[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2535-S2554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        MINIMUM WAGE FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  The minority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I think people listening to the debate 
on the minimum wage issue may be a little bit confused, because we all 
want to see hard-working American families work their way toward the 
American dream, but we are not going to be able to do that with the 
Federal Government setting wages for restaurants, small businesses, and 
other people across the country.
  I have no objection, obviously, if Massachusetts or Minnesota or some 
other State wants to raise the minimum wage. That is their choice. But 
what my colleagues are now asking for is the Federal Government, or the 
Nation, to set a minimum wage at a level which will destroy between \1/
2\ and 1 million jobs. That is not just me talking, that is the 
Congressional Budget Office, which is the official scorecard for the 
Congress.
  Think about this: You are a small business and your biggest expense 
is wages for the people who work there. Now the Federal Government 
comes in and says: Forget about your local conditions in North Dakota 
or in Texas. We are going to say, from Washington, DC, that everybody 
has to raise wages by 40 percent. I can't imagine there will be many 
businesses, small businesses in particular, that can absorb a 40-
percent increase in their overhead.
  This is going to hurt low-wage earners who are currently employed. 
That is what the Congressional Budget Office has said. And it is going 
to hurt the economy.
  I heard the distinguished Senator from Minnesota say the economy is 
doing great. Well, I guess he must have missed the latest report on the 
first quarter of 2014. Because of the bad weather--we had an 
unseasonably cold first quarter--the economy grew at .1 percent. In 
other words, it almost went into what would be a negative growth or a 
recession. Of course, recession is defined as two quarters of negative 
growth, but my point is this strong growth he is talking about in the 
economy is a figment, it is not the fact, and we need to deal with the 
facts on the ground.
  I wonder sometimes why public opinion holds Congress and Washington 
in such low esteem. Actually, I don't wonder why. My conclusion is they 
think we are out of touch. We are out of touch with regular American 
families--people who are working hard to make ends meet, getting the 
kids ready for school and living their version of the American dream. 
The latest statistic I saw says that 27 percent of the American people 
think we are on the right track. That is a shocking number. That means 
73 percent think we are on the wrong track.
  What is the old saying, that the definition of insanity is doing the 
same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome? Well, 
let's not do the same thing over and over again--keep America on the 
wrong track and engage in a policy decision here on this minimum wage, 
this 40-percent increase in the minimum wage, which will actually hurt 
more people than it helps.
  This is not just my view. There was a poll that came out yesterday 
which said, basically, once people understood that people would be put 
out of work by increasing the minimum wage, 58 percent said it is not 
worth it. So 58 percent of the respondents said it is not worth it.
  You know, it would be nice--it would be great--if we lived in a world 
where Washington could dictate what wages will be and all of a sudden 
peace, love, and happiness would break out--the age of Aquarius--
because Washington is somehow distributing free money that didn't come 
from somewhere, that didn't come out of somebody's pocket or as part of 
someone's overhead or it didn't have any negative impact. But that is 
not the world we live in.
  Again, this is not just public opinion, it is not just my opinion, it 
is not just the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office about the 
job-killing nature of this dramatic 40-percent increase proposed in the 
minimum wage. Back in 1998, President Clinton's economic adviser Gene 
Sperling--who just left the Obama administration--wrote a memo to 
President Clinton when a similar proposal was being made to raise the 
minimum wage 41 percent at that time. The Harkin bill we will vote on 
here shortly proposes to raise the minimum wage 40 percent. This was 
back in 1998 that Gene Sperling is writing to President Clinton on a 
proposed increase of the minimum wage by 41 percent, but for all 
practical purposes it is the same sort of proposal. This is what Mr. 
Sperling wrote to President Clinton:

       Your entire economic team believes that this approach is 
     too aggressive and are concerned that Senator Kennedy's 
     proposal could prove damaging to the employment prospects of 
     low-skilled workers . . .

  This was Senator Ted Kennedy's proposal back in 1998. Again, that is 
what the Congressional Budget Office has said about this bill. He goes 
on to say, ``as well as to the general macroeconomic performance of the 
economy.''

  So what are our friends across the aisle proposing we do when the 
economy grew at .1 percent this last quarter? Well, administer a body 
blow to this anemic economic growth. And this is not just my opinion. 
It is deja vu all over again, as they say. I guess if you are around 
Washington long enough, you are going to see this movie replayed over 
and over.
  The fact is that our economy is weaker today than it was in 1998. 
Sure, unemployment is coming down slowly, but the economy is growing 
too slowly and the number of people in the workforce is the lowest it 
has been for the last 30 years, the so-called labor participation rate.
  So what did President Clinton do when his economic advisers said: 
Don't do it, Mr. President. While it is good politics, perhaps, it 
really will hurt the economy, and it will put people out of work.

[[Page S2536]]

  President Clinton, to his credit, decided not to pursue that 
particular 41-percent increase in the minimum wage.
  I mention that as a sad contrast with the current situation where 
President Obama, seeing his favorability ratings at the lowest they 
have been since he became President, is trying to change the subject 
and basically make a political point when the fact is that making the 
political point will actually hurt a lot of hard-working Americans.
  So the majority leader has decided that rather than spend the week 
debating legislation that would actually create jobs, we should spend 
it debating a proposal that would destroy jobs.
  We all know that a massive minimum wage increase such as this can be 
a job killer. So it really wasn't surprising when we saw that 
quantification by the Congressional Budget Office saying this proposal 
could destroy up to 1 million jobs. Yet, when I was listening here, I 
didn't hear the distinguished Senators from Massachusetts or from 
Minnesota talk at all about the Congressional Budget Office report. 
They want to ignore that. They want us to believe that this increase in 
the minimum wage would have little or no effect on employment and that 
maybe it would have a positive effect. I heard the Senator from 
Massachusetts make that claim, but the people who actually run 
America's businesses know better.
  I had dinner the other night with some folks in the restaurant 
business, and I will mention some examples in a moment. Most of these 
folks I happened to have dinner with are pretty successful, but they 
started out washing dishes or bussing tables or waiting on tables. They 
started at the bottom and worked their way up because they could find a 
job, get their hand on the first rung of the economic ladder and then 
put the other hand on the next one and work their way up to where now 
they are very successful businesspeople. But they understand how 
businesses work. They understand the negative consequences of this bad 
policy coming from Washington, DC.
  Just ask Robert Mayfield from Austin, TX, where I live. Mr. Mayfield 
has been in business for 35 years now, and he is pretty successful. He 
also knows a thing or two about the consequences of rising labor costs. 
This is what we are talking about. For a business, this is the 
overhead. This is the labor costs they have to pay out of their income.
  Mr. Mayfield wants Members of Congress to know that he strongly 
opposes this proposal because it will cost people jobs. Here is how he 
describes it:

       What's most devastating about an increase in the minimum 
     wage is that costs go up, and as a business owner, I have to 
     raise prices--

  So if we think we can pay somebody $10.10 an hour to work in a 
McDonalds and it won't have an impact on the cost of a Big Mac, well, 
we are living in a fantasy world. And that is what Mr. Mayfield says.

       I have to raise prices, and sometimes the market [won't 
     bear it]. In the end, jobs will be lost and service will 
     suffer . . . The people in Congress wanting to pass a minimum 
     wage bill don't know any more about how a business works than 
     a hog knows about Sunday School. What makes it worse is 
     Obamacare hanging over our heads. It's a job killer.

  I heard this again today from a friend of mine from San Antonio. 
Louis Barrios, whose family has run Mexican restaurants in San Antonio 
for many years, talked about the combination of ObamaCare and now this 
proposed minimum wage increase.
  He said: Right now, we would like to pay a single mom who is working 
in our restaurants to take orders. If Congress lifts the minimum wage 
to $10.10 an hour, we will have no choice but to replace that server, 
that waitress, with an iPad.
  That is what is happening in a lot of fast food restaurants these 
days.
  Again, Congress shouldn't operate in a vacuum without knowledge or an 
awareness of what the consequences might be.
  I am not suggesting that any of our friends who are advocating this 
minimum wage increase want to put that single mom out of work, but if 
we embrace that policy, that is what Louis Barrios told me this morning 
would likely happen. And people like Robert Mayfield and Louis Barrios 
are supported by countless economists.
  So we have folks who are actually doing the work, and then we have 
the big thinkers like the economists who studied this issue and 
concluded that this size minimum wage increase is a really bad idea in 
terms of the economy. More than 500 of those economists, including 
several Nobel Laureates, recently signed an open letter to several 
policymakers expressing their opposition to this 40-percent minimum 
wage hike. Their letter said:

       Many of the businesses that pay their workers minimum wage 
     operate on extremely tight profit margins, with any increase 
     in the cost of labor threatening this delicate balance.

  That is also what Robert Mayfield said: I can't absorb it without 
passing it along to customers, increasing the prices they have to pay 
or I may have to lay some people off or I may just have to close my 
business altogether.
  They are operating on tight profit margins.
  When so many economists and so many folks who are working across 
America are telling us the same thing--and the truth is that it makes 
perfect common sense--it would be the height of arrogance for us to 
ignore their concerns. But that is what President Obama and Majority 
Leader Reid are asking us to do today.
  I made this point at the beginning. I fully share our colleagues' 
concerns about the stagnant wages being earned by American workers all 
across America. Indeed, since the Obama economic recovery--that was 
after the recession of 2008, but after the Obama economic recovery 
started kicking in in June 2009, the median household income in this 
country has gone down by $1,800. So I understand the concern, but I 
find it a little depressing that Congress's only answer is to raise the 
minimum wage by 40 percent, which will put people out of work and shut 
down small businesses, when there are a lot better ways for us to 
address it, and I will talk about that in a moment. Raising the minimum 
wage by 40 percent will not grow the economy and it will not create 
jobs. It will do the opposite.
  Of course, the truth is--and we read this in newspapers a couple of 
weeks ago--we all know what is happening here, so let's talk about the 
800-pound gorilla here in the Senate Chamber. The truth is that the 
President and Majority Leader Reid don't expect this bill to pass 
because they actually are very intelligent people and they know the 
facts as I have just described them here on the floor of the Senate. 
This is all about politics. This is about trying to make this side of 
the aisle look bad and hard-hearted to try to rescue this midterm 
election coming up in November. They see the President's approval 
rating going down, they see a number of midterm races for the Senate in 
play, and they have to do something. They are desperate. ObamaCare 
didn't work out the way they thought it would. You can't keep what you 
have if you like it. Your premiums didn't go down $2,500 if you are an 
average family of four. And, no, you can't keep your doctor in too many 
cases under the health insurance exchanges. So they are desperate.
  We know from reporting in the New York Times and elsewhere that this 
minimum wage bill--this show vote we are going to have here shortly--is 
part of a larger messaging package created in collaboration with the 
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That is not me talking; that 
is the admission by the leadership on the other side of the aisle. This 
is not about actually solving the problem; this is about political 
theater, courtesy of Majority Leader Reid.
  The real tragedy is that millions of Americans don't have any time or 
any patience for this sort of political theater and partisan 
gamesmanship because the numbers are very troubling. The Obama recovery 
is 5 years old. Yet 10.5 million people are still unemployed--including 
3.7 million people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months--
with an additional 7.4 million people working part-time because they 
can't find full-time work or, because of ObamaCare, their employers 
have taken them off full-time work and put them on part-time work in 
order to avoid the employer penalties.
  It is true that the hard-working American family needs some help, but 
the truth is that this remedy being offered today--this medicine--to 
try to supposedly solve the problem will just make things worse. So I 
have a proposition to make to our friends across the aisle. If they 
would work with us, if they would leave these games by the

[[Page S2537]]

wayside, and if they would focus for a minute on trying to work with us 
to engage in solutions that would help grow the economy and help reduce 
unemployment and help raise wages across the Nation, then we would 
gladly embrace that, and we have introduced a number of bills that 
would do exactly that.
  I know the distinguished Senator who is presiding comes from an 
energy-producing State like mine, and this is no mystery to her, but in 
Texas, like North Dakota, there are a lot of really good jobs, but 
people don't have the skills necessary to qualify for those good jobs.
  I was in Fredericksburg, TX, recently, where they are training 
welders at the community college. A welder can make $100,000 or more a 
year. In the Permian Basin in Midland and Odessa, TX, truckdrivers can 
make $100,000 a year. It is unbelievable what this renaissance in 
American energy has done to our economy and job creation.
  One thing we could do that would be a heck of a lot more constructive 
than this kind of show vote and partisan gamesmanship would be to 
improve our workforce training programs, the Pell grant program, and 
try to find ways to get people the training they need in order to 
qualify for these good, high-paying jobs being created by this 
wonderful renaissance in American energy.
  We could do some other things. We could try to rein in some of the 
regulations that I hear about day in and day out from my constituents 
are constraining businesses. We could approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, 
which makes a lot of sense and would create about 42,000 jobs. It would 
give us a safe source of energy from a friendly country such as Canada. 
We could do something else constructive. We could provide some relief 
for those people who have had full-time jobs turned into part-time jobs 
because of ObamaCare. Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Scott from 
South Carolina have a bill that would do exactly that.
  Unfortunately, while I am an optimistic person, I am not particularly 
optimistic about the majority leader and the President changing their 
tactics in this election year. So that is why, tragically, under these 
circumstances we find ourselves here today debating a jobs bill that 
will actually kill jobs rather than one that would create jobs. What a 
terrible lost opportunity that is.

  I see my friend from Maryland is here ready to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent that several letters that have been provided 
to us by organizations such as the American Hotel & Lodging 
Association, the Wholesale Marketers Association, among other business 
organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my comments. All of these letters are 
opposing this 40-percent minimum wage increase.
  I would finally ask unanimous consent to make as part of the record a 
column written by a gentleman by the name of Michael Saltsman in the 
IndyStar newspaper entitled ``Wage hike cost is no myth.'' This is the 
source for the information we got about the Clinton archives and this 
memo that Gene Sperling wrote to President Clinton advising him that 
even though it might be good temporary politics, it would actually hurt 
a lot of low-wage workers. I ask unanimous consent that they be made 
part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Indy Star, Apr. 26, 2014]

                       Wage Hike Cost Is No Myth

                         (By Michael Saltsman)

       President Obama and Democrats in Congress have made a 40 
     percent increase in the minimum wage their signature 
     election-year initiative. Supporters of the policy have 
     dismissed concerns that the policy will hurt jobs as a 
     ``myth'' (Indiana University's Fran Quigley made the claim in 
     his April 15 column). But the ``myth'' argument has become 
     increasingly difficult to defend. Not only has the 
     nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office validated opponents' 
     worst fears about a higher minimum wage and job loss, but the 
     release of new papers from President Clinton's archives shows 
     that his own economic team had misgivings about a 40 percent 
     wage hike.
       In 1998, the U.S. economy was relatively strong: Business 
     was booming, unemployment was at 4.6 percent, and just under 
     14 percent of teens were unemployed. (That's a relatively low 
     figure for this demographic group.) The late Democratic Sen. 
     Ted Kennedy had proposed a 40 percent increase in the federal 
     minimum wage, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25.
       But in a memo to President Clinton, chief economic adviser 
     Gene Sperling warned against supporting the senator's plans: 
     ``Your entire economic team believes that this [40 percent 
     increase] approach is too aggressive . . . and could prove 
     damaging to the employment prospects of low-skilled 
     workers.'' Clinton took his team's advice. Flash forward 16 
     years: The U.S. economy today is dramatically weaker than it 
     was in the late 1990s. Unemployment stands at 6.8 percent, 
     and the unemployment rate for young adults is 20.6 percent. 
     (The jobless rate for this young age group has been above 20 
     percent for 66 months, a historical record.) If President 
     Clinton's economic team was concerned about enacting a 40 
     percent wage hike in 1998, they'd be scared to death of doing 
     it now.
       And with good reason: The CBO analyzed the minimum wage 
     proposal on the table, and estimated that as many as 1 
     million jobs would be lost if it was passed. A recent 
     national survey of affected employers indicates that nearly 
     40 percent would be forced to cut staff to adapt to the 
     higher labor costs. Even the Obama White House, in private 
     conversations in 2013, was uneasy with a dramatic wage 
     increase in this environment: According to the Washington 
     Post, the president's team ``rejected a figure so high, 
     worried that it could destroy jobs.''
       What explains this year's lapse of economic judgment, then? 
     One explanation, supported by reporting in The New York 
     Times, is that the push for $10.10 is an election-year ploy 
     to boost enthusiasm among the party's base. It's also a 
     useful tactic to change the conversation away from the deeply 
     unpopular health-care law--even if it comes with collateral 
     damage for the least skilled in America. We won't know for 
     certain if President Obama endorsed this cynical strategy 
     until his own records and papers are released--perhaps 10 or 
     15 years from now. What we can say for certain today is that 
     supporters of a higher minimum wage are flat-out wrong when 
     they dismiss the employment consequences of a 40 percent 
     hike. If claiming that a minimum wage hike will harm jobs 
     truly is a ``right-wing myth,'' it's the only such myth that 
     both the Obama and Clinton White Houses believed in.
                                  ____

                                                   April 28, 2014.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned associations, representing a 
     broad cross section of the U.S. economy, urge you to reject 
     current proposals to raise the Federal minimum wage. One such 
     proposal is S. 2223, the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which 
     will increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour for non-
     tipped employees and tie future minimum wage increases to 
     inflation.
       For many businesses, this 39 percent increase could truly 
     be the difference between continuing to operate and going out 
     of business. For the employees it attempts to help, it may be 
     the difference between a job and unemployment.
       As the Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed, 
     raising the minimum wage will be detrimental to job creation 
     and low-skilled workers trying to get started on the economic 
     ladder. Traditional economic theory and modeling holds that 
     the more expensive something is, the less of it one can 
     afford. This is exactly what will happen if the minimum wage 
     is increased--there will be fewer low-skilled workers hired, 
     other workers will lose hours, and employers will have more 
     incentive to find other ways to be productive, such as using 
     technology or automation where they would previously have 
     hired someone. When Congress' own economists say increasing 
     the minimum wage will reduce employment, Congress should 
     listen.
       Any discussion about raising the minimum wage needs to 
     recognize that many businesses run under very slim operating 
     margins and will have the hardest time absorbing these higher 
     labor costs. They will have to find more revenues or trim 
     costs to make up the difference. Furthermore, indexing the 
     minimum wage to inflation means that employers will likely be 
     faced with automatically increasing labor costs without an 
     automatic increase in revenues or profits.
       Further, while the legislative package may contain benefits 
     intended to help small businesses, these are insufficient to 
     mitigate the negative impact the wage increase will surely 
     have on businesses.
       We respectfully ask that you oppose S. 1737 and other 
     similar proposals to raise the minimum wage. The best way to 
     help low-skilled and low-income workers is to favor more 
     comprehensive, pro-growth solutions to our nation's most 
     pressing economic issues.
           Sincerely,
       American Hotel and Lodging Association, American Wholesale 
     Marketers Association, Asian American Hotel Owners 
     Association, Association of Kentucky Fried Chicken 
     Franchisees, International Franchise Association, 
     International Warehouse Logistics Association, National 
     Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Theatre 
     Owners, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, 
     National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Federation of 
     Independent Business, National Franchisee Association, 
     National Grocers Association, National Office Products 
     Alliance, National Restaurant Association, National Retail 
     Federation, NATSO, representing America's Travel Plazas and 
     Truckstops, Petroleum

[[Page S2538]]

     Marketers Association of America, Professional Landcare 
     Network, Society of American Florists, U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce.
                                  ____



                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2014.
     Re: American Farm Bureau Federation Opposition of S. 2223

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator: For agricultural producers across America, 
     remaining economically competitive on fruits, vegetables and 
     other commodities that are labor intensive is a continual 
     struggle. Particularly over the last few decades, the 
     American market has seen tremendous increases in the 
     importation of foreign-grown produce, especially from nations 
     where labor costs are substantially lower than those in the 
     United States. Nevertheless, hired labor (including contract 
     labor) remains an important input to U.S. agricultural 
     production, accounting for about 17 percent of variable 
     production expenses and about 40 percent of such expenses for 
     fruits, vegetables, and nursery products.
       As the Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed, 
     raising the minimum wage will be detrimental to job creation 
     and low-skilled workers trying to get started on the economic 
     ladder. As the minimum wage is increased, workers risk losing 
     hours and employers will have more incentive to invest in 
     technology rather than hiring the low-skilled worker. 
     Additionally, in the agricultural sector, where margins are 
     historically slim, any proposal that escalates labor costs 
     can put growers in a precarious position. S. 2223, the 
     Minimum Wage Fairness Act, proposes to increase the federal 
     minimum wage by nearly 40 percent, making it even more 
     difficult for growers to remain competitive. Growers will 
     have to find more revenues or trim costs to make up the 
     difference. The increased pressure from higher labor costs 
     would only make it harder for farmers, particularly small- 
     and medium-sized growers, to compete or even stay in 
     business.
       S. 2223 threatens the economic well-being of many 
     agricultural producers in labor-intensive crops. Farm Bureau 
     urges you to vote ``no'' on this bill when it is taken up on 
     the Senate floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
     President.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2014.
       To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing the interests of more than three million 
     businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as 
     state and local chambers and industry associations, and 
     dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America's 
     free enterprise system, urges you to vote against S. 2223, 
     the ``Minimum Wage Fairness Act,'' which would ultimately 
     increase the federal minimum wage by $2.85 per hour, and 
     index it to inflation.
       The proposed increase--almost 40 %--would cause small 
     business employers who have very tight operating margins and 
     are least able to absorb higher costs to eliminate entry-
     level jobs, reduce hours and benefits for current employees, 
     and possibly dismiss current employees. Furthermore, indexing 
     the minimum wage to inflation means labor costs would 
     continue to increase even though employer revenues and 
     profits may not.
       Many economists, including those used by Congress, have 
     concluded that raising the minimum wage would be detrimental 
     to job creation and low-skilled workers trying to get started 
     on the economic ladder. The Congressional Budget Office 
     recently determined that as many as 500,000 jobs could be 
     lost by late 2016 if this increase is passed. This 
     determination was later endorsed by Chairman of the Federal 
     Reserve Janet Yellen--if the minimum wage is increased there 
     would be fewer low skilled workers hired, other workers would 
     lose hours, and employers would have more incentive to 
     replace employees with technology or automation.
       The economics columnist Robert Samuelson summed it up well: 
     ``Many studies find negative job effects. The CBO didn't make 
     them up. Hiking the minimum wage is more compelling as 
     politics than as social policy . . . weak labor markets still 
     reflect the Great Recession's hangover.''
       Additionally, the temporary tax breaks included in this 
     bill to soften the impact would not offset the harm of the 
     additional labor costs. The push for this increase in the 
     minimum wage comes against the backdrop of employers 
     struggling to recover from the recession and to figure out 
     the impact of Obamacare on their operations. The last thing 
     they need is for the cost of their labor to go up as well.
       Increasing the minimum wage would be a further drag on the 
     economy and Chamber members trying to be part of the 
     recovery, both big and small. The Chamber strongly opposes S. 
     2223, the ``Minimum Wage Fairness Act.'' The Chamber may 
     consider including votes on, or in relation to, S. 2223--
     including votes on the motion to proceed--in our annual How 
     They Voted scorecard.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
     Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                         International Foodservice


                                     Distributors Association,

                                       McLean, VA, April 29, 2014.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the International Foodservice 
     Distributors Association, I am writing to urge you to oppose 
     legislation to raise the minimum wage. As our economy 
     continues to struggle amid uncertainty around issues such as 
     healthcare, now is not the time for government to impose 
     additional new costs on American businesses.
       IFDA is the non-profit trade association that represents 
     businesses in the foodservice distribution industry 
     throughout the United States and internationally. IFDA 
     members include broadline, systems, and specialty foodservice 
     distributors that supply food and related products to 
     professional kitchens from restaurants, colleges and 
     universities, to hospitals and care facilities, hotels and 
     resorts, and other foodservice operations. Our members 
     operate more than 800 distribution facilities with more than 
     $125 billion in annual sales.
       Increasing the minimum wage at this time makes little 
     sense, especially with our foodservice operator customers 
     continuing to face tremendous headwinds from a wide variety 
     of factors. As employers struggle to create jobs, the 
     nation's job participation rate remains at historically low 
     levels. This has resulted in severe reductions in consumer's 
     disposable income, a critical element in the growth of food 
     away from home.
       Other challenges have come from additional government 
     requirements. The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act 
     will result in dramatic cost increases as operators must 
     provide healthcare for their employees or move their 
     workforce away from full time employment. The continued 
     diversion of corn to the fuel supply created by the Renewable 
     Fuel Standard has increased costs by as much as $18,000 per 
     year to individual restaurant operators.
       Increasing the minimum wage now will do nothing to solve 
     what continues to be the most critical issue facing our 
     nation today, the stagnant economy and continuing high 
     unemployment rate. I strongly urge you to oppose any effort 
     to increase the minimum wage.
           With best wishes,

                                               Jonathan Eisen,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                           International Franchise


                                                  Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2014.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the nation's 825,000 franchise 
     small businesses and the nearly 18 million workers they 
     support, I write today to urge you to vote against 
     legislation to raise the federal minimum wage. One such 
     proposal is S. 2223, the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which 
     will increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and tie 
     future minimum wage increases to inflation. For the many 
     franchise businesses that are labor-intensive and already 
     operate on thin profit margins, this legislation could be the 
     difference between continuing to operate and going out of 
     business--between maintaining employees or shedding more 
     jobs.
       Businesses should be able to determine the most competitive 
     starting wage and subsequent raises for their employees 
     within their industry and local economy. A drastic minimum 
     wage increase would ripple throughout the fragile American 
     economy and undermine employer's desires to reward hard work 
     with wage increases. This effect will be even more pronounced 
     when combined with the full implementation of the Affordable 
     Care Act's employer mandate. According to the Congressional 
     Budget Office, raising the minimum wage will be detrimental 
     to job creation and low-skilled workers trying to get started 
     on the economic ladder. When Congress' own economists say 
     increasing the minimum wage will reduce employment, Congress 
     should listen.
       Although this legislation contains other benefits for small 
     businesses that the International Franchise Association (IFA) 
     fully supports, they are insufficient to mitigate the 
     negative impact of a drastic increase in the minimum wage. On 
     their own, tax incentives for purchasing or hiring are a 
     significant boon for franchise business owners, and they 
     should be considered along with other business tax extenders 
     that will help the nation's small businesses grow and thrive. 
     Including important pro-growth initiatives as a sweetener for 
     the bitter pill of an artificial wage floor that disrupts the 
     labor market is the type of public policy that holds our 
     nation's franchise owners back from fully contributing to the 
     nation's economic recovery.
       I urge you to vote ``NO'' on this measure. The IFA will 
     consider all votes on, or in relation to, this issue among 
     our annual list of ``Key Votes.''
           Sincerely,

                                          Stephen J. Caldeira,

                              President & Chief Executive Officer,
     International Franchise Association.
                                  ____

                                               National Council of


                                            Chain Restaurants,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2014.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Alexander: The U.S. Senate is expected to 
     consider S. 2223, legislation seeking to increase the federal 
     minimum wage from its current level of $7.25 an hour to 
     $10.10 an hour, an increase of 40 percent. On behalf of the 
     National Council of Chain Restaurants, I am writing to 
     express our strong opposition to this ill-timed and flawed 
     proposal.
       At this key juncture in the country's economic recovery, 
     the last thing that the Senate should be considering is a 
     scheme to

[[Page S2539]]

     raise labor costs on many local businesses across the United 
     States. As you may know, the vast majority of workers earning 
     the minimum wage are teens living with their parents, adults 
     living alone, or second household earners. Moreover, as 
     minimum wage workers gain important skills, they receive 
     significant raises. As such, the legislation before the 
     Senate fails to recognize that the federal minimum wage is a 
     starting wage, and that most employees don't stay on this 
     starting wage for very long.
       In addition, S. 2223 would increase the cash wage for 
     tipped employees by almost 240 percent. This provision is 
     included even though current law already requires employers 
     to pay eligible employees the statutory wage rate in the 
     uncommon instance that tipped income doesn't reach the 
     starting wage rate (on a national level, the median hourly 
     wage for tipped employees is $16-$22/hour). Finally, the 
     proposal links future wage hikes to the consumer price index, 
     injecting an unnecessary degree of uncertainty and volatility 
     into labor cost calculations for chain restaurant businesses.
       Chain restaurants are employers of opportunity in local 
     communities around the country, whether it is a first job for 
     individuals with limited work skills to long-term careers in 
     a fast-paced, competitive and innovative industry. Rather 
     than considering legislation which raises the cost of staying 
     in business for labor-intensive small establishments while 
     limiting needed job opportunities, the Senate should advance 
     policies proven to foster broad-based economic growth and to 
     address the historically low labor participation rate and the 
     nation's persistently high unemployment rate (including a 
     teen unemployment rate of over 20 percent).
       We urge you to oppose S. 2223, or related legislation, when 
     it is considered by the U.S. Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert J. Green,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2014.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Federation of 
     Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization, I am writing in strong 
     opposition to S. 2223, the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, a bill 
     to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 and permanently index 
     it to inflation. NFIB opposes any effort to increase the 
     federal minimum wage, and a vote on S. 2223 will be 
     considered an NFIB KEY VOTE for the 113th Congress.
       Like most government mandates on business, raising the 
     minimum wage will have a deep and disproportionate impact on 
     the small-business sector because small businesses are the 
     least able to absorb such a dramatic increase in their labor 
     costs. The small-business sector has historically created 
     two-thirds of net new private jobs in the U.S. economy, but 
     has failed to recover in recent years because of a series of 
     policies that increase the burden on small-business owners--
     increases to healthcare costs, higher taxes, more costly 
     regulations, and now the minimum wage increase proposal.
       The minimum wage directly affects small businesses because 
     a large amount of their earnings go directly to pay for 
     operating expenses, such as equipment, supplies, property 
     costs, inventory and employee wages and benefits. Increasing 
     labor costs does not incentivize growth or hiring--they make 
     it nearly impossible. Permanently indexing the minimum wage, 
     like S. 2223 proposes, would ensure that it would rise every 
     year, further adding to the burden placed on employers and 
     placing them at a competitive disadvantage. S. 2223 also 
     increases the minimum cash wage for tipped employees until it 
     reaches 70 percent of the federal minimum wage. Raising the 
     cost of labor creates incentives for employers to find ways 
     to use less labor.
       The latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report 
     supports NFIB's Research Foundation findings: significant job 
     loss as a result of increasing the minimum wage. NFIB's 
     Research Foundation analyzed the potential economic impact of 
     raising the California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York 
     minimum wages, and the results were telling. An increase of 
     California's minimum wage to $9.25 per hour would cost the 
     state 68,000 jobs--63 percent of which are in the small 
     business sector--and a $5.7 billion reduction in real 
     economic output. Illinois would lose 21,000 jobs (67 percent 
     in small businesses) and $4.5 billion in economic output from 
     an increase to $10.65 per hour. A New Jersey proposal to 
     increase the minimum wage to $8.25 would cut 31,000 jobs from 
     the state (59 percent in small businesses) and $17.4 billion 
     in lost economic output. The New York study concluded a loss 
     of 68,000 jobs (more than 70 percent in small businesses) and 
     $2.5 billion in lost economic output.
       The job killing effects of this minimum wage hike are 
     obvious. Small business cannot afford another economically 
     devastating mandate from the federal government. NFIB urges 
     you to vote NO on S. 2223 and will consider it an NFIB KEY 
     VOTE for the 113th Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                                Susan Eckerly,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Public Policy.
                                  ____



                                 National Grocers Association,

                                                   April 28, 2014.
     Hon. Senator Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Senator Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Republican Leader, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: The National 
     Grocers Association (NGA) strongly urges a NO VOTE on the 
     Minimum Wage Fairness Act (S. 2223) as it comes to the floor 
     for a vote. NGA Independent retail and wholesale grocers have 
     a significant economic impact across nearly every community 
     in America. Our industry is accountable for close to 1 
     percent of the nation's overall economy and is responsible 
     for generating $131 billion in sales, 944,000 jobs, $30 
     billion in wages, and $27 billion in tax revenue. We are 
     proud that the communities we serve are also the 
     neighborhoods we live in.
       The Minimum Wage Fairness Act, if enacted would increase 
     the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over a 2 year 
     period and tie future minimum wage increases to inflation. 
     While the independent grocery industry welcomes any focus on 
     the improving economy and creating jobs, a minimum wage 
     increase during a time when our economy continues to recover 
     runs counter to that goal. A recent Congressional Budget 
     Office (CBO) supports this claim noting that increasing the 
     minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could reduce total employment 
     by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016.
       According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2012, 
     cashiers in the grocery industry made an hourly mean wage of 
     $10.24, nearly 2 dollars more than the current federal 
     minimum wage and higher than any of the other retail 
     industries including department stores, convenience stores, 
     and restaurants. Grocers are proud of the jobs that we 
     provide and the wide array of career opportunities we offer 
     to our employees. We are often the first job for many teens 
     and offer diverse opportunities for employees of many skill 
     sets, some of which have age restrictions such as meat 
     cutters, bailers, and fork lift operators who must be at 
     least 18 years of age.
       Because this is a critical issue to our member companies, 
     NGA will be key voting the Minimum Wage Fairness Act (S. 
     2223) and including it on our 2014 Legislative Scorecard. 
     Thank you for your consideration. Independent grocers look 
     forward to your support on this very important issue by 
     VOTING NO on S. 2223.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter J. Larkin,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2014.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: The National Association of Manufacturers 
     (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in the United 
     States, representing manufacturers in every industrial sector 
     and in all 50 states, urges you to oppose the Motion to 
     Proceed to S. 2223, the Minimum Wage Fairness Act introduced 
     by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA).
       The NAM supports labor policies promoting job creation and 
     manufacturers are committed to compensating employees at a 
     competitive wage for their work. High levels of job 
     performance and employee satisfaction are encouraged by 
     relating compensation that is both internally equitable and 
     externally competitive to performance on the job.
       The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently reported 
     raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour will be 
     detrimental to job creation. In fact, CBO estimates that an 
     increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could result 
     in a loss of employment of 500,000 by the second half of 
     2016.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on S. 2223, including procedural motions such as a 
     Motion to Proceed, may be considered for designation as Key 
     Manufacturing Votes in the 113th Congress. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                                Aric Newhouse,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Policy and Government Relations.
                                  ____



                              National Restaurant Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2014.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the nation's restaurant and 
     foodservice industry, we urge you to oppose the Minimum Wage 
     Fairness Act (S. 2223). The National Restaurant Association 
     may consider any votes on, or related to, this legislation in 
     our annual ``How They Voted'' legislative scorecard.
       The Minimum Wage Fairness Act, would increase the federal 
     minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and raise the minimum cash 
     wage for tipped employees to 70 percent of the minimum wage 
     for non-tipped employees. This represents a nearly 40 percent 
     increase in the current federal wage, and a tripling of the 
     cash wage for employees who receive tips.
       With over 13.5 million employees, the restaurant and 
     foodservice industry is the second-largest private employer 
     in the United States. As average pre-tax profit margins in 
     the restaurant industry range from 4 to 6 percent, 
     restaurateurs have little ability to absorb or offset higher 
     labor costs, especially at this time of economic and 
     operational uncertainty. Roughly 90 percent of the industry 
     consists of small business owners, with only

[[Page S2540]]

     1 out of 10 restaurants in the U.S. owned and operated by 
     chain corporations.
       The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     officially concluded that raising the federal minimum wage to 
     $10.10 would result in 500,000 job losses. Moreover, that's a 
     conservative estimate, as CBO recognized in its analysis that 
     the job losses could be as high as 1 million.
       As the continued fiscal battles at the federal level have 
     negatively affected consumer confidence, the unknown factors 
     associated with potentially significant cost increases from 
     implementation of the 2010 health care law have created an 
     increasingly difficult business environment for Main Street 
     businesses. While we understand the legislation is intended 
     to help low-income families, U.S. Census data reveals that 
     the average household income of restaurant employees who earn 
     the federal minimum wage is $62,507. Moreover, according to 
     U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 71 percent of minimum wage 
     restaurant workers are individuals under the age of 25, most 
     of whom work part-time. These are critical positions for 
     bringing people into the labor force.
       Mandating such a dramatic increase in the starting wage at 
     this time, when many businesses are already struggling in a 
     difficult economic climate, will limit employment 
     opportunities and slow economic growth in a sector of the 
     economy that is undergoing a tremendous amount of change. We 
     welcome a discussion about wages and economic factors, but we 
     ask you to oppose this proposed wage increase and similar 
     proposals and work with the small business community on a 
     plan to strengthen the economy and create some sense of 
     certainty going forward.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Scott DeFife,

                                         Executive Vice President,
     Policy and Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                   National Retail Federation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2014.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Republican Leader McConnell: On behalf of the National 
     Retail Federation (NRF) and the nation's retail industry, I 
     am writing to urge you to oppose the proposed forty percent 
     increase in the federal minimum wage that the Senate plans to 
     consider this week. Our nation's economy is continuing to 
     struggle to create jobs, and this legislation will likely 
     make it worse, particularly among younger workers. Please 
     note that we will consider votes on this measure among the 
     Key Retail Votes for our annual voting scorecard.
       NRF is the world's largest retail trade association, 
     representing discount and department stores, home goods and 
     specialty stores, Main Street merchants, grocers, 
     wholesalers, chain restaurants and Internet retailers from 
     the United States and more than 45 countries. Retail is the 
     nation's largest private sector employer, supporting one in 
     four U.S. jobs--42 million working Americans. Contributing 
     $2.5 trillion to annual GDP, retail is a daily barometer for 
     the nation's economy. NRF's This is Retail campaign 
     highlights the industry's opportunities for life-long 
     careers, how retailers strengthen communities, and the 
     critical role that retail plays in driving innovation.
       Raising the standard of living for low-skill, low-wage 
     workers is a valid goal, but there is clear evidence that 
     mandated wage hikes undermine the job prospects for less 
     skilled and part-time workers. Policymakers have other tools, 
     such as increasing the earned income tax credit, fixing the 
     tax code, education improvements, immigration reform, 
     transportation funding, and strong trade alliances that will 
     aid in achieving that goal without creating more 
     unemployment. Finding more opportunities for those trying to 
     start out is a better economic approach than restricting the 
     amount of jobs for those seeking employment.
       What we should be doing is talking about how we improve 
     people's chances to move up. The minimum wage was designed to 
     have young people get into the marketplace to get started. 
     With a workforce of 155 million, a approximately 2 million 
     are on minimum wage. To talk about raising the entry, or 
     starting, wage is to admit we have failed on education and 
     training.
       Slow job growth is the most pressing issue facing the U.S. 
     economy and our focus should be on the creation of jobs and 
     increasing opportunities for the under-employed. For many 
     businesses, particularly smaller employers, uncertainty is 
     the dominant mood. Higher labor costs also loom in the future 
     with the pending implementation of the Affordable Care Act. 
     All of these factors suggest that now is the least opportune 
     moment to engage in what is essentially an opportunity tax by 
     raising the minimum wage.
       Employers respond to higher labor costs by hiring fewer 
     workers. A higher minimum wage eliminates entry-level 
     positions that provide unskilled employees the opportunity to 
     gain experience. Less experience makes it harder for workers 
     to become more productive and earn higher wages. There is a 
     domino effect: such an increase creates wage inflation by 
     putting upward pressure on existing wages of those making 
     more than the minimum. It would limit job growth and stunt 
     that group of workers ability to advance. There would be a 
     contraction of jobs instead of an increase in positions 
     available. Lost jobs as a consequence of a higher minimum 
     wage will inevitably make it harder for these individuals to 
     learn new job skills than can create a path to a brighter 
     future.
       The retail sector has been a leading job creator throughout 
     the recession and the recovery. For many Americans, the 
     retail industry provides the chance to learn new job skills, 
     to earn a living, to find a career, or to earn some extra 
     money. Retail offers a wide range of career opportunities, 
     the vast majority of which are above minimum wage, and 
     supports one out of four U.S. jobs.
       NRF encourages Congress to forgo sound-bite politics and 
     instead focus on economic policies that find ways of putting 
     people to work. This is not the time for yet another anti-job 
     mandate for those employees that are looking for jobs and 
     those companies who want to help grow the economy.
       NRF looks forward to working with Congress as you seek to 
     increase economic growth in this country.
           Sincerely,

                                                 David French,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                             Government Relations.

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Madam President.
  I have been on the floor several times, and many of my colleagues, 
particularly on this side of the aisle, have been here to talk about a 
growing trend in America; that we see a concentration of wealth and a 
shrinking middle class. If you are a business owner, you should be very 
concerned about that. The growing middle class is what buys the 
products that go to the restaurants that keep our economy going. Time 
and time again we have asked to proceed on legislation that would allow 
us to help the growing middle class. This is not our first effort with 
the minimum wage. Many States have passed increases in the minimum 
wage. It is time for our Federal Government to do the same, to help a 
growing middle class.
  The last effort was on behalf of gender equity, paycheck fairness, 
where we sought to have a fair shot for women in the workplace, so they 
don't have to work extra time to make the same income as a man for 
equal work. A woman receives on average about 77 percent of what a man 
does in the same job. So we tried to move forward with a fair shot for 
women with paycheck fairness. But, no, the Republicans said, no, we are 
not even going to consider it. We are not even going to take that up.
  We are hearing some of the same arguments now in regard to proceeding 
on the debate on the minimum wage. My friend from Texas talked about 
the Affordable Care Act. We are proud the Affordable Care Act gives a 
fair shot for all Americans to have access to quality, affordable 
health care. Millions of Americans today have quality health insurance 
coverage they didn't have before the passage of the Affordable Care 
Act. It is working. We now know that insurance companies cannot 
discriminate against women or anyone based upon preexisting conditions. 
Those days are over. There is now a fair shot for health care access--
access for all Americans. We know small business owners now can get 
competitive plans and they can choose among a lot of different types of 
plans, a fair shot for small business owners to be treated equally with 
larger companies in regard to the insurance marketplace. We have done 
that.
  We have expanded Medicaid to close that coverage gap known as the 
doughnut hole for prescription drug coverage, and there are no longer 
any copayments on preventive health care. We extended Medicare because 
we want a fair shot for our seniors for their security, and that is why 
our caucus defends the Social Security system, knowing how important it 
is for our seniors. Yes, we do fight for our children. A fair shot for 
our children means we support Head Start and we support help for higher 
education because we know that is the ticket to economic growth.
  In a few moments--in a few moments--we will have a chance for a fair 
shot for working families in this country by moving to consider the 
minimum wage law. We haven't adjusted the minimum wage law for a long 
time. I heard my friend from Texas talk about job issues. Every time we 
have increased the minimum wage our economy has grown, and there is a 
reason for that. This legislation will put $34 billion into the 
economy, will help

[[Page S2541]]

grow the economy, and will lift 2 million Americans out of poverty.
  Think about this. If someone works 40 hours a week and they receive 
the minimum wage, there is not a State in this country where they can 
get affordable housing. People cannot support their family on the 
minimum wage in the United States of America. By passing the Minimum 
Wage Act, we give 28 million Americans a raise. This is a fair shot for 
all workers in this country.
  Let me dispel some of the rumors that are out there. The average age 
of a person on minimum wage is 35 years old. We are not talking about 
college students. We are talking about people trying to support a 
family on the minimum wage, and they cannot do it. Many have children. 
The majority are women. It is time we answer this inequity in our 
system. We haven't had an increase in the minimum wage--in fact, if we 
look at what it was in 1968, this increase will basically get us back 
to where we were in 1968. It will help our economy.
  We have heard these projections before; that every time we do this it 
will kill jobs. It doesn't do that. Look at the history. Look at what 
has happened with the previous increases in the minimum wage: Our 
economy has gotten stronger. It has grown stronger.
  So it is time to give a raise to American workers. It is time to help 
a growing middle class. It is time we give a fair shot to working 
families in America. I urge my colleagues to vote to proceed on this 
debate. Don't continue a filibuster. Let's give America a fair shot, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Madam President.
  I rise to offer rebuttal to the claims my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are making about their proposals to enact an 
unprecedented increase in the Federal minimum wage. I come at this 
issue as a former small business owner and an employee who once worked 
for the minimum wage. I started as a stock boy. Another time I was a 
window washer. I learned some important things while I was doing that: 
I learned work ethic, I learned to show up on time, I learned to do the 
job well, and learned other skills so I could advance. Eventually I got 
the schooling, skills and the work ethic to own my own business.
  My colleagues gloss over the fact that minimum wage is for entry-
level employees. Unskilled workers, young people, and those new to the 
workforce are those who typically earn the minimum wage because it is 
their first job or opportunity to gain career skills. This is evidenced 
by the fact that a majority of minimum wage earners are between the 
ages of 16 and 24. These are the jobs where the workers learn to be 
dependable, how to work with other employees, and how to obtain that 
work ethic. A lot of them don't know how to run a cash register. They 
don't know how to make change. They don't know how to greet a customer. 
They don't know how to interrupt their texting in order to wait on the 
customer. This is why two-thirds of the employees who start at the 
minimum wage are earning more than the minimum wage within 1 year. They 
learn how to do those things. They pick up skills.
  Somebody was talking to me about how people who are getting the 
minimum wage are in dead-end jobs such as fast food. I happened to be 
standing next to a guy who was working at Burger King. He said: Wait a 
minute. I started 6 months ago. I started at minimum wage. I learned 
the job. I am dependable. I show up. I know what the other work is. I 
am a supervisor now. In 6 months, I am a supervisor. I am making a lot 
more than the minimum wage, and in another year I might have my own 
store.
  That might have some validity because I have a friend in Cheyenne who 
owns a McDonald's, and he points out to me the other people in Wyoming 
who now own a McDonald's who used to work for him who all started at a 
minimum wage. You have to start somewhere.
  A lot of people think when they graduate from college they are 
supposed to move into an executive position. Chances are they will get 
a job and they will start at the bottom of the company. If they do 
their work well, learn the skills and become dependable, they will work 
their way up and they will make more money.
  Even more troubling are the claims my colleagues are making to 
justify this particular increase. Increasing the Federal minimum wage 
by nearly 40 percent represents an arbitrary and unprecedented increase 
which is largely unsupported by economic analysis. Both in the Health, 
Education, Labor & Pensions Committee and on the Senate floor advocates 
for this bill have declared that an increase to $10.10 an hour would 
restore the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had in 1968. They 
make this claim because they use the Consumer Price Index to justify 
their point of view. What they are doing is starting an inflation 
cycle.
  Look at this. If somebody is making $7 and they get moved to $10, the 
person who is working for $9 has to go to $12 and the person at $11 has 
to go to $14 and so on up. You cannot put on a new guy with no skills 
at a wage higher than they were before unless everybody gets a pay 
raise. That is wonderful. It goes all the way up the ladder. It just 
doesn't stop at the $14 level. In fact, it even affects seniors. The 
seniors' cost of living is based on wages, not on what it costs a 
senior to buy something. So everybody in America is going to get a 
raise, and that is wonderful, except--and here is the catch--in order 
to pay for those raises the money has to come from somewhere.
  So if you like the dollar deal at your fast-food place, get ready for 
a dollar and a half at your fast-food place. Yes, right, it is only a 
40-percent increase, but a buck and a half sounds better than $1.40, so 
they are going to raise it to the next level where they can pick up the 
customers, where it will sound good. Yes, you get a 30-percent 
increase, but the cost of what you buy goes up 30 percent. Did you get 
ahead? I don't think so.
  The only one that gains in that is the Federal Government. You have 
moved into a higher tax bracket. That is how we raise taxes in America. 
We cause an inflation cycle. We give people more money and we make them 
pay more taxes and all they get to buy is whatever they bought before. 
So that purchasing power of 1968 will go up to the purchasing power of 
2009 and beyond because the prices will have to go up.
  My colleagues are quick to deny the CBO estimates that we have all 
seen which suggest their proposed plan would result in a loss of low-
wage jobs. The minimum wage does not have to go up for minimum wage 
employees to get a raise. The proposal before the Senate throws cold 
water on job creation and adds to the burden businesses are already 
facing under the President's failed health care program.
  Instead, the Senate should be considering proposals which promote job 
growth. The Workforce Investment Act has been out there for 8 years. It 
would train millions of people to jobs that are available in their 
community right now. It would give them skills beyond the minimum wage. 
Let's consider tax reform, growing U.S. exports, approving the Keystone 
XL Pipeline, as several of my colleagues and I recently highlighted.
  But let me also speak on a personal level about the minimum wage. I 
have noted many times that I was a small business owner. My wife and I 
operated our own shoe stores in Wyoming and Montana. I know that all 
small business owners have families, their own and the families who 
work with them. One cannot credibly claim to be helping workers while 
at the same time hurting the businesses that employ them, especially 
under the guise of helping working families.
  At our shoe store we hired people who didn't have basic skills. Some 
of them had never run a cash register. They never sold anything. They 
weren't sure how you dressed in the business community. We put them 
through courses. Each course resulted in a pay raise. For several 
people after several months they were actually able to earn what they 
were paid. Yes, it costs money to train people, especially those who 
have little or no skills, and those are the ones whom we need to help.
  By increasing the minimum wage Congress would shut the employment 
door on the very individuals they are trying to help. Small business is 
the driver of our economy. They take these

[[Page S2542]]

unskilled workers and they train them. The simple fact is that an 
increase of minimum wage is of no benefit to a worker without a job or 
a job seeker without a prospect of getting a job.
  I want to cover that tax problem again--the inflation issue. Minimum 
wage increases also start an inflation cycle. When some people get a 
wage increase, then everyone has to get a wage increase to recognize 
those who know more, do more, are more reliable, and have more skills. 
To pay everyone more, prices have to go up. When this happens, people 
will make more, but they have to spend more so they actually don't get 
ahead. The only one who benefits is the Federal Government because they 
get a tax increase.
  At some point someone actually has to produce more to get more, and 
that can be done with new skills or a new idea with training. The 
problem we face is one of minimum skills, not minimum wages. The effect 
may be low wages, but the cause is low skills. We need to address those 
workers who have few, if any, of the skills they need to compete for a 
better job and command higher wages.
  We need to start thinking in terms of skills, the kind of skills that 
will help students support themselves and their families in the future, 
that will empower our current workforce to pursue higher-paying jobs 
and those without a job to become selfsustaining. I sincerely hope my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle reconsider their plans to 
continue to push this effort. There are a number of bills this Senate 
can consider that would promote job creation over an arbitrary increase 
in the Federal minimum wage. Our focus should be on small businesses 
and creating a business environment that is friendly for growth, builds 
and gives people jobs that pay more than the minimum wage. Higher 
prices, higher taxes, and fewer jobs is not what Wyoming and the rest 
of the country needs in these fragile times.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I say to my colleague from Wyoming that 
I disagree with him on this issue, but I do agree wholeheartedly with 
his observation about the importance of training people for this 21st 
century economy, and I have enjoyed working with him so much on the 
HELP Committee.
  I am on the floor today to talk about the minimum wage bill that is 
before us this week, and once again to have the opportunity to come 
here and say that Washington, DC, is absolutely decoupled with the 
conversations people are having in Colorado, whether they are 
Republicans, Democrats or Independents. We had another example of that 
here today during this debate--if you can call it a debate--because 
once again there are people in the Senate who are using their 
prerogatives as Senators to keep us from debating a bill fully and to 
keep us from actually having an up-or-down vote on a bill that the vast 
majority of Americans support whether they are Democrats, Republicans, 
or Independents.
  There is a reason why America supports this legislation. If you work 
40 hours a week in the United States of America--the greatest country 
in the world--at a Federal minimum wage, you barely make over $15,000 a 
year. If you work 40 hours a week--week after week after week--you make 
$15,000 a year. A worker in this country with a spouse and two kids, a 
family of four--a typical family in this country--depending on the 
single minimum wage paycheck is in deep trouble. They are not just 
below the minimum wage, that family makes two-thirds of the poverty 
level.
  A breadwinner in a family of four working at the minimum wage is more 
than $8,000 below the poverty line. That family with a full-time 
breadwinner is impoverished in the United States of America to the tune 
of $8,000. If you have a family who depends on you to keep a roof over 
their heads and put food on the table, that is not enough to get by. It 
is not even close.
  It may be hard for people here who are paid $174,000 a year to 
understand what it would be like to live on $15,000, but let's think a 
little bit about what that family's life is like. The U.S. Department 
of Agriculture says that even under the cheapest plan possible--the 
thriftiest plan possible--where the family cuts every single corner, 
spending as little as can be spent, it costs over $7,000 a year to feed 
a family of four with growing kids. It costs $7,000 under the most 
difficult circumstances possible. At least half of that family's 
$15,000 paycheck goes just to groceries--just to feeding a family and 
keeping them nourished. After payroll taxes, that leaves a family with 
less than $7,000 to cover every other cost--that is it. Food is half of 
what you bring home and you are left with $7,000.
  In Denver, where my family lives, the average rental unit costs over 
$12,000 a year. That is an average. That includes tiny studio 
apartments. In Denver, this family of four would have to squeeze into a 
rental unit well under half that cost. They would need to live in a 
space woefully inadequate for their needs, their family, and their 
children. That family would have to stretch their pocket change--and 
whatever is left after they spend the money they barely have to feed 
and house their children--to cover utilities, medicine, health, 
clothes, transportation, school supplies, and the countless other 
expenses that life throws at us. It cannot be done. It is simple 
arithmetic.
  A family such as the one I just described needs thousands of 
additional dollars from the Federal and local government just to get 
by. We don't want to have a minimum wage that is so low that people who 
are working 40 hours a week have to be on public assistance just to 
support their families. Think about how crazy that is. Someone working 
full time, 40 hours a week in a minimum wage job today, needs thousands 
of dollars in support from the Government to provide for their family. 
That is not what we want in America.
  The situation is a lot worse than it used to be because the minimum 
wage is not indexed to inflation. So as costs rise, the minimum wage 
loses its purchasing power and stays the same until Congress raises it, 
which is why we are trying to have this debate here. There is no one 
else who can do this in America. Democratic and Republican Congresses 
that have dealt with this over the years have found ways to do it. 
Congress has raised the minimum wage over and over for precisely that 
reason.
  Even so, today, as we stand on this floor with the responsibility to 
the American people, our minimum wage is down substantially from where 
it used to be. The Federal minimum wage stands at $7.25 an hour. That 
is $3.44 an hour and more than $7,000 a year below what it was in 1968 
in real inflation-adjusted dollars. It is a $7,000 gap, which makes a 
huge difference to the family of four we just considered trying to 
survive on the minimum wage.
  In 1968, a minimum wage job kept a family of three out of poverty. 
That is what the Congress did in 1968. They said if you work 40 hours a 
week, your family ought to live above the poverty line. A full-time 
worker with two children was 20 percent above the poverty line. Today 
that same family is 19 percent below the poverty line all because the 
minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. It also has not kept 
pace with average earnings.

  In 1968, the minimum wage was 54 percent of the average hourly pay 
for a U.S. worker; today it is just 36 percent. At the same time, even 
when you account for inflation, college costs are three times what they 
were four decades ago. It is no wonder that the working families I hear 
from in Colorado feel they are working harder than ever before but 
falling farther behind.
  The bill we are talking about today raises the Federal minimum wage 
by 39 percent to $10.10 an hour. That is actually less than the 47-
percent increase that is required to get back to the 1968 level. So we 
are still not going to be back where we were in 1968, but we will make 
progress in the sense that the people who are earning minimum wage will 
no longer be living in poverty.
  Consider what this bill does for a family's ability to provide for 
itself. Look at just one major Federal safety net program, the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. Food stamps is what 
that is. The reason the House of Representatives held up the farm bill 
for so long was over the issue of food stamps. As we think about what 
we are doing here and the debate we are having, I think that is 
important to keep in context. This is a program that millions of low-
income families depend on in order to eat.

[[Page S2543]]

  This minimum wage bill would reduce SNAP enrollments by over 7\1/2\ 
percent because people would now be making a living wage. That is over 
3.1 million Americans who would no longer have to depend on a program 
to feed their kids. If you vote for this legislation, you are voting to 
reduce the roles of those who depend on food stamps by 3 million 
Americans. It is not a virtue that we have those 3 million Americans on 
food stamps. They ought to be earning a living wage. We would save $46 
billion in SNAP payments over the next decade if we pass this bill.
  It applies to other programs as well. Two-thirds of Americans who 
earn under $10 an hour use public assistance in some form--two-thirds, 
two-thirds, two-thirds. Working families--Americans who actually have a 
job who are working 40 hours a week--cost the Government about $243 
million a year through programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, and other 
safety-net programs. Raising the minimum wage makes American workers 
less dependent on these programs to support their families.
  There are many compelling reasons to raise the minimum wage. There is 
a compelling reason why all the surveys show that the American people, 
no matter what party they are in, think we ought to raise the minimum 
wage. Yet in a few hours, if nothing changes, a minority of Senators 
will most likely not even come to the floor to vote on this but will 
use their powers in the Senate to block an honest up-or-down vote about 
whether we ought to raise the minimum wage in this country. They don't 
even want us to have a proper debate on this bill much less pass it.
  What is so radical about what we are trying to do that they won't 
even let us have an up or down vote? Is this somehow unprecedented? Is 
what we are talking about unknown in the annals of the Senate? 
Actually, it is not. Since the minimum wage was enacted by the Congress 
in the 1930s, we have managed to raise the minimum wage on 10 different 
occasions over 70 years. We have raised the minimum wage very routinely 
to try--not always successfully--to keep pace with inflation. We have 
done it many times.
  Democratic and Republican Congresses have raised the minimum wage. 
Democratic Presidents have signed minimum wage increases into law and 
Republican Presidents have signed minimum wage increases into law. 
President Eisenhower signed a 33-percent increase in the minimum wage 
in 1955. President Nixon signed a 44-percent minimum wage increase into 
law in 1974. George H. W. Bush signed a 27-percent minimum wage 
increase into law in 1989. In 1996, a Republican-controlled Congress 
enacted a 21-percent minimum wage increase which President Clinton 
signed into law. Most recently in 2007, President George W. Bush signed 
a 41-percent increase into law.
  You can see on this chart all the different times the minimum wage 
has been raised and by how much. If you look at the 10 different times 
we have increased the minimum wage, the average increase has been about 
41 percent. This increase increases it by 39 percent, and that is below 
average. But to hear some people talk, you would think this bill is an 
unprecedented assault on American capitalism.
  Tom Delay described the minimum wage earlier this year as 
unconstitutional. Others have said it doesn't affect a lot of workers. 
Several years ago the Speaker--before he was Speaker--said he would 
``commit suicide before [he voted] on a clean minimum-wage bill.'' This 
makes no sense. It is at war with our history.
  I see my colleagues are here.
  I ask and beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are 
not allowing us to have an up-or-down vote on something that the 
American people want--whether they are Democrats, Republicans or 
Independents--to allow us to have that vote.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I believe our side has 38 seconds left, 
and I ask unanimous consent for an additional 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
  What was the request?
  Mr. VITTER. For an additional 60 seconds to the 38 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Health Care Amendment

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I come to the floor to address what I 
consider to be a very important issue which we have never voted on, and 
that is the basic principle that Washington should be treated as all 
other Americans with regard to whatever law we pass, including 
ObamaCare. Specifically, my ``no-Washington-exemptions'' proposal 
regarding ObamaCare has yet to get a vote, so I will be filing that 
proposal as an amendment to the Portman-Shaheen bill.
  As we can remember, late last year it was filed as an amendment to 
that bill when it was on the floor. There was general agreement at that 
time, after some back and forth, that it should and would get a vote. 
It was reported in The Hill on September 17 that Senator Reid agreed to 
a vote on the amendment in the context of that bill. Senator Portman 
agreed to this concept at the same time--September 18--on the Senate 
floor, and Senator Shaheen did as well on September 18. So I am 
refiling as an amendment to the same bill.
  I look forward to this important debate. I look forward to a vote. 
Obviously, if an alternative in the near future, such as a stand-alone 
vote, is presented, I will be happy to accept that as well. I look 
forward to coming back to the floor to debate this important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we believe that every American who 
works 40 hours a week deserves a fair shot at getting out of poverty. 
Under the present minimum-wage law, that doesn't happen. A person can 
work hard, with pride, as Americans do, and work that 40 hours and 
still be below the poverty line. That is basically not part of what 
America is all about, because America says to everybody, If you work 
hard, you can provide a decent life for yourself and your family. Since 
the minimum wage has stagnated, that doesn't happen.
  Since 1968, the minimum wage has failed to keep up with inflation and 
has lost a third of its value. That is not a fair shot for Americans. A 
full-time minimum-wage worker makes only about $15,000 a year--not a 
fair shot for Americans. It is wrong. It flies in the face of the 
American dream.
  Each Senator is allowed one guest at the State of the Union Address. 
I brought a young woman named Shareeka Elliott. Let me tell my 
colleagues about her. Shareeka is a cleaner at Kennedy Airport. She 
scrubs toilets and floors from 10 at night until 6 in the morning. 
After the overnight shift, she hops on multiple buses each day to take 
her two daughters to school. They are in different parts of the borough 
of Brooklyn. Only then is she able to get home and take care of her 
household. For her hard work, Shareeka is paid $8 an hour--not enough.
  When we talk to Shareeka, we find she is a beautiful woman. She is 
not angry. But do my colleagues know what raising the minimum wage to 
$10.10 would do for her? Eighty dollars a week. It would allow her to 
provide her children with the barest of necessities--when kids can't 
get clothes and can't get a decent meal when they are not in school; 
when they can't get any toys for Christmas. That is not America.
  This woman isn't a freeloader. She is getting on the bus, traveling 2 
hours to Kennedy Airport, working many 8 hours from 10 at night until 6 
in the morning, getting back on the bus, and then finding two more 
buses to take care of her children, and she can't make enough money to 
get out of poverty. What kind of country is this? It is hard to 
believe, on both the economics issue and the moral issue, that we have 
opposition from the other side of the aisle to even let this come to a 
debate.
  We know what raising the minimum wage will do for the millions of 
Shareekas: It gives them a life with some degree of dignity. It gives 
their children a little more--not a lot--for

[[Page S2544]]

basic necessities. It pumps money into the economy. I bet most 
Americans would say that even if it costs me a little more--a nickel 
more on my hamburger to give people such as Shareeka a decent living--
most Americans are generous people and they would say that is fair.
  Here are our colleagues. They are back in the 19th century, saying we 
shouldn't do this. It is hard to believe, when we think of the 1890s 
and the 1930s, how people struggled to get a decent life, and they 
didn't think of the beauty of the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s and 1970s 
and 1980s when people knew if they worked hard, they could at least 
achieve a decent life. That American dream, symbolized by the lady who 
holds the statue in the harbor of the city I represent, is flickering 
out. We have a chance now to have it at least lit up a little more. We 
say no? What is going on in America?
  Our colleagues are saying the economy isn't growing as fast as it 
should. Yet they don't want to pump money into the economy. Our bill is 
a win/win. Seventy-three percent of all Americans, including a majority 
of Republicans, support a $10.10 minimum wage. Tim Pawlenty, former 
Governor of Minnesota, told his colleagues to support the wage 
increase. When we have a few small interest groups holding this back, 
it is a shame.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to look at our economy and then look 
into their hearts, and I am confident that if they did, they would have 
a change of heart and let us pass this bill.
  I will say one final thing. If we don't succeed this time--we believe 
strongly in a fair shot for everybody, including those who are paid 
minimum wage and work hard and long--we will bring this bill to the 
floor again and again and again, and just as with unemployment 
insurance, sooner or later we will get it done. We will get it done. 
The American dream, a fair shot for everyone, demands no less.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for 
increasing the minimum wage. It is outrageous that this Congress will 
not help middle-class workers.
  This Congress needs to do two things to make sure we give a fair shot 
to everyone and build a stronger middle class: Raise the minimum wage 
and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I am on the side of economic fairness and building a stronger middle 
class to bring opportunities to families across the Nation. What is 
economic fairness? It means that if you work hard and play by the 
rules, you deserve a fair shot at the American dream.
  The minimum wage is at a historic all-time low. It has lost 30 
percent of its buying power compared to its peak buying power in 1968. 
The minimum wage only pays $15,000 a year. That is $4,000 below the 
poverty line for a family of three. Increasing the minimum wage to 
$10.10 per hour would pay $20,200 a year--lifting that family of three 
out of poverty.
  What does increasing the minimum wage mean for Maryland? Increasing 
the minimum wage will give 450,000 workers in Maryland a raise. 
Increasing the minimum wage will improve the lives of 210,000 Maryland 
children because their parent just got a raise. When we raise the 
minimum wage, we all move a rung up on the opportunity ladder.
  Congress needs to raise the minimum wage so that hard work is worth 
it--because a full-time job shouldn't mean full-time poverty!
  That is why I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage 
Act. This bill raises minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 an 
hour over 3 years and indexes minimum wage to inflation in the future.
  Minimum wage is a women's issue. Women make up two-thirds of minimum 
wage workers nationwide. Congress needs to raise their wages and make 
sure they are not being redlined or sidelined by outdated policies or 
harassed and intimidated when seeking justice for pay discrimination.
  Being a woman costs more, and women pay more for everything. Women 
pay more in medical costs than men--an estimated $10,000 over a 
lifetime. Women are often responsible for childcare. Women even get 
charged more for dry cleaning! We are charged more for our blouses than 
men's shirts, and we are tired of being taken to the cleaners! When we 
earn less, we are asked to pay more.
  Women are almost half of the workforce and 40 percent of them are the 
sole breadwinners in their families--they are tired of being paid 
crumbs!
  Women continue to make less. Women are still making only 77 cents for 
every dollar a man makes. Women of color suffer even greater injustice. 
If you are African American, you earn 62 cents for every dollar a man 
makes. If you are Hispanic, you earn 54 cents for every dollar a man 
makes.
  Everybody likes to say to us--``Oh, you've come a long way.'' But I 
don't think we've come a long way. We've only gained 18 cents in 50 
years!
  By the time she retires, the average woman will lose more than 
$431,000 over her lifetime because of the wage gap. That affects your 
Social Security and pension. It weakens your retirement security.
  Not only do women make up two-thirds of minimum wage workers, women 
are nearly three-quarters of workers earning tips at their jobs. The 
minimum wage for employees who earn tips is barely over $2 per hour. 
The Fair Minimum Wage Act will slowly increase that base wage by less 
than $1 a year until it reaches 70 percent of the regular minimum wage. 
Increasing this wage will make a huge difference for women breadwinners 
who have so much to fear from a slow week in an off-peak season.
  But this is not about men vs. women. It's about building a middle 
class. Wages have been flat for everyone. Men need a pay raise too. 
When they get it, we'll stand shoulder to shoulder with them--because 
we all need a raise to raise our families!
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act is about putting change in the lawbooks and 
change in family checkbooks. I'm glad that Maryland is leading the way 
by passing legislation to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 
2018. I will keep fighting to raise the wage nationwide, and I hope 
Congress will follow Maryland's good example.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we should raise the minimum wage.
  It is indisputable that the minimum wage now lags far behind the cost 
of living. We last acted to raise the minimum wage in 2009, when we set 
the current rate of $7.25 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, that is just 
$6.62 in current dollars. And it is far lower than the rate in 1980, 
which was nearly $9 an hour when adjusted for inflation.
  The CBO estimates that nearly 1 million Americans would rise from 
poverty under this legislation. And earlier this year, economists who 
surveyed the empirical research on this subject estimated that the 
impact would be far greater: roughly 4.6 million people immediately 
lifted above the poverty line, and 6.8 million over time.
  And it is indisputable that failure to raise the minimum wage--among 
the lowest in the developed world--has contributed to growing income 
inequality. Here is what The Economist, a generally conservative 
publication, said in December:

       Skepticism about the merits of minimum wages remains this 
     newspaper's starting-point. But as income inequality widens 
     and workers' share of national income shrinks, the case for 
     action to help the low-paid grows.

  The Economist and others recognize that we should consider this issue 
in the context of a large issue: Increasingly, working hard is not the 
path it used to be to get ahead in this country. Increasingly, income 
goes not to working families, but to investors, to the owners of 
capital. The share of our national income that flows to those who work 
for a living has, by every measure, fallen. That is enormously 
troubling. This is a Nation built on the idea that hard work is the 
path to success, the path to a better future for our families. That 
breakdown of the relationship between one's labor and one's prosperity 
threatens to fracture the understandings that have fed our growth and 
success for more than two centuries.
  None of the statements I have made so far are particularly 
controversial; they represent mainstream economic thinking. Republicans 
so far have one response to these facts: They say raising the minimum 
wage will destroy jobs. They cite this as an unassailable fact. But 
this position is disproved by history, and refuted by economists. When 
the University of Chicago surveyed leading economists last year,

[[Page S2545]]

they said by a four-to-one margin that the benefits of a minimum wage 
increase outweighed the potential costs.
  Republicans have opposed minimum wage increases at any time, under 
any economic circumstances. Republicans are wedded to a policy of tax 
cuts for the wealthy, reduced protections for workers and consumers and 
reduced protection for the environment as the answer to any and all 
economic problems. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, as are 
income and wealth for the most fortunate Americans. But for average 
working families, the last 30 years have been an exercise in running to 
stand still, or even losing ground.
  We can and must raise the minimum wage. Empirical evidence supports 
it, and fairness demands it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes remaining on the Democratic 
side.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in a few moments we are going to vote 
here in the Senate on whether we are going to bring the minimum-wage 
bill to the floor for debate and a vote. In a few minutes, it will be 
clear where each Senator stands. Who in this Chamber is going to stand 
with millions of Americans who work full time for a living but who are 
left in poverty or on the brink of poverty, struggling to make ends 
meet? Who is going to vote to give these good people a fair shot at the 
American dream, and who is going to vote against them? We are going to 
find out in a few minutes.
  There is no question that working families need a raise. Fourteen 
million children in America--that is one in every five--are in a family 
that would get a raise under our minimum-wage bill.
  Businesses need a raise. Over 600 economists--7 Nobel Prize-winning 
economists--have said the lack of demand is what is hurting businesses 
in America, because people don't have enough money to go into their 
stores on Main Street and buy what they need. Businesses need 
customers. If we raise the minimum wage, the people who are getting the 
raise aren't going to go to Paris, France, and spend that money. They 
will spend it on Main Street. That is what our businesses need.
  Our economy needs a raise, because when businesses do better, they 
hire more workers, they add jobs, and it generates more economic 
growth.
  People in poverty definitely need a raise. This bill, our minimum-
wage bill, will lift an estimated 7 million people out of poverty. All 
working families need a raise.
  Some of my friends on the Republican side say not all of this goes to 
people who are in poverty. That is absolutely true, because 12 million 
people who have family incomes between $20,000 and $60,000 a year will 
also get a raise. What is wrong with that? These hard-working families 
need to be able to put some money aside for a rainy day, provide for 
their kids' education, maybe buy a new car, buy a new home, upgrade. 
What is wrong with that? So, yes, this helps a lot of American families 
get a fair shot at the American dream.
  I might add, taxpayers need a raise in the minimum wage. Right now, 
we are spending about one-third of $1 trillion--$243 billion a year--on 
social programs to help families who are struggling to make ends meet, 
who are low income or who are in poverty. It has been estimated that 
the minimum-wage bill will save $4.6 billion a year in money we won't 
have to pay for food stamps--$46 billion over 10 years taxpayers will 
save when we increase the minimum wage, because people will have the 
money. They will be able to go out and buy their own food and they 
won't need food stamps.
  Again, any way we look at it, we need to raise the minimum wage.
  I wish to pick up where Senator Schumer left off. This is about real 
people. This is not abstract.
  This is Alicia McCrary of Northwood, IA, a wonderful woman who came 
to testify before our committee. She has four boys. She moved to 
Northwood from another State. She was in a very abusive relationship. 
She wanted to get her kids to a safe place, so she moved there with her 
four boys. She testified. She works at a fast-food restaurant. She 
makes $7.65 an hour. She has four boys, as I said. She is an amazing 
woman, working very hard. She rides a bus 20 miles each day, every day, 
to get to work. She wants to work full time, but the bus, which costs 
her $10 a day, by the way, only runs until 3 p.m., so she has to leave 
by then. Her wages are so low that every day she has to tell her 
children they can't have things their friends have. They can't play a 
certain sport. They can't all get a haircut at the same time. They 
can't even buy shoes at the same time, because she can't afford it.
  Alicia does not want to be on public assistance, but she has to be. 
She is participating in a program run by the North Iowa Community 
Action Agency to help her achieve self-sufficiency and get off the 
system because she wants to support herself through her own work. Here 
are her own words:

       If the minimum wage is increased, it would be very helpful 
     to my family. . . . I would see more reductions in TANF--

  That is her public assistance and food assistance--

     and would see another increase in my rent, but that would be 
     OK. I will have more money overall and it would come from my 
     own hard work and my family will be better off. I want to 
     work and stand on my own two feet. . . . I work very hard 
     doing my job and I believe I am worth $10.10 an hour. . . . 
     If you can move forward with increasing the minimum wage, my 
     family will be more successful in reaching our goal of a 
     better life.

  This is the real people who will be helped by increasing the minimum 
wage.
  I have listened to a lot of the debate on the floor and I have heard 
the objections from my friends on the Republican side. I have heard a 
lot of talk about the Keystone Pipeline and the high-paying jobs it 
would create. I don't doubt that it probably would. But unless Alicia 
is ready to pick up and move her four kids to Texas and become a 
petroleum engineer, it is not going to help her one bit. I haven't 
heard one offer from the other side that will be a single solution that 
would help Alicia's life be better. So the Keystone Pipeline isn't 
going to help Alicia, a fast-food worker who works hard every day. It 
is not going to put food on her table or help her boys get a haircut or 
get a pair of shoes or buy a computer so they can do their homework. A 
minimum-wage increase will do that. A minimum-wage increase will give 
Alicia a raise.
  The American people are desperately calling for us to pass this bill. 
The time has come. In fact, it is past time to do the right thing, the 
morally correct thing, to raise the minimum wage. The time has come to 
give realistic hope--realistic hope, not false hope--to people such as 
Alicia McCrary and so many people in our country who work hard every 
day--millions of working Americans--to give them a realistic hope that 
our economic system is not going to continue to leave them further and 
further behind. It is time to say yes to giving a fair shot to the 
American dream, to being a part of the middle class, to Alicia McCrary 
and millions of hard-working but low-paid Americans. The time has come 
to raise the minimum wage.
  Madam President, I yield back any remaining time.


                             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 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. 354, S. 2223, a bill to provide for 
     an increase in the Federal minimum wage and to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend increased expensing 
     limitations and the treatment of certain real property as 
     section 179 property.
         Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Jeff Merkley, Patrick J. Leahy, 
           Cory A. Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Jack Reed, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Thomas R. Carper, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Bill Nelson, Al Franken, Kirsten 
           E. Gillibrand, Sheldon Whitehouse, Robert P. Casey, 
           Jr., Bernard Sanders.

  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 
motion to proceed to S. 2223, a bill to provide for

[[Page S2546]]

an increase in the Federal minimum wage and to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to extend increased expensing limitations and the 
treatment of certain real property as section 179 property, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Wicker) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boozman
     Cochran
     Pryor
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 54 and the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote on which cloture 
was not invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 2223.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. MORAN. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       225th Anniversary of George Washington's Inaugural Address

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today marks the 225th anniversary of 
George Washington's inaugural address to the Nation. I don't think 
anyone has said anything about it. That is a major thing for us to 
think about each year. It is the 225th anniversary.
  It is reported that more than 10,000 people--this is way back 225 
years ago--gathered on this day in 1789 to hear from a man who won a 
war and who is now ushering in an era of peace and freedom in our new 
Nation.
  Peter Lillback is a historian, and he pointed out in his book, which 
I read recently, that our first President, Washington, knew that 
everything he was to say in the first inaugural address would set a 
precedent for all that was to come after him in establishing our 
Nation. It is why Americans should take note at how Washington weaved 
in with intentionality his belief in the Omnipotent.
  Washington said:

       It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first 
     official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being 
     who rules over the Universe.

  Washington went on to say:

       No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the 
     invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than 
     the People of the United States. Every step, by which they 
     have advanced to the character of an independent nation, 
     seems to have been distinguished by some token of 
     providential agency.

  We are here because of the hand of God. Washington's leadership was 
grounded in his belief in God, His law, and that liberty is God's gift. 
As we reflect on the anniversary of Washington's speech it is important 
we are reminded as a nation what our Founding Fathers sought to 
establish.
  In this same inaugural speech Washington said:

       The destiny of the Republic model of Government, are justly 
     considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the 
     experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

  Washington's conviction was that we as Americans are entrusted by God 
to preserve basic freedoms established in the Constitution, such as the 
freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. The secular culture we 
see our Nation embracing today would seek to censor such words from a 
leader such as Washington. Their intolerance fails to acknowledge it 
was Washington's convictions and our Founding Fathers' faith values 
that gave us the public square.
  On September 27 last year, I talked about this issue on the Senate 
floor--about how Oklahomans regularly ask me--and I don't think this is 
unique to Oklahoma; it can be true in any State--why we have an 
administration that suppresses our Judeo-Christian values while 
praising Islam. As I said then, I find it sad that our Nation does not 
have the same belief today that we had back when Washington was 
President. We have become arrogant, inward-focused individuals. Rather 
than submitting to God's authority, we define truth, justice, and 
morality by what feels good at the time.
  Today, instead of having leaders who protect the church from 
government, we have leaders who believe it is the government's job to 
impose on churches what should be universally upheld as truth. As 
leaders, we should be protecting all Americans' freedom to practice 
their religion.
  It is only appropriate that on this anniversary we also consider the 
words of Washington's Farewell Address in 1796 where he pointed out 
that the pillars supporting our Republic are morality and religion. In 
his address he said:

       Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality 
     can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded 
     to the influence of refined education on minds of particular 
     structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect 
     that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious 
     principle.

  We have to restore the morality of our Nation given to us by the 
Founding Fathers, as President Washington articulated 225 years ago. 
That morality is found in the Judeo-Christian values articulated not 
just by Washington but by all of our Founding Fathers.
  As my son likes to say: Without God, the Constitution is nothing but 
a piece of paper.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, it has been 7 years since Congress 
increased the minimum wage, 7 years since Congress stood up for our 
working families, 7 years since Congress gave America a raise.
  Earlier today the Senate had a chance to do something about that when 
we voted on whether to increase the minimum wage. Earlier today we had 
a chance to give a raise to the parents of at least 14 million 
children, a chance to lift nearly 1 million full-time workers out of 
poverty. A majority of Senators tried to do that today. Fifty-five 
Senators supported raising the minimum wage, but Republicans 
filibustered the bill, so it didn't pass. This is outrageous.
  For nearly half a century, as we came out of the Great Depression, 
the people of this country lived by the basic principle that we all do 
better when we work together and build opportunities for everyone. For 
nearly

[[Page S2547]]

half a century, as our country got richer, our people got richer, and 
as our people got richer, our country got richer. The basic idea was 
that as the pie gets bigger, we all get a little more--even those who 
only make the minimum wage.
  I know this story because it is my story. Like a lot of folks, I grew 
up in a family who had ups and downs. When I was 12, my daddy had a 
heart attack and was out of work for a long time. The bills piled up. 
We lost our car, and we were right on the edge of losing our home. My 
mom was 50 years old when she pulled on her best dress and walked to 
the Sears to get a job. It paid minimum wage, but back then a minimum 
wage job was enough to keep a family of three above water, and that is 
how it was for us. That is one of the ways our country built and 
protected America's great middle class. But that is not how it works 
anymore.
  In 1968 the minimum wage was high enough to keep a working parent 
with a family of three out of poverty. In 1980 the minimum wage was at 
least high enough to keep a working parent with a family of two out of 
poverty. Today the minimum wage is not even enough to keep a fully 
employed mother and a baby out of poverty.
  Something is fundamentally wrong when millions of Americans can work 
full time and still live in poverty, and something is fundamentally 
wrong when big companies can get away with paying poverty-level wages 
and then stick taxpayers with the cost when their full-time workers end 
up on food stamps and Medicaid.
  I understand that some big businesses might like to keep things the 
way they are, but I really don't understand this Republican filibuster. 
There is nothing conservative about leaving millions of working people 
in poverty. There is nothing conservative about expanding enrollment in 
government-assistance programs. There is nothing conservative about 
preserving a sweetheart deal for companies that would rather milk the 
taxpayers for more corporate welfare than compete on a level playing 
field.
  I am disappointed about what happened today, but I am also hopeful. A 
majority of the Senate--Democrats in the Senate--voted to honor work, 
to honor the people who get up every day and bust their tails to try to 
build a better life for themselves and their children. This is an 
uphill fight, but it is not over yet. It took us 4 months and many 
Republican filibusters before we finally convinced a handful of our 
Republican colleagues to support an extension of emergency unemployment 
benefits, but we passed that bill in the Senate, and we will pass this 
bill too, because after 7 years, with millions of our working families 
struggling to get by, with millions of children depending on a mom or 
dad who works long hours for low pay, it is long past time to increase 
the minimum wage.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Levy Nomination

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today to take a few moments to talk 
about Jon David Levy, who is a nominee for the Federal district court 
in Maine who will be voted on this afternoon. Senator Collins and I 
have come to the floor together to talk about this nominee and his 
extraordinary qualifications for this position.
  My history with Jon Levy is kind of interesting. He was one of my 
very first appointments to the bench when I was Governor of Maine in 
1995. The important thing I wish to get across is I didn't know him. He 
wasn't a contributor, a supporter or a political ally in any way, shape 
or form. At that time he was a really smart lawyer with a judicial 
demeanor. He was recommended to me--he was discovered, if you will--by 
a nonpartisan judicial selection committee. I interviewed him, met him, 
liked him, and appointed him to the Maine District Court, which is our 
lower court of general jurisdiction, where it is really the people's 
court. He excelled in that court in terms of his decisionmaking skills 
as well as in his demeanor and his ability to interpret and apply the 
law in very real and practical circumstances.
  He was so good, as a matter of fact, that as I was leaving the 
governorship in the last year or so, I had the opportunity to appoint 
him to Maine's Supreme Court. In fact, I believe he is the only person 
to have gone directly from our district court to the supreme court in 
our State without stopping in the middle at our superior court, the 
court of general jurisdiction, because he was so outstanding. He has 
proven himself as an appellate judge to be exactly what we all hoped 
and expected would be the case: thoughtful, deliberative, very much 
sensitive to the real needs of the people who are appearing before the 
court. He has never forgotten that the law is about serving the public.
  So I think he is uniquely qualified--perhaps not uniquely but 
especially well qualified--for this position because he has been a 
trial-level judge and an appellate judge, and now he is being 
considered for a Federal trial-level court where I think he will be an 
outstanding judge. I don't think he will be; I know he will be.
  The other thing I think is so important--and it happened that just a 
few years ago I was in our supreme judicial courtroom watching a 
ceremony where young lawyers were being admitted to the bar. It is a 
ceremony that happens every year. Of course, to the judges, it is 
fairly routine. To the young lawyers, it is the biggest deal in their 
lives thus far. It happened that the day I was there to move the 
admission of a young friend of mine, Justice Levy was presiding. It was 
an opportunity for me to watch him interact with the members of the bar 
and the public. Of course, a lot of members of the public are in the 
courtroom on that day. His whole demeanor was so thoughtful, dignified, 
and yet warm and not intimidating.
  Having practiced law myself, my least favorite judges were those who 
tried to intimidate members of the bar. I remember vividly at one point 
being in a trial and making an argument to a judge in Maine that wasn't 
really going very far, and I said: Judge, I really feel as though I am 
batting my head against a brick wall here. After a slight pause the 
judge said: Mr. King, I know of no one in Maine better equipped for 
that venture. I wasn't all that thrilled by that response, although he 
was probably right.
  Justice Levy has a wonderful demeanor. He has that wonderful 
combination of high intelligence and yet at the same time a warm and 
thoughtful demeanor that is not intimidating but allows the litigants, 
the lawyers, and the witnesses to get their stories out, to get the 
record complete so that he or the jury can make the best decision.
  I think he is a judge's judge. In fact, in seeking comments about his 
appointment to this position, I think one of the most telling comments 
came from the chief justice of our supreme court where he has been now 
for some 10 years, and her comment was, ``You tell Angus I am going to 
get him for this,'' which meant she doesn't want to lose him. I think 
that is pretty high praise--that he has been such a valuable member of 
that court that his colleagues thought that highly of him.
  Jon Levy is, as I say, a judge's judge, really a model of what we 
should want on our Federal bench. I am delighted that he went through 
the cloture process yesterday. Thanks, in part, to my senior colleague, 
he received more than 60 votes. In other words, he enjoys a significant 
amount of bipartisan support. He was reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee on a strong bipartisan basis.
  I am just delighted to be able to rise today and urge my colleagues 
to support this really extraordinary gentleman who will grace the 
Federal bench in Maine and will, I believe, make us all proud for 
having supported such an outstanding jurist who has yet many years of 
service to his State and his country. I believe this is a great 
appointment by the President, and I look forward to Jon Levy's 
performance on the bench.
  With that, I yield the floor for my esteemed senior colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to join my colleague 
from Maine, Senator King, in supporting the nomination of Justice Jon

[[Page S2548]]

Levy to the U.S. District Court for the State of Maine.
  As Senator King has pointed out, Justice Levy has had a long career 
as an attorney and as a judge in our great State. His experience makes 
him well qualified for Maine's Federal district court. He was appointed 
to the bench by my colleague, Senator King, when he was Governor, and 
Justice Levy currently serves as an associate justice on the Maine 
Supreme Judicial Court, a position he has held for more than a decade.
  Justice Levy's legal skills have been evident for many years. After 
his graduation from law school where he was an editor of the law 
review, he clerked in the Southern District of West Virginia. Later, he 
was appointed to the position of special monitor in the U.S. district 
court for southern Texas.
  In 1982, Jon and his wife had the good sense to relocate to Maine, 
and Jon entered private practice in York. Although his practice spanned 
a range of civil and criminal matters, he quickly distinguished himself 
in the area of family law. Jon literally wrote the book on family law. 
He is the author of ``Maine Family Law,'' which is a key resource on 
the subject for Maine's attorneys.
  As both an attorney and a judge, Jon has remained very active with 
the local bar association and several State committees, working to 
improve the administration of justice in Maine. He has served as 
president of the York County Bar Association and received its 
Outstanding Member Award in 2006. He was also honored with the Maine 
State Bar Association's Family Law Achievement Award in 2001.
  Justice Levy has been an advocate for advancing access to civil 
justice in Maine. He has championed initiatives to improve pro bono 
representation for Maine's elderly and low-income people and affordable 
representation for other Mainers in need of legal assistance. In the 
same vein, he helped to launch the Katahdin Counsel Recognition 
Program, an annual statewide program that honors Maine attorneys who 
provide more than 50 hours of pro bono service per year.
  Justice Levy has also advocated for these efforts nationally, and 
recently joined the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on 
Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants. He has worked with Maine's Juvenile 
Drug Treatment Court in Maine's York County, which has seen numerous 
successes over the years.
  This combination of experiences that Justice Levy brings to the 
court--his experience as a private attorney I think is so important; 
his experience as a State judge is so critical, as is his experience in 
family law, in pro bono representation--makes him a well-rounded 
individual to serve on our courts. Many times our judges are chosen 
just from the ranks of either academia or because they have previously 
served on the bench.
  Judge Levy brings both private sector and judicial experience to this 
important post. I believe he will serve the people of Maine and the 
Nation with distinction, intelligence, and integrity. So I urge my 
colleagues to support this nomination when we vote later today.
  Again, I commend my colleague from Maine for having the good sense to 
start Justice Levy on this path which, I believe later today, will lead 
to his confirmation as a Federal judge.
  Thank you, Madam President. Seeing no one seeking recognition, 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I wish to comment on the vote we took 
earlier today on whether to proceed to a bill that would increase the 
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.
  It has been several years since we increased the minimum wage, and I 
support an increase in the minimum wage. But I do not believe at a time 
when our economy is so fragile, as is indicated by the very slow 
increase in GDP that was reported this morning, we can afford to 
increase the minimum wage by some 39 percent.
  I would note that just a year ago President Obama was suggesting we 
should increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour. I do not see any change 
in the economic conditions that would have caused him to abruptly 
change his position and now be advocating $10.10 an hour.
  I know there are many low-income families who are really struggling 
in this country, and I believe our economy could accommodate an 
increase in the minimum wage. But the Congressional Budget Office, a 
nonpartisan entity, has told us the consequences of going to $10.10 an 
hour would be a loss of some 500,000 jobs--at a time when our economy 
simply cannot afford that kind of loss.
  I have talked with numerous employers in Maine. They care deeply 
about their employees. They, in most cases, are willing and able to pay 
more. In fact, many of them do pay more. In fact, all of them pay more 
than the Federal minimum wage because Maine's minimum wage is $7.50 an 
hour rather than $7.25 an hour. So we are already above the Federal 
minimum wage.
  But what they told me is that if there is too much of an increase too 
rapidly, they will be forced to shrink their workforces or not bring on 
those summer part-time employees, those high school students, those 
college students, those individuals who do not have the training and 
experience that are necessary to be productive in the job for which 
they are hired at that time.
  There is a huge area of compromise available here between $7.25 and 
$10.10. I think it speaks to what is wrong with Washington today that 
we were placed in a situation where it was take it or leave it rather 
than our trying to come together and offer amendments and debate the 
level that might be acceptable to Members of this body and our 
colleagues in the House--a level that would not cause dramatic job 
losses, which would hurt the very people we are trying to help, and yet 
would recognize we do need to increase the minimum wage by a reasonable 
amount to help struggling low-income families.
  So I have to express my disappointment and frustration that we cannot 
seem to have a normal legislative process, where ideas could be offered 
as amendments, as compromises between $7.25 and $10.10, where Members 
could bring other ideas to the Senate floor on how we might spur job 
creation, on how we could improve job training programs, which is a 
huge issue in this country.
  I have talked to so many employers in Maine, particularly in the 
trades, who have jobs available but cannot find the skilled workers to 
fill those jobs. I had a terrific and enlightening meeting with union 
representatives from Bath Iron Works, who told me we need to do a 
better job at our community colleges in training workers for the great 
jobs--far above minimum wage--that exist at Bath Iron Works in my 
State.
  So there are so many ideas out there that would help us improve the 
financial condition of our low-income families--from increasing the 
minimum wage by an amount that does not cause massive job losses, to 
improving our job training programs so we can fix this mismatch between 
the jobs that are available and the skills that our workers have.
  I would note that the Department of Commerce Secretary testified 
there are 4 million jobs that are unfilled nationwide because of that 
mismatch in available jobs to the skills needed to fill them.
  There are other proposals to give tax incentives to small businesses. 
We have allowed a very important tax incentive that encouraged hiring 
to expire at the end of last year. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit 
expired. Why not extend that--not only to those groups who qualify now, 
but also to people who have been unemployed for a long time, to 
encourage employers to take a chance on them, to bring them back into 
the workforce, where they want to be.
  We could also include other provisions. For example, I have a 
bipartisan bill with Senator Donnelly and Senator Manchin and Members 
on my side of the aisle that would fix the definition of full-time work 
under ObamaCare so it would be 40 hours a week and not 30 hours a week. 
We would go back to the standard definition of 40 hours a week.
  There are tax incentives having to do with bonus depreciation and 
small

[[Page S2549]]

business expensing that would encourage small businesses to make the 
investments so they can hire more employees.
  We ought to have a full debate on all of these options, not just stop 
with one vote on whether to proceed to one bill to raise the minimum 
wage to $10.10 an hour, with no amendments allowed, with no alternative 
proposals being permitted.
  I so believe if we could get back to the normal way of doing 
business, we would so much better serve the people of this country, 
including low-income workers who are struggling to get by. I believe we 
could come up with a compromise that would enjoy bipartisan support. I 
am not saying it would be easy, but we ought to at least try. I have 
talked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are willing to 
try, and we need to be given that opportunity.
  Each and every Member in this body cares about individuals who are 
working two jobs, who may have two minimum-wage jobs because they are 
trying to support their families. I think we could come together. But 
we cannot come together unless we are allowed to offer alternatives, to 
fully debate the issues, and to bring forth ideas to improve our job 
training programs and to encourage the creation of more jobs, as well 
as better-paying jobs, in what, unfortunately, remains a very anemic 
economy.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Donald Sterling and Daniel Snyder

  Mr. REID. Madam President, yesterday, all America watched while 
Commissioner Adam Silver and the National Basketball Association acted 
justly in punishing Donald Sterling for his harmful racist behavior.
  Commissioner Silver banned Mr. Sterling from the NBA for life, and 
there was a $2.5 million fine.
  I, along with most all of America, applaud the NBA's work in swiftly 
moving to stamp out bigotry from its ranks.
  Commissioner Silver and the NBA leadership have set the standard for 
how professional sports organizations should act in the face of racism.
  I wonder today how the leadership in the National Football League, 
the NFL--that money-making machine--I wonder if they have taken notice 
of the NBA's decisive action?
  How long will the NFL continue to do nothing--zero--as one of its 
teams bears a name that inflicts so much pain on Native Americans?
  I have 22 tribal organizations in Nevada. All over America, 
especially in the western part of the United States--but not only in 
the western part of the United States--we have large numbers of Native 
Americans.
  It is untoward of Daniel Snyder to try and hide behind 
``tradition''--tradition? That is what he says--in refusing to change 
the name of the team.
  Tradition? What tradition? A tradition of racism is all that name 
leaves in its wake.
  Mr. Snyder knows that in sports the only tradition that matters is 
winning.
  So I urge Daniel Snyder to do what is morally right and remove this 
degrading term from the league by changing his team's name.
  It has been done before--right here in Washington, DC.
  Seventeen years ago, the owner of the Washington Bullets, the late 
Abe Pollin--a wonderful man--saw all the gun violence and murders 
taking place in the DC area. And what did he do? He voluntarily decided 
that name--the Washington Bullets--was not any good and changed it. He 
did not want his team to be associated with bullets. So he changed the 
name of the organization from the Washington Bullets to the Washington 
Wizards.
  We have all followed the Washington Wizards over the last couple 
weeks. They are now in the second round of the playoffs. We are all 
happy about that. They have struggled for a long time. We support--the 
American people support--the Wizards, as do the people in the DC 
metropolitan area. Wizards is a good name.
  Don't you think Daniel Snyder can come up with a name? It should be 
easy. He could invite the fans to choose a name. He could ask high 
school kids to come up with a name. Anything they came up with, with 
rare exception, would be better than the Washington team name they have 
now.
  But since Snyder fails to show any leadership, the National Football 
League should take an assist from the NBA and pick up the slack. It 
would be a slam dunk, Madam President.
  For far too long, the NFL has been sitting on its hands, doing 
nothing, while an entire population of Americans has been denigrated.
  So I say to Commissioner Roger Goodell--I believe Roger Goodell is a 
good man--it is time to act. Remove this hateful term from your 
league's vocabulary. Follow the NBA's example and rid the league of 
bigotry and racism. I am sure your fans will support it.
  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. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Executive Overreach

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in defense of the U.S. 
Constitution, the separation of government powers it established, the 
rule of law it enshrined, and the legitimate prerogatives of the 
legislative branch--and this body in particular--under our 
constitutional system of government.
  I am very concerned about what has been going on. Last week the 
Justice Department announced their plan to extend clemency 
consideration to a large new class of drug offenders.
  Both the New York Times and the Washington Post estimate that the 
Department's new guidelines will potentially apply to tens of thousands 
of cases, with clemency likely to be granted to perhaps thousands of 
current Federal inmates.
  This surprise announcement by the administration marks a worrying 
shift away from the longstanding norm requiring individualized 
determinations based on the particularly compelling circumstances of 
specific cases. Instead, the Justice Department has laid the groundwork 
for mass clemency based on a few widely shared and broad criteria.
  Of course, the Constitution gives the President the power to grant 
clemency in individual cases. No one disputes this authority. It has 
been exercised by Presidents throughout our Nation's history, and it is 
properly used on a limited, case-by-case basis to ameliorate specific 
instances of injustice experienced by particular individuals.
  By contrast, it is the rightful province of the legislative branch to 
establish broader sentencing policy through duly enacted Federal 
statute.
  There is sentencing law on the books and Congress periodically 
revisits and revises this sentencing policy. But in our constitutional 
system, changing the law requires legislative action by Congress.
  In the face of this most basic constitutional requirement, the 
President has apparently instead decided to use--or, rather, abuse--the 
clemency power in an attempt to rewrite sentencing law unilaterally. 
His invocation of clemency is merely a fig leaf to disguise a blatant 
effort to usurp legislative authority.
  The President's clemency power is not a vehicle by which the 
executive branch may effectively revise or discard lawful statutes with 
which the President disagrees. But that is precisely what President 
Obama and his Justice Department have promised to do.
  The amount of time that entire classes of drug offenders spend in 
jail will no longer be based on uniform sentencing law passed by 
Congress and administered by the Federal court and Judiciary. Instead, 
it will be determined by the President's personal views of ``justice,'' 
by the Attorney General's subjective notions of what he considers 
``fair,'' and by some Justice Department bureaucrat's sense of 
``proportionality.''

[[Page S2550]]

  Such a result turns our system of government on its head, and it 
represents an abdication of the President's core constitutional duty.
  Instead of faithfully executing the law, President Obama is simply 
seeking to enforce his personal ideological preferences. It is 
precisely this sort of unchecked and unaccountable rule that our 
Nation's Founders sought to prevent.
  The Obama administration's unilateral action on drug sentencing is 
especially troubling since Congress is actively considering a number of 
potential sentencing reforms. Indeed, an ideologically diverse, 
bipartisan group of Senators has demonstrated they are eager to 
legislate on this issue. Several sentencing reform bills have been 
drafted and introduced. Legislation has been considered and reported by 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Although a President should never expect to get every single idea he 
wants through the legislative process, bipartisan agreement here seems 
well within reach--especially if the administration chose to focus on 
working with Congress to change the law rather than acting alone to 
undermine it.
  Yet even in an area where constructive action is achievable, the 
President has decided to go it alone, and in doing so he violates the 
most basic constitutional principles he once taught to his law school 
students.
  Examples of such executive abuse have become all too common under 
this administration, especially since President Obama announced his new 
``pen and phone'' strategy of unilateral action specifically designed 
to bypass Congress and evade constitutional restraints.
  Just last week the Associated Press reported that, under orders from 
the White House, the Department of Homeland Security is considering 
limiting deportations to only criminal aliens with felony convictions.
  Using the excuse of prosecutorial discretion--another executive tool 
limited to individual cases and particular circumstances--the 
administration is seeking to frustrate duly enacted immigration law and 
instead implement its own broad immigration policies.
  Whatever our thoughts on the sensitive questions of immigration 
policy, everyone can agree that such an act requires legislative action 
and should not be brought into effect through executive fiat.
  I am struck by how far this approach contrasts with the President's 
own judgment as recently as last fall. If the administration continued 
broadening enforcement carve-outs, he said, ``then essentially I'll be 
ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to 
defend legally.''
  Given the lawlessness of broad enforcement carve-outs, the President 
stated flatly, ``that's not an option.''
  President Obama went on to acknowledge that he does not in fact have 
the authority to halt most deportations. In his own words:

       If in fact I could pass all these laws without Congress, I 
     would do so. But we're also a nation of laws, that's part of 
     our tradition. The easy way out is to . . . pretend that I 
     can do something by violating our laws, but what I'm 
     proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic 
     process to achieve the same goals.

  I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with President Obama's 
exhortation last fall that we are a nation of laws, and that 
substantive changes to the law must come about through the democratic 
process.
  As public servants, our common allegiance must first be to the rule 
of law under the Constitution, as it--more than anything else--is what 
secures the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
  I fear that President Obama's frustration with an inability to win 
broad support for every aspect of his legislative agenda has caused him 
to ignore clear legal and constitutional obligations. He now seems to 
view the longstanding rules, requirements, and traditions central to 
our system of republican self-government as irritants--mere suggestions 
that he is willing to bend past their breaking point in order to 
advance his controversial agenda.
  Concern about the potential for executive overreach has animated 
American political life from the very beginning. Indeed, it predates 
our Republic, and shaped its founding.
  Centuries ago, absolutist monarchs such as the Stuart dynasty of 
England, seizing on the powers of the medieval popes as a model, 
claimed a ``royal provocative'' to suspend the application of the laws, 
and used this power to justify their oppressive rule.
  The Stuarts' unchecked reign in England--the nation that pioneered 
the modern conception of the rule of law--ignited a long and bloody 
struggle that eventually brought about the Glorious Revolution. 
Thereafter, the 1689 English Bill of Rights confirmed the ``ancient 
rights'' of Englishmen and enshrined the notion that the monarch had no 
``dispensing power'' to waive the application of the laws of the realm.
  As many noted historians and legal scholars have observed, the 
American Founders were well versed in these 17th century English 
constitutional struggles. Viewing themselves as heirs to the English 
political tradition, the Framers of our new Nation set out to establish 
a system of government with an eye toward preventing similar abuses.
  With the old monarchy's abuse of the claimed dispensing power fresh 
in their minds, the Founders' initial plan of government in the 
Articles of Confederation did not even include an executive. When that 
framework proved unworkable, the Framers drafted and the States 
ratified a constitution that avoided either historical extreme: an all-
powerful executive that claimed the power to dispense with the bounds 
of law or a powerless executive lacking the capacity to govern 
effectively.
  The structural features of our Constitution navigate between these 
two poles, creating an energetic executive but carefully cabining his 
power. It vests legislative authority in Congress, not the President.
  While the precise line between enforcement discretion and lawmaking 
may sometimes seem blurry, the Constitution makes clear that changes to 
the law are the province of the legislative rather than the executive 
branch, and that when Congress and the President have enacted statutory 
laws, the executive cannot unilaterally displace it.
  The Constitution also requires the President to ``take Care that the 
Laws be faithfully executed.'' This clause does not suggest or invite 
the President to enforce the law--it obligates him to do so. And he is 
bound by the text of the Constitution to do so ``faithfully.''
  To execute the laws faithfully, as defined by the great Samuel 
Johnson, author of the most definitive dictionary of that age, is to do 
so ``honestly, . . . [w]ith strict adherence to duty and allegiance, . 
. . and [w]ithout failure of performance.''
  As a diverse array of legal scholars have noted, it is ``implausible 
and unnatural'' to read this clause to allow the President authority to 
deviate from the loyal enforcement of Federal statutes.
  James Wilson, the original proponent of the take care clause, put it 
this way:

       [The President has] authority, not to make, or alter, or 
     dispense with the laws, but to execute and enact the laws, 
     which [are] established.

  He continued:

       To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to 
     see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid 
     their execution, is a novel construction of the constitution, 
     and entirely inadmissible.

  There are certain situations in which the Executive may in fact 
legitimately ignore or even contravene a duly enacted Federal statute. 
But such circumstances are few and far between.
  The Presidents of both parties have long claimed authority not to 
enforce unconstitutional statutes.
  According to this view, if the considered view of the executive 
branch determines that a statute clearly violates the Constitution, the 
highest law, then that statute is no law at all and does not warrant 
enforcement.
  Presidents have also sought to justify partial nonenforcement based 
on a lack of sufficient resources. As the Supreme Court has explained:

       The President performs his full constitutional duty, if, 
     with the means and instruments provided by Congress and 
     within the limitations prescribed by it, he uses his best 
     endeavors to secure the faithful execution of the laws 
     enacted.

  In other words, the Constitution still obligates the President to do 
his best to ensure that duly enacted laws are faithfully executed, even 
when he and his subordinates are working with limited resources. In 
such cases he is obligated to ensure that those resources

[[Page S2551]]

are optimally allocated to achieve as faithful execution as is 
possible.
  Sadly, political expedience and ideological fervor has led our 
current President to disregard his fundamental obligations to `` . . . 
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''
  Take, for example, the Nation's drug laws, an area where the Obama 
administration has decided it disagrees with the criminal statutes on 
the books and wants to implement a different policy, no matter the 
governing Federal law.
  As I noted earlier, the administration's massive clemency push seems 
to employ the President's specific constitutional power--one limited to 
relieve individual instances of injustice--to provide relief to large 
swaths of criminals who fit a few broad criteria.
  The President also directed major changes over which Federal drug 
crimes are charged and at what level, citing prosecutorial discretion, 
a limited authority derived from the power to adapt enforcement to an 
individual's specific circumstances, to implement broad criteria 
affecting thousands of prosecutions. Given the scope of this Executive 
action, compared to its narrowly tailored authority, the 
administration's invocation of prosecutorial discretion has become a 
transparent excuse used to try to justify flouting existing Federal 
law.
  Much of the same is true in the context of immigration. The 
administration has advanced a growing number of enforcement carve-outs 
to increasingly expansive classes of illegal immigrants. First, the 
administration exempted those brought here as children, then veterans, 
then their families. Now the administration may seek to exclude from 
application of duly enacted immigration law anyone who has not 
committed serious felonies.
  While, of course, no one disagrees that violent criminals should be 
our highest priority, the administration has come much further and 
essentially made current immigration law a dead letter for virtually 
everyone else. Last week I joined 21 of my colleagues in a letter to 
the White House highlighting this Executive abuse. How can the 
administration even claim it was attempting to faithfully execute 
immigration law when almost all deportations last year were limited to 
convicted criminals and recent border crossers, when ICE agents were 
forced to release 68,000 potentially deportable aliens last year alone? 
Think about that. When the administration took disciplinary action for 
ICE officers for making lawful arrests, when the President of the 
National ICE Council felt compelled to testify before Congress that 
although `` . . . most Americans assume that ICE agents and officers 
are empowered by the Government to enforce the law, nothing could be 
further from the truth.''
  Another egregious example of this administration's willful failure to 
faithfully execute the law involves education. The Department of 
Education has given 42 of the 50 States waivers from application of No 
Child Left Behind. Rather than seek a legislative reauthorization of 
the statute to set realistic goals going forward, the administration 
has chosen simply to establish their preferred education policy by 
attaching their own conditions to the waivers that the States need to 
receive Federal money.
  Recently, the State of Washington became the first to lose its 
waiver, primarily because it did not meet the administration's mandate 
for teacher and principal evaluation--a mandate that has no grounding 
in the actual statute. When the vast majority of States receive waivers 
by meeting conditions that bear little resemblance to provisions of the 
law itself, is the administration faithfully executing the law as 
required under our beloved Constitution? To the contrary, the President 
is using waiver conditions to bring about an entirely different set of 
education policies, and he is doing so to avoid spending his energies 
and political capital on a legislative process that might expose 
divisions within his own party or force his administration to 
compromise with those who do not share all of his policy preferences.
  Of course any discussion of Executive overreach by this 
administration must include ObamaCare. Back when the administration was 
writing that 2,700-plus page monstrosity, the bill's proponents argued 
that its length and complexity were necessary evils, that its many 
intricate parts were essential to achieve the bill's promised 
objectives. The individual mandate, the employer mandate, the minimum 
coverage requirements, the cuts to Medicare Advantage, and the limits 
for subsidies to State-run exchanges--we were promised that these 
provisions and others were both critical and carefully timed to expand 
coverage and rein in costs. Yet when the time came to implement the 
law, the administration's tune changed.
  To justify violating a number of clear statutory mandates, the 
administration has mustered a weak and unconvincing hodgepodge of legal 
acrobatics all for the purpose of allowing the administration to avoid 
enforcing the central provisions of its own signature law. When we in 
Congress adopted legitimate legislative fixes to provide hard-working 
Americans relief from ObamaCare's disruptive effects, the White House 
displayed shocking audacity in threatening to veto lawful delays to 
some of these cuts and mandates.
  I don't know if anyone could imagine a better example of an 
administration allowing political expediency and ideological 
commitments to trump the President's constitutional obligations to take 
care that the laws be faithfully executed. Equally troubling, where 
the President's legislative efforts have failed, he has decided simply 
to regulate, seemingly undeterred from stretching his existing 
statutory authorities past their breaking point. Again, this is the 
very definition of Executive abuse.

  For example, a hallmark of the President's so-called pen-and-phone 
strategy was to sign an Executive order forcing Federal contractors to 
raise their minimum wage. He issued this directive despite the fact 
that there is already a Federal statute that governs the minimum wage 
for Federal contractors.
  Although a different statute gives the President some discretion in 
the area of Federal procurement, its plain language demands--as courts 
have long held--that there be a sufficient nexus between the 
President's orders and the statute's stated goal of efficiency and 
economy in Federal procurement. Increasing a contractor's labor costs 
by hiking their minimum wage is wholly inconsistent with this statutory 
goal, demonstrating there is no legal basis for the administration's 
Executive order.
  Yet another area of grave concern is the effort by this White House 
to establish new institutional arrangements that fail to respect the 
separation of government powers and the basic principle of checks and 
balances enshrined in our Constitution. Take the Dodd-Frank bill, 
another signature piece of the President's agenda.
  All Americans should be concerned with the unchecked institutional 
form of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This 
administration's unwaivering devotion to expanding the scope and reach 
of Federal regulation was made manifest in efforts to place the CFPB 
beyond Congress's constitutional power of the purse. The CFPB Director 
is empowered to collect a certain percentage of the Federal Reserve's 
operating expenses, indexed to inflation, thereby denying Congress its 
rightful authority to allocate Federal spending and keep the agency in 
check with respect to its overweening regulatory ambitions. What the 
White House sought was unaccountable Executive power, a CFPB that could 
regulate with virtually no meaningful restraint.
  When a number of my colleagues and I expressed a desire to address 
the serious objections to the CFPB structure before confirming the 
President's choice to lead the agency, the White House decided that 
abiding by the appointments process established by the Constitution was 
too inconvenient. Determined to press forward with the administration's 
agenda at all costs, the President simply installed his choice for CFPB 
Director as well as other key Federal officers without the advice or 
consent of the Senate--again, the height of Executive arrogance.
  The administration sought to justify this move by citing the 
President's power under the Recess Appointments Clause, but all the 
relevant legal authority suggested otherwise. The original public 
meaning of the clause, well-established historical practice, the 
constitutional requirement for the

[[Page S2552]]

House of Representatives to consent before the Senate may adjourn for 
more than 3 days, the Senate's constitutional authority to set its own 
rules, and the Senate's own determination that it was not in recess at 
the time, all of this made clear that the President had no authority to 
make the appointments unilaterally. Yet as an indication of its 
willingness to simply ignore the law and Constitution, that is 
precisely what the President did.
  This brazen lawlessness cannot stand, and it will not. Already 
several Federal appeals courts have ruled that these appointments were 
unconstitutional, and most observers expect the Supreme Court to agree.
  Yet the Obama administration remains undeterred. Having decided to 
bypass Congress and go it alone, the White House has likewise sought to 
remove meaningful accountability by means of the Federal judiciary. As 
in the recess appointments cases, Federal courts have rejected a 
variety of this administration's lawless actions and vindicated 
critical constitutional rights. No court has served as a greater check 
on Executive overreach than the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which 
oversees most Federal regulatory actions. So the White House has sought 
to remove even this modest restraint.
  After the DC Circuit rightfully invalidated several key 
administration actions as outside the bounds of Federal law, the 
President then sought to pack that court with compliant judges in order 
to obtain more favorable decisions.
  The President's allies in this body, in their own words, ``focused 
very intently on the D.C. Circuit'' determined to ``switch the 
majority'' on the court, and were willing to ``fill up the D.C. Circuit 
one way or another.''
  In the rush to eliminate any possible judicial obstacle to unilateral 
progressive advances, they ran roughshod over the rules and traditions 
of this body, working untold and permanent damage to two venerated 
institutions of our constitutional system.
  This whole episode demonstrates a brazen willingness on the part of 
this administration to ignore virtually any legal or constitutional 
constraints and even tamper with the judiciary simply for the sake of 
advancing its own ideological goals or objectives.
  I have only had time today to scratch the surface of the pattern of 
Executive abuses in areas as diverse as EPA, and NLRB regulatory 
actions, inappropriate IRS targeting, net neutrality rulemaking, and 
the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Such executive 
lawlessness should be troubling to all Americans regardless of 
political stripe or partisan affiliation.
  It is the Constitution, the political institutions it established, 
the legal framework it enshrined, the checks and balances it requires, 
that ensures we remain a government of laws and not of men. Absent 
these essential restraints, we will all become subject to increasingly 
arbitrary rule, a government that knows no bounds and seeks to regulate 
and control virtually every aspect of our lives.
  President Obama once spoke of the necessity for such restraint. He 
warned of the dangers associated with unilateral executive action, and 
he highlighted the critical importance of adhering to constitutional 
procedures.
  While campaigning for President in 2008, he said:

       I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the 
     Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems we're 
     facing right now have to do with [the President] trying to 
     bring more and more power into the executive branch and not 
     go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to 
     reverse when I am President of the United States.

  How far we have come since Candidate Obama made those empty promises.
  I have been a Member of this body for nearly four decades. I have 
worked with half a dozen Presidents. On many occasions we have been 
able--working together--to accomplish great good for the American 
people. My concern today is not partisan. My criticisms are not 
ideological, nor is my interest as a Member of the Senate simply 
institutional. Throughout my years as a Member of this body, I have 
acknowledged and defended the power of the President when he acts 
lawfully--he or she. In the national security context in particular, 
where the President is at the height of his constitutional and 
statutory authorities, I have defended the prerogatives of the 
President no matter the party occupying the White House and no matter 
the political unpopularity of doing so.
  The concerns I have expressed today are about legitimacy. What 
authority to govern does the President or any of us have except that 
which we derive from our Constitution? My criticisms are about 
restoring accountability. How are we going to keep this or any 
administration honest when it seeks to cut out Congress's legitimate 
role in the governing process?
  Above all, my observations today are about liberty. Yes, that is 
right--liberty. If we are to maintain our freedoms, which so many of 
our fellow citizens have fought and died to preserve--including my own 
brother and two brothers-in-law--we must always remember to heed James 
Madison's warning in Federalist 47:

       The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and 
     judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, 
     and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may 
     justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

  It is essential to the continued well-being of our Nation, to the 
legitimacy of our government, and to the liberties of our citizens that 
the exercise of Executive power is kept within lawful bounds. Doing so 
requires continual vigilance by the court, by Congress, and by the 
American people to uphold the standards of the Constitution, and that 
includes the President as well.
  I will close with a word of warning from President George Washington 
which is perhaps even more true today than when President Washington 
spoke it way back when.

       If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or 
     modification of the constitutional powers be in any 
     particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the 
     way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no 
     change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may 
     be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by 
     which free governments are destroyed.

  I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  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.


                        World Immunization Week

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the World Health Organization has deemed 
this week ``World Immunization Week.'' Every year the WHO designates a 
whole week to promote the world's most powerful tools in public 
health--the use of vaccines to protect people of all ages against 
disease.
  Immunization is one of the most successful and cost-effective health 
interventions ever introduced, preventing up to 3 million deaths a year 
from diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio, and measles. Thanks 
to decades of research, there are 25 diseases that can be prevented by 
vaccines, including some forms of influenza, meningitis, and even 
certain types of liver and cervical cancer.
  The theme this year is ``Are you up-to-date?'' This year one in five 
children worldwide will not receive the vaccinations they need, some 
because their parents choose not to and others because it is just not 
available. Through the Global Vaccine Action Plan, the WHO and other 
members of the World Health Assembly are working to close this gap and 
promote equitable access to vaccines for every adult and child in the 
world. The aim--their goal--is to have all people vaccinated against 
preventable diseases by 2020.
  One of the diseases the WHO is targeting is polio. I have a few years 
on the Presiding Officer, but I can recall growing up in the 1950s. 
When you grew up in that era, polio was a real concern. In some years 
60,000 kids would come down with polio, and at that time nobody knew 
why. They could not figure out where it was coming from or how to stop 
it.
  Parents--my mom included--had their theories. Some of those theories 
were based loosely on health and others on legend. My mother used to 
say: Don't you go play in that rainwater outside in the street after it 
rains; you could get polio. I can remember hearing that.

[[Page S2553]]

  When we were kids, I remember the earliest television shows showed 
people in iron lungs and surviving in that machine that kept them alive 
and looking at the world through a mirror that was perched above their 
heads. Many people were afflicted by polio. Some of my closest friends 
growing up had polio. Our Republican leader, Senator McConnell, 
suffered from polio as a child. It was not uncommon. It was way too 
common.
  Then came the day in 1955 when Jonas Salk came up with the Salk 
vaccine. It was such an amazing piece of news. It was shared in every 
classroom across the country. They had a vaccine. It involved a shot, 
and none of us were excited about that, but the idea of being protected 
for life from polio was worth it.
  Then came along the Sabin oral vaccine, which we were even happier to 
hear about.
  It was an indication to a lot of people that with hard work and 
research cures could be found.
  It was April 12, 1955, when Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr., an 
epidemiologist at the University of Michigan and a mentor to Salk, 
announced that Salk discovered a polio vaccine that was safe and 
effective. When that announcement was made, families across America 
celebrated. We couldn't wait to get in line. April 12 was deliberately 
chosen for the announcement because it marked the 10th anniversary of 
the death of the most famous polio survivor of all--President Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt also founded the March of Dimes Foundation 
in 1938, without which Salk may not have had the resources to complete 
his research. A massive field trial led to the release of the vaccine, 
the first of its kind. It was conducted on 1.8 million children in 
America, and it was proven 80 to 90 percent effective. We achieved this 
victory over polio. It really was a big deal. As a result, polio was 
eradicated in the United States of America in 1979.
  In February the Senate passed a resolution I cosponsored with Senator 
Kirk of Illinois supporting World Polio Day. This resolution commended 
not only the work of Jonas Salk but also the Rotary Club, WHO, the Bill 
and Melinda Gates Foundation, and UNICEF for their work to eradicate 
polio. These organizations have joined with the United States and other 
national governments to successfully reduce cases of polio by more than 
99 percent. We now believe there are only three nations on Earth where 
there is evidence of polio: Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The 
success of the polio vaccine showed the public what medical research 
could accomplish and encourage.
  Yesterday Chairman Mikulski of the Senate Appropriations Committee 
had a hearing on research, and we had some great witnesses. Among them 
was Dr. Francis Collins, who is the head of the National Institutes of 
Health. They came to talk about America's investment in research and 
innovation. You would think that with the success of the Salk polio 
vaccine and all the other things that have followed, that America would 
have learned a valuable lesson about this investment. Sadly, today, 
some 60 years after the discovery of the Salk polio vaccine, we are not 
making progress as we should. In fact, in some respects we are falling 
behind.
  Because of our failure to adequately fund the National Institutes of 
Health over the last 10 or 12 years, we have seen a 20-percent decline 
in the awards for medical research.
  I talked to Dr. Francis Collins about this 2 or 3 months ago. He 
heads up the NIH. He is a brilliant, wonderful man who was in charge of 
mapping the Human Genome Project. He did it ahead of time and on budget 
and produced a wealth of information that is now being used to find 
cures for diseases.
  A month or so ago, the National Institutes of Health introduced their 
AMP Program where they engaged the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies 
in America to join with the NIH to use the human genome to find cures 
for the following diseases: Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, and 
rheumatoid arthritis. Those are the first three targets they are going 
to go after. We need to go after more, and we need to encourage them 
for several reasons:
  First, if we don't make an investment in medical research that future 
generations of researchers can count on, young people will not dedicate 
their lives to medical research.
  Think of this for a moment: 30 years ago 18 percent of all the NIH 
medical researchers were under the age of 36. Now it is 3 percent. 
Younger people are not moving toward medical research because they are 
uncertain of our national commitment in this area. Shame on us. At a 
time when we should be enticing the best and brightest in the world to 
get involved in biomedical research, our indecision and lack of 
leadership at the governmental level is failing to fund these entities 
and this effort.
  I asked Dr. Collins: What is the kind of commitment we should make as 
a nation in medical research that can make a dramatic difference?
  He said: Senator, if you could give us 5 percent real growth a year 
beyond inflation, 5 percent a year for 10 years, I will promise you we 
will make dramatic progress.
  So I did a calculation. I asked my staff what it would cost us as a 
nation to increase medical research 5 percent a year for 10 years. 
Well, they added the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for 
Disease Control, the Department of Defense medical research, and the 
Veterans' Administration medical research. They said: All right. Put 
them all together. If we gave them a 5-percent raise each year, how 
much would it cost over 10 years? The answer: $150 billion.
  That is a huge sum of money, but in that same period of time we are 
likely to budget over $18 trillion in spending for the government. It 
is a very tiny piece of the overall spending of our government.
  Some people who are budget hawks will step back and say: Great idea, 
Senator, but we just can't afford it. We can't afford to commit to 
coming up with $150 billion over 10 years.
  I would ask them to consider two things:
  First, last year in the United States of America, the Federal 
Government spent, through the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, over $200 
billion treating one disease: Alzheimer's. If through our medical 
research we could find some blessed cure for this terrible disease or 
even delay its onset, it would more than pay for the amount of money we 
would have to invest in medical research. It is that important.
  Secondly, there are things we can do which I will stand up and say I 
am prepared to do which would fund a major part of this research. If we 
increased the Federal tax on tobacco products by 95 cents a package, it 
would pay for more than half of the medical research I just 
suggested. Over a 10-year period of time, 900,000 American lives would 
be saved because children wouldn't be able to afford to buy these 
tobacco products.

  So this medical research commitment is not only a good one in terms 
of reducing our costs of medical care, but it also is something we 
ought to achieve in order to make sure there will be breakthroughs in 
the years ahead to eliminate and treat many of the diseases which haunt 
us and our families across America.
  The American Cures Act is a bill I have introduced. I am happy to 
have a number of my colleagues cosponsoring it. It has the support of 
virtually all of the major medical research organizations. It should be 
bipartisan, and I hope those on the other side of the aisle who share 
my commitment to medical research will join me.
  Discovering the polio vaccine won Jonas Salk the Nobel Prize and 
allowed him to create the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, one of 
the premier institutes for biomedical research. If he had done nothing 
else, Salk's place in history would have been honored and assured. But 
Jonas Salk wasn't content to rest on past achievement. After all, he 
was an American. In the last years of his life, he spent his time 
searching for a cure for AIDS. When his early efforts failed, he was 
undeterred. When asked why, he said: You can only fail if you stop too 
soon. This is a decisive moment in the history of our Nation. We have 
to continue to invest in order to reap the immense rewards of decades 
of work by the best scientific and medical minds in the world. The only 
way we can fail is by stopping too soon.


                            Shah Nomination

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Manish

[[Page S2554]]

Shah, who has been nominated to serve as a Federal district court judge 
in the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Shah is an outstanding 
nominee. He has the experience, qualifications and integrity to serve 
with distinction on the Federal bench.
  Mr. Shah was nominated to fill the seat that became vacant when Judge 
Joan Lefkow took senior status. He has been reviewed by my judicial 
screening committee, and he was chosen by Senator Kirk's committee to 
serve and I supported the selection.
  He is a Federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Illinois. He 
is currently chief of the criminal division of that office and he has a 
lengthy resume of achievements in this field.
  Mr. Shaw has won numerous awards and recognitions for his work in the 
U.S. attorney's office, including the FBI Director's Award for 
Outstanding Criminal Investigation. He graduated from Stanford 
University and the University of Chicago Law School. He clerked for 2 
years for Judge Jim Zagel of the Northern District of Illinois.
  Incidentally, his nomination in the Northern District of Illinois is 
historic. Upon confirmation, he will be the first article III judge of 
South Asian descent to serve in the State of Illinois. He appeared 
before the Judiciary Committee last November in a hearing that I 
chaired. He was reported out unanimously from that committee.
  I am sorry it has taken so long for us to get to his nomination on 
the calendar, but I am certain he will be an excellent addition to the 
bench for the Northern District of Illinois.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Bastian Nomination

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for 
the nomination of Stanley Bastian to be a district judge for the 
Eastern District of Washington. Stan Bastian is exactly the kind of 
highly qualified Federal judge eastern Washington needs.
  The Eastern District of Washington represents a wide swath of 
Washington that includes 20 counties that cover 63 percent of our 
State. Yet the court has been operating with two vacancies. So it is 
time for the Senate to move forward on filling this position, and I 
hope we confirm Mr. Bastian today. I also hope we can move forward on a 
vote on Salvador Mendoza in the coming weeks as well.
  Mr. Bastian has been called an ``outstanding choice'' for the Eastern 
District bench, and I want to make sure we understand why. He was born 
in Washington and is well versed in Pacific Northwest issues. As my 
colleagues Mr. Wyden and Mr. Merkley will note, he is a graduate of the 
University of Oregon, but he also went to law school at the University 
of Washington. Mr. Bastian has handled a diverse portfolio of legal 
matters, including representing counties, public utility districts, 
fruit growers, medical clinics, brokers, and individuals, and he brings 
more than 30 years of experience to the Federal bench, including 25 
years in private practice.
  He has well rounded experience from all sides of the legal process, 
from civil and criminal trials to mediation, arbitration, and 
negotiations between various parties. Throughout his career, Mr. 
Bastian has shown a dedication to justice and equal access to the law. 
As an experienced trial attorney, he has earned the support and 
recognition of his peers.
  When I interviewed Mr. Bastian, I was impressed by his respect for 
legal precedent and his commitment to the rule of law, his work to 
improve access to justice, and his local knowledge that has been very 
important in serving eastern Washington and all of Washington.
  Mr. Bastian also served as a judicial pro tem in municipal courts, 
and recently he had the opportunity to lead the Washington State Bar 
Association. As the president of that organization, Mr. Bastian focused 
on ethics, professionalism, and civility in the legal profession. He 
has a long and wide-ranging background in the law and in the legal 
community, and that is exactly why we should put him on the Federal 
bench.
  His legal career exemplifies public service, a commitment to access 
to justice, and a stellar legal intellect. I am confident he will serve 
the Eastern District well.
  So I hope we move forward on these nominees this afternoon and 
confirm Mr. Bastian.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor, and 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
disposition of the Levy nomination, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 711, that there be 2 minutes for debate, 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, prior to a 
vote on confirmation of that nomination; further, that notwithstanding 
rule XXII, on Thursday, May 1, 2014, at 11 a.m., the Senate proceed to 
executive session and vote on the cloture motions for Calendar Nos. 
591, 592, and 575; further, that if cloture is invoked on any of these 
nominations, all postcloture time be expired and at 1:45 p.m., the 
Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of Calendar Nos. 591, 592, 730, 
and 701; further, that on Monday, May 5, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate 
proceed to executive session and vote on confirmation of Calendar Nos. 
575 and 703; further, that there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each 
vote, equally divided in the usual form, that any rollcall votes 
following the first in each series be 10 minutes in length and, if 
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions 
be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the 
nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. With this agreement, we will have up to seven rollcall 
votes this afternoon and as many as three rollcall votes beginning at 
11 a.m. tomorrow, and as many as four rollcall votes tomorrow afternoon 
beginning at about a quarter of 2.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that even though we are a 
minute or so short, we start the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________