i look forward to supporting that effort. but if we're not able to get that effort across the finish line right now, we can't walk away from this issue. so i've worked on a series of bipartisan targeted reforms that would reduce costs, increase transparency, and allow students to better measure -- manage their amounts of debt. now, any one of these proposals aren't going to completely solve this problem. but this should not go into the bucket of issues that we continue to kick the can on. the issues of student debt, the affordable of college is an issue of enormous economic proportion and frankly one that shouldn't be viewed as a democrat or republican issue. let me talk briefly about a couple of proposals i've got. first, a proposal that i partnered with senator wyden and senator rubio on that at any

rational place should be a complete no-brainer. it's a bill called "know before you go." and the idea is quite simple. let's do to higher education what we've done to real estate with the zillow web site or what we've done with the travel pricing, with travelocity and a series of other web sites, and try to take every four-year institution, two-year institution, career and technical education program, graduate program and make them totally transparent on a single, user-friendly web site, where before you go, you know what your chances of graduating, how much debt you might want to take on. if you major in art history the way my daughter did, what's your chance of getting a job and how much is it going to pay. so that we can actually make people better informed consumers before they choose higher education. higher education is probably next to buying -- probably next to buying a house is the most expensive investment you'll make in a lifetime. just maybe students might find

out that if you go to u.v.a. and you drop out after three years and come out with a lot of debt, you don't have much to get into the job market with. whereas if you went to piedmont community college and actually came out with a two-year degree in mechanical tech field, you've got a 90% placement opportunity. this know before you go act, we collect most of this data already, so it shouldn't be that big a stretch to put this in a user-friendly fashion. what if tobias's friends at virginia state had a better idea before enrolling in college how much they'd be expected to pay, how much of this would actually break down grants versus loans, a recognition of what the actual graduation rate and their job prospects upon graduation. maybe some of them might choose a different path. so better informed consumers of higher education would be one no-brainer step. a second opportunity, again, one

that i think -- i don't know where it falls on the ideological spectrum but in the commonsense spectrum makes an awful lot of sense. why does college have to be four years anymore? why can't we have more students, particularly first-generation students, start -- get a jump-start on college with dual enrollment in high school? now, the key on this is to make sure that the credits you get in your dual enrollment in the community college actually count towards your degree requirement which require what's called articulation agreements between the four-year institutions and the two-year institutions. doesn't do much good if you come into college with a lot of course credit but they don't count towards your degree requirement. but let's try to make sure that more students can knock off a semester or a year of college in high school. that saves families $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, in effect, if you can make that happen. and if you're a low-income student and you qualify for a pell grant, why not be able to use part of those pell grant proceeds in high school if the credits you receive in high school in dual enrollment

actually count towards your degree requirements. again, a jump-start on college. you would make sure that the student like jacob at william&mary was, rather than the exception, would become more of the rule. let me talk about another proposal. again, i'm working with my colleague from florida, senator rubio, on this legislation. and senator rubio has a story similar to mine, a first-generation of his family to graduate from college and law school. he tells stories as well of years and years of repayment on student debt. we've got already in our student debt processes a series of repayment proposals. unfortunately, most of them are confusing, many of them end up like student i know or the young person i know in virginia beach where they're on a fixed payment proposal. this individual, as i mentioned, $2,000 a month, completely crushing his abilities to take any chances at all. so what senator rubio and i are doing is put together a proposal that would say the first option -- it wouldn't -- this would still be the young

person's option to opt out of, but the first option would be an income-based repayment proposal. that would cap your student debt repayments at 10% of your income. what would this do? 10% of your income would allow you to take that chance on that start-up business. 10% of your income cap would maybe make you have the ability to say, oh, gosh, if you hit a rough spot, you don't get crushed, you don't have to move back in with your family. this better structure, financially sustainable income-based repayment proposal would allow young people to better manage their debt, avoid the impacts of default and part of our proposal as well includes loan forgiveness programs that would provide borrowers like jacob from southwest virginia the kind of relief he wants. even if we can't agree on a grand refinancing proposal, this income-based repayment capping at 10% has been greeted by left

and right alike as a step, a dramatic step forward. ought to be part of our discussion. then we come to another propos proposal, one that quite honestly even this body, with all its dysfunction, ought to be able to get done and this is a proposal where i've partnered with my colleague, senator thune and senator ayotte, on a very business-friendly proposal that again would be at the option of an employer and an employee. right now an employer, if the employee wants to continue their education, an employer can take up to $5,000 of that employee's salary and apply it to their tuition tax free on continuing education. well, for allowing the employer to do that for an employee to continue their education, to increase their skills, why not provide that same kind of option for an employer to an employee to apply that same amount, up to

$5,000, of a person's salary directly against their student debt pretax and tax free as we well? doesn't cost the employer another dime. this is purely at the option of the employee. great retention tool for a company to say, hey, stay working with us, we're going to give you this benefit. and that young or not-so-young person gets this money pretax going against their student debt. common sense, bipartisan. things that even us, with all of our bitter battles back and forth, ought to be able to find common ground on. as i mentioned at the outset, like many virginians, like many probably in this body, as the first in my family to have graduated from college, i couldn't have gotten to college, my family didn't have the resources. i had to work, i got grants. but i also had to take out student debt.

but the student debt amount that i took out at $15,000 pales in comparison to the average amount of debt that people come out of even public universities in virginia right now with north of $25,000. i came out with $15,000 worth of debt after college and law school. you look at people that come out of graduate school, on average those numbers more than double. this is an issue whose time has come for to us address. in america in the 21st century, you shouldn't go broke if you decide to go to college. we all encourage our young people to get that education that will allow them to prosper in a knowledge-based economy. but we hold out a false hope when we say, go get that education but we're going to put you into such debt that for the next 20 years, you're not going to be able to exercise that education in the way you wanted to because you're going to be scrambling to repay the obligations it took you to get those skills. you know, over the last 20 years, i say this as a former governor -- and this is the case and i was proud of the fact of the amount of investment we made

in higher education when i was governor -- but quite honestly, if you look across the board at every state in our nation as a whole, over the last 20 years, direct aid, federal and state, to higher education has been virtually a straight line down. cost of higher education has been a straight line up. how have we filled that gap? we've filled that gap with basically an unfair deal to a whole generation. we've said, don't worry about the costs, just take out more debt. and for awhile when the economy was good and you could get a job pretty much guaranteed coming out of college or graduate school, this didn't present a crisis. but the last four or five years, as we've seen college graduates, law school graduates, graduate school graduates coming out without job opportunities, we've seen this house of cards collapse. again, i remind my colleagues, $1.2 trillion worth of student debt, greater than credit card debt. the cost of higher education continuing to escalate at a rate higher than even health care costs f. those of us who are lucky enough to serve in this body, who all got our fair shot,

