Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

For further information please contact David Berick at (202) 224- 2209, Megan Brewster (202) 224-6689 or Brian Hughes, (202) 224-7555.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Use and Abuse of Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime at the Department of Homeland Security.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rose Mutiso, a fellow in Senator Coons's office, be given floor privileges for Wednesday, January 29, 2014.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

As the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee leaves, I thank the Senator for her tremendous leadership. I thank the Senator for her leadership in getting this bill to the floor.

I come to the floor today to talk about another topic, and that is the 1.4 million Americans who have lost their unemployment benefits and the over 70,000 people who continue to lose them each week. The Senate has found itself in an all-too-familiar place. Once again, some Republicans are refusing to be able to say yes even to the most reasonable of offers, and it is a problem we have seen in this body too many times.

Over the course of the 16-day shutdown last October, we tried time and time again to find compromises to end that manufactured crisis, return Federal workers to their jobs, and reopen our Federal parks and buildings. But for too long Republicans refused to listen to the American people and embrace compromise. Instead, they were standing firmly in a partisan corner--and it is a pattern of what we saw last year in our efforts to pass a budget.

In March of the past year--as every Senator, I am sure, will remember--we spent a week on the Senate floor in a very open process debating and voting on amendment after amendment until the very wee hours of the morning. On March 23 we finally passed our budget after the House had passed theirs the

day earlier. I thought at that time the next step would be to start a conference as quickly as possible. I thought it was a no-brainer.

This is what the American people were expecting, the two sides to get in a room, work out our differences, and avoid another crisis. Every time we tried to start that budget conference--21 times in the Senate-- a Senate Republican stood up and said no. They no longer wanted to go to conference, they no longer wanted to follow regular order, they only wanted to obstruct. That took us to a government shutdown, a debt limit crisis, and a lot of pain for families and communities across the country before we could get them in a room with us in a budget conference and agree to a deal the American people expected.

That has been sort of the Republican playbook in the Senate. They say no for as long as they can, they play politics for as long as they can, they hold out and obstruct as long as they can, until the pressure from angry Americans finally reaches a fever pitch, and then, when it is far too late, hopefully come to their senses.

It is getting to be far too late for every single American who lost their unemployment benefits. In fact, as last week's unemployment report showed, nearly \1/2\ million Americans recently gave up entirely. Those who haven't given up spent every single day desperately working to get on a job. Unemployment benefits make all the difference for them and their families while they scour the want ads, pound the pavement, and send out resume after resume.

In fact, I have heard from many people in my home State of Washington, story after story from men and women. One of those was from a man named Gary who lives in Spokane. Gary wrote to me about his wife Linda and how at ``56 years young'' with a degree in accounting and an MBA in finance Linda is still unable to find work. After exhausting her unemployment benefits, Gary and Linda are now forced to live off of his Social Security disability insurance. They are now facing monthly medical expenses and rent of over $1,000 just to stay healthy and keep a roof over their heads. Gary's benefits cover about $900 of those expenses.

With each passing day this Congress fails to act Gary and Linda find themselves further and further behind. Gary concluded in his note to me in a simple plea, written in all capital letters, that said: ``PLEASE,

Yes, I will.

Let me respond to the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. President.

I came to the floor today to talk about the millions of Americans who are in need of extended unemployment benefits, but I would tell my colleague that everyone I have ever talked to on unemployment would much rather have a job. As to the question the Senator has asked me in relation to my role as chair of the subcommittee on transportation and housing and the bill we are about to pass here in the Senate, it will have an impact on creating jobs and building that infrastructure so people will have that job certainty. It is extremely important.

On the transportation side of my appropriations bill, the TIGER grant program the Senator has described will bring not only jobs to communities but real projects that will help build a foundation for future economic growth.

There is no one who questions that transportation infrastructure brings jobs today, provides economic development for the future, and is absolutely the way people get to work and home in a timely manner, bringing certainty for so many families we know. That is a critical part of my subcommittee.

The other part of my subcommittee, as the Senator mentioned, is housing. Those issues are so important. I think most people forget if you don't have a place to live it is pretty hard to go to work. Providing some of these programs we do, such as section 8, and some of the reforms we have put in here, is absolutely critical for so many Americans to be able to have the stability and to get out and get a job, so that we don't have to be arguing over unemployment extension here but actually how we can make the investments so this country can work and survive.

