Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Virginia to finish his statement, for me to have 8 minutes of morning business, and then allow our colleagues on the other side to respond.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. There is no one in this body more passionate to do the work to get us to a balanced bipartisan deal, to put the budget deficit and the budget issues behind us, and to get our country back on track than the Senator from Virginia. I know he wants to get to a conference committee as badly as I do--not to demand that we only have our position but to work with others to find a bipartisan solution. As he so eloquently stated, it has been more than 100 days now since the Senate did pass a budget, and we have tried now 15 times to take the next step to move to a bipartisan conference with the House. Every time we have asked, we have been blocked by a tea party Republican with the support of the Republican leadership. I understand that for some factions in the Republican Party, ``compromise'' is a dirty word. That may explain why they have offered up excuse after excuse for blocking the regular budget order we are trying to work toward. They refuse to allow a conference before we get to a so-called preconference framework. They demand we put preconditions on what can be discussed or talked about in a bipartisan conference, to claiming that moving to a budget conference--which leading Republicans called for just months ago--was somehow now not regular order, to most recently claiming we need to look at a 30-year budget window before we look at the major problems we have in front of us right now, when we can--and must--do both at the same time. I know there are significant differences between our parties' values and our priorities. Some of us--Democrats and Republicans--think this is a reason to come together and try to reach a bipartisan deal in a budget conference now. It has been heartening to hear from Senators McCain and Collins and many other Republicans who have chatted with me about why they believe we need to have a formal bipartisan negotiation move on this. Unfortunately, there is a small group of Senators who would prefer to throw up their hands and stall until we reach a crisis, when they think they can get a better deal. Last week, I was home in my State, similar to most Senators, and I talked to a lot of Americans who don't understand that kind of approach. They run their businesses and help their communities and support their families by compromising every single day. They can't afford to wait to reach agreements until the very last minute, because when that happens, they have to deal with the consequences. But that is exactly what my Republican colleagues are doing to thousands of my families in the State of Washington. Because Republicans will not allow us to come to the table, the automatic cuts from sequestration are impacting everything from children who depend on Head Start to our national security. What is more, many of the same colleagues will try to tell you that sequestration is not impacting American families. As the Senator from Virginia just talked about, I can tell you firsthand that the impacts are real. For thousands of families in my home State, these become a reality tomorrow morning. That is because furloughs for the Department of Defense employees begin this week--equivalent to a 20-percent pay cut for 650,000 defense workers nationwide. Bases in my home State of Washington are being affected, and the first furlough date at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State is tomorrow. So instead of going to work, thousands of workers in my State will go home. The 9/11 call center and the fire department will be understaffed. Airfields are going to be shuttered except for emergencies. The military personnel office is closed. The substance abuse center is closed. The Army Medical Center is going to close clinics, and even the Wounded Care Clinic is going to be understaffed. I am reminded of one worker I met last week, Will Silba. Will is a former marine, an amputee. He works now as a fire inspector, and he told me that because of these furloughs he is going to have to get a second job. He is going to struggle with his mortgage payments. While these furloughs are going to directly impact thousands of people and civilian employees, the leaders at Lewis-McChord have made it very clear that the furloughs are going to hurt our soldiers. They are going to limit their access to medical care. They are going to cut back on the family support programs. They are going to make it tougher to find a job when they finish their military careers. Why? Because our colleagues refuse to work together. To me, this is unacceptable. Because some Republicans would like to preserve the harmful cuts from sequestration despite these kinds of impacts, we have a $91 billion gap between the House and the Senate appropriations levels for next year. If we do not resolve that gap, we are headed for another round of uncertainty and brinkmanship, another unnecessary burden on our economic recovery and the millions of Americans who are looking for work every day. Some of my Republican colleagues say they are fine with that. In fact, House Republicans are reported, right now, to be busy working on a debt limit ransom note--right now--and so far that ransom note sounds quite a lot like the Ryan budget. As you know, the budget we did pass here in the Senate was very different, but that is exactly why we have to resolve our differences in conference. That is where we come together in a public fashion and talk about our differences and work out agreements. I believe we have an