if we're going to really honor our commitment to this next generation -- and, quite honestly, the parents who are also helping to pay off this next generation -- we have to deal with this issue, this crushing issue, of student debt. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we address this problem in a reasonable and timely manner. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. a senator: i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved -- they have the approval of the ajort majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: with that, madam president, i see my friend, the senator from texas. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, we all are anticipating the president's speech tonight in which hopefully he will make the

case for why it is in america's national security interest to eliminate the isis or isil threat from the islamic state that is forming a new caliphate in what used to be called iraq and syria and which hopefully will be restored. when the president first campaigned for president in 20 2008, i know he did not promote himself as a future war president. just the opposite. he told supporters that on his first day in office, he would give u.s. military forces in iraq a new mission which was ending the war. but just because one side of a war quits doesn't mean the war ends. and i think now we've found that to be painfully obvious. when the president was running for reelection, time and time again he boasted that he upheld

that 2008 campaign promise and brought the iraq war to a close. he further assured us that the tide of war was receding. i'm sure if he had a chance, he would probably take back those words because history has disproved those very arguments. as recently as mid-june, even after the so-called islamic state in iraq and syria had conquered the second largest iraqi city, the city of mosul, a national security spokeswoman was still repeating the white house talking points that are three years old, telling the "wall street journal" that president obama promised to responsibly end the war in iraq and he did. of course, america's complete withdrawal from iraq in 2011 did not end the war, as i suggested a moment ago. it just ended the u.s.

involvement in the war in iraq until now. but it did make the resurgence of war much more likely. it was in hindsight a tragic mistake. we were the glue that held iraq together. but once we left and pulled the plug without -- because we did not negotiate a status of forces agreement, or a bi lateral security agreement, -- or a bilateral security agreement, the old sectarian strife that, perhaps centuries or more old, came back to the forefront. iran continued its aggression in iraq as it had been all the time we were there, as well as their support for bashir al-assad and his support for what exphas other terrorist -- support for hamas and other terrorist organizations. meanwhile, in libya, remember,

we -- nato went to war in libya as well, primarily using u.s. assets and money. our complete and utter neglect of libya following the neglect of moammar qadhafi, did not end that war either. it merely created a security vacuum that was quickly filled by radical militias and terrorist groups with ties to al qaeda. if we learned anything from 9/11 -- and i just returned from a gold medal -- gold congressional medal service in the capitol -- if we learned anything 13 years ago, it is that vacuums get filled and we don't fill the vacuum with constructive self-governance and respect for the rule of law and individual human worth and dignity, then that vacuum will be filled by terrorists and others who reject all of those

fundamental values of our country. and we didn't learn it. we didn't learn the lesson. we didn't learn it in libya. we didn't learn it in iraq. 11 months africa daffy's death and less than a week after president obama told the democratic national convention that al qaeda was on the path to defeat, al qaeda-linked terrorists killed four americans in benghazi, including our united states ambassador. less than a week. i mention all this recent history, madam president, because it all comes back to the issue of credibility. not just of our commander in chief, the president of the united states, but of the american people. it comes down to our nation's credibility aroun the world. will we be trusted by our friends and allies?

will we be feared by our would-be adversaries,, the bullies, thugs, terrorists that would take advantage of the vacuum left once america withdraws. from the middle east to the far east, from baghdad to beijing to mosul to moscow, this administration has done tremendous damage to america's credibility. america is the one indispensable nation in the world. we may not like that sometimes, it may seem like too big a responsibility, but no one else can fill the void left when america retreats. ronald reagan understood that. that's why he stood for what he called peace through strength. and you know, it works. but when the president announced a withdrawal date from afghanistan, in the very same speech in which he announced a

u.s. troop surge, he damaged america's credibility again. is that any way to encourage people to support the u.s. and nato's mission in afghanistan, to tell them that we are going to surge troops today but we're going to be gone tomorrow, so you better make your bets in terms of your long-term interests which in afghanistan means they are betting with america's adversaries. and of course like we saw in iraq, tragically the investment that the united states made in terms of blood and treasure, which was squandered in iraq, it created the prospect of another squandering of america's blood and treasure in afghanistan unless we learn the lessons of iraq. and then there is syria. the president has given speech after speech.

the department of state, hillary clinton, others, the national security advisors have said that it is american policy that there be regime change in syria, that bashar assad has to go. but then nothing happened. well, i take that back, something did happen. 200,000 civilians have died in syria as a result of that civil war. now, the president came to congress, asked for authority to conduct air strikes in syria, but then when he couldn't explain what his strategy was, he got a lifeline from vladimir putin. putin said we'll help you get rid of those chesapeake in syria, -- chemical weapons in syria, and the president retreated from that red line and nothing seemed to happen.

in addition to those 200,000 syrian civilians killed since the civil war started, we have seen millions of syrians displaced in refugee camps in turkey and lebanon, in jordan. and then there is the ukraine. when the president promised to help ukraine defeat russian aggression and to help it maintain its full territorial integrity and sovereignty, he subsequently refused to give the ukranians even modest defensive weapons. i think we sent them m.r.e.'s, meals ready to eat, we sent them maybe some medical supplies which were -- are important, but they needed not m.r.e.'s. they needed weapons with which to defeat russian aggression, to raise the cost of putin and his

regime of their continued invasion of ukraine and crimea. and then the president decided we're just going to use economic sanctions against putin. putin could care less about the economic sanctions. and again, america's credibility. the extent to which our allies and friends can rely on us when they get in trouble. they begin to doubt our credibility and the bullies, tyrants and terrorists, they just lick their lips and take full advantage of the situation. we have seen that time and time and time again. and then there was when the president -- i bet this is another couple of words he wished he could take back in light of subsequent events. he dismissed the islamic state terrorists as the j.v. team, j.v. team. even though they were gaining a

stranglehold over eastern syria and western iraq, again the president by underestimating the threat, a threat i'm sure he will confront head on tonight, but he undermined america's credibility. make no mistake, america's credibility does matter, and when america loses credibility, the world becomes a much more dangerous place. and that is exactly what has happened over the next several years. so, madam president, i would say that despite the criticism that i have made of the president's policy, i believe he has an opportunity tonight, starting tonight to reverse some of that damage. beginning with his speech on u.s. policy in iraq and syria. he has an opportunity to reverse

the impression that he is aloof and detached from the ongoing chaos. he has the opportunity to lay out a clear strategy for destroying perhaps the richest, most well-armed terrorist group on the planet. he has an opportunity to describe how our strategy might utilize syria's more moderate anti-assad rebel groups and describe how he plans to work with congress on implementing that strategy. he has an opportunity to sell the american people on his strategy and make no doubt about it, while the president thinks he could go this alone and he doesn't need to come to congress for additional authorization, he does need and we do need the support of the american people. i mean, there are practical reasons why the president should come to congress, because if he makes the case to a bipartisan

