Heidi Heitkamp

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, let me add my voice to those of my colleagues who have come here to plead the case for mine workers and for equity for widows, equity for people who have worked their entire lives with their hands and now have their future jeopardized by the lack of attention to this critical issue of their pensions. Student Debt Mr. President, I rise today to talk about another very important middle-class economic issue and one that we have been talking about ever since I got here; that is, the overwhelming burden of student debt. Earlier this week I spoke at Envision 2030 in Bismarck. It was a convening of academic and political leaders in my State to discuss the needs of students who will be embarking on and graduating from college in the next 15 years. Incredible amounts of time was spent on college affordability. I challenged many of the education leaders to take a look at what it is going to take to reduce costs so that students do not have to borrow so much money as they are pursuing their higher education opportunities. Like the rest of the country, North Dakota's students are getting bogged down in debt before they even graduate from college. This debt impacts their futures, their families, and their communities. I would argue that this debt is endangering the economic viability of our country. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, the average amount of student debt a person in North Dakota owes has now risen above $27,000. North Dakota students have some of the highest rates of indebtedness in the country, as 83 percent of the class of 2011 graduated with some form of debt. That is more than any other State in the country for that year. Across the country, these statistics paint a bleak picture. I want to point that out as we are looking at debt and what debt can do to an economy. Certainly, we talk a lot about the debt we have in this country. If you take a look at this chart, you will understand that this peak in debt here is really right after the debt crisis. There was rising consumer debt in credit cards. Here is student loans. This is mortgage debt, obviously, at a peak. This is auto loan debt. Notice this: Everything went down and has come down in terms of debt--percentage of balance that is 90 days or more delinquent--except one category, and that is student loan debt. We like to tell the story honestly. These people who have credit card debt and mortgage debt are not deadbeats; they want to pay their obligations. These students also want to pay, but they are finding it virtually impossible to pay this amount of student debt with the lack of economic opportunities and with the rising number of challenges they have in meeting these obligations. A lot of people think: Well, this is just a problem for kids in their twenties. That is not going to be a problem. They will work their way through it. That opportunity will be available to them. Take a look at this. If you go back to 2004, 42 percent of everybody impacted was in their twenties, and now it is 32 percent. That growing impact goes not only into your thirties but also into your forties, and we have the highest percentage increase, probably, in the number of people 60 and older who are burdened by student debt. This chart tells an incredible story of the burden all of this student debt is having on the economy. Well, what do we do about it? I have signed on many pieces of legislation here that would do one simple thing: It would help refinance this student debt. We have record-low interest rates in this country. We have never before seen the continuity and consistency of low interest rates. Amazing. If you have a high interest rate and you have a car loan, you refinance it. If you have a high interest rate and you have a home, you refinance your mortgage. But can you refinance your student debt? You will never take advantage of this. Well, in North Dakota we have an institution called the Bank of North Dakota. It might shock people here, given the kind of attitude I see toward the Export-Import Bank, but the Bank of North Dakota is owned by the people of the State of North Dakota. About a third of their capital is invested in students. It is an opportunity to develop our State. We make home mortgage loans. We make beginning-farmer loans. We participate with local banks in economic development loans. We have some great economic development programs at the Bank of North Dakota. I am still in the ``we'' mode because when I was attorney general, I used to serve on their board of directors. Senator Hoeven ran the Bank of North Dakota. It is an amazing institution. When we find our citizens crippled with debt, what do we do? We try to figure out how to help them. We don't say: We are going to make more money on you by keeping our interest rates at 6.8 percent and not letting you refinance. We say: You know what, that is not helpful to our economy. Let me tell you about the results of the consolidation program the Bank of North Dakota runs. First of all, there are qualifiers. The first qualifier is that you have to be a U.S. citizen. You can't be attending school any longer. You must have been a North Dakota resident for 6 months. And if this gets out, we may see a flood of young people coming to our State. You must meet Bank of North Dakota credit criteria or have a creditworthy cosigner. Your loan options are any student loan that you have or your parents have or your grandparents have can be consolidated into this program. We will take Stafford; Perkins; parent loans for undergraduate students, which is called PLUS in North Dakota; Grad PLUS in North Dakota; and DEAL, which is another student loan program that they run at the Bank of North Dakota; and any private lending from any other institution. What do we do? We consolidate all of that debt and refinance it into lower interest rates and offer people a number of different packages. Let me tell you what the consequences are. Let's take a look at someone who is in a student loan program that charges 6.8 percent per annum for that student debt. If you have a loan amount of $35,000 at 6.8 percent and your repayment term is 300 months--think about that, 300 months. What is that in terms of a lifetime? That is a lot of months for a lifetime. Your monthly payment is $242 or almost $243. The total interest you will pay traditionally, without consolidation and without refinancing, is about $38,000. Under this refinancing program, you can do it one of two ways: You can refinance on a fixed rate or you can refinance on a variable rate. You may say: Oh, variable rates--isn't that what has gotten so many consumers in trouble? What the bank does is they say you can only raise the rate 1 percent a year under the variable rate and you are capped at 10 percent. So you will never pay more than 10 percent. Or you can opt to lock in at our fixed rate, which at the time this chart was done was 4.71 percent. If you use the variable rate, you can lock in at just slightly above 2 percent. Let's take those same payment terms--300 months. Your monthly payments for the Deal One fixed rate would be less than $200, compared almost to $250. Your total interest paid would be $13,000 less over the lifetime of that loan. If you go with the variable rate, assuming we don't see a dramatic increase in interest rates, you will pay $150 a month. It is almost $100 less. The total interest you will pay at these low rates is $10,000, compared to $37,000. Think about that. Think about what that means to a family. If we take this even further and we speed up payments under the DEAL Program--let's try to do this in less months because no one wants to be locked in for 300 months of their life. If you look at going to a fixed rate for 157 months, you can greatly reduce your overall interest paid to about $12,000. Your monthly payment would be $300, and the total amount you will pay--let's compare that to the fixed rate going to 300 months; you pay almost $60,000. If you go to a shorter period of time, almost cut that time in half and increase your payments to $300 a month, you will only pay $47,000 on a $35,000 loan going with the fixed rate we currently have. If you go with variable, assuming the interest rates stay low, a $35,000 variable loan amount gets you down to just under $40,000. Why can't we do this for every student in America? When I hear that the solution to the student debt problem is that we ought to limit the amount of repayment to 15 percent or we ought to forgive it after so many years, I don't think that is a solution for a lot of good North Dakotans who want to repay their debt. But to simply say we will not consolidate, we will not give an opportunity for students to take advantage of low interest rates is incredibly irresponsible. It is tone deaf to the impact that it has on whether we can start a new business, whether we can get a mortgage for a home, whether we can buy a car, whether we can save for our retirement so we don't have pension problems in the future, and whether we can save for our kids' college education. Why aren't we doing this? Someone answer that question for me. If we can make this for students in the State of North Dakota, why can't we make this happen for students all across this country? That is the question I have come to ask because I think a lot of people talk about the ideas of restructuring student debt and what we can do to help students, and a lot of it is about debt forgiveness. You know what. I think people want to pay their debt in America. If they signed a piece of paper that says they will repay it, they want to repay it. Let's give them a chance to do that without continuing to mortgage their future and make them slaves to student debt. I have a personal story. My niece and her husband were able to use this program. They continued to pay the same amount as they were paying when they had four or five different loans and they consolidated. They are spending the same amount on their student loan, and guess what. They have cut the time for payment of their student debt in half. They are now able to save for their children's future and college education. People say it can't be done. You bet it can be done. We are doing it in North Dakota, and if we can do it in North Dakota, we can do it in this country. Let's step up and recognize this for the economic problem that is not just for families but for this country, and let's do something. Let's quit talking about student debt and actually do something about that. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, this evening, I want to honor our Nation's peace officers and to remember those who we have lost in the line of duty over the last year. Sunday was Peace Officers Memorial Day, a day set aside by President Kennedy in 1962 to honor those law enforcement officers who we have lost in the line of duty, a day that unfortunately has touched me personally, both in the past while serving as attorney general for North Dakota and tragically again earlier this year when the city of Fargo, ND, lost one of its finest in the line of duty. On the evening of Wednesday, February 10, 2016, Fargo Police Officer Jason Moszer answered the call to serve and protect for what would turn out to be the last time. He knew when he answered that call that he would confront an active-shooter situation, and he never hesitated in taking up a position to put himself between the shooter and the community he so very much loved. Officer Moszer was struck down that evening, and his name will forever be etched in stone on the North Dakota's Peace Officer's Memorial that sits on the grounds of the State capitol in Bismarck. Through rain, sleet, and snow--extreme heat and cold--he will now stand alongside those other North Dakota officers who gave the ultimate sacrifice. They provide an unwavering example that, regardless of what conditions they face, our peace officers will stand steadfast regardless of what challenges they may face. National Police Week is very special to me. When I served as attorney general of North Dakota in the 1990s, I had the privilege to work directly with many of our State's law enforcement officers, from the highway patrol, to State and local officers, various Federal officers, and our tribal police. It was in that job that I truly began to appreciate the hard work and dedication of those officers who serve the people of North Dakota. These are some of the finest men and women I have ever met. During my time as a U.S. Senator, I have been able to see many old friends that continue their service and have met an entire new generation of law enforcement officers at the beginning of their careers. I can tell you that this new generation of law enforcement officers are not only up to the task, but will most certainly meet the same standards of excellence as their predecessors. I want to give special recognition to the Grand Forks Country Drug Task Force, a collection of State, local, and Federal law enforcement members who were honored earlier this year by the HIDTA program with an Outstanding Cooperative Effort award. This award came was the result of Operation Denial, a multiagency investigation into the international trafficking of fentanyl and other lethal drugs that led to multiple arrests and convictions in various States and countries. As we talk about the opioid abuse epidemic in the Senate and look to address this scourge on our communities, law enforcement officers are on the front lines tackling this challenge head-on. When honoring the service and sacrifice of our Nation's law enforcement officers, all too often there is a group of officers that don't garner the attention and praise that they deserve, our tribal law enforcement officers. Tribal officers work in some of the most challenging conditions, with incredible jurisdictional challenges and an embarrassing lack of resources, but they do not let that stand in the way of their dedication and passion to protect Indian Country. This evening, I want to extend special recognition and a personal thank you to all of our tribal law enforcement officers. I continue to work on behalf of our men and women in law enforcement, and all of us in Congress must continue to support our law enforcement officers with the resources and protections necessary for them to perform their duties. Last year, I was proud see a bill that I cosponsored, the Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu [Wen-Gin Lew] National Blue Alert Act, enacted into law. This bipartisan legislation established a national Blue Alert communications network to disseminate information about threats to officers. The law seeks to make sure that appropriate steps can be taken as quickly as possible to provide for an officer's safety. Just yesterday, the President signed two more bills into law that I supported and that will give law enforcement additional and sorely needed resources, the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act that will provide increased tools to go after foreign manufacturers or distributors of chemicals that will eventually end up in the U.S. as illicit drugs, and the Bulletproof Vest Reauthorization Act will extend for 5 years the matching grant program that helps law enforcement purchase lifesaving bulletproof vests. Just last week, another bill, the POLICE Act, passed out of the Judiciary Committee. This bill would make Federal grants available for law enforcement officers and medical personnel to help them better prepare for active-shooter situations, including training civilians on how to respond if confronted by an active shooter. Congress needs to swiftly pass this bill. And I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley's resolution recognizing among other things, the dedication and sacrifice of all of our law enforcement officers and our debt of gratitude to each and every one of them. Thank you to all of our Nation's law enforcement officers for the jobs you do every day. I want to especially thank the law enforcement officers in my home State of North Dakota. I believe they are the finest collection of officers in the Nation. They are out there working day and night to keep our families safe, and just as they do for us, I will keep fighting for them every day. This Nation, our State, and our local communities owe our law enforcement officers a continuing debt of gratitude for their selfless actions to meet their sworn duty to protect and serve.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, lest anyone think that they are immune or that this is only about the tropics, I don't think a lot of people in the United States of America would call the State of North Dakota the tropics. Today I hold up the first noted case of a pregnant woman who has been infected by Zika. She was traveling, probably bitten by a mosquito, and somehow contracted the Zika virus. She will now live in fear that the baby she is carrying will suffer the birth defects we know are associated with this potential pandemic. Where is the answer for her? The answer that the North Dakota epidemiologist gave for her, which is good advice, is: Don't travel anywhere where we have Zika virus infections. I guess she is not leaving her house because the way this is spreading and the way this is moving, it will be everywhere in the United States of America. Once it migrates, and once it moves, what is going to stop it? Who is going to stand on the floor of the Senate and take responsibility for the lack of action, for the lack of responding to this public health crisis? That is why we are coming here today. This is not about politics. This is not about a public health emergency. We need resources. We need answers. We need tests. We don't need to rob from other potential pandemics like Ebola to get this done. There is not a citizen in the country who would not say this is an obligation of the government to protect their people. We anticipate in Puerto Rico, a territory of this country--a lot of people travel to and from Puerto Rico-- one in five people in Puerto Rico will be infected by the Zika virus. Do they know it? Probably not. Frequently no symptoms come with the infection. So now we have to respond. Now we have to do what is right. People will say: We can take this in regular order. That is what I hear is happening over in the House. They want to take this in regular order. Well, if it is a regular problem, why has the State of Florida declared a state of emergency? In February--this is not new--it is estimated Florida will continue to be the next big place of infection as the Zika virus migrates. What does that mean to Florida? Not only does it mean you have created huge insecurity for the families--particularly young women the age of our children who are now thinking about having babies you have created huge insecurity. If the answer is don't have babies, how many generations do we have to go? We don't know. That is the problem. We don't know. There is no test. There is no way to verify at this point-- no rapid test. So when we look at this and we look at the effect it is having not only on our families and on family decisions but look at the effect it is having on tourism--we all know the Caribbean depends on tourism dollars to have stable governments. We all know Florida is heavily dependent on tourism. People in my office have already canceled plans for Caribbean vacations. People I know have already canceled plans to go to Florida because they are afraid. What happens when everybody is staying home because they are afraid? This is not something we can play politics with. This is something that should unite all of us. We should all be coming together. If you don't like