Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Forty-three years ago, within the lifetime of most of us here, the Supreme Court's decision effectively reversed draconian State laws prohibiting abortion and gave women power over their own health care decisions. Before Roe v. Wade, nearly 5,000 American women died every year seeking abortion care that was legally not available to them. That number dramatically dropped after the decision because women were able to get abortion care from trained medical professionals legally, out in the open. The Court found that a woman's right to access abortion care is a fundamental constitutional right. While as with many constitutional rights, not totally unfettered, this decision enabled women to gain control over their own bodies and in turn their futures. If the government interfered in other patient-doctor decisions the way that State and local governments have interfered with women's reproductive rights, there would be a national uproar. Why is it different when we talk about a woman's body as opposed to a man's? Can you imagine if States passed laws restricting fundamental decisions about a man's medical care? Why is it that women have to defend deeply personal decisions over our own bodies in court and in legislatures? I recognize that there are deeply held beliefs by good people on both sides of this issue, which is why the right to choose should be left to the individual woman and her doctor. Yet ever since the Roe v. Wade decision, State and Federal lawmakers have attempted to chip away at a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. Hundreds of laws have been passed by States to place limitations and roadblocks to a woman's right to choose. Restrictions such as mandatory delays, unduly burdensome regulations, and unscientific 20-week bans are all attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. In Congress we continue to see unprecedented attacks on women's reproductive health--destructive policy riders in spending bills, attacks on providers, and efforts to reduce women's access to health care services--all in the name of prohibiting abortions. These attempts are not based on facts or science. They do not advance any public policy goals in the interest of women, which is why many of us characterize these efforts as part of a deeply anti-women agenda. Moreover, these restrictions disproportionately impact women of color and low-income women. Apparently, it is not enough to remove funding from reproductive services. The anti-women agenda includes reducing funding from maternal health programs and services for infants and children. The lawmakers writing these restrictions are not the ones who will have to live with their negative consequences. It is the women across the country who will have to live with these consequences. Of course, the legal battles continue. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments later this year on a Texas law that severely restricts the ability of a woman to access safe reproductive health care. My colleague from Washington touched on the problems and challenges that this Texas law imposes. This law, which disproportionately impacts low-income women, has already severely affected the ability of women in Texas to get the reproductive care they need. The rhetoric around this case, as well as the rhetoric employed by abortion foes, has become increasingly dangerous, leading to attacks on providers, clinics, and women seeking care. I hope we can all agree to not return to the pre-Roe v. Wade landscape, where women endangered their lives seeking reproductive care and thousands died doing so. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that women can continue to control their own destinies for the next 43 years and beyond. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I filed to the reconciliation bill, amendment No. 2887, to strengthen Pell grants. This amendment provides middle-class families with the kind of stable funding source that they can rely on when it comes to paying for college. Pell grants have historically been the key investment in helping low-income students pay for college. Most of my colleagues would agree that a good education is one of the surest paths to the middle class. In 1980, the maximum Federal Pell grant covered about 77 percent of in-state, 4-year college tuition. Now Pell grants account for only one- third of those costs. Rising college costs prevent many low-income students, no matter how hard they work, from being able to go to college and thus from reaching the middle class. If the Senate can accomplish one thing that invests in our Nation's future, it should be to enact policies that help to stabilize and expand the middle class. We all know there is a growing income disparity in our country that is whittling down our middle class and making it harder and harder for people to get ahead in the first place. Key to the path forward for many is college affordability. Pell grants are a critical part of college affordability. Almost half of all college students in the United States receive Pell grants to help fund their education, including 23,000 students in my home State of Hawaii. Unfortunately, Pell grants--the largest Federal student aid program--which are primarily funded by discretionary, not mandatory, funding appropriations, do not provide the kind of stable funding source that families can rely upon. Each year Congress in its discretion determines how much funding goes to Pell grants. This should change. Federal financial aid should be a resource that students and their families can count on, that they can plan around. To that end, the amendment I filed would do two things. First, it would convert the Pell Grant Program from the discretionary side of the budget to the mandatory side of the budget for 5 years. That way, eligible families won't have to worry each year about congressional appropriations, at least for 5 years, and they can plan their financing for an entire 4-year degree. Second, my amendment would index Pell grants annually for inflation. That means that as college costs rise, so, too, will they allow Federal aid to low-income students. Students and their families should have confidence that if they commit to earning an education, Federal support will be there for their hard work. My amendment would give them that stability. This amendment is paid for by closing tax loopholes for corporate executives and hedge fund managers and by instituting the Buffett rule, to ensure that Americans who earn over $1 million per year pay their fair share of taxes--tax fairness from those who earn more in a year than many college graduates may earn in their lifetimes. To give a hand-up to the next generation of strivers is more than reasonable to me. Access to educational opportunity is not a handout. Graduates will still have to work hard to get good jobs, start businesses, and succeed, and when they succeed, our country succeeds. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stabilize and strengthen the middle class and to invest in our next generation of leaders. The amendment to the underlying bill would improve it, but the underlying bill is deeply flawed. The underlying bill before us would take away health care access for millions of women, seniors, and low- income working people by gutting the Affordable Care Act, defunding Planned Parenthood, and undermining investment and prevention and research. The resultant harm to our people is a poison pill that we cannot impose on American families. This Republican bill, which does little for the middle class and working people, will be vetoed by the President. The Republicans know this, and yet they are bound and determined to pass this harmful legislation as soon and as fast as possible. I ask my colleagues to stop, pause, and get our country back on track by supporting and strengthening the middle class, by giving a hand-up to the people who represent our country's future, and by not yanking the rug out from under the millions of Americans who rely on health care. I yield back.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, before I begin my remarks, I wish to take a moment to express my condolences to the families of those affected by last week's shooting in Colorado Springs, including the family of Jennifer Markovsky. Jennifer grew up in Waianae, HI. She was killed this past Friday at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado in a senseless act of violence. I spoke recently to Jennifer's husband Paul to express my condolences to him, their two young children, her parents, and her ohana. Madam President, I wish to speak on an issue of grave importance to all women of the United States; that is, the Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. One of my first forays into politics happened when as a young woman I wrote to my elected officials and asked them about their views on a woman's right to choose. At that time--1970--Hawaii was considering a bill that would legalize abortion. In fact, Hawaii became the first State to do so for our residents. Choice to me is not something that should be restricted, whether it is the right to choose to end a pregnancy or the right to access birth control. Having control over one's health care decisions is a fundamental right. When a woman has access to a full range of health care services, she has control over her life and her future. Access to birth control and other reproductive options means that women have real control over their economic and personal security. This latest attack on women's reproductive rights by defunding Planned Parenthood is a misguided attempt to demonize Planned Parenthood. There is currently no Federal funding for abortion