congress and congress issues the authorization for him to act because they believe -- we actually believe he has got a strategy that can work, then the american people i think will be much more inclined to support that strategy. and tonight i hope he will speak not only to congress, he will speak to the american people candidly about the threat and about our military goals and how he intends to achieve those goals by the strategy that he lays out. he has an opportunity to explain the evolving nature of the terrorist threat and also explain why he is going to do and what we can do together to defend u.s. interests and to keep america safe. madam president, yesterday "the washington post"/abc news poll

revealed some very important data with regard to the american people's understanding of the threat and their support for what the president is talking about doing, and in some ways it seems like the american people were way ahead of their leadership here in congress and in the white house. but in the "washington post"/abc poll, i will just read three -- three questions. one asks -- "as you may know, a group of sunni insurgents called the islamic state of iraq and syria, also known as isis, has taken control of parts of iraq and syria. how much, if at all, do you see isis as a threat to the vital interests of the united states? 91% of the respondents say they see it as a serious threat to the vital interests of the united states. another question asked -- "do you support or oppose u.s. air

strikes against the sunni insurgents in iraq j" 71% support. third question. do you support or oppose expanding u.s. air strikes against the sunni insurgents into syria? 65% support. so you could see that the first question people recognize isis as a threat. fewer support kinetic strikes against the insurgents in iraq and syria, but still a two-thirds majority do. so my point is, madam president, while the president of the united states may take what i think is a very generous view of his authority as commander in chief and under the constitution to do this without congressional authorization, i think it's a terrible mistake for him to do so, for two reasons -- one i just mentioned, which is he

needs and we need the support of the american people before we send any american into harm's way to deal with this threat. we need to have a robust debate, and there needs to be bipartisan support for this effort in order for the american people then to see that we are united and thus to unite them in common cause against this terrible threat. and then the last reason is practical, too. the president wants, it's reported, $5 billion. we have already burned up about half a billion dollars with air strikes in iraq. war is expensive. if the president says this is going to go on for another three years, which is one estimate i saw, he needs to come to congress in order to get the appropriation, to get the money in order to carry this out. and if he thinks that he can just come and request $5 billion

and congress is going to rubber stamp that or write him a blank check without any plan or strategy, i think he is terribly mistaken. and from what we have seen since our nation has been at war in vague and afghanistan for lo these many years, 13 years in afghanistan, we know war is expensive and $5 billion is just a very minimal down payment on what it will cost the american taxpayer to conduct this effort. so the president may have a very narrow view of his responsibility to come to congress and get authority, but there is very practical reasons why he should, as i said, both in terms of gaining the support of the american people for this effort before he sends more americans into harm's way and the fact that under the constitution, the executive, the president can't appropriate one

penny. that's going to have to come from congress. and one party can't do this. heaven forbid our national security would break down along purely partisan lines. but if the president doesn't have a plan and if he doesn't lay it out tonight, it's hard to see how he will get either the support of congress, whether it's official or not, or of the american people, and it's hard to see where this is going to go if he thinks he can fund this on the cheap when in fact by his own estimate and others, it's going to take three years or more to defeat isis. madam president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, madam president. i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business

for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. madam president, as you are well aware as one of our great leaders on our economic agenda of what we are calling a fair shot, it is incredibly important in the time that we are in session that we have an opportunity to vote again on each of those items and hopefully pass each of the items that are at the front line of what american families, the american people care about in terms of lifting their standard of living and creating more opportunities. it's great that we have seen a stock market more than double in the last five, six years. it's great that someone who is living off of interest earnings has a better portfolio. that's great. but the person who is getting up every day and going to work,

maybe takes the shower after work, ought to have the same fair shot to get ahead, so that this economy is growing and that's great, but it needs to grow and create opportunity for everyone. and we can help with that by having the right support and the right policies, and that's what the fair shot agenda is all about. now, this afternoon we're going to be voting on a very important piece of that that i frankly can't believe we're even having to talk about in 2014, whether or not we're going to actually enforce equal pay for equal work laws. when i think about my own family, my daughter, daughter-in-law, granddaughter at 7 years old who i hope by the time she grows up we're not going to still be talking about this. i think about their working hard every day and the assumption they have is they will get paid just as their male counterparts

are. now, there are those that have said, well, this is a distraction, this isn't really an issue, there are some in michigan who have said women really don't care about equal pay, what they care about is flexibility, and my response is, flexibility doesn't buy my groceries. it doesn't buy my daughter's groceries. it doesn't put gas in her car, it doesn't pay her mortgage. the reality is in america in 2014 there is absolutely no reason, zero, that we would not have 100% vote not just on a procedural vote to proceed, but on a final bill to make sure enforcement is in place on equal pay. pretty big deal. and an awful lot of women who are the sole breadwinner in their families are counting on this to get this right 0 to make sure the kids who are now going back to school can have the

school clothes that they need, that they can put the food on the table, that they can put the gas in the car to get them to school, to get to work, and so on. and another big piece of all this agenda in terms of creating opportunity for people is to make sure you can afford to go to college. that same person who is trying to put food on the table would love to put money aside in a bank account for the kids to go to college. and would love to know that when they're doing the right thing, they're making the grade, they're going to college, that they will not be stuck with mounds of debt buried in debt because we do not have the right kind of system that provides funding for higher education and access to low-interest loans. another piece of the fair shot agenda, which is absolutely critical, is to make sure somebody at least -- let's start with ground zero -- which is at least that anybody who has a student loan now has the

chance to refinance it just like you would a house at the lowest possible interest rate which isn't possible today. now, what does that do? we know there's more student loan debt today than credit card debt. think about that. there's more student loan debt than credit card debt. a trillion dollars. there are realtors in michigan or mortgage bankers in michigan saying you got to fix this because i've got folks who want other to buy a house and can't qualify because of their student loan debt. why want to start a small business, can't get a loan because of student loan debt. we also know there's actually people who are on medicare who are older than 65 years of age in this country still paying off student loan debt. now, when we talk about opportunity and a basic value of america, work hard, go to school, have opportunity, seems to me this flies in the face of that. so another really important piece we need to get to and pass is allow people step one, to

renegotiate and to refinance their student loans at the lowest possible interest rate from last year which is 3.86% for undergraduate students. and so that needs to get done so we're addressing one of the huge burdens and costs on middle-class families. we also know that, unfortunately, we have another agenda item that came about because of the supreme court deciding that for women, that for women only, that our choices on preventative health care on birth control, if we're on the job, covered by insurance, that our boss can actually overrule personal decisions about what type of birth control a woman will choose for herself, for her family. so we have a bill called not my boss' business.

