Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I thank these Senators for their support. This amendment is supported by over 180 organizations including the National Immigration Law Center, National Council of La Raza, the Asian Pacific Islander American Health Forum, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, the AFL-CIO, U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I have several letters from these organizations that attest to their support of my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that one of these letters, which is signed by 179 organizations, be printed in the Record following my remarks. I have also been working with many Senators on an amendment to provide additional opportunities for women in the new merit-based immigration system created in the bill. Amendment No. 1718 would create a new tier 3 category with 30,000 merit-based visas. Tier 3 is structured in a way that allows women a fairer chance to compete for these visas. The Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment currently has 19 cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Whitehouse and Schatz be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1718.

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

Ms. HIRONO. I also have letters from over 100 organizations in support of amendment Nos. 1718 and 1504. I ask unanimous consent that some of these letters of support be printed in the Record following my remarks. I thank UNITE HERE, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, We Belong Together, and the Asian American Justice Center for organizing these letters and for their support. I also thank the AFL- CIO and SEIU for their support.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an agreement I have reached with Senator Graham on the Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment No. 1718, which has been cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Gillibrand, Cantwell, Stabenow, Klobuchar, Warren, Baldwin, Mikulski, Shaheen, Leahy, Franken, Menendez, and Schumer. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have been speaking on the Senate floor and talking with my colleagues about my concern that the immigration bill we are considering inadvertently disadvantages women who are trying to immigrate to the United States. I believe the new merit-based point system for employment green cards will significantly disadvantage women who want to come to this country, particularly unmarried women. Many women overseas do not have the same educational or career advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. This new merit-based system will prioritize green cards for immigrants with high levels of education or experience. By favoring these immigrants, the bill essentially cements unfairness against women into U.S. immigration law. That is not the way to go. After I brought these concerns to Senators Schumer and Graham, Senator Graham graciously agreed to sit down with me. We were able to work out a way to address the concerns about women in the merit-based system that I believe will significantly improve this bill. The new Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment reflects a few changes which we agreed to after working with Senator Graham. The changes we made include: limits on the ability for certain types of health care workers to obtain points multiple times based solely on their employment, clarification that there must be a personal relationship to obtain points under the humanitarian concerns section of the amendment, elimination of the provision that awarded points for being a last surviving relative of a U.S. citizen, harmonization of tier 3 with tiers 1 and 2 by adding points for English language skills, and ensuring the tier 3 visas do not--do not--reduce the overall numbers of tier 1 and tier 2 visas available. We should continue to increase the opportunities for women in our immigration system, but I believe this agreement will help level the playing field for women. Our amendment would establish a new tier 3 merit-based point system that will provide a fair opportunity for women to compete for merit-based green cards. Complementary to the high-skilled, tier 1 and lower skilled tier 2, the new tier 3 would include professions commonly held by women so as not to limit women's opportunities for economic-focused immigration to our country. This system would provide 30,000 tier 3 visas and would not reduce the visas available in the other two merit-based tiers. I wish to thank Senator Graham for working with me to modify this proposal in such a way he could agree to lend his support while still addressing the real concerns that women will be at a disadvantage under the new merit-based system. I believe our amendment is a step in the right direction toward addressing the disparities for women in the new merit-based system, and over 100 organizations, including faith-based organizations, support the Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to improve the new merit-based immigration system and make this bill better for women. I hope we can reach an agreement to bring this amendment to the floor for a vote. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Yes.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, the immigration bill clearly and inadvertently disadvantages women who are trying to immigrate to the United States. The bill, S. 744, reduces the opportunities for immigrants to come under the family-based green cards system. The new merit-based point system for employment green cards will significantly disadvantage women who want to come to this country, particularly unmarried women. Many women overseas do not have the same educational or career- advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. This new merit-based system will prioritize green cards for immigrants with high levels of education or experience. By favoring these immigrants, the bill in effect cements into U.S. immigration law unfairness against women. That is not the way to go. The bill inadvertently restricts the opportunities available to women across the globe. Currently, approximately 70 percent of immigrant women come to this country through the family-based system. Employment- based visas favor men over women by nearly a 4-to-1 margin as they place a premium on male-dominated fields such as engineering and computer science. But across the globe women do not have the same educational or career opportunities as men. Immigrant women make many contributions and positive impacts to communities. Economically, women are increasingly the primary breadwinners in immigrant families. They often bring additional income, making it more likely for the family to open small businesses and purchase homes. In addition, women provide stability and permanent roots, as they are more likely to follow through on the citizenship application process for themselves and their families. Ensuring that women have an equal opportunity to come here is not an abstract policy cause to me. When I was a young girl, my mother brought my brothers and me to this country in order to escape an abusive marriage. My life would be completely different if my mother wasn't able to take on that courageous journey. I want women like her--women like my mother--who don't have the opportunities to succeed in their own countries to be able to build a better life for themselves here. The Hirono-Murray-Murkowski amendment evens the playing field for women. This amendment would establish a tier 3 merit-based point system that would provide a fair opportunity for women to compete for merit- based green cards. Complementary to the high-skilled tier 1 and lower skilled tier 2, the new tier 3 would include professions commonly held by women so as not to limit women's opportunities for economic-focused immigration to this country. This system would provide 30,000 tier 3 visas and would not reduce the visas available in the other two merit- based tiers, while maintaining the overall cap on merit-based visas. This amendment is supported by We Belong Together: Women for Common- Sense Immigration Reform; the Asian-American Justice Center; the National Domestic Workers Association; the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Church World Service; Family Values at Work; National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; MomsRising; National Immigration Law Center; American Immigration Lawyers Association; National Organization for Women; Center for Community Change; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services; the Episcopal Church; Unitarian Universalist Association; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Catholic Charities USA; Caring Across Generations; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Sisters of Mercy; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance; AFL-CIO; the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; the National Council of La Raza; the United Methodist Church; National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance; Hispanic Federation; Service Employees International Union; Immigration Equality Action Fund; Out4Immigration; Sojourners; and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. I believe our amendment would address the disparities for women in the new merit-based system, and the dozens of organizations I mentioned believe likewise. Let's work together to improve the new merit-based immigration system and make this bill better for women. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I believe we must fix the immigration bill to make it fairer for women. The bill proposes a new merit-based point system for allocating green cards to future immigrants. Simply put, the point system makes it harder for women than for men to come to this country. The theory behind the merit system is that we should give immigration preferences to people who hold advanced degrees or work in high-skilled jobs. This idea ignores the discrimination women endure in other countries. Too many women overseas do not have the same educational or career advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. In practice, the bill's new point system takes that inequitable treatment abroad and cements it into our immigration laws. This bill reduces the opportunities for immigrants to come under the family-based green card system. Currently, approximately 70 percent of immigrant women come to this country through the family-based system. This legislation increases the amount of employment-based visas. This bill basically moves us away from the family-based system and into economic considerations. There is nothing wrong with that, but we should be fair to women while we are doing it. The immigration avenues favor men over women by nearly a 4- to-1 margin. Using the past as our guide, it is easy to see how the new merit- based system, with heavy emphasis on factors such as education and experience, will disadvantage women who apply for green card status. We all want a stronger economy, but we should not sacrifice the hard-won victories of the women's equality movement to get it. Ensuring that women have an equal opportunity to come here is not an abstract policy cause to me. When I was a young girl, my mother brought my brothers and me to this country in order to escape an abusive marriage. My life would be completely different if my mother was not able to take on that courageous journey. I want women similar to her--women who don't have the opportunities to succeed in their own countries--to be able to build a better life for themselves here. These disparities in the immigration bill are fixable. Later this week a number of my female Senate colleagues and I will introduce a proposal that will address the disparities in the new merit-based system. Let's improve immigration reform to make this bill better for women who deserve a fair shake in our green card system. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I believe hope and fairness lie at the core of what makes our country great. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy called on the country to embrace civil rights legislation that would end the unfair treatment of millions of people as second-class citizens. Congress responded, and the country is better for it. This week, we in the Senate are debating comprehensive immigration reform legislation that gives hope to the millions of undocumented people who live in this country that they will be able to emerge from the shadows and live full lives. It is our time to act. We should pass this important legislation. I thank the Gang of 8, and their staff, for their hard work negotiating the bill and getting it through committee and onto the floor. They have set an example of bipartisanship on a tough issue that is all too rare these days. I also thank Senator Leahy, and his staff, for his able leadership during the markup. It was a remarkably open and fair process, full of principled debate. That is how the Senate should work. Their hard work, and that of others, has produced the bill that is before us. Many senators have already spoken about what is in the bill: the billions of dollars for border security, the tough employment eligibility verification requirements, the pro-tourism policies, and the path to citizenship. Rather than cover that ground again, I want to talk about two problems with the bill that I hope can be fixed: first, the system designed for future immigration is unfair to women; and second, the pathway to citizenship is unfair to immigrant taxpayers. The new merit-based point system for allocating visas to future immigrants is the first problem. Simply put, the point system inadvertently makes it harder for women than for men to come to this country. The new point system is based on an attractive economic idea, but unfortunately one that clearly disadvantages women. The idea is if we want a stronger economy, then we should give immigration preferences to people who hold advanced degrees or work in high-skill jobs. This idea ignores the discrimination women endure in other countries. Women in too many other countries do not have the same education or career advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. In practice, the bill's new point system takes that discriminatory treatment abroad and cements it into our immigration laws, making it harder for women to come to our country than for men. While unintentional in this case, the idea that we want to attract the most educated and skilled people but they just happen to be mostly men is the same argument used for generations to protect gender discrimination in our work places. We all want a stronger economy, but we should not sacrifice the hard-won victories of the women's equality movement to get it. By contrast, the current family immigration system treats men and women equally. The current system is based on keeping families together. That system reflects our shared values about the social importance of family. My family and millions of others also know the family system makes good economic sense. Anyone, whether an immigrant or natural-born citizen, has a better chance of being successful if they are surrounded by a strong family that can pool its resources to help start a business or to help one another during tough times. In many families aunts and uncles, parents and grandparents, even brothers and sisters, use part of their paychecks every week to help a young man or a young woman in their family pay for college and take one step closer to that American dream. That is how it worked in my family. My mother brought my brothers and me to this country to escape an abusive marriage at the hands of my father. My mother raised me and my brothers as a single parent, and times were tough for us. But with the help of my grandparents, who later joined us, I was able to learn English and succeed in school. The amazing thing about this country is millions of families have stories like mine. If I had not been able to come to this country, who knows where I would be today. But I know I would never have had the kind of opportunities given to me by this great country of ours. I want other women to have those chances too. The biggest losers in this bill's new point system will be unmarried sisters of U.S. citizens. Why? Because the new system not only makes it harder for women to immigrate here, but it eliminates visas for siblings of U.S. citizens while allowing new immigrants to bring their spouses. What this means is a woman who aspires to live with her family and work in the greatest country in the world should not have to get married to do that. The future immigration system in the bill needs to be modified to give unmarried women more opportunities to come here. There is more than one way to fix this problem. One solution could be to restore the sibling category. I will file an amendment to do that. Another solution could be to modify the point system in the bill. I am working with other Senators on an amendment to do that, which I hope will be ready soon. The second problem in this bill that needs to be fixed is how it treats immigrant taxpayers. Make no mistake, immigrants pay taxes. A study released in May by researchers at Harvard and the City University of New York found that immigrants contributed $115.2 billion more to Medicare than they took out between 2002 and 2009. Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes. A 2006 survey by UC-San Diego showed that 75 percent of undocumented immigrants had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both. The Social Security Administration estimates undocumented immigrants have contributed between $120 and $240 billion to the Social Security trust fund. I have a fact sheet with citations of several studies about immigrant taxpayers, and I ask unanimous consent that this fact sheet be printed in the Record following my remarks. The bill makes clear that immigrants on the pathway to citizenship have to continue working, paying taxes and other penalties, and meeting other requirements. In fact, they have to do all of this before they can even start on the path to citizenship. The Social Security Administration estimates the tax requirements in this bill will raise more than $300 billion in payroll taxes alone. The general fund will also receive more in tax revenues. Although we have not yet seen CBO's official score, in all likelihood the Treasury Department will collect billions more in revenue for the general fund from these immigrants. In his written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2013, Grover Norquist pointed out that once immigrants have lawful status and work authorization, they will be able to get better jobs and contribute even more to the funding of Federal programs. He wrote that after the 1986 immigration law was enacted, ``their incomes rose by an average of 15 percent just by gaining legal status. Those immigrants today are making much more than they did then and, as a result, paying more in taxes.'' My point is immigrant taxpayers contribute to the funding of not only Medicare and Social Security, but of all Federal programs. No one disputes that it should be this way. Immigrants on the pathway must pay taxes, just like everyone else. The strict tax requirements in the bill are the right policy. What is wrong are the policies in the bill that prohibit immigrant taxpayers who are on the pathway from being able to use Federal safety net programs for at least 13 years. Their taxes pay for these programs, but they cannot use these programs; that is profoundly unfair. Imagine a person buys homeowner's insurance, but the policy won't cover their house if it catches fire until 13 years after they started paying their premiums. That is obviously not fair, but that is exactly the situation in which we are putting immigrants who are on the pathway to citizenship. Yesterday, the senior Senator from Utah spoke on the floor about several amendments he filed to further restrict immigrant taxpayers' access to the programs their tax dollars pay for. He said: I don't want to punish these immigrants. I simply want to make sure they are treated no better or no worse than U.S. citizens and resident aliens with respect to federal benefits and taxes. I have the greatest respect for the senior Senator from Utah. I agree with him that these immigrants should be treated no worse than U.S. citizens and resident aliens, but they are not being treated that way. They are being treated worse because of the restrictions in this bill. Under current law, immigrant taxpayers who are resident aliens cannot use the Federal safety net programs they pay into for 5 years. Their taxes are paid into the system for 5 years, but they get no help during that time if their kids get sick or if they lose their jobs. That is already unfair, but the bill treats immigrants on provisional status even worse. They have to pay taxes for 13 years before they can use the programs they are paying for. The 13-year-long pathway to citizenship will be hard enough. If they lose their job, they risk losing their legal status and being deported, work hard to save up money, not just for the kids' school supplies but to pay the penalties under this bill. The restrictions on Federal safety net programs make their pathway even more treacherous. We are saying to these immigrants: Pay your taxes, but if your kids get sick, don't come to us for help. We are saying: Pay your taxes, but if you have to work part time because of a recession, don't come to us if you need some help putting food on the table. We are saying: Pay your taxes, but we are not going to help you. That is not fair. I want to be clear: I am talking only about immigrants who will be lawfully present. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for these programs at all and no one is proposing to change that, but the pathway provides a way for certain people to earn lawful status. Let's treat lawfully present taxpayers fairly, including those on the pathway. Let's do as the Senator from Utah suggests and at the very least make sure they are treated no worse than U.S. citizens or resident aliens. Finally, not only are the prohibitions in the bill unfair to immigrant taxpayers, they are also bad economics. Both Republican and Democratic Senators say they want immigrants to be successful, start businesses, and continue contributing to the economy. We all do. But few people would use their life savings to start a business if they think their children will go hungry or go without health care if their business fails. The safety net programs exist so people can take risks to improve their economic circumstances. Immigrants come to this country to work. They don't come to get handouts. They come here to work. Two papers from the Cato Institute show that immigrants are more likely to be working or looking for work than natural-born citizens. Immigrants are less likely to use Federal safety net programs. The title of one Cato article sums it up nicely: ``Evidence Shows Immigrants Come to Work, Not to Collect Welfare.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two papers be printed in the Record following my remarks. Both political parties should be able to support the idea that taxpayers who are lawfully present, working, and paying taxes should be able to use the programs their taxes are paying for. That is only fair. I will file an amendment that says precisely that. In closing, during the debates on immigration reform, I hope we remember who undocumented immigrants are. Like other immigrants, they had the courage and aspiration to leave their hometowns and all they knew to find work elsewhere in order to give their kids better lives than they could dream for themselves. The undocumented should pay penalties for the laws they broke by coming here, but we should remember that our Founding Fathers were willing to break up an empire to achieve their dreams. We are a Nation of immigrants. Let's treat immigrants how we would have wanted our immigrant ancestors to be treated--with dignity and forgiveness.

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I join my colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island and I thank Senators Enzi and Durbin for their hard work on S. 743. I rise to speak in favor of the Marketplace Fairness Act. This legislation will put businesses in Hawaii on an even playing field with their out-of-State competitors. It does this by giving the States--not the Federal Government, the States--the authority to require out-of- State merchants to collect the same taxes local merchants have to collect when they sell goods to customers in Hawaii. This is only fair. I want to be clear about what this bill does and what it does not do because there is some confusion about what this bill does and doesn't do. For example, this bill does not impose a new Federal sales tax. This bill does not require the States to do anything. In fact, if this bill becomes law, nothing would change unless a State passes its own legislation. What this bill does do is to give States that choice. It lets each State choose whether to level the playing field for its local businesses. In addition, this legislation provides a framework that ensures States can exercise this authority in a way that ensures fairness for businesses of all sizes. For example, it requires any State that chooses to exercise this new authority to streamline its sales and use taxes, and to provide free software to calculate these taxes to out-of-State sellers. This does not impose any kind of burden on these out-of-State sellers who are selling items to people in States such as Hawaii. This legislation protects small online businesses by exempting any business with less than $1 million of annual sales. The growth of the Internet has been one of the most significant drivers of innovation in our country's history. More and more Americans rely on the Internet to run their small businesses, access educational and health resources, keep in touch with loved ones, and for entertainment. Expanding fast, affordable, and secure Internet access is an essential building block for a strong 21st century economy. However, we must be careful to ensure that while we are promoting the economic potential of the Internet, we are also being fair to local businesses and entrepreneurs. These are the businesses that populate the Main Streets of towns all across the country, across all the islands in the Hawaiian chain. These are hardware stores, clothing stores, gift shops, and many others--many of which are small businesses. These are businesses that create jobs, pay taxes, and provide needed goods and services in our communities. In fact, in Hawaii, retail businesses employ nearly 25 percent of the workforce, about 128,000 people. In 2012, these businesses in Hawaii generated $30 billion in sales as well as $1.2 billion in tax revenue. Many of these entrepreneurs do not want to just contribute economically, they want to contribute and do contribute to the culture and character of their communities. For example, my office received a call from the owner of Kona Stories, a small bookstore in Kailua-Kona, HI. Kona Stories opened in 2006 and sells over 10,000 titles of all kinds. But Kona Stories doesn't just sell books, it hosts book clubs, supports local authors and artists, and it also helps promote other local businesses. The programs and meetings Kona Stories hosts focus on promoting the local culture and character of the community. Small shops like these are places that can teach visitors about the unique characteristics of our communities. They also help bring local people closer together around shared experiences and values. Unfortunately, these small businesses are the ones that are hurt most by the advantage online merchants currently have, because they do not collect Hawaii sales and use taxes. This makes online products appear cheaper because their prices do not