[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 53 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2785-S2792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 41, S. 
743.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 41, 
     S. 743, a bill to restore States' sovereign rights to enforce 
     State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other 
     purposes.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill 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, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 41, S. 743, To restore States' 
     sovereign rights to enforce State and local sales and use tax 
     laws, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Richard J. Durbin, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Manchin III, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Patrick J. Leahy, Martin Heinrich, Angus S. 
           King, Jr., Al Franken, Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Mark 
           Begich, Brian Schatz, Robert Menendez, Tammy Baldwin.

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. WYDEN. Madam President, as I understand it, Leader Reid moved to 
proceed to the Marketplace Fairness Act a bit ago. I have deep 
reservations about this legislation, so I am not able to support the 
motion to proceed. The leader has filed cloture on his motion, and I 
just want it understood at this point that if cloture is invoked, I 
will not be able to support a reduction in the amount of time available 
for Members to debate this.
  The Presiding Officer and I have talked about this a number of times, 
but just for purposes of this discussion, I think it is extremely 
important that the Senate and the country think through the 
implications of what this bill is all about.
  What this bill is all about is that the advocates essentially want to 
take a function that is now vested in government--State tax 
collection--and, in effect, outsource that function of government to 
small businesses, particularly these small online retailers.
  This has been a big source of employment, good wages, innovative 
approaches, new apps. It has been a big boost for our country. I think 
it is important for the Senate to think through what this means and try 
to see if we can come up with something that is sensible.
  For example, the proponents of the legislation are going to argue 
with considerable passion that this is not going to be a hard task for 
these small businesses on which they have imposed this new assignment--
as they call it, outsourcing the function of State tax collection, 
which is done by government, to these small businesses.
  The proponents say it is not going to be hard for small businesses to 
handle this. They are going to say there is a lot of new technology 
available--computer software and the like--and that the Marketplace 
Fairness Act will not be difficult to administer as a result of these 
new technologies.
  Having been involved in this debate now for years and years--having 
been the original author of what is a different subject but has some of 
the same connections, the Internet tax fairness legislation--I have 
heard the proponents of this legislation say, year after year after 
year, this is not going to be a hard assignment, the process of these 
small businesses collecting these taxes, that new technologies are 
available, and that the law ought to be passed because it can be done.
  But year after year we have seen that the idea that this is so simple 
and it can be done is not borne out. If it were so simple, it would 
have been done already. The reason this bill comes to the floor of the 
Senate is because it is, in fact, not so simple. It is not going to be 
a piece of cake for these small businesses.
  There are more than 5,000 taxing jurisdictions in our country. Some 
of them give very different treatment for products and services that 
are almost identical. So this is a big lift to say we are going to have 
software and computers and technology and it is just going to be a 
piece of cake for these small businesses to be able to handle this.
  I think that is part of what needs to be discussed in a debate on the 
floor of the Senate because, fundamentally, the idea of taking a 
function of government--tax collection--and handing it over to small 
businesses--and small businesses being a big part of our country's 
economic engine--is something I think ought to give every Senator 
pause.

[[Page S2786]]

  In addition to that, I want us to think through the aspects of this 
that relate to America's ability to compete in tough global markets.
  I know when we talked about this in a brief way during the Senate 
budget debate, several Senators said that, oh, back in the days when we 
were just debating the Internet, they could see the need for some of 
these policies in the digital age, but now the Internet is all grown 
up. We do not need any of these kinds of approaches such as 
technological neutrality and nondiscrimination with respect to taxes 
and regulation.
  My response to this is, yes, it is a different day. There is no 
question about it. I chair the Senate Finance Subcommittee on 
International Trade. As part of my obligations there to look at trade 
and competitiveness, I have come to the conclusion that the Internet is 
the shipping lane of the 21st century.
  I think about what the Finance Committee looked like 30, 40 years 
ago--people moving goods physically from North Dakota, Oregon, and the 
like. It is very different today. With a lot of economic activity, in a 
sense, being conducted online on the Internet, to a great extent it is 
now the shipping lane.
  This bill, I want the Senate to know and the country to know, will be 
a big leg up for foreign retailers and foreign businesses. The reason I 
say that is the Marketplace Fairness Act, in effect, tries to take 
local law and apply it to the global economy. It is unprecedented.
  What it will mean--if passed in its present form--is that if you are 
on the northern border--say you are in North Dakota or Washington State 
or other places that are on the northern border--if you are an online 
retailer, you are going to say to yourself: Why in the world would you 
want to stay on the U.S. side of the border and try to comply with the 
rules of thousands of taxing jurisdictions when you can move, in 
effect, half an hour away outside the borders of the United States and 
not be subjected to this?
  So maybe the sponsors of the bill want to rename their bill--now 
called the Marketplace Fairness Act--the shop Canada and the shop 
Mexico bill because that is truly what it would mean.
  I have heard some in favor of the bill say that is not the case, that 
there are long-arm statutes and the like. Good luck with that. Good 
luck with the idea we have not been able to figure out a way to do this 
in the United States, now we are going to write a bill that says it 
does not apply to the foreign retailer or the foreign business, and we 
are going to say we are going to be able to hook those people somehow 
with a long-arm statute. I do not see it.
  That is what the point of this debate is all about. So we had the 
discussion in the context of the budget. I think then it was sort of 
seen as kind of a general proposition. But now we are getting ready to 
write a real law. My own preference would be to have this go back to 
the Senate Finance Committee chaired by Chairman Baucus--we work very 
closely in a bipartisan way, Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch--and 
that we have a chance to think through the implications here.
  I can think of some commonsense ideas where the Presiding Officer and 
I would agree on some kind of uniformity. I mean, if we were talking 
about uniformity rather than 5,000-plus taxing jurisdictions, that 
would be one thing. We saw the jobs numbers last month. They were not 
where they ought to be. The idea that now we are going to take steps 
here in the Senate which would hinder the growth of the innovative 
engine of the American economy strikes me as something we should not be 
doing.
  Personally I would very much like to be part of an effort to work 
this out. I have always said the American economy is now about bricks 
and clicks. We now have most of our businesses looking to try to have 
storefronts and online operations. I want both of them to prosper. Some 
of Oregon's most illustrious companies look at just that principle, 
bricks and clicks.
  But let's not hammer the innovation sector, that online aspect of the 
American economy, especially given what we have seen of late. I mean, 
think about the Friday after Thanksgiving. Were the malls and the 
stores empty the Friday after Thanksgiving? They certainly were not. 
The traditional part of the American economy, stores and malls--people 
could not find a parking place. Those stores were offering hours 
earlier and earlier in order to meet consumer demand.
  So, yes, let's promote bricks and clicks, but let's not precipitously 
take steps that will harm so much of the American economy. When I got 
involved in these issues years ago--I think I told the Presiding 
Officer about this. When I came to the Senate, I had just become 
Oregon's first new Senator in 30 years. I made it clear I was going to 
spend a lot of time on timber and natural resources issues. I chair the 
Energy Committee. I am going to continue to do that, because that is a 
bedrock part of the American economy and a bedrock part of Oregon's 
future and small communities and what our State is all about.
  I said in addition to that focus on timber and natural resources, 
when I came to the Senate, I am going to spend a lot of time looking at 
technology and innovation and new areas for our State to get into. That 
led me into some of those initial kinds of efforts, passage of the 
section of the Communications Decency Act which encouraged investment 
in social media, Facebook and Twitter and social media, because had we 
not gotten that passed, we were told a lot of people who might think 
about investing in the social media would see that someone who ran a 
Website would get held liable for someone who posted on that site and 
the owner of the site would not know anything about it and could not 
figure out how to get rid of that. So with that, and with the Internet 
tax freedom bill and others, we said with respect to technology and 
innovation, let's do two things: First, let's do no harm. Let's not 
take steps actively where we damage our economy and our future. Second, 
let's not discriminate. Let's not single out this sector which has 
shown so much promise.
  At a minimum, the marketplace fairness legislation, as written today, 
will violate that first principle. It will do harm. It will force those 
small online retailers to, in effect, take on a government function, 
tax collection. I do not know of any civics book that talks about 
outsourcing a function of government--tax collection--to small 
businesses. That is what the marketplace fairness legislation does.
  Second, in a tough global economy--I know the Presiding Officer cares 
a great deal about global commerce and global trade coming from her 
State--this bill will favor foreign businesses that will not be 
subjected to it. That is something that cannot be corrected in this 
bill in its present form. There may be other ways to correct it; there 
may be other ways to correct a number of aspects of the bill. That 
cannot. It will favor foreign retailers.
  As I chair the Finance Subcommittee on Global Commerce and Global 
Trade, I do not see how that makes sense. That is why I have made it 
clear today that given the state of where the Senate discussion is now 
with the leader having filed cloture on his motion--I want to make it 
clear that if cloture is invoked, I will not support a reduction in 
time for this discussion.
  I yield the floor and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Immigration Reform

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, this week I joined my colleagues in 
introducing immigration reform legislation that seeks to end de facto 
amnesty by achieving the strongest border security enforcement measures 
in U.S. history but also by modernizing our legal immigration system so 
it can unleash the strong economic growth and job creation potential 
that immigration has.
  Let me begin by stating the obvious, and that is that America is a 
nation of immigrants. We know that because every single one of us can 
track our lineage back to someone who came here from somewhere else. 
The truth is it is one of the things that make us different and special 
from the rest of the world.
  If we think about the history of the world, it is basically people 
being told

[[Page S2787]]

they can only do what their parents did for a living. How far you are 
going to go in life depends on what your parents used to do and who you 
are and to whom you are connected. What made America truly unique and 
what made the idea of America truly revolutionary was the idea that 
every single human being, no matter where they were born, how they were 
born, into what kind of family they were born, and into what 
circumstances they were born, had the God-given right to go as far as 
their talent and their hard work would take them. We may take that for 
granted--those of us, like me, who were born and raised here our entire 
life--but this is the exception rather than the rule throughout human 
history, and it is one of the things that have made America so special 
because the belief and commitment to that ideal unleashed here the 
revolutionary power of the human spirit and transformed this country 
into the single most powerful and greatest and freest Nation in all of 
human history.
  This is the story of immigration in America, and it is why we as 
Americans understand that legal immigration is critically important for 
our future and a critical part of our heritage. The problem is that for 
too long both Republicans and Democrats have failed to enforce our 
immigration laws, and the result is that today we have millions of 
people living in the United States in violation of our immigration 
laws. The other problem is that our legal immigration system is broken. 
It is just broken. It doesn't reflect the 21st century. It doesn't take 
into account special skills and talents. It doesn't allow us to attract 
the world's best and brightest. In fact, it doesn't allow us to keep 
the world's best and brightest, many of whom are students in our 
universities who learn from our best schools--that our taxpayers are 
paying for--and when they are done learning, we ask them to leave and 
take what they have learned here and use it somewhere else to compete 
against us. It makes absolutely no sense.
  Let me start by saying that if there wasn't a single illegal 
immigrant in the United States, we would still have to do immigration 
reform because the immigration system is broken. I am pleased this bill 
we have offered as a starting point reforms our legal immigration 
system in a very serious and profound way. It turns it into a merit-
based system that takes into account skills, talents, and job 
opportunities. It creates a system where agriculture can get the 
workers into this country legally--by the way, workers who feed not 
just our families but the world. It allows our business community, in 
times of labor shortages where there is very low unemployment, to be 
able to provide for themselves the kind of guest and seasonal labor 
some industries depend upon but to do so in a legal way. These reforms 
are significant.
  By the way, in the high-tech industry, where we are not graduating 
nearly enough people in the high-tech fields--science, engineering, 
technology, and math--shame on us as a country that more of our 
children are not graduating with the skills they need to do those jobs. 
We have to change that.
  In the meantime there are thousands of jobs that are going overseas 
because we can't fill them here. These companies in the high-tech 
industry are creating these jobs, but then they are taking them 
somewhere else because that is where the workers are. It is pretty 
simple: They go to a university, they interview the students, they find 
someone they like, and if they can't hire them in the United States 
they will hire the same person in some other country. And that is 
terrible for America.
  So this bill modernizes our illegal immigration system--something we 
would have to do even if there wasn't a single illegal immigrant in the 
United States.
  Next, the bill actually enforces our laws. It begins by creating a 
universal entry-exit tracking system.
  You may not know this, but 40 percent of the people who are illegally 
in the United States didn't come illegally. They came on a visa, on a 
permit, and then the permit expired and they stayed--40 percent. We 
have no idea who they are because we don't track people when they 
leave. We only track them when they come in. This bill will change 
that.
  We all understand the magnet for illegal immigration. It is jobs. It 
is pretty simple: There is a supply of people willing to work, there is 
a supply of jobs on this side of the border we can't fill domestically, 
and those two are meeting. They are just not meeting legally.
  This bill will require every employer in America to comply with E-
Verify, to basically check the documents their workers are providing 
against the national data base that provides employment eligibility 
information. The next thing it does on enforcement is the border 
region--let me say this about the border. The border is not just about 
immigration. It is about national security. It is a national security 
risk. The border must be secured.
  This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to come up 
with not one but two plans--a border plan and a fencing plan--to 
achieve 100 percent ability to be aware of the entire border and 90 
percent apprehension, that we apprehend 9 out of 10 people who are 
illegally crossing. We give the Department of Homeland Security 5 years 
to reach that goal.
  If they do not reach the goal in 5 years, then the issue is turned 
over to a commission made up of State officials, local officials on the 
border to take care of the job themselves--and they will. If the 
Federal Government refuses to secure the border, the States of New 
Mexico and Texas and Arizona and California, through their Governors 
and their leaders, will finish the job.
  The next thing this bill does is deal with the millions of people who 
are in this country in violation of our immigration laws. Let me begin 
by saying this: No one has a right to illegally immigrate to the United 
States. There is no legal right to be here illegally. As a sovereign 
country we have a right to enforce our immigration laws.
  If we do something to accommodate those who are here illegally, we 
don't do it because we legally have to. We do it for two reasons: 
First, because it is in the best interest of our country. When we 
debate this immigration issue, we need to understand that when we talk 
about millions of illegal immigrants, this is not a theory, this is a 
reality; they are here now. We are not talking about bringing these 
people in; they are already here and they will be here for the rest of 
their lives. So we have to deal with that reality. It is in our 
national interest to deal with that reality.
  The second reason we are dealing with it is because that is who we 
are. We are a compassionate people. We are not going to deport 11 
million people, so we have to deal with this. We believe we handled 
this in a very professional and effective way.
  If there are people in this country illegally who entered here before 
December 2011, they have to present themselves. They will undergo a 
background check. If they have committed serious crimes in the U.S., 
they will be deported. If they have not, they will have to pay an 
application fee, a fine. They will have to start paying taxes, and they 
will receive a permit that will allow them to work in the United States 
and pay their taxes.
  They will not qualify for any Federal benefits--no welfare, no 
ObamaCare, no food stamps--but they will have a chance to work and will 
no longer have to hide. They are going to have to remain in that system 
for 6 years, and then they have to go back and get their permit 
renewed. It is not a permanent grant of a temporary status; it is a 
temporary grant of a temporary status.
  In 6 years they have to go back and apply again for this permit. When 
they reapply, not only do they have to pay another fine and another 
application fee, but they are going to have to prove they have been 
paying taxes the last 6 years and that they are gainfully employed in a 
way that means they are not going to wind up on public assistance.
  If the border plans have been completed, if E-Verify is in place, if 
the entry-exist system is in place, assuming their permit is renewed, 
after 10 years has gone by, then the only thing that happens is they 
are given a chance to apply for a green card just like everybody else 
does, not a special process. They are at the back of the line. Everyone 
who applied before them legally goes first.

[[Page S2788]]

  The only thing that happens after 10 years goes by and the border is 
secured, E-Verify is in place and the entry-exit system is in place, we 
don't give them anything. All they have now is the opportunity to apply 
for a green card.
  By the way, during the first 5 years of a green card under existing 
law, people don't qualify for Federal benefits either. The point is, 
this is a reasonable way to deal with a real problem that faces our 
country.
  The alternative is to do nothing, which leads me to one of the points 
that people are using, and we will be talking a lot about this issue. 
One of the arguments against this is how much money it is going to 
cost.
  First of all, over the first 10 or 15 years, all these things about 
the fence and the things we are doing are paid for in the bill. Beyond 
that, as far as the economy of the United States--a couple points.
  First of all, we can't compare this bill to nothing. We have to 
compare it to what we have now, and what we have now is worse. What we 
have now is costing our economy. We have people in this country 
illegally. They get sick, they go to the emergency room, and the 
taxpayer pays for it.
  We have people in this country who are having children who are U.S. 
citizens and they go to our schools; they are driving on our streets 
without a driver's license, which means they have no car insurance, 
which means all of us have to pay more in car insurance as a result. 
This is obviously not good for them, but it is not good for us.
  What we have today is devastating and horrible for our economy. We 
can't continue to have this. We have to fix this problem, and we have 
to fix it in a way that is fair to the people who have done it the 
right way and fix it in a way that makes sure this never ever happens 
again. I believe the bill we are working on does that, and I look 
forward to the input that my colleagues have.

  One more criticism I hear is that it is being rushed through. That is 
just not true. Just yesterday we voted on a series of amendments that I 
had less than 12 hours to review, and these amendments dealt with a 
fundamental right to Second Amendment constitutional rights. This bill 
has been online for 48 hours. The Committee on Judiciary would not even 
begin to consider amendments to this bill until next month. People are 
going to have 3 to 4 weeks to review it. It is posted on my Web site. 
People can go on there now and see it. It will be available all these 
weeks. Then it is going to go through an extensive committee process. 
Then it will be brought here, hopefully, to the floor of the Senate 
where we can debate it openly as well.
  I am not claiming the bill is perfect. I am sure it can be improved, 
and I hope my 99 other colleagues will work hard to improve it because 
we have an opportunity to do something important.
  My last point, and I address many of my fellow Americans who share my 
deep commitment to upholding the Constitution of the United States, to 
limiting the size and scope of government, to encouraging the free 
enterprise system as the best way to create economic opportunity. 
America is a nation of immigrants, but both Republicans and Democrats 
have failed to enforce our immigration laws and, as a result, we have 
millions of people here illegally. We are not going to deport them. So 
let's secure the border and let's identify these people. Let's have 
them undergo a background check, get in the back of the line, pay a 
fine, and pay taxes. No Federal benefits.
  We all wish we didn't have this problem, but leaving it the way it is 
is amnesty. We have to solve this problem, and I hope we will.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Flooding in Illinois

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to draw attention to the major 
flooding going on in Illinois at this moment, particularly in Chicago 
and its suburbs but not exclusively. It is affecting downstate as well.
  Hundreds of families have been evacuated from their homes, and more 
than 30,000 people are without power and we are experiencing a major 
storm. The Rock, Fox, DuPage, Illinois, and Mississippi Rivers have 
overtopped their banks, damaging hundreds, if not thousands, of homes 
and businesses. Several levees are near the breaking point.
  In many areas, the flooding is so bad it exceeds what we saw during 
the major floods in 2008 and in 1987. The ground is so saturated that a 
sinkhole in Chicago swallowed three cars this morning, and Libertyville 
High School has sunk a foot into the muddy soil.
  More than 300 flights have been cancelled out of O'Hare and Midway 
Airports, and hundreds of schools in and around Chicago were closed 
today because of dangerously high water.
  People along the Des Plains and Fox Rivers in Grundy, Kane, and 
LaSalle Counties have been evacuated--and the evacuations are ongoing.
  More than 30 major roads in northeastern Illinois are closed due to 
flooding. Heavy rain has completely filled the large underground flood 
control system known as the Deep Tunnel in Chicago. This project was 
designed to handle sewer backup problems and water pollution in Cook 
County. The Chicago River has swelled by 6 feet, triggering locks to 
open and for the flow to be reversed back to Lake Michigan.
  For the first time in recent memory, the DuPage County government is 
shut down because of flooding. All county government buildings, 
including the health department, are closed. Governor Patrick Quinn has 
issued a state of emergency for the entire State of Illinois. National 
Guardsmen are on hand helping to evacuate people and monitor water 
levels and road closures. First responders are supplying sandbags, 
pumps, life vests, generators, and other supplies along the threatened 
riverbanks. Sandbagging operations are ongoing in Boone, DeKalb, 
Grundy, Kane, McHenry, and Will Counties.
  My office is in close contact with Mayor Nicholas Helmer of Prospect 
Heights--where many people have been evacuated. We are also working 
with Mayor-elect Matthew Bogusz and the interim mayor, Mark Walsten of 
the city of Des Plaines. They are working hard to make sure the 
communities are safe.
  Communities all along the Mississippi River and the western part of 
the State could be next in the flooding. Water is already rising in 
Quincy and the Quad Cities, and communities downstate--such as East St. 
Louis and Cairo--could see major flooding this weekend as storm runoff 
from up north works its way south.
  My colleague Senator Mark Kirk and I are ready to help the affected 
communities in any way. We have cosigned a letter to the Governor to 
put in writing what we have said orally: We stand prepared to work with 
all of the Federal agencies available to help our State during this 
flooding challenge.
  We understand they are doing everything possible at the local level. 
If the situation continues to worsen, there may be need for Federal 
assistance. Senator Kirk and I will work together on a bipartisan basis 
to make sure it is there. My thoughts are with the people and families 
affected by floodwaters in Illinois, especially those who had to leave 
their homes. I am particularly grateful for the people who are working 
around the clock to control these rivers. I have spoken to John Monken, 
Director of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, and am monitoring 
the efforts on a minute-by-minute basis. I will continue to work with 
Federal, State, and local officials to make sure vital resources are 
made available for the flood control effort.
  Madam President, a short time ago there was a press conference that 
was historic in nature. Eight Senators, four Democrats and four 
Republicans, came together to announce the introduction of an 
immigration bill. It is a bill we have worked on for months. The four 
Senators on the Democratic side are Senator Schumer, Senator Menendez, 
Senator Bennet of Colorado, and myself; on the Republican side, Senator 
McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, Senator 
Marco Rubio of Florida.
  When you put the eight of us in a room you have the full political 
spectrum in the Senate. But we decided as a group to try to do our best 
to write

[[Page S2789]]

a law to deal with the immigration challenge in America. It is a 
substantial challenge. America's immigration system is badly, badly 
broken. I say that because we estimate there are 11 million people 
living in this country who are undocumented. They are people who get up 
and go to work every day. They may have picked the fruits you put on 
your cereal this morning. They could be cleaning your room in the hotel 
you stopped in in Chicago. They could be taking care of your mother in 
the nursing home this evening. They are spread across the economy. They 
are hard-working people. Most immigrants are. But they are 
undocumented. They have no country. About half of them are here because 
they came judicially as visitors or college students and they stayed. 
They are here illegally, there is no question about it. They are 
undocumented. The question we asked ourselves over and over for the 
last many years is, What are we going to do?
  In the last Presidential campaign, Governor Romney said they should 
self-deport themselves, they should leave. That is not going to happen. 
It may be good campaign rhetoric but it doesn't reflect reality. What 
you find when you get to know the undocumented is they do not live in 
houses filled with undocumented people. It is not uncommon to find that 
dad is a citizen, the children were born here and they are citizens, it 
is mom who is undocumented. These stories are repeated over and over.
  So the eight of us sat down and said: What are we going to do to deal 
with this and what are we going to do to deal with the problem this 
creates in the economy? Here is what it is. It is not a matter of 11 
million people working in the economy undocumented. It is the fact that 
they end up taking jobs and being paid the lowest possible wages, so 
their work depresses wages.
  In addition, in most cases--many cases, I should say--they are being 
paid in cash. Their employers are not paying into unemployment, workers 
compensation, Social Security, Medicare. They are off the books. That 
doesn't help our country if they are not paying taxes and if their 
wages are so cheap and so low it hurts the jobs of American workers.
  In addition, many of these workers are mistreated. It is not unusual 
for me to hear that in Chicago a group of workers worked a whole week 
and then their boss said: Oh, the money didn't come through. We are not 
going to pay you. What are they supposed to do, call the police? Go to 
court? They are undocumented. There are abuses that take place when it 
comes to these workers and it does not help the overall economy.
  There are other issues as well. About 12 years ago I got a phone call 
in my office from the Merit Music Program in Chicago, which offers to 
kids, low-income-family kids, musical instruments and instruction. And 
100 percent of these kids end up going to college. One of them, Tereza 
Lee, was Korean and very good playing the concert piano. She was 
accepted at Julliard and the Manhattan Conservatory of Music, which was 
amazing. She came from such a poor family that many times she would go 
to school and go through the trash basket to find uneaten food to try 
to get through the day. But, boy, was she good at a piano, and it was 
recognized. When she went to fill out the application to go to school 
there was a box that said nationality, citizenship. She said to mom, 
What do I put here? Her mom said, I don't know. We brought you in on a 
visitors visa at the age of 2 and we never did anything. So she said we 
better call Durbin's office. They called my office and we checked into 
it. The law is very clear. She is not documented, she is not a citizen, 
and she needs to leave America for 10 years and see if she can get back 
in, get a green card to come back--10 years. This girl was 18 years 
old. She had never done anything wrong. She came here at the age of 2.
  I put in this bill called the DREAM Act and it said if you, like 
Tereza Lee, came here, no fault of your own, no criminal record, 
finished high school, we will give you a chance. Go to college, enlist 
in the military, and we will let you become a citizen someday soon.
  The DREAM Act has been out there for 12 years and didn't pass but we 
still have hundreds of thousands of these young people. Half a million 
of them have signed up under the President's Executive order not to be 
deported if they are eligible for the DREAM Act. There are many more 
out there. That is one of the unresolved issues in our immigration 
system. I could go on and give you volumes of problems with the current 
immigration system in America.
  We decided to sit down and do something about it. In the first 
meeting we had, the Republicam Senators, Senator McCain, Senator Flake 
from Arizona, as well as Senator Graham and Senator Rubio, said the 
first item on the agenda: Fix the border. It does us no good to deal 
with immigration problems within the country if we do not deal with the 
flow of people into the country.

  The border is strong today, stronger than it has ever been in 40 
years. But there are weaker parts. There are about nine different 
sections of our southern border and about three of them are 
problematic. Six are pretty strong. So we agreed, let's make sure the 
nine sections of the border have the investment they need to be as 
strong as possible. Then let's do more. Let's create a computer system, 
expand the one we have called E-Verify so if you go to apply for a job 
in America and you are asked to show a picture ID, such as your 
driver's license, the employer can enter the information into a 
computer right at work and up pops a picture which should match your 
picture on the license. If it matches, you can be employed; you are 
here legally. If it does not match, there is a question, you may not be 
employed. So E-Verify will make sure that in the workplace you have to 
be part of the system. You have to be registered in America.
  The third element involves visitors visas. We give a lot of people an 
opportunity to visit this great country from all over the world. Some 
of them never go home and we don't know it. We know they came in; we 
check that. But we don't know if they ever left. We are finally going 
to finish that system so we know, we have information collected not 
only when they enter, when they leave, and if they overstay, we can go 
after them. So those things which we debated and included in our 
immigration bill deal with the draw of people into America, the border, 
employment, visitors visas.
  Then we asked, what to do with the 11 million people? What to do 
realistically and honestly. Here is what we suggested in the bipartisan 
bill we have introduced. We said first you have to step forward and 
register with the government. You have lived in the shadows. You have 
always feared a knock on the door and deportation. Now come forward. If 
you come forward and register, we will put you through a criminal 
background check. If you have a serious crime in your background, you 
are finished, we don't want you, goodbye. If you do not, we will go 
forward. We will give you a chance to register with the government, pay 
your taxes, pay a fine, make it clear you are learning English and 
working in America. If you do that, you can stay here legally and you 
can work here legally. You can even travel outside the country legally 
and come back. It is a provisional recognition of an opportunity for 
legalization. At the end of 10 years, after you paid the fines, after 
you have been reviewed on a regular basis, you will have a chance to 
get a green card and move toward citizenship over a 3-year period of 
time.
  This is basically the system, a system that strengthens the border 
and creates a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people. And, as far 
as the DREAM Act I mentioned earlier, this is the strongest version of 
the DREAM Act of any I have introduced, any I have proposed on the 
floor of the Senate in the last 12 years. It is going to give these 
young people a chance.
  There was a young woman here at the press conference named Tolu 
Olubumai. She was born in Nigeria. She came here at an early age and 
went through high school and then went through college. She received a 
chemical engineering degree from a prestigious Virginia university. 
That was 10 years ago. She has never been able to work 1 day as an 
engineer, despite her talent, because she can't get licensed. She is 
undocumented. She deserved a chance. She will get a chance under this 
bill, under the DREAM Act, as she should.

[[Page S2790]]

  I can go through stories--I have told about 54 different ones on the 
floor of the Senate--of young people in her circumstances, came here as 
kids, knew no other country. As Bob Menendez often says, pledged 
allegiance to the flag every day in the classroom, only knows our 
national anthem. They have no country. They will have a chance because 
of this bill.
  There are other parts of this bill that are important too. When it 
comes to employment, the first rule I insisted on, we all insisted on, 
was that any job opening had to be offered to an American worker first. 
That is in every part of this bill, because we still have people 
unemployed and they should have first priority on any job opening. But 
if the job can't be filled--and let's be honest, some of these jobs 
Americans are not standing in line for, particularly agricultural 
workers, backbreaking work of picking fruits and vegetables. There are 
many of these jobs that will go unfilled unless migrant workers, for 
example, agricultural workers, come to fill them. So what we say is 
basically offer the job to an American first at a wage that is the 
prevailing wage, average wage in the industry. If it goes unfilled, 
then a foreign worker has an opportunity--only if the unemployment rate 
in this country or in the region where the person works is below 8.5 
percent. So we want to make sure American workers have the first 
chance.
  Then what to do about the extraordinarily educated and talented 
people who can make a difference in the American economy? It was 6 or 8 
years ago when I spoke to the Illinois Institute of Technology 
commencement. It was at the Chicago Theater on State Street in the city 
of Chicago. It was a happy day. All of these graduates from the 
prestigious Institute of Technology were getting their chance. They 
went through the baccalaureate degrees and they were pretty diverse. 
But then, when they got into the advanced degrees, the master's degrees 
and Ph.D.s, it took a little longer because it was tough to pronounce 
all of the names from the South Asian continent, India and places 
nearby. These are graduates, foreign students, admitted in the United 
States, trained in the United States, receiving their degrees from this 
prestigious institution, and the next thing we did after handing them 
their diploma is, figuratively, gave them a roadmap to show them how to 
leave America, to take their talents and everything they learned to go 
someplace else to compete with American business.
  We are going to change that. If foreign students come here and are 
educated here and have skills we need in our economy and can help 
create jobs and grow our businesses, we are going to give them that 
chance with a green card. That makes sense. They can expand the 
economy. Some of the major high-tech corporations in America today were 
actually created by immigrants to this country who came here because 
they loved the freedom, the opportunity no other country can offer. We 
have to give more just like them a chance to build tomorrow's Intel, 
tomorrow's Google, and they will do it and create American jobs in the 
process.
  We want the United States to be a magnet for this kind of job 
creation. We also want the United States to have more homegrown 
engineers ourselves. Maria Cantwell brought this up at our Senate 
luncheon this afternoon and I told her it was an issue I felt strongly 
about, not only making sure we have the talent we need but that we grow 
the talent we need--improve our schools, focus on the STEM subjects--
science, technology, engineering, mathematics--and bring more American 
students to the point where they can make a good living using those 
skills. That is part of our responsibility as well.
  There are many aspects to this bill, immigration reform, that will 
come tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I will be there. 
We will be having a hearing to discuss it on Friday, then again on 
Monday. Then soon after, after we come back from our break in the first 
part of May, we will have an actual markup of the bill in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  The bill has been filed now. It is available for everyone to read. We 
are not trying to push anything through in a hurry. It will be 
discussed, debated, and amendments will be offered in the committee and 
on the floor, as they should be. At the end of the day, it gives us a 
chance to make sure we fix this broken immigration system in this 
country.

  I come to this debate with some personal history. It was in 1911 when 
my mother was carried off a ship in the Baltimore Harbor. My 
grandmother, whom I never met, brought my mother and her brother and 
sister over from Lithuania. They were immigrants to America in 1911. 
Somehow or another--although they could not speak English--they found 
the right train, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and took that train 
to St. Louis.
  They got off the train when they came to a town called East St. 
Louis, IL, where my grandfather was waiting. That immigrant family made 
a home there, and that is where I was born and grew up.
  My mother was an immigrant to this country, a naturalized citizen, 
and I am first-generation American. I am blessed to be standing on the 
floor of the Senate. That is my story, that is my family, but that is 
also the American story. Every single one of us has a version of that 
story. It may not be your parents or grandparents, but go back far 
enough and you will find a story just like that in your background.
  I said many times on the floor of the Senate that I had the good 
fortune to go back to my mother's village in Lithuania, Jurbaricas, 
which is near Kaunas. My mother never made it back to her village.
  When I got there, I asked the people in that village what was left 
from the time my mother was there in 1911. They said the Catholic 
Church where she was baptized was still there as well as an old well in 
the center of town that everybody used for water. They said, your 
family must have used it.
  I took a look at the old well, and I could not even pick it out now 
because of all the traffic circles around it and everything. I thought 
about that moment when my grandparents said to their relatives and 
friends: We have an announcement. We are leaving. We are picking up 
everybody and going to America. We are going to a place called East St. 
Louis, IL, because there are some Lithuanians there from this area who 
found work.
  Stanley Yochiss, who was the pharmacist and druggist in that area, 
was kind of like the Godfather. People who didn't trust the local banks 
would leave their money with Stanley. The Lithuanian community, similar 
to many communities, worked the toughest jobs in the packing houses, 
steel mills, and jobs such as that.
  I often thought about that meeting my grandparents had when they 
called in their relatives and friends and what might have happened 
afterward when they left. As they were walking away from my 
grandparents' home, I bet one of them said to the other: Can you 
believe this? The Kuticaite family is leaving. They are going to 
America. They don't even speak English. They are leaving their home, 
their church, all their relatives and friends, the dog, the cat, and 
chickens. They are all leaving. They will be back. This will not work. 
They never looked back.
  Repeat that story millions of times and we have the story of America. 
We have the story of people who came to this country and have somewhere 
deep in their DNA this appetite and thirst for a better life. They were 
willing to risk everything for it to get to this country, and it still 
happens.
  We hear about people walking across the desert on their way to 
America and dying in Arizona and Texas. We hear of all the dangerous 
things they do to get to this country. That is what is great about 
America and that is what is great about Americans and what is in our 
DNA as a people. We should never forget how important immigration is to 
us. Those who criticize immigrants have forgotten where they came from. 
Those who criticize immigrants don't realize the diversity of America, 
the talent of America, the drive of America is all about immigration. 
We have to control it. We have to make sure it is done legally and done 
in a systematic way. We cannot absorb everybody who wants to come here. 
But by bringing in new blood to America, we revitalize the American 
dream every single generation.
  This bill is an important one. We have not done anything to 
immigration

[[Page S2791]]

in 25 years, and it shows. We have a mess in this country, and it is 
time to straighten it out.
  Eight Senators produced a bill--four Democrats, four Republicans. I 
think the bill is balanced and should be debated and considered. I hope 
it passes. I hope the day comes soon when it is signed into law by the 
President, who fully supports comprehensive immigration reform.
  I said today at the press conference that I want to be at at least 
one of the naturalization ceremonies when my DREAMers get a chance to 
become part of the only country they have ever called home. They are 
going to make this a better and stronger nation, and they are part of 
our citizenry.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Celebrating U.S. Air Force Reserve 65th Birthday

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this year marks the 65th anniversary of 
the Air Force Reserve, created by President Harry S. Truman on April 
14, 1948.
  Since the founding of the United States, citizens have answered the 
call to arms, accomplished their mission with professionalism and 
honor, and returned to their civilian lives to await the next call to 
serve.
  Truman envisioned a new Reserve component to continue this tradition 
of service--being ready when called upon--that was founded by the Army 
Air Service reservists of the First World War who flew wood and canvas 
bi-planes.
  The forerunner of our modern Air Force Reserve was authorized by the 
National Defense Act of 1916. Today, Air Force reservists, known as 
citizen airmen, perform leading roles in military operations, 
humanitarian crises, and disaster relief around the globe. The Air 
Force Reserve consists of officers, enlisted, and civil servants who 
are tasked by law to fill the needs of the Armed Forces wherever 
necessary. More than 860,000 people make up the Ready, Standby, 
Retired, and Active-Duty Retired Reserve. This includes 70,000 selected 
reservists who are ready now and serve on the frontlines of daily 
military operations around the globe.
  The creation of the Air Force Reserve followed the birth of the Air 
Force itself by about 7 months earlier on September 18, 1947. The newly 
created Air Force had gained its independence from the Army, tracing 
its roots back to the Aeronautical Division of the U.S. Army's Office 
of the Chief Signal Officer, which took charge of military balloons and 
air machines in 1907.
  Ten years later the first two Air Reserve units were mobilized, and 
one of them, the first Aero Reserve Squadron from Mineola, NY, deployed 
to France as the United States entered World War I in 1917. The new Air 
Service Reserve program provided the war effort with about 10,000 
pilots who had graduated from civilian and military flying schools.
  Later, reservists played a critical role in World War II when 1,500 
Reserve pilots, along with 1,300 nonrated officers and 400 enlisted 
airmen, augmented the Army Air Corps in the war's early days. This 
included the legendary Jimmy Doolittle, who was ordered to Active Duty 
to work in Detroit to convert automobile manufacturing plants into 
aircraft factories and later went on to lead Doolittle's Raiders, the 
first American bombing attack on the Japanese mainland.
  After World War II ended, the young Air Force Reserve was barely 2 
years old when it mobilized nearly 147,000 reservists for the Korean 
War.
  In the 1960s five Air Force Reserve C-124 aircraft units, along with 
5,613 reservists, were mobilized for a year to support the Berlin 
crisis. By 1962 an additional mobilization of 14,220 reservists and 422 
aircraft were supporting operations during the Cuban missile crisis.
  During the Vietnam War, the Air Force Reserve provided strategic 
airlift as well as counterinsurgency, close air support, tactical 
mobility, interdiction, rescue and recovery, intelligence, medical, 
maintenance, aerial port and air superiority until U.S. involvement 
ended in 1973.
  As our Nation entered a period of peace for the next few years, the 
Air Force Reserve periodically engaged in emergency response missions. 
This included the rescue of American students from Grenada in 1983, 
aerial refueling of strike aircraft conducting the raid on Libya in 
1986, and operations to oust Panamanian dictator Manual Noriega in 1989 
through 1990. Air Force reservists also supported humanitarian and 
disaster relief efforts, including resupply and evacuation missions in 
the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989. All the while, they stood 
ready to answer the call to arms as our Nation entered the final days 
of the Cold War.
  More than 23 years of continuous combat operations began with 
Operation Desert Shield in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of 
Kuwait in 1990. In the aftermath of coalition victory, Air Force 
reservists continued to enforce no-fly zones over northern and southern 
Iraq while also performing humanitarian relief missions to assist 
displaced Iraqi Kurds.
  In 1993 Air Force Reserve tanker, mobility, and fighter units began 
operations in Bosnia, and in 1999 they were also supporting Operation 
Allied Force over Serbia and Kosovo.
  When terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, Air 
Force reservists responded in full force. Air Force Reserve F-16 
fighter airplanes flew combat air patrols to protect American cities, 
while KC-135 tankers and AWACS aircraft supported security efforts.
  In October 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom began as U.S. military 
forces entered Afghanistan to combat the Taliban and terrorist 
sanctuaries. In March 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom began in order to 
end Saddam Hussein's regime. Air Force Reserve units and reservists 
played key roles in all combat operations as Air Force Reserve MC-130 
Combat Talon aircraft became the first fixed-wing aircraft to penetrate 
Afghan airspace while Air Force Reserve F-16 crews performed the first 
combat missions.
  In recent years citizen airmen have supported every Air Force core 
function and every combatant commander around the world. Air Force 
reservists were engaged in surge operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
They supported combat and humanitarian missions in Haiti, Libya, Japan, 
Mali, and the Horn of Africa. Also, they provided national disaster 
relief at home in the United States after Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, 
the gulf oil spill, and the wildfires in the Western States.
  Throughout their history, citizen airmen have volunteered 
unconditionally, demonstrating without fail that they were ready when 
needed. Since inception in 1948, the Air Force Reserve has evolved from 
a unit-mobilization-only force into an operational reserve that 
participates in missions around the globe. From its headquarters at 
Robins Air Force Base in my home State of Georgia, the Air Force 
Reserve serves with distinction to provide for our national security on 
a daily basis. Spanning 6\1/2\ decades--with the last 2 decades of 
continuous combat--the Air Force Reserve has fulfilled the promise of 
early air pioneers and exceeded the potential foretold by the 
visionaries who created it.

  Congratulations to all citizen airmen, past, present, and future, on 
the 65th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force Reserve.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Big Sky Honor Flight

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, on April 21, 88 World War II veterans from 
Montana will be visiting our Nation's Capital.

[[Page S2792]]

  With a great deal of honor and respect, I extend a hearty Montana 
welcome to each and every one of them. Together they will visit the 
World War II Memorial and share stories about their service. This 
journey will no doubt bring about a lot of memories, and I hope it will 
give them a deep sense of pride as well.
  What they achieved together seven decades ago was remarkable. The 
memorial is a testament to the fact a grateful nation will never forget 
what they did or what they sacrificed. To us, they are the ``greatest 
generation.'' They left the comforts of their family and their 
communities to confront evil from Iwo Jima to Bastogne.
  Together they won the war in the Pacific by defeating an empire and 
liberating the continent by destroying Hitler and the Nazis. To them, 
they were simply doing their jobs. They enlisted in unprecedented 
numbers to defend our freedoms and our values. They represented the 
very best of us and made us proud. From a young age, I remember playing 
the bugle at the memorial services of veterans of the first two World 
Wars. It instilled in me a profound sense of respect which will be with 
me forever.
  Honoring the service of every generation of American veterans is a 
Montana value. I deeply appreciate the work of the Big Sky Honor 
Flight, the nonprofit organization which made this trip possible.
  To the World War II veterans making the trip, I salute you and 
welcome you to our Nation's Capital. We will always be grateful, and we 
will never forget your service or your sacrifice.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant 
legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for 
up to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Fair Minimum Wage Act

  Mr. BROWN. Seventy-five years ago, President Roosevelt signed the 
Fair Labor Standards Act. This legislation, proposed by Senator Hugo 
Black in 1932, ultimately ensured American workers would receive a 
minimum wage, reasonable work hours, and an end to child labor.
  President Roosevelt led our country out of the worst economic climate 
we have ever faced. He led us to decades of prosperity by ensuring hard 
work in our Nation is met with two fundamental American rights--fair 
wages and decent working conditions.
  In the 20th century, the minimum wage lifted millions of Americans 
from poverty and allowed them to begin the step toward joining the 
middle class. In the 21st century a fair livable minimum wage can 
continue moving our country forward.
  Even as corporate executives and Wall Street banks are earning record 
profits, too many families are struggling. Americans who work hard and 
play by the rules should be able to take care of their families. Too 
many people in my home State, in places such as Youngstown, Lorain, 
Portsmouth, and Norwood are working harder than ever and barely getting 
by.
  Nearly 1.3 million Ohioans in places such as Chillicothe and 
Mansfield work in a minimum wage job. Working full time in a minimum 
wage job in Ohio pays about $16,000 per year because our minimum wage 
is a bit higher. The Federal minimum wage today pays only $15,000 per 
year, $3,000 below the poverty level for a family of three.
  It is not much to live on for families trying to put food on the 
table, fill a gas tank, send their children to school or provide a safe 
place for them to live. The minimum wage in this country should be a 
livable wage.
  This is why I am fighting to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act. It would 
raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three 95-cent increments, 
then provide for automatic annual increases linked to changes in the 
cost of living.
  The bill would also gradually raise the minimum wage for tipped 
workers for the first time in 20 years. The tip minimum wage now stands 
at $2.13 an hour. This bill would increase it to 70 percent of the 
regular minimum wage.

  More than 1.2 million people in Ohio would receive a raise because of 
our bill. Millions of people around the country in places such as 
Helena, Butte, and Billings would have an increase in their standard of 
living.
  The vast majority of minimum wage earners, despite what some in this 
body say--some 88 percent--are adult workers. They are not 16- and 17-
year-old high school students. They are 18 and above, with many of them 
supporting families. More than half are women.
  Eighteen million children, nearly one-quarter of all American 
children, have parents who would receive a raise. Over the past 2 
weeks, I have met with people in my home State who earn low wages, and 
I listened to their stories.
  Ms. Walter, a server from Youngstown in northeast Ohio, struggled to 
raise three boys as a single mother.
  Ms. Day, a cake decorator from Bowling Green, works two jobs because 
the salary of one isn't enough to provide for her two children. She 
says she doesn't need a lot but just a little more.
  This bill matters. It matters for the grandmother who works an 
evening shift at a restaurant to enable her to care for her 
grandchildren during the day. It matters for the elder care worker who 
takes two buses to work, and it matters for all of the working-class 
families who work hard and play by the rules. It is not only about the 
families who will be directly affected.
  Increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will also help the 
economy. It will increase GDP by more than $30 billion over the course 
of 3 years as workers spend their raises in local businesses and 
communities. Opponents to the increase in minimum wage say people will 
not hire; it will cost jobs.
  It is actually the opposite. This economic activity created by more 
spending in communities as a result of more money in minimum wage 
earners' pockets would generate 140,000 new jobs over these 3 years. 
This is why business owners support raising the minimum wage.
  The owners of Brothers Printing and Synergistic Systems in the 
Cleveland area both pay their workers more than the minimum wage. It 
means they have less turnover. It means their workers have a better 
standard of living, and it helps their community. They do this because 
it is the right thing to do. It helps them keep their best employees 
and strengthens their businesses and their commitment. Plain and 
simple, ensuring a fair wage is good for America's families. It is good 
for America's economy.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the mandatory 
quorum under rule XXII be waived with respect to the cloture motion on 
the motion to proceed to calendar No. 41, S. 743, and that the vote on 
the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed occur at 5:30 
p.m., Monday, April 22, 2013.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________