i think it's pretty clear. it's not your boss' business what decisions your make and you should be able to have your birth control decisions and what you need covered just like anything else in terms of preventative health care for men or for women. that's another piece of all of this that needs to get passed to make it clear. this is an economic issue for people. i know in my own family when i think about my daughter and son and nieces and nephews, who are planning their families and and making decisions, these are economic issues about health care coverage. and we have two other critically important economic issues that are part of what we want to get voted on and done before this session ends in september. one is raising the minimum wage.

it seems to me pretty basic if you're working 40 hours or more a week you shouldn't be in poverty. plain and simple. if we're going to reward work, if we're going to expect people to work, then working should pay more than not working. and if you're working 40 hours a week, you ought to be making more than the poverty level. it's been way too long for american workers to get a pay raise. so that's an important part of it. and then finally, a bill that i've introduced that to me ought to be a no-brainer, i don't understand, we've tried to pass it a couple years ago, it was blocked and it was blocked again by republican colleagues a few weeks ago, we need to get this done, is a part of our tax code that allowed -- allows a company that packs up stop and moves a factory overseas to write off the cost of the move so the american taxpayer, including the workers who just lost their job, would be paying

for it. and so -- unfortunately, over the years we've seen too much of that in michigan. now, things are coming back, manufacturing is coming bark, we're very happy about that but we need to send a very strong message that if you pack up shop and decide to move overseas, american taxpayers, the workers and their families, the community are not going to pay for the move. but if you want to come back, we are more than happy to allow you to write off those costs through the tax code and we'll even give you another 20% tax credit for those costs on top of it. so it's very simple. the bring jobs home act simply says if you want to come back to america, great. we will help you do that. we will help you pay for those costs to come back to america. but if you want to leave this country, you're on your own. so those are the five items that

we need to get done before this end of this month that all relate to whether or not we're going to have opportunity and we're going to focus on the middle class of this country. too many folks are barely holding on or aren't holding on or used to see a path to get to the middle class and can't anymore. and that is not going to work for america. if we don't have people that know that they have a fair shot to make it, that they have opportunity, that they see opportunity for their children, if they don't have money in their pocket so they can take care of their family and invest in the future, we're not going to have a strong economy. that's just a fact. so we're glad that wall street is doing well. but it's time to focus on main street. middle-class americans. that's what the fair shot agenda is all about, and i hope colleagues will come together and help us get this done. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, when i was home last month, i heard a lot from missourians for really the first time over and over again, what about all of the bills that the house has passed the isn't senate hasn't pane taken up, what about funding the government, my good friend from michigan mentioned five things we'd like to get done or she'd like to get done before we get to the end of the year. i think everybody on the other side of the aisle knows those five things for various reasons will not happen this year, but what are we not doing? we're less than a month away from the beginning of a new spending year, we haven't voted on a single one of the appropriations bills. there's no budget. the fundamental work of the government is not going on while we continue to debate the same things over and over again because i think there's some people who think there's a good

title to the bill or a good headline. the five things we need to get done. equal pay, who's not for equal pay? the law requires equal pay. and, in fact, when the president signed the lilly ledbetter act he said this solves the problem. suddenly it doesn't solve the problem because we need to get that title back out there again where we can talk about the title. access to college, i'm the first person in my college to ever graduate from college. i was -- had the chance to be a university president. i believe people's lives are affected by the right kind of education after high school. for a lot of -- nobody is opposed to access to college. we ought to be talking about that but we ought to be talking talking about that in a way that could produce the right kind of results. when -- people in missouri say you're not getting the work of the country done. it is clearly right. the fundamental things that need to get done, and here we're back in washington reminded by

our friends on the other side that really we're here to just hold votes we've already had. not a single thing was mentioned in the proceeding remarks -- preceding remarks we haven't oat some-voted on already and not a single thing mentioned that has a chance of passing both the house and senate and frankly has no chance of advancing in either the house or the senate but here we take this critical two weeks, the government's unfunded, no budget to talk about, the work not being done to talk about these things and right now, the bill we're on with all the -- the critical challenges that we haven't solved, we're talking about changing the constitution. the majority leader, the only person in the senate that can decide what bill comes to the floor, is the majority leader, and the majority leader has brought a bill to the floor, an amendment to the constitution, an amendment that would take 67

votes in the senate to pass, an amendment that has 45 sponsors,a all from the other side, not very close to 67, one, nobody believes this is going to happen, you know, to amend the constitution, two-thirds of the senate has to agree, that won't happen. two-thirds of the house has to agree. that won't happen. two-thirds of the states have to approve the amendment. that won't happen. more importantly, madam president, it shouldn't happen. we're talking about amending the constitution of the united states when there's no chance to do it so the only thing we're surely talking about is just trying to score some kind of last-minute election-year points but if people are paying attention, the points that will be scored will be scored by those defending the bill of rights and those defending the constitution. what -- what's being proposed would have a chilling effect on the first amendment. the first amendment which says

congress shall make no law abridging, among other things, the freedom of speech. we're thinking for the first time ever we would amend the bill of rights? now, nobody really thinks we're going to do that so apparently everything thinks as long as it's just a show vote, it doesn't matter. but if you can take these freedoms today and decide that they're worth bandying around as a show vote, i suppose could you take them tomorrow and 18-wheel think about taking these freedoms away. the constitution would not have become the constitution of the united states without the promise of the bill of rights. the founders got a lot of things right, they didn't get everything right, but the one thing -- one of the things they got right was the bill of rights. and one thing that the states demanded when the constitution was shown to them was, well, we could do that but we're not going to do that unless we're

promised that these fundamental rights that make us who we are and have the potential to make us more than we are, that these fundamental rights are guaranteed and we have never amended the bill of rights. so suddenly 45 members of the senate with no enthusiasm for this anywhere else that i can find in the country, 45 members of the senate have decided that for the first time ever, we would amend the bill of rights. and what does the bill of rights give us? freedom of religion, the first right. and there will be another debate, i assume, late in the next two weeks 0 to once again talk about how important is that right of conscience, that the constitution and the bill of rights guarantees in the very first freedom it gives us is the freedom to believe what we believe. in fact, president jefferson said in a decade after the constitution that of all the rights, that's the one we should hold most dear, the

freedom to have -- to hold our beliefs and not let the government decide how you conduct yourself in ways that violate your faith beliefs, but right after that becomes the ability to talk about how -- what we want to talk about, freedom of speech, the second of all those freedoms. and yeah, there may be people here not offended by the fact we would bandy that around with no chance we're going to change this amendment. it's not like, madam president, there are 67 cosponsors of this amendment. i'm a -- i find it offensive that we would talk about this in a way as if it's -- it's a freedom that is so easily discussed and so easily utilized for political reasons that we just bring it up here a few weeks before the election and talk about it even though there's no chance that it could possibly be changed at this point and shouldn't be changed in the future.

