own States, because the stories I am going to share are not unique. I will start with the story of Susan Wellman from Bellingham, WA. She is self-employed and has had to pay for individual health insurance. Every year she has watched her health care costs rise higher and higher. It reached the point where she was paying $300 monthly premiums with an $8,000 deductible. All were what she described as ``paying for nothing.'' So as soon as she could, Susan got access to health care through our Washington State exchange, and she was so happy to have that chance. She spoke on the phone with a real-live person, and she was able to sign up for an affordable plan in just a few minutes. Now Susan is on a plan that costs her $125 a month instead of $300--$125 instead of $300--and it is a plan that has a $2,000 deductible, not an $8,000 deductible, and she says it actually pays for things. Guess what. She can now afford to go to a doctor not just in the case of an emergency but for a physical or a mammogram that could save her life, not to mention thousands of dollars in health care costs. That kind of preventive care is good for Susan, and it is good for her family. It is also good for this country because when more people have access to preventive care, it makes health care cheaper for every single one of us. Another person I have heard from whose life was changed by the affordable health care act is a man named Don Davis. He is 59 years old, and he actually goes by ``Reverend Don.'' He is a pastor in Seattle, and he is also a volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club. As the pastor of his church, he doesn't get any health care through his job. He doesn't even have a salary. That meant for a long time that Reverend Don didn't have health insurance. So when he was hospitalized back in 2008 for severe headaches, he was only able to receive an MRI through charity care. That MRI showed that Reverend Don had several brain tumors, but when the doctors wanted to do more testing and provide more care, he didn't have the insurance to pay for that. This is a man who has asked for nothing in life, who woke up every day willing to give to others, but he couldn't get the basic care he needed when he got sick. Reverend Don is healthy today. He is serving his community. Because of the Affordable Care Act, he now also has health insurance. He signed up with a navigator at the local YWCA. Now, if he gets a headache, he can afford to go to the doctor. So because of the Affordable Care Act, Reverend Don can afford to dedicate his life to people in his community and he doesn't need to worry that the cost of the health care he needs might be denied him. Finally, I want to talk about a couple in Bellingham, WA, named Rod Burton and Sarah Hill. Rod is one of millions of Americans who have had the utterly maddening experience of being denied insurance because of a preexisting condition. In Rod's case his preexisting condition was a congenital heart defect. Under our old system Rod was deemed uninsurable by most insurance plans from the moment he was born. So for a long time Rod found himself forced into purely catastrophic insurance with a very high premium that wouldn't cover much of anything. That changed for him with the Affordable Care Act. Despite his heart defect, Rod was able to get a plan that covers him and his wife, and they found out they were eligible for tax credits to help pay for it. So today both Rod and Sarah are covered through a silver plan with lower premiums than the plan that only covered Rod if the worst happened. I know we have a number of other colleagues who are here to speak, and I note some of them are here to tell stories from their own States, but I would like to note that I only told three stories today of people who are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act. These are only 3 people among the 400,000 others in my home State of Washington who have now signed up for care through the exchange, Washington Healthplanfinder, and they are only 3 people among the 4 million people who have signed up across the country. For the most part, their stories are not unique. Millions of other Americans face the same kind of health care problems they do. It is time that we stop ignoring that reality. It is time that we do our job and help our constituents get the health care coverage they deserve and can now get under this law. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank you, Madam President. And I thank the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for putting together this very good piece of legislation we are about to consider. It is no secret that in our Nation's Capital we are sharply divided on any number of economic and political issues that are facing average Americans right now. But I have come to the floor today to talk about one issue on which we are rarely divided; that is, our duty to keep the promise we have made to provide not only care but opportunity to all those who have honorably served in our Nation's Armed Forces. It unites even the most unlikely partners because we realize we have all made a promise to those who have signed up to serve, and we all need to keep it because there is so much on the line. When our brave men and women volunteered to protect our Nation, we promised them we would take care of them and their families when they returned home. We need to ask ourselves, are we doing enough for our Nation's veterans? So this comprehensive legislation before us today really is the test for a lot of Members of Congress. Can we put politics aside now for the good of our Nation's veterans? Can we show these heroes, despite our differences, that we will work as diligently toward getting them the benefits and care they have earned as they have worked for our Nation. I hope we can. And I say that because the investments in this bill are a lot more than numbers on a page. They are life-changing programs for veterans who are looking to take the skills they have learned from the battlefield to the boardroom. It is support for the countless victims of military sexual assault, who are desperate to come out of the shadows. It is providing the dream of having a family to those who are suffering from some of the most devastating wounds of war. It is timely investment in the very biggest priorities of our Nation's heroes. So I would like to use the remainder of my time to highlight just a few of the investments that are included in this bill and how they translate to the lives of our veterans and their families. For those who have worn our Nation's uniform, particularly for those young veterans who have spent the last decade being shuttled back and forth to war zones half a world away, the road home is not always smooth, the redtape is often long, and the transition from the battlefield to the workplace is