I hope we can provide those extensions today, as we struggle to get back on our feet, but meanwhile pass this critical bill the Senator has authored so we can provide jobs and economic support, which is what people want.

Mr. President, I wish to start by thanking my friend, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, as well as her counterpart in the House, Chairman Rogers. They have shown great leadership in working across the aisle to accomplish this mammoth task we had given them on a very tight timeline, and I appreciate their efforts.

I am here today to talk about why it is important we pass this Omnibus appropriations bill and continue to build on the bipartisan steps we have taken so far.

Last week I spoke at a press conference on youth unemployment with a young man who was present. His name was James. Listening to James, it was pretty clear he was hard-working and ambitious. But he explained to me, as old as he is, in his twenties, he is still living at home with his parents because despite a lot of searching he has not been able to find a job.

What was clear to me from James' story and from a lot of others across the country is that even though the economy has made progress, far too many Americans still aren't feeling the benefits. Too many of them are working more hours and earning less or wondering whether they can afford to send their kids to college or worrying that they won't be able to save enough to retire. Those are the kinds of problems we need to be thinking about here and solving.

I hope our work this session, this year, will be entirely focused on doing everything we can to create more jobs and more opportunities for all Americans, especially those who are struggling in what is still a very tough economy. There is a lot we need to get done. If one lesson came out of the constant crises last year, it is that in a divided government the only way to get things done is through compromise and bipartisanship.

The budget deal Chairman Ryan and I worked together on and reached is a good example. It wasn't the bill I would have written on my own. It wasn't the bill Chairman Ryan would have written on his own either. But after hearing from families and communities in my home State of Washington, I knew we needed to do more to restore the critical investments that were being lost as a result of sequestration, and we needed to break out of the constant crises which have caused so much gridlock and dysfunction over the last several years. So I worked with Chairman Ryan to reach a compromise. I am

pleased that our agreement rolled back some of those automatic across- the-board cuts to priorities important to all of us, such as education, infrastructure, and research. We did that in a balanced way, without relying on spending cuts alone.

Importantly, in reaching that deal we were able to lay some groundwork so Chairman Mikulski and Chairman Rogers could move forward on the important work of funding the government. Families and communities across the country will be better off as the result of their leadership. Their legislation invests in starting our children off strongly by expanding access to early Head Start for infants and families. It expands access to Pell grants to help more of our young adults today afford higher education. It supports other important priorities such as medical research, which help create jobs and spur innovation.

In my home State of Washington, I know all of these investments, as well as others, such as funding for the Columbia River Crossing Project, for repairs and improvements at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, are going to make a huge difference.

I wish to spend a few moments as chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development to talk about some of the important parts of that bill within this Omnibus.

That bill addresses critical challenges on everything from homelessness, affordable housing, to traffic congestion, and transportation safety. This bill represents a very firm commitment to providing housing and supporting services to families in need. It actually increases funding for the section 8 program which provides housing for our low-income families in this country. If funding had remained at the sequester level, more than 100,000 families today would be at risk of losing that assistance and becoming homeless. Under our bill, that will not happen.

I am also very proud that the bill includes $75 million for vouchers for the joint HUD-Veterans Affairs supportive housing program. As a result of that funding, an additional 10,000 homeless veterans and their families will have access to housing and supportive services.

Our housing and transportation bill prioritizes job creation and economic growth by investing in transportation. It includes $600 million in TIGER funding, which supports projects that improve transportation safety and reduce traffic congestion. That, by the way, is in addition to the $41 billion in much-needed funding to repair our Nation's roads and bridges.

But our bill isn't just about roads and bridges. Americans are increasingly relying on public transit, so I am especially pleased our bill provides more than $10.7 billion to support our public transit system.

Also, last year across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration forced the Federal Aviation Administration to enact a hiring freeze, which meant when employees such as our air traffic controllers left the agency, no one was hired to replace them. So our bipartisan bill ensures the FAA has the resources it needs to end that hiring freeze and hire and train new employees who can help our air travel be safe. This bill fully funds the Essential Air Service and contract tower programs on which so many of our communities depend.

We also include reforms to improve the programs we fund--for example, important section 8 reforms to reduce costs and create efficiencies.

In short, I am very pleased with what my colleagues and I in the Senate and House have been able to accomplish together on housing and transportation investments in this bill. I wish to take a moment and especially thank my colleague on the Senate transportation and housing appropriations bill, Senator Collins, for all of her great work and support during this entire process.

