fair, just economy and a more fair, just system of laws. we're never going to be able to get there if we're not even allowed to debate and discuss and vote on it, consider, much less pass amendments. it's time to restore the senate to what it was always intended to be, which is the world's greatest deliberative legislative body. that can't happen when amendments like this one are categorically blocked from consideration. we must end this, mr. president, we must do better. we can and we must and we will. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: last october families and communities across our country were forced to endure a completely unnecessary

government shutdown. coming after years of budget uncertainty and constant crises the shutdown hurt our workers and threatened our fragile economic recovery and it shook the confidence of people across the country who expected their elected officials to come together to avoid such a needless and self-inflicted crisis. it was a dark time here in congress and i think many of my colleagues regret letting a teept minority push us into that. mr. president, when the shutdown finally ended i sat down with house budget committee chairman paul ryan in a budget conference that many of us had been trying to start for months. we worked through the issues, we compromised and we reached a two-year budget deal that rolled back devastating cuts from sequestration, we prevented another gown shutdown and -- government shutdown -- government shutdown and restored much-needed certainty to the budget process. that budget deal was a strong

step in the right direction but it wasn't the only step congress needs to take to create jobs and economic growth, and it wasn't the only step we need to take to ensure we don't lurch to another avoidable crisis. because, mr. president if congress does not act, we are headed towards another crisis in just a few months. not a budget crisis this time but a construction shutdown that could ramp up when our highway trust fund reaches critically low levels and gets worse and worse if we don't solve the problem. so i've come to the floor today to call on my colleagues, democrats and republicans to work together to avert this looming crisis and to do it in a commonsense way that gives our states the multiyear certainty he they need to plan projects, to invest in their communities and to create jobs. mr. president, since the mid

1950's our nation has relied on the highway trust fund to support transportation projects projects that create jobs and keep our economy moving. the fund helps to repave our roads so he they aren't pockmarked with hot holes. it eases congestion on clogged highways and repairs bridges that are outdated and unissafe. but in july, a few months from now, the department of transportation predicts that the highway trust fund will reach a critically low level. if this is not resolved, construction projects to improve our roads and our bridges could shut down and leave workers without a paycheck. and, mr. president we're already seeing some consequences from this crisis. in arkansas, ten construction projects like building highway connections and replacing bridges have already been put on hold. in colorado, the state wants to widen a major highway to ease

congestion between denver and fort collins but officials there say with this funding shortage and the highway trust fund that project could be delayed. these aren't isolated cases. states from vermont to california might have to stop construction in its tracks because of this highway trust fund shortfall. this crisis will also cut jobs. construction as we all know is at its peak in the summer months but without funding states might have no choice but to stop construction and leave workers without a job. that's going to hurt communities with needless delays on the very improvements that would help our businesses and spur economic growth. mr. president, this is unacceptable and it is unnecessary. congress needs to work to avoid this construction shutdown. there's no reason, none, to lurch to another avoidable crisis when workers and families across the country are still struggling. we need to ensure the construction can continue this

summer. we need to support workers and we need to deliver a multiyear solution for the highway trust fund. fortunately we can solve this in a way stha should have bipartisan support. president obama and house republican dave camp who chairs the house ways and means committee, both have proposed using corporate revenue to shore up the trust fund and that approach makes a lot of sense. by closing wasteful corporate tax loopholes we can support improvements to our roads and bridges that benefit everyone, including our big businesses so they can move their products quickly and efficiently and make our broken tax code a bit fairer in the process. we can start by taking a close look at the tax loopholes that house republicans have proposed closing in chairman camp's recent plan. replenishing the trust fund with revenue raised by closing

corporate loopholes will provide multiyear funding so we can provide our states with more certainty they need to plan. now, that kind of certainty has been absent for a long time and it has forced states to hold off on bigger projects that will help create jobs and long-term economic growth. so i am very hopeful mr. president, that democrats and republicans and work -- can work together to restore certainty to states around our country. i know bipartisan support is possible especially on an issue as important as this one. since the highway trust fund's inception, under dwight d. eisenhower, republicans and democrats have come together to invest in this national priority. under democratic and republican presidencies from mr. clinton to president reagan to president clinton we updated and supported the highway trust fund. even two years ago in a hyper partisan election year, congress reached a bipartisan agreement so that we could continue to build the roads and bridges and transit systems that

our communities need. in the past, republicans and democrats have stepped up to support our workers and make sure that we continued to invest in our transportation systems that put workers on the jobs and helped businesses move their goods and help our economy grow. and now there is no reason to wait until the last minute to get this done. the threat is growing on our construction sites and for jobs across the country. so we ought to give our states and our communities the confidence that congress will not push them into another crisis. mr. president, six months ago our communities and families endured a needless government shutdown. i tell you americans are sick taoeurpbd of washington d.c. -- sick and tired of washington d.c.'s dysfunction and constant crisis. there is no reason for congress to put them through anything even remotely similar especially transportation projects that will benefit our families, our communities and our economy.