never easy. This should not be the case. We should not let the skills and training our Nation's veterans have already attained go to waste. We cannot afford to have our Nation's heroes unable to find a job to support their families, without an income that provides stability, or without work that provides the pride and sense of purpose that is so critical to the transition home. That is why I am proud that in this legislation we are considering today we reauthorize and build on many of the provisions that were part of my VOW to Hire Heroes Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in 2011. Double-digit unemployment rates for veterans used to be the norm, but since VOW became law the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans is now on par with nonveterans. And while recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics proves that these programs work, we still have more work to be done, and that is addressed in this legislation. I also believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who wear the uniform. It is the courage of these Americans to volunteer to serve that is the Pentagon's greatest asset. Our servicemembers volunteer to face danger, to put their lives on the line, to protect our country and our people. It is no longer a secret that sexual assault continues to plague the ranks of our military services, which is another issue this comprehensive legislation addresses. I think we all agree it is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow servicemember--the person whom you rely on to have your back and be there for you--would commit such a terrible crime. Even worse is the prevalence of these crimes. It is appalling that they commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform. The National Defense Authorization Act that we passed last year took some historic action to help servicemembers access the resources they need to seek justice without fear, including a provision I authored to create a new category of legal advocates called special victims' counsels who would be responsible for advocating on behalf of the interests of the victim. But we still have a long road ahead of us before we put an end to these shameful acts and meanwhile provide all the necessary resources to those who have, unfortunately, been impacted. Thankfully, the chairman's legislation aims to do just that with provisions to improve the delivery of care and benefits to veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military. When our best and brightest put on a uniform and join the U.S. Armed Forces, they do so with the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. But that sacrifice should not have to come in the form of unwanted sexual contact from within the ranks. Finally, I wish to talk today about a provision that has been one of my top priorities in the Senate for a while now. It is a provision that builds upon our effort to improve VA services for women veterans and veterans with families. As we all know, with the changing nature of our conflicts overseas, we have been seeing the brutal impact of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, which means we are now seeing more and more servicemembers-- both male and female--increasingly susceptible to reproductive, spinal, and traumatic brain injuries due to the weapons of war. Thanks to modern medicine, many of these servicemembers are being kept alive, and they are returning home. Like so many of our veterans, these men and women come home looking to return to their lives, to find employment, and often to start a family. Yet what they find when they go to the VA today is that the fertility services that are available do not meet their very complex needs. In fact, veterans suffering from these injuries find the VA is today specifically barred from providing more advanced assisted reproduction techniques, such as IVF. They are told that despite the fact that they have made such an extreme sacrifice for our country, we cannot today provide them with the medical services they need to start a family. These are veterans such as SSG Matt Keil and his wife Tracy. Staff Sergeant Keil was shot in the neck while on patrol in Iraq in 2007--6 weeks after he married the love of his life, Tracy. The bullet went through the right side of his neck, it hit a major artery, it went through his spinal cord, and it exited through his shoulder blade. Staff Sergeant Keil instantly became a quadriplegic. Doctors told Tracy, his wife, that her husband would be on a ventilator for the rest of his life and would never move his arms or his legs. Well, Staff Sergeant Keil eventually defied the odds and found himself off that ventilator and beginning the long journey of physical rehabilitation. In fact, Tracy and her husband started talking and exploring the possibilities of having a family together. Having children was all they could talk about once they started to adjust to their new normal. With Staff Sergeant Keil's injuries preventing him from having children naturally, Tracy turned to the VA and began to explore her options for fertility treatments, but because of that VA ban she was turned down. So Tracy and Staff Sergeant Keil decided instead to pursue IVF through the private sector. Out of options, they decided this was important enough to them that they were willing to pay out of pocket to the tune of almost $32,000 per round of treatment. Well, thankfully, on November 9, 2010, just after their first round of IVF, Staff Sergeant Keil and Tracy welcomed their twins, Matthew and Faith, into the world. Tracy told me--and I want to quote her: The day we had our children something changed in both of us. This is exactly what we had always wanted, our dreams had arrived. The VA, Congress and the American People have said countless times [to us] that they want to do everything they can to support my husband [and] make him feel whole again and this is your chance. Having a family is exactly what we needed to feel whole again. Please help us make these changes [to the law] so that other families can share in this experience. Well, Tracy and Matt are not alone. There are many men and women out there who share this common thread of a desperate desire to fulfill their dream of starting a family, only to find that catastrophic wounds they sustained while defending our country are now preventing them from seeing that dream through. As we all know, it should not be that way. Our Nation's heroes should not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector to get the advanced reproductive treatments they need to start a family. They should not have to watch their marriages dissolve because of the stress of infertility in combination with the stresses of readjusting to a new life after severe injury, driving relationships to a breaking point. Any servicemember who sustains this type of serious injury deserves a lot more. We came very close to making this bill a reality last Congress. In fact, with Tracy Keil sitting up in the gallery--like so many of our heroes who have joined us today--with Tracy watching, the Senate unanimously passed this legislation. Unfortunately, what happened was that some Republicans in the House of Representatives refused to take up this bill and pass it. So time ran out last year and we were not able to get it to the President's desk. But this effort is not over. This provision was the very first piece of legislation I introduced in this Congress, and there is excellent momentum to get it done. This is about giving our veterans, who sacrificed everything, every option we have to help them fulfill the simple dream of having a family. It says we are not turning our backs on the catastrophic reproductive wounds that have become a signature of these wars. It says to all those brave men and women who did not ask questions when they were put in harm's way that we will not let politics get in the way of our commitment to you. This provision in the bill will reverse this troubling barrier to care and will bring the VA in line, finally, with the military which does provide these services under TRICARE. Our women veterans deserve this. Our male veterans deserve this. Our military families deserve this. I am here today to urge my colleagues to support this bill, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014. Our veterans do not ask for a lot. They should not have to. They have done everything that has been asked of them. They have been separated from their families through repeated deployments. They have sacrificed life and limb in combat. They have done all of this selflessly and with honor to our country. We cannot allow our commitment to them to lapse or to get caught up in any kind of unrelated amendments or political grandstanding. So I thank the Senator from Vermont and his staff for their tireless work to bring this legislation to the floor. I hope we do the right thing now and get this legislation passed and get this legislation to the desk of the President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, section 114(d) of H.J. Res. 59, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels filed on January 14, 2014, pursuant to section 111 of H.J. Res. 59, for a number of deficit-neutral reserve funds. These reserve funds were incorporated into the Bipartisan Budget Act by reference to sections of S. Con. Res. 8, the Senate-passed budget resolution for 2014. Among these sections is a reference to section 313 of S. Con. Res. 8, which establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for a farm bill. The authority to adjust enforceable levels in the Senate for a farm bill is contingent on that legislation not increasing the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023. I find that the conference agreement on H.R. 2642, the Agricultural Act of 2014, as reported on January 27, 2014, fulfills the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for a farm bill. Therefore, pursuant to section 114(d) of H.J. Res. 59, I am adjusting the budgetary aggregates, as well as the allocation to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the revisions be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, last night President Obama laid out an optimistic vision for a great nation that must never stop working to become even greater. When the President gave his first State of the Union in February of 2009, our economy was losing over 700,000 jobs a month. Wall Street firms had collapsed and taken Main Street businesses with them and economists were not sure how deep it would go or if it would tip from a great recession into a true depression. Families across the country were huddled around kitchen tables talking late into the night trying to figure out how they were going to stay in their homes or send their kids to college or even put food on their table. People who had gone to work every single day of their adult lives and had not had to update their resume in 20 years didn't know how they were going to pull their lives together if they got that pink slip. Workers who had jobs they thought were secure were panicking knowing that if things continued to go wrong, nobody was truly safe. A lot has changed in 5 years. It has not been perfect. It certainly has not been smooth. We were not able to do nearly enough, and we still need to do far more. Last night President Obama was able to talk about the progress we have made since he inherited the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. He was able to talk about the 46 months of straight private sector growth, about an unemployment rate that has come down from dangerous heights. He talked about the work that still remains to help millions of workers still trying to get back on the job. He articulated a vision not just for bolstering our still fragile economic recovery but also for continuing the great American tradition of leaving our children with a stronger nation than the one we inherited from our parents--a vision of a country that makes sure every child has an opportunity to work hard, contribute to their community, and succeed to the best of their ability. He spoke of a country that doesn't just have economic growth at the top that may or may not trickle down but that has broad-based prosperity built from the middle out and a vision of a country that offers workers and families the stability and security they expect when they put in a lifetime of hard work. President Obama talked about ways he is going to make this year a year of action, and I know that is what the American people are expecting. Some of that will come through executive action and public- private partnerships, but a lot of what we need to do depends on us in Congress. Over the past few years Congress has been lurching, as we all know, from crisis to crisis, stumbling from one artificial deadline to the next, and too often engaging in petty partisan bickering instead of solving problems for the families we all represent. At the end of last year, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and I worked together to show the American people it didn't have to be this way. When we sat down together in a budget conference that Democrats had been trying to start for 7 months, we faced an awful lot of skepticism. Many people were hoping we could reach a deal and avoid another crisis. However, they were far more confident that this budget group would not succeed where so many others had failed. Chairman Ryan and I decided to listen to each other. We searched for common ground and we made some compromises. We knew we were never going to agree on everything, but we didn't think that should mean we couldn't agree on anything. We wanted a deal, not a fight, and we were able to put partisanship aside to do the right thing for the American people. Our 2-year budget deal was a step in the right direction. We proved that bipartisanship was possible in this divided government, that Democrats and Republicans could break through the bitterness and rancor and work together and reach an agreement. That deal rolled back the damaging across-the-board cuts and prevented a government shutdown. It moved our country forward, but we can't stop now because the vast majority of Americans understand our economy simply is not working the way it needs for people like them. We need to do more to expand economic opportunities for the families and small business owners and communities across the country who are looking to us to get this right. They see the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations continue to take advantage of an unfair Tax Code filled with special interest loopholes and giveaways. They see fewer and fewer opportunities for workers to find a job or earn enough for a stable middle-class life or send their kids to college. They watch as their government cuts back on critical investments in long-term and broad-based economic growth, and they want more than partisan bickering from their elected representatives. They want real action. We will spend a lot of time over the next few months talking about many of the policies President Obama talked about last night, but I wish to focus on a few he mentioned that impact women and their economic opportunities in particular. We need to face the reality that working women across the country-- and working moms in particular--are struggling to find work that pays a living wage at a time when they are balancing being both the breadwinner and caretaker in so many families. When we talk about creating opportunity in America, we need to focus on the fact that women continue to be paid 77 cents for every $1 a man earns, and they make up two-thirds of all minimum-wage workers. We need policy changes that focus on all workers but also help women catch up if we are truly going to create economic opportunity that expands the middle class and strengthens all of our families. I was very glad to hear President Obama announce last night that he will be raising the minimum wage for Federal contractors. We need to build on that to give millions more women and men in this country access to a raise and make sure that working hard and having a job is rewarded. This is something we will be moving on in Congress in the near future, and I am hoping Republicans decide to put politics aside on this and work with us to get this done. I was also very glad to hear President Obama double down on his commitment to a national preschool initiative that would not only help our youngest children and pay dividends in future economic growth but would empower millions of women who would be able to go to work and give back to their communities. This is not just a policy for me, it is personal. It is what got me into politics in the first place, and it is something that has driven me ever since. As a former preschool teacher, I saw in my own classroom that when young children get the attention they need early, they will be miles ahead of their peers on the path to success. I saw the students I had who had been taught to simply raise their hand to ask a question or stand in line to go to recess; they were the ones who were more prepared to tackle a full curriculum when they got to school. It is not just my personal experience. Study after study after study has made it clear that beginning to educate our children at an early age means they will be less likely to be held back, less likely to require special education, less likely to engage in criminal activity, and ultimately they will be more likely to graduate from high school and earn more. Investing in preschool is overwhelmingly supported, and it is supported by the American people. In fact, the most recent polls show that over 80 percent of Americans believe we should pursue this across the country. It is strongly supported by the many people who truly understand the impact it will have on the ground. I have talked to law enforcement officials who said they believe that early education is the key to reducing crime. Business and innovation and education leaders have seen the long-term impact that investing in early education has on our children and on our communities. We have to make these investments in our children and our future and Congress needs to act. Every day we wait is another opportunity lost. These are just a few of the policies President Obama talked about that I am ready to get work on. The President also talked about the clear need to reform our immigration system, support our veterans and our wounded warriors, reform our bloated and unfair Tax Code, and invest in our Nation's infrastructure priorities. The American people are now expecting their elected officials to work together to tackle those issues, and many more, over the coming months and years. I am at the table. I am ready to build on that bipartisan foundation we laid with the budget deal, but I am very worried that while the President and many of us in Congress are talking about working together to move the country forward, we have some Republicans who are already talking about dragging us backward into another needless crisis. That is absurd. We went through this just a couple of months ago. There is no reason for Republicans to put this country through this again. Republican leaders proved at the end of last year that they were not going to actually follow the tea party off the cliff and let the government default. After a lot of drama and partisan posturing and economic pain for millions of families, Republicans dropped their demands and joined Democrats to reopen the government and avoid a default. Republican leaders have said they are not going to let the country default this time either, but they now seem unable to stop playing games with this issue to make the tea party happy. I will be very clear on the floor: Democrats are not going to negotiate over whether the government should pay its bills. If the Republicans continue down this path of empty threats and taking hostages and dangerous demands, they will get exactly what they got last time they tried to play politics with our economic recovery-- nothing. I call on my Republican colleagues to stop working on a wish list of debt limit demands and hostages and stop thinking about the new threats they are going to make to our economy and to the American people and join us at the table to work on the real issues we need to address. Democrats want to work with Republicans to tackle our challenges fairly and responsibly. That is what the President talked about last night. It is what we are here to talk about today. But as Chairman Ryan and I showed just a few months ago, the way for both sides to get what they want is through compromise and negotiation, not hostage-taking and not threats. The American people expect us to work together. They want more deals and fewer fights, and I know Democrats are ready to get to work. I am hopeful Republicans will work with us to make this year of action in Congress a reality. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleagues from Connecticut and Wisconsin for their strong voices in support of a woman's right to make her own health care decisions in this country. I appreciate them being here today to talk about that and to stand with me to remind our colleagues that 41 years ago last week, just about 400 yards from where we are standing today, the course of history for women in the United States was changed forever. After over one century of struggle, a new generation of American women had access to safe and legal abortion. With one case, American women gained the ability to make their own decisions about their own health care and their own bodies. At a time when some Members of this body were far too young to remember, women stood up to the restrictive laws of States and the Federal Government and to the men who at that time wrote them. I would like to think that after four decades, many of those who want to make women's health care decisions for them have come to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is settled law. But unfortunately that notion is quickly shattered with one look at our legislatures across the country and efforts right here in Congress. In fact, tomorrow the House of Representatives is slated to vote on their misleadingly named ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' That bill severely undermines a woman's access to insurance coverage of comprehensive health care and fails to allow her to get the care she needs, even when her own health is at risk. It is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate access to abortion services while restricting a woman's ability to make personal decisions about her own care. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. The truth is that the tide of these politically driven, extreme, and unconstitutional laws continues to rise. In 2013, our Nation saw yet another recordbreaking year of State legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to abortion services. In fact, in the past 3 years, the United States has enacted more of these restrictions than in the previous 10 years combined. That means that now, more than ever, it is our job to protect this decision for women, to fight for women's health, and to ensure that women's health does not become a political football. For that reason today I will, along with 18 other Members of my caucus, file a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., v. Sebelius. Just as in the many attempts before this case, there are those out there who would like the American public to believe that this conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. To them, it is a debate about freedom--except, of course, for the freedom of women to access their own care. It is no different than when we are told that attacks on abortion rights aren't an infringement on a woman's right to choose, they are about religion or States' rights, or when we are told that restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting women's ability to make their own family planning decisions, it is about protecting pharmacists, or when last week we were told that a certain former Republican Governor's comments about women's libido was a ``tone'' issue rather than a direct reflection of the Republican Party's misguided and arcane policies. The truth is this is about contraception. This is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care. This is about women. Allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age and takes us back to a place in history when women had no voice or no choice. In fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service in the Affordable Care Act on the recommendation of the independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and their families. After many years of research, we know ensuring access for effective birth control has a direct impact on improving the lives of women and families in America. We have been able to directly link it to declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health care outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we should all share. But what is at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO's personal belief trumps a woman's right to access free or low- cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Every American deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage, regardless of where they work, and each of us should have the right to make our own medical and religious decisions without being dictated to or limited by our employer. Contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of Americans who understand how important it is for women and families. In weighing this case, my hope is the Court realizes that women working for private companies should be afforded the same access to medical care regardless of who signs their paycheck. We cannot allow for-profit, secular corporations or their shareholders to deny female employees' access to comprehensive women's health care under the guise of a religious exemption. It is as if we are saying that because you are a CEO or a shareholder in a corporation, your rights are more important than your employees who happen to be women. That is a very slippery slope that could lead to employers cutting off coverage for childhood immunizations, if they object to it, or prenatal care for children born to unmarried parents, if they thought that was wrong, or an employee's ability to access HIV treatment. I am proud to be joined in this effort by 18 other Senators who were here when Congress enacted the religious protections through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 and who also were here when Congress made access to women's health available through the Affordable Care Act in 2010. They are Senators who know that Congress never intended for a corporation--or furthermore, its shareholders--to restrict a woman's access to preventive health care, because we all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and good economic policy. We know it will mean healthier women, healthier children, and healthier families. And we know it will save money for businesses and consumers. So today we are taking another step forward to uphold the promise we made to women and provide this access broadly, and I believe our Nation will be better for it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 10 a.m.