services--a policy that already hinders the ability of lower income women to access a full range of reproductive options. Some States such as Hawaii recognize how fundamentally unfair this is and provide State funding for abortion services. Limiting the ability of women to access health care services at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country is just one part of the Republican anti-women agenda. They refuse to fund day care, family leave or early childhood education. In fact, one Republican health care proposal would allow insurance companies to eliminate maternity care. What is going on here? On the one hand Republicans want to deny women access to reproductive care, on the other they also want to punish women for having children by not funding programs that support families. I repeat, Federal law already prohibits family planning funding from being used for abortion services by anyone, including by Planned Parenthood. So the measure before us today does nothing more than deny millions of women across the country access to birth control and other health care services that are not only not prohibited but which are perfectly legal. The real work of Planned Parenthood is preventive health care services. Birth control, STD screenings, and well women exams are the bulk of services provided by Planned Parenthood and its affiliates. Defunding Planned Parenthood will unjustly punish women who have access to no other health care providers for their basic health care needs. The harm caused by defunding Planned Parenthood is brushed aside by my colleagues. They will argue that they have provided additional funding to community health centers to make up for the loss of funding for Planned Parenthood. This is a red herring. This very limited additional funding will not and cannot replace Planned Parenthood clinics and their important role as a safety net provided for millions of women across the country. Defunding Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an attempt by some in Congress to pander to a fringe base. The fact is, the majority of Americans support Planned Parenthood and support health care services for women. The continuing efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are false proxies for banning abortion--that is calling a spade a spade-- and all that will happen is that women's health care will be put at risk. These attacks on Planned Parenthood must end. So let's stop wasting time undermining women's health care and get back to the real business at hand. Let's fund the government. Let's give middle-class families and small businesses tax relief. Let's pass bills to invest in our infrastructure and our children's education. These are all things we need to do in the next week that will actually make a difference--a positive difference--in the lives of millions of Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting this extremely partisan measure before us and move on to the real business of the Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, last month I joined Senator Warren and others in introducing the Seniors And Veterans Emergency Benefits Act, also known as the SAVE Benefits Act. This legislation is needed because for the first time in over 40 years, our seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities won't receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or a COLA, for 2016. We are here again to urge our colleagues to support this much needed legislation that would provide a 3.9-percent COLA increase next year. There is a reason we hit upon the 3.9-percent number as the appropriate increase. I will get to that. Many of our people who rely on Social Security and other Federal benefits are on fixed incomes. Every extra dollar helps them buy basic necessities. These Americans worked hard and earned modest benefits. However, based on the current benefit formula this year, they are out of luck. They won't see any increase in their income. But here is the thing. That is not the case for our Nation's top CEOs. According to analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, CEOs of some of America's biggest, richest corporations not only earn an average of $16 million per year, but they received a 3.9-percent salary bump in 2014; hence our 3.9-percent COLA increase for recipients of the SAVE Benefits Act. What does a 3.9-percent increase mean to these CEOs? About $635,000 more a year in their pockets--far more than most workers who rely on Social Security saw in 1 year or 10 years or perhaps even in their lifetimes. By contrast, what does a 3.9-percent increase mean to most seniors in Hawaii? About $580 more a year. Again, focusing on Hawaii, that is about enough for a Hawaii senior to buy almost 3 months of groceries or cover the average cost of a year's worth of prescription drugs. So $580 is a big deal for a lot of people in Hawaii. This bill would help about 19 percent of Hawaii's population, or 268,000 people. They include seniors, children, and disabled workers who rely on Social Security to make ends meet. It includes 24,000 veterans and their family members, who would receive an increase to their well-earned benefits. That extra payment of $580 would help to prevent some 2,000 people in Hawaii from falling into poverty. We are hearing from people all across the country about what will happen next year without the COLA increase. One woman from Lanai City in Hawaii wrote: I feel it is deplorable that Social Security did not receive a COLA increase. Many Seniors and poor people rely on this money to help them make it through the month and although I am not one of them I still want to speak for them as I feel it is important. This person from Lanai said this is a deplorable situation, and I agree. That is why we need to pass the SAVE Benefits Act. This bill is paid for by closing a tax loophole that benefits the wealthiest CEOs. Remember that $600,000-plus salary increase they got? Well, some of that is paid for by taxpayers because of this tax loophole. This bipartisan idea of closing this tax loophole was even included in the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's 2014 tax reform proposal. We only have a few days left for Congress to act before the end of the year. I urge my colleagues to join me in letting seniors in Hawaii and across the country know that we are on their side by cosponsoring the SAVE Benefits Act. Let's just think about the disparity--$600,000- plus increases for CEOs making over $16 million a year versus the millions of seniors and veterans and disabled people who rely on Social Security and who need and deserve this COLA increase. I urge my colleagues to bring the SAVE Benefits Act to the floor for a vote, vote on it, and send it on to President Obama for his signature. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, last November, faced with Congress's failure to act, President Obama, through Executive action, took a courageous and practical step on immigration. Like every President since President Eisenhower, President Obama exercised his legal authority to prioritize U.S. immigration enforcement and make our system more fair and just. The most significant parts of the President's Executive actions were those intended to keep families together and give more people the opportunity to come out of the shadows. The President announced an expansion of the successful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. He also created a new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents called DAPA. DAPA allows the undocumented parents of U.S.-born children to stay in this country with their families. Since its creation in 2012, DACA has given nearly 700,000 undocumented young people the opportunity to pursue their dreams through education and jobs. Sixty percent of DACA recipients have been able to find new jobs, contributing to our tax base and our economy. Experts estimate that DACA recipients will contribute $230 billion to our GDP over the next decade. Together, the expanded DACA and DAPA programs will mean that around 5 million more individuals will be able to work legally, pay their taxes, and care for their families. While the President's actions generated a great deal of support and excitement, they also generated opponents who challenged these actions in court. These court challenges resulted last week in a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that further delays help for these 5 million people in our country. As Judge Carolyn King stated in her very strong dissent in the Fifth Circuit case, ``a mistake has been made.'' The administration is acting to swiftly appeal this decision to the United States Supreme Court. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will find that the President's actions are lawful and that justice for millions of workers and families will eventually be served. We cannot continue to be inactive in Congress while millions of people remain in the shadows. Yet, here we are. Today, politicians--from Presidential candidates to sitting Governors--appeal to our Nation's fears in arguing against any meaningful reform of our broken immigration system. Conjuring up shadowy images fuels these fears--violent gang members from South America, terrorists from the Middle East. In their divisive rhetoric and in their rush to build walls and close our borders, they neglect the faces of those they demonize, and they forget the facts. The National Academies of Sciences recently released an authoritative look on how immigrants assimilate into the United States. That report paints a very different picture from what you will hear from Republicans on the campaign trail. For example, the Academies found that neighborhoods with more immigrants have lower rates of crime and violence than comparable nonimmigrant neighborhoods, and foreign-born men are incarcerated at \1/4\ the rate of native-born Americans. Today's immigrants are learning English just as fast as prior waves of immigrants; only our schools aren't equipped to help them as well as they should be. Eighty-six percent of first-generation male immigrants have jobs, as do 61 percent of women. In fact, immigrant men with the lowest education levels are more likely to have jobs than comparable groups of nonimmigrant men. These paint a very different picture than gang members and terrorists. In fact, it is clear that immigrants are an asset to our communities and our Nation. The vast majority of people come to America seeking a better life for themselves and their families. They work extremely hard and in many cases under very difficult circumstances. Despite our country's being a nation of immigrants and the great benefit immigration has meant to our culture and economy, immigration remains a difficult issue in America. Just last month we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Prior to President Johnson's signing that law, the United States had a racially discriminatory quota system. In fact, prior to 1965, Asians were essentially excluded from immigrating to the United States. The 1965 law wasn't perfect, but it moved our system forward by focusing on family reunification--not racial quotas amounting to racial discrimination--as a guiding principle. Since the 1965 law, our Nation has benefitted greatly from the millions of immigrants from all over the world who have come here. Immigrants have built vibrant communities, become titans of industry, expanded American arts and music, and strengthened our public institutions. Their positive contributions have changed America and what it means to be an American. No matter how toxic the immigration rhetoric may be right now, we can't stop pushing to improve our broken system. President Obama's Executive actions were neither a complete nor a permanent solution for immigration reform, but they were positive steps forward. It has been more than 2 years since the Senate passed its comprehensive immigration reform bill with 68 bipartisan votes. I was proud to have worked on this bill as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sadly, the House refused even to consider the bill--even after Republicans released their immigration principles, acknowledging the brokenness of our immigration system. Congress remains deeply divided, and there is still no indication that we will be able to pass comprehensive immigration reform any time soon, leaving 11 million people in our country in the shadows. As the only immigrant serving in the Senate today, I remember very well my mother's courage in bringing her three children to this country so that we could have a chance at a better life. That is what comprehensive immigration reform will mean to the 11 million people living in the shadows in our country--a chance for a better life for themselves and their families. These are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers; and they are neighbors and friends. They are not looking for handouts. They are looking for the chance for a better life, and that is the universal appeal of our great country. As leaders, we need to act to make real for these millions of people the promise of America. We need to pass comprehensive immigration reform soon. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, on the eve of Veterans Day and the 240th Birthday of the United States Marine Corps, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. This legislation has taken a circuitous route to get to where it is today. The President correctly vetoed the original bill as it was a flawed product. It was flawed in the sense that it unfairly exempted the defense budget from the same draconian budget caps on nondefense programs by utilizing the overseas contingency operations, OCO. While this approach would have funded the defense bill, it neglected our economic security and left unaddressed important national priorities including law enforcement, education, transportation and community development, and medical research. A strong economy and strong communities are the backbone of our national security, and we should not divide our country into two Americas--defense on one side and everyone else on the other. That is not the way Congress should be doing business, and that is why our military leaders, led by Secretary of Defense Carter, opposed the earlier versions of this year's NDAA. The bill, which we passed 91-3 today, comes after passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act, which provides balanced relief from cuts to ensure we have a strong defense and a strong economy. I supported this revised bill. While it was not a perfect bill, it is the result of a bipartisan compromise by the Congress. The fiscal year 2016 NDAA provides the men and women of our Armed Forces with the resources and equipment they need to defend our Nation and protect its interests. I commend Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their leadership on the Senate Armed Services Committee in creating and shepherding this vital legislation through this chamber. The outstanding and bipartisan efforts of committee members will allow the defense authorization bill to become law for the 54th consecutive year. I am proud to serve alongside Chairman Wicker as ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee and want to thank him for leading the subcommittee which helps ensure that our Navy and Marine Corps forces are trained and equipped to conduct the vital missions they are tasked to complete. A strong and prepared Navy and Marines is absolutely essential to our national security strategies in the Asia-Pacific region, and this bill supports those efforts. This NDAA includes a number of provisions that reaffirm the importance of the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific; support the men and women who serve in our military and the Hawaii National Guard; invest in Hawaii's military bases, schools, and facilities and those that assess the ballistic missile capabilities of rouge nations and the current capacity to defend Hawaii against missile threats. Our support of the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific is critical. Maintenance of stability in this region cannot be underestimated. Continued engagement and partnership with our friends and allies in the region is invaluable. By extending the State Partnership Program, we not only hone the capabilities and readiness of our National Guard, but we gain the dual benefit of enhancing our partnerships and the capacity of regional neighbors. However, I do have some concerns with the final bill that I intend to work on going forward. While my colleagues and I continue to work to reduce redundancy and increase efficiencies with in our military, I would have serious concerns if across-the-board reductions to headquarters operations were made by the Department of Defense implementing this bill. In talking with military commanders, I know that cuts at command headquarters to include U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Pacific Fleet, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, U.S. Army Pacific and Pacific Air Forces, which are all based in Hawaii, would impact our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We need to ensure that any reductions are carefully thought out and take into account the assigned missions and right sizing of headquarters to adequately support the demands we place on our operational forces. I will closely monitor the Pentagon's implementation of these provisions going forward. In addition, I want to ensure that the men and women of the Department who travel for extended periods of time on official business are reimbursed for food and lodging at appropriate levels. Last year the Department changed how these workers are reimbursed, and the bill passed today directs the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to review the issue and report back to Congress. I will be tracking the GAO report on this important issue, as well as the Department's implementation of their extended Temporary Travel Duty, TDY, policy. While the passage of this legislation is critical, it still contains misguided provisions I have long disagreed with and that negatively affect our security, as well as the men and women who defend this Nation. An area I strongly disagree with is in regard to the restrictions on transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. These harm our security interests and continue to undermine our leadership on human rights. We need to work towards a solution to close this facility. Despite these concerns, this legislation is a product of a sincere bipartisan and bicameral effort to provide the men and women of our military the tools and resources it needs to defend our great Nation.