Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 under the previous order.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the passion of the Senator from Iowa on behalf of the Republican majority and Speaker Boehner, and, frankly, I have to say it is offensive to say that the issue of violence against women is about politics. This is about women who are abused, women who are powerless to fight back, and women being able to get the protection they need in this country that has provided protection for a very long time, to make sure women who are immigrants, women who live in a tribe, women who are gay and lesbian, women who are on college campuses get the protection this legislation supports. This is not about politics, this is about violence and this country standing up and saying we are going to protect them. Make no mistake about it, what the Republicans are saying is that they want to move this bill to conference so they can strip out those provisions. Well, they have crossed a line--a line that in the history of this nonpolitical, bipartisan bill has been so deeply important to so many of us. They made this bill about politics just now. I find that offensive. What they want is to take the Senate's bipartisan-passed bill, supported by both Republicans and Democrats here, send it to conference, and then pick it apart. They want to take it to conference so they can have a discussion about which women in this country deserve protection and which do not. They want to pit one group of women against another. This is not a game. It is not politics. And it certainly is not a game I am going to play. The new protections in this bill have been supported by Republicans and Democrats, groups across this country, and millions of Americans. They are not bartering chips, and it is not about politics. The objection of the Senator on behalf of the Republicans raises issues that really are nothing more than a smokescreen. They do not want to be out in front saying they are willing to discriminate against certain women. They would rather hide behind these procedural objections. But I would remind all our colleagues that these procedural objections they are out here talking about--the politics--have been routinely overcome here in the Senate. Just as I said a few minutes ago, the transportation and jobs bill we passed a month ago, the blue slip issue was overcome. The FAA reauthorization last year funding our Nation's airports--overcome. The Food Safety Act--overcome. The Travel Promotion Act. All those had blue slip issues, and all of them were overcome, and there was a reason why--leadership and the will to do the right thing. So let me make it abundantly clear. This is not about politics. It is about protecting women in this country. It is about making sure we do what is right for so many women who are looking to Congress to put in place the protections they deserve. So the ball is in the Speaker's court now. He is going to have to talk to women across the country about why their protections are at risk because of politics. But I want everyone to be clear: We are not going to compromise on the issues that are so important to so many women and throw them under the bus. That is not what we have fought for year after year on bipartisan legislation when we passed the Violence Against Women Act before. It is inclusive, it is bipartisan, and it is above ideology and partisan games. It is a bill that makes sure that no matter who you are or where you live or whom you love, you are protected in this great country in which we live. Politics has no place in this. I would agree with the Senator from Iowa. Who is playing politics? We will leave it up for those who are watching. What I have asked is that the Senate do what we have done many times on many bills--move this bill to the House in a bipartisan way and pass it, and then politics won't matter, women will be covered. I hope our Senate colleagues who have objected and the Speaker will reconsider. They can easily pass this bill today or next month, put it in place, and women in this country can say the leaders of this country are fighting for them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California and say that she is absolutely correct. What I am about to do is to ask consent to do what we have done on many pieces of legislation, including the jobs and Transportation bills the Senator from California was able to pass, and the Senate overcame that technicality through a motion on the floor. We have done it time and time again on bills like that. It seems to me that on a bill like this, which is affecting so many women and their right to protect themselves and the ability to get help in their communities, there should not be a technicality between them and our passing protections for them in this country. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 9 Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the language of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, as passed in the Senate on April 26 by a vote of 68 to 31, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has objected. I just have to say that it is stunning to me that the Senator has objected to a simple procedure that we have done many times on Transportation bills and FAA bills and, sadly, now there is an inability to provide protections for the women we have been talking about.

