[Pages S4759-S4761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                     Nomination of John P. Pallasch

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak 
about the two nominations we are about to vote on.
  The first one is the nomination of John Pallasch to be the Assistant 
Secretary of Labor overseeing the Employment & Training Administration. 
This is a critically important role that manages nearly two-thirds of 
the Department of Labor's budget and our Nation's workforce development 
programs, which serve over 22 million youth, workers, jobseekers, and 
seniors who are working to improve their employment opportunities and 
the lives of their families.
  This position is particularly important now as we are seeing the 
Trump administration work to undermine some of the most crucial 
programs within the Employment & Training Administration. They are 
attempting to close Job Corps centers that help train at-risk youth, 
conserve our natural resources, and provide economic opportunities in 
rural areas and communities in need. They are also proposing a 
duplicative, lower quality apprenticeship program that would put 
workers at risk and give taxpayer dollars to for-profit colleges with 
very little accountability.
  It is clear that the Employment & Training Administration needs a 
leader now who is knowledgeable, who is experienced, and who is 
committed to providing workers with the training, support, and benefits 
they need to succeed in this changing economy. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Pallasch is not that person. Throughout this nomination process, Mr. 
Pallasch has shown that he has very limited experience with or 
understanding of the programs that he would be overseeing.
  I am going to vote against this nomination, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  At this time, I also want to once again reiterate my disappointment 
in the unprecedented obstruction to Democratic nominees to the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations 
Board. Last Congress, Republicans refused to confirm two very highly 
qualified and respected nominees to additional terms on the EEOC and 
the NLRB.
  Earlier this year, Republicans broke yet another longstanding 
tradition by confirming a majority nominee to the EEOC without a 
Democratic pair.
  Last week, the White House announced its intention to nominate a 
bipartisan pair of nominees to the EEOC. After a year of obstruction, I 
am encouraged by this small step toward bipartisanship and normalcy, 
but I am here today to urge the White House to formalize these 
nominations as quickly as possible so that the Senate can confirm them 
and restore balance to the EEOC.
  I strongly urge the White House to nominate a full slate of 
nominees--Republican and Democrat--to both the NLRB and EEOC.
  For those reasons and because of Mr. Pallasch's lack of experience 
and knowledge about the programs and the policies he would be 
responsible for, I will vote against his nomination.


                      Nomination of Robert L. King

  Madam President, I also come to the floor today to oppose the 
nomination of Robert King to be the Department of Education's Assistant 
Secretary for Postsecondary Education. This position is especially 
important because so many of our Nation's students are struggling today 
in higher education.
  Over the last few years, I have heard from students who are worried 
about how they are ever going to afford their textbooks or their rent 
or even their food, who are worried if their college is preparing them 
for a good education and if they are going to be able to get a good-
paying job and pay off their loans.
  First-generation college students are struggling to navigate their 
financial aid and how to succeed on a college campus for the first 
time. I am hearing about those worried about being able to get an 
education without being discriminated against or harassed or assaulted 
on campus. Those are just a snapshot of the issues students are facing 
in higher education today.
  These challenges are not easy to solve. That is why Chairman 
Alexander and I are working now to address all of those issues and more 
in our reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
  As we work to update this critically important law, we cannot ignore 
the current actions of this Department of Education, which is loosening 
and eliminating rules that benefit predatory colleges instead of 
protecting students. Students should have an ally at the Department of 
Education, someone who understands the challenges they are facing and 
is committed to helping students succeed.
  Among other responsibilities, this Assistant Secretary for 
Postsecondary Education is responsible for developing rules, for 
developing a budget and legislative proposals for higher education,

[[Page S4760]]

and overseeing our country's quality assurance system of 
accreditation--a system this Secretary is currently dismantling.
  This position is also responsible for programs that help our low-
income students and first-generation students and students with 
disabilities as they prepare for and try to succeed in college and 
programs that help support minority-serving institutions.
  On these issues specifically, Mr. King's record is particularly 
concerning. Mr. King blamed students for the daunting challenges in 
higher education today, even saying students are making ``bad economic 
choices.'' He also refused to answer questions on whether he believes 
students face systemic barriers in higher education or whether income 
inequality plays a role in a student's ability to earn a degree. There 
are students in higher education who are skipping meals today or living 
in a car. Mr. King would not acknowledge that problem.
  Finally, on an issue that is so important to me and one that is 
imperative to a student's ability to succeed in higher education, Mr. 
King blamed alcohol and bad judgment--not perpetrators--for the 
epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses.
  I don't believe Mr. King has the right understanding of what students 
are facing today to be our Nation's next Assistant Secretary for 
Postsecondary Education. I urge my colleagues who are committed to 
making higher education within reach for all students to join me in 
voting against his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                     U.S. Women's World Cup Victory

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Sunday morning, I did what I think most 
people in this Nation did if they were not in France. I turned on the 
television to watch the women's national soccer team perform in an 
incredible showing of talent and commitment on the soccer field. It was 
an incredible victory for the women's national team, and we are all 
very proud of what they were able to accomplish. This has been an 
incredible streak.
  Since the Women's World Cup was established in 1991, there have been 
eight competitions. The United States has won four--and the last two 
consecutively--beating the Netherlands on Sunday by a score of 2 to 0.
  We all congratulate the team. We are very proud. They represented our 
Nation extremely well. Each of us shares that pride.
  As a Maryland Senator, I want to acknowledge Rose Lavelle and Mallory 
Pugh, who are from the Washington Spirit, which is based in Germantown, 
MD.


                         Gender Pay Inequality

  Madam President, this team represents our entire country and the best 
of our Nation. Their performance highlighted an issue that they raised, 
which I hope this body will respond to, and that is the pay inequity 
based upon gender in this country.
  It is shocking that these women soccer players are paid less, receive 
less in compensation than their male counterparts, even though the 
women on the world stage have consistently outperformed the men. They 
have a different pay structure. In 2014, the men's total performance 
bonus totaled about $5.4 million, even though they were eliminated in 
the round of 16. The following year, the women received about one-third 
less than the men did, even though they were the world champions.
  In 2016, this body acted by passing a resolution about the gender pay 
inequity--to treat all athletes with the respect and dignity they 
deserve. That was the right thing for us to pass in 2016, and I know my 
colleague Senator Manchin is working on legislation now that will 
follow that up since, obviously, the soccer league did not respond the 
way they should have in regard to our women's national soccer team.
  In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act. Yet, when you look at 
what women earn versus men for comparable work, women are paid 77 cents 
for every dollar a man earns. It is much worse for minorities. Native 
Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders versus White males are 62 cents versus 
a dollar; African-American women are 61 cents versus a dollar for a 
White male; Native Americans are 58 cents; and Latinos are 53 
cents. The wage gap affects not only their current earnings, but it 
puts women behind men in career earnings of around $400,000 during the 
course of their careers, which weakens their ability to save for their 
retirements. It also means there being fewer Social Security benefits. 
It affects their ability to be compensated fairly--to have the wealth 
of this Nation and the security of this Nation.

  We can do something to change this. I have already mentioned Senator 
Manchin's efforts and that we could do something specifically in regard 
to the soccer players, but I urge us to do something a little bit more 
permanent, and that is to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
  I think Americans would be surprised to learn that in the 
Constitution of the United States, there is no protection for equal 
rights for women. Most Americans think we already did that. Any 
constitution of a democratic State that has been created since the end 
of World War II has contained constitutional protections for equal 
rights for women. Many of our State constitutions have provisions for 
equal rights for women, but our Constitution of the United States does 
not.
  In 1972, the Congress of the United States passed an equal rights 
amendment to the Constitution to be ratified by the States. Originally, 
Congress gave the States until 1979. Then Congress extended it until 
1982. Now 37 States have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. We are 
one State short of the 38 required for the ratification of a 
constitutional amendment. Yet there is a problem here. We need to get 
the 38th State, but we also need to extend the time, for the last 
amendment that dealt with the pay amendments of Congress that was 
adopted to our Constitution took over 200 years to ratify.
  What we are saying--and I have joined with Senator Murkowski in a 
bipartisan resolution--is to let us extend the time for the 
ratification of the constitutional amendment for the equal rights of 
women so we can really do something meaningful for the gender gap on 
pay that we have.
  In this Congress, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of women's 
suffrage--since women have had the right to vote. Another concrete way 
to celebrate that milestone is for us to pass the Equal Rights 
Amendment. How a nation treats its women economically and socially is a 
sign of that nation's success. Empowering women is one of the most 
important things we can do for the future of our country. Whether it 
occurs on the soccer pitch or in the factories or offices across the 
country, the wage disparity between American men and women is hurting 
our Nation.
  This morning, the U.S. women's national soccer team rolled down 
Broadway in a ticker tape parade befitting a world championship, and 
today or tomorrow, the Senate will likely pass a resolution that will 
commend the team. These are appropriate ways to celebrate the team. 
Yet, if we really want to honor the outstanding women who have just 
brought home the World Cup again, we should join their fight for equal 
pay for themselves and for all women. Pass S.J. Res. 6, and let's 
finally ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we begin 
the 4:30 p.m. vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Robert L. King, of Kentucky, to be Assistant Secretary for 
     Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
         Mitch McConnell, Roger F. Wicker, John Barrasso, David 
           Perdue, James E.

[[Page S4761]]

           Risch, Mike Crapo, Roy Blunt, Johnny Isakson, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, Pat Roberts, John Cornyn, John Hoeven, 
           Steve Daines, John Boozman, Thom Tillis, Kevin Cramer, 
           Richard Burr.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Robert L. King, of Kentucky, to be Assistant Secretary 
for Postsecondary Education, Department of Education, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from 
California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--39

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hassan
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
39.
  The motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________