the right of conscience, the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to petition the government -- those are the freedoms, those are the five freedoms given in that first amendment to the discussio cons, and here we are talking about them as if they are nothing more than political talking points. they are who we are as a nation. the chilling effect of the first amendment that this discussion has is concerning. i suppose part of it is to convince people that, well, you don't want to participate in the system because you're going to be criticized if you participate in the system. you know, one of the great rights we have as americans is the right to criticize those who are participating, if we do participate, the right that others have to criticize us. this is an effort that, if it occurred, would certainly be a great thing for the current

occupants of public office because you begin to write the rules in a way that make it harder for those who don't hold public office to challenge those who do. no one likes being criticized, but in our country, it's a fundamental part of who we are. the constitution wouldn't have been agreed to without the bill of rights. the bill of rights, as i said before, hasn't been changed. the freedom of press is one of those rights but it's not the only way. you know, this -- this amendment would go a long way toward making the press the only way people get the information and news. and the press, the media generally has a guaranteed right to do what they do but individuals have a guaranteed right to say what they want say, to participate as the courts and the constitution allow in this great debate we call america.

to see that dealt with in this way, with -- i actually wonder what people would think if they really thought this was going to happen. nobody believes this is going to happen because it's not going to happen. and we're taking the people's time, we're taking the time given to us by the constitution and the people to do the people's work to instead talk about things that shouldn't happen, talk about things that won't happen and to suggest that there's a real debate going on in washington when this is all exactly what people are tired of -- people in washington not doing their job and trying to convince people -- the people that washington should be working for, that somehow great debates are going on when all we're doing is getting ready for the next election. i'm tired of that. i think most people, the citizens of our country are tired of it. and for those who want to defend

the constitution, count me on their side. and i yield back. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: on thursday, this country will commemorate the 13th anniversary of the september 11th terrorist attack. we learned many lessons from that day. one key lesson was that terrorists can and will exploit our immigration system and policies to enter and remain in the united states and actually and now into future potentially harm americans. the 9/11 attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, some of whom enter via student visas and

trained in flight schools here in the united states. the 19 individuals applied for 23 visas. they lied on their applications. they failed to abide by the terms of their visas. this was a wake-up call that we needed better oversight of our visa programs, especially student visas. but this wasn't our first wake-up call. in 1993, the american people were confronted with the first terrorist attack on the world trade center. one of the instigators of that attack was on an expired student visa. since 1993, we have mandated the tracking of foreign students and gave schools and universities a responsibility to help us monitor these programs while these students are on u.s. soil.

unfortunately, while this tracking system is up and running today, it is still antiquated and the federal government remains incapable of ensuring that those who enter the country are students who are truly attending our educational institutions. today nearly 10,000 schools across the country accept foreign students and those schools are responsible for communicating with our government about the whereabouts of these students. enrollment of foreign students is increasing. according to the brookings institution, the number of foreign students on f-1 visas in u.s. colleges and universities grew from 110,000 in 2001 to 5

524,000 2012. despite this overwhelming increase, the technology and oversight of the student visa program has -- has insufficiently improved. now, 13 years after 9/11, we have sham schools setting up in strip malls with no real classrooms. we have foreign nationals entering the united states with the intent to study but then disappear and never attend a class. so i'll give you just two examples of sham schools. in 2011, tri-valley university reported that they'd bring in less than 100 students but actually brought in over 1,500. tri-valley university officials were caught giving f-1 visas to undercover agents posing as foreign nationals who explicitly

professed no intention of ever attending classes. students paid $5,400 per semester in tuition to the school to obtain those student visas until that school was shut down. on may the 29th this year, the micropower career institute in new york was raided by federal officials. its top officials were arrested on student visa fraud. allegedly school officials did not report foreign nationals when they didn't attend classes and they falsified those student records so the school could continue to collect federal education dollars for those students. but despite the indictment of officials at this so-called school, it still remains open for business. just two examples.

now, the government accountability office reported to congress on 2012 that sham schools pose a problem. we put a lot of faith in the work of the government accountability office. the g.a.o. said that the immigration and custom enforcement does not have a process to identify and analyze risks across schools. immigration and customs enforcement has overlooked major indicators of fraud and they cannot follow trends or predict abuse. two years later the problem continue to exist and the obama administration just fiddles while our problem burns. abc news investigated the student visa program and made it public last week. they said that 6,000 foreign nationals on student visas have

disappeared. an i.c.e. official acknowledged that they had -- quote -- "blended into the landscape somewhere." yet this number of 6,000 is not the total number of student visa overstays. this is the number of students that the immigration and customs and enforcement is trying to locate and that ought to be alarming news that it's only 6,000. it's time to close the loopholes and clamp down on schools that have a poor track record with regard to foreign students. so this week i'm introducing legislation that requires schools to be certified in order to bring in foreign students and it would suspend schools if there are noncompliance issues. my bill would increase penalties for those who perpetrate fraud

and require background checks and training for school officials. it would also put an immediate end to a flight school's participation in the foreign student program if they are not f.a.a. approved. finally, it would require the department of homeland security to deploy an upgrade to the existing tracking system. this upgrade can be paid for by using fees from student visas and the schools that participa participate. now, what i just told you my bill does isn't new ideas. these are provisions that were taken from the 2012 bipartisan bill led by the senior senator from new york. that bill never passed the senate. when the gang of eight wrote their misguided immigration bi bill, they failed to include

these reforms. so i offered an amendment during committee consideration of the immigration bill last summer and it was included in the bill that passed the senate. so the bill i'm introducing today is the exact same langua language. it has been debated. it was accepted by unanimous consent in the judiciary committee. i hope my colleagues will seriously consider the bill that i'm introducing. it is well past time that we close loopholes and be more vigilant in the foreign student visa program, especially with the growing terrorist threat that we facemen face. madam president, since there's nobody on the floor seeking, i'd like to pay -- take five minutes to pay tribute to senator jeffords of vermont, who passed away last month. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: he died this last

august while the senate was in recess. yesterday the senate appropriately adopted a resolution commemorating the former senator. senator jeffords is probably best known for switching parti parties, from being a republican to an independent and caucusing with the democrats back in 2001. now, as much as that switch hurt at the time, i always held jim in very high regards and i knew him to be a very honorable man. jim and i were both so-called watergate babies, two of the very few new republican house members who survived the 1974 election after nixon's resignation and subsequent pardon. so we joined the house of representatives together and became friends then. it was -- it wasn't only a tough

political environment back then, it was also a physical challenge for us, because during that campaign year, i had surgery on my leg and was walking on crutches. jim had been in a car accident and had a neck brace as a result of that accident. the amusing story has been reported -- i don't think i heard it myself but it's been reported and it was even brought up in a report on the funeral -- the amusing story has been reported about the two of us walking down the aisle of the house to be sworn in as freshmen after that devastating election for republicans. this senator on crutches and jim with his neck brace. somewhere in the chamber a democrat member yelled out -- quote -- "there's two more that we almost got."