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, last month the Social Security Administration announced some disappointing news. For only the third time in 40 years Social Security beneficiaries will not receive a cost- of-living or COLA increase in January 2016. In Hawaii, one out of four seniors relies on Social Security as their only source of income. They are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, pay for medicine, and buy groceries--basic necessities. Many Hawaii seniors have told me their stories about how costs for essential goods keep rising while the Social Security checks do not. Meanwhile, by contrast--and we heard this from my esteemed colleague the Senator from Massachusetts--the CEOs of the wealthiest companies in America are doing great. The average CEO at America's top 350 companies saw a raise of 3.9 percent just last year. Since the economic recovery of 2009, these CEOs have seen their pay increase by a whopping 54.3 percent. I have nothing against hard-working people, including CEOs, getting a raise. If CEOs came up with a good idea and they are managing a successful company, that is great for them, their companies, and one hopes for the company's employees, but did you know taxpayers are partly footing the bill for CEO pay raises? The Tax Code today has a ``performance pay'' loophole that provides tax subsidies for high-level corporate executive compensation packages. That is why I am proud to join Senator Warren and others in introducing the SAVE Benefits Act. Our bill would provide a modest cost-of-living increase next year, the same 3.9 percent increase our Nation's top CEOs received this year. This would mean an average payment increase of about $580 for our seniors. This is money that makes a huge difference to all of our seniors. This one-time COLA payment would also apply to veterans' benefits--as my colleague Richard Blumenthal just focused upon--Federal disability insurance, and equivalent State or local retirement programs. To pay for this one-time COLA, our bill would close the tax giveaways to the wealthiest CEOs. Closing the performance pay loophole is a bipartisan idea, even supported by the former chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means in his tax reform proposal. In the long run, we should also modernize the formula Social Security uses to calculate COLAs each year, and that is why I introduced the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which would base COLAs on a more accurate formula of what seniors actually buy, the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly or CPI-E. The CPI-E gives more weight to items seniors actually buy, such as medicine, housing, and home energy costs rather than electronics or clothing that younger workers buy more of. My bill would pay for the CPI-E by requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay the same rate into the Social Security trust fund that everybody else pays year-round. Otherwise, under the current law, once workers earn more than $118,500 in the year, they stop paying the payroll taxes that support the Social Security trust fund. I was on the Senate floor last month and shared the story of one of my constituents from with Wahiawa, and it bears repeating. She wrote to me recently and said: I find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that Social Security is too generous. The average Social Security benefit is a whopping $14,000 a year, and we've only seen an average 2 percent COLA over the past five years. I can assure you my health care costs have far exceeded that tiny increase. Congress needs to listen to seniors like her and act to provide this modest one-time increase to help seniors make ends meet in 2016 and to change the way COLA is calculated. I urge my colleagues to join me in letting seniors in Hawaii and seniors all across the country have this one-time boost to their Social Security payments. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the SAVE Benefits Act as well as the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act. I yield the floor to my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Markey.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some disappointing news. For only the third time in 40 years, Social Security beneficiaries will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, this year. This news will impact the nearly 60 million American retirees, dependent survivors, and disabled workers who rely on Social Security to make ends meet. Social Security is the most effective anti-poverty program in U.S. history. Without Social Security, about 44.1 percent of America's seniors would be living in poverty. In Hawaii, one in six residents depends on Social Security to help pay their bills and keep a roof over their heads. It is the only source of income for 25 percent of our seniors in Hawaii. We live in a world where wages just aren't rising fast enough, and real pensions are disappearing. More and more workers are working longer and harder with less to show for it when they retire. According to a 2014 Federal Reserve study, nearly 1 in 37 respondents reported having no retirement savings or pensions whatsoever, pointing out once again that Social Security benefits are essential to millions of working Americans and retirees. For many who are already struggling to make ends meet, Social Security is all they can rely on. Absent a COLA, too many beneficiaries will see no increase in their primary source of income, making it harder to afford basic necessities, especially medical care. One of my constituents from Wahiawa wrote to me recently and said: I find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that Social Security is too generous. The average Social Security benefit is a whopping $14,000 a year and we've only seen an average 2 percent COLA over the past five years. I can assure you my health care costs have far exceeded that tiny increase. Another constituent from Honoka'a was more direct in her concerns. She wrote: I have worked very hard my entire life and have planned to retire in a few years. My worry is that I will not have enough money to live. I also may have to continue to work due to this deficit. My question is what are you going to do about it and what is your game plan? Year after year no one has done anything about it and has passed it down to the next person entering the Senate office or Congressional office. It is a problem that must be addressed immediately. Please help me and the rest of my baby boomer generation. Congress needs to listen to these voices and act to responsibly strengthen and expand Social Security before it becomes yet another fiscal crisis. That is why I introduced the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act with Representative Deutch of Florida. Our bill does two key things that will help seniors now as well as help to ensure the strength of Social Security for decades to come. First, our bill would help Social Security recipients by having basic COLAs on a more accurate formula of what seniors actually purchase. This formula is called the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E. The CPI-E more accurately recognizes the rising costs for seniors and gives them a benefit boost. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, if we were using the CPI-E right now, seniors would be getting a 0.6 percent COLA increase in 2016. That is about $100 more in benefits for the average person on Social Security next year. And while small, seniors tell me that every bit counts. Changing to the CPI-E will mean increases in Social Security benefits to more accurately reflect the rising costs that our seniors experience. Second, our bill will pay for this benefit increase by requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay the same rate into the Social Security trust fund that everybody else pays. Few know that this year, once workers earned above $118,500, they stopped paying the payroll tax to support Social Security. In other words, Social Security contributions are capped for these high-wage earners. But most workers, as we know, earn far less than $118,500. So with every paycheck, all year, most workers pay into Social Security. This is not fair. It is not fair that millionaires and billionaires get a Social Security tax loophole. A corporate CEO could earn $118,500 in just one pay period and not contribute a single additional cent in payroll taxes for the rest of that year. Our bill would gradually phase out the cap on payments into the Social Security trust fund over 7 years. That way, whether you earn $50,000 or $500 million a year, you keep paying at a fair rate to support Social Security in every paycheck all year long. The Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act is a fair way to strengthen Social Security for decades to come, and it would give current seniors and beneficiaries a much-needed boost right away. Social Security is one of the cornerstones of the middle class and the lifeline for millions of seniors. We must do all we can to protect and improve it for not just the current recipients but for those who will rely upon it in the future. This bill is supported by groups such as Social Security Works, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I urge my colleagues to join me in letting seniors in Hawaii and all across the country know that you are on their side by cosponsoring the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to oppose S. 2146, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. Hundreds of cities and local jurisdictions across our country have financial, constitutional, and public safety concerns with using scarce local tax dollars to hold immigrants in jail when they otherwise would be entitled to release under the law. These cities and towns are being called sanctuary cities because they have made a local and fact-based choice to keep their communities safe rather than serve as an arm of immigration enforcement. This bill would create new criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants and make life even harder for them, most of whom are honest, hard-working people, not criminals. The bill also takes severe steps to penalize these sanctuary cities by stripping them of critical community block grants and Federal homeland security and law enforcement funding. While this bill purports to protect our communities, it is strongly opposed by law enforcement, victims' advocates, and local and State government leaders. Why