opportunity, a window of opportunity over the next few weeks to do what Americans across the country have asked us to do--compromise and confront these problems before we head back to our home States for the work period in August. We do not have a lot of time, but I am confident that if those of us who can see working together as a responsibility rather than a liability come to the table, we can get a fair bipartisan agreement. By the way, I was very discouraged to hear just this week from some tea party Republicans--many of the same ones who are now blocking us going to conference--who are already talking now about shutting down the government in order to defund ObamaCare. Not only do they want to push us to a crisis, but they want to do that in order to cut off health care coverage for 25 million people and reopen that doughnut hole we know so much about, causing seniors to pay more for their prescriptions, and end preventive care for seniors, and the list goes on. This is an absurd position. We should not be talking about shutting down the government. I really hope responsible Republicans reject this approach and work with us on real solutions, not more political fights. My colleagues and I are going to continue urging the Senate Republican leadership to end their tea party-backed strategy of manufacturing crises and allow us to do the work we were sent here to do and go to a conference. I urge them to listen not just to Democrats but to many Members of their own party who want to get to a budget conference and allow us to get to work to solve the Nation's problems. Unanimous Consent Request--H. Con. Res. 25 Today I come to the floor to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appointment conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side: the motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenues; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote in relation to the motions; that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; and that all the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I will object, but let me just say this. What the Senator is requesting is that we tell our conferees before they ever get to the conference committee what they can do on a specific issue. What I offered in my original offer is to have a vote on that, which is how we do this here. The Senator is requesting not that we have a vote but that we have a demand. I respect the Senator from Florida. He has worked very hard, as he stated, on immigration reform. He is working now to try to get the House to pass that. At some point they will go to conference. What he is saying is that when his bill goes to conference, what he wants to do is allow any Senator on this floor to make a demand of that conference committee before they get there--not a vote, not a majority vote, but a demand from a small minority of what is going to be in that conference. We cannot agree with that. What I have offered is a vote on that, which is what we are--a democracy. You are allowed to vote, and if enough Senators agree with that position, that is what we would direct the conference to do. But this body is not built on a demand from one Senator or a small group of Senators on a conference before we go there. We are a democracy. So I again object to his request as he said and renew my request, which will allow a debate and a vote on that issue he is requesting, as happens in a democracy.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are here today because, unfortunately, the financial burden on our Nation's college students dramatically spiked overnight 8 days ago, including for over 100,000 students across my home State of Washington, where 56 percent of college graduates leave school with a student loan debt, and the average amount they owe is more than $22,000. Just when they are getting started on their careers, instead of buying a house or buying a car or just paying the bills, their student loan bills are piling up with interest. Now interest rates for Federal student loans, which have been kept at a low rate of 3.4 percent, have doubled to 6.8 percent. For these students and for millions of students across the country, that is a tax hike of $1,000. That is not fair to students, and it is certainly not good for our economy. Congress has to act to fix it. This isn't just an abstract issue for me; it is very personal. Pell grants and student loans were what allowed my six brothers and sisters and I to go to college after my dad got sick and had to leave his job. They are what made college affordable, and they are what allowed each one of us to pursue a career and give back to our communities. Because our government was there to help my family and help us through hard times, those seven kids in my family grew up to be a firefighter, a lawyer, a computer programmer, a sports writer, a homemaker, a middle school teacher, and a Senator. In my book, that was a good investment by our country and our government. My family's story is far from unique. In fact, last week I traveled around my home State of Washington listening to student after student after student describe the real-life impact this rate hike would have on them. Students such as Elizabeth from Vancouver, WA: She is a sophomore at the University of Washington. She comes from a family of five children with immigrant parents who work hourly low-wage jobs. She told me growing up, the idea of paying for college was overwhelming, but thanks to scholarships and grants and loans she is able to pursue her dream of becoming a broadcast journalist. However, her part-time work-study position barely covers her bills, and she says she is constantly plagued by stress