the President's plan, tell us what is wrong with it. Tell us what you need to change. Tell us what your experts,--contrary to the experts at CDC who have arrived at this plan--tell us what your experts think needs to be changed and what level of accountability you need. I understand this morning the argument is not that we should spend the money, the argument is there is no accountability. Tell us what accountability. Come together. Let's solve this problem. Let's rise to the occasion in the Senate. When confronted with this virus, let's come together. Let's show the people we can respond. I don't think I am exaggerating the potential health care effects. The World Health Organization has declared it an emergency. A conservative Governor in Florida has declared it an emergency. Certainly for this young North Dakota woman, it is an emergency. She needs to know and her family needs to know exactly how this virus is transmitted and what she can expect going forward. She is just one of, I think, the first cases. My great friend the Senator from Washington--not exactly the tropics in the State of Washington as well--also has one case. We don't know how many more. We don't know how many more. So I am pleading, let's not wait. Let's treat this like the emergency it is. Let's do what we need to do to protect American families, particularly young women of child-bearing age who are going to be devastated if this happens in their families. So let's do the right thing. Let's come together. If there is a problem with the proposal, let's debate what that proposal should look like. Let's bring it to the floor. Offer amendments for accountability. Why are we waiting? Someone needs to answer that question, not just to me but to American families and to the American people. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, across the United States, hundreds of thousands of workers and retirees are scared. They are scared for the future, they are scared for their families, and they are scared for themselves. These workers and retirees did everything right. They played by the rules. They worked for years, if not decades, often in labor-intensive jobs, and they responsibly planned for the future by putting money into their pensions, only to have their retirement security ripped away. This is a story happening across North Dakota and across America. Harsh and senseless proposed cuts to Central States Pension Fund--a multiemployer pension fund--could rip away the retirement of workers and retirees in the trucking, UPS package and delivery, and grocery supply industries. These cuts could impact more than 2,000 North Dakota families and 400,000 retirees across the country who could see their pensions slashed up to 60 percent. Many of these workers have been forced to retire because of decades of lifting packages over 100 pounds every day. These jobs took hard tolls on their bodies, but they were able to earn a living, support their families, and put food on the table each night. They knew that because they were saving for retirement through their pensions, they would be taken care of in later years, they would be able to enjoy their later years hunting and fishing with their grandchildren, and they would be able to enjoy their later years by taking care of their family and their loved ones. Unfortunately, that security is evaporating. I recently met with Teamsters and union workers and retirees in Bismark and Fargo. Quite honestly, their stories were heartbreaking. They couldn't understand how, if they did everything right, their retirement could be taken away from them. They can't live in a country that just enables these workers and retirees to be left behind. They can't understand who was fighting for them. They and we must stand up and say: This is wrong. We must stand up for hard work, and we must protect their pensions and make sure all North Dakotans have a secure retirement. I want to tell just a few of their stories today. I will start with Dennis Gainsforth from Jamestown. He worked for UPS for 31 years. He needs surgery on one of his knees because of working decades as a night mechanic. Dennis is also helping financially take care of his son, who had a stroke, and his wife, who needs back surgery. Under the proposed cuts, his pension would be slashed by 50 percent. As a result, Dennis, who is 72 years old, is now back at work driving a public bus in Jamestown. Tina Kramer from Mandan was a member of the Teamsters. She worked as a secretary for the local union for 25 years, throughout which time she earned a pension. Her husband was a member of the steelworkers union and worked for Bobcat for about 30 years as a forklift driver. He also earned a pension. Several years ago, both of them retired, and soon after, Tina's husband suddenly passed away. Tina lost her husband's pension and now has to rely solely on her pension. Under these proposed cuts, Tina's pension would be cut by almost 60 percent. Tina has just a little bit of savings, which she has already had to dip into every month to pay her bills and for groceries and to pay her property taxes. Under the proposed pension cuts, it could only get worse for Tina. Bob Berg, from just north of Fargo, worked at UPS for over 30 years delivering packages, many of which could weigh up to 150 pounds. Because of the hard labor of his job, he had surgery on both knees, his hands, five hernia operations, and back problems, forcing him into early retirement. Now his medical bills are skyrocketing. He receives $2,200 a month under the pension plan, but with the cuts, he would receive just $1,150, which is a 50-percent reduction. Mark Rothschiller from Mandan worked as a UPS driver for 28 years delivering packages to rural communities in North Dakota. Because of the intensity of his job, he had five back surgeries and two rotator cuff surgeries. After the last surgery, Mark's doctor told him to stop working or he might lose his ability to walk. He now walks with a cane. He relies on his pension--the pension that he earned--to help pay his medical bills. Under the proposed cuts, Mark's pension would be cut by more than 50 percent. You hear these stories about men and women who worked hard all their lives and who did the right thing. They bargained for a pension because they knew the work they did was not work you could do your entire life, and they knew they wanted time in retirement to enjoy their golden years. Yet, today, the benefit they earned and that security is threatened. I had a man approach me after one of the meetings where I asked people to tell me what the impacts were from the cuts, and many were able to give public testimonials. This man came up to me afterward, and I won't use his name because quite privately he wanted to tell me that he was going to lose his house, that he was going to lose all the security he had in the world, and that he was a grandfather helping to take care of his grandchildren because his daughter couldn't afford daycare. These pension cuts don't affect just the worker, they affect the worker's family, they affect the extended family, and, quite honestly, they affect our communities. But more than that, they affect our general sense of security, our general sense that you ought to be able to rely on the goodness of your hard work and on the rewards of your hard work. Today, all of that is being threatened. Some might say: Well, that is just the way it is. Pension funds are in trouble. I want everyone to remember that many of these workers were basically prevented from managing their pension fund. In fact, the Federal Government took it away, took that pension fund away and gave it to private investment firms that squandered and wasted the principal. These workers wonder why in the world, in a country where we would bail out Wall Street bankers who made bad decisions, they never get listened to. We cannot let this happen. I have been pressing Treasury Secretary Lew about this issue, and I recently met with Ken Feinberg, the Treasury official overseeing the reconstruction of this pension fund. We have to reinforce this point. We had a good conversation, and I hope the Treasury Department does the right thing by rejecting this devastating proposal and seeking a fairer option. We can and must find a solution that doesn't jeopardize retirement security or present long- term insolvency issues to the Central States Pension Fund. This deal has threatened the livelihood of so many of my fellow North Dakotans, people who work hard for a living, the kind of people we brag about on floor of the Senate, whom we are here to represent--the hard- working, good Americas who build our country. Yet when this happens, they wonder who is listening to them. Who do we really represent here? This deal has to be rejected. We have to create an opportunity that enables all North Dakotan and American families to have the secure retirement they have earned. Dennis, Tina, Bob, Mark, and so many other North Dakotans whom I have met deserve as much. They deserve the same kind of consideration and interest that we gave to AIG and all of the organizations we bailed out during the 2008 crisis at a time when we saw record bonuses for Wall Street executives. We wonder all the time why people are mad. We don't need to look any further than this example to know that sometimes the priorities are just plain wrong. I urge all of my colleagues to become aware of this problem, to become invested in this problem, and to work with us to solve this problem. The first and most significant and important step we can take is to urge the Department of Treasury to reject the current plan and take this back to the drawing board. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Jetvig, an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session of the Senate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize and congratulate the University of North Dakota, UND, men's hockey team for winning the 2016 National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, Frozen Four Division I Men's Hockey National Championship. I was proud to join my colleague from North Dakota, Senator John Hoeven, in sponsoring an adopted resolution honoring the hard work of the men's hockey team and commending UND students, fans, and alumni for their tremendous support throughout the 2015-16 season. On April 9, 2016, the UND men's hockey team won the men's hockey national championship game held in Tampa, FL, defeating the Quinnipiac University Bobcats of Connecticut by a score of 5-to-1. The hockey team, under the leadership of athletic director Brian Faison and Coach Brad Berry, had an incredible season with a record of 34-6-4, which culminated in UND winning its eighth Division I men's hockey national championship. Coach Berry also became the first head coach to win a Division I men's hockey national championship in a head coach's inaugural season. Coach Berry and his staff have instilled character and perseverance in the UND players and have done an outstanding job with the UND hockey program. Under the university's leadership, UND has worked to support and further both academic and athletic excellence, so students have the opportunity to excel in the classroom as well as in sports. I am excited that thousands of UND fans attended the championship game to support the Fighting Hawks, reflecting the tremendous fan base of the University of North Dakota and highlighting the spirit and dedication of UND hockey fans. The enthusiasm and steadfast support of the fans has helped propel the team's success. Year after year, the UND men's hockey team has provided the Nation a glimpse of North Dakota values: playing honestly with heart, determination, and sportsmanship. This year, Coach Berry and his team of hard-working young men strengthened UND's proud legacy of dedication and respect for the game. The 2016 NCAA Frozen Four Division I Men's Hockey National Championship was a victory not only for the UND men's hockey team, but for the entire State of North Dakota. As UND looks to the future, I look forward to seeing the Fighting Hawks hockey program build on this moment of excellence to strengthen the school's already proud legacy. Congratulations again to all involved who made this national championship possible, and thank you for your hard work and service to the University of North Dakota and our great State.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise today to remind everybody that today is the 1-year anniversary of Adam Szubin's nomination to a key Federal post that works to stop financing for terrorism; yet he still waits a confirmation vote in the full Senate. Mr. Szubin, if you have met him--I think almost anyone would agree he is one of the most qualified people for this job to enforce U.S. sanctions on terrorism, finance laws against countries such as Syria, Iran, North Korea, as well as against terrorist organizations, narcotraffickers, and money launderers. The Senate needs to do its job by holding a vote on Mr. Szubin's nomination, as well as the nominations of so many other Federal nominees. We have to stop putting politics above national security. Exactly 1 year ago today, Adam Szubin was nominated to serve as the U.S. Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes. For 1 year, Adam Szubin and his family have been waiting for a vote in the Senate--and his family. I think way too often when we delay votes, when we string out these nomination processes, we forget that it is not just the nominee, it is also the families of the nominees who are waiting for a final decision. Mr. Szubin received a vote in the Senate Banking Committee in March. Now the Senate needs to do its job and vote up or down on his confirmation. I have a particular soft spot for Adam because I am convinced that he is one of the most intelligent people I have ever had in my office, and especially in this critical and important job. He has 15 years of experience countering the financing of terrorism in both Republican and Democratic administrations. During Mr. Szubin's confirmation in the Senate Banking Committee last September, Chairman Shelby called Mr. Szubin eminently qualified. If we are serious about enforcing sanctions against Iran and defeating terrorist organizations such as ISIL and Al Qaeda, we have to stop the financing of terrorism. That means we need Adam Szubin to be able to do his job at the U.S. Department of Treasury. In January, I visited the Mideast on an official Senate trip with seven other Senators. We visited Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and Austria. The goal was to learn more about the ongoing threats posed by terrorist groups such as ISIL and the progress we have made to roll back Iran's nuclear program. We met with allies in the region to learn more about how to best prepare the United States to face these issues. This trip was about protecting the safety and well-being of our country. During our meetings, the issue that came up over and over again was, how do we stop the financing of terrorism? We know that financing is the linchpin of a terrorist organization being able to do everything they do, threatening our country and threatening the world. For the United States to ably and effectively do that work, Adam Szubin needs to be confirmed to the job for which he has been recommended. Some would say that it doesn't really matter, that Adam Szubin is still at the Department of the Treasury and we really don't need to do this. I think we need to look at, No. 1, what it means for the individuals and their families when we delay these confirmation votes. I am not saying--and Members on both sides of the aisle will have to make up their minds on how they are going to vote on that confirmation, but why is it that we can't even get a vote? Why is it that we can't even get our job done? Here is a position which most people in this body would say is absolutely critical to the security of our country. If Adam Szubin isn't the right guy for the job, the right person for the job, then let's find that out--according to the advice and consent of this body-- and nominate somebody else. But why are we holding back on this critical job against a nominee who I would tell you is eminently qualified? We should be so lucky as to have someone with his qualifications, his capability helping protect our country. Yet we ask him to wait. We ask other nominees to wait. We ask that they sit by the sidelines with their professional lives in limbo while we have political discussions here in the Senate. Is this a political decision? It might be. You know what. Let's take the vote. Why is this so hard? Why is it so hard to actually put up a number of nominees, take the vote, make the decision, and move on? I think that as I and many of my colleagues spend a lot of time talking to young people, encouraging them to be involved in public service, encouraging them to be part of a system that really does benefit all the people of this country. We ask people to go into public service, and then, when they aspire and work to achieve some of the highest positions in our country, we say: Not only are we not going to consider your nomination, we are not going to vote on it even after it comes out of committee. That is not a formula that speaks well to our recruitment of the best and brightest to serve the American people. A year later, Adam Szubin remains in limbo. His family remains in limbo. His confirmation remains in limbo. Please, let's just vote. There are plenty of votes probably on the other side to say ``We are not going to confirm you,'' but it is not right. It is not right. It is not fair to his family, it is not fair to him, and it is not fair to the people of this country to not have a confirmed person in the position for which Adam Szubin has been nominated. I hope we can take a look at all of these nominees, break this logjam, and eventually get folks put in positions that are essential for American security. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, as we have heard all day, today is Equal Pay Day. What does that mean? That means that today is the first day women in the workforce--if we separated male and female workers--would actually get a paycheck in the year. That is pretty remarkable, and it is a disparity we have been working on for decades in this country but still have not achieved the parity that we believe is absolutely essential if we are going to be a family-friendly and forward-looking country with a growing and prosperous middle class. I think way too often the issue of pay equity--the issue of equal pay--is characterized as a woman's issue. It is characterized as something that only elite women care about, and it is characterized as something that is not something for the government to address. Well, I am here to dispel all of those myths. I think we can only fairly say that by shortchanging women, employers are also shortchanging working families. Families need a full salary so they can put food on their table and make sure children have the medical care they deserve. We have all heard the stark statistic that nationally women only earn 79 percent of what White, non-Hispanic males are paid. In North Dakota, the numbers are even more dramatic. The pay equity there is 71 percent. Women earn just 71 percent of what men make in my State. It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable at a time when--according to a recent study from the Pew Research Center--women are now the leading solo breadwinners in 40 percent of households. That compares to just 11 percent in 1960. It does not make sense that we are still struggling to make the same amount as men for equal work. Additionally, in North Dakota, 74 percent of