we have got to act to prevent a construction shutdown this summer. so i hope we can build on the common ground that democrats and republicans share on this issue. i hope we can work together to show the american people that congress can act to support our workers and families and communities and prevent a construction shutdown and give the highway thufd -- trust fund certainty. we need to make sure our states can keep investing in economic growth at this time. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask that all time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection, under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: department of interior neil gregory accordance of nevada. to be director of the bureau of land management. department of energy, frank g.klotz of virginia to be under secretary for nuclear security. the presiding officer: without objection, all time has been yielded back. mrs. murray: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the coors

nomination. mrs. murray: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or wishing to change a vote? if not the yeas are 71, the nays are 28. the nomination of neil gregory kornze of nevada to be director of the bureau of land management is confirmed. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: mr. leader. mr. reid: what is the next matter? the presiding officer: there is now two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the klotz nomination. mr. reid: i yield back the time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back.

the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session.

ms. stabenow: madam speaker? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam speaker. i believe we are done with the voting at this point. the presiding officer: we are in legislative session. ms. stabenow: terrific. thank you very much. madam speaker i would like to talk for a moment about the critical -- the presiding officer: order. please proceed. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. i'd like to talk for a moment about the critical importance to women and families across michigan and the country of ending pay discrimination against women so that women are finally getting equal pay for equal work. i was so proud to see so many colleagues on the floor earlier

including the distinguished presiding officer speaking about the importance of women being able to earn a full dollar instead of 77 cents on every dollar and that is -- the presiding officer: order please. ms. stabenow: thank you. because part of giving everyone in this country a fair shot to get ahead is not only making sure they are getting paid a fair wage, which is something we're fighting to make sure happens, but also to make sure that they're not getting paid less simply because of their gender. if somebody is working 40 hours a week, they ought to get paid the same for 40 hours a week if it's the same job and that's what the paycheck fairness act is really all about giving everyone regardless of their gender the tools they need to help end gender discrimination in pay and hold those engaged in discriminatory behavior

accountable. that's really what it's all about, and we're going to have a chance very soon to vote. i hope that we would all agree that discrimination because of gender or for any reason has no place in our society yet too many americans rightly feel that they're trapped in a rigged game where heads the privileged and the powerful win and tails everybody else loses. and when it comes to pay we know we know this system is rigged against women. today in 2014, women still only make 77 cents for every dollar compared to a man doing exactly the same work. that's the national average. it's even worse in many places around the country. and things, frankly are even worse for women of color. with african-american women getting paid less and latinas

doing worse still. colleagues and i on the floor have been speaking today not just because we're voting on the paycheck fairness act tomorrow but also because today is what we are calling equal pay day. april 8 is the day that women finally catch up. and so when you look at all the work that was done last year, the whole calendar year of 2013, and then you add onto that january, february, march up until april 8 that's how long it has taken women to make this same income as a man in the same job who worked last year in 2013. a woman has to work one year and three months and eight days in order to earn the same amount as

a man who has worked one year, and that's just not right and that's what this debate is all about. some people say we're just talking about pennies on the dollar and dismiss the issue as nonsense or worse. well madam president those pennies add up. hour after hour, day after day week after week, year after year in my home state of michigan, pay discrimination robs the average working woman and her family more than $13,000 in wages every single year. $13,000 out of their pocket just because they're a woman rather than a man in the same job. while these women are working for discounted wages they certainly don't get a 23% discount on their gas. they don't pay 23 cents less on every dollar at the grocery

store or when the rent comes due or their mortgage comes due. in fact, here's what the average working woman and her family in michigan could buy with the $13,000 a year she has worked hard every day to earn but never sees in her paycheck. for that amount of money that $13,000 a year, she could buy just over two years' worth of food for her family. she could pay for almost a year of mortgage and utility payments. can you imagine mortgage and utility payments right out the window because she is not getting equal pay for equal work? and almost 3,500 gallons of gasoline for her car. now, that's enough gas for me to drive back and forth from detroit to los angeles more than 16 times back and forth.