include State taxes, even though these taxes are technically still owed. That is not real competition, it is an artificial discount that is unfair to local brick-and-mortar businesses and it puts businesses in Hawaii, such as Kona Stories, at a disadvantage. As small businesses, they have a hard enough time competing with the online giants that can offer lower prices even if they were collecting State taxes. In addition to allowing States to level the playing field for their local businesses, this bill would also provide a boost for State and local government by letting them collect the taxes that are already owed. According to a 2012 Hawaii Tax Review Commission report, fixing the situation and giving States such as Hawaii that option to enact necessary legislation would mean nearly $160 million in additional revenue for the State of Hawaii in 2013. I want to be clear. That money does not come from new taxes. It comes from taxes that are already owed, that are not paid. That is money that should be going to keep teachers in the classroom, firefighters and cops on the beat, and fixing our roads and bridges so we all benefit. Overall, the Marketplace Fairness Act is a good bill whose time has come. It balances the need to preserve a vibrant and innovative online marketplace with a need to ensure fairness for local businesses. It also ensures that everyone is meeting their responsibilities with regard to paying State and local taxes. That is why this legislation has such a broad range of support from business, government, labor organizations, big and small, from all across the country. In fact, my home State of Hawaii has been working to try to address this issue on the State level for years. We need this Federal legislation. Passage of this bill will finally give Hawaii the ability to address this disparity and put our businesses on an even playing field. That will be especially important to the 2,000 local businesses that make up the retail merchants of Hawaii. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of Hawaii national supporters be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Supporters of S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act Retail Merchants of Hawaii, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Government Finance Officers Association, National Council of State Legislatures, Bipartisan Policy Center's Governors Council, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, American Federation of Government Employees, International Association of Fire Fighters, International Federation of Professional Technical Engineers, International Union of Police Associations, Service Employees International Union, UAW, American Apparel & Footwear Association, Food Marketing Institute, Consumer Electronics Association.

Ms. HIRONO. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Derrick Kahala Watson to be a district judge for the U.S. District Court of Hawaii. But before I discuss this nomination, I would like to join with the rest of my colleagues in acknowledging the week we have had and how trying it has been for all Americans. The horrific bombing at the Boston Marathon, the targeting of Senate offices and the President with mail containing poison, other actions at the Capitol, and now this tragic explosion in Texas have captured our attention and given us all perspective on what is important in life. Our hearts go out to all the victims and their families. Turning now to Mr. Watson's nomination, I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley of the Judiciary Committee for their quick consideration, referring this nomination to the full Senate for a vote. Mr. Watson was born in Hawaii. He attended Harvard college and Harvard Law School and started a successful career in law in San Francisco, CA, before returning to Hawaii to serve as an assistant U.S. attorney. Mr. Watson testified before the Judiciary Committee in January at my first hearing as a Senator. He demonstrated that he had the qualifications, ability, and temperament to be an outstanding judge for Hawaii. Once he is confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Watson will be the only person of Native Hawaiian descent serving as an article III judge, and only the fourth to serve in the history of the United States. In addition, once he joins the Federal bench in Hawaii, that court will be the first majority Asian American Pacific Islander article III court in American history. I am proud to support Judge Watson, and I am happy that the Senate will vote to confirm him today. I certainly urge all my colleagues to cast a unanimous vote for his nomination.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703 with Senator Hatch to fix a technical problem that prevents Hong Kong from joining the Visa Waiver Program. Under current law, only ``countries'' are eligible for the program, and Hong Kong is not a sovereign country, so a special provision needs to be added to the law to make Hong Kong eligible. On July 1, 1997, after over 150 years of British rule, Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region of China, retaining its own currency, free market economy, political system, civil liberties, and immigration policies. This autonomy was recognized by the United States and affirmed by Congress in passing the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act. Today we have a robust bilateral relationship with Hong Kong, a global financial and trading hub, which was our 10th largest export market last year and whose trade ties are significant for many States. The State Department considers Hong Kong an important law enforcement partner in combating money laundering and eliminating funding for terrorist networks. Despite our visa policies treating it separate from Mainland China, because it is not a ``country,'' Hong Kong is unable to be considered for the Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program is an essential tool for promoting travel and tourism to America while protecting national security by allowing precleared business and leisure travelers from 37 countries to visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without obtaining a nonimmigrant visitor visa. Hong Kong has secured visa waivers for its passport holders from over 140 countries and territories, including allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and all member states of the European Union. Hong Kong has already extended visa waivers to American citizens. Our laws shouldn't be a barrier to do the same in the future. As our largest industry, tourism is important to Hawaii, especially from Asia. Our largest source of foreign tourists comes from Japan, a visa waiver country since 1988. In 2011, domestic and international visitors to Hawaii spent $16.9 billion which supported 160,800 jobs in the islands according to the U.S. Travel Association. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan, commonsense legislation.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703 with Senator Hatch to fix a technical problem that prevents Hong Kong from joining the Visa Waiver Program. Under current law, only ``countries'' are eligible for the program, and Hong Kong is not a sovereign country, so a special provision needs to be added to the law to make Hong Kong eligible. On July 1, 1997, after over 150 years of British rule, Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region of China, retaining its own currency, free market economy, political system, civil liberties, and immigration policies. This autonomy was recognized by the United States and affirmed by Congress in passing the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act. Today we have a robust bilateral relationship with Hong Kong, a global financial and trading hub, which was our 10th largest export market last year and whose trade ties are significant for many States. The State Department considers Hong Kong an important law enforcement partner in combating money laundering and eliminating funding for terrorist networks. Despite our visa policies treating it separate from Mainland China, because it is not a ``country,'' Hong Kong is unable to be considered for the Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program is an essential tool for promoting travel and tourism to America while protecting national security by allowing precleared business and leisure travelers from 37 countries to visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without obtaining a nonimmigrant visitor visa. Hong Kong has secured visa waivers for its passport holders from over 140 countries and territories, including allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and all member states of the European Union. Hong Kong has already extended visa waivers to American citizens. Our laws shouldn't be a barrier to do the same in the future. As our largest industry, tourism is important to Hawaii, especially from Asia. Our largest source of foreign tourists comes from Japan, a visa waiver country since 1988. In 2011, domestic and international visitors to Hawaii spent $16.9 billion which supported 160,800 jobs in the islands according to the U.S. Travel Association. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan, commonsense legislation.