[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5532-5546]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 2014

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order the Senate 
will resume consideration of H.R. 3979, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3979) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not 
     taken into account as employees under the shared 
     responsibility requirements contained in the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Reed) amendment No. 2874, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2875 (to amendment No. 2874), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2877 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2874), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 2878 (to amendment No. 2877), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 2.3 
million Americans, including the 140,000 New Jerseyans who have been 
without a job for months and desperately need

[[Page 5533]]

our help. These Americans are Americans who are veterans who stood for 
us in the military and Armed Forces. These are families and individuals 
with children. These are our seniors. These are folks who have been 
working for decades and suddenly found themselves in the worst economy 
of my lifetime without a job.
  I am very proud of this body. We are inching closer toward passing 
legislation to restore Federal unemployment insurance. What this money 
does is it takes families from crisis with these meager checks to give 
a little bit of stability so they can do what is necessary to look for 
work.
  It helps them keep their car insurance so they can ride to 
interviews. It helps them keep the cable service going so they can 
apply online and actually file their resumes as they look for jobs. It 
helps them meet mortgage payments, so they can keep a roof over their 
heads or rental payments as well.
  I want to thank the incredible bipartisan leadership of Dean Heller 
and Jack Reed. Senator Heller and Senator Reed have been working hard 
together with a group of us relentlessly to bring us this far. I have 
been so grateful for the leadership of those two Senators and others 
because it made us so close in this body to getting unemployment 
insurance extended.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It involves compromise. It is what the 
American people want us to do, Republicans and Democrats coming 
together for millions of Americans that are in crisis right now through 
no fault of their own, in an economy where there are three people 
looking for a job for every single job that is available.
  I want to express my gratitude to the entire bipartisan group 
cosponsoring the bill. My colleagues, Senator Reed, Senator Heller, 
Senator Merkley, Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Durbin, Senator Susan 
Collins, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Senator Mark 
Kirk, Republicans and Democrats alike who hammered out a compromise, 
have done the difficult work and are pushing to move this forward.
  I also want to thank people from New Jersey who have shared their 
stories with me, who have been active and engaging from online posts, 
letters, and phone calls--all of them fighting to find work. I have 
heard from Republican New Jerseyans and Democratic New Jerseyans. I 
have heard from military veterans and single moms. I have heard from 
folks who are so hungry to work. But while they are looking, they are 
looking to this body, to all of Congress to help them meet the basic 
minimum needs so that they can continue to have some stability and not 
be swallowed up by the quicksand of economic crisis and to be able to 
continue to find a job.
  They are living examples. Each and every one of those millions of 
Americans are examples of what is at stake if we do not act. I have 
heard painful stories of people facing real crises, from homelessness 
to skipping medications, doing everything they can to keep some 
semblance of stability so that they can find a job. Unfortunately, many 
are falling through the cracks. Many are facing the darkest of days.
  As the Senate prepares to vote on this incredibly vitally important 
bill, I want to stress that this legislative body is only as effective 
as both Chambers and parties being able to come together, to really 
follow in that great American tradition that for the last 50 years, 
Democrats and Republicans during times of economic crisis, have come 
together and found a way to hammer out compromises to extend 
unemployment insurance under Reagan, under Bush, under Clinton, and 
under Carter. We found a way to get forward, both Chambers being there 
for Americans in the economic crisis.
  Today is a significant step in our fight to restore hope to America's 
unemployed but only if this bill is also voted on and passed in the 
House of Representatives.
  I have sat in living rooms, diners, and soup kitchens all across the 
State of New Jersey, and I can tell you the crisis is real. I am 
hopeful that if my colleagues in the House of Representatives listen to 
the voices--Republicans and Democrats, red and blue, North and South, 
all across this country--of their unemployed constituents, they will do 
what is right. They will shun that intellectually unreal idea that 
Americans are lazy, that they don't want to work. We have millions of 
Americans out there fighting for their hope of finding a job, and they 
need the help of the House of Representatives, as I believe they will 
get it from the Senate this week.
  No matter our party, all of us have folks in our home States who are 
unemployed and suffering because we have thus far failed to do what 
every other Congress has done in the past when long-term unemployment 
rates have been so high, as they are today. We must extend Federal 
unemployment insurance. America needs our House of Representatives to 
listen to the pleas of those who are barely making ends meet.
  I remember Joan and her daughter, a recent Rutgers University 
graduate. They live together and were both cut off from unemployment 
insurance the same week in December. The modest unemployment checks 
that Joan and her daughter were receiving had helped them to keep up 
with mortgage payments. While they waited for us to vote, their home 
was placed into foreclosure.
  Then there is Lauren from Clifton, who wrote my office saying she had 
sent out close to 1,000 resumes without luck and had reached the point 
where she couldn't pay to keep the heat on in her house during this 
brutal winter and she feared her phone was going to have to be cut off 
next. She wrote:

       I've been looking for work tirelessly. What does someone in 
     my situation do?

  These folks have worked hard all of their lives. They have played by 
the rules but unfortunately happen to be in a bad economy not of their 
making, which they did not contribute to, and are caught in these 
difficult times. They are doing everything right and so should their 
representatives in Congress.
  Today we are casting a vote for them. Today I am proud to say that in 
the Senate we are coming together, Democrats and Republicans, hammering 
out a compromise, meeting each other in the middle, and doing what is 
expected of us by Americans--reaching out, lending a hand, in a time of 
crisis. I implore my colleagues in the House of Representatives to do 
the same.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to my amendment No. 2959 to 
the unemployment insurance legislation that is before us. The amendment 
is called the Good Jobs, Good Wages, and Good Hours Act.
  Twelve times Congress has voted to extend emergency unemployment 
benefits since 2008, and what do we have to show for those 12 
extensions of these benefits. More than 10 million Americans remain 
unemployed. Of those, more than 3.8 million Americans have been 
unemployed for longer than 6 months. Millions more remain underemployed 
or have simply dropped out of the workforce altogether, too discouraged 
to even look for work in this stagnant economy.
  Over that same period a Democrat-led Senate and the Obama White House 
have done little but grow the size of the government and shrink the 
size of the middle class.
  In 2009, Congress passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill that poured 
taxpayer dollars into projects such as Solyndra and a battery 
manufacturer that is now owned by the Chinese. It failed to create the 
jobs and economic growth that was promised by the White House, but it 
succeeded in creating 5 straight years of record deficits.
  In 2010 Congress enacted ObamaCare--essentially a government takeover 
of one-sixth of our economy with 2,700 pages of new laws and 25,000 
pages of new regulations. It didn't fulfill the President's promise of 
lowering

[[Page 5534]]

health care costs or letting families keep their doctors, but it has 
succeeded in canceling health plans and raising taxes.
  In 2010 Congress enacted Dodd-Frank. It hasn't fixed too big to fail, 
but in one respect it has succeeded in creating jobs. It is estimated 
that more than 30,000 employees will be required to file the paperwork 
associated with the $18 billion in Dodd-Frank compliance costs for our 
financial sector.
  Meanwhile, Congress has failed to put a check on the EPA, which 
continues pushing regulations that have record-setting price tags. 
These regulations aren't creating jobs, but they are fulfilling the 
President's promise to make energy prices skyrocket.
  Five years into the Obama administration and the scorecard doesn't 
look very good, with $456 billion in new regulations, $1.7 trillion in 
new taxes, 10.4 million people unemployed, and economic growth far 
behind the pace of other post-World War II recoveries.
  So here we are debating the 13th extension of emergency unemployment 
benefits in the past 5 years because we have 3.8 million people in this 
country, workers who have been out of work for more than 6 months. If 
enacted, these benefits would last until June. Then what? Are we going 
to have a 14th extension, perhaps a 15th extension? Without job 
creating policies, this 13th extension is just another bandaid that 
doesn't address the true causes of chronic joblessness that plague the 
Obama economy.
  My Republican colleagues and I came to the floor yet again this week 
to debate and to vote on amendment ideas that will change the course 
the Obama administration has put the country on. We have offered dozens 
of amendments that will stimulate private-sector investment, create 
jobs, and make energy and health care more affordable. I have worked 
with many of my colleagues on a package of job-creating ideas that we 
would like to add to this 13th extension of emergency unemployment 
insurance benefits. My amendment, as I said, is called the Good Jobs, 
Good Wages, Good Hours Act, and it includes many of these ideas.
  I would like to share a few of them with my colleagues in the Senate 
so people understand that when we come to the floor to talk about 
offering amendments and getting votes on amendments, we are serious. We 
have real substantive ideas that we believe will address the 
fundamental issue--the underlying cause of chronic high unemployment--
by getting people back to work through job creation, through an 
expanding and growing economy.
  My amendment includes a provision that has been pushed by Senator 
Hoeven that would finally approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. After 5 
years of delay, it is time to approve the pipeline and the 40,000 jobs 
it will support. Senator Hoeven has been the leading advocate of that 
here in the Senate.
  The amendment I am offering includes Leader McConnell's legislation 
to stop EPA's war on affordable energy. Leader McConnell's bill puts 
consumers ahead of liberal and environmental groups by stopping costly 
regulations that will make it even more difficult for the middle class 
to make ends meet.
  My amendment includes a provision pushed by Senators Barrasso and 
Hoeven to approve more LNG exports to our NATO allies and to the 
Ukraine, something that is especially timely in light of what is going 
on in that part of the world. Now is the ideal time to create more 
domestic jobs while breaking our allies' dependence on Russian energy 
supplies.
  My amendment also addresses the problems created by ObamaCare. It 
includes a provision pushed by Senator Collins that will restore the 
40-hour workweek. It will finally repeal the job-destroying medical 
device tax, which Senators Toomey and Hatch have been tirelessly 
fighting, which has cost us, by some estimates, 30,000 jobs already in 
our economy because of this new job-killing tax.
  My amendment ensures that veterans and the long-term unemployed are 
not punished by the costs of the ObamaCare employer mandate. It 
includes a provision Senator Blunt has authored that raised this issue 
in the Senate on behalf of veterans, and in the House a similar bill 
passed by a vote of 406 to 1. Certainly we can find few Democrats who 
are willing to provide ObamaCare relief to veterans and the long-term 
unemployed.
  My amendment also provides permanent targeted tax relief to millions 
of small businesses. Small businesses create 65 percent of all new 
jobs. Yet this administration has done little more than punish them 
with more regulations and higher taxes. This amendment makes permanent 
higher expensing levels, provides capital gains tax relief for 
investing in small businesses, and expands options to increase cashflow 
at Main Street businesses across the country. It allows small 
businesses to deduct more startup costs, and puts the selfemployed on 
an equal playing field when paying for health care costs.
  This amendment also includes commonsense regulatory reform put 
forward by Senator Portman that will ensure taxpayers know the true 
cost of new regulations. It requires agencies to conduct a cost-benefit 
analysis and provide advanced notice of any major new regulations.
  Finally, this amendment includes the House-passed SKILLS Act, which 
Senator Scott has introduced as an amendment to the UI bill. Currently, 
we have 50 Federal worker training programs spread across nine Federal 
agencies. Many of them are duplicative and few of them have been 
evaluated for whether or not they are effective. This amendment would 
combine 35 of those programs into one Workforce Investment Fund that 
will empower governors to tailor programs to their States and benefit 
employers and employees alike.
  My point simply is that Senate Republicans stand ready to offer more 
than just the status quo. We understand the long-term unemployed want 
more than just 20 more weeks of unemployment benefits. They want a job. 
We understand those who are struggling to adapt in a changing economy 
want more than a morass of broken worker training programs. They want 
relevant training that prepares them for the jobs that are in demand 
today. We understand that low-income families want more than government 
programs designed to help them just get by. They want more opportunity 
and a better future for their children. We understand that Main Street 
businesses across the country cannot afford endless regulations coming 
from Washington, DC. They want a chance to succeed and to fulfill their 
American dream.
  I am hopeful that at least some of our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle understand that basic principle too and will join us in 
including job- creating measures as part of this 13th extension of 
emergency unemployment benefits. We can do better for the American 
people. We should do better by the American people.
  We have serious proposals, serious job-creating proposals that don't 
get a chance to see the light of day because the majority party in the 
Senate blocks amendments from being offered, blocks amendments from 
being debated, and blocks amendments from being voted on.
  So what do we have. We have the status quo. That means that for the 
13th time we have to extend unemployment insurance benefits to people 
who have been unemployed for way too long because we have failed to put 
policies in place that are actually good for job creation, that are 
actually the right types of incentives for our small businesses to 
hire, that take away the burdensome cost of taxes and regulations that 
make it more expensive and more difficult for our small businesses to 
hire, and because we fail to take into consideration the impact that so 
many of these things we do here in Washington have on hardworking 
people in this country who are trying to lift their families into the 
middle class and to provide a better future for their children and 
grandchildren.
  That is what every American wants. That is what every family in 
America aspires to. We ought to do something about it. Another meager 
government check that helps people get by isn't the way to a brighter 
and better future.

[[Page 5535]]

The way to a brighter and better future is a good-paying job with an 
opportunity for advancement. That is what we ought to be focused on, 
and that is what the provisions I just mentioned, that are included in 
my amendment, would do.
  My amendment incorporates many of the ideas Members on our side have 
advanced, all with an eye toward creating jobs and growing and 
expanding the economy in a way that will create those good-paying 
opportunities and give people a better chance at a better future. So I 
really hope we will get the chance to vote. We can't, evidently, get 
individual amendments that have been offered by individual Members 
voted on, so we have taken a number of ideas and incorporated them into 
this amendment, an alternative to what is being proposed by the 
Democrats, which simply treats the symptom of this problem but does 
nothing to address the underlying cause of the problem.
  We want to focus on the problem; we want to focus on the cause; we 
want to focus on solutions; and we believe the Senate ought to be the 
place where we have an opportunity to vote on those very solutions. So 
I encourage my colleagues on both sides to open this process. Let us 
allow the American people to have their voices heard--not just the 
voices of a few but the voices of the many people in the Senate who 
have good ideas about how to create jobs, grow the economy, and build a 
better future for our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the 
Senate as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Creating Real Value

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in Kansas there is a company called Koch 
Industries that is an important component of our State, its economy, 
and many, several thousand Kansans work there. Unfortunately, in the 
political discourse of our country, Koch Industries and its owners are 
often subject to attacks.
  I happened to be reading the Wall Street Journal this morning, and I 
noticed a column, an opinion piece written by the chairman of the board 
of Koch Industries, Charles G. Koch, and I wish to share that with my 
colleagues today.
  It seems to me the things that are outlined in Mr. Koch's opinion 
piece, while not everyone would agree, they are certainly within the 
wide mainstream of American thought and certainly reflect opinions that 
are worthy of debate and discussion in our country and on the Senate 
floor.
  We all bring diversity, a different set of values, opinions, beliefs 
of political philosophy to the debate on the Senate floor, and I wanted 
to share one of Koch Industries owner's beliefs about those values and 
his philosophy and how it affects Americans today.
  This is an opinion piece from today's Wall Street Journal written by 
a Kansan, Charles Koch. Mr. Koch says:

       I have devoted most of my life to understanding the 
     principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is 
     those principles--the principles of a free society--that have 
     shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.
       Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, 
     respect, equality before law and personal freedom are under 
     attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want 
     to restore a free society and create greater well-being and 
     opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight 
     for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 
     years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in 
     the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in 
     the political process.

  Again, Mr. Koch speaking:

       More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this 
     could happen. ``The natural progress of things,'' Jefferson 
     wrote, ``is for liberty to yield and government to gain 
     ground.'' He knew that no government could possibly run 
     citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to 
     control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current 
     health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for 
     government control of the means of production and how people 
     live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, 
     the promised end justifies the means. A truly free society is 
     based upon a vision of respect for people and what they 
     value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects 
     its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same 
     should be true of any government that disrespects its 
     citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current 
     administration is that you are incapable of running your own 
     life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. 
     This is the essence of big government and collectivism.
       Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists 
     strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in 
     character assassination. . . . This is the approach that 
     Albert Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul 
     Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many 
     despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the 
     antithesis of what is required for a free society--and a 
     telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good 
     answers.
       Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society 
     or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our 
     critics would have you believe we're ``un-American'' and 
     trying to ``rig the system,'' that we're against 
     ``environmental protection'' or eager to ``end workplace 
     safety standards.''

  These falsehoods remind Mr. Koch of the late Senator Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan's observation, ``Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but 
not to his own facts.''

       Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company: 
     Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans; who make many 
     thousands of products that Americans want and need. According 
     to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 
     additional American jobs they support generate $11.7 billion 
     in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-
     based employees are union members.
       Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for 
     environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many 
     of them are from the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials 
     have commended us for our ``commitment to a cleaner 
     environment'' and called us ``a model for other companies.''
       Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in 
     the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total 
     Case Incident Rate--

  That is a safety measure--

     was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for 
     peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our 
     laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and 
     improvement.
       Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades 
     opposing cronyism and all political favors, including 
     mandates, subsidies, and protective tariffs--even when we 
     benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more 
     than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be 
     abolished. Koch Industries was the only major producer in the 
     ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax 
     credit in 2011. That government handout . . . needlessly 
     drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for 
     consumers--many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged.

  Mr. Koch says:

       Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the 
     marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.
       Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help 
     themselves, America is now saddled with a system that 
     destroys values, raises costs, hinders innovation and 
     relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, 
     dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when 
     elected officials believe that people's lives are better run 
     by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. 
     Those in power fail to see that more government means less 
     liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be 
     American. Love of liberty is an American ideal. If more 
     businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision 
     of creating real value for people in a principled way, our 
     nation would be far better off--not just today, but for 
     generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that 
     vision. I'm convinced that most Americans believe it's worth 
     fighting for, too.

  That is the opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal this morning, 
written by a Kansan, Charles Koch.
  I commend that opinion piece and its thoughts to my colleagues in the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 5536]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to address 
the unemployment benefits legislation. This legislation is, frankly, an 
admission that after 5 years of spending more money for costly 
government stimulus--all of it borrowed--to try to increase employment 
in America, we still have an unemployment crisis.
  Not long ago at the White House, Mr. Sperling said that there are 
three applicants for every job in America and wages are down. In 
effect, this legislation is an admission that taxing, spending, 
regulating, and borrowing has not worked. Indeed, those policies will 
never work. More regulation, more taxing, more borrowing, and more debt 
will not improve the economy. We know that. Despite what some so-called 
experts say, we know that is not a policy that will work, but urgent 
action is needed.
  According to testimony we heard this week in the Budget Committee, if 
you adjust for the retirement of the baby boomers, the labor force is 
still short 4.5 million people, the equivalent of $500 billion in 
national income lost each year. But the majority has circled their 
wagons around this spend-and-borrow agenda.
  For instance, our friends are blocking a Republican amendment 
requiring companies to hire legal workers, not unlawful workers. The E-
Verify system should be required nationwide. It would simply check the 
Social Security number of applicants, which would identify many people 
who have no right to be employed in America because they are not here 
lawfully. In a time of high unemployment, we ought not to be filling 
our jobs with people who are not lawful and not lawfully able to work 
in America, while at the same time financially supporting people who 
are unemployed in the country. At the same time, congressional 
Democrats have pushed for a bill that would more than double the future 
H-1B guest worker visas that are frequently used for offshore jobs.
  As ranking member of the Budget Committee, I have to inform my 
colleagues that this unemployment bill is not honestly paid for, and 
that it violates the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that was signed into 
law just over 3 months ago. We said we were not going to spend above a 
certain amount.
  Actually, Ryan-Murray raised the amount the Budget Control Act had 
limited spending to when we were in a tight fix. I think this year in 
particular was probably the toughest year under the Budget Control Act, 
so relief was provided and it raised the spending limits for a fifth 
year and it helped. Just 3 months ago we reaffirmed those spending 
limits and said we were not going to go above them.
  Yet just this past Monday, the Senate passed the so-called doc fix 
which exceeded the Ryan-Murray spending limits by $6.1 billion this 
year alone. We adopted a limit, and what do we do? We want to help our 
doctors, but instead of reducing spending somewhere else in this 
massive government, we come up with a gimmick argument to say we are 
paying for it and add, in effect, $6.1 billion to the expenditures this 
year. We objected to that, but people voted to waive the budget with an 
up-or-down vote. Do you want to stick by the agreement we reached 3 
months ago or do you want to raise it and spend more? The majority in 
the Senate voted to spend more, and this is why we have such an extreme 
debt threat in America today.
  The bill that is before us now is the unemployment insurance 
legislation, which exceeds the 2014 limit on spending by another $9.9 
billion. Our Federal budget is $3.5 trillion--$3,500 billion--and we 
can't find some other reductions if we want to fund a new expenditure, 
such as unemployment compensation? We can't find someplace that we can 
tighten our belts and pay for it?
  My colleagues say that while spending increases this year, the bill 
is paid for over the next decade. They promised that although we will 
spend more this year, a decade later--10 years--we are going to get 
around to paying for it. There are three major problems with this 
contention, and we just have to address them so there is no mistake 
about it. This is not legitimate, and it threatens the financial 
integrity of the country.
  The Ryan-Murray budget deal established spending limits. You cannot 
get out of those spending limits by raising fees and taxes. Taxing more 
to spend more was not the deal. The deal in the Budget Control Act said 
that we are going to reduce the growth in spending. We were on track--
over 10 years--to grow spending $10 trillion. Under the Budget Control 
Act, we were going to allow spending to increase, but it would only 
increase $8 trillion, not $10 trillion.
  Now we are told that the Budget Control Act, which includes the 
sequester--we can't live with it. Growing and spending $8 trillion is 
not enough; we have to grow spending even more. Every time some worthy 
cause is brought before the Senate, we take the easy way out. We come 
up with a gimmick pay-for or we just violate the budget and spend the 
money anyway. What good is it to have a Ryan-Murray budget agreement or 
a Budget Control Act if nobody adheres to it?
  Second, one of the big reasons our country is going broke is the 
philosophy of ``spend today and promise to pay for it tomorrow.'' Here 
is what a new Bloomberg analysis--an independent group--concluded:

       Since December 2013 [three months ago] the Republican House 
     and the Democratic Senate have approved more than $40 billion 
     worth of spending ``offsets'' in the form of cuts that would 
     take place in 2023 at the earliest or timing shifts in policy 
     to bring savings into the 10-year window . . .

  Both of these gimmicks are not legitimate, will not work, and have 
been criticized by independent groups that are concerned about the 
future of the Republic.
  Third, the promised revenue offsets are phony savings. The offsets 
come from something called ``pension smoothing''--wow, what is 
``pension smoothing''?--and ``prepayment of premiums to the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation.'' These are two popular schemes--double 
counting and timing shifts--that allow companies to prepay their 
payments for up to 5 years. In good times companies can pay ahead to 
the PBGC trust fund and Congress can take the money out the backdoor 
and spend it on--in this case--unemployment. In bad times this will 
leave the taxpayer further on the hook if PBGC has to take over a 
failed pension plan. It is taking money out of the plan that was 
supposed to be set up to guarantee and insure pensions.
  I realize some of this sounds complex, but that is the problem: the 
big spenders in Washington have turned bilking taxpayers into an art 
form. Some spend their whole time trying to come up with a gimmick to 
get around the actual requirement, which is for us to set priorities 
and to recognize we cannot fund everything we would like to fund.
  If we have a new idea for a new program, the Budget Control Act says: 
OK, do it, but you have to do it within the spending limits. You have 
to find some spending reduction to justify a new spending increase. 
That is what we agreed to, and that is what the President of the United 
States signed into law. He also signed Ryan-Murray into law. Is he here 
advocating responsible action? No, he is here supporting the Democratic 
leadership to push these budget-busting provisions and is not properly 
paying for them. Frankly, that is a disappointment.
  The President of the United States is the chief person who talks to 
the American people. He has yet to look them in the eye and tell them 
we are on an unsustainable course, and we are going to have to tighten 
our belts. Instead, every time he talks, he talks about a new spending. 
A new program that spends more, in essence, is borrowing more and 
increasing our debt even further.
  In the few months since Ryan-Murray was passed, the Senate--driven by 
a Democratic majority--has passed five bills that busted through the 
Ryan-Murray limits. There have been five bills that busted the budget. 
We just agreed to it, and they just voted for it 3 months ago.
  They say these are all important measures and we have to pass them, 
so we should disregard those prior promises we made to the American 
people.

[[Page 5537]]

The whole point of a spending limit is to make Congress set priorities. 
If you feel you have legislation that needs to pass, it is your duty to 
find a way to pay for it within the limits of spending we agreed to.
  This is not a radical concept. This is responsible governance. It is 
done in cities and States all over America. They are living within 
their means. They are tightening up their efficiencies in productivity. 
People holler and wail whenever they make those cuts, but those cities, 
counties, and States are still standing. They have not been sucked into 
the ocean. They are still operating. They are going to be leaner, more 
efficient, and more productive as the result of going through a tight 
budget time. As money rises, and hopefully the economy bounces back, 
they will be in a better position in the future to serve the taxpayers 
of their communities efficiently.
  Here are the budget violations in the pending bill, and these budget 
violations were all confirmed. I am the ranking Republican of the 
Budget Committee, and the Democratic chairman, Senator Murray, is a 
fine and fair chairman of the committee. Her team has acknowledged 
these violations of the budget, and as a result, it is subject to a 
budget point of order. There is not a dispute about what I am saying 
today.
  There is $9.9 billion in spending in excess of the top-line outlays 
for fiscal year 2014 set by the Ryan-Murray spending agreement. There 
is also another violation of the Budget Control Act because there is 
$9.9 billion of spending in excess of the Finance Committee's 
allocations.
  The committees have certain allocations. The Finance Committee has a 
certain allocation, and now it is spending $9.9 billion more. How much 
is $9.9 billion? Well, in Alabama we have a lean State government, and 
I am proud of it. My State's budget is about $2 billion. This is $9.9 
billion, and it is in violation of our agreement.
  Also, there is a $10.7 billion increase in long-term deficits in the 
decade beyond the budget window that is subject to a budget point of 
order, and that is in violation of the budget.
  Ordinarily, we would be able to raise a point of order to enforce all 
three of these violations. However, two of these points of order were 
wiped away by a loophole created in the language of the Ryan-Murray 
legislation. I warned them that it was in there, and I urged my 
colleagues not to adopt it, but it was adopted anyway. Two of the 
budget points of order I just mentioned are not subject to floor action 
and have been eliminated, basically, through the use of the deficit-
neutral reserve fund. At the time of the Ryan-Murray deal's 
consideration, the Budget Committee staff--my staff--did the work and 
we warned that the 57 deficit-neutral reserve funds in the Ryan-Murray 
bill would be used to increase spending above the spending limits. We 
warned that would happen. The way that works is the majority can get 
around the budget rules that limit spending if they propose to offset 
new spending with new higher taxes.
  So we are witnessing today exactly what I warned would happen: The 
minority has lost the procedural tool to block spending increases as 
long as they pay for it with more taxes.
  What we agreed to under the Budget Control Act was that we couldn't 
spend above this limit, and if we raised taxes, it would be used to 
reduce the deficit. So now we have been able to switch that around so 
the raising of taxes is allowed to increase new spending.
  These deficit reserve funds have been used by Senator Reid and the 
majority to pass a proposed additional $13 billion in spending above 
the caps already. However, the unemployment bill still triggers a long-
term deficit point of order because it uses revenue timing shifts to 
conceal long-term deficit impact. So it is still in violation of the 
budget, even though two of the points of order are gone.
  We do need to look at the long-term deficit picture. It is good that 
we still at least have that point of order we can raise. We can't just 
spend today because it fits within the 10-year window and somehow looks 
OK, when we know in the outyears it is going to add to the deficit of 
the United States. So the budget drafters and the BCA people have 
language in to prohibit that, rightly so. The problem is we won't 
adhere to it.
  Last year, we paid our creditors $221 billion in interest payments--
$221 billion on our roughly $17 trillion debt. That is a huge amount of 
money. The Federal highway bill is $40 billion. Aid to education--a 
whole bunch of programs we have--$100 billion in total. The Defense 
budget is $500 billion. We paid our creditors last year $221 billion in 
interest alone on the debt. That is enough to pay for 172 weeks of 
unemployment benefits for everyone collecting at the end of last year. 
Over the course of the next 10 years, according to CBO, we will spend a 
cumulative $5.8 trillion in interest payments on our debt. Over the 
next 10 years, CBO--our accounting firm that tries to do the right 
thing every day and tells us what is going to happen with our budget--
tells us we are going to spend over $5 trillion, almost $6 trillion, in 
interest in the next 10 years--money that could be used to help people, 
to rebuild our infrastructure, to fix crumbling roads and bridges. At 
today's levels, that $5.8 trillion could pay for a great amount of 
great things.
  The CBO also told us that 10 years from today, the 1-year annual 
interest payment will not be $221 billion, it will be $880 billion--
$880 billion, an increase of over $650 billion in interest payments 
each year--not one time, but that year alone we will pay $600 billion 
more in interest. So how can we fund programs? Isn't it going to crowd 
out spending we need?
  Washington is squandering our national inheritance. We are a nation 
deeply in debt. I would say to my colleagues that every time you 
violate our budget limits--because I am not voting for it--every time 
you add more to the Nation's credit card, you are increasing the 
interest burden that is crushing America, and you reduce the amount of 
money that will be available to spend on whatever program you would 
like to spend it on as the years go by. Interest costs represent the 
fastest growing item in our budget. How much money will there be left 
over for your chosen government projects when our interest payment 
reaches almost $1 trillion a year? CBO says that by 2024, it will hit 
$880 billion. How many more years will it take, 2 or 3, to reach $1 
trillion?
  We must help the unemployed, no doubt about it. We need to help them 
get better jobs, more jobs, and better pay, and we have to do so 
without adding more to the debt. That is what is placing a wet blanket 
over the American economy.
  We need to produce more American energy. We can do that.
  We need to streamline our Tax Code to lower rates, close loopholes, 
and boost economic growth. We need to eliminate regulations that are 
reducing productive activities and sending jobs overseas.
  We need to endorse a trade policy that defends the American worker 
from unfair trade practices. Too much of that is occurring. We don't 
need to lose a single job to unfair trade practices.
  We need an immigration policy that serves the interests of the 
American worker. At a time of high unemployment, the very idea the 
Senate would pass a bill that would permanently double the number of 
guest workers who can enter the country boggles the mind. That, in 
addition to the fact they would legalize 11 million and increase the 
annual flow of immigrants into the country from 1 million a year--the 
most generous of any Nation in the world--to 1.5 million. In effect, 
under the bill that passed this Senate, we would be providing permanent 
legal status to about 30 million people in the next 10 years. Our 
current law allows for 1 million a year--about 10 million over the next 
10 years. Is it any wonder people are having a hard time getting a job 
today?
  There is not a tight labor market out there; there is a loose labor 
market. How do I know? Because wages are going down. If employers are 
desperate and need more workers and can't find them, why aren't they 
having to pay higher wages to get good workers?

[[Page 5538]]

  We have to stand up. The American people need to know what is 
happening to them.
  What is the solution, our colleagues say? Well, unemployment is too 
high and wages are not going up; let's borrow more money and spend it 
by sending out unemployment checks to people who are unemployed because 
somebody illegally here took a job they could have taken.
  There is no doubt about this: We need to create and transform the 
welfare office into an office that transforms the lives of people who 
are struggling today. We have 40 job programs, at least. We have more 
than 80 different means-tested social programs. Those all need to be 
consolidated. There needs to be one central place where an American who 
is hurting, who is out of work and needs help, may be given financial 
help, but also counseled and provided training in the things they might 
need to get a job. Maybe instead of a subsidy while they're unemployed, 
individuals need help with transportation to go to work. Maybe they 
need help relocating to another town where the jobs are readily 
available.
  This idea that we just continue to spend more and more on attempting 
to help people by giving them money without helping them transform 
their lives and become productive has to end. In fact, all the means-
tested programs all added up amount to more than $750 billion, which is 
more than all the other individual programs we spend money on--more 
than Social Security, more than Medicare, more than Medicaid, more than 
the Defense Department.
  This country has some challenges in front of it. If we would respond 
with classic American values of hard work, individual responsibility, 
and our technology and training, we could turn this country around. But 
we don't have any leadership in that regard. Any change, any 
suggestions that we would reduce a subsidy program in order to fund job 
training or even fund unemployment compensation is a nonstarter around 
here, it appears.
  I am worried about where we are. This unemployment insurance violates 
the budget. We should not pass it. We should do it within the budget 
and we need to analyze it carefully to make sure we are doing it in a 
way that actually helps those we intend to help.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I came to the floor today with the 
intention of asking unanimous consent to pass H.R. 3521, which we have 
heard a lot about on the floor lately between Senator Vitter and 
Senator Sanders. This bill would authorize the construction of 27 
veterans clinics--2 of them in our State, Louisiana, 1 in Lake Charles 
and 1 in Lafayette.
  It is a long and sad story about why these clinics have not been 
built. I will get into that in a minute. As you can see, Texas, 
California, Florida, Georgia, and other States are affected. I know the 
Senators from those States support what we are trying to do.
  Yesterday or the day before, my colleague came to the floor to call 
me ``ineffective.'' I would like to say that I was a little bit shocked 
to hear that. I have been called many things on the floor of this 
Senate--hardheaded, stubborn, tenacious, the Senator who never quits. I 
have never been called ineffective, so it was a little bit shocking.
  What I can say is that I think I have spent 18 years on the floor of 
the Senate and here working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
and developing very strong friendships, very good relationships and 
trusting friendships that I think have accrued in large measure in a 
very beneficial way to the State I represent and to the region of the 
country I am also so proud to represent, the gulf coast.
  Maybe my colleague was having a bad day. I am going to let it go, but 
it was a little shocking to hear that word.
  Back to the issue. The issue is quite serious. The issue is that we 
have had a process of building veterans clinics in this country a 
certain way for a very long time. About 3 years ago CBO kind of out of 
the blue decided to change the scoring mechanism--instead of the way we 
were doing it through a leasing process, change the scoring system to 
cause the budget problem, the constraints in the budget to not allow us 
to move forward with the construction of these veterans facilities.
  But added to that change, what is really happening in Louisiana and 
why this is such an important issue for us is that we were scheduled to 
build our two clinics and had waited in line patiently for many years. 
Our clinics were getting ready to be built in Lafayette and Lake 
Charles, which are a very important part of our outreach to the tens of 
thousands of veterans in our State.
  The Veterans' Administration itself made a very serious mistake, 
which they have admitted in writing, verbally. General Shinseki has 
been down to our State to visit these sites, to talk with many of us in 
Louisiana about how unfortunate it was that mistakes in the bidding 
process were made--not by us, not by the State, not by the locals, but 
by the Federal Government. Because of these mistakes, our process of 
building these clinics was delayed.
  That is why House Member Boustany--a wonderful colleague and a dear 
friend and a great leader--has been leading the effort. These are 
basically in his district. He and I have been working very closely to 
try to bring to the attention of the leadership here the fact that they 
made the mistake, not us. We should not have to pay the penalty because 
of that.
  Then, in the midst of that fight, this new scoring mechanism came 
down.
  Now we cannot get out from underneath either the offset required or 
the new process required to get our clinics built. It has nothing to do 
with need--we are at the top of that list. We have the need. We have 
the veterans. We have the commitment of the Federal Government to get 
these built.
  All of our delegation has been working very closely to try to get 
these clinics built. I am happy to say that I am here today--as I have 
always been on this issue--supporting it and will ask in just a 
minute--I wanted to ask but will not ask in just a minute--for 
unanimous consent to build these clinics without an offset, just as the 
House bill passed. It is a $1.6 billion charge. It would move without 
an offset. That is what the House voted on. It was a huge vote, 346 
votes, Republicans and Democrats. I think when we have a vote like 
that, we need to really pay attention over here. They voted to build 
these clinics at a cost of $1.6 billion without an offset.
  That is what I am going to ask for. Senator Coburn will object. He 
has let me know he will object. Unfortunately, because of personal 
reasons, he is unable to be here today. So out of respect for the 
process of the Senate and out of courtesy, I will not be asking for 
that unanimous consent now, but I will be asking for it early next 
week.
  Just to be clear, it will be a unanimous consent to build these 27 
clinics based on the House vote without this bill going back to the 
House, going straight to the President's desk for signature by the 
President.
  The offset the Senator from Louisiana offered is a bogus offset. We 
have a letter from CBO that I would like to read into the Record. The 
junior Senator from Louisiana offered his offset to supposedly raise 
the $1.6 billion that will pay for this. This is from the CBO analysis.
  It says: Based on preliminary estimates of the amendment offered by 
Senator Vitter, based on the information of the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Veterans Affairs and their current practices and 
joint purchases of prescription drugs, I do not estimate any savings 
for drug purchases relative to current law. My preliminary estimate of 
the amendment would be a minimal discretionary cost of less than 
$500,000.
  There is no money to be saved by the amendment offered by Senator 
Vitter,

[[Page 5539]]

so I would be offering the bill to build these clinics with no offset, 
and that is what the House passed. It will go directly to the 
President's desk, and we will resolve the problem for these States. 
Then we will finally figure out a way to get back on track building 
clinics that we need and figure out a way to pay for these clinics in 
the future, but these clinics got stuck in kind of a technical 
bureaucratic mess in the recalculation. Ours, in particular, were 
caught because they should have been built in the 2 years before this 
new scoring process came to be, which is why Louisiana is having a 
particularly difficult time.
  But as the record will show, our entire delegation has supported this 
effort. I honor the leadership of Congressman Boustany from the House, 
who has literally worked on this tirelessly for 6 years. I thank the 
House delegation for sending this bill over.
  I will not require an offset. The offset Senator Vitter offered is 
bogus.
  As soon as Senator Coburn can get back, which will be early next 
week, I will be offering this unanimous consent. Unfortunately, I 
understand he will object to it because he believes we should find a 
way to pay for it. There might be other objections as well, but I am 
looking forward to the debate with Senator Coburn next week.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               GM Recall

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, yesterday's hearing of the commerce 
committee's subcommittee on consumer safety provided a powerful and 
important moment in our legislative process, and I want to thank my 
colleague, the chairman of that subcommittee, Chairman McCaskill, for 
enabling us to come together, as well as my other colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, Senators Klobuchar and Boxer and Ayotte, for their 
very insightful and significant questions and comments on a challenge 
that should unite us on both sides of the aisle--the tragic events, 
death and life-changing injuries to unsuspecting drivers who were 
victims of a defective ignition switch in automobiles manufactured by 
GM; a car defect that should have been fixed, disclosed, and remedied 
before these deaths occurred.
  I want to thank the families of the victims of these defective cars 
for coming forward and being at that hearing yesterday and sharing 
their stories with me and others. They are doing a great public service 
through their courage and strength.
  I want to also thank Mary Barra, the CEO of GM. As I said to her 
then, and I will repeat now, I admire her fortitude and her service in 
coming forward to face the questions of our committee and be the face 
of General Motors on the issues that confront us now in car safety. I 
admire her career at GM--an engineer who has risen through the ranks, a 
second-generation employee at an iconic, great American manufacturing 
company.
  I have long admired that company and the products it has produced. 
They have enriched the lives of so many Americans over the years. My 
hope is this hearing and this process will be a turning point for the 
company in facing these car safety challenges.
  I admire greatly also its dealers and employees. Some of them have 
contacted me, especially Connecticut dealers, telling me how they are 
reaching out proactively to the drivers of these defective vehicles, 
asking them to bring them to their company so they can be repaired 
before they do further damage.
  This great company can reclaim its iconic brand and luster by 
breaking with its past, and Mary Barra has the opportunity for this 
historic contribution. As I said to her yesterday, she may be 
surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers and public relations people who will 
advise her to be cautious, to be timid, and to be reactive, but now is 
the time for her to seize the initiative and take three simple steps as 
a beginning.
  No. 1, establish a compensation fund for all who have suffered damage 
from this defective ignition switch which caused cars to crash, some of 
them to burn--victims who have suffered injuries and death as well as 
economic damage. No. 2, provide a warning--a clear, strong warning--to 
drivers still behind the wheels of vehicles that still have this 
defective ignition switch. The cars are under recall but unrepaired. 
People are still driving them, many not knowing the full risk they have 
undertaken by continuing to drive. A strong warning to ground those 
vehicles until they are repaired is what is needed now.
  Third, support our legislation. Senator Markey and I have offered 
legislation that would provide for better reporting by car companies, a 
stronger accountability system, and better disclosure through a 
database to consumers so they will know what the risks are before they 
take them and can make informed choices about what they drive and when.
  These steps are well warranted by the past misconduct of GM, but they 
are also potentially a model for other companies in doing the right 
thing--facing the truth, telling truth to power, and making sure 
innocent consumers are protected against harms that may not be known to 
them.
  She had the opportunity to break with the past culture--a culture of 
deniability and of deception. Deception is what happened at GM. These 
ignition switches were known to be defective. As early as 2001, year 
after year there were reliable and material facts indicating to GM it 
had a responsibility to fix these vehicles. Yet they took no action to 
repair them, to recall them, to inform consumers. And the fix was not a 
major costly one. It was $2 per vehicle--easily done. Yet in 2005, 
2006, GM made a business decision that the price was too high, the time 
was too long, and it continued to provide those vehicles for sale to 
consumers.
  Then it deceived the U.S. Government. I have already spoken on the 
floor about section 612 of the agreement GM signed that indicated there 
were no material adverse facts at the time it was bailed out in 2009 as 
part of the reorganization. That deception is bad enough, but what 
happened as a result of that reorganization was a shield from 
liability, a form of immunity against legal accountability granted only 
because GM failed to disclose to the United States and to the 
bankruptcy court that it might well be liable and in fact was 
responsible for these defective vehicles. That shield from liability 
still bedevils the victims of injuries, death, and economic damage as 
they seek to hold GM accountable because GM itself is invoking that 
shield in courts today around the country and seeking to dismiss 
actions brought against it, seeking to return them to the bankruptcy 
court where the black hole of discharge will prevent recovery.
  I welcome the independent investigation GM has undertaken by a very 
credible and respected former U.S. attorney. I welcome the appointment 
of consultant Ken Feinberg, also well respected, with experience and 
expertise in providing compensation. But GM itself has still said there 
is no compensation fund and it will not commit to one. And as able as 
these two individuals are, the question remains, what will it take? 
What facts or evidence will be required to persuade GM to do the right 
thing?
  I think there is more than ample evidence--in fact, abundant evidence 
now--as to what the path should be, and I urged it yesterday on Mary 
Barra. GM should very simply do the right thing now: Establish a 
compensation fund sufficient to seek to make these victims whole. 
Nothing will erase or even ease the pain and grief suffered by these 
families and loved ones, but justice has its own virtue. GM has the 
rare opportunity in American corporate life to do justice and not wait 
for its consultants and its investigators to ``work through the issues 
here.'' Working through the issues here means doing right by those 
victims.
  Yesterday I asked Ms. Barra about the safety of the vehicles still on 
the

[[Page 5540]]

road. She assured me they were fine to drive--as long as the key was 
not overloaded, as long as the ignition switch was used alone without 
additional keys. She assured me there was no more risk to drive one of 
those vehicles than any other in use today.
  I asked her about the contradiction of that statement with the recall 
notice itself. I am going to display it here. It says that these 
vehicles are risky to drive, in effect, if your keyring is carrying 
added weight or--and I emphasize that it is an ``or''--there are rough 
road conditions or jarring or impact-related events.
  Unfortunately, too many of our highways and our byways have rough 
road conditions or provide the opportunity for jarring events.
  Ms. Barra may believe tests and analyses done by her company she 
referred to yesterday assured her and GM that driving these defective 
vehicles is safe as long as it is done with only the ignition key, 
without the added weight of additional keys, but she must know, because 
she has children--as do I and most Members of this body--that they will 
drive with additional keys on that ignition switch. In fact, hundreds 
of thousands--millions of Americans have no idea that driving these 
vehicles with added keys provides that kind of potentially fatal risk. 
When these cars lose power, they lose steering, they lose their brakes, 
and they lose their airbags. Losing power, brakes, and steering is 
terrifying, but airbags are essential if power is lost and the car 
crashes, as victims of these crashes have discovered, to their sorrow 
and the grief of their families.
  This kind of pothole, a rough road condition, a potentially jarring 
event--how common are they? This photograph is from Surf Avenue in 
Stratford, a beautiful town along the coast of Connecticut. I could 
take hundreds of these photographs from Connecticut, which has better 
roads than many other places in our State or country. They are as 
common as the roads themselves.
  Those risks are GM's responsibility to warn. It has failed to do so. 
I asked Ms. Barra what evidence or facts would persuade her to issue a 
stronger warning. The recall notice itself said that risk increases if 
your keyring is carrying added weight--such as more keys or the key fob 
itself; the key fob alone adds additional weight--or your vehicle is 
experiences rough road conditions or other jarring or impact-related 
events. What would persuade her to issue this warning to consumers: 
Stop driving these cars until they are repaired.
  I specifically asked her whether evidence about drivers who have, in 
fact, experienced the power loss without adding additional weight to 
their keyrings--if they encountered these kinds of conditions and their 
cars shut down--would persuade her to change her view. She answered to 
me:

       Senator, if I had any data, any incidents where with just 
     the key, or the key and the ring, there was any risk, I would 
     ground these vehicles across the country.

  Ms. Barra, let me tell you about Laura Valle. In March of 2014, Ms. 
Valle, who owns a 2007 silver Chevrolet Cobalt, received GM's recall 
letter instructing her to remove all items from her keyring, leaving 
only the vehicle key. As the recall notice instructed, she continued to 
drive her vehicle using only the vehicle key. Yet, while driving with a 
friend, she lost power. Fortunately, she was on the right side of the 
road and she was able to pull the vehicle to a stop.
  There will be other instances. I know they will come forward to me, 
to my colleagues, and to lawyers who may represent them.
  Today I call on GM to issue that warning. There is more than ample 
evidence or, as Ms. Barra said, ``data,'' ``incidents'' where the key 
or just the key and the ring led to the vehicle stopping not because 
there was added weight but because they encountered rough road 
conditions or jarring events, which could consist of simply leaning the 
wrong way or the driver's knee moving.
  These vehicles create unacceptable risks before they are repaired. 
The advice GM should give to people is this: Bring these cars to be 
repaired immediately. Stop driving them. In the meantime, use the 
loaners GM has offered.
  GM has the opportunity to avoid another business decision. It may be 
more costly to provide loaners, but in the long run they will save 
lives and dollars.
  Finally, I ask GM to do the right thing again by supporting the 
legislation Senator Markey and I have introduced. This legislation is 
critically important to the future. It can't correct the past, but it 
can make sure that accidents are reported; that defects are made known 
to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration; and that 
there are not only incentives for reporting but there is increased 
accountability for failing to do so; and require NHTSA to establish a 
publicly accessible, searchable database that will allow drivers and 
consumer safety advocates to connect the dots. Companies that are 
unwilling to connect those dots will be brought to justice, will be 
required to recall these vehicles and find out about defective models 
in time to save lives.
  Ms. Barra has not yet committed to supporting this bill. In my view, 
it is her responsibility to do so. It is the responsibility of GM to 
take this action now. She and GM have the opportunity to change 
corporate culture not only in that company but in others by setting a 
model--leading by example, not by their words at a Senate hearing or 
letters of apology but by action. Action speaks louder than words. 
Action speaks louder than the appointment of a consultant or an 
investigator whose report may not be made fully public.
  Ms. Barra was unwilling to make that commitment yesterday. It is a 
corporate culture that refused to make a 57-cent change to car 
ignitions--or a $2 change--even though that change would have saved 
lives. Now is the time to hold GM accountable, for GM to issue that 
warning that will help save others from a fate known only too well by 
those families who came to be with us yesterday.
  I look forward to working with Ms. Barra, GM, my colleagues, and with 
all who are interested in improving car safety and to using this sad, 
tragic, unfortunate experience as a turning point and a teaching 
moment--a rare moment--of bipartisan action to make our roads safer.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam President.
  I rise today to discuss my two amendments to the legislation we have 
been debating this week. I think most of us would agree we need to give 
folks a hand up. That makes a lot of sense. But we also need to ensure 
they have a solid foundation on which it stands. The best way we can 
help the unemployed is to help them find a job. My amendments aim to do 
just that. First, we will restore the 40-hour workweek which was 
destroyed by ObamaCare. The employer mandate currently requires 
employers to provide health insurance to full-time employees, and the 
new definition of a full-time employee is 30 hours per workweek. As a 
result, employers are cutting hours for many of the employees to fewer 
than 30 hours per week.
  I have heard from several employers at home in South Carolina, 
representing institutions as large as Clemson University and as small 
as the local surf shop that are suffering the consequences of this new 
30-hour definition.
  A few weeks ago I was on a bus in Charleston talking with some of my 
constituents. I started speaking with one young man who had just moved 
to South Carolina from Georgia looking for new opportunities. He worked 
for a restaurant and had recently received notice that his hours were 
getting cut. After talking with this young man for

[[Page 5541]]

a few minutes, it became very clear to me that his pay was cut and his 
hours were dwindling as a direct result of the 30-hour rule. Not only 
was he losing 25 percent of his pay, he was losing the ability to work 
overtime.
  According to the Hoover Institution, 2.6 million Americans are 
especially at risk of having their hours and wages cut like the young 
man with whom I was speaking. Of those 2.6 million Americans, 59 
percent of them are between the ages of 19 and 34, 63 percent are 
women, and 90 percent do not have a college degree. Further, families 
most at risk are those with a median income, $29,126.
  Many of these millions of Americans who are earning hourly wages to 
support their family will see a 25-percent cut in their pay as 
employers struggle with the massive new costs forced on them by the 
Federal Government--their Federal Government. Thanks to ObamaCare, not 
only will these workers not have health insurance but they will no 
longer have full-time jobs. We must--and I want to emphasize we must--
restore the 40-hour workweek, period.
  My second amendment is the same as my SKILLS Act which I introduced 
as a part of my opportunity agenda earlier this year. It provides much 
needed reforms to modernize the government's bureaucratic means of 
workforce development and training programs. With 4 million jobs 
currently unfilled across our Nation today, including 65,000 jobs in 
South Carolina, job skills training is critical for folks looking for 
work. We have to make sure people are prepared for continued success, 
and that starts with education and workforce training.
  Thanks to the leadership of my colleague, Mrs. Foxx in the House, the 
SKILLS Act has already passed with some Democratic support on the other 
side of the Capitol. It is well past time for that to happen in the 
Senate, and I hope my colleagues will join me in providing more skills 
and more opportunities to develop the skills to put Americans back to 
work.
  This is truly a conversation about jobs. How do we encourage job 
growth and stop the government from blocking job creation? It is a 
simple answer. These two amendments are steps in the right direction. 
Let's not let politics dictate the future of these two amendments. We 
can do better, and we should.
  Thank you, Madam President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. 
today all postcloture time on the Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 
2874 be considered expired; that the following amendments be withdrawn: 
Nos. 2875, 2877, 2878; that Senator Sessions or designee then be 
recognized to raise a point of order against the Senator Reed of Rhode 
Island amendment No. 2874; once the budget point of order is raised, 
Senator Murray or designee be recognized to make a motion to waive; the 
Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to waive; if the motion to 
waive is agreed to, the Senate then proceed to vote on adoption of the 
Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 2874; that upon disposition of the 
Reed amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on H.R. 3979; that if cloture is invoked on the bill, no other 
amendments or motions be in order to the bill; that at 5:30 p.m. on 
Monday, April 7, all postcloture time be considered expired and the 
bill as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                            THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mrs. MURRAY. There are a number of women who are going to be joining 
me today. They are leaders in this Capitol who are working each and 
every day, both here and back in their home States, to give more of 
their constituents a chance to succeed. Today we are here to talk about 
one small idea that stands to make a huge difference in the lives of 
our constituents, and for women in particular, and that is the idea 
that if you are putting in 40 or 50 or 60 hours of work per week you 
should be able to put food on your table and pay your bills, and you 
won't be stuck below the poverty line.
  This idea could change the lives of millions of Americans if Congress 
simply acted and raised the minimum wage. We need to act now because 
right now one in four women--one in four women--is making minimum wage 
today. That is 15 million American women who are making the equivalent 
of about 2 gallons of gas per hour. Are we prepared to tell them that 
should be enough to support themselves and their kids?
  In fact, as I am sure you will hear repeated by others today, nearly 
two-thirds of those who earn minimum wage or less are women. This is 
coming at a time when more women are now depended upon as the sole 
income earners in their families. Right now in cities and towns across 
America there are millions of those women who are getting up at the 
crack of dawn for work every day. They are stuck living in poverty. 
They cannot save for a car, much less a house. They cannot pay for 
school so they can get better skills and a better paying job. They 
cannot even afford to provide their children with more winter clothes 
or basic medical care. That is not how it is supposed to work in 
America, the country where you are told if you work hard and play by 
the rules you can get ahead.
  So when we talk about the minimum wage, let's be clear: Raising the 
minimum wage is about bringing back our middle class. I am proud that 
in my State of Washington we are taking the lead. In our State our 
workforce enjoys the highest minimum wage in the country, and I am glad 
to point out to all of our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
Washington State's economy has not been negatively impacted by our high 
minimum wage. In fact, our economy has benefited from a high minimum 
wage.
  Job growth has continued at a rate above the national average. 
Payrolls in our restaurants and bars have expanded due to people having 
more money in their pockets to spend at dinner or a night on the town, 
and poverty in Washington State has trailed the national level for at 
least 7 years now. That is why I support making the national minimum 
wage $10.10 for families from Washington to Wisconsin, from 
Massachusetts to Minnesota and Hawaii and everywhere in-between.
  It is not enough to make you rich, but it is a small raise for 
millions of families who desperately need it. It is a small raise for 
moms and dads who need help. We have to do more. Today, two-thirds of 
families rely on income from both parents, but thanks to our outdated 
Tax Code, a woman thinking about reentering the workforce as a second 
earner in her family may face higher tax rates than her husband. That 
is unfair, and it has to change.
  Last week I introduced the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act which will 
help solve that problem by giving struggling two-earner families with 
children a tax deduction on that second earner's income.
  My hope is that over the coming weeks we can all come together in 
this Chamber on behalf of millions of American women who--like my own 
mother when I was growing up--are the sole caregiver and breadwinner in 
their families.
  I hope our colleagues have gotten a sense of how the current $7.25 an 
hour translates to a grocery trip for a family of four, shopping for 
school supplies or even how it impacts people's daily commutes.
  That is why we are here today--to give that mom or that dad a fair 
shot at succeeding in America. I am proud to be joined today by a 
number of my colleagues in the Senate who are strong women and fighting 
for women and men in their home States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, when my grandparents were raising me, I 
learned that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able 
to get ahead. As I traveled throughout the State of Wisconsin meeting 
with Wisconsinites I know that my fellow Wisconsinites learned that 
very same

[[Page 5542]]

thing when they were growing up. Today people are working as hard as 
ever, and they deserve to get ahead, but many are working full time and 
even two jobs to make ends meet. Yet far too many are just barely 
getting by or living in poverty.
  As I have traveled my State, Wisconsinites have told me that the 
powerful and the well-connected seem to get to write all of their own 
rules, while the concerns and struggles of the working poor and middle-
class families go unnoticed here in Washington. They feel like our 
economic system is tilted towards those at the very top and that our 
political system exists to protect those unfair advantages. The House 
budget introduced by Congressman Paul Ryan--from my own home State--is 
a perfect example of that. Instead, we should make sure that everybody 
gets a fair shot.
  I am really proud to join my colleagues this afternoon to deliver our 
own call for action. It is simple. The time is now to give hard-working 
Americans a raise. We can do that if both parties work together to 
reward hard work so an honest day's work pays more. We can do that by 
raising the minimum wage.
  I believe we need to build a fairer economy and grow the middle 
class. I believe our economy is strongest when we expand opportunity 
for everyone, and that is why I am an original cosponsor of the Minimum 
Wage Fairness Act. Raising the minimum wage would improve the economic 
security of families across the country and strengthen the overall 
economy. It would give 28 million American workers a raise--including 
over 595,000 Wisconsinites--and will benefit more than a quarter 
million Wisconsin children who would have at least one parent getting 
that raise.
  It would mean workers in Wisconsin would have $816 million more to 
spend in local businesses, which according to the Economic Policy 
Institute would boost Wisconsin's GDP by $516.6 million and generate 
1,800 new jobs after only 3 years.
  Because women are disproportionately low-wage workers--making up two-
thirds of low-wage workers in the country--raising the minimum wage 
would also directly impact millions of women across America.
  Nadine, from Appleton, WI, would directly benefit from a raise. 
Nadine is a 20-year-old woman who makes the tipped minimum wage. She 
works as a server in a family restaurant. I probably need to remind 
some people that the tipped minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour. Nadine 
got her first job at age 14 so she could start saving for college. She 
started college but had stopped attending because she simply could not 
afford it. She even moved from her small hometown to a larger city in 
search of a better job so she would be able to return to school.
  In telling her story, Nadine writes:

       Raising the minimum wage is not an abstract notion in my 
     life. It is a real factor that affects me in several 
     important ways. First, and most importantly, it is important 
     to me because I am a young woman and I am working to support 
     myself. I had to put going to college on hold because I 
     couldn't afford it. Without a higher income, I worry I won't 
     ever be able to transition from dead-end jobs into a long-
     term career.

  Nadine currently averages $200 to $300 per week. She spends $50 on 
gas every week because she can't afford a more fuel-efficient car. She 
eats simply in order to budget $30 each week for food. The rest of her 
income goes to rent and other bills. Needless to say, it doesn't go 
far.
  Nadine picks up every shift available to her and doesn't rely on 
government assistance of any kind. She worries she will never be able 
to experience having a family and finishing college, traveling, and 
just having a fair shot at building a stronger future for herself.
  Women such as Nadine make up 72 percent of workers in predominately 
tipped occupations. Workers in tipped occupations are twice as likely 
as other workers to experience poverty, and servers are almost three 
times as likely to be in poverty.
  If for no other reason, we need to raise the minimum wage because in 
America no one who works full time should have to live or raise a 
family in poverty. Raising the full minimum wage and the tipped wage 
will give 15 million women a raise--including 330,000 in my State of 
Wisconsin. Women who make up 80 percent of America's 2.8 million 
working single parents would benefit from an increase in the minimum 
wage, thereby reducing child poverty among female-headed households.
  According to the Center for American Progress, raising the minimum 
wage to $10.10 an hour would reduce dependence on government programs, 
including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which we 
commonly call SNAP, which would see nearly 3.5 million fewer 
enrollments and save $46 billion over the decade. Raising the minimum 
wage will help make progress towards closing the gender pay gap.
  I look forward to getting the job done and reward the hard work of 
women across our great country.
  I look forward to getting the job done and passing the Minimum Wage 
Fairness Act so American women will get the raise they deserve.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so proud to join Senator Murray, who 
organized several of the women here, to speak out in favor of the 
minimum wage increase for the workers of America.
  My colleagues have said it well, but it bears repeating: No one in 
America--male or female--should have to live in poverty after putting 
in a full day's work. Yet that is the case today.
  We should give hard-working Americans a fair shot to get ahead so 
they can raise their families. Everyone deserves that fair shot, and 
that is why Democrats have a fair-shot agenda. Right now we don't seem 
to have many Republicans joining us in our desire to raise the minimum 
wage so that it gets people above the poverty line when they work full 
time.
  I would argue that anyone who votes against that level of pay--which 
is about $10.10 an hour to get a worker right above poverty--simply 
wants to keep people in poverty, and that is not the American way. 
Right now a mom who is working full time and makes minimum wage earns 
just $290 a week. That is just $15,000 a year, which is below the 
poverty rate for a single mom.
  No mom or dad should come home from a full day's work and have to 
worry about whether they can feed their children or whether they can 
afford a roof over the heads of their kids.
  I see Senator Warren is here, and she has brought such attention and 
focus to the unfairness in the number I am about to say. There are 400 
families in America that control as much wealth as 150 million 
Americans. To hear people in this Chamber--who do just fine supporting 
their families--oppose the minimum wage is absolutely, in my view, a 
morally wrong position. They have their right to it, but I think it is 
morally wrong.
  The minimum wage is a two-thirds problem for women. Let's be clear. 
Almost two-thirds of workers earning minimum wage or less are women, 
two-thirds of tipped minimum wage workers are women, and in two-thirds 
of American families, women are the breadwinners or co-breadwinners. We 
have a two-thirds problem. Women are overrepresented in low-wage jobs, 
and that is why I am so proud that next week Senator Mikulski is going 
to lead us toward equal pay for equal work. It is a wonderful bill. I 
think it is called the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  When we lift the salaries of these workers, it helps entire families. 
Senator Harkin's bill, which we are all supporting, will benefit 14 
million children. We have to do it for workers like Wendy Arellano, who 
works directing vehicles at an airport and has two other jobs, but she 
still doesn't make enough to support her two daughters.
  We should do it for women like Shareeka Elliot, who works all night 
as a janitor scrubbing the floors and cleaning the toilets but still 
doesn't make enough to get her kids above the poverty line.
  We should do it for women like Nyah Potts, who is working so hard to 
finish

[[Page 5543]]

her college degree, but she is struggling to make enough to support 
herself and her son. I joined Nyah at a press conference last week.
  In closing, I want to talk for a minute about the tipped minimum 
wage. This is a disgrace because the tipped minimum wage at the Federal 
Government is $2.13 an hour. We all know--because it has been studied--
that there are waitresses and there are waiters, and most of the less-
expensive restaurants hire women, and they don't get big tips. If there 
is a storm, and suppose nobody comes into the restaurant that day, they 
get paid $2.13 an hour. This bill does move us up to 70 percent of 
minimum wage for tipped workers. Personally, I think there ought to be 
no difference. In California, we pay our workers--all of them, tipped 
or not--the full minimum wage. And no one can tell me that California's 
restaurants are suffering. They are some of the most successful in the 
country and in the world.
  So let's be clear. History shows raising the minimum wage doesn't 
hurt the economy.
  Now we will hear our colleagues on the Republican side cite the CBO 
study that said we could lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. That study 
is an outlier.
  In 1956, the minimum wage was a buck. I hate to say it, but I 
remember those days. It was a dollar. And I remember, I worked my first 
job as a telephone operator for Hilton Hotels, and I earned the minimum 
wage. Actually, then, because I was a teenager, it was half the minimum 
wage, so I worked for 50 cents an hour. I was not very good at that 
job, but I tried hard. But let's say Congress had that attitude then: 
We are not going to raise the minimum wage because we will lose jobs. 
The minimum wage would still be a dollar an hour. How ludicrous.
  Since then--since 1956--we have raised the minimum wage 18 times. 
Guess what. Did we lose jobs? No. The economy grew by more than 80 
million jobs.
  I know others are waiting to speak. I am so excited to finally get to 
vote on paycheck fairness and on minimum wage. All we Democrats are 
saying is, let's give Americans a fair shot.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be making a point of order in a 
moment against the bill before us because it violates the budget we 
agreed to. I will share briefly for a few moments--the order is that we 
are to commence voting at 2:30. I believe that is correct. I think I 
was approved for 5 minutes. If the Chair would notify me when my time 
is up, because others I see here might want to speak.
  In August of 2001, this Congress--House and Senate, Republicans and 
Democrats--along with the President of the United States, agreed on the 
Budget Control Act. It limited spending--the growth of spending only. 
How much did it limit the growth? Well, at that time we were projected 
to spend $10 trillion more over the next 10 years than we were 
currently spending. So the Budget Control Act didn't cut the budget, 
really, although a few agencies in the short term have had reductions, 
Defense being the primary one. But over the 10 years, under the Budget 
Control Act we would grow spending $8 trillion instead of $10 
trillion--not enough of a reduction in spending, I say to my 
colleagues, to cause this country to sink into the ocean; that is for 
sure. Really, not enough, because our deficits are so high.
  In December of last year, this Congress passed the Ryan-Murray Budget 
Act which amended the spending agreement we struck in the Budget 
Control Act. The Ryan-Murray bill broke the budget agreement and 
allowed more money to be spent than we had agreed to in the BCA, but it 
capped overall spending for the next 8 years. So that was the 
agreement. It passed, and the President signed it 3 months ago. It is 
now the law of the land.
  What I would say to my colleagues is this--today is the third or 
fourth time we will vote on legislation, since the Ryan-Murray spending 
agreement passed, that busts the budget--that busts the spending limits 
we agreed to.
  There are multiple budget violations against this bill. Two of them 
are voided by loophole language in the Ryan-Murray legislation that 
people didn't fully understand at that time. That loophole language 
allows the use of a deficit-neutral reserve fund to, in effect, erase 
budget points of order. So two of the budget points of order that lie 
against this bill cannot be raised because a deficit-neutral reserve 
fund--which I think is a gimmick--essentially erases them. But one of 
the violations still remains, because this bill will add to the debt 
outside the 10-year window.
  One of the things we have learned is that when we pass laws today 
that sound good--and sometimes those laws, even if they are within the 
budget window, they may, indeed, in the out years add to the debt of 
the United States. Kent Conrad, a Democrat and former chairman of the 
Budget Committee--it was his language that created this long term point 
of order, because he was concerned we were passing things that might be 
OK within the budget window but were adding to the debt in the long 
term. So that is why we have this point of order.
  The cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office clearly shows 
that this UI bill violates that principle of the budget, and lays out 
the numbers that so say. Our chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Murray, has acknowledged that this bill does, in fact, violate the 
budget.
  But we need to stay within our budget. Violating the budget agreement 
is simply a refusal to make tough choices. We spend $3,700 billion a 
year, and we can't find $8 billion or $9 billion in savings to fund a 
program that we think needs to be funded today like unemployment 
insurance? People want to deal with that and help people who are 
unemployed, and I understand that desire. But if we do so, we should do 
it by finding offsets, not spending more than we agreed.
  People say we can raise taxes to pay for the new spending. Well, that 
violates the budget too, because our agreement says we can spend only 
so much. And if my colleagues want to raise taxes, I believe we ought 
to use that money to pay down the deficit, not grow the government.
  This past year, we spent $233 billion on interest on the debt, an 
amount that is virtually half the Defense budget. The highway bill is 
$40 billion. In 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office--Dr. 
Elmendorf testified before the Budget Committee a few weeks ago--says 
that in 10 years, 1 year's interest payment on the debt of the United 
States of America would be $880 billion. That is over $650 billion more 
in 1 year on interest than we are paying today.
  So you can see why we have to adhere to our promises to contain 
spending. We cannot continue to vote time and time again to violate the 
spending limits we agreed to. It just adds to the debt and to our 
interest payments on the debt. No wonder the American people are 
unhappy with us. This is irresponsible. I am confident we can find the 
$9 billion or whatever we need to fund any program in this bloated 
government of ours. But, no, it won't even be discussed. There is no 
discussion about finding honest reductions in spending from places 
where money is wasted. Instead, we just come up with a plan that 
gimmicks the spending and adds to the long-term debt of the United 
States.
  In conclusion, I would say it is quite clear that this legislation--
the unemployment extension--will add to the long-term debt of the 
United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the pending measure, amendment No. 2874 
to H.R. 3979, the vehicle for the unemployment insurance extension, 
violates section 311(b) of the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution by 
causing a net increase in the deficit over $5 billion in the 10-year 
period from 2024 to 2033.
  Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to 
section 311(b) of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget for fiscal year 2009.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 5544]]

  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the 
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
occur at the time set under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an extension 
of time for 6 minutes to be divided equally between myself and Senator 
Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I will keep my remarks short because I 
know there are others who want to speak on why we need to raise the 
minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10. I will focus on Hawaii.
  In Hawaii, nearly 100,000 women would get a raise if we were to do 
this. That is one out of five women workers in Hawaii. The Presiding 
Officer and I are both from Hawaii. We know the high cost of living in 
Hawaii. Minimum wage amounts to about $14,500 a year. The average rent 
for a one-bedroom residence in Hawaii is almost $1,300 a month. That is 
more than $15,000 a year. It is no wonder people in Hawaii have to work 
more than one job.
  In Hawaii, tourism is our No. 1 industry. We have a lot of tipped 
workers. They work in our restaurants. Do my colleagues know there are 
many people who work in our restaurants who can't even afford to eat in 
the restaurant in which they work?
  When we raise the minimum wage, we are going to enable a lot of 
families to not have to rely on various programs such as SNAP. In 
Hawaii, over 15,000 workers would no longer need these kinds of 
benefits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first let me say that we should be 
congratulating everyone who has gotten us to a point where we are going 
to be able to help people who have been working hard to find a job and 
still have not found a job to put food on the table for their families 
and pay their rent. To be able to allow them to receive emergency 
unemployment assistance is incredibly important. The votes we are doing 
here are very important to give people who want a job and need a job a 
fair shot to be able to survive until they can get a job.


                            The Minimum Wage

  I also want to speak for just a moment, as so many of my colleagues 
have today, about what it means for women to have a pay raise through 
the minimum wage because the minimum wage is very much a women's issue, 
as you have heard, because a disproportionate number of folks who are 
earning the minimum wage are, in fact, women. And it is not college 
students; the average age is about 30, 35 years old.
  This is a critical issue for Michigan families, including 416,000 
women in Michigan who would directly benefit from raising the minimum 
wage to $10.10 an hour and another 141,000 whose wages would also 
increase. This is not just about people earning the minimum wage; it is 
about lifting up wages, increasing purchasing power, and helping 
businesses large and small be able to get more customers because people 
can buy things because they have money in their pockets.
  Let me repeat, in terms of the numbers for Michigan, 557,000 women in 
Michigan who are working hard and just want a fair shot--just a fair 
shot--to get ahead would benefit from the legislation the Senate will 
soon be voting on called the Minimum Wage Fairness Act.
  Too many people, including far too many women, are simply trying to 
stay afloat, let alone get ahead. The minimum wage used to be worth 
more. Its value has eroded since it peaked back in 1968, and it is 
harder and harder for people to put food on the table and a roof over 
their family's heads.
  Today, a single mom can clean houses and scrub floors for 40 hours a 
week--working hard--and still find that she earns less than the poverty 
level. There is something wrong with that. If you are going to work 
hard 40 hours a week, you ought to be able to lift your family out of 
poverty.
  Work ought to be valued in this country. In fact, for a family of 
three, you are $4,000 below the poverty line if you are working for the 
minimum wage. It is just not right.
  To add insult to injury, if you compare that to the average CEO's 
salary today, you could put 933 minimum-wage workers, 933 women working 
hard--and I would daresay maybe harder than the folks who are at the 
top as CEOs--trying to put food on the table for their kids, buy them 
cloths, make sure they can care for them, 933 minimum-wage workers 
combined equals the salary of the average CEO.
  So I would urge that we come together and look at this as Henry Ford 
did 100 years ago in 1914 when he doubled the salary of his workers to 
$5 a day. He lifted them up. The small businesses around his plant saw 
increases in their business and hired more people because more people 
had money in their pockets. They could come in and buy the food and 
goods.
  We are talking about people working hard, again, every single day--
moms who are cleaning hotel rooms and are on their feet all day; they 
are mopping floors, preparing food; they go home; they take care of 
their families. All they want is a fair shot to succeed and be able to 
make their lives and their children's lives better.
  Let's have a strong, bipartisan vote on raising the minimum wage.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of increasing the 
minimum wage. Congress needs to do away with wages that don't reward 
hard work and workplace policies that belong in an episode of ``Mad 
Men.'' 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.
  The minimum wage is at an 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.
  I am on the side of economic fairness and building a stronger middle 
class to bring opportunities to families across the Nation. That is why 
I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act. This bill 
raises the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 an hour over 3 
years and indexes the minimum wage to inflation in the future.
  Everyone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a fair shot 
at the American dream. That means raising the minimum wage so that hard 
work is worth it--because a full-time job shouldn't mean full time 
poverty.
  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. Women are nearly three-quarters of workers earning tips at their 
jobs. For a hotel housekeeper in the western Maryland mountains, a 
hairdresser on the Eastern Shore, or a restaurant server in Baltimore 
or Bethesda, this raise is economic security so that a

[[Page 5545]]

slow week in an off-peak season doesn't mean below-poverty wages.
  The 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 child care. 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 $1 a man makes. Women of color suffer even greater injustice. If 
you are African American, you earn 62 cents for every $1 a man makes. 
If you are Hispanic, you earn 54 cents for every $1 a man makes.
  Everybody likes to say to us: Oh, you have come a long way. But I 
don't think we have come a long way. We have 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.
  This is not about men versus women. It is about building a middle 
class. Wages have been flat for everyone. Men need a pay raise too. 
When they get it, we will 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. Women of America, it is time to suit up, 
square our shoulders, put on our lipstick, increase the minimum wage 
for everyone, and fight the fair pay revolution.


             Amendments Nos. 2878, 2877, and 2875 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 
2878, 2877, and 2875 are withdrawn.


                        Vote on Motion to Waive

  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the motion 
to waive.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

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

                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 60, the nays are 36. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2874

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2874.
  The amendment (No. 2874) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. For the knowledge of all Members, we are going to have one 
more vote today and the next vote will be Monday at 5:30 p.m.
  I just want to tell everyone, sometimes people get upset at Senator 
McConnell and me because we don't know what is going on. Well, I hate 
to admit this, but sometimes he and I don't know what is going on. It 
is hard to get, sometimes, where we are. So I appreciate that even 
though Senator McConnell and I have a few little dustups on the floor 
in front of everybody, whenever we are in private we work well together 
to try to do the best things for this body.
  To get to where we are today wasn't easy, and we should have a good 
week next week. I know there is a lot of angst on both sides with the 
things they want to get done, but everyone should be patient. We are 
trying to work through the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  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 H.R. 3979, an act 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that 
     emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as 
     employees under the shared responsibility requirements 
     contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
         Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Patrick J. Leahy, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, Edward J. 
           Markey, Christopher A. Coons, Tom Harkin, Cory A. 
           Booker, Tom Udall, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Barbara 
           Boxer, Angus S. King, Jr., Christopher Murphy, Al 
           Franken, 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 H.R. 
3979, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that 
emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees 
under the shared responsibility requirement contained in the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, 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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

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

                                NAYS--35

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker

[[Page 5546]]


     Crapo
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 61, the nays are 35. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Montana.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2259

  Mr. WALSH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 314, H.R. 2259; that the bill 
be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
inform the Chair that two of our colleagues have concerns about this 
legislation--Senators Coburn and Cruz--and would like to address those 
concerns with the sponsors. So on their behalf, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Montana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 255

  Mr. WALSH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
Calendar No. 173, S. 255; that the committee-reported amendment be 
agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and 
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, this is the same legislation, and so for 
the same reason, on behalf of Senators Coburn and Cruz, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam President, in the far northwestern corner of Montana 
is one of the most special places on Earth--the North Fork of the 
Flathead River. The North Fork is a spectacular gravel-bed river that 
starts in British Columbia and runs along the western half of Glacier 
National Park before arriving in Flathead Lake.
  The North Fork is a world-class trout fishery, with bulltrout and 
cutthroat trout sharing the same winding waters that grizzly bears rely 
on for huckleberries. It is the most important wildlife corridor 
between the Great Plains and the Cascades, and Montanans have always 
enjoyed rafting, hiking, fishing, and hunting in it.
  Today, about 2 million people visit Glacier National Park each year, 
bringing $170 million into the local economy and supporting 2,750 jobs.
  For 40 years, Montanans have fought to keep the North Fork pristine. 
My colleague Senator Jon Tester and I are committed to taking this 
across the finish line.
  Four years ago, Montana and British Columbia reached a historic 
agreement to protect the river on both sides of the border. Two years 
ago Canada upheld its end of the bargain. Today, the U.S. Congress has 
the opportunity to do the same. The entire Montana congressional 
delegation is in bipartisan agreement that the North Fork deserves to 
be withdrawn permanently from future mineral development. Montanans of 
all stripes have endorsed this action, including the local chambers of 
commerce and energy companies such as ConocoPhillips.
  In fact, the primary interest in more than 80 percent of existing 
Federal leases in the watershed have voluntarily been relinquished. 
Everyone recognizes how important it is to keep the North Fork 
pristine. It is just the right thing to do.
  The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the North 
Fork Watershed Protection Act with no opposition last June. The House 
passed the North Fork Watershed Protection Act by voice vote last 
month. This bill is our chance to leave a jewel in the crown of the 
continent in better shape than we found it.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and all Montanans in that effort. We 
can send this bill to the President to sign today.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, will the junior Senator from Montana 
yield for a question?
  Mr. WALSH. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, when my colleague's motion was objected 
to, the good Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, said he 
understood Senators Coburn and Cruz wished to have further 
conversation. Has my colleague had a chance to visit with Senators 
Coburn and Cruz already about this bill?
  Mr. WALSH. Yes, I have.
  Mr. TESTER. So that has already been done.
  I want to thank my colleague Senator Walsh for attempting to bring up 
the North Fork Watershed Protection Act for a vote. I also want to echo 
his frustration that once again politics is trumping good policy.
  The North Fork bill is a Montana-made bill. Folks back home who 
support this bill are from all political sides of the spectrum. It has 
wide bipartisan support. Members of both parties, as Senator Walsh 
pointed out, voted it out of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. Yet today two Senators--whom I would challenge to find the 
North Fork on a map--have decided to hold this bill up.
  Let me remind them what this bill does. It ensures access along the 
North Fork for hunters and anglers who contribute to Montana's $6 
billion outdoor economy. If you want to talk about economic 
development, this is an incredible driver.
  The bill also honors a commitment to our neighbor to the north, 
Canada. Three years ago British Columbia signed an agreement to retire 
oil and gas leases on their side of the border, expecting us to protect 
the region as well. This bill guarantees we hold up our end of the 
bargain, and it ensures we pass along our outdoor way of life.
  I should also point out that Exxon and Conoco both have also given up 
their leases in this region. Why? Because this drainage feeds Flathead 
Lake, which is the largest freshwater body of water west of the 
Mississippi. It is an incredible ecosystem.
  I think what has happened today is a loss not only for Montana, not 
only for America's great outdoors, but for this entire country.
  This fight is not over. For far too long in this body we have had 
people who obstruct just because they can. It is time to start working 
together and doing what is right, whether we are talking about 
conservation issues, tax issues, unemployment issues, or whatever it 
might be. It is time to start moving the country forward because people 
are suffering out there.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Montana.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam President, I am so disappointed my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are blocking the desire of Montanans to protect 
the North Fork. This bill is a no-brainer. I invite my colleagues to 
visit Montana and see the North Fork for themselves. Their actions 
today show why Washington is broken. Despite years of bipartisan hard 
work, narrow interests can trump responsible leadership.
  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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________