that's how much a woman loses in her pay every year because of discrimination and lack of equal pay for equal work. but gender discrimination is not just about numbers on page. in fact, it's not about numbers on a page. it's about real women who are working hard who have suffered, continue to suffer because we have not given women and their families the tools they need to make sure they can get equal pay for equal work and that's what this is about. knowing what your colleague -- your workers in the workplace are making so you can find out whether or not you're being paid fairly. the information the tools that women need. let's be clear women aren't the wownls paying the price for wages lost and benefits denied. gender discrimination in pay costs everybody in the family. that cost of gas is for

everybody in the family. the cost of food is for everybody in the family. the inability to buy some extra sports equipment or clothing or pay for the cost of college affects everybody in the family. i hear far too many stories about this problem from my constituents in michigan. linda from south line wrote to tell me her story. not only does she make less than her male counterparts, but a senior executive even bragged to her that he hires women because he can pay them less. it's 2014. and we have an executive who thinks that's okay to even say. last week i meter they slieman an engineer from hancock michigan who came to the senate to testify about her story. madam president, i have to tell you, hancock michigan, we still have 20 feet of snow.

this is the upper peninsula of michigan. you have to be tough to live in beautiful hancock michigan and have a lot of great winter clothing. but it's an absolutely gorgeous gorgeous place. she was working for an auto parts supplier that was forced into bankruptcy in 2003. like the company's other employees, she had to get -- had to be involved in the bankruptcy process to get her last paycheck and the other wages that she was owed. one day she received an update from the bankruptcy court about the claims against her former company, and she made a shocking discovery. all of the men she had been supervising had been paid more than her. all of them. all of them. an engineer. in hancock michigan. kerry said it was heartbreaking, it was

embarrassing, it was infuriating, and it will affect me for the rest of my life. can you imagine madam president, first you're out of a job, you have to go to court just to get your paycheck and then adding insult to injury you find out you've been discriminated against for years without even knowing it. kerry lost out on thousands of dollars in pay and benefits simply because she is a woman. like most people, she really could have used that money. she said she would have used it to help pay the co-pay for her husband's heart surgery which instead she had to put on her credit card. her story underscores why we need to pass this vital legislation before the senate. kerry not only lost out on her pay at her job week after week month after month, she will lose out on social security

benefits for the rest of her life as well. this is not fair, it's not how things should work. kerry deserves a fair shot, and she has not been getting it. we've heard other stories like kerry's before and one of those was that of lilly ledbetter's who worked hard at a goodyear tire plant discriminated against nearly 20 years, did not realize again, she was being paid less. just like kerry she will never get the social security benefits she would have earned if she hadn't been paid less. for just being a woman. the law that bears her name, the lily ledbetter fair pay act was a huge step in the right direction, but today more than 50 years after we passed the equal pay act -- imagine 50 years ago we thought we dealt with this, the equal pay act. and five years after we passed

the lily ledbetter pay fair act we still have work to do to make sure women are actually receiving equal pay for equal work. it was a great day when the lilly ledbetter fair pay act became the very first bill president barack obama signed inta into law after he took office and i want to thank the president for today signing two executive orders that will help protect the employees of federal contractors from pay discrimination. as the president has said, he doesn't want his daughters or anyone's daughters to be paid less just because they are women. i agree. i know the presiding officer does as well. now we must do our part here in the senate to make sure that all

americans have the tools they need to protect themselves from this form of discrimination and hold those responsible accountable. this is not about special protections. in fact, i find any language, any discussion of that so offensive as i know women in michigan and across the country do. somehow special protections because we want to go to work and know we're being paid the same as the person next to us who just happens to be a man and we're women? it's simply about treating all americans fairly, and that's exactly where democrats are committed to. we want to make sure everybody's got a fair shot to get ahead. and it has to start with equal pay for equal work. that means paying a fair wage,

paying men and women what they earn and it means if a woman works 40 hours a week, she should get paid for 40 hours not for 30 hours or 31 hours. the difference in pay simply because of gender discrimination really is the difference. that $13,000 i talked about earlier, it is the difference between whether or not a woman is able to fully benefit from her work and have what sheendz to put food -- she needs to put food on the table and gas in the car and tuition for her son or daughter to be able to go to college and all of the other things we want for our families. madam president, this just isn't good enough. we want the full dollar. 77 cents on every dollar just is not enough. if we truly reward work, it

shouldn't matter if you're a man or a woman. your work should be equally rewarded for the same jobs. it's time the senate come together and we're going to have a chance to do that. to pass the paycheck fairness act. it's the right thing for women and their families, it's the right thing for our economy and it's simply the right thing to do. thank you madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you madam president. there are reports that after we return either from this break or the next, that the senate may take up the so-called fair sentencing act. so i rise today to start discussing this bill with my

colleagues particularly those who do not serve with me on the judiciary committee. over the past 30 years this nation has achieved tremendous success in cutting crime. there are fewer victims who suffer fewer physical and financial injuries. neighborhood safety has improved reducing fear and helping economic growth. these gains have been hard won. congress played a major role, enacting mandatory sentencing guidelines mandatory minimum sentences, providing assistance to law enforcement and building more prisons. the mandatory guidelines combined with abolishing parole led to lengthier sentences and what's really fair about it

all, we had fewer disparities in sentencing. no longer would the sentence depend on whether the criminal faced a tough or lenient judge and factors such as the defendant's race and income could not be taken into account. now, unfortunately the supreme court applying novel readings to the constitution, struck down mandatory sentencing guidelines. as a result, federal judges are departing downward from the guidelines issuing shorter sentences and injecting more disparity into the system. states are reducing their incarceration rates. and while there are probably multiple contributing factors crime rates recently have been rising. the only means left for congress

to ensure that criminals are sentenced to appropriate sentences, then, is mandatory minimums now that the supreme court has judged sentencing guidelines as being unconstitutional. those convicted of the manufacturer sale -- manufacture, sale, with intent to distribute and importation of a wide range of drugs including heroin cocaine p.c.p., l.s.d. ecstacy and methamphetamine may have their sentences cut in half or even more from the current mandatory minimums. supporters of the bill say that it allows for shorter sentencing only for nonviolent offenders. and i'm going to prove that the bill does more than that.

that term, "nonviolent offenders" is highly misleading. first, that phrase conjures up people in jail for simple possession. and this bill does not apply to simple possession at all for any drug. second the types of offenses the bill applies to are violent. importing cocaine is violent. the whole operation turns on violence. dealing heroin also involves violence or the threat of violence. third, the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced might have been violent. the mandatory minimum sentence would be cut even if the criminal's codefendant used a gun. fourth the criminal himself could have been one with a

violent history. although the bills to not apply to a drug crime for which the defendant used violence, it does apply to criminals with a history of violence. that is, the bill would permit a shorter mandatory minimum where the defendant was not violent on this occasion but was in the past. supporters of the bill never acknowledge that it would apply to drug dealers with a history of violent crime. other provisions of the bill expand the safety valve that allows judges not to impose mandatory minimum sentences on offenders with minimal criminal history. the bill's proponents never identify which violent offenders who fail to qualify for even the bill's expanded safety valve should be given to receive the bill's short -- should be able

to receive the bill's shorter mandatory minimum sentences. decent pay attention to this smoke screen, that the bill leaves the maximum sentences alone. judges are not sentencing anywhere near the maximum today. the whole point of the bill is to allow judges to ignore current mandatory minimums for serious offenses like heroin importation and cocaine dealing, and sentence defendants to half the minimum that they're now receiving. we know from the experience of the states that when mandatory minimum sentences are reduced judges use their greater discretion only to sentence the same or more leniently even when the drug offender has a history of violence. for instance, the state of new

york changed its drug sentencing laws to give judges more discretion. judges began in the overwhelming majority of the cases to sentence offenders to the now lower minimum sentences. new york judges have sentenced drug offenders even offenders with prior felony convictions to the lower minimums. do we really want offenders like these out on the street earlier than is the case now? and while out there in the street to prey on our citizens. and that is what they will do. although supporters of the bill claim it will reduce costs what it will really do is shift costs from prison budgets to crime victims. as professor matt deleasy

testified before our judiciary committee, juvenile drug use is the best predictor of chronic offending, and that, in his words -- quote -- "drug users offend at levels three to four times greater than persons not convicted of drug crimes." end of quote. he stated that criminal justice research shows that -- quote -- "releasing 1% of the current bureau of prison population would result in approximately 32,850 additional murders rapes, robberies aggravated assaults burglary, auto thefts and incidents of arson." end of quote. so the empirical data are clear. lower mandatory minimum sentences mean increased crime

and increased number of victims. why would we then vote to increase crime and create more crime victims? so organizations various police organizations answer that question by coming out against this bill. the national narcotics officers association has written -- quote -- i give you a fairly long quote -- "as men and women in law enforcement who confront be considerable risk daily to stand between poison sellers and their victims, we cannot find a single good reason to weaken federal consequences for the worst offenders who are directly responsible for an egregious amount of personal despair community decline family

destruction and the expenditure of vast amounts of taxpayer dollars to clean up the messes they create." end of quote from the national narcotics officers association. the federal law enforcement officers association has also come out against the bill. they have stated -- quote -- "it is with great concern that the federal law enforcement officers association views any action or attempt that would alter or eliminate the current federal sentencing policies regarding the federal minimum sentencing. the mandatory minimum sentencing standard currently in place is essential to public safety and that of our membership." end of quotation from the federal law enforcement officers association. law enforcement then is telling us that this bill would be bad

policy and create more crime victims, but is also saying that were this ill-considered legislation to pass, the safety of police officers who safeguard us would be jeopardized. so, how can we possibly do that to those who bravely protect us, our law enforcement people? the bill is particularly misguided in light of current conditions concerning drug use. we're in the midst of a heroin epidemic right now. deaths from heroin overdoses in pennsylvania are way up. in the state of vermont the government devoted this year's entire state of the state message to the heroin problem. cutting sentences for all heroin importation and dealing makes no

sense at all considering the concerns of these governors and other state leaders and law enforcement people. now, then let's turn to what the obama administration thinks. typically of its pattern of disregarding the law across a large range of areas this administration refuses to charge some defendants for crimes they actually committed if doing so would subject them to mandatory minimum sentences. typical with its pattern -- typical with this administration's pattern of disregarding the law, it is not taking action in most situations where states have enacted laws decriminalizing marijuana even though that is contrary to the federal law. do you think that the obama administration wop stand

silent -- do you think the obama administration would stand silently by if a state enacted laws to allow guns rather than drugs consistent with federal law? of course not. according to a story this week in "the washington post," one of the reasons for the heroin epidemic is that marijuana decriminalizeation is leading growers to produce more heroin for importation into this country. and that's because the availability of marijuana is rising and consequently the price is falling. so there's money available to spend elsewhere. so many who used to grow marijuana now can make much more money cultivating opium poppies for heroin export to this country. but the administration supports this bill, which allows judges to lower mandatory minimum sentences for heroin

importation. doesn't that boggle the mind? my conservative colleagues who rightly oppose the administration's lawlessness in so many areas should think twice before supporting the administration here. they should oppose a bill that gives judges additional authority only for lowering sentences for dealing manufacturing, and importing lsd, heroin, cocaine ecstasy and methamphetamine. now, the national association of assistant u.s. attorneys has courageously disagreed with the public opinion of their employer the department of of justice, and the attorney general holder. the national association of assistant u.s. attorneys -- and remember these people are on the federal payroll enforcing and prosecuting under federal

law -- this organization has written an opposition to the bill -- quote -- "mandatory minimums deter crime and help gain the cooperation of defendants in lower-level roles in criminal organizations to pursue higher level targets. they have been demonstrably helpful in reducing crime." end of quote from the national association of assistant u.s. attorneys. so why on earth then would we cut sentences for sellers and importers of the worst drugs now plaguing our cities, our suburbs and even rural areas? madam president, not every mandatory minimum sentence may be set at a perfect level.

we should and can have a discussion concerning lowering some sentences and maybe even raising others. others that probably should be raised such as for child pornography, terrorism, sexual assault, domestic violence, and various fraud offenses. we can reduce jail time but not sentences. many states have done this for inmates whose risk assessments and behavior in jail, including successful completion of programs proven to reduce recidivism earn our confidence that these people out of prison are less likely to offend or reoffend. but we should not cut sentences up front for serious offenders like heroin dealers. we should not do something where these offenders have a history of violence. we should not drastically cut

the only tool we have to reduce sentencing disparities among judges. the mislabeled fair sentencing act is the wrong answer to the problems we face. i hope the senate will not take up this bill. but if it does, my colleagues should take a clear-eyed look at this very dangerous bill and oppose it, as i will. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

with. quorum call: