Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes in support of the bill currently before the Senate, S. 1392, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013.

It has taken a long time for this bipartisan legislation to make it to the floor of the Senate, and I commend Senators Shaheen and Portman, as well as Senators Wyden and Murkowski, and all of their staffs for their hard work.

Energy efficiency doesn't grab headlines in the same way as fracking or nuclear reactors or even renewable energy policies for wind and solar, but this bill is good, solid policy that will shrink energy bills for families and businesses. It is exactly the kind of legislation the Senate should be working on, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

This bill strengthens and updates the voluntary building codes States and tribes can adopt in order to determine and meet targets for energy efficiency and continues to strengthen the Federal Government's efforts to reduce energy use.

As the Nation's largest energy consumer, the Federal Government can play a significant role in helping to provide a market for innovation in energy-efficient technologies and in turn

reduce our Nation's CO2 emissions while also saving taxpayers money. This is the kind of policy everyone should be able to agree to. The bill also provides resources to train workers on energy- efficient building design and operation, a crucial component of making sure advances in energy efficiency translate into real, well-paying jobs. In addition, the bill provides incentives for more energy- efficient manufacturing and the development and deployment of new technologies.

Finally, the bill would establish a Supply Star Program which will help provide support to companies looking to improve the efficiency of their supply chains. This program could be particularly helpful to Hawaii, where transportation of goods from the mainland and other places can be very costly.

While individually these provisions may sound like modest proposals or changes, when taken together, the policies in this bill make significant progress toward reducing energy costs. That is good for consumers and businesses, driving innovation, reducing environmental harm, and positioning the United States as a leader in clean energy technology and jobs.

It goes without saying that the cost of energy is an important consideration for families and businesses across our country. When energy costs go up, they can be a drag on the economy. We see this very clearly in Hawaii, where we are uniquely impacted by the price of oil.

In 2011, Hawaii's energy expenditures totaled $7.6 billion--almost equal to 11 percent of our entire State economy. In addition, no other State uses oil to generate electricity to the extent we do in Hawaii. As a result, we have electricity prices that average 34 cents per kilowatt hour. That is over three times the price on the mainland.

Moreover, 96 percent of the money we spend on energy leaves our islands to buy oil from places outside of Hawaii. That is money that could be better used to create jobs, bolster paychecks or to make investments in Hawaii's future.

Obviously, our State's energy security and economic potential is severely undermined by a reliance on fossil fuels. While breaking that reliance is a challenge, it is also an opportunity. Hawaii has set some of the Nation's most aggressive goals for generating renewable energy and improving energy efficiency. We are working to show that renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are not just good for the environment, they can be an engine for economic growth and innovation. That is what makes the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act such an important bill. At its core, this legislation is about updating Federal energy efficiency policies to better meet the needs of today's marketplace.

For example, updating voluntary building codes will give States and tribes the opportunity to reduce their energy use while also giving the private sector signals that there will be demand for innovation. The use of energy savings performance contracts is an example. Energy savings performance contracts are private agreements that make energy and water efficiency retrofits more affordable. A third-party company covers the cost of the upgrade, and it is repaid over time from the resulting savings in energy costs.

Thanks to the State of Hawaii's commitment to improving energy efficiency, Hawaii is the Nation's No. 1 user of energy savings performance contracts. In fact, just a few weeks ago the State of Hawaii was awarded the Energy Services Coalition's Race to the Top Award which recognizes the State's commitment to pursuing energy savings through performance contracting. This is the second year in a row that Hawaii has won this award.

These are the types of innovative financing models and partnerships that can happen when there is clear, sustained demand for improving energy efficiency.

Another aspect to keep in mind is that even something as unglamorous sounding as improving building codes or advancing energy-efficient construction techniques can have a profound impact on the lives of families across the country.

In 2011, Hawaii's first net-zero affordable housing community of Kaupuni Village opened on Oahu. The 19 single-family homes and community center at Kaupuni Village were constructed to maximize energy efficiency and use renewables to achieve net-zero energy performance. The development has earned a LEED Platinum status. Each home in the community was designed with optimal building envelope design, high- efficiency lighting, natural ventilation, solar water heating, and ENERGY STAR appliances.

Kaupuni Village also provides affordable homes to Native Hawaiians--a population that has faced many challenges in achieving independence, home ownership, and economic success. These homes were completed at an average cost of less than half the median sales price of homes on Oahu, which are some of the Nation's highest home costs.

Thanks to technical assistance from the National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL, this partisanship between the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Hawaiian Electric Company, the State of Hawaii, and private and Federal partners is a model for other communities.

Homeowners in Kaupuni Village are able to conserve energy and save money by optimizing their high-tech homes while also maintaining a lifestyle firmly rooted in traditions that go back thousands of years.

Homeowner Keala Young described her new life at Kaupuni Village by saying:

We grow our own vegetables. We raise our own fresh-water

tilapia.

We are passionate about net-zero living. There is so much

pride in our home and our community. We feel we can be an

example to others.

These are the types of stories I imagine every Member of the Senate wants to tell in order to help bring about stories of strong communities, happy, vibrant families, and new opportunities that create a bright future.

The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act is bipartisan legislation that can help to make those stories real for more people in Hawaii and across the country.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ka`u Coast Preservation Act of 2013, a bill directing the National Park Service to assess the feasibility of designating certain coastal lands on the Ka`u Coast of the island of Hawaii as units of the National Park System.

The National Park Service conducted a reconnaissance survey in 2006 that made a preliminary assessment of whether the Ka`u Coast would meet the National Park Service's demanding criteria as a resource of national significance. The reconnaissance survey concluded that ``based upon the significance of the resources in the study area and the current integrity and intact condition of these resources, a preliminary finding of national significance and suitability can be concluded.'' The report goes on to recommend that Congress proceed with a full resource study of the area.

Since the time of the initial reconnaissance report and my introduction of this Act in previous Congresses, two additional properties in the Ka`u that deserve evaluation have come to my attention: the Kahuku Coastal Property, also known as Sands of South Kona and Road to the Sea, and the Nani Kahuku `Aina property adjacent to Pohue Bay. I have added these areas to the study area for the full resource study.

The coastline of Ka`u is still largely unspoiled. The study area contains significant natural, geological, and archeological features. The northern part of the study area is adjacent to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and contains a number of noteworthy geological features, including an ancient lava tube known as the Great Crack, which the National Park Service has expressed interest in acquiring in the past.

The study area includes both black and green sand beaches as well as a significant number of endangered and threatened species, most notably the endangered hawksbill turtle, at least half of the Hawaiian population of this rare sea turtle nests within the study area, the threatened green sea turtle, the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal, the endangered Hawaiian hawk, the endangered Hawaiian bat, native bees, the endangered and very rare Hawaiian orange-black damselfy, the largest population in the State, and a number of native birds. Humpback whales and spinner dolphins also frequent the area. The Ka`u Coast also boasts some of the best remaining examples of native coastal vegetation in Hawaii.

The archeological resources related to ancient Hawaiian settlements within the study area are also very impressive. These include dwelling complexes, heiau, religious shrines, walls, fishing and canoe houses or sheds, burial sites, petroglyphs, water and salt collection sites, caves, and trails. The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail runs through the study area.

The Ka'u Coast is a truly remarkable area: its combination of natural, archeological, cultural, and recreational resources, as well as its spectacular viewscapes, are an important part of Hawaii's and our nation's natural and cultural heritage.

As this process evolves, the successful preservation of this pristine land will depend on the federal government working closely with local stakeholders, seeking their input, and collaborating with them to address concerns as they arise. I encourage the National Park Service to continue working with all involved to ensure this coastline is preserved for decades to come.

I believe a full feasibility study, which was recommended in the reconnaissance survey, will confirm that the area meets the National Park Service's high standards as an area of national significance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ka`u Coast Preservation Act of 2013, a bill directing the National Park Service to assess the feasibility of designating certain coastal lands on the Ka`u Coast of the island of Hawaii as units of the National Park System.

The National Park Service conducted a reconnaissance survey in 2006 that made a preliminary assessment of whether the Ka`u Coast would meet the National Park Service's demanding criteria as a resource of national significance. The reconnaissance survey concluded that ``based upon the significance of the resources in the study area and the current integrity and intact condition of these resources, a preliminary finding of national significance and suitability can be concluded.'' The report goes on to recommend that Congress proceed with a full resource study of the area.

Since the time of the initial reconnaissance report and my introduction of this Act in previous Congresses, two additional properties in the Ka`u that deserve evaluation have come to my attention: the Kahuku Coastal Property, also known as Sands of South Kona and Road to the Sea, and the Nani Kahuku `Aina property adjacent to Pohue Bay. I have added these areas to the study area for the full resource study.

The coastline of Ka`u is still largely unspoiled. The study area contains significant natural, geological, and archeological features. The northern part of the study area is adjacent to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and contains a number of noteworthy geological features, including an ancient lava tube known as the Great Crack, which the National Park Service has expressed interest in acquiring in the past.

The study area includes both black and green sand beaches as well as a significant number of endangered and threatened species, most notably the endangered hawksbill turtle, at least half of the Hawaiian population of this rare sea turtle nests within the study area, the threatened green sea turtle, the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal, the endangered Hawaiian hawk, the endangered Hawaiian bat, native bees, the endangered and very rare Hawaiian orange-black damselfy, the largest population in the State, and a number of native birds. Humpback whales and spinner dolphins also frequent the area. The Ka`u Coast also boasts some of the best remaining examples of native coastal vegetation in Hawaii.

The archeological resources related to ancient Hawaiian settlements within the study area are also very impressive. These include dwelling complexes, heiau, religious shrines, walls, fishing and canoe houses or sheds, burial sites, petroglyphs, water and salt collection sites, caves, and trails. The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail runs through the study area.

The Ka'u Coast is a truly remarkable area: its combination of natural, archeological, cultural, and recreational resources, as well as its spectacular viewscapes, are an important part of Hawaii's and our nation's natural and cultural heritage.

As this process evolves, the successful preservation of this pristine land will depend on the federal government working closely with local stakeholders, seeking their input, and collaborating with them to address concerns as they arise. I encourage the National Park Service to continue working with all involved to ensure this coastline is preserved for decades to come.

I believe a full feasibility study, which was recommended in the reconnaissance survey, will confirm that the area meets the National Park Service's high standards as an area of national significance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 1243, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2014. I wish to thank Senators Murray and Collins as well as Senators Mikulski and Shelby for their hard work. The bill before us reflects the bipartisan agreement that funding our Nation's transportation and housing infrastructure is vital to creating jobs and supporting strong communities.

I wish to thank the committee for funding programs that support projects that are especially crucial for my home State of Hawaii.

First, the committee's bill provides nearly $2 billion for capital improvement grants which support transit projects across the country. Especially important for Hawaii is Honolulu's rail transit project which, when completed, will provide much needed relief for Oahu's commuters. Studies have shown that during the morning peak period, the average travel time from East Kapolei to Honolulu is 89 minutes--89 minutes for a 17-mile drive. The rail will turn that into a 40-minute ride above traffic. The project is estimated to remove roughly 40,000 cars from Oahu's congested roadways, providing relief for buses and other surface public transportation services.

While the rail project is a crucial step forward for developing Hawaii's most populous island, it is the committee's support for Hawaii's indigenous people for which I especially extend my thanks. The committee's funding of both the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and the 184A Loan Guarantee Program will help our Nation continue fulfilling its trust obligations to Native Hawaiians.

In 2010, the American Community Survey reported that 27.2 percent of Native Hawaiians in Hawaii live in overcrowded conditions, compared to 8.5 percent of Hawaii's total population. In addition, the overall cost of living in Hawaii is almost 50 percent higher than the United States average, and housing costs are almost 150 percent higher. Coupled with these costs is the fact that 18 percent of Native Hawaiians live in poverty.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Congress created the Hawaiian Home Lands trust to provide housing and settlement opportunities for Native Hawaiians. However, as the statistics I just laid out show, this indigenous population continues to struggle with finding affordable quality housing in their place of origin.

That is why the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, or NHHBG, is so important. These funds can be used for a variety of initiatives. For example, the current wait list for access to housing on homestead land is long and continues to grow. Funding the NHHBG helps the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to continue developing lands to meet the housing needs of those on the wait list as well as future beneficiaries, allowing the Department to effectively administer this trust responsibly.

The 184A Program is another important tool for assisting Native Hawaiians in securing homes on homesteads--lands they cannot own. As I have mentioned, the cost of living--especially housing--in Hawaii is among the highest in the country. On top of saving up the cost of a downpayment for a mortgage, there is the tricky task of securing a mortgage for a home without ownership of the land beneath it. This has proved problematic not only for Native Hawaiians but also Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The 184A Loan Guarantee Program helps get Hawaiians onto homesteads by providing a guarantee for lenders who are unfamiliar with the Hawaiian homes program.

I also wish to thank the committee for supporting the Essential Air Services Program. Being an island State, Hawaii is uniquely affected by any changes to air transportation policy. For us, driving between counties is not an option. So air service is, for all intents and purposes, the only way to get from one island to another.

There is a population in Hawaii that uniquely demonstrates the reason for the Essential Air Service Program: the residents of Kalaupapa. Kalaupapa is an isolated peninsula on the island of Molokai. Beginning in 1966, this area was used as an exile for Hansen's disease patients. This practice continued until a quarantine of the area was finally lifted in 1969. It was precisely because of Kalaupapa's remoteness and isolation that it was selected to serve this function for Hansen's disease patients.

There are Hansen's disease patients who still reside in Kalaupapa. Their only option for getting in and out of the area for medical treatment, or to visit family and friends, is flying. Maintaining proper funding for the Essential Air Service Program directly translates into assuring continued access for the people of Kalaupapa to other communities and the services they need.

The committee's bill also provides appropriate levels of funding for larger national programs such as the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG. Certainly, Hawaii has been able to put CDBG funds to good use, and agencies across the country rely on this essential block grant funding to continue meeting the needs of their most vulnerable populations.

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program is yet another example where the funding level in the Senate's bill is warranted. If Hawaii is any indication, HOME funds move out the door so quickly that many subgrantees with equally worthwhile projects are left waiting for the next fiscal cycle to compete.

The support for CDBG, HOME, and other programs in the bill provides communities across the country with the means to provide safe, affordable housing for the least fortunate, the elderly, and others. However, as the wide support for these programs demonstrates, there is more need in our communities than there are resources. Since the sequester has taken effect, things have only gotten harder for those who are struggling the most. Every day it seems we hear about housing vouchers being frozen or rescinded or about how elderly or support services are being cut back or about how the lines for limited public housing grow as people who have been out of work for too long exhaust their savings. For many of the people who rely on these programs, there is nowhere else to turn.

This bill doesn't fix all of the problems caused by the sequester, nor does it fully address the critical needs to create jobs. However, it is a bipartisan step forward that makes positive progress in all of these areas. Perhaps it will give us some momentum in tackling those big challenges our Nation faces in a more comprehensive way.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues who reached today's compromise student loan plan. However, I will oppose this bill, and I want to explain my reasoning.

The bill before us may be a good deal for current students in the short term, but it hurts their younger brothers and sisters in just a few years.

We must find a way to make college affordable for students and families--not just for those who are attending college in the fall or over the next few years, but also for those who will attend college in the future.

In Hawaii in the 2013-2014 academic year, the U.S. Department of Education predicts that over 20,000 undergraduate students, over 3,300 graduate students, and over 2,300 parent borrowers will take out Federal student loans.

Today's bill changes Federal student loans to variable interest rates, and raises caps above current law. While this bill will keep student loan interest rates low in 2013, the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--projects that by 2017, the rates for undergraduate student loans will rise above current law.

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities--AASCU-- American Association of University Women--AAUW; Education Trust, The Institute for College Access and Success--TICAS; United States Public Interest Research Group, Young Invincibles, and other groups oppose this bill.

Under today's bill, undergraduates would see their student loan interest rate caps increase from 6.8 percent today to the higher cap of 7.25 percent by 2018. Graduate students would see their rate caps increase from 6.8 percent in 2013 to a new, higher cap of 9.5 percent. Parents using Federal PLUS loans would see their rates increase from 7.9 percent in 2012 to a new, higher cap of 10.5 percent. At these levels, future students will pay thousands of dollars more over the life of their loans.

I am a cosponsor of two of my colleagues' amendments that would improve this bill. To avoid hurting future students, I support an amendment by Senators Jack Reed and Elizabeth Warren that would allow students to take advantage of the benefits of today's short-term low interest rates, but would keep the same cap as current law. This amendment is fully offset by a surcharge on millionaires. I also support Senator Sanders' amendment to sunset today's bill in 2 years to prevent interest rates from exceeding current law and to foster a better long-term solution to college affordability.

Government should not be making money on the backs of students. Under current law, the Federal government already overcharges students for their student loans, to the tune of over $180 billion over the next 10 years. This bill locks in that profit, plus it brings an extra $715 million to the Treasury. It is encouraging that today's bill requires the Government Accountability Office to study the actual cost of the Federal Student Loan Program. However, only after getting this information can Congress make an informed decision to set student loan interest rates with just enough markup to make the program self sufficient. Without knowing the true costs of the student loan program,

it is premature to lock in the arbitrary rates in today's bill for 19 years.

Instead, a few weeks ago I voted for both S. 953, the Student Loan Affordability Act, and S. 1238, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. Each of these would provide a temporary extension of a 3.4 percent interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans, completely paid for by closing tax loopholes. Such an extension would give Congress time to work toward a broader reauthorization of the Higher Education Act that can address many other important aspects of college affordability and completion all at once, beyond just this interest rate debate.

In sum, I do not support today's bill because it makes future students worse off than current law. Instead, I look forward to working on other initiatives to improve college accessibility and affordability for our young people.

bipartisan student loan certainty act

Mr. President, I have talked about how this bill treats immigrant taxpayers, specifically the restrictions on access to Federal safety net programs. The bill prohibits immigrant taxpayers from using programs they helped to fund with the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes they pay. This is truly unfair. I filed an amendment to correct this unfair treatment. This amendment is No. 1317. My amendment simply says immigrant taxpayers who are lawfully present and working and who have paid all of their tax liabilities should be able to use the Federal programs their taxes pay for. This is simply common sense.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Boxer, Rockefeller, and Schatz be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1317.

I thank these Senators for their support.

This amendment is supported by over 180 organizations including the National Immigration Law Center, National Council of La Raza, the Asian Pacific Islander American Health Forum, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, the AFL-CIO, U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

I have several letters from these organizations that attest to their support of my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that one of these letters, which is signed by 179 organizations, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

I have also been working with many Senators on an amendment to provide additional opportunities for women in the new merit-based immigration system created in the bill. Amendment No. 1718 would create a new tier 3 category with 30,000 merit-based visas. Tier 3 is structured in a way that allows women a fairer chance to compete for these visas.

The Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment currently has 19 cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Whitehouse and Schatz be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1718.

Amendment 1718 is a modified version of amendment No. 1504. I made those modifications after working with Senator Graham, and he has agreed to support this new amendment. I thank him for his support.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

I also have letters from over 100 organizations in support of amendment Nos. 1718 and 1504. I ask unanimous consent that some of these letters of support be printed in the Record following my remarks.

I thank UNITE HERE, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, We Belong Together, and the Asian American Justice Center for organizing these letters and for their support. I also thank the AFL- CIO and SEIU for their support.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an agreement I have reached with Senator Graham on the Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment No. 1718, which has been cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Gillibrand, Cantwell, Stabenow, Klobuchar, Warren, Baldwin, Mikulski, Shaheen, Leahy, Franken, Menendez, and Schumer.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I have been speaking on the Senate floor and talking with my colleagues about my concern that the immigration bill we are considering inadvertently disadvantages women who are trying to immigrate to the United States. I believe the new merit-based point system for employment green cards will significantly disadvantage women who want to come to this country, particularly unmarried women.

Many women overseas do not have the same educational or career advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. This new merit-based system will prioritize green cards for immigrants with high levels of education or experience. By favoring these immigrants, the bill essentially cements unfairness against women into U.S. immigration law. That is not the way to go.

After I brought these concerns to Senators Schumer and Graham, Senator Graham graciously agreed to sit down with me. We were able to work out a way to address the concerns about women in the merit-based system that I believe will significantly improve this bill. The new Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment reflects a few changes which we agreed to after working with Senator Graham.

The changes we made include: limits on the ability for certain types of health care workers to obtain points multiple times based solely on their

employment, clarification that there must be a personal relationship to obtain points under the humanitarian concerns section of the amendment, elimination of the provision that awarded points for being a last surviving relative of a U.S. citizen, harmonization of tier 3 with tiers 1 and 2 by adding points for English language skills, and ensuring the tier 3 visas do not--do not--reduce the overall numbers of tier 1 and tier 2 visas available.

We should continue to increase the opportunities for women in our immigration system, but I believe this agreement will help level the playing field for women. Our amendment would establish a new tier 3 merit-based point system that will provide a fair opportunity for women to compete for merit-based green cards.

Complementary to the high-skilled, tier 1 and lower skilled tier 2, the new tier 3 would include professions commonly held by women so as not to limit women's opportunities for economic-focused immigration to our country. This system would provide 30,000 tier 3 visas and would not reduce the visas available in the other two merit-based tiers.

I wish to thank Senator Graham for working with me to modify this proposal in such a way he could agree to lend his support while still addressing the real concerns that women will be at a disadvantage under the new merit-based system. I believe our amendment is a step in the right direction toward addressing the disparities for women in the new merit-based system, and over 100 organizations, including faith-based organizations, support the Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to improve the new merit-based immigration system and make this bill better for women. I hope we can reach an agreement to bring this amendment to the floor for a vote.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on my amendment No. 1504, cosponsored by Senators Murray, Murkowski, Boxer, Gillibrand, Cantwell, Stabenow, Klobuchar, Warren, Baldwin, Mikulski, Landrieu, Shaheen, and Leahy. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, the immigration bill clearly and inadvertently disadvantages women who are trying to immigrate to the United States. The bill, S. 744, reduces the opportunities for immigrants to come under the family-based green cards system.

The new merit-based point system for employment green cards will significantly disadvantage women who want to come to this country, particularly unmarried women.

Many women overseas do not have the same educational or career- advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. This new merit-based system will prioritize green cards for immigrants with high levels of education or experience. By favoring these immigrants, the bill in effect cements into U.S. immigration law unfairness against women. That is not the way to go.

The bill inadvertently restricts the opportunities available to women across the globe. Currently, approximately 70 percent of immigrant women come to this country through the family-based system. Employment- based visas favor men over women by nearly a 4-to-1 margin as they place a premium on male-dominated fields such as engineering and computer science. But across the globe women do not have the same educational or career opportunities as men.

Immigrant women make many contributions and positive impacts to communities. Economically, women are increasingly the primary breadwinners in immigrant families. They often bring additional income, making it more likely for the family to open small businesses and purchase homes. In addition, women provide stability and permanent roots, as they are more likely to follow through on the citizenship application process for themselves and their families.

Ensuring that women have an equal opportunity to come here is not an abstract policy cause to me. When I was a young girl, my mother brought my brothers and me to this country in order to escape an abusive marriage. My life would be completely different if my mother wasn't able to take on that courageous journey. I want women like her--women like my mother--who don't have the opportunities to succeed in their own countries to be able to build a better life for themselves here.

The Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment evens the playing field for women. This amendment would establish a tier 3 merit-based point system

that would provide a fair opportunity for women to compete for merit- based green cards. Complementary to the high-skilled tier 1 and lower skilled tier 2, the new tier 3 would include professions commonly held by women so as not to limit women's opportunities for economic-focused immigration to this country. This system would provide 30,000 tier 3 visas and would not reduce the visas available in the other two merit- based tiers, while maintaining the overall cap on merit-based visas.

This amendment is supported by We Belong Together: Women for Common- Sense Immigration Reform; the Asian-American Justice Center; the National Domestic Workers Association; the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Church World Service; Family Values at Work; National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; MomsRising; National Immigration Law Center; American Immigration Lawyers Association; National Organization for Women; Center for Community Change; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services; the Episcopal Church; Unitarian Universalist Association; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Catholic Charities USA; Caring Across Generations; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Sisters of Mercy; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance; AFL-CIO; the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; the National Council of La Raza; the United Methodist Church; National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance; Hispanic Federation; Service Employees International Union; Immigration Equality Action Fund; Out4Immigration; Sojourners; and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.

I believe our amendment would address the disparities for women in the new merit-based system, and the dozens of organizations I mentioned believe likewise.

Let's work together to improve the new merit-based immigration system and make this bill better for women.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

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

Madam President, I believe we must fix the immigration bill to make it fairer for women. The bill proposes a new merit-based point system for allocating green cards to future immigrants. Simply put, the point system makes it harder for women than for men to come to this country. The theory behind the merit system is that we should give immigration preferences to people who hold advanced degrees or work in high-skilled jobs. This idea ignores the discrimination women endure in other countries.

Too many women overseas do not have the same educational or career

advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. In practice, the bill's new point system takes that inequitable treatment abroad and cements it into our immigration laws. This bill reduces the opportunities for immigrants to come under the family-based green card system.

Currently, approximately 70 percent of immigrant women come to this country through the family-based system. This legislation increases the amount of employment-based visas. This bill basically moves us away from the family-based system and into economic considerations. There is nothing wrong with that, but we should be fair to women while we are doing it. The immigration avenues favor men over women by nearly a 4- to-1 margin.

Using the past as our guide, it is easy to see how the new merit- based system, with heavy emphasis on factors such as education and experience, will disadvantage women who apply for green card status. We all want a stronger economy, but we should not sacrifice the hard-won victories of the women's equality movement to get it. Ensuring that women have an equal opportunity to come here is not an abstract policy cause to me.

When I was a young girl, my mother brought my brothers and me to this country in order to escape an abusive marriage. My life would be completely different if my mother was not able to take on that courageous journey. I want women similar to her--women who don't have the opportunities to succeed in their own countries--to be able to build a better life for themselves here. These disparities in the immigration bill are fixable.

Later this week a number of my female Senate colleagues and I will introduce a proposal that will address the disparities in the new merit-based system. Let's improve immigration reform to make this bill better for women who deserve a fair shake in our green card system.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I believe hope and fairness lie at the core of what makes our country great. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy called on the country to embrace civil rights legislation that would end the unfair treatment of millions of people as second-class citizens. Congress responded, and the country is better for it. This week, we in the Senate are debating comprehensive immigration reform legislation that gives hope to the millions of undocumented people who live in this country that they will be able to emerge from the shadows and live full lives. It is our time to act. We should pass this important legislation.

I thank the Gang of 8, and their staff, for their hard work negotiating the bill and getting it through committee and onto the floor. They have set an example of bipartisanship on a tough issue that is all too rare these days.

I also thank Senator Leahy, and his staff, for his able leadership during the markup. It was a remarkably open and fair process, full of principled debate. That is how the Senate should work.

Their hard work, and that of others, has produced the bill that is before us.

Many senators have already spoken about what is in the bill: the billions of dollars for border security, the tough employment eligibility verification requirements, the pro-tourism policies, and the path to citizenship.

Rather than cover that ground again, I want to talk about two problems with the bill that I hope can be fixed: first, the system designed for future immigration is unfair to women; and second, the pathway to citizenship is unfair to immigrant taxpayers.

The new merit-based point system for allocating visas to future immigrants is the first problem. Simply put, the point system inadvertently makes it harder for women than for men to come to this country.

The new point system is based on an attractive economic idea, but unfortunately one that clearly disadvantages women. The idea is if we want a stronger economy, then we should give immigration preferences to people who hold advanced degrees or work in high-skill jobs.

This idea ignores the discrimination women endure in other countries. Women in too many other countries do not have the same education or career advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. In practice, the bill's new point system takes that discriminatory treatment abroad and cements it into our immigration laws, making it harder for women to come to our country than for men.

While unintentional in this case, the idea that we want to attract the most educated and skilled people but they just happen to be mostly men is the same argument used for generations to protect gender discrimination in our work places. We all want a stronger economy, but we should not sacrifice the hard-won victories of the women's equality movement to get it.

By contrast, the current family immigration system treats men and women equally. The current system is based on keeping families together. That system reflects our shared values about the social importance of family. My family and millions of others also know the family system makes good economic sense.

Anyone, whether an immigrant or natural-born citizen, has a better chance of being successful if they are surrounded by a strong family that can pool its resources to help start a business or to help one another during tough times. In many families aunts and uncles, parents and grandparents, even brothers and sisters, use part of their paychecks every week to help a young man or a young woman in their family pay for college and take one step closer to that American dream. That is how it worked in my family.

My mother brought my brothers and me to this country to escape an abusive marriage at the hands of my father. My mother raised me and my brothers as a single parent, and times were tough for us. But with the help of my grandparents, who later joined us, I was able to learn English and succeed in school. The amazing thing about this country is millions of families have stories like mine.

If I had not been able to come to this country, who knows where I would be today. But I know I would never have had the kind of opportunities given to me by this great country of ours. I want other women to have those chances too.

The biggest losers in this bill's new point system will be unmarried sisters of U.S. citizens. Why? Because the new system not only makes it harder for women to immigrate here, but it eliminates visas for siblings of U.S. citizens while allowing new immigrants to bring their spouses. What this means is a woman who aspires to live with her family and work in the greatest country in the world should not have to get married to do that.

The future immigration system in the bill needs to be modified to give unmarried women more opportunities to come here. There is more than one way to fix this problem. One solution could be to restore the sibling category. I will file an amendment to do that. Another solution could be to modify the point system in the bill. I am working with other Senators on an amendment to do that, which I hope will be ready soon.

The second problem in this bill that needs to be fixed is how it treats immigrant taxpayers. Make no mistake, immigrants pay taxes. A study released in May by researchers at Harvard and the City University of New York found that immigrants contributed $115.2 billion more to Medicare than they took out between 2002 and 2009.

Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes. A 2006 survey by UC-San Diego showed that 75 percent of undocumented immigrants had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both. The Social Security Administration estimates undocumented immigrants have contributed between $120

and $240 billion to the Social Security trust fund.

I have a fact sheet with citations of several studies about immigrant taxpayers, and I ask unanimous consent that this fact sheet be printed in the Record following my remarks.

The bill makes clear that immigrants on the pathway to citizenship have to continue working, paying taxes and other penalties, and meeting other requirements. In fact, they have to do all of this before they can even start on the path to citizenship.

The Social Security Administration estimates the tax requirements in this bill will raise more than $300 billion in payroll taxes alone. The general fund will also receive more in tax revenues. Although we have not yet seen CBO's official score, in all likelihood the Treasury Department will collect billions more in revenue for the general fund from these immigrants.

In his written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2013, Grover Norquist pointed out that once immigrants have lawful status and work authorization, they will be able to get better jobs and contribute even more to the funding of Federal programs. He wrote that after the 1986 immigration law was enacted, ``their incomes rose by an average of 15 percent just by gaining legal status. Those immigrants today are making much more than they did then and, as a result, paying more in taxes.''

My point is immigrant taxpayers contribute to the funding of not only Medicare and Social Security, but of all Federal programs. No one disputes that it should be this way. Immigrants on the pathway must pay taxes, just like everyone else. The strict tax requirements in the bill are the right policy.

What is wrong are the policies in the bill that prohibit immigrant taxpayers who are on the pathway from being able to use Federal safety net programs for at least 13 years. Their taxes pay for these programs, but they cannot use these programs; that is profoundly unfair. Imagine a person buys homeowner's insurance, but the policy won't cover their house if it catches fire until 13 years after they started paying their premiums. That is obviously not fair, but that is exactly the situation in which we are putting immigrants who are on the pathway to citizenship.

Yesterday, the senior Senator from Utah spoke on the floor about several amendments he filed to further restrict immigrant taxpayers' access to the programs their tax dollars pay for. He said:

I don't want to punish these immigrants. I simply want to

make sure they are treated no better or no worse than U.S.

citizens and resident aliens with respect to federal benefits

and taxes.

I have the greatest respect for the senior Senator from Utah. I agree with him that these immigrants should be treated no worse than U.S. citizens and resident aliens, but they are not being treated that way. They are being treated worse because of the restrictions in this bill.

Under current law, immigrant taxpayers who are resident aliens cannot use the Federal safety net programs they pay into for 5 years. Their taxes are paid into the system for 5 years, but they get no help during that time if their kids get sick or if they lose their jobs. That is already unfair, but the bill treats immigrants on provisional status even worse. They have to pay taxes for 13 years before they can use the programs they are paying for.

The 13-year-long pathway to citizenship will be hard enough. If they lose their job, they risk losing their legal status and being deported, work hard to save up money, not just for the kids' school supplies but to pay the penalties under this bill. The restrictions on Federal safety net programs make their pathway even more treacherous.

We are saying to these immigrants: Pay your taxes, but if your kids get sick, don't come to us for help. We are saying: Pay your taxes, but if you have to work part time because of a recession, don't come to us if you need some help putting food on the table. We are saying: Pay your taxes, but we are not going to help you. That is not fair.

I want to be clear: I am talking only about immigrants who will be lawfully present. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for these programs at all and no one is proposing to change that, but the pathway provides a way for certain people to earn lawful status. Let's treat lawfully present taxpayers fairly, including those on the pathway. Let's do as the Senator from Utah suggests and at the very least make sure they are treated no worse than U.S. citizens or resident aliens.

Finally, not only are the prohibitions in the bill unfair to immigrant taxpayers, they are also bad economics. Both Republican and Democratic Senators say they want immigrants to be successful, start businesses, and continue contributing to the economy. We all do. But few people would use their life savings to start a business if they think their children will go hungry or go without health care if their business fails. The safety net programs exist so people can take risks to improve their economic circumstances.

Immigrants come to this country to work. They don't come to get handouts. They come here to work. Two papers from the Cato Institute show that immigrants are more likely to be working or looking for work than natural-born citizens. Immigrants are less likely to use Federal safety net programs.

The title of one Cato article sums it up nicely: ``Evidence Shows Immigrants Come to Work, Not to Collect Welfare.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two papers be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Both political parties should be able to support the idea that taxpayers who are lawfully present, working, and paying taxes should be able to use the programs their taxes are paying for. That is only fair. I will file an amendment that says precisely that.

In closing, during the debates on immigration reform, I hope we remember who undocumented immigrants are. Like other immigrants, they had the courage and aspiration to leave their hometowns and all they knew to find work elsewhere in order to give their kids better lives than they could dream for themselves.

The undocumented should pay penalties for the laws they broke by coming here, but we should remember that our Founding Fathers were willing to break up an empire to achieve their dreams.

We are a Nation of immigrants. Let's treat immigrants how we would have wanted our immigrant ancestors to be treated--with dignity and forgiveness.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I join my colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island and I thank Senators Enzi and Durbin for their hard work on S. 743.

I rise to speak in favor of the Marketplace Fairness Act. This legislation will put businesses in Hawaii on an even playing field with their out-of-State competitors. It does this by giving the States--not the Federal Government, the States--the authority to require out-of- State merchants to collect the same taxes local merchants have to collect when they sell goods to customers in Hawaii. This is only fair.

I want to be clear about what this bill does and what it does not do because there is some confusion about what this bill does and doesn't do. For example, this bill does not impose a new Federal sales tax. This bill does not require the States to do anything. In fact, if this bill becomes law, nothing would change unless a State passes its own legislation.

What this bill does do is to give States that choice. It lets each State choose whether to level the playing field for its local businesses. In addition, this legislation provides a framework that ensures States can exercise this authority in a way that ensures fairness for businesses of all sizes.

For example, it requires any State that chooses to exercise this new authority to streamline its sales and use taxes, and to provide free software to calculate these taxes to out-of-State sellers. This does not impose any kind of burden on these out-of-State sellers who are selling items to people in States such as Hawaii. This legislation protects small online businesses by exempting any business with less than $1 million of annual sales.

The growth of the Internet has been one of the most significant drivers of innovation in our country's history. More and more Americans rely on the Internet to run their small businesses, access educational and health resources, keep in touch with loved ones, and for entertainment. Expanding fast, affordable, and secure Internet access is an essential building block for a strong 21st century economy.

However, we must be careful to ensure that while we are promoting the economic potential of the Internet, we are also being fair to local businesses and entrepreneurs. These are the businesses that populate the Main Streets of towns all across the country, across all the islands in the Hawaiian chain. These are hardware stores, clothing stores, gift shops, and many others--many of which are small businesses. These are businesses that create jobs, pay taxes, and provide needed goods and services in our communities. In fact, in Hawaii, retail businesses employ nearly 25 percent of the workforce, about 128,000 people. In 2012, these businesses in Hawaii generated $30 billion in sales as well as $1.2 billion in tax revenue. Many of these entrepreneurs do not want to just contribute economically, they want to contribute and do contribute to the culture and character of their communities.

For example, my office received a call from the owner of Kona Stories, a small bookstore in Kailua-Kona, HI. Kona Stories opened in 2006 and sells over 10,000 titles of all kinds. But Kona Stories doesn't just sell books, it hosts book clubs, supports local authors and artists, and it also helps promote other local businesses. The programs and meetings Kona Stories hosts focus on promoting the local culture and character of the community. Small shops like these are places that can teach visitors about the unique characteristics of our communities. They also help bring local people closer together around shared experiences and values.

Unfortunately, these small businesses are the ones that are hurt most by the advantage online merchants currently have, because they do not collect Hawaii sales and use taxes. This makes online products appear cheaper because their prices do not include State taxes, even though these taxes are technically still owed. That is not real competition, it is an artificial discount that is unfair to local brick-and-mortar businesses and it puts businesses in Hawaii, such as Kona Stories, at a disadvantage. As small businesses, they have a hard enough time competing with the online giants that can offer lower prices even if they were collecting State taxes.

In addition to allowing States to level the playing field for their local businesses, this bill would also provide a boost for State and local government by letting them collect the taxes that are already owed. According to a 2012 Hawaii Tax Review Commission report, fixing the situation and giving States such as Hawaii that option to enact necessary legislation would mean nearly $160 million in additional revenue for the State of Hawaii in 2013.

I want to be clear. That money does not come from new taxes. It comes from taxes that are already owed, that are not paid. That is money that should be going to keep teachers in the classroom, firefighters and cops on the beat, and fixing our roads and bridges so we all benefit.

Overall, the Marketplace Fairness Act is a good bill whose time has come. It balances the need to preserve a vibrant and innovative online marketplace with a need to ensure fairness for local businesses. It also ensures that everyone is meeting their responsibilities with regard to paying State and local taxes.

That is why this legislation has such a broad range of support from business, government, labor organizations, big and small, from all across the country. In fact, my home State of Hawaii has been working to try to address this issue on the State level for years. We need this Federal legislation. Passage of this bill will finally give Hawaii the ability to address this disparity and put our businesses on an even playing field. That will be especially important to the 2,000 local businesses that make up the retail merchants of Hawaii.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of Hawaii national supporters be printed in the Record. There being no objection,

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Derrick Kahala Watson to be a district judge for the U.S. District Court of Hawaii. But before I discuss this nomination, I would like to join with the rest of my colleagues in acknowledging the week we have had and how trying it has been for all Americans. The horrific bombing at the Boston Marathon, the targeting of Senate offices and the President with mail containing poison, other actions at the Capitol, and now this tragic explosion in Texas have captured our attention and given us all perspective on what is important in life. Our hearts go out to all the victims and their families.

Turning now to Mr. Watson's nomination, I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley of the Judiciary Committee for their quick consideration, referring this nomination to the full Senate for a vote. Mr. Watson was born in Hawaii. He attended Harvard college and Harvard Law School and started a successful career in law in San Francisco, CA, before returning to Hawaii to serve as an assistant U.S. attorney.

Mr. Watson testified before the Judiciary Committee in January at my first hearing as a Senator. He demonstrated that he had the qualifications, ability, and temperament to be an outstanding judge for Hawaii.

Once he is confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Watson will be the only person of Native Hawaiian descent serving as an article III judge, and only the fourth to serve in the history of the United States.

In addition, once he joins the Federal bench in Hawaii, that court will be the first majority Asian American Pacific Islander article III court in American history.

I am proud to support Judge Watson, and I am happy that the Senate will vote to confirm him today. I certainly urge all my colleagues to cast a unanimous vote for his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703 with Senator Hatch to fix a technical problem that prevents Hong Kong from joining the Visa Waiver Program. Under current law, only ``countries'' are eligible for the program, and Hong Kong is not a sovereign country, so a special provision needs to be added to the law to make Hong Kong eligible.

On July 1, 1997, after over 150 years of British rule, Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region of China, retaining its own currency, free market economy, political system, civil liberties, and immigration policies. This autonomy was recognized by the United States and affirmed by Congress in passing the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act.

Today we have a robust bilateral relationship with Hong Kong, a global financial and trading hub, which was our 10th largest export market last year and whose trade ties are significant for many States. The State Department considers Hong Kong an important law enforcement partner in combating money laundering and eliminating funding for terrorist networks.

Despite our visa policies treating it separate from Mainland China, because it is not a ``country,'' Hong Kong is unable to be considered for the Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program is an essential tool for promoting travel and tourism to America while protecting national security by allowing precleared business and leisure travelers from 37 countries to visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without obtaining a nonimmigrant visitor visa.

Hong Kong has secured visa waivers for its passport holders from over 140 countries and territories, including allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and all member states of the European Union. Hong Kong has already extended visa waivers to American citizens. Our laws shouldn't be a barrier to do the same in the future.

As our largest industry, tourism is important to Hawaii, especially from Asia. Our largest source of foreign tourists comes from Japan, a visa waiver country since 1988. In 2011, domestic and international visitors to Hawaii spent $16.9 billion which supported 160,800 jobs in the islands according to the U.S. Travel Association.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan, commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703 with Senator Hatch to fix a technical problem that prevents Hong Kong from joining the Visa Waiver Program. Under current law, only ``countries'' are eligible for the program, and Hong Kong is not a sovereign country, so a special provision needs to be added to the law to make Hong Kong eligible.

On July 1, 1997, after over 150 years of British rule, Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region of China, retaining its own currency, free market economy, political system, civil liberties, and immigration policies. This autonomy was recognized by the United States and affirmed by Congress in passing the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act.

Today we have a robust bilateral relationship with Hong Kong, a global financial and trading hub, which was our 10th largest export market last year and whose trade ties are significant for many States. The State Department considers Hong Kong an important law enforcement partner in combating money laundering and eliminating funding for terrorist networks.

Despite our visa policies treating it separate from Mainland China, because it is not a ``country,'' Hong Kong is unable to be considered for the Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program is an essential tool for promoting travel and tourism to America while protecting national security by allowing precleared business and leisure travelers from 37 countries to visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without obtaining a nonimmigrant visitor visa.

Hong Kong has secured visa waivers for its passport holders from over 140 countries and territories, including allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and all member states of the European Union. Hong Kong has already extended visa waivers to American citizens. Our laws shouldn't be a barrier to do the same in the future.

As our largest industry, tourism is important to Hawaii, especially from Asia. Our largest source of foreign tourists comes from Japan, a visa waiver country since 1988. In 2011, domestic and international visitors to Hawaii spent $16.9 billion which supported 160,800 jobs in the islands according to the U.S. Travel Association.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan, commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, a federal budget outlines our priorities as a Nation. On both sides of the aisle, we should be able to agree: We need to be wise about our Federal investments. We should be investing in what works--in what gives us the biggest bang for our buck.

For decades, study after study has shown what parents already know-- that quality early education is foundational for success in school and life. Quality early education can help kids enter kindergarten ready to learn and avoid falling behind. Later in life, kids with quality early learning are more likely to avoid crime or teen pregnancy. They graduate high school and college, avoid poverty, earn more income, and pay more taxes. That is more revenue for our long-term fiscal picture.

We want to cut unnecessary public spending? Kids with preschool are less likely to need public services--from assistance for needy families . . . to prisons.

For a generation, long-term studies have found that investing $1 in quality early learning brings a return on investment of between $2 and $17 after a generation. In Hawaii, a study for Good Beginnings Alliance found we would get $4.20 for every dollar invested. Nobel prize winning economist Jim Heckman did the math over a full lifetime. He estimates an average 7 to 10

percent return on investment per year. In the private sector, business leaders would do anything for a return like that.

On Wall Street, you can't get a long-term return like that in the stock market. So it makes sense that business and financial leaders support quality early learning, from the Hawaii Business Roundtable to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to leading CEOs, who know that to train tomorrow's workers we must start early.

Law enforcement officials know that quality early learning helps prevent kids from falling behind, dropping out of high school, or getting involved in crime. Military generals and admirals have stressed the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. Today 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military service due to poor education, physical unfitness or involvement with crime. Quality early learning helps kids get on the right path--before they fall behind. Parents know the high cost of childcare is difficult to afford. But parents want more than just safety and supervision for their children. Parents want their children to be prepared academically, socially, and emotionally for success in school and in life.

Teachers and school administrators know firsthand that their students who come to kindergarten with quality preschool are more likely to succeed. We have special education professionals and advocates for students with disabilities. They know quality early learning can identify disabilities early and bring intervention to get kids on track with their peers. That can save billions of dollars in more expensive special education services down the line.

In our States, Governors from both red States and blue States know this is important. In Hawaii we have Governor Abercrombie. In Massachussetts we have Deval Patrick. But also in Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal is pushing for quality early education. In Georgia, Govemor Nathan Deal is pushing for quality early education. In Alabama, Governor Bob Bentley is pushing for quality early education. Oklahoma is a bright red State and they have been doing quality early education for years.

In February, President Obama called for new support for quality early learning. This is the first time we have ever seen this in a State of the Union Address. States are asking their leaders in Congress to act. Today's Senate budget has a deficit-neutral reserve fund for early childhood education.

Here is what that means. It means let's find a way to pass legislation in this Congress. One of the best investments we can make long-term that does NOT hurt our deficit in the next 10 years. Let's invest in what works: high-quality pre-K for low-income children; high- quality childcare for working families; and high-quality home visiting programs serving low-income mothers-to-be and low-income families.

This helps get poor children the health and social services they need before it is too late.

Patty Murray has been working to strengthen quality early education for a long time. She was a mom in tennis shoes. She was a preschool teacher. In the 1980s, she organized 13,000 parents to save a Washington State preschool program. I thank Patty for her work on this issue in the budget. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us on early childhood education in this budget and in this Congress. It is one of the best things we can do for our long-term economic health and for our children.

amendment no. 430