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, a federal budget outlines our priorities as a Nation. On both sides of the aisle, we should be able to agree: We need to be wise about our Federal investments. We should be investing in what works--in what gives us the biggest bang for our buck. For decades, study after study has shown what parents already know-- that quality early education is foundational for success in school and life. Quality early education can help kids enter kindergarten ready to learn and avoid falling behind. Later in life, kids with quality early learning are more likely to avoid crime or teen pregnancy. They graduate high school and college, avoid poverty, earn more income, and pay more taxes. That is more revenue for our long-term fiscal picture. We want to cut unnecessary public spending? Kids with preschool are less likely to need public services--from assistance for needy families . . . to prisons. For a generation, long-term studies have found that investing $1 in quality early learning brings a return on investment of between $2 and $17 after a generation. In Hawaii, a study for Good Beginnings Alliance found we would get $4.20 for every dollar invested. Nobel prize winning economist Jim Heckman did the math over a full lifetime. He estimates an average 7 to 10 percent return on investment per year. In the private sector, business leaders would do anything for a return like that. On Wall Street, you can't get a long-term return like that in the stock market. So it makes sense that business and financial leaders support quality early learning, from the Hawaii Business Roundtable to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to leading CEOs, who know that to train tomorrow's workers we must start early. Law enforcement officials know that quality early learning helps prevent kids from falling behind, dropping out of high school, or getting involved in crime. Military generals and admirals have stressed the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. Today 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military service due to poor education, physical unfitness or involvement with crime. Quality early learning helps kids get on the right path--before they fall behind. Parents know the high cost of childcare is difficult to afford. But parents want more than just safety and supervision for their children. Parents want their children to be prepared academically, socially, and emotionally for success in school and in life. Teachers and school administrators know firsthand that their students who come to kindergarten with quality preschool are more likely to succeed. We have special education professionals and advocates for students with disabilities. They know quality early learning can identify disabilities early and bring intervention to get kids on track with their peers. That can save billions of dollars in more expensive special education services down the line. In our States, Governors from both red States and blue States know this is important. In Hawaii we have Governor Abercrombie. In Massachussetts we have Deval Patrick. But also in Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal is pushing for quality early education. In Georgia, Govemor Nathan Deal is pushing for quality early education. In Alabama, Governor Bob Bentley is pushing for quality early education. Oklahoma is a bright red State and they have been doing quality early education for years. In February, President Obama called for new support for quality early learning. This is the first time we have ever seen this in a State of the Union Address. States are asking their leaders in Congress to act. Today's Senate budget has a deficit-neutral reserve fund for early childhood education. Here is what that means. It means let's find a way to pass legislation in this Congress. One of the best investments we can make long-term that does NOT hurt our deficit in the next 10 years. Let's invest in what works: high-quality pre-K for low-income children; high- quality childcare for working families; and high-quality home visiting programs serving low-income mothers-to-be and low-income families. This helps get poor children the health and social services they need before it is too late. Patty Murray has been working to strengthen quality early education for a long time. She was a mom in tennis shoes. She was a preschool teacher. In the 1980s, she organized 13,000 parents to save a Washington State preschool program. I thank Patty for her work on this issue in the budget. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us on early childhood education in this budget and in this Congress. It is one of the best things we can do for our long-term economic health and for our children. amendment no. 430

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I thank the Senator and good morning, Mr. President.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I wish to thank Senator Mikulski for the tremendous work she did on the continuing resolution. I know she worked so hard, and yet she is on the floor today to talk about how important passing the Murray budget is. And of course Senator Murray is on the floor also, and I want to thank her for her great work. I stand in solidarity with all the men and women, my colleagues, who are going to be talking about how important it is to pass the Murray budget, which is a balanced budget that reflects our priorities and our values. The last few years have been hard for families across the country. Our economy is still struggling its way out of a great recession, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And we have made progress. For example, the economy has grown and millions of people are back to work. But this progress is not fast enough for too many families in Hawaii and across our Nation. Regrettably, that doesn't seem to concern some of our colleagues in the House of Representatives. The budget proposed by the House majority, the Ryan budget, would set our economic recovery back and it would do so on the backs of those who can least afford it. Some of the hardest hit will be women and children, the very people who face some of the biggest challenges in today's economy. So I want to focus on how the Ryan budget negatively impacts women in our country. Women in Hawaii make 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man for the same job. Monthly food costs in Hawaii are 61 percent higher than in the rest of the country. Forty percent of Hawaii households pay more than 40 percent of their monthly income on housing. Hawaii residents pay some of the highest gasoline prices in the country, which we all know can be a serious hardship on family budgets. Our high cost of living is one of the reasons we have a high percentage of women working in two-parent households in Hawaii. Across my State and across our country, women are waking up every day, working hard, and making ends meet in any way they can. These challenges I mentioned are being overcome every single day by determined women. They work hard to improve their lives and to give their children an even greater shot at success than they had. For many, the support they receive for health care, education, childcare, paying for food and housing, makes all the difference. Unfortunately, the Ryan budget lays out a vision of America where these people, our families, are left behind. We are told that budgets reflect our values. I agree. What are the values exemplified and reflected by a budget, the Ryan budget, that makes deep cuts in supports such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--SNAP--and the Women, Infants and Children--WIC-- Program? Combined, SNAP and WIC help put food on the table for over 50 million--I repeat, 50 million--Americans, primarily women and children. The SNAP cuts in the Ryan budget would put over 180,000 families in Hawaii at risk of losing the ability to put food on their table. What could be more fundamental than putting food on the table? I don't know anyone who could look these families in the eye and say: Sorry that you can't afford to feed your children anymore. We have to balance the budget. We need to close the deficit. Sorry. That, to me, is unconscionable and runs counter to our core values. The Ryan budget would also deeply cut childcare assistance and Head Start, as mentioned by my other colleagues, leaving more than 2 million children and their families without realistic early childhood or daycare. In addition, the Pell Grant cuts in the Ryan proposal would make college less affordable for 6 million women students. Add to that the millions of male students and you are affecting the future education of our country. These cuts don't just hurt families now, they force parents to choose between jobs and caring for children. They prevent kids from accessing early learning opportunities that we know are vital to enabling these children to succeed in school and in life. The Ryan budget also slashes support for things such as public transit, housing assistance, and community development. Each of these investments helps make our communities better places to raise a family, which attracts businesses and creates jobs. Finally, and most egregiously and seriously, in my view, the Ryan budget cuts health care for women of all ages by repealing ObamaCare. By repealing ObamaCare, the Ryan budget takes us back to when being a woman was a preexisting condition, thereby disqualifying her for health insurance or costing her many times more for coverage. If we repeal ObamaCare, analysts project that insurance companies could charge women over $1 billion more in premiums than men are charged for the very same coverage. So by repealing ObamaCare, the Ryan budget discriminates against women. And since when is discriminating against women a core value? While ObamaCare requires that insurers cover maternity care, only 12 percent of plans on the individual market do so currently. Repealing ObamaCare would also undermine access to reproductive health and family planning services. Now let's talk about how the Ryan budget would affect seniors. Seniors in our country know the Ryan budget will end Medicare as we know it. They know these changes will force millions of women--and, of course, men--to make do with a voucher for their medical care--a voucher of decreasing value. And since so many women receive lower Social Security benefits than men, while paying higher out-of-pocket health care costs, losing Medicare coverage could be the difference for them between food, housing, or lifesaving medication. Now is not the time to be making huge cuts to investments in programs that provide the very economic security we should be working to improve. Fortunately, the priorities laid out in Chairman Murray's budget would help to strengthen the economic security so many families are seeking. The Senate budget resolution prioritizes creating new jobs, expanding opportunity, and laying out a strong foundation for economic growth. It builds on the progress we have made over the past few years instead of tearing that progress down. I applaud Chairman Murray for prioritizing the elimination of the sequester, which the Congressional Budget Office says could eliminate 750,000 jobs. I also applaud her foresight in including investments in early childhood education, clean energy, national security, our veterans and our seniors, and her bill preserves access to health care, opportunities for higher education, and programs such as SNAP and WIC. These supports are vital to keeping our economy moving in the right direction. The Murray plan will help improve American competitiveness, foster innovation, and open more opportunities for small businesses to succeed, and it lays out a blueprint for responsibly paying for these investments and reducing our deficit in a balanced way. Each and every one of these priorities helps to improve the economic security of men and women and children--families--in our country. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Murray plan, a plan that provides a foundation for growth, instead of a plan that takes a meat-ax approach to the economic security of millions of families in our country. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO. I wish to thank Senator Warner for leading this colloquy, and I am glad to join him and my friend Senator Kaine in talking about the effects of sequester and how we need to come up with an alternative to the sequester. Senator Warner used the word ``stupid'' to describe sequester, and I think that is apt, because what family, in trying to get a handle on their budget, would just make an across-the-board cut to everything in their family's budget. The Senator raised the analogy that no business would do an across-the-board cut, but let's talk about families in our country. No family would cut across the board their food budget, their rent budget. That would not happen. So why are we doing this? As one of the people who testified before the Armed Services Committee said, sequester was the result of political dysfunction. That is very true because it was never supposed to happen. As Senator Kaine said, I am very surprised to listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about sequester--something that was never supposed to happen, and both Republicans and Democrats had agreed this was not going to happen--now take the position that we are where we are and we need to live by the boundaries of sequester. What sequester does is it interjects huge uncertainty into our economy, huge uncertainty, at a time when we are still digging out from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Senator Warner and Senator Kaine have both acknowledged that Virginia is ground zero on the bad effects of sequester. If Virginia is ground zero, I would say Hawaii is ground 0.1. We have a huge military presence in Hawaii. They are a big part of our economy. In fact, there are some 101,000 people in Hawaii who are directly employed with the military. That is 16 percent of our workforce. Some 20,000 of them have gotten notices of furloughs, looking toward a reduction in their pay of 20 percent. Talk about the ripple effect of that kind of reduction in their ability to buy products, we can see what the negative ripple effect would be. In Hawaii, as I said, the military is such a big part of our economy. States such as Hawaii, such as Virginia are among the first States to experience the negative effects of sequester--immediate. Thousands of letters have been going out to say: Expect to be furloughed, with 11,000 people possibly losing their jobs directly. These are immediate impacts. The top reason we need to replace the sequester with something balanced, reasonable, fair, and not stupid is that sequester cuts jobs. There will be huge job losses, and economists of all stripes have said don't keep going down this path with these kinds of cuts that will severely hamper economic growth and cost jobs in this country. These are senseless cuts. The State of Hawaii is already reeling from the potential impacts of sequester which will begin in a couple weeks. We have already gotten many of these notices. But the sequester also represents huge cuts to education, housing assistance, and other programs that are on the chopping block. We must listen to our constituents. So many of them, I know, have contacted all of us. There was one letter I received from an elderly woman and her husband. She lives on Social Security and on HUD housing grants--HUD vouchers--and she said: Our Social Security checks are so small. Yes, while sequester doesn't touch Social Security, it certainly has a potential impact of cutting their housing vouchers. She said: I don't know where we would go if we lost our HUD housing voucher. We would be homeless. I am so distressed, she wrote to me. Another letter I received was from an Army reservist who was all set to go for his training. Now multiply this situation thousands and thousands of times across our country. He said due to sequester he will no longer be traveling to the TDY location for his training. Yet he planned his calendar based on his going. The letter he got was that his orders had been canceled for training due to sequester and his billet is going unfulfilled to cut costs. Failing to provide training to this young man and the thousands and thousands of other men and women who are in our Reserves degrades our Nation's readiness. I received letters from people who work at the Pearl Harbor shipyard, which is the largest industrial employer in the State of Hawaii, with some 5,000 direct employees, both civilian and military, who got their furlough notices. These are highly skilled people with good-paying jobs. When they think about a 20-percent reduction in their salaries, believe me, they are thinking about how to revise their family budgets, and that revision is not going to involve across-the-board ``stupid'' cuts. These are just some of the examples of how sequester will hurt a State such as Hawaii. What should we do to replace sequester? My colleagues have talked about it. The American people understand this meat-ax approach to balancing our budget is the wrong way to go because it destroys jobs and it affects many people who are working right now. So the budget put forth by Chairman Murray will reverse this path down no man's land, basically. What the Murray budget says is let's provide a balanced approach. Let's ask a little more from the most fortunate and wealthy, including the corporations, while including more smart, targeted cuts to other areas of our budget. Let's remember once again that we have already implemented and put in place $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction. So by following the balanced approach that is represented in the Murray budget, we will have reduced the deficit by some $4 trillion over the next 10 years. As I said, we need to do this in a responsible, balanced way, and it bears repeating--because we are still hearing from our friends on the other side that sequester is what we have; let's just live with it-- that there is an alternative, friends. The alternative is a fair, balanced, smart way to deal with our budget deficit, to create jobs, and to help our families, because our budgets do reflect our values, and our values are about supporting our families, creating jobs, moving our country forward, and enabling us to continue to dig out from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I thank Senator Warner very much for this opportunity to come forward, and I will have a few more things to say perhaps later on about the budget and how Senator Murray's budget reflects the kind of values we should be putting forth in our country.

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 in strong opposition to amendment No. 115, the Toomey amendment. This amendment would reduce funding for advanced drop in biofuels production. I strongly oppose this amendment for several reasons. First, this amendment undermines our long-term national security. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines several areas where reforms are imperative to improving our national security. Implementing reforms to strengthen our energy security was one of these areas. Right now, our military is almost totally dependent on fossil fuels. These resources are finite, priced on a global marketplace, and produced by nations with whom we don't always see eye to eye. There are also new powers rising and new challenges evolving. So to preserve a 21st century force, we need to invest in 21st century priorities. This means we must diversify how we power our military. The project this amendment seeks to cut is fairly modest in the scheme of the military budget, but the overall benefits to our forces will be well worth it. Our Nation has always invested in technologies that produce long-term benefits and address changing circumstances-- from more advanced tanks and aircraft to faster communications and lighter armor. We have to innovate now in order for our military to have the capabilities to protect our Nation. We need to make the same kinds of investments now in our military's long-term energy needs. Already the research and deployment of alternative energy is benefiting our long-term capabilities, improving troop safety, and making security operations more affordable. In fact, just last summer, at the Rim of the Pacific Exercise--RIMPAC--the U.S. Navy demonstrated its ``Great Green Fleet'' with surface combatants and aircraft using advanced biofuels for the first time. This exercise--the largest international exercise in the world--proved that our military platforms can use these fuels. Prior to this exercise, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said of the biofuels demonstration: The Navy has always led the nation in transforming the way we use energy, not because it is popular, but because it makes us better war fighters. Clearly, continuing to support this type of investment will pay additional dividends that will help ensure the United States remains the world's preeminent military and technological power in the 21st century. However, there is another reason to oppose this amendment and support the military's ongoing efforts to improve its energy security. That reason is that it makes good long-run budgetary sense. Fossil fuels are a finite resource that are priced on a global market. Increasingly, as I mentioned, this fuel is produced by nations with whom we don't see eye to eye. As global competition for fuel resources intensifies, it is vital that we reduce the amount necessary to power our military. Not only does our reliance on fossil fuels constrain our assets and resources from an operational perspective, it also puts significant strains on already stretched budgets. For example, between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011, the Department of Defense spending on petroleum rose from $4.5 billion to $17.3 billion. That is a 381- percent increase. While that number is shocking, another shocking fact is that during this time the Department of Defense was actually using 4 percent less petroleum. In other words, we are paying nearly four times more money for less fuel. In addition, global price spikes make budgeting for our current energy costs extremely challenging. According to the Navy, every time oil prices rise by $1, their fuel budget inflates by $30 million. In fiscal year 2012, the U.S. Pacific Command, which is based in Hawaii, faced a $200 million shortfall in operation and maintenance funds. This is directly related to spiking fuel costs. These unforeseen circumstances reduce our military's capabilities and readiness. It is also unsustainable in today's budget environment. So while the Senator from Pennsylvania argues that biofuels are too expensive now, new technologies are always more expensive at first. That is exactly why we need to invest in scaling up instead of scaling back. The first fighter jets off the assembly line are always more expensive than the 100th fighter off that line. The fact is that it is the height of irresponsibility for us to rely on fuel sources with such unstable costs. That is why the military is already working to reduce its fossil fuel usage and to develop and deploy alternatives wherever possible. At the U.S. Pacific Command, investments in renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings, and fuel cell or hybrid vehicles are making installations more cost-effective. In fact, PACOM expects to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels for electricity by 80 percent. That would reduce the total DOD electricity demand in Hawaii by 34 percent and save the DOD $42 million per year in electricity costs. This $42 million could be put to better uses. These are savings that can be replicated on a servicewide scale and will save far more money that could be used to support O&M than the Toomey amendment will. The military recognizes this. This is why GEN James Mattis has stated: I remain committed to unleash the burden of fuel from our operational and tactical commanders to the greatest extent possible. These investments are about improving our national security by changing the way we power our military. Advanced biofuels is an investment in that goal and one we should continue. As U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John Allen has said: Operational energy equates exactly to operational capability. Let's all work this hard, together! So I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Providing Resources Early for Kids Act of 2013--the PRE-K Act. Research shows that quality early education is foundational for success in school and in life. The PRE-K Act will help more children enter school ready to succeed. It creates a new federal-state partnership to provide better preschool opportunities for our country's children. High quality preschool makes the biggest difference, so this bill focuses on quality. The PRE-K Act would provide Federal grants to States to strengthen quality. States could use the funding to increase the number of highly trained early educators in preschool classrooms. The bill would improve the student-to-teacher ratios in preschools; provide vital comprehensive services such as health screenings and nutritional assistance. The bill would increase the hours per day and weeks per year families have access to high quality early education programs; and improve programs for our youngest children, from birth to three years old. States would need to coordinate with existing Head Start providers and their State Advisory Councils. The PRE-K Act recognizes that not all states have a high-quality state preschool program in place yet. This bill meets states where they are. States that already have a high-quality program could apply as ``Qualified States'' and get money improve quality and expand to serve more children. Other States, like Hawaii, could apply as ``Selected States,'' earning Federal grants to establish a high-quality preschool program within two years. In Hawaii, Governor Abercrombie is leading the fight to build a State preschool program for low-income families. The PRE-K Act could support Hawaii's efforts through Federal partnership grants. Decades of research show that high quality early education programs can help kids enter kindergarten ready to learn and avoid falling behind. Later in life, kids who have high-quality preschool are more likely to avoid crime or teen pregnancy, graduate high school and college, earn more income, pay taxes, and need fewer public services. The studies have found that investing $1 in quality early learning can bring a return on investment of between $2 and $17 down the line. A University of Hawaii/Good Beginnings Alliance study of a theoretical Hawaii program found we'd get $4.20 for every $1 invested. In this tight fiscal environment, wise Federal spending is key. High quality early learning is one of the best investments we can make. That is why business and financial leaders, from the Hawaii Business Roundtable to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, agree that quality early education is critically important in providing the tools children need for success in school and in adulthood. Law enforcement officials know that quality early learning helps prevent kids from falling behind, dropping out of high school, or getting involved in crime. High-ranking military leaders have also stressed the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. Today 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military service due to poor education, physical un- fitness, or involvement with crime. Quality early learning helps kids get on the right path--before they fall behind. Parents know the high cost of child care is difficult to afford. If parents can't find child care, they can't go to work. Parents also want more than just supervision for their children. They want to know their children are being engaged by effective teachers who are preparing them academically, socially, and emotionally for success in school. Teachers and school administrators know firsthand that their students who come to kindergarten with quality preschool are more likely to succeed. Special education professionals and advocates for students with disabilities know that quality early learning can identify disabilities early and bring intervention to get kids on track with their peers. Education is the great equalizer, and starting children on an early path to success is critical. I have been working to strengthen quality early education for over a decade. As Lieutenant Governor, I helped establish Hawaii's Pre-Plus program, which constructed preschool classrooms for use by nonprofit, private, or public preschools. In the U.S. House of Representatives, I first introduced the PRE-K Act in 2007. The bill passed through the House Education and Labor Committee with a bipartisan vote. President Obama has made quality early learning a key part of his education platform. I helped lead a coalition of over 100 bipartisan House members to enact and fund President Obama's Early Learning Challenge. We also fought for increases in Head Start and Child Care subsidies to serve more children and families. In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called for new Federal support for high-quality state preschool. This is the first time in a generation that a president has used the State of the Union address to call for expanding preschool access. The PRE-K Act answers this call. The time is right. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move this forward.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Providing Resources Early for Kids Act of 2013--the PRE-K Act. Research shows that quality early education is foundational for success in school and in life. The PRE-K Act will help more children enter school ready to succeed. It creates a new federal-state partnership to provide better preschool opportunities for our country's children. High quality preschool makes the biggest difference, so this bill focuses on quality. The PRE-K Act would provide Federal grants to States to strengthen quality. States could use the funding to increase the number of highly trained early educators in preschool classrooms. The bill would improve the student-to-teacher ratios in preschools; provide vital comprehensive services such as health screenings and nutritional assistance. The bill would increase the hours per day and weeks per year families have access to high quality early education programs; and improve programs for our youngest children, from birth to three years old. States would need to coordinate with existing Head Start providers and their State Advisory Councils. The PRE-K Act recognizes that not all states have a high-quality state preschool program in place yet. This bill meets states where they are. States that already have a high-quality program could apply as ``Qualified States'' and get money improve quality and expand to serve more children. Other States, like Hawaii, could apply as ``Selected States,'' earning Federal grants to establish a high-quality preschool program within two years. In Hawaii, Governor Abercrombie is leading the fight to build a State preschool program for low-income families. The PRE-K Act could support Hawaii's efforts through Federal partnership grants. Decades of research show that high quality early education programs can help kids enter kindergarten ready to learn and avoid falling behind. Later in life, kids who have high-quality preschool are more likely to avoid crime or teen pregnancy, graduate high school and college, earn more income, pay taxes, and need fewer public services. The studies have found that investing $1 in quality early learning can bring a return on investment of between $2 and $17 down the line. A University of Hawaii/Good Beginnings Alliance study of a theoretical Hawaii program found we'd get $4.20 for every $1 invested. In this tight fiscal environment, wise Federal spending is key. High quality early learning is one of the best investments we can make. That is why business and financial leaders, from the Hawaii Business Roundtable to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, agree that quality early education is critically important in providing the tools children need for success in school and in adulthood. Law enforcement officials know that quality early learning helps prevent kids from falling behind, dropping out of high school, or getting involved in crime. High-ranking military leaders have also stressed the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. Today 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military service due to poor education, physical un- fitness, or involvement with crime. Quality early learning helps kids get on the right path--before they fall behind. Parents know the high cost of child care is difficult to afford. If parents can't find child care, they can't go to work. Parents also want more than just supervision for their children. They want to know their children are being engaged by effective teachers who are preparing them academically, socially, and emotionally for success in school. Teachers and school administrators know firsthand that their students who come to kindergarten with quality preschool are more likely to succeed. Special education professionals and advocates for students with disabilities know that quality early learning can identify disabilities early and bring intervention to get kids on track with their peers. Education is the great equalizer, and starting children on an early path to success is critical. I have been working to strengthen quality early education for over a decade. As Lieutenant Governor, I helped establish Hawaii's Pre-Plus program, which constructed preschool classrooms for use by nonprofit, private, or public preschools. In the U.S. House of Representatives, I first introduced the PRE-K Act in 2007. The bill passed through the House Education and Labor Committee with a bipartisan vote. President Obama has made quality early learning a key part of his education platform. I helped lead a coalition of over 100 bipartisan House members to enact and fund President Obama's Early Learning Challenge. We also fought for increases in Head Start and Child Care subsidies to serve more children and families. In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called for new Federal support for high-quality state preschool. This is the first time in a generation that a president has used the State of the Union address to call for expanding preschool access. The PRE-K Act answers this call. The time is right. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move this forward.