Mrs. MURRAY. I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. That is why we have work to do, in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate, to make sure in this country, America, we do not discriminate against women when it comes to violence.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. It seems to me such a simple procedure to do, which we have done many times in the Senate, to just by unanimous consent send the Speaker back the bill so he can't put a piece of blue paper in front of us and say that stands between women and the protections we are trying to pass for them today.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, the Senator from California is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Blumenthal and so many others who have come to the floor to speak on this critical issue. Today the women of the Senate and the men who support the Violence Against Women Act are on the Senate floor to give Speaker Boehner and the Republicans another chance to do what is right. It is another chance to stop the delay. It is another chance to provide peace of mind to 30 million women whose protections are at risk, and it is another chance to pass the inclusive, bipartisan Senate, Violence Against Women Act bill. The bipartisan Senate bill passed almost 100 days ago by a vote of 68 to 31. Fifteen of our Republican colleagues on the floor--I will repeat that--15 Republicans joined us that day, and they did so because they know the history of this bill. They know every time the Violence Against Women Act has been reauthorized, it has consistently included bipartisan provisions to address the women who have not been protected. They know domestic violence protections for all women should not be a Democratic or Republican issue. But here we are back on the Senate floor urging support today for a bill that should not be controversial. Just as we did last week, just as we are doing today, and just as we will do in the coming weeks, we will be making sure this message resonates loudly and clearly both in Washington, DC, and back home in our States because we are not going to back down--not while there are thousands of women in the country who are excluded from the current law. The numbers are staggering. One in three Native Americans will be raped in their lifetime. Two in five of them are victims of domestic violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average. Those shocking statistics are not just isolated to one group of women; 25 to 35 percent in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in their relationships. Three in four abused immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they are eligible. Why? Because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork. This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across America affected by violence. Where a person lives, their immigration status, or who they love should not determine whether perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. Last week, the New York Times ran an editorial on this bill that gets to the heart of where we are. It began by saying: House Republicans have to decide which is more important: protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some of their party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning. The editorial also made the point that it doesn't have to be this way. It pointed out: In May, fifteen Senate Republicans joined with the chamber's Democratic majority to approve a strong reauthorization bill. It ended with what we all know it will take to move this bill forward: leadership from Congressman Boehner. The effort that was started in the Senate last week--an effort that will continue for as long as it takes--is a call for the very same--leadership. It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to look at the history of a bill that again and again has been supported and expanded by Republicans and Democrats and end the delay because, frankly, it is taking a toll. Every moment the House continues to delay is another moment that 30 million vulnerable women are without the protections they deserve in this country. The women this bill protects have seen their lives destroyed by the cowardice of those who claimed to care for them. We have a chance now to stand for them where others have not. But the only way we can help protect these women is to prove that we as a nation have the courage to do so--the courage to show them that discrimination has no place in our domestic violence laws. To do that, we need to pass the Senate's inclusive, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, has the Senator from Iowa objected to my request?

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. In fact, those 30 million Americans would be covered under the Senate bill. We made sure that Native American women are covered, and we put in important provisions to make sure campus violence is covered, and those provisions have been left out of the House bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. We cannot even imagine what it is like to have somebody hold that kind of power over you and use it to beat you day in and day out. We cover those women in this bill so that they have the protections they ought to have as human beings.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today very excited about the great progress America is going to make tomorrow, August 1, for women across this country and to share the outrage I just heard from the Senator from Illinois and others that before those even go into effect tomorrow, on the eve of this great opportunity for so many women, the Republican leader has come to the floor and said: We want to repeal it--first amendment, on an issue not related at all to cyber security but to take those away before they even begin. It is an exciting moment for women in this country. Two 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--denied. Two years ago women were legally discriminated against when it came to insurance premiums and were often paying more for coverage than their male counterparts. Two years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care, such as mammograms or prenatal screenings, that the Senator from Illinois talked about. Two years ago insurance companies had all the leverage. Two years ago, too often, women paid the price. That is why I am so proud today to come to the floor with so many of our colleagues to highlight just how far we have come for women in the past 2 years and the new ways women will benefit from health care reform starting tomorrow, August 1. Since the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land, women have now been treated more fairly when it comes to health care costs and options. Deductibles and other expenses have been capped, so a health care crisis won't cause a family to lose their home or their life savings. Women can use the health care exchanges to pick quality plans that work for themselves and their families. And if they change jobs or have to move, which so many people have to do today, they can keep their coverage. Starting tomorrow, August 1, additional types of maternity care are going to be covered. Women will be armed with the proper tools and resources in order to take the right steps to have a healthy pregnancy. Starting tomorrow, women will have access to domestic partner violence screening and counseling, as well as screening for sexually transmitted infections. Starting tomorrow, women will finally have access to affordable birth control so we can lower rates in maternal and infant mortality and reduce the risk of ovarian cancer and improve overall health outcomes and encourage far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all share. I also wish to note that the affordable contraceptive policy we put in place preserves the rights of all Americans while also protecting the rights of millions of Americans who do use contraceptives, who believe that family planning is the right choice for them, and who don't deserve to have politics or ideology prevent them from getting the coverage they deserve and want. Starting tomorrow, women will be fully in charge of their health care, not an 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, which we all know are important, 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. Despite the recent Supreme Court decision upholding this law, I know some of our Republican colleagues are furiously working to undo all the gains we have made in health care reform for women and families. We heard the minority leader this morning come to the floor, and he wants to offer an amendment on the next bill that is now coming up on cybersecurity to repeal all of these important protections for women, that women are taking advantage of today, and certainly something we all should want for our families and our daughters and for the women in this country. I know they apparently think repealing the entire health care law would be a political winner for them, but the truth is that this law is a winner for women and for men and for children and for our health care system overall. So I am proud to be out here with my colleagues today who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law do not get taken away from the women of America because politics and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women across America get the care they need at a cost they can afford. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today in order to continue the efforts started right here earlier this week, efforts by the women of the Senate and the men who support the Violence Against Women Act to bring a simple, straightforward message to our friends in the House of Representatives: Stop the games and pass the inclusive, bipartisan Senate VAWA bill without delay. The Violence Against Women Act is a bill that has successfully helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and families. It is a bill that passed the Senate 3 months ago today by a vote of 68 to 31. It is a bill that has consistently included bipartisan provisions to address those who are not being protected by it each and every time it has been reauthorized. But here we are, back on the Senate floor, urging support for a bill that should not be controversial. Just as we did on Tuesday, just as we are doing today, and just as we are going to continue to do in the coming weeks, we will be making sure this message resonates loudly and clearly both in Washington, DC, and back in our home States because we are not going to back down--not while there are thousands of women across our country who are excluded from the current law. In fact, for Native and immigrant women and LGBT individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is delayed is another moment they are left without the resources and protection they deserve in this country. The numbers are staggering: 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped in their lifetimes--1 in 3. And 2 in 5 of them are victims of domestic violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average. These shocking statistics are not isolated to one group of women; 25 to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in their relationships, and 3 in 4 abused immigrant women never enter the process to obtain legal status, even though they were eligible, because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork. This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across America affected by violence, women such as Deborah Parker. Deborah is the vice chairman of the Tulalip Tribe in my home State of Washington. Deborah was repeatedly abused starting at a very young age by a nontribal man who lived on a reservation. Not until after the abuse stopped--sometime around when she was in the fourth grade--did Deborah realize she was not the only child suffering at the hands of that same assailant. At least a dozen other young girls had fallen victim to that man--a man who was never arrested for his crimes, never brought to justice, and still walks free today, all because he committed these heinous acts on the reservation. As someone who is not a member of a tribe, it is an unfortunate reality that he is unlikely to ever be held liable for his crimes. Reauthorizing an inclusive VAWA is a matter of fairness. Deborah's experience and the experience of other victims of that man do not represent an isolated incident. For the narrow set of domestic violence crimes laid out in VAWA, tribal governments should be able to hold accountable defendants who have a strong tie to the tribal community. I was very glad to see Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert and several of her Republican colleagues echo those sentiments last week. They sent a letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor. These Republican Members explicitly called on their party leadership to end this gridlock and accept the ``Senate-endorsed provisions that would protect all victims of domestic violence, including college students, LGBT individuals, Native Americans and immigrants.'' So today I am here to urge Speaker Boehner to listen to the members of his own caucus and join us in taking a major step to uphold our government's promise to protect its people, people such as Maribel and Maria, two more constituents who come from my home State of Washington. As a transgender woman, Maribel has been subject to random acts of violence by family and boyfriends and strangers. She has been mugged and attacked on the street. She has suffered broken bones and cuts and bruises. She has been raped, and she was left for dead. What Maribel said to me was deeply concerning. She said: Not once have the police ever conducted an investigation, much less shown any concern for me. Rather my experience with law enforcement is one of harassment and abuse. I have been ostracized by family and friends . . . in fact it is most of my first memories. She experiences hate daily from those who think she has no place in our society. Then there is Maria. Shortly after their wedding, Maria's husband became a different man, she said. His abuse ranged from emotional to physical, and on two separate occasions he held a knife to Maria's throat threatening to kill her. He constantly threatened Maria with