as she worries about how she is ever going to overcome what she calls her ``debt sentence.'' The reality is this is a simple issue. College is already too expensive for students such as Elizabeth, and Congress shouldn't make it worse. So I am very proud to join my colleagues in supporting the Keep Student Loan Rates Affordable Act to extend the 3.4 percent interest rate, and I urge our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us and pass it. With student loan debt now exceeding $1 trillion, students and their families deserve due process and thoughtful consideration of issues such as financial aid. Students have already contributed billions to deficit reduction, but the problem is the Senate Republican leadership has insisted in all of their proposals that we balance the budget on the backs of struggling students and their families. So far, they have refused to put the interest of students and tomorrow's middle class ahead of Tax Code spending that benefits the wealthy. What they have introduced is a bill that includes no cap on how high student loan rates could go--something CBO tells us would mean students could be locked in at rates over 8 percent in just a few short years. In effect, it would be better to do absolutely nothing now than to take up and pass the Republican bill. I bet everybody listening knows a family member or a coworker who is up to their neck in student debt. It is a weight that keeps them from helping to grow our economy or start a family or take risks with their careers, and it is a weight that is not easily shed. We can't continue to do this to generation after generation of college students and expect to be able to compete in the 21st-century economy. We have to do everything we can to remove barriers to education, not erect new ones. The clock has run out. We need to act now because for millions of Americans, affordable college has been the ticket to the middle class, and we can't allow it to slip away. We can't allow access to college to become unattainable for so many of our families. I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in investing in America's future by reversing this student loan increase and making college more affordable for America's middle class. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the passage of the comprehensive immigration reform bill. For the first time in a generation, the Senate has passed a bill that brings us one crucial step closer to sensible immigration laws. This is a historic day for the Senate, for our economy, and for families across our country, but there is more work to be done before this bill becomes law. When we began consideration of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, I gave a speech in which I quoted from a book that John F. Kennedy wrote while serving in this Chamber. He wrote, ``Immigration policy should be generous; it should be fair; it should be flexible. With such a policy we can turn to the world, and to our own past, with clean hands and a clear conscience.'' Today we can turn to the world proudly, with a clear conscience, and say this bill lives up to our ideals and our American values, to say that it will provide millions of aspiring Americans the opportunity to come out from the shadows, realize their dream of citizenship, and be strong threads in the rich fabric of this great nation. From the beginning of this process, I have been very clear with my colleagues regarding my priorities for immigration reform, and this bill takes steps to achieve each of them. First, this legislation provides a real pathway to citizenship for the 230,000 undocumented people already living in Washington State. These families already work alongside us, attend our churches, and send their children to our schools--and they deserve the benefits and responsibilities of American citizenship. This bill also makes important reforms to help our economy, from agricultural businesses in central and eastern Washington to our expanding high-tech corridor in the Puget Sound. It can and should do more, but this legislation includes provisions to treat immigrants with dignity and help reunite families separated by our outdated laws. Finally, it provides Washington State's 35,000 DREAMers, children brought to this country at a very young age, with the chance they deserve to succeed in America. This bill allows thousands of undocumented families in my home State of Washington who work hard and play by the rules to leave the shadows--to no longer live in constant fear of being separated from their loved ones. I am also pleased this bill offers important reforms in the employment-based immigration system. There is a clear need to expand legal avenues for workers to immigrate to the United Sates in a safe and orderly manner. The size of this workforce must be flexible to meet the needs of our diverse industries and must be responsive to changes in our economy. This bill is a step in the right direction. It will allow the immigration system to be more responsive to the needs of the marketplace and will enable businesses to attract and retain a capable, stable, and legal workforce. This bill isn't perfect and it is not the bill I would write on my own, but it is the result of a bipartisan compromise, and I am proud to support it as a strong step in the right direction. Although I have concerns about some elements of the bill, it makes critical changes to our broken system that will strengthen our country and grow our economy. Over the past weeks, I offered a number of amendments that would have made commonsense improvements to the bill. Importantly, three of my amendments would have made this bill more inclusive of women. Too