do they oppose this bill? Demonizing our immigrant communities and using them as scapegoats does not make America safer. Decades of research shows the following: that immigrants as a group are not a threat to public safety, that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than the rest of Americans, and that the higher rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime. Law enforcement is clear. This bill would limit their ability to keep all people in their communities safe. Good community policy requires collaboration and trust. Our law enforcement officials want to spend their time going after people who truly pose a threat to our safety. This bill would have us spend limited resources pursuing hardworking though undocumented members of their communities with no criminal history. Community law enforcement should not be coerced, because that is what this bill would require. It is a requirement. Community law enforcement should not be coerced into serving as an arm of Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is what this bill does. Nobody is talking about voluntary collaboration and support for Federal Government enforcement of laws. Throughout this Congress, my Republican colleagues often rail against the Federal Government telling State and local governments what to do, but now when it comes to something as important as public safety and law enforcement, it is suddenly OK to second guess State and local law enforcement? Instead of turning hard-working immigrants into bogeymen, we should be focusing on real solutions for violent crime in our communities. If my colleagues who support this bill are serious about addressing violence in America, then they should come to the table to talk about how we can strengthen our laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I have been saying, along with many of my colleagues for over a year now, if my Republican colleagues want to discuss immigration reform, we welcome that debate. Everyone agrees our immigration system is broken and needs reform. It has been 28 months since the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill that had strong bipartisan support. Even though it was not perfect from my perspective, we nonetheless worked together to come up with a compromise bill, but House Republicans ducked the issue and refused to take up the immigration reform bill. The Senate comprehensive immigration bill would have reduced the Federal deficit by $1 trillion in just two decades because of the broad economic benefits immigration reform granted. It would have protected and united families, strengthened our border security, improved our economy, and encouraged job creation in our country. The Senate's bill would have gotten millions of people out of the shadows, requiring them to pass criminal background checks and earn their path to citizenship. It would have let immigration enforcement officials focus on true security threats to our country. The Senate's immigration bill included $46 billion in new resources to help our Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Of this amount, roughly $30 billion was added to the bill to further secure our borders, but that is not enough for some Republicans. Apparently, some will not be happy until we literally round up every undocumented immigrant--some 11 million of them in our country--and deport them, which would be catastrophic to our economy, not to mention impossible to do. The current sanctuary cities debate is not the first time some have tried to use myths about immigrants to scare Americans. This rhetoric could not be further from the truth about immigrants. I urge my colleagues to oppose these scare tactics and to vote no on the motion to proceed to S. 2146. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague Senator Murphy regarding the responsibility--our responsibility--to deal with the issue of gun violence in our country. Land and Water Conservation Fund Mr. President, I wish to turn to another subject. I wish to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the LWCF as it is commonly known. Last week, at the end of the fiscal year, the LWCF authorization expired. The LWCF is one of the Federal Government's best tools for supporting conservation, and we need to act quickly to renew the law. As cities grow, suburbs swell, and our natural world shrinks, the need for more opportunities for outdoor recreation and education grows. The LWCF helps expand those opportunities: opportunities for our veterans, our children, and our families. For example, we have heard from veterans who shared the therapeutic value of our public lands. When Matthew Zedwick served in Iraq, he was comforted by memories of hiking and fishing on public lands in his Oregon hometown. Since coming home to Oregon, he has found that visiting many of the trails, lakes, and streams that are protected by the LWCF helped him heal. Also, this year, for the first time our Nation's fourth graders have free access to all of our national parks. Why fourth graders? Because fourth graders are able to understand their surrounding environments in more concrete ways. Through these kinds of experiences in our national parks, these fourth graders will, we hope, grow into having a lifelong appreciation of our environment. Finally, millions of families looking for a weekend getaway flock to our parks, refuges, and wildlife reserves, areas that are afforded protection thanks to the LWCF. Despite being chronically underfunded, over the past 50 years the LWCF protected and conserved land in every single State. Rather than relying on taxpayers, money for the fund comes from oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf. Unfortunately, without renewing the LWCF, conservation efforts across the country are at risk, including in Hawaii. Hawaii's environment is unique. I am sure my colleagues are aware of our beautiful beaches, lush greenery, and spectacular geography. For all its beauty, Hawaii's environment is also fragile. One-third of our native forest birds are endangered, and we are home to almost half of the Nation's threatened and endangered plants, making us in Hawaii the endangered species capital of the world. Our coasts and beaches are being threatened as we speak by sea level rise. Our corals are expected to suffer the worst bleaching event in history this year--this coming on the heels of a major bleaching event that happened just last year. All of these phenomena impact our economy and way of life. We know what is at stake if we do not act today to protect our lands for tomorrow. That is why my State put together a collaborative landscape proposal to receive LWCF money. This proposal is entitled ``Island Forests at Risk,'' an appropriate title as we are seeing firsthand how the future of our forests is indeed at risk. The Obama administration recognized the importance of this proposal to conserving Hawaii's unique ecosystems. Thanks to this recognition, a number of the island forests at risk land acquisitions are in line to receive LWCF funding in the next fiscal year. Under the plan, almost 5,000 acres will be added to Hawaii's volcano national parks, Hawaii's most popular national park that in 2014 alone attracted almost 1.7 million visitors. Funds will also help add almost 7,000 acres to help allow Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, a land acquisition that has been the top priority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region since 2011. These critical land acquisitions have a pricetag of almost $15 million, and these acquisitions will only be made possible by the financial assistance provided by the LWCF. Hawaii is not the only State that is set to receive money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund next year. Over the past few days, my colleagues from across the aisle have come to the floor to talk about the importance of the LWCF in their own States. They have talked about the lands in their States and the experiences they have had in the outdoors with their families. We all recognize the opportunities that LWCF investments provide for our people, our economies, and future generations. We know oil and gas drilling is accelerating climate change. We know climate change is threatening our native birds, our coasts, and our coral. Why not reauthorize a fund that takes money from activities that threaten our climate and environment and invests it into conservation efforts? It seems like a no-brainer to me. Earlier this year, I joined Ranking Member Cantwell and my fellow Democratic colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in introducing legislation that would permanently reauthorize LWCF-- permanently so that it will not end. I urge my colleagues to join us in finding a bipartisan path forward to permanently reauthorize the commonsense fund that protects the environment and affords outdoor recreation and education opportunities in every single State. We owe it to the people who elected us, and we owe it to our children and our future generations. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, we are on the eve of yet another government shutdown, yet another manufactured crisis. Two years ago it was over defunding the Affordable Care Act. Today Republicans introduced a continuing resolution that holds our country hostage over funding for Planned Parenthood. The 2013 shutdown of a couple years ago cost billions of dollars in economic losses. We heard many stories of hardships caused by the shutdown, including small business owners who were suffering because our national parks closed, public safety workers protecting our country without pay, and Federal contractors left holding the bag for personnel and program costs. We cannot do this to our working families for the second time in 3 years. We cannot do this to our country. Instead of funding the government, my colleagues across the aisle are using threats of a shutdown to attack Planned Parenthood without any hard evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. Threatening to shut down the government over an organization that annually provides 400,000 cervical cancer screenings, 500,000 breast exams, and 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases is completely uncalled for. Arguments that there are other providers that can fill the important and critical role of Planned Parenthood are not persuasive. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood serves more contraceptive clients each year than any other similar provider, including federally qualified health centers. In more than 300 counties across the country, safety net providers such as Planned Parenthood are the providers of choice for nearly half of women. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is the sole safety net provider in nearly 100 of these counties. Planned Parenthood services cannot be easily replaced. In an attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, one State submitted a list of providers they said could replace Planned Parenthood's critical women's health care services. This list that the State provided included dentists, ophthalmologists, radiologists, and nursing homes. Think about that. Providers are not widgets. After a Federal judge called their bluff, the State cut their list from over 2,000 providers to just 29 providers who actually are able to provide primary care services to women. Those 29 providers could not possibly absorb the thousands of patients Planned Parenthood served in that State. Planned Parenthood has long been in the crosshairs of the anti-choice movement. This recent attack on Planned Parenthood is based on heavily edited videos by radical fringe groups. I refer my colleagues to a letter from Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards to House and Senate leadership dated August 27, 2015. Instead of improving the lives of women by passing legislation raising the minimum wage, closing the gender pay gap or ensuring paid leave for all workers, my colleagues across the aisle continue to narrowly focus on ways to further marginalize women. Instead of introducing continuing resolutions that contain these kinds of poison pills, such as defunding Planned Parenthood, we must pass clean legislation that keeps our government funded, that provides needed and critical services to the people of this country. I ask my colleagues to join with me. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise today to speak about yet another Republican attempt to limit women's health care choices. Congress should be focused on funding the government and keeping our country open for business. Instead, we are wasting our limited legislative days on H.R. 36, a bill that will not pass, and therefore is just for show. This bill is yet another example of a relentless anti-woman agenda. Rather than doing our jobs to keep important government services funded, we are debating a 20-week abortion ban. The decision to end a pregnancy is a difficult one that involves many factors. Each case is unique, and any decision made is a very private one. Ending a pregnancy after 20 weeks is extremely rare. It is often a medical necessity. This weekend in the Washington Post a woman bravely wrote about her need to end her pregnancy after the 20-week mark. When Rebecca and her husband went in for a routine checkup, they received the tragic news that her pregnancy was no longer viable. After consulting many physicians and specialists, Rebecca was left with an untenable decision, but she was able to access all of her health care options and get care that was right for her. This bill would severely limit the ability of women to access vital and necessary health care options. H.R. 36 contains few exceptions, and these exceptions are so burdensome that they may as well not be there. I have met with providers who stand on the frontlines of this choice debate. Despite threats lobbied at them every day, they work hard to ensure that the United States is a country where women are fully empowered to make decisions about their own health care. These physicians have seen the heartache and agony women experience making this difficult decision. Women should not be subjected to medically unnecessary, financially taxing, and just plain cruel treatment at the behest of some Republican lawmakers. If my colleagues truly wanted to improve women's health care, they would fund title X programs, bolster the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, and support the Affordable Care Act. We have no business attempting to legislate a private, constitutionally protected right using unsubstantiated science and hyperbole. In fact, numerous courts have found similar laws by States to be unconstitutional. We need to move on from these votes for show and get back to the real work of the Senate. I am calling this bill what it is: An unnecessary, unwarranted, and likely unconstitutional intrusion into women's private health care decisions. Meanwhile, time is running out to reach an agreement to keep our government open, and we cannot afford another shutdown. We need to pass a clean continuing resolution to keep the government going. I ask my colleagues to join me in focusing on legislation to improve the lives of every single American. We need legislation that increases access to education, promotes job growth, strengthens our national security, and keeps America vibrant. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting no on cloture on H.R. 36. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that we have agreed to with our international partners and with Iran. This agreement, implemented effectively, is the best option we have to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I sit on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. We have had numerous hearings. I have engaged with the administration. I have met with our international partners. I have studied the deal itself. I have read the commentary and analyses from all different perspectives. I have asked hard questions. I have reached my conclusions based on the facts before us. This decision was not easy and should not be easy. Like every Member of this body, I am committed to Israel's security. I am concerned about the alarming statements against Israel and Iran's support for terrorism. These concerns are real and valid. Nuclear proliferation is one of the most consequential national security matters facing the world. Clearly, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to all of us. So I would expect that any agreement to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon would be given serious, thoughtful consideration. Yet, there are those in this body and elsewhere who oppose even the idea of a diplomatic solution--at least one negotiated by the Obama administration. They have made clear their intention to oppose the agreement even while the negotiations were taking place. For the first time I am aware of in U.S. history, dozens of Senators signed an open letter to a foreign government--the government of an adversary, no less--stating that any agreement reached by this administration would be undone. Before the actual ink was put to paper on the agreement, that was their message. Then, within hours of the deal's announcement, the same voices that opposed negotiations in the first place started denouncing it as a bad deal. Some claimed we could get a better deal. Others said that no deal was preferable, despite the fact that Iran was within 2 to 3 months of getting a nuclear bomb. I am fairly certain these people hadn't read the deal before they made such statements at the very outset. That is not how we should conduct foreign policy. Our national security, the security of Israel, and the stability of the Middle East are too important to turn into campaign ads or political rhetoric. As we prepare to vote this afternoon, I would ask my colleagues to set politics aside and focus on the facts. The fact is, this agreement is the best option we have to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. First, we reached this agreement with the backing of our international partners, including China and Russia. I, along with some of my colleagues, met with Ambassadors of these countries, and I asked them point-blank: Would you come back to the table to bargain for another agreement if the United States walked away? They said: No. There already is an agreement. It is the one that Congress should be supporting. The Ambassador to the United States from the UK also said no. I would remind my colleagues that after decades of U.S. unilateral sanctions against Iran, it was the weight of international sanctions that forced Iran to the table. We need our partners to make this deal work, and our partners have committed that if we choose this path, they will stand with us, they will be with us. Second, the terms of this agreement, implemented effectively, cut off Iran's ability to create a bomb. Their uranium stockpiles will be all but eliminated. We will have unprecedented oversight over the entire nuclear supply chain. The U.S. intelligence community has indicated that it will gain valuable new insights through this agreement. Indeed, with the information that can be garnered through this agreement, our intelligence community will be able to provide information that will enable us to make sure Iran stands up and abides by the provisions of this deal. We will have veto authority of what goes into Iran and we will know what comes out of Iran. These unprecedented oversight provisions have the support of arms control experts, nuclear scientists, diplomats, and military and intelligence leaders, all of whom believe this deal will make the difference.