deportation back to Jamaica. Eventually, he refused to attend the interview with immigration authorities necessary for her to obtain a green card. Her application was denied for lack of attendance. She was angry and scared, but she found the courage to ask her husband for a divorce. In response, he raped her. Maria moved out of the house though her husband repeatedly tracked her down and assaulted her. To save her own life, Maria fled to Seattle with her two young children. It does not have to be this way. I was so proud to have been serving in the Senate in 1994 when we first passed the Violence Against Women Act. Since we took that historic step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates and social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. Along with its bipartisan support, it has received praise from law enforcement officers and prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors. The Violence Against Women Act has broad support for one reason: It works. Where a person lives, their immigration status, who they love should not determine whether perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. These women cannot afford any further delay--not on this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator could abstain from the quorum, please.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Oregon is absolutely correct. If a woman has been beaten and abused and believes she is a victim of violence with nowhere to turn, especially in a rural community where everyone knows everyone and a person doesn't know who to turn to, there is no place to go. The Violence Against Women Act provides the support of law enforcement officers and advocates so a person can get out of a very abusive situation.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Oregon. I know he is going to speak in just a few minutes, but I know he has spent a great deal of time traveling around his State and listening to these women and he knows personally from their stories how important it is that we cannot continue to delay this bill over something called a blue slip. It is not about a blue slip. It is about doing what is right. We have overcome the blue slip issue time and time again for issues such as FAA and Transportation bills and many other pieces of legislation because it is the will of the body to do so. So to tell a woman in Oregon or Washington State that this bill can't happen because of a blue slip is ridiculous. They have been told they can't get help for a lot tougher reasons. Let's not let a blue slip be what comes between them and the support they need. In fact, I say to my colleague from Oregon and all of my colleagues that on Tuesday the New York Times ran an editorial that gets to the heart of it. They said: House Republicans have to decide which is more important: Protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning. The editorial also echoed our sentiments that it does not have to be this way. It pointed out: In May, 15 Senate Republicans joined with the chamber's Democratic majority to approve a strong reauthorization bill. It ends with what we all know it will take to move this legislation forward: leadership from Congressman Boehner. So today we are on the Senate floor to make this effort and to call for the same thing: leadership. It is time for Speaker Boehner to look past ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to hear the stories of women across America who have not had the protection of this bill and to make a major step forward which will assure that a woman, no matter where she lives or who she is, will have the protections this great country can offer. So I thank my colleague from Oregon for his real passion and understanding on this issue and for taking the time to hear from women and men who have been impacted. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health, NIH, for their research into an innovative surgery that has demonstrated success in improving the stability of muscle movement for veterans with Parkinson's disease. VA and NIH's joint research collaboration regarding deep brain stimulation therapy has furthered the medical community's understanding of Parkinson's disease and will be incredibly valuable to doctors and Parkinson's patients throughout the world. For many individuals, medication alone is insufficient when it comes to dealing with neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease. VA and NIH conducted research into an alternative treatment option known as deep brain stimulation therapy to test the long-term outcomes of the treatment. Deep brain stimulation therapy is a surgical procedure that implants electrodes into specific stimulation sites within the brain. These electrodes are then able to send electrical pulses to areas of the brain that controls movement and motor control and helps mitigate the symptoms of Parkinson's disease as well as reduce some of the side effects caused by medication. Thanks to deep brain stimulation therapy, thousands of individuals suffering from Parkinson's disease have experienced a dramatic improvement in their quality of life. Since deep brain stimulation therapy was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, as a therapy for Parkinson's disease in the late 1990s, there has been an ongoing debate about which stimulation sites within the brain provide the best and most durable treatment outcomes and how long those results last. To better understand the role that stimulation sites play in deep brain stimulation therapy, VA and NIH conducted a 3-year clinical trial. The trial ultimately found that the benefits gained from deep brain stimulation therapy remained after 3 years and the benefits from the surgery were not dependent by which stimulation site was selected for implantation. This is the type of research that is crucial to providing the care that our Nation's veterans need and deserve. Thanks to the hard work of VA and NIH researchers, the 40,000 veterans living with Parkinson's disease whom VA cares for along with Parkinson's patients across the world will be better equipped to make informed decisions about their treatment options. In closing, I commend VA and NIH for their efforts to combat a disease that affects so many of America's veterans.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg for his exemplary record of service to the Washington National Guard, Washington State, and the United States of America. MG Timothy J. Lowenberg will retire on July 31, 2012 after a distinguished career with the Washington National Guard and 44 years of military service to this country. General Lowenberg has been the Adjutant General for Washington State since September 1999 and in this role he has served as the commander of all Washington National Guard forces, Director of Washington State's Emergency Management programs, and Homeland Security Advisor to the Governor of Washington. Beyond these already extensive responsibilities, General Lowenberg is recognized nationally for his work on Homeland Security policy. In a defining mark of General Lowenberg's forward-leaning leadership, he established the Washington State Domestic Security Infrastructure in 1999, prior to the events of 9/11. This collaborative effort to establish a Statewide system capable of responding to major disaster events preceded the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security by several years. While his list of titles would be a strong credit to any individual, an equally impressive aspect of General Lowenberg's career has been his ability to provide this leadership during one of the most dynamic periods of Washington State's history. During his tenure, General Lowenberg has led Washington State in the response to 53 Governor Emergency Proclamations, 10 Presidential Major Disaster Declarations, and one Presidential Emergency Declaration. Beyond the sheer volume of emergencies General Lowenberg has addressed during his time as Adjutant General, he has displayed great flexibility and a talent for adapting to the needs of any given situation. One of his signature accomplishments was working with me and others toward the establishment of the 2010 Olympics Security Committee and the construction of the 2010 Olympic Coordination Center. In the years that led up to the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, General Lowenberg recognized the need for local, State, Federal, and international cooperation to ensure an effective and smooth response to the games. He managed to operate this committee without the benefit of a National Security Special Event designation, achieving the desired outcome without the benefit of additional funding. Had General Lowenberg spent his time as Adjutant General only responding to emergencies and planning for disasters, he would still have been able to retire as one of the most accomplished Adjutant Generals in the country, but he also commanded the Washington National Guard during a time of war. Though it is easy to forget, our world looked quite different in 2001. The servicemembers who initially deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq didn't have Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, up-armored Humvees, or even the kind of extensive body armor we see today. Some National Guard members deployed to war zones without body armor, necessary equipment, or even vehicles. In the face of these hardships, General Lowenberg and the Washington National Guard stood fast and persevered. Over the last decade Washington Guard members have deployed and sacrificed alongside the Active-Duty military again and again, and in the words of former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Washington National Guard and all State Guard members have changed from, ``a strategic reserve to an integral part of the operational force.'' While these brave servicemembers were deployed, General Lowenberg worked with me to modernize Cold War-era benefits that no longer sufficiently supported the post-9/11 Guard members and their families. Guard members deploying in the early half of the last decade were doing so without the promise of adequate veterans' benefits, without appropriate TRICARE benefits for their families, and without the skilled behavioral health resources to keep pace with the toll that repeated deployments would eventually take. General Lowenberg pushed for improved Guard member access to TRICARE and VA benefits, and to make sure that Guard members and members of the Reserve component have improved access to the behavioral health specialists they need while they are on inactive duty or on annual training. When these Guard members came back from deployment, they came home to a country that was well intentioned but not well prepared to receive them. When Washington Guard members began returning from their first deployments to Iraq, unemployment for some units was extremely high. I have never accepted the premise that it is acceptable for servicemembers who have sacrificed so much to return home from deployment and struggle to find work to support their families, and neither has General Lowenberg. General Lowenberg fought for funding for the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration program and to expand efforts such as the Washington State Joint Services Support Directorate, J9, program to help more Guard members find employment. The positive impact from these programs helped the men and women of the Washington Guard find stable work and these efforts became such a success that the lessons from these programs have spread throughout the country. Members of the Washington Guard now boast an unemployment rate below the national average and the work that General Lowenberg put into reducing Guard unemployment laid the foundation for my VOW to Hire Heroes Act and other efforts to help veterans access secure employment, including overhauling the Transition Assistance program for the first time in 20 years and making it mandatory. These changes to National Guard since 1999 have been historic, but General Lowenberg has always maintained the ability to understand what is important. Out of all the memories I have of General Lowenberg, the ones that will stay with me the longest are from the catastrophic flooding that hit Washington in January 2009. The Washington State flood of 2009 caused the biggest urban evacuation in the history of the State, and I cannot begin to describe the scene that I witnessed out of the back of a Chinook as General Lowenberg and I surveyed the damage. That flood broke levees, shut down Interstate 5, and compromised the integrity of Howard Hanson Dam. Through all of that chaos and the lengthy effort to move Federal funding to repair the Howard Hanson Dam, General Lowenberg directed relief, recovery operations, and preparedness efforts with an unparalleled understanding of emergency management that didn't ignore the effects that flood and damaged dam had on small communities and individuals. Under General Lowenberg, Washington State had the best possible leadership for these and other demanding situations. I join the people of Washington State in congratulating General Lowenberg on an impressive career, and I look forward to seeing what he will accomplish in what I know will be an active retirement. General Lowenberg, thank you for your service. You will be missed.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Today the effort we are beginning in the Senate is an effort that will continue for as long as it takes. It is a call for the same thing: Leadership. It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to look at the history of a bill that again and again and again has been supported and expanded by Republicans and Democrats. It is time for him to do the right thing and pass our inclusive, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act because the lives of women across the country literally depend on it. I am delighted my colleague from California is here with me. She has been with us every step of the way in this bipartisan bill that we have moved forward. With the women and men who support us, we are going to continue to be loud and strong. We need to pass the bill, and Speaker Boehner needs to take it up for the women who are watching and waiting. I suggest the absence of a quorum.