Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment No. 3888. I am proud to join my colleagues from Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado to offer this bipartisan amendment. Our three States are signatories to the Republican River Compact, which allocates the water resources from the Republican River Basin as it travels across our States. Through this allocation process, our States work closely with the Republican River Compact Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation to help ensure the most efficient utilization of our waters as they head to families and businesses across the region. In Nebraska we value clean water. Our citizens go to great lengths to preserve and protect these resources. However, in recent years, the Bureau of Reclamation has violated administrative orders issued by Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado with no justification for their actions. This lack of accountability from the BOR is costing money. It is limiting citizens' access to precious water resources. Our bipartisan amendment that is before us would halt funding for the BOR when it violates State orders. Federal law already requires the BOR to comply with the States through interstate compacts. Our amendment would hold this agency accountable for its actions. Our States have a right to manage their own water resources for the benefit of compact compliance. But through its action, the BOR has effectively altered those compacts. This agency was not created to operate unilaterally and exert veto power over the decisions States make to comply with compacts. Our amendment will ensure that Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas retain control of their waters. It will protect other States that have these interstate compacts from the consequential actions of an unaccountable Federal agency. Nebraska and its neighbors in Kansas and Colorado are good stewards of natural resources. We protect our water. We protect it at the State and the local levels. These States should be free to preserve their resources without unjustified intervention by the Federal Government. I urge all of my colleagues to consider this amendment, to consider the impact of a Federal agency overreaching and violating the rights of States to determine how to control, how to manage, how to work together, and how to work within compacts in order to meet the obligations they have. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President as a proud alumnae of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), I congratulate the UNL women's bowling team on an outstanding season. The UNL bowling program has a long history of excellence and success. During the program's history, the team has won 10 national championships. This year, the team had an incredibly strong season and, once again, advanced to the NCAA championship match. Although the team fell short of winning the national championship this year, I know I join all Nebraskans when I say how proud we are of this team's accomplishments. The Huskers finished the season with a match record of 100 to 34. Each of the young women on this team played an important role in the many victories the team enjoyed throughout the season. In addition to their group success, several players received individual honors. Julia Bond was named first team All-American by the National Tenpin Coaches Association. Gazmine Mason earned third team and Briana Zabierek earned honorable mention All-America honors. The members of this team and their coaches are a testament to hard work. They are part of a proud, time-honored tradition of UNL athletics. I thank them for representing the university so well, and I wish them good luck next season. Go Big Red.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my tribute to Nebraska's heroes and the current generation of men and women who lost their lives defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each of these Nebraskans has a special story to tell. Throughout this year and beyond, I will continue to honor their memory here on the Senate floor. Master Sergeant Linda Tarango-Griess Mr. President, today, I wish to highlight the life of MSG Linda Tarango-Griess of Sutton, NE. Linda was known to everyone as one proud soldier. From an early age, she was disciplined and focused on the future. Her Aunt Marie remembers this future soldier as ``a great kid'' who was always helping others. Marie would know because she raised Linda from the age of 11. Linda attended Kearney High School, where she enjoyed playing softball and volleyball. She was also active in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Linda's willingness to serve as a role model and mentor for others came as no surprise to those who knew her. As one of her high school classmates recalled, Linda was ``someone who always had a smile and a positive attitude.'' After graduating from Kearney High School in 1989, Linda was determined to go to college, but she struggled to find a way to pay for it. She learned about tuition assistance opportunities offered by the National Guard and she decided to enlist. Through the National Guard, Linda discovered her passion for being a soldier in the U.S. military. It also allowed her to complete her college education. Linda graduated from the University of Nebraska in Kearney with a degree in criminal justice. As part of her service, Linda was required to train one weekend a month in York, NE. It was there that Linda met her soulmate, Doug Griess. After dating for a few years, they were married in 1994. For the next several years, the young couple formed a new bond and they began planning for the future while continuing their service in the National Guard. Less than a decade after they were married, their roles in the military would bring them both to the frontlines of a new war a world away from home in Iraq. Linda and Doug wondered which of them would be called up first. Then the news came for Linda to deploy with the 267th Ordnance Company. After deployment training, the 267th arrived at Camp Speicher near Tikrit, Iraq, in February of 2004. As one of the unit's senior sergeants, Linda's helpful nature and her insistence on doing every job well quickly stood out. Her professionalism and caring nature boosted the morale of her platoon. An officer from a nearby unit said Linda ``was always a true professional--not only a mentor but also a friend. She served her country honorably.'' The summer of 2004 was shaping up to be a complicated period. Doug was at annual training back home, and rumors were flying about his unit deploying. At the same time, Linda was planning to return home on leave to be with Doug and her family for a short time. On July 10, Doug's unit received deployment orders. The following day, on July 11, 2004, the unthinkable happened. Linda was driving in a convoy through a high-threat area in Samarra, Iraq. The convoy was attacked by Al Qaeda insurgents, and Linda's vehicle took a direct hit from an improvised explosive device. Linda and another soldier were killed. She was only 2 weeks from returning to Nebraska. Doug was at home with his friends discussing their upcoming deployment. Suddenly, a car pulled up with three soldiers dressed in Class A uniforms, and Doug knew why they were there. Linda was buried in Sutton, NE, and over 1,000 mourners traveled to this small town in Central Nebraska to honor this brave soldier. A month later, Doug deployed to Iraq with his unit. His grief over the loss of Linda was held at bay for a year as he focused on his mission and his fellow soldiers. Linda would have wanted it that way. Doug's commitment to fulfilling his oath and serving his Nation would have made her proud. MSG Linda Tarango-Griess was the first woman to lose her life in combat while serving in the Nebraska National Guard. She earned the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, and was promoted posthumously to Master Sergeant. Doug would later remarry, and he is now the proud father of three wonderful children. Linda's Aunt Marie lives in Lincoln, where she is active in Yellow Ribbon activities for troops serving abroad. Linda's sister Vicki lives in North Platte with her three children, not far from her brother Augie and her father Augustin. To this day, one of Linda's cousins keeps an email from Linda that was sent before she departed on her final mission. In the email, Linda proudly describes how her platoon competed in a 5-mile run which the 267th nicknamed the ``Desert Dash.'' Linda said: ``None of us won the race, but in our hearts we are winners, our reward is the self- satisfaction for just finishing the race.'' I hope all Nebraskans remember her as an example of what it means to serve our Nation with bravery, compassion, and joy. MSG Linda Tarango-Griess is a hero. She embodied the grit and determination of an American soldier, and I am honored to tell her story. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I am thankful the Senate is taking up the appropriations bills. The appropriations process is the only way citizens can truly hold their elected representatives accountable. It also allows the American people to see just what the priorities are for the Senate. Through my votes upon appropriations bills, I have to decide which government programs to prioritize and which government programs need to be cut. These are tough choices, but Nebraskans sent me to Washington to make these hard decisions. Again, I am hopeful that the Senate is taking up these bills and that we can make important spending decisions on behalf of the American people. That is why I am proud to join Senators Coats, Toomey, and Flake to submit an amendment that targets what I see is overspending in the Energy and Water appropriations bill. This amendment would wind down the Department of Energy's troubled Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. The ATVM Program was designed to provide loans for businesses that produce fuel- efficient, advanced-technology vehicles and components in the United States. The program was created in 2007. In 2009, Congress appropriated $7.5 billion in subsidies to cover $25 billion in loans authorized under that program. Unfortunately, as Senator Coats and Senator Toomey have pointed out, this program has struggled for many years. The record speaks for itself. Take Fisker Automotive as an example. In April of 2010, Fisker received a loan through the ATVM program for the purpose of producing two lines of plug-in hybrid vehicles at its plant in Wilmington, DE. In 2011, because Fisker was not meeting its performance targets, the DOE suspended its original loan of $529 million. Unfortunately, $192 million in taxpayer dollars had already been loaned to the company. Fisker halted operations, and they filed for bankruptcy in November of 2013. The company's ATVM loan was sold at auction for $25 million and the DOE was able to recoup $28 million from an escrow account. However, this loan still resulted in a $139-million loss for taxpayers. In February of 2014, Fisker's assets were auctioned to a Chinese manufacturer, Wanxiang, through the resulting bankruptcy proceedings. This was one of the many failures resulting from the ATVM Program. In 2013, a Government Accountability Office report found few auto manufacturers and program applicants willing to participate in the program due to high costs and the limited benefits. As a result, the Secretary of Energy announced a number of changes to the ATVM Program in April of 2014. Not a single new loan has been approved since the announcement of these revisions. This program is a clear example of waste. It reveals the dangers of allowing our government to pick winners and losers in the private sector. That is why I am here today to join Senators Coats and Toomey and Flake in offering an amendment that would prohibit new loan applications from being reviewed if they are not submitted by the date of this bill's enactment. Furthermore, our amendment would prohibit any loan credit subsidies after the end of fiscal year 2020. Through these provisions, we can responsibly wind down a very ineffective program. Our national debt continues to grow, and it now exceeds $19 trillion. According to the March 2016 report of the Congressional Budget Office, annual deficits will exceed $1 trillion in 2022 and every year thereafter. This makes the need for commonsense provisions like ours all the more urgent. We simply cannot afford to continue spending money on programs that are not effective. I urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible amendment when it is brought up for a vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, April 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that following morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2028.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 393, S. 1252, and that the Casey amendment be agreed to; that the committee-reported substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 495; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 434, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. FISCHER. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mrs. FISCHER. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 433, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to discuss an issue of importance for Nebraskans and Americans all across this country; that is, the need for comprehensive tax reform. It is no secret the current Tax Code is overly complex and outdated. Any American can tell you how frustrating it is to file a tax return. Our Tax Code is riddled with deductions, exemptions, credits, exclusions, preferences, and loopholes that make it nearly impossible for anyone without a degree in tax law to understand. At the same time, we should recognize that some progress has been made. Thanks to the work of Chairman Hatch and members of the Senate Finance Committee, many important updates to the Tax Code were made permanent at the end of last year. In particular, increasing the deduction limit and making permanent section 179 of the Tax Code was an important step. This section allows small businesses to deduct from their taxes certain depreciable business assets. My constituents told me annual uncertainty about whether section 179 would be renewed made it very difficult for them to plan, to invest, and to grow their businesses. Making this provision permanent reduced the ambiguity that had plagued Nebraska's small business owners and operators. Although we have made some progress in reforming the Tax Code, there is more work to do for the American people. I believe tax reform should focus on several principles, including competitiveness, simplicity, and economic growth. At nearly 40 percent, the United States has the highest combined corporate tax rate in the developed world. This is stifling job growth, hurting families, and compelling businesses to move overseas. Any comprehensive plan should seek to lower this rate to a competitive level, one that will not only encourage current businesses to stay but also incentivize new businesses to set up shop. Another goal of comprehensive tax reform should be to simplify the Tax Code. Families and businesses spend billions of hours every year in completing their taxes. A disproportionate share of this burden is shouldered by many small businesses. Many of these are family businesses, and they don't have the resources to easily comply. Creating a tax system that is simple and efficient will reduce administrative and compliance costs. A simple tax system will also increase transparency, allowing Americans to fill out their taxes accurately while preventing fraud and lost revenue. Perhaps most importantly, any plan to reform the Tax Code--well, it must spur economic growth. Inaction on reforming the Tax Code is delaying needed growth in GDP, jobs, and investment. When I was first elected to the Senate, I thought my colleagues and I would immediately take up two issues to restart our economy, grow jobs, and help all American families: tax reform and reducing the overburden of government regulations. After all, it is pretty obvious these are two issues we can reform that would have a positive impact on our economy. We see regulations become ever more burdensome, and they continue to depress our economy, stifle innovation, and hurt our families. Major tax reform has not happened. We continue to chip away, but I believe now is the time we step up and be bolder. We must make the necessary reforms to our tax system to give Americans confidence in our future. We need to help put more money back in the pockets of hardworking Americans and allow them to spend money on the goods and services they choose and that they need. It is my hope my colleagues will join me in continuing this discussion and that this dialogue then will eventually result in action, in comprehensive tax reform that truly benefits Nebraskans and the American people. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, yesterday many Members of the Senate came down to the floor to discuss the importance of equal pay for equal work. Republicans remain committed to enforcing our equal pay laws and preventing discrimination. We all believe wage transparency is an important tool, and we agree that employees have a right to freely discuss their compensation without the fear of retaliation. This transparency will allow employers and employees to identify what trends or factors exist and how they are actually contributing to wage disparities. No meaningful change to overcoming the opportunity gap can occur without this knowledge. We have bipartisan agreement that preventing retaliation will empower American workers and will enable them to negotiate more effectively for the wages that they have earned. Protecting employees from retaliation is an issue that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, can agree on. Today we have a unique opportunity to pass a bill that will strengthen our Nation's equal pay laws for the first time in over 50 years. Today we have a chance to make a difference for American workers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 278, S. 2200. I ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I have heard many times from my friends on the other side of the aisle that my proposal doesn't go far enough. Respectfully, I believe some of the provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act go too far. I take issue with the accusation from those who wrongly assert that my bill will make it harder for women to discuss wage discrimination. I understand that my nonretaliation language is different from the Paycheck Fairness Act, but the intent and the effect are the same. My bill will protect women and men from retaliation when they learn about or seek out information about how their compensation compares with other employees. It is clear there is common ground to make progress on equal pay when it comes to wage transparency. Every Senate Republican is on board with this proposal. It is a needed update to our equal pay laws. In 2014, every Senate Democrat welcomed a more limited but similar Executive order that was issued by President Obama that pertained only to Federal workers. My Workplace Advancement Act goes further. It protects all Americans. Moreover, it is bipartisan. Five Senate Democrats are already on the record in support of this plan. So why do my friends from the other side of the aisle not now support my bill? Colleagues, this is an issue we can agree on. It is clear my legislation enjoys bipartisan support, and it can make meaningful progress for American women. While I am disappointed in today's objection to my bill, I hope we can move beyond sound bites because this issue is too important to politicize year after year. The Paycheck Fairness Act that my colleague speaks of will inhibit employers' ability to establish merit-based pay systems, and it will inhibit employees' ability to negotiate flexible work arrangements. The Independent Women's Forum recently conducted a study on what matters to women when they choose a job. They found that flexibility was a common theme. Whether providing flexible scheduling or offering alternatives like telecommuting, women value flexibility, and they value it at about the same level as receiving 10 paid vacation and sick days or receiving $5,000 to $10,000 in extra income. This is important to women. We should be doing it. The survey showed what many of us already know. Every situation is different, and by providing more options, workers can negotiate work arrangements that can suit their own particular needs. With these concerns in mind, I object.

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of equal pay for equal work. Today is National Equal Pay Day, and this provides us an opportunity to talk about how we can promote policies that will make life easier and more flexible for American families. It allows us to celebrate the amazing advancements that women have made. Women have an incredibly positive story to tell. We now hold more than half of all professional and managerial jobs, double the number since 1980. We earn over 55 percent of bachelor's degrees, run nearly 10 million small businesses, and we serve in Congress at record levels. Some may be surprised to see a Republican speaking out to support equal pay. My friends on the other side of the aisle have made quite an effort to politicize this issue, claiming that Republicans don't care about equal pay. I am here to state unequivocally that is ridiculous. Equal pay for equal work is a shared American value. At its core, equal pay is about basic fairness and ensuring that every woman, just like every man, has the opportunity to build the life she chooses. For over half a century, the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act have enabled women to make significant economic strides. Any violation of these important laws are illegal, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law. But I believe we can also go further. Congress now has the opportunity to recommit itself to this issue and ensure that these existing laws are better enforced. Our country is stronger today because women have advanced in the workforce. There are stories of young women who start off at entry- level jobs and rise to the top of corporate ranks because someone somewhere recognized their potential. There are managers and mentors committed to their team. Men and women across the workforce are focused on cultivating strengths and providing thoughtful feedback in areas that need improvement. Unfortunately, there are also stories of pain, discrimination, and bias. We all have friends and neighbors, sisters and mothers who were treated unfairly at some point in their careers. But silence does not foster progress. I want to help every woman and every man put a stop to unfair pay practices, and this starts by breaking the barriers to open discussion. Few realize the extent of this problem. In 2003 the University of Pennsylvania conducted a study on how salaries are discussed in the private sector. The survey found that over one-third of private sector employers have specific rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with their coworkers. This was reinforced by another survey from the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Roughly half of workers reported that discussing wages and salaries is either discouraged or prohibited and/or could lead to punishment. It went on to note that pay secrecy appears to contribute to the gender gap in earnings. These studies point to a common problem--one that is fueling anger, resentment, and fear. The American workforce is lacking protections for employees to engage in this open dialogue about their salaries. People are afraid to ask how their salary compares to their colleagues. Meanwhile, current law does not adequately protect workers against retaliation from employers who want to prevent those conversations about their compensation. If you want to know how your salary compares to your colleagues, you should have every right to ask. This is as basic as the First Amendment. Ensuring transparency would not only make it easier for workers to recognize pay discrimination, but it would also empower them to negotiate their salaries more effectively. Wage transparency is not a new initiative. It already enjoys support on both sides of the political spectrum. In fact, both President Obama and Hillary Clinton are in favor of it. But not all transparency is created equal. Earlier this year, the Obama administration proposed a new regulation targeting businesses with over 100 employees. The Labor Department would use this rule to require businesses to submit large amounts of data regarding race, gender, and other statistics to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The administration believes this will end discrimination. I believe this is just another government mandate that intrudes into the operations of a private business. We can't discount the burden this will put on employers and job creators, and every--every--new regulation creates a new cost. I also have real doubts that this raw data will give the administration what it is looking for. Instead, it does risk presenting a distorted picture of pay data. Moreover, it remains unclear how this information would even identify discrimination. The data does not take into account other factors, including years of experience, education level, and productivity, and they are appropriately used to determine a person's wages. Looking at big data alone fails to tell the whole story. I am concerned that the rigid compensation structures resulting from the President's proposal could force businesses to provide employees with less flexibility, and that would deal an even greater blow to women. The same is true with the Paycheck Fairness Act. While it is very well- intentioned, it will ultimately hurt flexibility for women to form unique work arrangements, and it will undermine merit-based pay. Instead, we should be empowering both employers and employees to negotiate flexible work arrangements that best meet their individual needs. I agree we have more work to do on equal pay, but the way we can make meaningful and lasting progress isn't through a misguided Executive action that could hurt women. To make a difference in the lives of working families, we must focus on building bipartisan consensus. I have been working hard to do just that by collaborating with my colleagues and generating support for my bill, which is known as the Workplace Advancement Act. I believe every American worker should have the ability to discuss compensation without fear of retribution. My legislation breaks down the barriers to open dialogue, allowing employees to ask questions and gain information. Access to this information could enable workers to be their own best advocates and let them negotiate for the salaries they feel they deserve. Knowledge is power. By freely discussing their wages, workers can negotiate effectively for the pay they want. My proposal has received the support of almost every Senate Republican and also five Democrats. But as we know all too well, in Washington anything that receives bipartisan support stalls with five words: It doesn't go far enough. The biggest critics of this plan say that it is too modest. They claim that transparency is only the first step and that a second step would require mandates. But the truth is, meaningful change cannot happen without action, and it cannot happen, colleagues, without compromise. By its very definition, it requires both agreement and accommodation. My bill can make a real difference for American workers, and, unlike legislation that is offered by Democrats, my bill can actually pass. Others would argue that this change is unnecessary because the right to discuss salaries is protected under existing law. While it is true that certain employees and certain conversations are protected, there is no reason why we can't apply the same freedom to all Americans. As I discussed previously, surveys suggest that over one-third of private sector companies have specific prohibitions in place. I am encouraged by the support we have already garnered on both sides of the aisle for this bill, the straightforward update to our equal pay laws. It is achievable. We are all here to find solutions that both Republicans and Democrats can achieve for the American people. An all- or-nothing attitude--well, that only prevents progress, and it leaves us with the false choices and stereotypes that have persisted for decades. Last week I was encouraged to hear Senator Mikulski and several other Democrats hold a press conference and discuss the importance of protecting workers against retaliation for discussing their salaries. I agree. Protecting workers who seek this information is a crucial step toward ensuring that women and men are compensated fairly. With that in mind, I call on my friend from Maryland and any other Members of this body to work together on solutions to this problem. Wage transparency is an area of common ground. Democrats praised the President's Executive order in 2014, and my bill goes further: It protects more American workers. If we are going to make real, meaningful change, we are going to have to work together. We should not let raw politics stand in the way of progress for working women. Congress has a real opportunity to make a difference for both men and women who work hard every day to provide for their families. Above all, we can help them succeed and prosper in the workforce while being secure in the knowledge they are compensated fairly for their work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Federal Role in Keeping Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Affordable.''