often women in the developing world are not offered the same educational and employment opportunities afforded to men in those countries. This fact places women at a competitive disadvantage under a merit-based system that rewards education, job promotion, and career advancement. That is why I worked with my colleagues, Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to introduce my first amendment, which would provide 30,000 green cards for occupations held by lower income immigrant women in the United States. Our amendment would accomplish this by creating a third tier in the merit- based point system that would have complemented the highly educated tier one system and the moderate to lower skilled tier two system. I was deeply disturbed to learn that some pregnant women in immigration detention are shackled, including during labor and delivery. While the Department of Homeland Security recently adopted performance standards that prohibit the shackling of pregnant detainees absent extraordinary circumstances, a significant portion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, detainees are held in county jails by local law enforcement. These holding centers are not required to follow the Department's standards. Shackling during labor, delivery, and postpartum recovery increases the risk of harm to the fetus, it inhibits medical staff's ability to respond to emergencies, and it increases the discomfort and pain of the childbirth. That is why I introduced my second amendment to extend the prohibition against shackling to include all pregnant women held for immigration purposes, including those held under an immigration detainer issued by a Federal agency. This bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, provided for certain exceptions to the ban due to extraordinary circumstances, while also prohibiting certain types of restraints known to cause tripping, falling, or that stop a mother from using her hands to break her fall. Simply put, a woman should never have to endure the pain, embarrassment and extreme discomfort of being restrained while giving birth to her child, nor should she have to fear she will lose her child because of the way in which she is detained. Our immigration enforcement policy should always uphold our commitment to civil liberties and safeguard the dignity that every mother deserves. My amendment would have done just that. My third amendment would have extended protections for the most vulnerable, including domestic violence survivors whose visa depends on their abuser's sponsorship. I drafted a comprehensive amendment designed to protect immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, and dating violence. It would have extended judicial review in certain cases, would have modified the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, cancellation of removal process, and would have provided training for Federal officers on vulnerable populations, among other protections. It would have also extended certain safety-net benefits to immigrant survivors to help them escape violence, gain independence, and recover from physical and emotional abuse. I am going to keep working to improve this bill as it continues in the legislative process, and when it becomes law, I am going to work to ensure it is implemented in a way that works for families and communities. We must start by pairing unprecedented spending on new border security with responsible oversight, so I will be working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure our efforts to secure the border do not violate the civil liberties of American families and communities. I am proud my amendment to address warrantless stops and searches in broad border zones is included in this bill, but for immediate border communities, we can't stop there. That is why I offered an amendment that would have strengthened the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by amending current law to clarify its jurisdiction and the scope of its authority to conduct investigations, require greater transparency in its reporting requirements to Congress, and ensure the Department's timely implementation of its recommendations and findings. Essentially, the amendment would have provided the office with the tools it needs to conduct effective oversight, provide substantial and timely responses, and to protect the Department's commitment to civil rights and liberties. I also authored an amendment that would have required the Department to report on the use of force during immigration enforcement. By better understanding how and why force is being used, the Department would have been better equipped to ensure its policies and training promote and protect effective and humane enforcement practices. While I am committed to proving Federal law enforcement and border security the resources, training, and personnel they require, Congress must also ensure detainees are treated with respect and dignity. I will be working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure our efforts to secure the border don't violate the civil liberties of American families and communities. I have also introduced a number of other amendments over the past weeks, including an amendment to provide DREAMers access to affordable college education. I was disappointed these amendments were not added to the bill, but I will continue to work with my colleagues to push for these commonsense reforms. Although I have concerns about some elements of the bill, it makes critical changes to our broken system that will strengthen our country, grow our economy, and finally allow millions of families to gain citizenship and chase their dreams without fear of deportation. This sweeping legislation is a step in the right direction, and I am proud to cast my vote today in support of S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has now been 95 days since the Senate passed a budget, and I have come to the floor myself now 6 times to ask unanimous consent to move to conference. My Democratic colleagues have asked unanimous consent to move to conference another eight times. After every request, a Senate Republican has stood up and said no--no to the opportunity to work on a bipartisan budget deal. I want to say to the Republicans who are blocking a bipartisan budget conference: Enough is enough. We have heard so many excuses--refusing to allow conference before we get to a so-called preconference framework; putting preconditions on what can be discussed in a bipartisan conference; claiming that moving to a budget conference-- which leading Republicans did call for just a few months ago--was somehow not regular order; to, most recently, claiming we need to look at a 30-year budget window before looking at the major problems we have right now in front of us--which, I add, is unacceptable, because the American people rightly expect us to work on both at the same time. Hearing these changing excuses week after week has been frustrating not just for Democrats but for many of my Republican colleagues as well. A large group of us--Republicans and Democrats--think that although we do have major differences between the parties' values and priorities, we should at least come to the table and try to work out a bipartisan deal. That is what American people do every day. And when there is a disagreement, they can't afford to play a game of chicken and hope the other person gives in, because when that happens, important work cannot get done. Kids don't get picked up from school, bills don't get paid, small businesses miss a major opportunity for expansion. Every day regular Americans avoid those kinds of situations, and we here in the Senate should at least try to do the same. There are extremely important things that are not getting done in the Senate right now because some Republicans want to embrace the harmful top-line spending level in sequestration which has a major gap between the House and Senate appropriations levels for the next fiscal year. We don't have much time left to resolve that gap. After we come back from next week's State work period, we will have 1 month to try to come to an agreement or else we are going to find ourselves in a very tough situation in September. We could, once again, be working against the clock to avoid a harmful crisis. The last thing the American people-- who come together and resolve differences every day--want to see is another round of manufactured crises coming out of Washington, DC, and they do not have to. We still have time. I know there are leaders on both sides of the aisle who would strongly prefer to solve problems rather than to get into yet another political fight that creates uncertainty for our families, our businesses, our country, and our economy. I am confident that if those of us who prefer commonsense bipartisanship over artificial crisis work together, we can reach a fair agreement and show the American people our government does work. I urge Senate Republican leaders to drop the tea party-backed strategy of delaying until the next crisis, and allow the Senate to join the House in a formal bipartisan budget negotiation. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees will be in order from each side-- motion to instruct relative to the debt limit, and motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; and further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am not sure whether there has been an objection.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would object. What the Senator is asking for is a precondition on a conference committee without the consideration of this whole Senate. What I have offered to him and to this body in my unanimous consent request is a vote on the motion to instruct conferees, which is what occurs in the Senate if we want to put any precondition onto a budget. I reject his unanimous consent, and I ask again my unanimous consent request.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Washington objects to the request as modified, and again reasks my original unanimous consent request.

Mrs. MURRAY. I make my unanimous consent request.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my bill, S. 112, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act. I have introduced similar legislation in previous Congresses; in fact, this is the third time I have made a legislative push to protect these treasured spaces. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, for the first time, and I wish to thank my colleague from Oregon for all his tremendous work to get a package of public lands bills through the Senate for the first time in over 4 years. Passage of this bill is a tremendous step forward and is the result of over 5 years of work by me, my staff, and Congressman Reichert, who has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives several times, and Congresswoman DelBene, who now represents the lands this bill would protect. We are fortunate to have bipartisan support for this effort, and we are fortunate as Washingtonians to have unique and beautiful natural landscapes that deserve protection from unrequited development and pressure. This legislation would protect, in perpetuity, over 22,000 acres and provide the protections of the Wilderness Act to a richer diversity of ecosystems and lower elevation lands. These protections will ensure diverse recreational opportunities and protect one of the closest blocks of wild forests to an urban center in the country. As I mentioned, Congressional action on public lands have been stymied in recent years. I was pleasantly surprised we were able to find a path forward, and today I wish to confirm my support for tribal treaty rights and for access to these spaces to be designated as wilderness for traditional uses by tribal members. I firmly believe the Federal government has a responsibility to uphold the treaties signed by our predecessors with Native American tribes--a fact that has been upheld by the Federal courts. As the author of this legislation I want to reaffirm that regarding lands defined within the bill located in the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, nothing in this act alters, modifies, diminishes, or extinguishes the treaty rights of an Indian tribe with respect to hunting, fishing, and gathering rights as protected by a treaty. Again, I wish to thank Chairman Wyden and ranking member Murkowski for working together to find a path forward to protect public spaces. And I wish to thank Senator Cantwell for her steadfast support of this proposal. I look forward to working with my House colleagues to protect this important landscape. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. No. Go ahead.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from California for coming out today to let everyone know how extreme this bill is and how important it is that we send the message that this bill is going to be what most Republicans know deep down already. The anti- choice bill that they passed yesterday--a bill the New York Times called ``the most restrictive abortion bill to come to a vote in either chamber in a decade''--is not going anywhere--is not going anywhere. The bill they passed yesterday is a nonstarter in the Senate, and it is a nonstarter with the overwhelming majority of American women. It is an attack on women's rights under the Constitution, and it is an attack on a woman's ability to make her own health care decisions. It is a bill that was motivated by politics, pure and simple, and it amounts to little more than a charade designed to appeal to a dwindling base. But it is a charade that will end in the Senate today. Even more than reminding House Republicans this bill has no chance of moving forward, I am here to provide a reality check because, apparently, despite the one that millions of American women provided last November, House Republicans need another one. Despite the fact in States across the country voters rejected one candidate after another who politicized rape and ran on restricting a woman's right to choose, House Republicans are now back at it again. Despite the fact they had to bring in a paid pollster to tell the entire Republican House caucus to stop talking about rape, apparently the message has not sunk in. For many Republicans it is like 2012 all over again, which is to say it is more like 1950 all over again--a time when an all-male House Republican Judiciary panel can join together--all male--just like they did last Wednesday, to pass a bill that clearly ignores Roe v. Wade; a time when the same panel could reject efforts to protect the life and health of the mother or even reject efforts to make exceptions for rape or incest; a time when one of those panel members, a Republican Representative from Arizona, can even trot out the idea that women are not likely to become pregnant if they are raped. But it is not 1950, and that irresponsible and shameful claim has been debunked by doctors and experts of all stripes, time and again. It has been 40 years since Roe v. Wade put the health care choices of women in the hands of women. We are not going back. But just as House Republicans need a reality check that American women are not going to have the clock turned back on them, I also believe the American people need to know House Republicans--and those on the far right targeting women's health care--are not going away anytime soon either. In fact, I wish I could say the new restrictions on women's health care choices that the House passed yesterday were a surprise or that I thought that after last fall, Republicans would magically see the light. I wish I could say I bought the rhetoric from some Republicans who have criticized their own because they believe we should be focused on jobs and the economy at such a difficult time. But the truth is, attacks on women's health care have not stopped and, apparently, they will not stop. That is because they are a core part of that party's philosophy. In fact, all we have to do is look back at the moment that Republicans in the House took power. We all remember back to 2010, after campaigning, by the way, across the country on a platform of jobs and the economy, the first three bills they introduced were each direct attacks on women's health. The very first bill they introduced, H.R. 1, would have totally eliminated title X funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention, and it included an amendment that would have completely defunded Planned Parenthood and would have cut off support for the millions of women who count on that. Another one of their opening rounds of bills would have permanently codified the Hyde amendment and the DC abortion ban. The original version of their bill did not even include an exception for the health of the mother. Finally, they introduced a bill right away that would have rolled back every single one of the gains we made for women in the health care reform bill. That Republican bill would have removed the caps on out-of-pocket expenses that protect women from losing their homes or their life savings if they get sick. It would have ended the ban on lifetime limits on coverage. It would have allowed insurance companies to once again discriminate against women by charging them higher premiums, and it would have rolled back the guarantee that insurance companies cover contraceptives. Those were just their first three bills. Since that time, we have seen women targeted on everything from contraception to Violence Against Women Act protections, to stripping the new protections provided under the Affordable Care Act. Through economic peril, budget crises, record unemployment, the attacks on women's health have remained constant. On Capitol Hill, in State houses across the country, and in courtrooms at all levels, the fight against women making their own decisions about their health rages on. Republicans have shown they will go to just about any length to limit access to care. They have put politics between women and their own health care, they have put employers between women and their health care, they have even threatened to shut down the government over this very issue. They have shown that this is not about what is best for women and men and their own family planning decisions; instead, it is about political calculation. It is about appeasing the far right. It is about their continued efforts to do whatever it takes to push their extreme agenda. But as we have seen with this latest effort, the deck is stacked against them because the Constitution is not going anywhere. Also, because Senators such as myself and Senator Boxer are not going anywhere either, because women who believe Republicans should not be making their health care decisions are not going anywhere. Therefore, this bill is not going anywhere.

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me respond this way: When I go home--and I go home every weekend--my constituents talk to me about this big word called sequestration and its impact on their lives. Whether they have been furloughed, and their paycheck is much smaller, or whether they are running a violence against women center and they are having to close down a facility, or whether they are sending their kids to preschool and teachers have been laid off, or whether their small pizza shop in Kitsap County is going to have to close because so many people have been furloughed and cut back because of sequestration, what they want us to do is to invest in our infrastructure, to invest in our education, to make our country strong for the future, and to quit governing by crisis, which is why I have come to the floor, as the Senator from California knows, constantly to say we passed our budget; the House has passed their budget; solve this and replace sequestration in a responsible and fair way. We need to get to conference. But we are being blocked by a handful of Republicans here on the Senate floor. Over in the House, they are not appointing conferees. They do not want to go to conference apparently, because they want to take the floor time to attack women's health care. This is not what the country is telling us to do. They are telling us to do our job and get a budget done so they have certainty. They are telling us to do our job and make sure we invest in the WRDA bill Senator Boxer has worked so hard to do; that the Corps of Engineers projects, whether it is a dam or whatever project they have at home that provides jobs and provides the kind of economy they need is taken care of. They elected us to come back here and do the job of this country. So, yes, it is frustrating to me to have to come to the floor one more time to talk about abortion when we should be talking about the investments that need to be made, when we should be passing a budget, we should be investing in our children and their future and providing people with jobs and job training and research that is so important at universities across this country so we can be a good place 30 years from now in this country and be competitive. I would say to my colleague, yes, it appears to me the country has an agenda that is vastly different than the House Republicans on the far right.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senate Democrats have come to the floor now 13 times and requested unanimous consent to move to bipartisan budget negotiations with the House. We are ready to get to work. We have been ready for 88 days now, which is how long it has been since the Senate passed a budget. Back in March we assumed that once the two Chambers passed their budgets, Republicans would be eager to join us in a formal budget conference, since they have spent years talking about the need to return to regular order. Instead, we have seen delay after delay. Now that Republicans have gotten exactly what they wished for, they seem to be running as quickly as they can in the other direction, and they have offered excuse after excuse after excuse. First, they said they wanted a framework before they would start a conference, even though a framework is exactly what a budget is. In other words, they wanted to negotiate behind closed doors when we should be negotiating in a conference. Then they said they wouldn't allow us to go to conference unless we guaranteed the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations would be protected from paying a penny more in taxes. Then many Republicans indicated they didn't want negotiations happening too early, to take away the leverage they think they have on the debt ceiling. Then some of them called for a do-over of the budget debate, including another 50 hours of debate and a whole new round of unlimited amendments, even after they praised the open and thorough floor debate we had on the Senate budget. Now, in what seems to be the latest delaying tactic, some Republicans are saying before we can work to solve short-term problems we first need to agree on the budget outlook 30 years down the road. Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of the constant lurching from crisis to crisis. They are looking to their elected officials to come together, to compromise, to find common ground, and that is exactly what we would be doing in a conference. It is not just Democrats saying so. Over the past few weeks, we have heard a number of Republicans step forward and agree with us that the tea party and Senate Republican leadership are wrong. Senator Coburn said blocking conference is ``not a good position to be in.'' Senator Boozman said he would ``very much like to see a conference.'' Senator Wicker said, weeks ago now, that ``by the end of next week, we probably should be ready to go to conference.'' Now, according to Politico, ``more Republicans appear to favor heading to conference than blocking it.'' As many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, it is certainly true there are big differences between the parties' budget values, and priorities, but that would give us all the more reason to sit down and try to find some common ground. The fact is we have a lot of work that needs to be done in the next few weeks. We have 11 days until the next State work period and then just 3\1/2\ weeks before we all go back to our home States again for August. Because some Republicans want to continue the harmful austerity measures resulting from sequestration, we now have a $91 billion gap between the House and Senate spending bills for the next fiscal year. If we don't reconcile those differences, we are going to find ourselves in a very tough, bad situation come September, and a lot of hard-working families and communities are going to feel the consequences. It does not have to be that way. I am confident, if both sides come together now in a conference committee and are ready to compromise, we can find a way to reach a fair and bipartisan and responsible agreement. The American people shouldn't have to worry the government is going to lurch into another crisis that has been manufactured by this Congress. It doesn't have to happen. Instead of fighting over whether we should be engaging in bipartisan talks, we should be working together to get more Americans back to work, to protect our economic recovery, and lay the foundation for strong middle-class growth in the future. I think we can all agree on those important goals, and they are very urgent ones. But we cannot move forward on them if we are consumed with constant artificial crises. I believe it is time for Senate Republican leaders to listen to the many Members of their own party who prefer commonsense bipartisanship over delay and disorder and allow the House and Senate to begin a bipartisan budget conference. I am here this afternoon to ask unanimous consent to do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side, a motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to point out to everyone that we had hours and hours of debate, with over 100 amendments offered, and no one offered an amendment on the debt ceiling limit. As part of the agreement in order to go to conference, we have offered to have a vote now on whether we should have motions to instruct. I would be willing, as chair, to abide by that vote once our unanimous consent is agreed to. But I have to say, as a matter of principle, for a chair of any committee to say, once we have gone through hundreds of hours of debate and a lot of amendments, that then, before we go to conference, we have to agree to a principle that has not been voted on or offered in the Senate as part of that is not how we can proceed in this body. It would be the same as if I would come out and say: I am not going to allow us to go to conference on whatever bill because I have a small provision, and unless you absolutely agree it has to be in there, even though I don't have the votes, we are not going to conference. We would never get anything done. The unanimous consent request I have offered allows my Republican friends to have a vote on this, even though they didn't ask for a vote in all those hours of debate and hundreds of hours we spent on this issue, before we move to conference. The principle is this: Our Republican colleagues wish to have an open debate, they say, but we are not having an open debate because of their insistence we don't go to conference. So I object to the Senator's request and again renew my request as I stated before with the provision we have a motion to instruct and allow those Senators who have strong feelings about this to vote on it before we go to conference. Finally, I would add, remember with whom I am going to conference: Republicans and Democrats from our side and Republicans and Democrats from the other body, a majority of whom are on their side of the aisle, with the chairman, Paul Ryan, a Republican conservative, chairing their side. This is an issue that is going to have plenty of debate, plenty of open discussion, if it should come up, and we will all have an opportunity to vote on it. I renew my unanimous consent request.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Staying on Track: Next Steps in Improving Passenger and Freight Rail Safety''.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimus consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reducing Senior Poverty and Hunger: The Role of the Older Americans Act'' on June 19, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2013, at 2 p.m.