Ms. HIRONO. Finally, this agreement isn't about trust. The deal requires verification that Iran is cooperating before sanctions can be lifted. If Iran cheats, we can snap back sanctions with international support. We can initiate military operations if we need to. Let me repeat. The deal before us does not prevent the United States from taking military action if needed. This agreement is not perfect; however, rejecting this deal means risking our international cooperation, our security, and our ability to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Based on the facts before us, this agreement deserves our support. Let's put politics aside. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the resolution before us today. I urge my colleagues to support the agreement. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the bill to defund Planned Parenthood. I see this bill and others like it as nothing less than an assault on women's health. What else can you call it when defunding Planned Parenthood will result in 2.7 women in this country--that is more than twice the population of the State of Hawaii--not getting the cervical cancer screenings, mammograms, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and other health care they need. For over 100 years Planned Parenthood has been a leader in improving the health and well-being of women throughout the United States. For many women, especially low-income women, survivors of domestic and sexual assault, young women, and others, Planned Parenthood health centers are their primary health care provider that they go to for lifesaving cancer screenings, birth control, disease testing, and other essential health care services. One out of five women in this country will pass through a Planned Parenthood health center for health services at some point in her life. These numbers matter. One out of five women in this country will go to a Planned Parenthood center, and here we are debating whether or not to close these centers. I find it astounding that some--especially on the other side of the aisle--think this is a good idea. Six out of ten women who access family planning services rely on Planned Parenthood as their primary point of care. In the State of Hawaii, my State, over 7,000 women annually have relied on Planned Parenthood for their basic health services--services that help individuals maintain their health so they can live full, productive lives. This latest attack--basically fearmongering by the fringes of some on the other side--against Planned Parenthood is unwarranted and unnecessary. This Senator considers it mean-spirited, on top of that. Defunding one of the largest health providers to women shows how far some of my Republican colleagues will go to restrict women's access to basic health care. As previously noted, this latest attack on women's access to care will impact nearly 2.7 million women across the country who benefit from Planned Parenthood's services. Some 2.7 million women--that, again, is nearly double the entire population of the State of Hawaii. Lots of women are going to be impacted by this drive to defund Planned Parenthood. These 2.7 million Americans do not deserve to have their access to health care terminated just so politicians can score political talking points. If these women can't go to Planned Parenthood, where will they go? Women who rely on Planned Parenthood for essential health care services will be forced to find medical care elsewhere or, tragically, go without. Defunding Planned Parenthood means there will be 400,000 fewer cervical screenings. There will be 500,000 fewer breast exams. There will be 4.5 million fewer tests and treatments for sexually transmitted disease like HIV. In Indiana, when the State defunded Planned Parenthood, several clinics closed. The clinic in Scott County was the only testing facility for STDs. Scott County today is in the middle of an HIV outbreak, and the State had to open a popup clinic to offer such services. Defunding led to residents in Scott County being unable to get services due to partisan statesmanship. We do not want these results replicated throughout the United States. On behalf of the thousands of women in Hawaii and millions across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for health care services, I oppose this politically motivated attack that will set women's health care back. I will stand vigilant against those attempts to defund Planned Parenthood and will continue to defend the good work this organization does for women across this country every single day. Planned Parenthood has long been on the ideological hit list of those who want to block abortion. That is the reality. That is being honest. So, today, we are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood as a way to get to that goal of stopping abortions, and tomorrow we will be talking about some other way to limit a woman's right to choose. This bill is dangerous to women's health. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill and any like it that come our way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Every Child Achieves Act, S. 1177, which replaces the education law better known as No Child Left Behind. I wish to thank the HELP Committee Chairman Alexander and ranking member Patty Murray for their hard work on today's bipartisan compromise bill. Today's Every Child Achieves Act isn't perfect, but it makes good progress. For years, I have heard from Hawaii's teachers, parents, and administrators that No Child Left Behind, or NCLB, is broken. It is time to leave NCLB behind. I have been working to fix this broken law, first as a member of the House of Representatives' Education and Labor Committee in 2007 and now as a Senator. I also began to work on education reform when I was Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii. I will start with one of the biggest problems with NCLB, which is the testing requirements. I heard from teachers in Hawaii loud and clear that NCLB brought us too much testing. Teachers and students in some schools spent so much time on testing and test prep that they didn't have enough time for teaching and learning. Today's bill includes Senator Baldwin's SMART Act legislation, which I cosponsored, to cut redundant State and local tests, and it also includes Senator Bennet's amendment that sets a cap on the percent of time spent on testing. I also strongly support the early education parts of this program as negotiated by Senator Murray, herself a former preschool teacher. I urge my colleagues to expand on this work by also supporting the Strong Start for America's Children amendment led by Senators Casey, Murray, myself, and others. The Strong Start amendment would invest significant resources in high-quality preschool grant programs, which would serve some 16,000 Hawaii children in my State alone. It would expand early Head Start childcare partnerships, such as Hawaii's Parents And Children Together and Kama'aina Kids, and would strengthen the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, supporting programs like the Hawaii Home Visiting Network. Quality early education helps kids enter kindergarten ready to learn, a recipe for success in school and in life. Studies show that by age 3, there is a 30-million word gap, basically a 2-to-1 gap, between low- income children and their wealthier peers with regard to their language skills. Quality early education can help close this gap early. Kids then are more likely to succeed in school, avoid crime or teen pregnancy, graduate from high school and college, earn more income, pay more taxes, and need fewer public services. Why? First, they have the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a changing economy. Business and financial leaders in Hawaii--Hawaii's Business Roundtable executive director Gary Kai is a huge supporter of quality early education, and former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke also agrees that early childhood education is a key investment in U.S. competitiveness. Second, military leaders have also stressed the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. The Department of Defense has estimated that 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military service due to poor education, physical unfitness or criminal records. Hundreds of retired admirals and generals know that quality early learning can reverse this trend. Third, early education investments make financial sense for taxpayers. A study by the University of Hawaii and Good Beginnings Alliance estimated a return of more than $4 for every $1 invested in early education. National studies are even higher. Some show a return as high as $17 for every $1 invested in quality early education. That depends, of course, on the quality of the program and particularly if we target the highest need students. Finally, parents themselves are demanding quality, affordable preschool for their children. In April of this year, I visited Kauai Community College whose Early Childhood Development Center reopened after a few years of renovations. This center trains early childhood educators while providing high- quality early learning services to children of faculty, staff, and the community. Their lead teacher and coordinator, Gina Medrano, said, ``So far, no one has cried since we opened. They only cry when it is time to go home.'' That is evidence of how important early education is to our kids themselves. Currently, the KCC Center can only serve 20 children. There are wait- lists for this program and for quality early learning programs in Kauai, all across Hawaii, and nationwide. We can and should do much better. The Strong Start for America's children amendment would help make early learning the national priority it deserves to be. The amendment would provide quality preschool to over 3 million children nationwide. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment when it comes to the floor. So many of us recognize that education is a continuum which starts early and continues throughout life; therefore, coordination of effort is important. So I am pleased that this bill before us includes provisions to foster coordination between existing early childhood programs and their local elementary school. In 2011, Senator Casey and I introduced the Continuum of Learning Act, and today's bill on the floor includes many pieces from that legislation. On balance, the Every Child Achieves Act before us means good progress for our keiki--our children--and I hope we can continue moving forward and pass the bill before us in a bipartisan way. Our country is at its best when all students have access to high- quality education from birth to college and career. Improving our education system through evidence-based reforms will help every child achieve so that our next generation can compete and lead in the 21st- century global economy. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Hirono-Heller amendment No. 2109. The current AAPI--American Asian Pacific Islander--category hides huge achievement gaps among subgroups, i.e., Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Japanese, et cetera. With better subgroup data, teachers, parents, policymakers, and community organizations will know where they can target support to the students who need the help most. Our amendment only applies to districts with over 1,000 AAPI students. We are not talking about 1,000 students but 1,000 AAPI students, which means fewer than 3 percent of school districts nationwide would be affected. That is about 400 out of over 16,000 school districts. Currently, Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming have no districts that would be affected. Our amendment is endorsed by over 100 groups, including teachers, principals, school choice and charter school groups, not to mention a coalition of AAPI, Latino, African American, women's, and disability rights groups. This is not an onerous requirement on school districts. They already have the capacity to collect this kind of what we call disaggregated data, which will enable all of our schools to help the kids who need the help the most.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on the Hirono-Heller amendment.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Hirono-Heller amendment No. 2109, which deals with Asian American and Pacific Islander, or AAPI, student data. AAPIs are the fastest growing population in the United States, but it is important to highlight that we are not all the same. I know this from my personal experience. Just a few months ago, I attended the White House state dinner for Japanese Prime Minister Abe. The next day, there was a nice photo in the Washington Post with a caption that said, ``Senator Mazie Hirono and her guest''--except it wasn't me. It was actually my good friend Congresswoman Doris Matsui of California. In my time in Congress, I have often been mistaken for other AAPI members. Just a few months ago, during the budget debate, when I was on the floor of the Senate, C-SPAN identified me as Senator Daniel K. Inouye. I have been mistaken for Judy Chu, who is Chinese, and others. I may be the only AAPI in the Senate right now, but we are not all the same. We come from different places and have vastly different backgrounds that make us who we are today. The same is true in education. Our current law and the Every Child Achieves Act use the broad ``Asian Americans/Pacific Islander'' category to cover all AAPIs. This AAPI group includes Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Filipino, Korean, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and others. When we look at averages, the AAPI group does very well overall, but in fact there is a model minority myth. The current AAPI category hides big achievement gaps between subgroups. For example, 72 percent of Asian Indian adults have a bachelor's degree or higher, but only 26 percent of Vietnamese adults do, and only 14 percent of Hmong adults do. This adult data comes from the 2010 census. But we don't have data on how AAPI children are doing. The Hirono-Heller amendment is simple. Today, we already have public report cards on how students in different groups are doing. Parents can look up a school district online and see what percentage of its White or Hispanic students are scoring well in reading or math. With our amendment, districts with large populations of AAPI students will simply add a piece onto their report cards to show how AAPI subgroups are doing. Our amendment uses the same 11 categories as the census. Parents are familiar with it because they filled out the census information just a few years ago. The Hirono-Heller amendment is a bipartisan compromise. Our amendment would only apply to large school districts with over 1,000 AAPI students. Let me be clear--not districts with 1,000 students total but districts with 1,000 AAPI students. Currently, that is only about 400 school districts out of more than 16,000 school districts nationwide. Less than 3 percent of school districts would have to do anything at all. These districts should want to know how their students are doing so they can help all students succeed. Currently, the following States would not be affected at all by our amendment: Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. I have heard concerns that adding this AAPI data would be overly burdensome. The bill we are considering today already adds new reporting on military-connected student achievement. Districts can update their data systems to add checkboxes for military-connected children and AAPI children at the same time. This is not overly burdensome. Just as we are adding a new field to cover military- connected students, adding new fields that include AAPI subgroups will be just upgrading the software schools use. In fact, the Hawaii Department of Education, DOE, is a national leader in using AAPI data. Hawaii DOE collects AAPI data on student registration forms. They easily put the data in their computer systems, which all staff can access. Having AAPI subgroup data is helpful for Hawaii's school administrators and policymakers, who analyze achievement gaps in college and career readiness, set statewide strategy, and then hire staff and target extra help to the highest need students. Hawaii DOE also shares the data with the University of Hawaii system to collaborate on student outcomes, such as credit completion and reducing remedial ed. Principals who learn that a certain AAPI subgroup is doing poorly in their own school can choose to hire more staff for outreach to that community or can partner with community groups on afterschool programs, et cetera. Teachers can spend more time on parent outreach to help high-need students in their classroom. That is why the Hirono-Heller amendment has the support of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National Education Association. Districts in North Carolina, California, Washington, and others are doing similar work. Other districts around the country can make the appropriate changes to their systems. There are automatic software updates for student data systems that can add new data fields. It is important to share the data publicly. Community groups can highlight best practices among schools that serve their students well and encourage other schools to improve. Parents deserve to have this data, too. In the coming days, we will be discussing traditional public schools, public charter schools, and private schools. No matter where you stand on these issues, parents deserve to know how their schools are serving the needs of their kids so they can best help their children succeed. Our amendment is endorsed also by school choice advocates such as the National Association of Public Charter Schools. Just like current law in the broader ESEA bill we are discussing, there is no reporting if a subgroup is too small to maintain student privacy. Our amendment was carefully crafted with the support of the National Coalition of Asians and Pacific Americans, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Council of La Raza, the NAACP, and over 100 other civil rights, educators, and women's groups and the disability community. They worked together very closely on the language and agreed that data disaggregation for AAPI subgroups is a top priority. AAPI groups across the country are making their choices heard by posting photos of why they are more than just a large Asian population. They are posting these pictures on Tumbler, Twitter, and Facebook. In fact, I saw one of those postings where students were holding up placards that say: I am AAPI, but I am also Japanese. I am AAPI, but I am also Korean. Join them at hashtag ``All Students Count.'' I thank Senator Heller and his staff for their support and hard work on this bipartisan compromise bill. I also thank Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Baldwin, Senator Boxer, Senator Cantwell, Senator Casey, Senator Feinstein, Senator Franken, Senator Markey, and Senator Schatz for cosponsoring my stand-alone bill, the All Students Count Act, which goes further than this amendment we will be voting on today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because, in fact, all students count. I yield the floor.