I am very proud to be part of the tireless effort of Chairwoman Mikulski. She has worked very hard to make sure we have a full appropriations bill and act considered, and not just another continuing resolution.

Just like Chairman Ryan and I said when we finished our deal, I am pretty sure Chairwoman Mikulski and Chairman Rogers would each agree this package is not perfect. Each of them probably would have done certainly different things on their own. But because they were willing to compromise, they are delivering far more for the American people than either could have done if they had refused to work together.

If this legislation is passed into law--which I strongly believe it will be--we will have a choice to make: We can build on the bipartisan work which has been done so far and continue reaching agreements through compromises, as people across this country do every day, or we can see more of the all-or-nothing approach which caused so much damage last year.

I was in fact really disappointed that yesterday my colleagues rejected a good-faith offer to provide relief to workers and families who are still struggling in this country to get back on their feet, even after Democrats time and time again offered compromises to try to get a deal. We tried hard to reach a fair agreement that both sides could support, and we are going to keep trying. I hope today our Republican colleagues will think of the many families out there who need this lifeline and look at the great bipartisan work done on the appropriations bill, and I hope they will reconsider their return to all-or-nothing political tactics.

I know there are fundamental differences here between the two parties. I know compromise is never easy. But we can't afford to let those challenges get in the way of delivering for the families and communities we serve. And we don't have to. The legislation Chairwoman Mikulski and Chairman Rogers just completed is proof that there is a much better way to get things done. If both sides are willing to continue to make some tough choices, there is much more we can do together to create jobs, strengthen the recovery, and build the foundation for stronger, broader growth in the future.

I thank Chairwoman Mikulski and Chairman Rogers again for their leadership. I hope we can all build on their bipartisan step forward by choosing to work together, and find opportunities for compromise and continue to deliver for the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which Congress passed last month, provides relief to families and the economy from the harmful effects of sequestration, more than offsetting the costs of providing that relief with savings elsewhere in the Federal budget. In addition to those changes, the Bipartisan Budget Act also establishes a congressional budget for 2014 and, if necessary, for 2015, authorizing the Chairmen of the Senate and House Budget Committees to file allocations, aggregates, and levels in the Senate and the House for budget year 2014.

Specifically, to provide for continued enforcement in the Senate, section 111 requires the chairman of the Budget Committee to file: No. 1, an allocation for fiscal year 2014 for the Committee on Appropriations; No. 2, allocations for fiscal years 2014, 2014 through 2018, and 2014 through 2023 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations; No. 3, aggregate spending levels for fiscal year 2014; No. 4, aggregate revenue levels for fiscal years 2014, 2014 through 2018, and 2014 through 2023; and No. 5, aggregate levels of outlays and revenue for fiscal years 2014, 2014 through 2018, and 2014 through 2023 for Social Security.

In the case of the Committee on Appropriations for 2014, the allocation shall be set consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in the Bipartisan Budget Act, which imposes limits on the amount of budget authority that can be provided under both the revised security category and the revised nonsecurity category.

Both the discretionary spending limits and the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations can be revised for certain adjustments specifically authorized under the Budget Control Act of 2011. H.R. 3547, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which the Senate will soon consider, includes several such adjustments. Consistent with the funding levels included in H.R. 3547, I am incorporating into the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations adjustments for overseas contingency operations and the global war on terrorism, disaster funding, and the program integrity initiative in the area of continuing disability reviews. I am also adjusting for a change in outlays previously designated as an emergency requirement. These adjustments are authorized by section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as modified by section 101 of the Budget Control Act, and by section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

In the case of allocations for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations and for the revenue and Social Security aggregates, the levels shall be set consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's May 2013 baseline, adjusted to account for the budgetary effects of the Bipartisan Budget Act and other legislation enacted since the release of the May 2013 baseline. In other words, in these instances, the new allocations and levels are set equal to the updated May baseline.

In the case of the spending aggregates for 2014, the levels shall be set in accordance with the allocation for the Committee on Appropriations and the allocations for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations, as described previously.

Section 114 directs the chairman of the Budget Committee also to reset the Senate pay-as-you-go scorecard to zero for all fiscal years. Pursuant to section 114, those revisions occurred immediately upon enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act. I am now notifying the Senate and including the revised scorecard as part of the submission on revised enforcement for budget year 2014.

Finally, section 112 of the Bipartisan Budget Act establishes a point of order in the Senate against appropriations bills that provide advance appropriations. That act includes limited exceptions to this prohibition including up to $28.852 billion in advance appropriations for programs, projects, activities, or accounts included in a statement submitted by the chairman of the Budget Committee in the Congressional Record. Pursuant to section 112, the list of allowable advance appropriations subject to the limit is as follows.

Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations. Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: Employment and Training Administration; Job Corps; education for the disadvantaged; school improvement; special education; and career, technical, and adult education. Financial Services and General Government: payment to Postal Service. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development: tenant-based rental assistance and project-based rental assistance.

My counterpart, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Ryan, similarly is filing allocations, aggregates, and levels in the House. The two filings will allow the House and the Senate to extend budget enforcement measures for 2014, an important principle of the bipartisan deal that Chairman Ryan and I agreed to last month.

I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing enforcement in the Senate for budget year 2014, including new committee allocations, budgetary and Social Security aggregates, as well as adjustments to those levels, and the pay-as-you-go scorecard, be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the fact that 50 years ago today President Lyndon Johnson made his first State of the Union Address. He used that date--January 8, 1964--to chart a new agenda for the country and to declare that America would take on an unconditional war on poverty. With that directive, Congress worked on some of the most successful programs in the history of our country: Medicare, Head Start, Pell grants, and expansions to Social Security. President Johnson knew that the devastation of poverty went deeper than just the lack of a job or the lack of basic needs. Americans in poverty didn't even have a fair chance to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Now, since 1964, economists estimate the poverty rate has now fallen by 10 percent when accounting for social safety net programs. So we are moving in the right direction, but we have a lot more work to do to give everyone the fair chance they need to succeed in this country.

For too many people today, the war on poverty is a daily battle just to make ends meet. More than 46 million people in our country live in poverty--46 million people. That is according to the Census Bureau. More than 20 percent--that is one in five of our kids in this country-- live in poverty. So to win this fight, we need to strengthen the programs that support those in need.

Without question, one of the reasons we have seen a decline in poverty is because of the programs that provide a safety net for our most vulnerable Americans. In 1964 Congress created the food stamp program for those struggling to feed their families. Today it is known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or better known as SNAP. In 2012 alone the program lifted 4.9 million people out of poverty, according to the Center on the Budget and Policy Priorities.

We have also worked to make sure preschoolers from low-income areas have the building blocks they need to start kindergarten ready to learn. Since the mid-1960s Head Start has provided early childhood learning and health services to more than 30 million children and their families.

That is the kind of progress we have to continue. Those programs and many like them have provided economic security and opportunity to millions across the country.

Yet even with the successes we have had in fighting hunger and ending unemployment, there are those today here in Congress who want to slash the very assistance that gives so many Americans today an opportunity to make better lives for themselves and their families.

We can't waver in the fight to give all Americans a fair chance--a fair chance to get ahead. We have to expand opportunities for young learners by investing in universal pre-K. We have to ensure that workers can earn enough to put food on the table by raising the minimum wage. We have to keep fighting, and we have to win the war on poverty.

I know personally how vital these programs are. When I was just 15 years old, my dad, who fought in World War II and was a veteran, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Within just a few years he couldn't work anymore. My mom found a job. She stayed home to raise seven kids. The job she found wasn't enough to support seven kids, and my dad had a growing stack of medical bills. All of a sudden, my family, without any warning, had fallen on hard times.

This country at that time didn't turn its back on us. For several months my family relied on food stamps. It wasn't much, but it helped us get by. With the help of a government program--a government program--my mom was fortunate to attend Lake Washington Vocational Technical School and got the training she needed to get a better job so she could support her family. My older brother, my twin sister, and I were able to stay in college because of student loans and support from what we now call Pell grants--all from this government.

Even through those hard times, none of us lost hope. With a lot of hard work--and we had help from our government--we were able to get to where we are today. That is why I believe so strongly that here in Congress today, we have to expand that hope I had as a young girl to many more families and Americans who are struggling today.

Fifty years ago President Johnson recognized that poverty is a national problem, and that is why he made it a national priority. So I think we ought to rededicate ourselves today to that national priority. Let's work together here to support the men and women across the country who hope for their chance at the American dream. Let's not just commemorate this anniversary; let's begin to use and have a renewed energy to winning the war on poverty in our country once and for all.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.