the two of us laughed for years about that afterwards because, of course, we had the last lau laugh, serving for many years and being elected to the senate and both becoming chairmen of committees in this body. one of t -- one of the most honorable things that jim did for me and i believe for the country was in regard to the 2001 tax relief bill that was, by some measures, the largest tax cut in history. not many really know the history of that bill. i was chairman of the finance committee so was in charge of putting the bill together and getting it passed in the senate. the process started with a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions to our finance committee. the bush administration pressed that year for a $1.6 trillion tax cut. jeffords and other modest

republicans insisted that it needed to be cut for $3 billion because they figured the money wouldn't be there in the end. and they ended up being right on that point a few years later when we sank into years of deficit spending. but we needed their votes, and i made it clear to president bush and our leadership that if we wanted to get something done and have an historic tax cut, that we had to lower our sights some and still get most of what we wanted. unfortunately, i took a lot of criticism from my side for supporting senator jeffords and others, but i knew where the votes were and where the votes weren't. i remember a bunch of house members even had a press conference saying some not-so-nice things about me and the idea of only accepting a $1.3 trillion tax package.

but our senate republican leadership wanted good results, and they agreed to compromise in order to get it. that's sot something that you see -- that's not something that you see nowadays around here on very big bills. if the majority can't have their way, they just file cloture and let the bill die, which is why we don't get much done around here anymore. but the pivotal point on the 2001 tax bill came right before the time senator jeffords switched political parties. i could never really blame jim for his decision. i didn't agree with that disirks decision, but i know he felt that he had been mistreated by some in our party and had strong disagreements with some of us on issues. during floor consideration of the tax bill that year, we were near the end and the democrat minority had at that time -- at

that time was offering amendment after amendment to stall the bill. and we'd gotten to the point where they were just change ago few words in an amendment and offering the same subject again. at that point i walked over to then-minority whip who happens to be the current majority leader, senator reid, and asked what was going on. he said, you know, well, we think things may be changing around here very conge. of course, i didn't -- very soon. of course, i didn't know what he was talking about. and i assumed some votes were going to change. but he was talking about the impending party switch that none of us knew anything about involving senator jeffords. remember, at that time we were split 50/50. what that meant was that the senate leadership would change and presumably the new leadership would pull the bill from the floor and kill it. so it was important for the democrats to stall as long as

they could on the bill anticipating the jeffords switch. but to his great credit, senator jeffords came to me and told me that out of respect for me and the way that i'd worked with him in compromising this tax bill, he would not officially change parties until after the tax bill was passed. so we were able to finish that historic bill and get it signed into law. this little-known episode demonstrates what an honorable man and true friend jim jeffords was. he didn't let politics dictate whatever he was determined to do, and he stood by his word. i only wish we could see more of that now in today's senate. we'd all -- and if we did, we'd all be certainly better off. it would be a better place and our policies would be a lat -- d be a lot better. so i commemorate senator jeffords in his death. my sympathies are with his

family. i will miss him and wish him godspeed. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today. the senate is debating a plan, a plan by which washington democrats seek to restrict first amendment rights of american

citizens, part of the constitution. under this proposal, certain people would no longer enjoy the same right to free speech and the same right to express themselves. i believe this amendment is a terrible idea, and it really has no chance of becoming law. majority leader reid wants the vote anyway. he thinks that this outrageous amendment that he dreamed up will somehow help democrats win elections this november. the majority leader has come to the floor repeatedly to criticize and to demonize american citizens who don't share his views. it's nothing but political grandstanding and showboating. now, president obama was on "meet the press" last sunday.

the president talked about what's going on in washington. the president said that -- quote -- "people want to get stuff done." "people want to get stuff done." that's what he says the american people want from their representatives here in congress. so if the american people want us to get stuff done, why are the democrats in the senate so determined to do nothing? why are they wasting time on political show votes? why are they not allowing amendments and debate on important bills? why are they blocking legislation that has passed the house of representatives with bipartisan support and is right now sitting on senator reid's desk waiting for a vote s? our nation faces great

challenges. many merps ar americans are hur. republicans have solutions that will create jobs while strengthening our energy security, improving our health care, and cutting government red tape. new numbers came out just last week that showed that america's labor force participation rate is at just about the lowest level it's been in decades. the house of representatives, where republicans are in charge of the schedule, well, they've passed more than 40 bills to help get americans back to work. those bills are right now sitting in the senate waiting for a vote. is that what the president means when he says "people want to get stuff done?" there's a headline in "politico," a local newspaper, on tuesday morning, and it read, "majority says president obama a

failure." a new poll found that 52% of americans think that the obama presidency has been a failure. so what do washington democrats do in response? absolutely nothing. people want washington to deal with the challenges that matter most in their lives, in their individual lives. and we could start by doing something about the president's health care law. it is causing so much harm to people across the country. a bipartisan plan has already passed the house that would stop the employer mandate that businesses provide expensive washington-mandated health insurance. the part of the president's health care law forces small businesses to cut hours -- to cut hours, there are utah -- therefore, cutting paychecks for workers, and is also holding back hiring. we should take up that legislation here in the senate.

we should restore people's freedom to buy health insurance that actually works for them, works for their families, because people know what works best for them. they don't need washington to tell them. we should replace the president's health care law with reforms that actually get people the care that they need from a doctor that they choose at lower costs. the people that i talk with back home in wyoming are also worried about energy costs, especially as it's starting to get colder in much of the country. washington should be looking for ways to help americans produce more affordable, reliable, and efficient energy right here at home. the opportunity is there. and that would mean jobs for american families. it would also mean energy security for our nation. we can start right now by approving the keystone x.l. pipeline. it's been six years since the

bill has been waiting for action. a bill to do that passed the house of representatives, again with bipartisan support. why arpts we voting -- why aren't we voting on that today in the united states senate? the obama administration admits that the pipeline would actually support thousands of good american jobs. the application to build the keystone pipeline has been stalled for six years. the administration should demand action today. now, if the president won't do it, congress still could and should. then congress should pass legislation to speed up exports of liquefied natural gas. our nation has abundant supplies of natural gas, and producers want to export it to customers around the world who are seeking it. the obama administration has delayed the permits to let them do it, and democrats right here in the senate have delayed the bipartisan solution that's already passed the house. we should take a vote on that

bill today and pass it. we should pass a bill that would reform the regulations blocking energy production on federal lands. we should end the obama administration's pointless and destructive war on coal and let the men and women across this country who work in that industry get their jobs and their lives back. american businesses are waiting to create jobs. the only thing standing in the way is the senate majority leader. senate democrats don't want to vote. they don't want to vote to help the millions of americans who are out of the labor force. they would rather protect the washington bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that cellulose down and -- that slows down and stifles economic growth. cutting through the red tape to help americans get back to work is one of the top priorities of republicans, and it should be the top priority of every senator in this body.