children live in households where both parents work. Both parents need to work in order to support their families. When women don't make as much as men, it doesn't just hurt them, but it hurts their children and families across the country. What is Congress to do about this disparity? We need to pass a paycheck fairness bill. We need to make sure we have this critical piece of legislation, which responds to this concern, in our laws and in the statutes of the United States of America. What does paycheck fairness do? It would help close the pay gap by taking critical steps to empower women to negotiate for equal pay. I can't tell you the number of times I have heard women in my State say: Well, I just didn't know I wasn't getting paid what a man was getting paid. And employers saying: Well, she didn't ask and he did. I think we need to be able to give the tools to women so they know when there is disparate treatment. We need to close the loopholes the courts have created in the law, we need to create strong incentives for employers to obey the laws that are in place, and we need to strengthen Federal outreach and enforcement efforts. Looking at pay is only one part of the equation. We also need to pass other family-friendly policies, such as the FAMILY Act, which would establish a Federal paid leave policy. I can only imagine what the debate was in this body when somebody came up with the idea to introduce employment insurance. I am sure there were a lot of discussions about yet another program and yet another system that would actually add to the payroll tax and add to burdens put on families. Who today in this body would propose that we eliminate unemployment insurance? It has been a valuable transition opportunity so our workers can look for that next job without disrupting their family payment. As a person whose father was a seasonal construction worker, I know how critical that benefit was to my family when I was growing up. I know unemployment insurance frequently gave our family the ability to put food on the table in my household. Let's talk about what happens when someone has a baby. Let's talk about what happens when someone's mom gets sick. Let's talk about what happens when we have a catastrophic illness of our own. Many people in my State--in fact, the majority of people in my State--do not have 1 day of paid leave. So their choice is to take care of their family's health conditions or to take care of their newborn child and just quit their job or go on unpaid leave and actually not receive a salary. How many people can go on unpaid leave and not receive salary? Not a lot. What it means is that frequently when people have to transition away from work, all of a sudden that person qualifies for food stamps, qualifies for Medicaid, and qualifies for other government assistance programs. The cost to the employer for those government programs is equal to the price of a cup of coffee a week. For $1.50 a week per employee, we can provide this benefit. How do we know we can provide this benefit? Because we have States that have done it. California, which restricted their payment, I believe, to 50 percent to families who used this insurance benefit, recently upped that amount to 70 percent. This bill would put it at 66 percent. The FAMILY Act is also a critical piece of legislation that moves our employment economy into the 21st century. It actually recognizes that women are in the workplace, and they are in the workplace for real and permanently. It recognizes that when we have family-friendly policies, we have a better workforce, we have a more economical workforce, and we have an opportunity for employers to keep their businesses. Recently, in North Dakota, Senator Gillibrand and I traveled around the State talking about our paid leave policy in the FAMILY Act. We were in a small business with less than 10 employees. The owner said he would love to provide this benefit, but there was no way he could economically afford it. If anything happened to one of his employees, there would be no way he could give this benefit and also hire a temporary worker. If he had the opportunity to share that risk broadly with all small employers in the country, that shared risk would then make this benefit available to him, and he could keep his employees. He could keep those employees whom he trained, and he could make sure they were better employees when they came back because they have that benefit. We need to understand this isn't just about the girls. This isn't just about the women of the Senate standing up. It is about a shared experience we have all had. It is a shared experience of having to choose between going home and taking care of your mother or actually feeding your family. That is not much of a choice. When we look at why people are angry in America today and why they feel like they are not getting ahead, it is because they are falling further and further behind because we aren't adopting 21st century policies, such as the FAMILY Act, equal pay for equal work, and recognizing the value of what women do. I will close with a true story. When I was in college, between my freshman and sophomore year, I was a nanny. It was very rewarding. I loved the kids, but it was hard work and it was 24/7. After working as a nanny, I was a construction worker. Do you know why I worked construction? I was paid better and the work was not as difficult. I worked in a factory cleaning pipes, I worked on road construction, and I worked on rural water construction. Yes, that is hard work, and I was a laborer in all of those jobs. It is hard work, but none of it is as hard as taking care of children, sick people, or the elderly. Yet in America those jobs pay less. It is time we evaluate what is happening in the workplace and what is happening to America's families so we can adopt these family-friendly policies. In fact, we need to listen to our constituents so we can have empathy for the challenges of American families. When that empathy finds its way to public policy in the halls of Congress, people will once again feel reconnected to their government. I encourage everyone who hasn't taken a look at pay equity and hasn't yet taken a look at the FAMILY Act to understand and appreciate what this can do for their constituents, what this can do for the American workplace, and how we can help small businesses provide the services and benefits they need to provide so they can compete in this very competitive workforce environment. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about one of our most cherished rights as U.S. citizens; that is, the freedom of speech and why allowing our children and young people to exercise this right at a young age is critical to learning and understanding complex and tough issues and ideas. The ability to effectively teach and learn journalism--and for other students to be challenged to engage in public discourse on tough issues--was severely hindered by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1988 in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The Hazelwood case legitimized a school's decision to remove material about divorce and teen pregnancy from the pages of a student newspaper on the grounds that the material was overly mature for a high school audience. Justice William Brennan, one of the First Amendment's greatest judicial champions, dissented from that ruling in words that resonate with us here today. He said: ``Instead of teaching children to respect the diversity of ideas that is fundamental to the American system and that our Constitution is a living reality, not parchment preserved under glass, the Court today teaches youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.'' History has vindicated Justice Brennan's dire warning. Students regularly report that they have been prevented from discussing matters of public importance in the pages of student media or, perhaps worse, they have restrained themselves from even attempting to address an issue of social or political concern in fear of adverse consequences. That is not an environment that values and empowers student voices, and it is not a climate conducive to the effective learning of civic participation. We can and must do better. On the 25th anniversary of the Hazelwood decision in 2013, every major journalism education organization in the Nation enacted a resolution calling on schools and colleges to abandon reliance on the Hazelwood level of institutional control. The sentiment was perhaps best expressed by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, the largest organization in the country of college journalism instructors, which stated that ``no legitimate . . . purpose is served by the censorship of student journalism even if it reflects unflatteringly on school policies and programs, candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues, or voices opinions challenging to majority views on a matter of public concern.'' Since then, nine States have statutes protecting the independence of student journalists to report on issues of public concern without fear, and two have comparable protections by way of the State board of education rules. The combined experience of these 11 States spans well over 160 years, demonstrating that young people are fully capable of exercising a measure of legally protected press freedom responsibly and without incident or harm. I am proud to say that my own home State of North Dakota established a position of national leadership by enacting the John Wall New Voices of North Dakota Act in 2015. The statute was named in memory of a truly amazing educator, John Wall, who lived his own civics lesson by running for the North Dakota House of Representatives, where he served with great distinction for 10 years after retiring from a 34-year career as a public school teacher. The New Voices Act passed the North Dakota State Legislature with bipartisan sponsorship and without a single negative vote. That is truly an amazing fact. As we think about the importance of student journalism, the importance of voicing opinions and the importance of learning the value of participation through the First Amendment or through speech, I am often reminded of a personal incident that I had in my family. My daughter was not on the school newspaper when she was in high school, but she frequently wrote a column. One column that she wrote generated a lot of controversy in a very small town at a time when it was much more controversial. It was an article that promoted marriage equality. She ended up getting a lot of grief and a lot of negative attention as a result of writing that article. My daughter is pretty opinionated. So it didn't bother her too much. But many years later, I received a letter from a mother. That letter from a mother talked about how she was in a same-sex relationship, had been most of her life and most of her daughter's life, and how once my daughter had published this article in the Mandan school newspaper, it changed the outcome. It changed the way her daughter went to school every day because she knew she wasn't alone. She knew someone was there in that school who understood her challenges and supported her family. So where it may not move big issues--and it may not be a big, moving example like Hazelwood--it can, in fact, change outcomes. The ability to express yourself, the ability to be part of a community where we have open ideas is absolutely instrumental and critical to the future of our country. When you look at the restrictions that still today are put on student press and student newspapers, we know we have to do better. I applaud the new voices of North Dakota organization and its founder, Professor Steven Listopad of Valley City State University and those teachers, professors, and students around the country who engage in similar efforts for helping shine the Nation's attention on the urgent need to protect meaningful and candid journalism so that young people have an opportunity to participate and drive the civic dialogue about the world in which they live and they will eventually lead. The skills learned and developed by student journalists and the roles they can play in driving public conversation among their peers speak to the indispensable role that journalism can play--if adequately supported by our schools--in educating the next generation for the careers of the future and for preparing our children to discuss, debate, and lead on important and controversial issues. I think that, as we are moving forward and taking a look at what can be done, it is important that we all appreciate that the First Amendment is not something that you should just learn in school books. It is something that you must exercise. And the sooner you exercise that First Amendment right to speech, the sooner we recognize that young voices in this country are as critical as older voices and no student should be restricted or prevented from expressing an opinion and the stronger we will grow in our democracy. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue. I look forward to taking on the difficult task of talking about what we can do nationally to advance this, but I mainly came to the floor to applaud the great State of North Dakota for recognizing the importance of students' First Amendment rights. I encourage all Members in this Chamber to examine what happens at home with students' First Amendment rights, to provide leadership, to promote those rights in their State, and to potentially look at how we can reverse the Hazelwood decision so that we can grow a more confident, a more educated, and a more diverse population for our future. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I am introducing the Startup Entrepreneur Empowerment Delivery, SEED, Act today to address the challenges faced by startup businesses in North Dakota, as well as other rural States and small cities, by helping them get the early stage funding they need to grow their business. Access to capital is one of the single largest barriers between startup businesses and success. This bill addresses the unique needs of startup companies in our country's more rural States by creating a pilot program through the U.S. Department of Commerce aimed at providing small amounts of capital to qualifying startups. Innovation does not just happen in Silicon Valley or at our country's biggest research institutions. Innovative ideas are blooming in our heartland and startups are forming on our main streets making the entrepreneurial ecosystem of our smaller cities stronger than ever before. But too often, we hear the same challenges from startups and small businesses that they are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, meaning they run into the barrier of not being able to qualify for Federal support or Federal programs because they are asking for too little funding. We can't let these innovators slip through the cracks. The Startup Entrepreneur Empowerment Delivery, SEED, Act would grant financial assistance to ten small sized cities across the country which then would make awards directly to startups to use for marketing, infrastructure, recruitment and hiring resources. This bill directly addresses the concerns that I continue to hear from startups in North Dakota and will help drive them to success and reinvest and diversify the local economies of our Nation's more rural areas. With my SEED Act, we can invest in small cities, in rural States, like North Dakota, helping drive startups to success. Just like anyone from a small or rural town, we know how to make a little go a long way, and this bill will help make that possible. The SEED Act will allow the Federal Government to continue its priority of investing in innovation and will ensure those investments are felt in America's heartland.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I am introducing the Startup Entrepreneur Empowerment Delivery, SEED, Act today to address the challenges faced by startup businesses in North Dakota, as well as other rural States and small cities, by helping them get the early stage funding they need to grow their business. Access to capital is one of the single largest barriers between startup businesses and success. This bill addresses the unique needs of startup companies in our country's more rural States by creating a pilot program through the U.S. Department of Commerce aimed at providing small amounts of capital to qualifying startups. Innovation does not just happen in Silicon Valley or at our country's biggest research institutions. Innovative ideas are blooming in our heartland and startups are forming on our main streets making the entrepreneurial ecosystem of our smaller cities stronger than ever before. But too often, we hear the same challenges from startups and small businesses that they are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, meaning they run into the barrier of not being able to qualify for Federal support or Federal programs because they are asking for too little funding. We can't let these innovators slip through the cracks. The Startup Entrepreneur Empowerment Delivery, SEED, Act would grant financial assistance to ten small sized cities across the country which then would make awards directly to startups to use for marketing, infrastructure, recruitment and hiring resources. This bill directly addresses the concerns that I continue to hear from startups in North Dakota and will help drive them to success and reinvest and diversify the local economies of our Nation's more rural areas. With my SEED Act, we can invest in small cities, in rural States, like North Dakota, helping drive startups to success. Just like anyone from a small or rural town, we know how to make a little go a long way, and this bill will help make that possible. The SEED Act will allow the Federal Government to continue its priority of investing in innovation and will ensure those investments are felt in America's heartland.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I join with my colleague and senior Senator, Mr. Hoeven, to honor and to bear witness to a great North Dakotan and a great officer of the Fargo Police Department, Jason Moszer, who lost his life in the line of duty. I begin by yielding the floor to my senior Senator, Mr. Hoeven.

Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank my senior Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven. As we sat quietly in the hockey arena that Jason loved so much, we felt the pain of so many, including the literally hundreds of thousands of North Dakotans who watched the broadcast of the funeral but also listened on the radio. On the evening of Wednesday, February 10, Officer Jason Moszer did what so many police officers do on a daily basis--he went toward the danger to answer the call to serve and protect the citizens of Fargo, ND. Jason and the other officers who responded to that initial call knew they were encountering a dangerous situation. The domestic violence call that brought them there that evening had mentioned there might be a firearm involved. Yet those officers did not hesitate that night. A short time later, shots rang out, and then those words--those words that will never be forgotten by his fellow officers--were heard: ``Officer down.'' Yet, even in the darkest of hours, the men and women of the Fargo Police Department maintained their composure and continued the critical work of securing the surrounding neighborhood and trying to bring this dangerous situation to a resolution. Later that night the city of Fargo, the State of North Dakota, our neighboring community of Moorhead, ND, and certainly his home community of Sabin, lost one of its finest when Officer Moszer succumbed to his injuries. The loss of an officer in the line of duty is something that devastates an entire community--and in a small State like North Dakota it has taken a toll on every law enforcement officer and every resident throughout our entire State. I am here this evening to honor Officer Moszer, and I am here this evening to honor the brave men and women of the Fargo Police Department. These officers wake up every morning, and they put on a uniform that requires that they frequently place themselves in dangerous situations in order to protect and to serve the citizens of their State, their community or their tribe. Few among us know what it is like to make that choice. We have a proud history in North Dakota of law enforcement officers serving their State and local community with distinction. I have had the privilege over the years to work with law enforcement officers in my State who span the spectrum--from highway patrol to State and local officers, to various Federal officers, and the tribal communities. Let me tell you, without any hesitation, these are some of the finest men and women I have ever met or worked with. The officers of the Fargo Police Department have proven beyond a doubt that they are some of the finest law enforcement officers in the Nation. The men and women of the Fargo Police Department, led by Chief David Todd, performed admirably and heroically that night 2 weeks ago. The courage, strength, and leadership displayed by Chief Todd during this incredibly difficult period has been nothing short of remarkable, and those qualities have certainly spread throughout his department to each and every officer under his charge. Remember, these officers chose this path. They chose to selflessly put themselves in harm's way so they could make the city of Fargo a safer place for each and every person who lives there or who may by chance be passing through. They chose to put the needs of others before their own. They chose a more difficult path to tread than most of us would ever be willing to follow. One of the stories we heard was from one of his best friends who said: Jason, quite honestly, would have been embarrassed by the outpouring. He suggested that maybe what Jason would have liked is just for people to have a few beers and remember him quietly. Well, Jason's loss was a loss not only for the people of our State, but it was a tremendously devastating loss for the Fargo Police Department and the community of Fargo. Those officers who put on that uniform each and every day are a unique and very special group, a tight-knit group. Very few people can understand what it takes to do the job they do. Unfortunately, I have attended a number of funerals--two during my time as attorney general--of officers who were killed violently in the line of duty. One of the most moving tributes to a fallen officer is when the radio dispatcher goes through an End of Watch Roll Call. This moving and emotional moment shows that even in death, the men and women of the Fargo Police Department stand shoulder to shoulder with their colleagues, that they will support each other the way they support the city of Fargo each and every day, and that even when a colleague has fallen in the line of duty, they will always have his back. Officer Moszer, Chief Todd, and the men and women of the Fargo Police Department, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service and for your sacrifice to the people of Fargo and to the State of North Dakota. I wish to end with the End of Watch: Edward 143 Status Check. . . . Edward 143 Status Check. . . . Last Call Edward 143 Status Check. Adam One Central--Edward 143 is 1042. End of Watch, February 11th 2016 at 1245 hours. Those were the final words that their comrades spoke to Officer Moszer and his family. Without brave men and women willing to step up and willing to stand on the wall for every one of us, we would be a much lesser society. My thanks to my colleague Senator Hoeven for joining me. It is in a great North Dakota spirit that we join together as colleagues in a bipartisan way to say thank you and to say goodbye to a wonderful officer, Officer Moszer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Olivia Cox, an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with what I think is a pretty simple message--a message the American people have been delivering to me and the people of North Dakota and which reflects exactly why I wanted to come to Washington, DC--which is that Congress needs to do its job. Whether it is legislating on WOTUS or making sure we are moving appointments properly or taking votes that may make some of us uncomfortable, that is our job. That is why the American taxpayers pay us. So I come today to say: Congress, do your job. Senate, do your job. Every day families across this country go to work and fulfill their responsibilities and obligations. They do their jobs to put food on the table for their family, and they pay their bills. Imagine a construction worker in North Dakota telling his boss he didn't want to do his job for the rest of the year until conditions are probably more favorable. He might get a good laugh. He might be told to go back to work. If he was serious, he wouldn't have a job very long. Everyone here knows American workers can't go to their jobs and just announce: I don't want to do that today. They can't just say: I am not going to do my job for the rest of the year. I am going to wait to find out who might be the new boss. That is not how it works for the American people, and it is certainly not how it should work for the Senate. In many ways, I think it is an embarrassment that some of my colleagues would not only ask the President not to do his job--a job our Constitution instructs him to do--but they would also shirk their own duties to provide advice and consent to the President simply because it is not a good political time to do it. It says something pretty terrible about Congress if the Senate now is making determinations about how a popularly elected President, regardless of political party--regardless of whether that President is popular in this Chamber or not--is no longer allowed to perform the duties of that office and nominate and receive a vote on the Supreme Court nominee of his choosing. It is a disappointing day when some Senators will tell the President: Don't even bother because we will not even consider or even talk to your nominee. This is before the President has even announced or named a nominee. It is particularly frustrating to those of us who really want the Senate to work that some Senators are willing to hamper the functioning of yet another branch of our Federal Government simply to play politics, with the hope that those politics will benefit one party--to maintain and possibly take control of the other two branches of government. I don't think anyone can dispute the facts. The Supreme Court considers some of the most critical issues facing our country, and the American people deserve a fully functioning Court. To insist the Court go through potentially two terms without a full slate of Justices is an abdication of our responsibility as Senators. That responsibility is to make sure that America's three branches of government are fully functioning. Just yesterday, we heard that our colleagues are not even going to entertain the thought of a hearing before the Judiciary Committee for any nominee the President puts forward. I don't know how to explain that decision. I don't know how one can say that for the next 10 months that doesn't matter. I don't know how to explain that to people back in North Dakota. In the last 100 years, the full Senate has taken action on every pending Supreme Court nominee to fill a vacancy, regardless of whether the nomination was made in a Presidential election year. According to CRS--Congressional Research Service--since 1975 the average number of days from nomination to final Senate confirmation is 67 days or just over 2 months. Since committee hearings began in 1916, every pending Supreme Court nominee has received a hearing, except nine nominees who were all confirmed within 11 days. In addition to holding hearings on the nominations, the Senate Judiciary Committee has a longstanding bipartisan tradition of sending to the full Senate all pending nominees to the Supreme Court for a Supreme Court vacancy, even when the majority of the committee may not have supported that nominee. If, in fact, this Supreme Court vacancy is held open until the next President makes the nomination, that will mean it is vacant for well over a year. Not since the Civil War--not since the Civil War--has the Senate taken longer than 1 year to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. An extended period of time with only eight members of the Supreme Court sitting would delay or prevent justice from being served. There are American citizens across the country who need decisions from the Court on a variety of issues. In fact, what we have done is we have elevated the circuit courts--the courts that have made the decisions that are currently pending--to the position of the Supreme Court of the United States, denying access to those claimants one way or the other-- whether the court agreed with them or the court disagreed with them in the circuit courts--denying them access to that final appeal, to that Supreme Court decision. So I simply want to say: Let's do our job. Let's give the nominee a hearing. Let's vote in committee. Let's all do our job to vet the candidates. Let's not prejudge this. Let's do the responsible thing and vote yes or no. Let's take a look at the candidate to be nominated, and let's get a fully functioning Supreme Court. I want to close with just one reminder. The last time we went through a very contentious hearing was the hearing for Justice Thomas, and I think my colleague from Washington, who is on the floor, well remembers that, as do a lot of people here remember that. I want to remark that Justice Thomas was sent to this floor without a positive vote out of committee. But his nomination was sent to the floor, and the nomination of Justice Thomas, at the urging of then-majority leader Mitchell, was not filibustered. So probably the most contentious nominee in my lifetime certainly--and it certainly raised some very interesting gender issues--did not even get filibustered. Let's do our job. Let's do the work the people sent us here to do. Let's vet this candidate, whoever it might be, and let's move forward so that every person who has a case pending before the Supreme Court or will have a case pending before the Supreme Court is given access to justice by providing a fully functioning Supreme Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for yesterday's vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert McKinnon Califf to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services, so I could attend the funeral service for Police Officer Jason Moszer with the city of Fargo, ND, who lost his life in the line of duty. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, today I rise to honor 37 tribal colleges and universities operating across 16 States on more than 85 campuses, 5 of which are located in North Dakota. Thank you to the more than 20 bipartisan Senators, including Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Barrasso and Vice Chairman Tester, who joined me in introducing a Senate resolution designating this week as National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week. This resolution received unanimous support in the Senate last week, as it should. It shows that Native American issues and the support for education are part of this country's treaty and trust responsibilities, and it continues to be a bipartisan issue. While we too often hear about the hardships Native communities face due to the geographic isolation and insufficient access to resources, we should also highlight those who are doing great work to build future leaders and a future generation of leaders across Indian Country. We see so much of that happening today at tribal colleges and universities. Tribal colleges and universities act as unique community institutions that work to strengthen tribal nations and make lasting differences in the lives of American Indians and Alaska Natives. The tribal community colleges, technical schools, and 4-year institutions plant resilient seeds of hope by sustaining Native languages and building trusting and important tribal economies. Supporting tribal colleges and universities both upholds our trust responsibility and provides much needed resources for students. Signed into law in 1978, the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges Assistance Act supported tribally chartered institutions of higher education to help uphold the Federal Government's unique relationship with federally recognized Indian tribes. Today, TCUs like Turtle Mountain Community College and Sitting Bull College in my State of North Dakota provide educational resources to Native students who otherwise surely would go without. But tribal colleges and universities don't simply educate Native students. The American Indian Higher Education Consortium, a national network of this country's TCUs, estimates that because of the schools' often rural locations, more than 15 percent of the students attending these tribal colleges and universities are also non-Indian. Tribal colleges and universities offer students access to a well- rounded education from an accredited institution that provides knowledge and skills grounded in cultural traditions and values, including the all-important education in indigenous languages. This enhances Native communities and enriches both tribes and the United States by preparing students to succeed in their academic pursuits as well as to enter a global competitive workforce. The results have been telling. In the 2012-2013 school year, 75 percent of graduates earned degrees, with 22 percent earning certificates. But while this success is admirable, the tribal colleges and universities have been hindered by chronic underfunding. Although the Federal Government provides funding to some minority-serving institutions at levels equal to $30,000 per student, tribal colleges receive literally a third of that. When we look at average numbers, it is around $6,700 per student. Tribes and tribal colleges and universities have consistently figured out how to do more with less, but Congress should not shy away from its Federal responsibility. I wish to speak about my experience this morning meeting with a number of tribal students. We can give all of these numbers and the critical importance of making this kind of education accessible, but what we will never see is the hope and the opportunity in the eyes of these students. I can't do that for my colleagues here. I can only tell their stories. I met a young woman who served our country in the military and after 10 years went home and discovered the opportunity to learn more about her culture and the opportunity to get an education at the tribal colleges. She said she wished she had known earlier. She probably would have gone to college at the tribal college at Sitting Bull first before she joined the armed services. I met another young woman who told me of her early life of abuse and neglect. She said that after having two children and really no hope, she found a tribal college. In that tribal college she found not only an opportunity for advancement and the dream and the hope of becoming a lawyer someday, but she found a family. She described the faculty and the staff and the other students as the family she had never had. I talked to another young woman, who is 18 years old and literally homeless. She sleeps on a friend's couch. The only family she has to nurture her is her tribe and the tribal college. She tells me--her words were this: I will be great. She would not have that hope, she would not have that belief, and she would not have that vision if she didn't have access to education. She is going to be a nurse. And I can tell you she is already great, from what I have heard. So the stories go on and on and on. Because of the involvement in the tribal college at Spirit Lake Reservation, we have a student now, who, for the first time, graduated with an engineering degree from one of our 4-year institutions. He started out at a tribal college--first engineer ever from that tribe. These are messages of hope in a world that all too often is a world of despair, a world of neglect, a world of abuse, a world of challenges for young people. But a tribal college gave them the foundation, the connection to their culture, the connection to a family and a group of people who cared about them, and an opportunity for something better-- an opportunity to be great, as the young woman I spoke with earlier said. So I am very proud of the work we have done to support the tribal colleges. We need to do more. If we truly want to change the outcome and the paradigm for Indian people and for Indian children, we must invest in Indian education, and that goes all the way from our Head Start programs all the way up to our programs for higher education. I want to give one last story. This past summer I attended the STEM education program for Native Americans at the University of North Dakota, and I met with a group of young people who talked about the difficulty of transitioning from the reservation into a major university--talking not so much about the challenges academically but about the challenges of loneliness, the challenges of the first time leaving what they knew and being the first generation in their families to actually attend a 4-year college. One young man said that he was so homesick and so shocked by the change in culture that he wanted to go home. I said: Well, did you? He said: No, I called my mom to tell her that I wanted to go, and she told me she would knock me upside the head if I came back. A brave mother--so he said he did what his mother asked him to do, and he was graduating with a degree in, I think, geology or some applied science. That young man had a mother who kept him in that school. Many young people in Indian Country today do not have that kind of inspiration, and the great distrust people have for the outside world gets embedded. So these tribal colleges help prepare these students for the next step. They are critical for maintaining the cultural significance, critical for maintaining the pride that people have in who they are as a people, and then building on that for self-awareness, building on that for self-economic opportunity. I am proud to represent five great institutions of higher learning in my State that are representative of the tribal colleges and universities. Finally, I wish to talk about the wonderful men and women who run those institutions and what they do. These are people with Ph.D.s. These are people with amazing degrees who could go anywhere, and they continue to provide leadership to their people. Without their leadership and their support, these children would not have these opportunities. These returning vets would not have these opportunities, and these older-than-average students, with the challenges in their lives, would not have these opportunities. So please join with me in recognizing tribal colleges and universities but also to take a look at the disparities in terms of reimbursements that these tribal colleges and universities incur, and let's make this investment. This is an investment in the lives and the changes we need to see in Indian Country. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, will the Senator from Alaska yield for a question?