Elizabeth Warren

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, the clock is ticking. Exactly 1 month from today, on January 1, approximately 70 million seniors, veterans, Americans with disabilities, and others who depend on Social Security and other benefits will get their first check of the new year. For those 70 million Americans--that is 1 in 5 Americans--January 1 is supposed to be a day of relief. This is the day when the Federal Government boosts their checks just a little bit to help with the rising costs of housing, food, and medical care. But unless Congress does something right now, for just the third time since 1975, seniors and veterans won't be receiving any cost-of-living increase on January 1--not one penny more. Look at who gets left out in the cold. Two-thirds of seniors depend on Social Security for the majority of their income. For 15 million Americans, Social Security is all that stands between them and poverty, but not one of these Americans will see an extra penny next year, and millions of other Americans whose benefits are pegged to Social Security--millions who receive veterans' benefits, disability benefits, and other monthly payments--won't see an extra penny either. Times are tough, but not for everyone. Last year, the CEOs at the biggest 350 American companies received, on average, a 3.9-percent pay increase. How much money is that? Since the average CEO at one of those top 350 companies made a cool $16.3 million, a 3.9-percent raise landed them an additional half million bucks each. Everything is just great for America's top CEOs, who got huge raises, while 70 million seniors, veterans, and others who worked hard will be left with nothing. Why? It is not an accident. It is not inevitable. It is the result of deliberate policies made right here in Congress. Social Security is supposed to be indexed to inflation so that when prices go up, benefits go up. But Congress's formula looks at the spending patterns of only about a quarter of the country, and the formula isn't geared to what older Americans actually spend their money on. In fact, official estimates show that the cost of core goods and services has increased, but seniors won't be getting a raise. Costs go forward while Social Security falls behind all because of the way that Congress says to calculate COLAs. Skyrocketing CEO pay is also, in part, the result of policies set right here in Congress. Taxpayers subsidize CEOs' huge pay packages through billions of dollars in tax giveaways, including a crazy loophole that allows corporations to write off gigantic bonuses as business expenses. Sure, companies should make their own decisions on how much to pay their executives, but because of laws Congress has passed, American taxpayers are forced to subsidize these multimillion- dollar pay packages. These two decisions--how to calculate Social Security raises and whether to give tax breaks for multimillion-dollar CEO bonuses--are made right here in Congress, and right now Senators bow and scrape for highly paid CEOs while they turn their backs on retirees and vets. We are here because it is time for Congress to make different choices. Representative Tammy Duckworth and I have introduced the Seniors And Veterans Emergency Benefits Act, or the SAVE Benefits Act, to give retirees, veterans, and Americans with disabilities a one-time payment of about $581. That is the equivalent of a 3.9-percent increase over the average Social Security benefit--the same percentage raise CEOs received just last year. Where would the money come from? Well, we can pay for it by closing the tax loophole for CEO bonuses that exceed $1 million. In fact, according to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, closing just this one loophole will create enough revenue to give a $581 raise to seniors and vets and still have billions of dollars left over to help boost the Social Security trust fund for the future. The SAVE Benefits Act would give seniors, vets, and the disabled an extra $581 a year. That $581 a year may not mean much to a CEO, but that money will cover almost 3 months of groceries for seniors or a year's worth of out-of-pocket costs on prescription drugs for someone on Medicare. For seniors and vets, that $581 means a lot. Already, 21 Democratic Senators have signed on as cosponsors. Dozens of organizations--Social Security Works, the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, the National Organization For Women, VoteVets, the National Council of La Raza, and I could go on and on with this list--have already endorsed the bill. Across the country, more than 400,000 people have signed petitions urging Congress to pass the SAVE Benefits Act. This is about money, but it is also about values. For too long, we have listened to a handful of the rich and powerful insist that we cut taxes for those at the top and leave everyone else behind. And now, across this country, people are saying: Enough. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize millionaire CEOs while seniors and vets have to fight for whatever scraps are left behind. The clock is ticking. It is time for Congress to step up. The money is there--either way. It can go for a payment to 70 million Americans who need it and who have earned it or it can go to CEOs and the wealthiest corporations. Let's vote on the SAVE Benefits Act. Let's show everyone where we stand--whether we stand up for tax breaks for the country's most highly paid CEOs or whether we work for the seniors and vets who worked their hearts out to build this country. Senator McConnell, brings this bill to the floor and let us vote. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, the answer is yes, it does. Senator Nelson has put his finger on a very serious problem; that is, every year because of policies made here in the Senate, we do a calculation of cost-of-living changes for Social Security. The problem is that calculation for cost-of-living changes is based on only about one- quarter of the population. It is not based on the whole population, and it is certainly not based just on those who receive Social Security. We know from independent analysis that costs have gone up for seniors, but because of the policies made here in Congress, there will be no cost-of-living increase for seniors this year. That means they face high costs. Yet, at the same time, they are going to have a flat income. The proposal here to give them a one-time payment of about $581 is enough to pay 3 months' worth of food bills for the average senior. It is enough to help cover the costs of prescription drugs that are not covered by Medicare. These are significant differences for seniors who most need it, and I appreciate Senator Nelson coming here early to talk about and raise this important issue. He is exactly spot on about the difficulty with this issue. I yield back.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on Friday, ISIS terrorists massacred 129 people in Paris. Just the day before, ISIS terrorists massacred 43 people in Beirut. While these are merely the latest in a series of horrific attacks launched by ISIS over the last few years, these twin tragedies have riveted the attention of the world. These events test us. It is easy to proclaim that we are tough and brave and good-hearted when threats feel far away, but when those threats loom large and close by, our actions will strip away our tough talk and reveal who we really are. We face a choice--a choice either to lead the world by example or to turn our backs to the threats and the suffering around us. Last month Senator Shaheen, Senator Durbin, Senator Klobuchar, and I traveled to Europe to see the Syrian refugee crisis up close. I come to the Senate floor today to speak about what I saw and to try to shed some light on the choice we face. Over the past 4 years, millions of people have fled their homes in Syria, running for their lives, searching for a future for themselves and their families. Official estimates indicate that 2 million Syrians are now living in Turkey, more than 1 million in Lebanon, and more than one-half million in Jordan. The true numbers are probably much larger. The crisis has put an enormous economic and political strain on those countries. In late 2014, I traveled to Jordan where I visited a U.N. refugee processing center. I also met with Jordan's Foreign Minister, U.N. representatives, and American military personnel stationed in Amman. Even a year ago, it was clear that the humanitarian crisis was straining these host countries and that there was no end in sight. In recent months, the crisis has accelerated. The steady stream of refugees fleeing Syria has become a flood, and that flood has swept across Europe. Every day refugees set out on a journey of hundreds of miles from Syria to the Turkish coast. When they arrive, they are met by human smugglers who charge $1,000 a head for a place on a shoddy, overloaded, plastic raft that is floated out to sea, hopefully in the direction of one of the Greek islands. I visited one of those islands last month. Lesbos is only a few miles from the Turkish coast, but the risks of crossing are immense. The water is rough, the shoreline is rocky, and these overcrowded, paper- thin rafts are dangerously unsteady. Parents do their best to protect their children. Little ones are outfitted with blowup pool floaties as a substitute for lifejackets in the hope that if their rafts go down, a $1.99 pool toy will be enough to save the life of a small child--and the rafts do go down. According to some estimates, more than 500 people have died crossing the sea from Turkey to Greece so far this year. Despite the risks, thousands make the trip every day. Greek Coast Guard officials told us that when refugees see a Coast Guard ship, they may even slash holes in their own rafts just so they will not be turned back. I met with the mayor of Lesbos, who described how his tiny Greek island of 80,000 people has struggled to cope with those refugees who wash ashore--more than 100,000 people in October alone. Refugees are processed in reception centers on the island before boarding ferries to Athens, but Greece plainly lacks the resources necessary to handle these enormous numbers. Refugees pile into the reception centers, overflowing the facilities and sleeping in parks or beside the road. Last month, a volunteer doctor in Lesbos was quoted as saying: ``There are thousands of children here and their feet are literally rotting, they can't keep dry, they have high fevers, and they're standing in the pouring rain for days on end.'' Recently, the mayor told a local radio program that the island had run out of room to bury the dead. Greece's overwhelmed registration system is not only a humanitarian crisis but also a security risk. In meeting after meeting, I asked Greek officials about security screening for these migrants, and time after time I heard the same answer. It was all Greece could do simply to fingerprint these individuals and write down their names before sending them off to Athens, and from there, to somewhere else in Europe. Now Greece's Interior Minister says that fingerprints taken from one of the Paris attackers may match someone who registered as a refugee at a Greek island entry point in early October. Whether this ultimately proves to be true, there is no question that a screening system that can do no more than confirm after the fact that a terrorist entered Europe is obviously not a screening system that is working. The burden of dealing with Syrian refugees cannot fall on Greece alone. Greece and the other border countries dealing with this crisis need money and expertise to screen out security threats. Europe needs to provide that assistance as quickly as possible, and if we are serious about preventing another tragedy like the one in Paris, the United States must help. We must build adequate procedures to make sure that refugees, especially those who have entered Europe through this slipshod screening process, can enter the United States only after they have been thoroughly vetted and we are fully confident that they do not pose a risk to our Nation or our people. The security threat is real and it must be addressed, but on our visit to Lesbos, we also had the chance to meet with refugees processed at the Moria reception center to see who most of them really are. From the outside, with its barbed wire and guard towers, Moria looks like a prison. At the entrance, the words ``Freedom For All'' are etched into the concrete encircling the facility, but speaking with refugees inside feels more like a 21st-century Ellis Island. We met doctors, teachers, civil engineers, and college students. We met young, educated, middle- class Syrians seeking freedom and opportunity for themselves and their families. They were seeking a safe refuge from ISIS, just like the rest of us. The most heartbreaking cases are the unaccompanied children. These boys and girls are separated from the other refugees in a fenced-in outdoor dormitory area. I met a young girl in that fenced-in area-- younger than my own granddaughters, sent out on this perilous journey alone. When I asked how old she was, she shyly held up seven fingers. I wondered, What could possibly possess parents to hand a 7-year-old girl and a wad of cash to human smugglers? What could possibly possess them to send a beloved child across the treacherous seas with no more protection than a pool floatie? What could make them send a child on a journey knowing that crime rings of sex slavery and organ harvesting prey on these children? What could possess them to send a little girl out alone with only the wildest, vaguest hope that she might make it through alive and find something--anything--better on the other side? Today, we all know why parents would send a child on a journey alone. The events of the last week in Paris and in Beirut drive it home. The terrorists of ISIS--enemies of Islam and of all modern civilization, butchers who rape, torture, and execute women and children, who blow themselves up in a lunatic effort to kill as many people as possible-- these terrorists have spent years torturing the people of Syria. And what about the Syrian Government? President Bashar al-Assad has spent years bombing his own people. Day after day, month after month, year after year, Syrian civilians have been caught in the middle, subjected to suicide attacks, car bombings, and hotel bombings at the hands of ISIS or Assad or this faction or that faction--each assault more senseless than the last. Day after day, month after month, year after year, mothers, fathers, children, and grandparents are slaughtered. In the wake of the murders in Paris and in Beirut last week, people in America, in Europe, and throughout the world are fearful. Millions of Syrians are fearful as well, terrified by the reality of their daily lives, terrified that their last avenue of escape from the horrors of ISIS will be closed, and terrified that the world will turn its back on them and their children. Some politicians have already moved in that direction, proposing to close our country for people fleeing the massacre in Syria, but with millions of Syrian refugees already in Europe, already carrying European passports, already able to travel to the United States--and with more moving across Europe every day--that is not a real plan to keep us safe, and that is not who we are. We are a country of immigrants and refugees, a country made strong by our diversity, a country founded by those crossing the sea, fleeing religious persecution and seeking religious freedom. We are not a nation that delivers children back into the hands of ISIS murderers because some politician doesn't like their religion, and we are not a nation that backs down out of fear. Our first responsibility is to protect this country. We must embrace that fundamental obligation, but we do not make ourselves safer by ignoring our common humanity and turning away from our moral obligation. ISIS has shown itself to the world. We cannot and we will not abandon the people of France to this butchery, we cannot and we will not abandon the people of Lebanon to this butchery, and we cannot and we must not abandon the people of Syria to this butchery. The terrorists in Paris and in Beirut remind us that the hate of a few can alter the lives of many. Now we have a chance to affirm a different message--a message that we are a courageous people who will stand strong in the face of terrorism. We have the courage to affirm our commitment to a world of open minds and open hearts. This must be our choice--the same choice that has been made over and over again by every generation of Americans. This is always our choice. It is the reason the people of Syria and people all around this world look to us for hope. It is the reason ISIS despises us, and it is the reason we will defeat them. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, before long, two must-pass pieces of legislation will come to the floor, a highway bill and a government- funding bill. It is like ringing the dinner bell for Wall Street banks. The lobbyists are swarming this place. They want to roll back financial regulations, and they are working every contact they can to attach these rollbacks to anything that moves. It is a pretty neat trick. They probably can't get a rollback of financial regulations passed out in the open where Americans can see what is happening and see which Senators and which representatives voted to gut the rules for Wall Street banks. So they slipped these rollbacks into must-pass legislation, which gives the financial industry's friends in Congress a lot of cover. Of course, it is not just Wall Street that is trying this. Lobbyists and their Republican allies want to weaken the rules protecting workers, retirees, and our environment. They want to defund Planned Parenthood, attack civil rights laws, and shove all kinds of other provisions that would be terrible for our country. But, as in so many things, Wall Street is the true master of this strategy. It has been almost 1 year since Citigroup lobbyists wrote a provision to blast a hole in Dodd-Frank and, at the last minute, got it attached to a government funding bill. Since the government would have shut down if the funding bill hadn't passed, that Citigroup amendment made it through tacked on the back of the funding deal. The provision that got blown up last year was called ``Prohibition against Federal Government bailouts of swaps entities.'' The idea behind the rule is pretty simple. If a bank wanted to enter into certain risky deals--such as the credit default swaps that had been at the heart of the 2008 crisis--it had to bear all of the risk itself instead of passing it along to taxpayers. That was the provision that Congress repealed. Because Democrats weren't willing to shut down the government, Wall Street won that round. But this isn't over. Congressman Elijah Cummings and I decided to hunt down the impact of the Citigroup amendment. We opened an investigation, and today we released our findings. There are lots of details, but here is the takeaway. The FDIC estimates that the provision written by Citigroup lobbyists last year allows a few banks to put taxpayers on the hook for risky swaps with an estimated value of nearly $10 trillion. And what does it mean to load up on swaps such as this? The FDIC said: ``Generally speaking, large volumes of derivative activity conducted by a [bank] would be expected to increase its risk profile. And who is gobbling down most of this $10 trillion of risk? Three huge banks: Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America--three banks, nearly $10 trillion. Now $10 trillion is a lot of risky business. Just remember, the whole TARP bailout was less than $1 trillion. Now a few banks--a few too-big- to-fail banks--are going to keep another $10 trillion in risky business on their books. These banks will happily suck down the profits when their high-stakes bets work out, and they will just as happily turn to the taxpayers to bail them out when there is a problem--all of this because the lobbyists persuaded Congress to do just one little favor for them. Earlier today Congressman Cummings and I asked the Government Accountability Office to do more analysis of these issues. But whatever the GAO finds, Congress now has 10 trillion reasons to stand up to Citigroup and bring back the swaps pushout rule to ensure that working families in this country--families with mortgages and student loans to pay and kids to take care of--aren't on the hook again, this time for $10 trillion of the big banks' risky bets. Congress has one job here. Congress should strengthen, not roll back, financial rules before one of these banks takes down our economy again. But bills to hold the big banks more accountable aren't getting much traction around here. Instead, right now people in Congress are talking about repealing more Dodd-Frank provisions. That is right. At this very moment lobbyists and Senators are plotting new ways to take cops off the beat on Wall Street and to weaken, delay or dilute the rules that protect consumers and hold big banks accountable and then to hook those rollbacks either onto a bill to fund our highways or to keep our government open. Now, Republicans say: Hey, if you want to get something done, if you want to repair our roads or keep the government open, this is the price; help the big banks. To be fair, Republicans are also getting some help from some Democrats. They say: Wall Street accountability is important, but I just want to get something done around here for a change; so let's go along. Well, yes, I want to get something done too. Who doesn't? But I didn't come here to carry water for the big banks. If Republicans think it is time to talk about financial reform, then let's put it all on the table and let's have everyone in Congress-- Democrats and Republicans--declare publicly where they stand. If the industry wants to push rollbacks, then I want to make it easier to send bankers to jail when they launder money for drug cartels or when they rig foreign exchange markets or when they cheat pension funds out of desperately needed money. If the industry wants to chip away at financial oversight, then I want to have a serious, on-the-record conversation about breaking up the biggest banks. Let's start with the three that are taking $10 trillion in risky business onto their books: Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America. Yes, the American people want us to get something done. They are begging us to do some real work, but I don't hear a lot of my constituents asking us to water down financial rules and to do more favors for the big banks. So let's put it to the American people. Are you ready to weaken Dodd- Frank, to give the biggest banks in the country more chances to take more risks and to leave you holding the bag, or is it time for a little more accountability--accountability for large financial institutions that month after month are in the headlines for breaking the law? Is it time to stop pretending and truly get rid of too big to fail once and for all? We can let every Republican and every Democrat vote in Congress on these questions. Let's do it with microphones on and the cameras rolling, but not behind closed doors and out of public view. We need to vote on a highway bill. We need to vote on a government funding bill. And if there is anyone in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, who thinks they can slip goodies for Wall Street into these bills without a fight, they are very wrong. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I thank the Presiding Officer. SAVE Benefits Act

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, exactly 3 weeks ago the Social Security Administration made a very quiet announcement. Next year, for just the third time since 1975, seniors who receive Social Security won't be getting an annual cost-of-living increase. Two-thirds of seniors depend on Social Security for the majority of their income. For 15 million Americans, Social Security is all that stands between them and poverty. But not one of these Americans--not one--will see an extra dime next year. Millions of other Americans whose benefits are pegged to Social Security--millions who receive veterans' benefits, disability benefits, and other monthly payments-- won't see an extra dime either. These are tough times--but not for everyone. According to most recent data from the Economic Policy Institute, CEOs at the top 350 American companies received on average a 3.9-percent pay increase last year. That is a lot of money because the average CEO pay at one of the top 350 American companies was a cool $16.3 million in 2014. On average, they got more than half a million dollars each in pay raises. So CEOs get huge pay raises while seniors, veterans, and others who have worked hard--70 million of them--will get nothing. Why? It is not an accident; it is the result of deliberate policies set right here in Congress. Social Security is supposed to be indexed to inflation so that when prices go up, benefits will go up, too. But Congress's formula looks at the spending habits of only about a quarter of the country, and the formula isn't geared to what older Americans actually spend. Projections for costs of core goods and services, projections that remove the components of prices that are the most uncertain and erratic, show that inflation is up about 2 percent, but seniors, who usually get a boost on January 1, won't see an extra dime next year, mostly because of falling gasoline prices, which just don't mean as much to millions of seniors who don't commute to work. Meanwhile, seniors who are trying to cover things such as rent and exploding prescription drug prices are left out in the cold. It is all Federal policy. What about those huge CEO bonuses? They are also the consequence, in part, of congressional policy. A report released just last week from the Center for Effective Government and the Institute for Policy Studies details how taxpayers subsidized CEOs' huge pay packages through billions of dollars in giveaways, including subsidies such as special tax-deferred compensation accounts and a crazy loophole that allows corporations to write off obscene bonuses as a business expense. Companies can make their own decisions on how much to compensate their executives, but because of the laws Congress has passed, American taxpayers are forced to subsidize these multimillion-dollar pay packages. It is time for Congress to make different choices. If we do nothing, on January 1 more than 70 million seniors, veterans, and other Americans won't get an extra dime. While Congress sits on its hands and pretends there is nothing we can do for seniors or vets, while Congress claims there just isn't any money to fix the problem, American taxpayers will keep right on subsidizing billions of dollars' worth of bonuses for highly paid CEOs. It is a choice. Congress can spend taxpayer money subsidizing billions of dollars for bonuses for corporate executives or Congress can use that very same money to help 70 million people who live on Social Security, veterans' benefits, and disability payments. Congress makes the choice. That is why I am here today, along with a number of my colleagues, to introduce the Senior and Veterans Emergency Benefits Act. The SAVE Benefits Act will give seniors on Social Security, veterans, those with disabilities, and others a one-time payment equivalent to an average increase of 3.9 percent--the same tax-subsidized pay increase top CEOs received last year. We can increase pay for seniors and vets without adding a single penny to the deficit simply by closing one of the many tax loopholes that subsidize these giant pay packages for executives. In fact, according to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, closing this loophole will create enough revenue to help seniors and vets and there will still be enough money left over to help extend the life of the Social Security trust fund. This should be a bipartisan act. Nobody wants to see seniors struggle to pay their grocery and utility bills. Everybody should want to extend the life of Social Security. Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed contempt for this tax loophole. Back in 1993, Congress passed section 162(m)--a Tax Code provision designed to rein in excessive corporate compensation--but the provision includes so many loopholes, most corporations just get around them. In fact, in 2006 Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said that ``sophisticated folks are working with Swiss-watch-like devices to game this Swiss-cheese-like rule.'' In 2009 Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Carl Levin introduced a bill to shut down access to this loophole for corporate stock options. Just last year, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee included reform of this loophole as part of his flagship tax reform bill. So let's just do it. Let's close the loophole, and let's use the money to give seniors and vets the support they need. Think about what this change would mean. That 3.9 percent is worth about $581 a year, a little less than $50 a month. I know that is a rounding error for those top corporate executives who are pulling in an average of over $16 million each. But Social Security payments average only about $1,250 a month, and millions of seniors who rely on those checks are barely scraping by. A $581 increase could cover almost 3 months of groceries for seniors or a year's worth of out-of-pocket costs on critical prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. That $50 a month is worth a heck of a lot to the 70 million Americans who would have just a little more in their pockets as a result of this bill. In fact, according to an analysis from the Economic Policy Institute, that little boost could lift more than a million people out of poverty. We all know someone who lives on Social Security--every single one of us. We know family members, a friend, a neighbor, people who worked hard all their lives and who now rely on Social Security checks to get by. Giving seniors a little help with their Social Security and stitching up these corporate tax write-offs isn't just about economics; it is about our values. For too long we have listened to a handful of powerful folks who have had one message: Cut taxes for those at the top, cut rules and regulations that keep businesses honest, and let everybody else fight over the scraps. We have tried that approach, and now we have a retirement crisis. Guaranteed pensions are gone, and 401(k)s and IRAs have been decimated by the stock market. Fewer and fewer people can afford to save for the future. We tried it, and it was a complete failure. These same powerful folks will tell you there is nothing we can do to help 70 million seniors, veterans, Americans with disabilities, and others who will not see an extra dime this year. They will say we can't afford it. They will say we can't do anything to expand Social Security. They will say we need to gut Social Security in order to save it. They will say all of this, exactly at the same moment that we continue to shovel billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies out the door for corporations to boost pay to their highest paid executives. That is the problem. The money is there, only right now it goes to a handful of CEOs because that is where the law written by Congress sends it. But Congress can make a different choice--a choice that reflects our deepest values, a choice to give a boost to 70 million Americans who have earned one, a choice to lift over 1 million people out of poverty, and a choice to extend the life of Social Security. It is all about choices--millionaire and billionaire CEOs or retires, vets, and disabled Americans. I ask my colleagues to support the SAVE Benefits Act. January 1 will be here soon, and we need to make a choice now. Madam President, I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Delaney, a staff member in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I thank the Presiding Officer and thank Senator Durbin for calling us together to discuss this important issue. Our higher education system is broken. Right now a student borrows money to go to college, and the college gets paid in full regardless of whether the college provides a decent education. In fact, Federal loan money is so easy to come by that a new business model of for-profit colleges has sprung up, spending more money on advertising to attract students than actually teaching them anything. Consider three numbers--10, 20, 40. Just over 10 percent of all college students attend a for-profit college. Yet they take in about 20 percent of all Federal student aid and they account for about 40 percent of all student loan defaults. Many for-profit colleges target young vets and single moms for programs that promise the Moon but end up delivering nothing more than heartache. I have met with student veterans at terrific public colleges and universities across Massachusetts, such as UMass Lowell and Bunker Hill Community College. These schools are working hard to reach vets and to help them get a first-rate education through their Office of Veterans Service and other resources. It is an exciting story, but time after time the for-profit colleges got there first, so young vets show up already tens of thousands of dollars in debt and without a single credit that will transfer to a decent public college. This makes me sick. These for-profit schools are stealing more than money. They are stealing the hard work and dreams of some of our finest young people. There are 347 colleges in the United States in which the majority of the students have defaulted or failed to begin paying down their loans. Of these colleges, 85 percent are for-profit. Even with those huge default rates keep raking in the Federal loan dollars and paying out millions of dollars in dividends to their shareholders. These 294 for- profits are sucking down $2.2 billion in Federal assistance and leaving the majority of their students unable to repay their loans. The business model of for-profit colleges challenges the conventional wisdom that a college degree is always a smart investment. A recent study found that the average salary increase of for-profit graduates isn't even enough to cover the costs of attending a typical for-profit institution. The research is clear: attendance at a typical for-profit college is simply not worth the cost. It is a bad return on investment. For-profit colleges know this, but too often the potential students don't. Instead of taking the tough steps necessary to improve the value of the education they offer, most of these for-profit institutions have simply ramped up their marketing operations--and some just flatout break the law--to keep the gravy train going. These colleges have engaged in fraud in order to swindle more and more students and suck down more and more Federal funds. Corinthian College is a prime example. At its peak, Corinthian was the Nation's largest for-profit chain, with 120 campuses enrolling over 100,000 students. It was massive. Corinthian built its business model to scoop up Federal financial aid by any means necessary--including fraud. Corinthian was trying to rope students in by using false and misleading information and then saddling them with debt that would be impossible to repay. Federal policymakers had concerns about Corinthian's conduct for years and had the tools to shut off the Federal loan supply, but instead of acting, the Department of Education allowed Corinthian to keep recruiting more and more students and sucking down more and more Federal funds. When Corinthian's dangerous mix of mismanagement and deception finally blew up, the Department of Education even stepped in to bail out the college and keep it running a little while longer. Now Corinthian is bankrupt and its students are scrambling to start over. Last week--due to a lawsuit brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--a Federal judge ruled Corinthian broke Federal consumer protection laws and ordered the company to pay $531 million for its illegal behavior, but Corinthian is dead broke, and its executives are off the hook for the financial liability. Plus students and taxpayers are left holding the bag. Corinthian got people to sign up for student loans by scamming them. If an insurance salesman or a car dealer did that, the buyer wouldn't have to pay. The law is just as clear here, when a school breaks the law, students are entitled to cancel their student loans. That is why this week several of my Democratic colleagues are sending a letter to the Department of Education telling them they have dragged their feet long enough. These students don't owe the student loans that Corinthian tricked them into signing. Schools like Corinthian make it clear that the Federal Government needs to be more aggressive and more willing to cut off the money faster when schools defraud students. When schools such as Corinthian break the law, their executives shouldn't be allowed to walk away from the mess. They should pay real penalties. This is about basic fairness. Neither students nor taxpayers should be on the hook to a for-profit college that makes its money by cheating its students. It is time for the Federal Government to step up and do its job to hold for-profit colleges accountable and to ensure that higher education remains a real pathway to success for all hard-working students. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor back to Senator Durbin.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank Senator Merkley for organizing this event this afternoon and Senators Blumenthal and Markey for their work on this. Smoking produces corporate profits, period. There is the heart of the problem of e-cigarettes. Long after the science showed that cigarette smoking kills, long after the industry denied and denied, long after millions of people died from smoking- related cancers and heart disease, this country finally got serious about cutting smoking rates. Much of our attention has been focused on ways to keep the industry from hooking young people, and it is a good approach: If you don't start, you don't have to quit. For decades now public health experts have worked to reduce smoking and to keep kids and teens from becoming addicted to cigarettes. Congress passed the laws and implemented regulations that restricted access for teens. We increased tobacco taxes, and we clamped down on marketing to kids. State and local governments along with the private sector limited smoking in public. Those combined efforts worked. Since the late 1990s, the youth smoking rate has been cut by more than 50 percent. The most recent effort in Congress to address this issue was the passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. The late Senator Ted Kennedy fought for years and years to give the FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco. I stand at his desk today to continue this fight because the law was passed but our Federal agencies have still not fully implemented it, and the tobacco industry continues to target young people. The industry profits from getting kids hooked early, so it finds every way it can to undermine all the other work we have done to keep kids from getting hooked on nicotine. Because it is harder now to get kids hooked with cigarettes, the industry has turned to e-cigarettes. Six years after the Tobacco Control Act was passed, the regulations that deem e-cigarettes as tobacco products and make them subject to all of the rules in that bill have still not been finalized. As a result, e-cigarettes remain virtually unregulated at the Federal level--no age limits, no marketing restrictions, nothing but a splotchy patchwork of State and local restrictions. Even though most states ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, this is not enough to combat the deliberate and well-financed work of the tobacco industry to hook another generation of kids on their products. Now, an investigation last year by House and Senate leaders revealed how the tobacco industry is marketing their products to kids. It found that the industry is following the exact same practices of marketing to kids and teens that addicted a generation to cigarettes decades ago. Tobacco companies market e-cigs with cartoons and Santa Claus. They show popular celebrities and beautiful models using e-cigs. Tobacco companies push e-cigs in flavors designed to appeal to kids-- flavors like cherry crush and chocolate treat. Tobacco companies provide free samples at concerts and other youth-oriented events. Tobacco companies advertise on television shows and radio programs that attract large audiences of teens and preteens. To bring it all into the digital age, tobacco companies use all of these tactics online and on social media. The tobacco industry has done all of this before. It is having the same result. According to the CDC, e-cigarette use by middle schoolers--that is sixth, seventh, and eighth graders--and high school students tripled in 2014 alone. New data released yesterday shows that 21.6 percent of young adults 18 to 24 have used an e-cigarette. For teens, e-cig use is now greater than the use of all other tobacco products. Look, the tobacco industry is up to its old tricks, but we are not going to fall for them again. After more than 6 years since the passage of the Tobacco Control Act, the Federal Government is finally on the cusp of regulations to rein in the industry's e-cigarette marketing efforts. Every day that goes by without this regulation, the tobacco industry hooks more kids. We need a strong rule today, and that is why I join my colleagues to urge the Office of Management and Budget to act without delay and to release this important regulation. It is time--no, it is past time to take action, time to push back against the tobacco industry, time to stand up for our families' health. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, for 20 years one of the biggest billboards in America was next to Fenway Park, facing the Massachusetts Turnpike. It had a giant number counter on it. When I was running for the Senate in 2012, I would drive past that billboard sometimes three or four times a day. Each time, I would look up at the counter to see how it had changed since the last trip--up 2, up 6, up 12. The billboard was from Stop Handgun Violence, and it showed the number of children killed by guns in the United States. When the tragedy happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, my first thought was of the 20 little children who would be added to the count on that billboard. I thought about how we, the grownups, had failed to keep safe the thousands of children counted there. There are mass shootings, everyday shootings, drive-by shootings, random shootings, sometimes with big headlines and mostly with no headlines at all. The facts are simple: Eighty-eight Americans die every day from gun violence. Seven of those people are children or teens. That is seven a day, every day, young bodies piling up by the thousands year after year. What has happened to us? If seven children were dying every day from a mysterious virus, our country would pull out all the stops to figure out what had gone wrong and to fix it. Gun violence is an epidemic--an epidemic that kills children, kills them in schools, on playgrounds, and in our neighborhoods. But day after day, month after month, tragedy after tragedy, the Congress has done nothing--nothing. Republicans in the Senate have blocked even the smallest steps to protect our communities and keep our children safe. This must stop now. Today, Senate Democrats are calling on Republicans to join us in supporting three measures to reduce gun violence. First, end the gun show loophole. Everyone gets a background check. Second, end straw purchases. The one who gets checked has to be the true owner. Third, close holes in the background check database and stop domestic abusers from purchasing guns, period. Look, let's be frank. These three steps will not be enough to stop all handgun violence in our communities, but these are meaningful steps in the right direction--steps that huge majorities of Americans support, steps that are calm and sensible. These three steps are a test--a test for every single Member of Congress. These three steps put the question to everyone in Congress: Whom do you work for? Do you represent the people who have lost children or sisters or cousins to gun violence and who have stood at gravesides and sworn that we will make change? Do you represent the people who don't want their loved ones to be the next victims? Do you represent the people who want some sensible rules about gun safety? Or do you represent the NRA? It is time to make a choice right here in Congress--the American people or the NRA. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I will be honest. I am deep-down furious at the Republican scheme to defund Planned Parenthood. I didn't think the Republican leadership could sink any lower than trying to defund women's cancer screenings and access to birth control, but then I saw the bill we are voting on tomorrow and I felt sick to my stomach. Here we are just days away from another reckless Republican government shutdown, and the Republicans think the best use of our time is to vote on a bill to give the government the power to intrude on the most wrenching, intimate, private medical decisions a woman will ever make. The Republicans want a debate over a 20-week abortion ban, so let's talk about exactly what that means. Nearly 99 percent of all abortions take place within the first 21 weeks of a woman's pregnancy. Let me repeat. Nearly 99 percent are in the first 21 weeks. So based on statistics alone, this bill won't make a big difference in the number of abortions, but for the women who get hit, the consequences can be truly horrific. Let's start with the research. Who are these women? Who are the 1 percent who get an abortion after 20 weeks? Who? Women or girls who are the victims of rape, incest, or domestic violence and were to frightened to ask for help any sooner. Who? Women whose doctors have told them that if they don't end their pregnancy--pregnancies they really wanted--their kidneys could fail or their hearts could give out or they couldn't get the chemotherapy they may need to save their lives. Who? Women who go for an ultrasound and get the worst possible news--that their fetus has a giant hole in its stomach or organs outside its body or a deformed head and the fetus either has no chance of survival or has a severe abnormality that would mean a short life filled with pain. Research also shows that women who have had later abortions are more likely to be young--very young girls, really--and didn't understand they were pregnant. They are more likely to live in places where getting an abortion means driving 3 hours or more to find a doctor who will perform one. They are more likely to be poor and need to save up money to pay for the procedure. That is who gets hit by this. I have taken a close look at the Republican bill to see just how hard they get hit. I want to put it right out here in the open for everyone to see. There are no--I repeat--no exceptions in this bill for the condition of the fetus. Even if a woman knows at 20 weeks that her child will die immediately after birth, she would still be required to carry that pregnancy for months. An 18-year-old survivor of rape or incest must wait until she can provide written proof that she received counseling from a doctor, and then that counseling is loaded with hurdles: The counseling must come only from a doctor who refuses to perform abortions and who doesn't work in an office with another doctor who does. Think about it. Prolong the pain and anxiety, and for anyone who lives in a rural area or anyone who is making it barely paycheck to paycheck and cannot miss multiple days of work, make it twice as hard to get any help. If the victim of rape or incest is a minor, it gets even worse. A girl--a girl who is 10, 12, 14 years old--this girl must face the same challenges and must provide written proof that she reported the crime to the police, even if turning in a family member or announcing to the world that she has been raped could destroy her life in a million different ways. I cannot imagine that the Senate would pass a law to require a frightened 12-year-old girl to submit written proof that she had called the police to report a rape by her mother's boyfriend before she could terminate that pregnancy. That kind of cruelty is barbaric, and it has no place in our laws. But this is not just about the tiny number of people who must seek abortions after 20 weeks; this horrifying bill that we will vote on tomorrow is just one more piece of a deliberate, methodical, orchestrated rightwing plan to attack women's health and reproductive rights. A funding cut here, a new restriction here, month after month, year after year, and Rowe v. Wade will be chipped away to nothing. That is what this is all about. That is what this has always been all about. We have lived in an America where women died in back-alley abortions. We have lived in an America where high school girls tried poisons and coat hangers to try to end pregnancies. We have lived in an America where young woman who faced unwanted pregnancies took their own lives. We have lived in that America, and we are not going back--not now, not ever. We stand here on the brink of another reckless Republican government shutdown. We all remember what happened the last time the Republicans shut the government down: $24 billion was flushed down the drain for a political stunt--$24 billion that could have gone to help mothers and their babies with prenatal care, better infant nutrition, Head Start classes, medical research on birth abnormalities. Instead, the money was flushed away by Republicans who want to play political games more than they want to help children and families all across this country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this terrible bill. Stand up to this rightwing assault on women and families. Instead of trying to do the job of physicians and telling women what is best for their own medical care, Republicans in the Senate should start doing the job of legislators and get to work on this Nation's budget. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Democratic leader and no later than Friday, October 30, the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1772, the Schedules That Work Act; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time; that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to talk about something that has been bothering me. Who is this Senate supposed to be working for? For years now, this economy has been great for those at the top, but for everyone else, it is getting harder and harder to make it from paycheck to paycheck, harder and harder to build any real security. The world is changing, and Congress can make decisions that help working people stay in the game and help level the playing field or we can just turn our backs. What have the Republicans done over the past 6 months to try to make families a little more secure, to give people a fighting chance? What have they done? They have turned their backs. In the past 6 months, they have burned huge amounts of time as they tried to shut down Homeland Security, tried to build a pipeline to help a Canadian oil company, tried to turn a human trafficking bill into a referendum on abortion, and now tried to defund Planned Parenthood--all this instead of working on the kinds of issues that would help level the playing field for hard-working people. You know, there is a lot we could do. For example, Democrats have been fighting to raise the minimum wage. And I strongly agree that no one--no one--should work full time and still live in poverty. I think a $7.25-an-hour minimum wage is disgraceful. I support the Federal bill to raise the minimum wage to $12 by 2020, and I applaud the fight for $15 that is springing up across this country. When I am asked about whether we should raise the minimum wage, I have three answers: Yes. Yes. Yes. But raising the minimum wage is only the beginning. Half of low-wage workers have little or no say over when they work, and an estimated 20 to 30 percent are in jobs where they can be called in to work at the last minute. I want us to think about what this means for someone who is busting her fanny trying to build some economic security. Imagine trying to plan for anything--for childcare, for going back to school, for getting a second job--without knowing when you will be working next week. Imagine trying to plan a monthly budget when your work hours and paycheck can fluctuate 70 percent in a single month. Imagine trying to schedule a doctor's visit or parent-teacher conference if you could get fired just for asking for a few hours off. This is the real world of millions of workers who struggle to make ends meet. This is something we can fix. A few weeks ago, I introduced the Schedules That Work Act, with 17 Democrats in the Senate and more than 60 Democrats in the House of Representatives. The bill is just common sense and basic fairness: A single mom should know if her hours are being canceled before she arranges for daycare and drives halfway across town to show up at work, a young man trying to put himself through school should be able to request a more predictable schedule without getting fired just for asking, and a worker who is told to wait around on call for hours with no guarantee of work should get something for her time. The Schedules That Work Act does two simple things: First, it gives all workers the right to request a change in their schedule without getting fired just for asking, and, second, it gives workers who face the worst scheduling practices--workers in retail, food service, and cleaning workers--2 weeks' notice of their work schedules and some additional pay if they are required to wait on call but don't get any work. Now, look, this bill recognizes that there are emergencies, and when employers have unexpected needs they can reschedule their workers, but we are asking for a little basic fairness so that in ordinary times-- day-by-day, week-by-week--workers will have a stable schedule and a chance to build some real economic security. Democrats want to get to work on changes in the law that would give working people a fighting chance. We want Republicans to let us take up these proposals and let us vote on them. Instead, Republicans are pushing a different agenda, focusing on defunding women's health care and protecting those at the top. People say Washington doesn't work, but that is wrong. Washington works great--for the right people. When the corporate lobbyists want a carve-out or giveaway, when a giant oil company wants the Keystone Pipeline or when Citibank wants to blast a hole in Dodd-Frank, Republicans fall all over themselves to make it happen. When the rightwing wants to cut off access to health care, Republicans are ready to go, but when it comes to the things that will help families, they turn their backs. This has to stop. We are not here to work for the lobbyists. We are not here to make life easier for big oil companies or for big banks. We are here to make this country work for hard-working Americans. That is our job, and it is time for this Republican Senate to start doing that job. Let's take up and pass the Schedules That Work Act. Let's give working families a fighting chance to build a future. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor to ask my Republican colleagues a question: Do you have any idea what year it is? Did you fall down and hit your head and think you woke up in the 1950s or the 1890s? Should we call for a doctor? Because I simply cannot believe that in the year 2015, the U.S. Senate would be spending its time trying to defund women's health care centers. On second thought, maybe I shouldn't be that surprised. The Republicans have had a plan for years to strip away women's rights to make choices about their own bodies. Just look at the recent facts. In 2013, Republicans threatened to shut down the government unless they could change the law to let employers deny women access to birth control. In March of this year, Republicans held up a noncontroversial, bipartisan bill to stop human trafficking. Why? Because they demanded new anti-abortion restrictions to cover private funding meant to help the victims of human trafficking. In June, House Republicans passed a budget eliminating funding for the Title X Family Planning Program, the only Federal grant program that provides birth control, HIV tests, STD screening, and other preventive services for poor and uninsured people. Over the past few years, Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times, including the portions that require insurers to cover contraception. Let's be clear. It is not just Congress. Over the past 5 years Republican State legislators have passed nearly 300 new restrictions on abortion access. This year alone Republican State legislators have passed more than 50 new restrictions on women's access to legal health care. Let's be really clear about something. The Republican scheme to defund Planned Parenthood is not some sort of surprised response to a highly edited video. Nope. The Republican vote to defund Planned Parenthood is just one more piece of a deliberate, methodical, orchestrated, rightwing attack on women's rights, and I am sick and tired of it. Women everywhere are sick and tired of it. The American people are sick and tired of it. Scheduling this vote during the week of a big FOX News Presidential primary debate, days before candidates take trips to Iowa or New Hampshire, isn't just some clever gimmick. This is an all-out effort to build support to take away a woman's right to control her own body and access to medical care she may need. This affects all of us, whatever your age, wherever you live. I guarantee that you know someone who has used Planned Parenthood health care centers. No one may mention it at Thanksgiving dinner or post it on Facebook for the whole world to know, but just look at the facts. One in five women in America is a Planned Parenthood patient at least once in her life. Every single year nearly 2.7 million women and men show up for help at Planned Parenthood. Why do so many people use Planned Parenthood? Because they are nonprofit and they are open. More than half of Planned Parenthood centers are located in areas without ready access to health care. Women who can't get appointments anywhere else go to Planned Parenthood for pap tests and cancer screenings. Couples go to Planned Parenthood for STD treatments or pregnancy tests. Young people go to Planned Parenthood for birth control. And, yes, 3 percent of patients visit Planned Parenthood for a safe and legal abortion with a doctor who will show compassion and care for a woman who is making one of the most difficult decisions of her entire life. To be clear, even though the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood are safe and legal, the Federal Government is not paying for any of them--not one dime. For almost 40 years the Federal Government has prohibited Federal funding for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest or life endangerment. Most of the money Planned Parenthood receives from the government comes in the form of Medicaid payments for medical care provided to low-income patients, the same payments any other doctor or clinic receives for providing cancer screenings or other medical exams. The rest of Planned Parenthood's Federal funding comes from title X that provides birth control to low-income and uninsured people, the same program the House Republicans voted to cut in June. The government doesn't fund abortions, period. A vote today to defund Planned Parenthood is not a vote to defund abortions. It is a vote to defund cancer screenings, birth control, and basic health care for millions of women. I say to my Republican colleagues: The year is 2015, not 1955 and not 1895. Women have lived through a world where backward-looking ideologues tried to interfere with the basic health decisions made by a woman and her doctor, and we are not going back--not now, not ever. The Republican plan to defund Planned Parenthood is a Republican plan to defund women's health care. For my daughter, for my granddaughters, for people all across Massachusetts, and all across this country, I stand with Planned Parenthood, and I hope my colleagues will do the same. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lindsay Owens from my staff be given privileges for the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, American workers have fought long and hard to improve their lot--banning child labor, better safety on the job, minimum wage, and an 8-hour workday. Unions often led these fights, but their efforts also helped tens of millions of workers who often had no union representation. In 1868, Congress passed its first 8-hour workday law, and by 1975 rules protecting the 8-hour workday covered about 65 percent of all workers. Of course, those workers might work longer--might be required to work longer--but if they did, they got time and a half for their extra hours. Managers were exempt from those rules, but they were paid more to offset the lost overtime. To be sure, American workers did their part too. Year over year, decade over decade, workers increased output so that today American workers are among the most productive in the world. The basic 8-hour day, with overtime for extra hours, was a godsend to families, and, in a larger sense, it was a core part of the deal that American workers could count on. From the 1930s through the 1970s, as American workers' productivity increased, GDP went up and so did wages for the average worker. In other words, as companies got richer, their workers got richer too. This was the America that built the great middle class, the America that created opportunity and protected that opportunity for nearly two-thirds of all workers. But over time, that basic deal quietly vanished because we haven't meaningfully updated these rules since the 1970s. Instead of two-thirds of the workforce being protected, today only 8 percent of all salaried workers are covered. That means that only the lowest paid workers, workers whose salaries are so low that they are below the poverty line for a family of four, are legally entitled to be paid anything for their overtime. Today, a fast-food worker or a janitor or a grocery store clerk making a little over $23,000 can be classified as a manager and be required to work 10, 12, 14 hours a day, 5, 6 or 7 days a week, with no overtime pay of any kind. Today, the productivity of American workers continues to rise, but the gains go to Wall Street and to CEOs and are no longer shared with the people doing much of the back-breaking work to make it all happen. That is a broken system. Two weeks ago, the President announced he is going to fix these broken overtime rules. The administration's new proposal would raise the salary threshold under which a worker is guaranteed overtime pay to just over $50,000, more than double the current threshold and roughly back to the 1975 level, when both corporations and workers benefited from a growing economy. This matters. According to the White House, nearly 5 million Americans--including over 100,000 people in Massachusetts alone--will get a raise. They estimate that workers will see an additional $1.4 billion in wages in just the first year alone. But make no mistake, it will be a fight. Some businesses are used to getting an extra 5, 10, 20 hours for free from their employees--and they are just fine keeping the rules just the way they are. They will claim that fixing overtime will hurt businesses. Well, don't believe it. History shows that increases in overtime pay are actually good for the economy. Employers usually respond to increases in the overtime threshold in one of three ways. Some will actually pay existing employees overtime for the extra work. Others will avoid overtime costs by hiring more workers to get the job done, and some will increase the hours of part- time workers. That is what we are likely to get: higher wages, more jobs or more hours for part-time workers. Even the National Retail Federation, which has lobbied hard against fixing the overtime rules, admits this proposal will add tens of thousands of jobs to this economy. We need those jobs. But this issue is about more than jobs. This issue is also about fairness. If a worker puts in more time and produces more for the company, the worker should get a chance to share in its benefit. No more free work. Economic growth over the past three decades has been built on the backs of hard-working people, and it is time those hard- working people get a little bit more of all they have produced. Fixing our outdated overtime rules will not end inequality. It is time to raise the minimum wage. Women should get equal pay for equal work. Workers deserve paid sick leave and paid family leave. Social Security should be expanded. But this is an important step forward, a vital piece of the puzzle that will increase wages, increase hours, and increase employment for millions of Americans, and it is a step that will show that the government can be made to help working people. There are plenty of examples of Washington writing rules that favor the rich and the powerful, but this time we have an overtime rule that will give working families a fighting chance to build some security for themselves. The President has proposed a new rule to benefit working families, and the rest of us are here today ready to fight for that rule. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act. I am honored to join Senators McCain, Cantwell, and King in introducing this bill. Washington is a partisan place and this Congress has its share of partisan bills, but we have all joined together because we all want a more stable economy that works not just for those at the top but for everyone. Seven years ago, Wall Street's high-risk bets brought our economy to its knees. The Dallas Fed estimates that the total cost of the crash was $14 trillion. Millions of families lost their homes. Millions of people lost their savings. Millions of people lost their jobs. And even today, millions of hard-working, play-by-the-rules people are still struggling to survive. Over the past 7 years, we have made some real progress dialing back the risk of a future crisis. But despite that progress, the biggest banks continue to threaten the economy. The biggest banks are collectively much bigger today than they were 7 years ago. They continue to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices. And with each new headline and subsequent legal settlement, it becomes clearer that they keep chasing profits even if it means breaking the law. The big banks weren't always allowed to take on big risks while enjoying the benefits of taxpayer guarantees. Four years after the 1929 Wall Street crash, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act, which is best known for separating investment banks and their risk-taking from commercial banks that manage savings accounts, checking accounts, and offer other banking services. For 50 years, Glass-Steagall played a central role in keeping our country safe. Traditional banking stayed separate from high-risk Wall Street banking. There wasn't a single major financial crisis, and the financial sector helped contribute to a sustained, broad-based economic growth that helped build America's middle class. But the big traditional banks wanted the higher profits they could get from taking more risks, and investors in the big investment banks wanted access to the low-cost, insured deposits of traditional banks, so they teamed up to try to tear down Glass-Steagall's wall. Starting in the 1980s, regulators of the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency buckled under industry pressure and began poking bigger and bigger holes in the wall between investment and commercial banking, and, after 12 separate attempts, Congress repealed most of Glass- Steagall in 1999. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will rebuild the wall between commercial banks and investment banks, separating traditional banks that offer savings and checking accounts and that are insured by the FDIC from their riskier counterparts on Wall Street. Banks can choose: Take big risks using investors' money or be very careful using depositors' money--but no more mixing the two. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act also fills in the holes the regulators punched in the original Glass-Steagall, and it recognizes that the financial markets have become more complicated since the 1930s, so it covers products that did not exist when Glass-Steagall was originally passed. By itself, the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will not end too big to fail and implicit government subsidies, but it will make financial institutions smaller, safer, and move us in the right direction. By separating depository institutions from riskier activities, large financial institutions will shrink in size and won't be able to rely on FDIC insurance as a safety net for their high-risk activities. It will stop the game these banks have played for far too long--heads, the big banks win and take all the profits; tails, the taxpayers lose and get stuck with the bill. Our proposal has an added benefit--it is simple. It doesn't require thousands of pages of new rules. And better still, if we rebuilt the wall between commercial banks and investment banks, we could even cut back on some of the other rules we have in place to stop big banks from taking on too much risk. If financial institutions actually have to face the consequences of their business decisions, if they cannot rely on government insurance to subsidize their riskiest activities, then the investors in those institutions will have a stronger incentive to closely monitor those risks before they get out of hand and take down the entire economy. Government regulators could play a more limited role, and that is an outcome everyone should like. It has now been 7 years since the great financial crash. Most of the banks that were too big to fail in 2008 are even bigger now. Shortly after they were bailed out by the American taxpayers, these banks once again started raking in billions of dollars in profits. In fact, in 2014 they posted two of their most profitable quarters in the last 20 years. Between 2010 and 2013, the median compensation for a big-bank CEO was about $15 million a year while median household income in the United States during that same period--that is, income for the whole family--was barely above $50,000. The big banks and their executives have recovered handsomely from the crisis they helped create while too many other Americans are still scraping to get by. We weren't sent to Washington to work for the big banks. It is time for a banking system that serves the best interests of the American people, not just those few at the top. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act is an important step in the right direction, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan measure to strengthen our economy.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act. I am honored to join Senators McCain, Cantwell, and King in introducing this bill. Washington is a partisan place and this Congress has its share of partisan bills, but we have all joined together because we all want a more stable economy that works not just for those at the top but for everyone. Seven years ago, Wall Street's high-risk bets brought our economy to its knees. The Dallas Fed estimates that the total cost of the crash was $14 trillion. Millions of families lost their homes. Millions of people lost their savings. Millions of people lost their jobs. And even today, millions of hard-working, play-by-the-rules people are still struggling to survive. Over the past 7 years, we have made some real progress dialing back the risk of a future crisis. But despite that progress, the biggest banks continue to threaten the economy. The biggest banks are collectively much bigger today than they were 7 years ago. They continue to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices. And with each new headline and subsequent legal settlement, it becomes clearer that they keep chasing profits even if it means breaking the law. The big banks weren't always allowed to take on big risks while enjoying the benefits of taxpayer guarantees. Four years after the 1929 Wall Street crash, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act, which is best known for separating investment banks and their risk-taking from commercial banks that manage savings accounts, checking accounts, and offer other banking services. For 50 years, Glass-Steagall played a central role in keeping our country safe. Traditional banking stayed separate from high-risk Wall Street banking. There wasn't a single major financial crisis, and the financial sector helped contribute to a sustained, broad-based economic growth that helped build America's middle class. But the big traditional banks wanted the higher profits they could get from taking more risks, and investors in the big investment banks wanted access to the low-cost, insured deposits of traditional banks, so they teamed up to try to tear down Glass-Steagall's wall. Starting in the 1980s, regulators of the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency buckled under industry pressure and began poking bigger and bigger holes in the wall between investment and commercial banking, and, after 12 separate attempts, Congress repealed most of Glass- Steagall in 1999. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will rebuild the wall between commercial banks and investment banks, separating traditional banks that offer savings and checking accounts and that are insured by the FDIC from their riskier counterparts on Wall Street. Banks can choose: Take big risks using investors' money or be very careful using depositors' money--but no more mixing the two. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act also fills in the holes the regulators punched in the original Glass-Steagall, and it recognizes that the financial markets have become more complicated since the 1930s, so it covers products that did not exist when Glass-Steagall was originally passed. By itself, the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will not end too big to fail and implicit government subsidies, but it will make financial institutions smaller, safer, and move us in the right direction. By separating depository institutions from riskier activities, large financial institutions will shrink in size and won't be able to rely on FDIC insurance as a safety net for their high-risk activities. It will stop the game these banks have played for far too long--heads, the big banks win and take all the profits; tails, the taxpayers lose and get stuck with the bill. Our proposal has an added benefit--it is simple. It doesn't require thousands of pages of new rules. And better still, if we rebuilt the wall between commercial banks and investment banks, we could even cut back on some of the other rules we have in place to stop big banks from taking on too much risk. If financial institutions actually have to face the consequences of their business decisions, if they cannot rely on government insurance to subsidize their riskiest activities, then the investors in those institutions will have a stronger incentive to closely monitor those risks before they get out of hand and take down the entire economy. Government regulators could play a more limited role, and that is an outcome everyone should like. It has now been 7 years since the great financial crash. Most of the banks that were too big to fail in 2008 are even bigger now. Shortly after they were bailed out by the American taxpayers, these banks once again started raking in billions of dollars in profits. In fact, in 2014 they posted two of their most profitable quarters in the last 20 years. Between 2010 and 2013, the median compensation for a big-bank CEO was about $15 million a year while median household income in the United States during that same period--that is, income for the whole family--was barely above $50,000. The big banks and their executives have recovered handsomely from the crisis they helped create while too many other Americans are still scraping to get by. We weren't sent to Washington to work for the big banks. It is time for a banking system that serves the best interests of the American people, not just those few at the top. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act is an important step in the right direction, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan measure to strengthen our economy.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, together with Senator Heitkamp, Senator Manchin, and a dozen other Senators, I propose a simple change to the fast-track bill. This amendment protects America's sovereignty and the rule of law by turning off fast-track for trade agreements that include investor-state dispute resolution--ISDS. This is not a partisan issue. Experts on the left and the right agree that ISDS is a real threat. According to the director of trade policy at the Cato Institute, purging both the TPP and the TTIP of ISDS makes sense economically and politically. In a recent letter, more than 100 law professors wrote that ISDS threatens domestic sovereignty and weakens the rule of law. A provision to give corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system should not be part of our free-trade agreements. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield to Senator Heitkamp.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be heard for 2 minutes on this amendment.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on that amendment.