we could do it by passing a bill, one that has already passed the house, that would rein in excessive regulations that make it tougher for small businesses to invest, to dproa, and to hire -- to grow, and to hire. wwe could pass another bill from the house that helps businesses defend themselves against abusive patent lawsuits. that's going to help small businesses hire more people and help them grow, and, madam president, i will tell you,130 democrats in the house voted in favor of it. why aren't we voting on that today? we can't get a simple up-or-down vote in the senate. the majority leader will not bring it to the floor. why won't he allow it? bill after bill, one bill after another that republicans have offered, republicans have passed in the house of representatives, bipartisan bills, and the senate democrats don't want to talk about it. they don't want to talk about republican ideas for tax reform,

tax reform that would lower tax rates, make the whole tax system simpler, more fair. they don't want to talk about republican ideas to strengthen and stabilize entitlement programs like social security, medicare, to make sure that they are there for future generations. they certainly don't want to talk about republican ideas to address washington's out-of-control debt. those are the kind of things we should be talking about today on the floor of the united states senate. those are the things republicans have proposed and that we're going to keep fighting for in the senate. that's what the american people are talking about when they say they want washington to get stuff done. they don't mean more terrible ideas like the president's health care law and its multiple damaging side effects. they don't mean job-killing red tape and washington mandates. they don't mean political show votes that would restrict

americans' freedom of speech. president obama and democrats in the senate have turned their backs on middle-class families who are desperately in need of jobs. democrats want to waste time while they're trying to salvage their political careers. republicans want to help get americans back to work. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, one of the joys of being an elected member of congress is getting to hire and know and work with dedicated public servants who tool largely behind the scene. our staffs. one of those individuals is my policy director, priscilla ross, who first joined my staff over 16 years ago when i was serving in the united states house of representatives. i rise this afternoon in a bitter sweet moment to thank priscilla for her service to me, the citizens of maryland and all america on the occasion of her departure from the united states senate. starting next week, she will be the senior associate director for federal relations at the american hospital association,

a.h.a., which is the national organization that represents and serves all types of hospitals, health care, networks and their patients and communities. the a.h.a. is comprised of nearly 5,000 hospitals, health care system networks and other care providers and over 43,000 individual members. priscilla ross is a consummate senate staffer. she's extremely intelligent. she has mastered her subject areas which include health care and budget. she works hard. she is both a pragmatist and an original creative thinker. she works well with her colleagues across the aisle and across the hill. she is a problem solver. she sees the big picture but pays attention to detail. her political acumen and sense of timing are first rate. she tells me what i need to know and, more importantly, what i need to hear, even when i don't

want to hear it. above all, priscilla has been driven by a passion to help people, to make things better for americans, especially the disadvantaged and the vulnerable among us. the disparity of health outcomes between different communities and racial groups in this nation, i know continues to concern priscilla, who has made me more aware of the problem. members of congress, especially senators, depend on their senior staff to sort through the innumerable demands on our time and to help concentrate our time on the most important opportunities and priorities. to do that as well as priscilla has done for 16 years requires not only deep policy expertise but a understanding of the senate and a comprehensive familiarity with the people and the institutions of maryland. it also demands a willingness to bring a seasoned, respectful

skepticism to the scores of requests every senate office receives every week to support this or that legislative initiative and to have the judgment to sort out the strong poil cases from the -- policy cases from the powerful interests. in that, priscilla has excelled. i am grateful for her high standard she met. priscilla came to capitol hill to improve people's lives. she has succeeded in that regard far beyond what most of us are able to accomplish. she's had an extraordinary career. while i'm sad to say that she is leaving the senate i take solace in the fact that she isn't leaving the arena. she'll continue to find ways to make health care better, more accessible and more affordable for all americans in her new post at the a.h.a. priscilla is a proud native of the district of columbia, born and raised in the shadow of the capitol building, so to speak. she likes to reminisce about

taking the number 30 bus along independence avenue to her school at tenley circle every day. she says she never imagined when she was a child that someday she might work in the capitol building she passed to and from her way -- to and from school. fortunately for me she did get that idea and i hired that. priscilla went to boston university before finishing her college career at the american university where she received a b.a. in political science. she held a summer internship in the office of yvonne greatwith burke from california. she has -- she was an outstanding student, including being inducted to phi sigma alpha, which is a national political science honorary society and the golden key national honor society. she is also a member of the zeta phi beta sorority founded nearly 95 years ago at howard university here in the district.

before priscilla joined my staff, she was the political affairs manager for the american association of health plans, a trade association of more than 1,000 managed care plans across the country. priscilla has also represented the investor-owned hospital industry as an assistant vice president for legislation at the federation of american health systems where she lobbied congress on issues important to 1,400 hospitals and health systems with the specific focus on medicare and medicaid reimbursement. in that position, she also represented the association in varies washington-based health care coalitions prepare congressional testimony for association members, designed and coordinated the faha grass roots program, staffed the legislative steering and pbs-exempt hospital committees and drafted comments to propose health care financing administration regulations affecting hospital reimbursements. priscilla has also worked in health care delivery systems as

a new member representative for the harvard community health plan boston. as administrative service coordinator for the psychiatric institute of washington, a private 201 bed acute care facility, and as an information system with bluecross blew shield of the national capital area. she came to me with experience and used that to help people. with regard to her accomplishments while working on my staff, madam president, the list is so long and comprehensive i will only comment on a few of those items. i could comment on a lot more. priscilla staffed my efforts to repeal the arbitrary and unfair outpatient physical occupation and speech language therapy caps for medicare beneficiaries since they were enacted in 1997. first in the house she helped me. now in the senate. because of priscilla's efforts we've been able to prevent the caps from being implemented. with priscilla's help, the

legislation i authored to expand medicare to improve benefits such as colorectal, prostate and osteoscreenings were enacted into law. thanks to her persistence, congress passed the patients' bill of rights which means individuals with private health plans would have the right to choose their primary care provider and women will have direct access to obstetrics services and be able to pick their own providers and that patients with medical emergencies will be guaranteed coverage for necessary emergency room visits in according to the prudent layperson standards. it was priscilla's work that we were able to move forward in these areas. because of the work of priscilla ross, tens of thousands of veterans have access to health care benefits to which they are billed including medicare part-b without being penalized for signing up too late.

under current law people who do not enroll in medicare part-b must pay a 10% penalty for every year they have not participated. but ten years ago military retirees could not have anticipated the rules -- chaiption that have occurred in military health system when the department of defense replaced champus with tricare. nor could they have known that participation in tricare after age 65 would require medicare enrollment. in some cases they recommended that they not enroll. a couple from oklahoma, not maryland, brought this problem to priscilla's attention and as a result we were able to get it done. while priscilla has spent most of her time working on health care, she has amply demonstrated their ability to get things done on other issues. let me talk about the fy 2012

consolidated appropriations bill that contained more for the s.b.a. i was on the budget committee at the time. the disaster loan program received an increase of $72 million and with priscilla's help an amendment that i authored in the american recovery and reinvestment act increased suretity bond increases to help small businesses. each of these initiatives was started by priscilla ross. she marshaled them carefully through the committee and through the process and the end result was it became law. a moment ago i mentioned my and priscilla's concern about health disparities. the united states spends nearly $1 trillion in excess health care costs due to racial and

ethnic health disparities. pri slail has taken the lead in fashioning policies to close the gap. it's not just about economics. it's social justice that strikes at the heart of who we are as a nation. at priscilla's suggestion, i authored provisions that established in statute offices of minority health through the key agencies in the u.s. department of health and human services including the center for medicare and medicaid services, the food and drug administration, and the agency for health care research and equawvmenequality. without the basic research needed to discover the causes of the disparity, we would not be able to make sufficient progress in closing the gap. so priscilla advocated to elevate the national center for minority health and health disparities to the newest institute at the national institutes of health. we now have a national institute for minority health and health disparities thanks to priscilla

ross. in 2007, shortly after i became a united states senator, 12-year-old marylander did he monte driver died of a toothache just a few miles from this building. as "the washington post" recounted, a routine $80 tooth extraction might have saved him if his mother had been insured, if his family had not lost medicaid, if medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find. by the time his aching tooth got any attention, the back tear bam the abscess had spread to his brain and after two operations and more than six weeks in the hospital, the prince george's county boy died. pri slail was determined to turn this terrible tragedy into something positive. she peedly began working to expand access to health care for all americans regardless of their income. thanks to priscilla, we were able to secure guaranteed dental

benefits for children in the reauthorization for the children's health insurance program. along with a dental education program for parents and newborns and a new h.h.s. web site and toll-free number with information about states' dental korchl and a list of participating providers. and we were able to secure funding for a mobile dental health care lab dedicated in 2010 that now carries diamont e's name. to encourage public service activities that promote oral health, including provisions that ensure that activities sagessing individuals to obtain dental services can qualify for funding. madam president, each of these accomplishments were initiated by priscilla ross. madam president, these are just a few of priscilla's accomplishments. suffice it to say that young children across america too numerous to count now have access to dental care things to

priscilla ross, though they will never know her name. suffice it to say that sns across america -- that seniors across america will get health screenings thanks to priscilla ross, though they will never know her name. because of priscilla, we are closer to a more perfect union, which is the birth right of each and every american regardless of race, color, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or economic status. when thomas jefferson followed benjamin franklin to paris as minister of america, he remarked that no one could replace franklin. he, jefferson, was merely a successor. i feel the psalm way about priscilla. there may be a successor, but no one will be able to replace her. i thank her for her wise counsel ands, indomitable spirit, outstanding public service and enduring friendship. i wish her the best of luck in

her new career. thank you, madam president. with that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i ask consent that vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: madam president, i rise today to in support of the paycheck fairness act. equal pay for equal work is the law of the land. yet the law is one thing and the reality is quite another. women still get paid far less than men for the same work. last year hawaii news now, a tv station in hawaii, shared the story of a woman in honolulu. she had been asking for a raise for over a year to no avail. her employers acknowledged that she was underpaid but they didn't do anything about it. then she found out a new male-hire with less experience would be paid $5,000 more to do

the same job. she is not alone. in hawaii a woman makes, on average, 83 cents for every dhar a -- for every dollar a man maifntle while that's better than the national average, it is still not equal pay for equal work. research shows that the gender gap in pay begins with a woman's first job and widens from there. so when a young woman graduates and takes her place in the workplace, her starting line is already behind that of her male colleagues. that makes it harder for her to catch up, no matter how hard she works. and the women i know, they work incredibly hard and many of them are heads of households and sole breadwinners which makes the pain equality that much tougher for them. the gender pay gap persists even for workers with the same level

of experience and education. the gap is even wider for older women. congress passed the equal pay act over 50 years ago. as i said earlier, this is the law of the land. yet the pay gap persists. and while the gap has shrunk -- not by much -- women only earn 77 cents on the dollar nationally. as senator mikulski often says, in 50 years, women have only gained a few cents. in 2009, i was proud to support and vote for the lilly ledbetter act, which president obama signed into law. it was the very first bill that he signed into law upon his election. without this law, women had only 1080 days after their first discriminatory paycheck to challenge it, even if they only found out about it years and

years later. after all, lily's employer did not announce that they were discriminating against her in pay. so in her case, it took many years, and she was far beyond the 180 days that the supreme court said would be the time frame in which she could try to get redress. so while the lilly ledbetter act addressed one part of the equal pay problem, if we're going to make sure that all women get a fair shot, we need to pass the paycheck fairness act. this bill would require employers to prove that pay gaps between men and women are based only -- only -- on a business reason and not on gender. the paycheck fairness act will make it easier for workers to compare their salaries to figure out whether they're victims of discrimination. right now, without this act, employers can still fire workers

just for sharing the basic information about how much they're getting paid. this bill would strengthen penalties for companies that discriminate against women. it would bring class action protection for women in line with other civil rights laws. the bill includes an exemption for small businesses and a phase-in time for businesses to learn what they are required to do. in addition, the paycheck fairness act would help prevent pay discrimination in the first place by providing training for both management and workers. this past april 8 was equal pay day. that's the day when women's earnings in this country caught up with men's earnings from the previous year. in other words, it took women 16 months to catch up with what their male counterparts were

making in 12 months. the very next day here on the senate floor, every single republican senator voted to filibuster the paycheck fairness act, which failed on a procedural vote. i hope that our republican friends will reconsider their position on this important issue this time around. this year president obama signed an executive order to implement parts of the paycheck fairness act for federal contractors, a major step forward for thousands of women. but there are millions more who aren't covered by this executive action. today in the senate, we have another chance to give the women of our country a fair shot, another chance for us to live up to a law that we passed 50 years ago. i urge my colleagues to pass the paycheck fairness act without

delay. 50 years is long enough to wait. i yield back my time. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: