[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6382-6383]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              MINIMUM WAGE FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 354.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 354, S. 2223, a bill to 
     provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage and to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend increased 
     expensing limitations and the treatment of certain real 
     property as section 179 property.


                                schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the 
Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business 
until 11 o'clock this morning, with the majority controlling the first 
half and the Republicans controlling the final half. At 11 a.m. there 
will be six cloture votes on six U.S. district court nominations. 
Following the votes, the Senate will recess until 2:15 to allow for our 
weekly caucus meetings.


                Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 2262

  I am told that S. 2262 is due for its second reading.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by title for 
the second time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2262) to promote energy savings in residential 
     buildings and industry, and for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. I object to any further proceedings with respect to this 
bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will be 
placed on the calendar.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this week the Senate will begin 
consideration of an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
  Over the next few days Members of this body will come to the floor 
and make their case for or against increasing the minimum wage. Most of 
the statements we will hear today will be in favor of it because the 
Republicans are not anxious to come here and speak against raising the 
minimum wage. They will be very silent most of the time, and they will 
not talk much about an increase in the minimum wage, which is so 
vitally important to our country.
  The American people will be inundated with figures and facts 
regarding the economic impact of an increase to $10.10. Why was that 
number chosen? It was chosen because at that number--$10.10 for 40 
hours--a person is no longer in poverty.
  As supporters of this legislation, Senate Democrats have ample 
evidence to back our position that an increase in the Federal minimum 
wage is good for America. A recent study from the Economic Policy 
Institute indicates that increasing the minimum wage and tying it to 
inflation would raise wages for 28 million American workers. That is 
about 10 percent of the American people. Contrary to what Republicans 
would have us believe, these 28 million Americans aren't just high 
school kids looking to make a few bucks after school. That same 
analysis reported that the median age of minimum wage workers is 35 
years old, proving that these employees are grown men and women, most 
of them with families. If we needed any more reason to pass this 
important legislation, the most recent polling data reveals that about 
75 percent of Americans back an increase in the minimum wage.
  So the evidence supporting an increase in the minimum wage is ample, 
and it is there for all of us to see. However, the real issue 
transcends political polls and studies. The heart of the minimum wage 
debate is not found in statistics but, rather, in a question we should 
ask ourselves: What kind of a country do we aspire to be?
  This Nation is home to the greatest economy on Earth. Even as we 
continue to recover from the great recession, there is no question that 
we are the richest country on the planet. Can anyone in this Chamber 
doubt that our economy has the capability of providing livable wages to 
American workers? The fact that in America there are full-time working 
mothers and fathers who must juggle two to three jobs just to provide 
food and shelter for their children is unconscionable.
  Before any sulking billionaire comes forward as upset and pens an op-
ed in some newspaper calling me a collectivist, as they have done, let 
me be clear: This is a question of fairness. Do we believe it is fair 
that fellow Americans who work full time be paid less than a livable 
wage? I hope not. Or do we value all American workers and reward them 
with, at the very least, a baseline wage that enables them to provide 
for their families?
  There was a recent story in Nevada about a young man named Dalven who 
works at McDonald's. He works hard, but his wages are so low he is 
forced to get another job. Working two jobs, what is this young man 
going to do? Is he going to go to college? Of course not. Is he going 
to go to trade school? Of course not. He is too busy working. What is 
going to happen to him to better his life?
  Just a few months ago an incredibly successful businessman visited 
Capitol Hill. He said he put himself through college attending Harvard, 
and he did that being paid $2 an hour, which was the minimum wage at 
the time. He now is an elderly, very successful businessman. He worked 
full-time over the course of the year and was able to pay Harvard's 
tuition. The tuition at that time was $2,400 a year--which was a lot--
at one of America's premier schools. Jim even claims he had money left 
over after paying his college fees. Jim's daughter is now preparing to 
enroll at Harvard. If she were to be employed at today's minimum wage, 
she would need to work full time for 4 years to afford even one year of 
tuition and room and board at Harvard. The young man at McDonald's I 
just talked about, Dalven, could never dream of putting himself through 
Harvard or UNLV or any other place because he is working two jobs and 
cannot do it.
  Simply put, it is not fair that working families are being stripped 
of the American dream. That is what Dalven has, as does everybody else, 
and as did the Presiding Officer and as did I--the dream to better 
oneself, to maybe even be better than what their family was able to be.

[[Page 6383]]

  So, again, put simply, is it fair that working men and women are 
being stripped of the American dream because we refuse to pay them a 
livable wage? They are working hard. That is why this legislation 
before us is so critical.
  An increase in the minimum wage obviously won't make a millionaire of 
anyone, but it will ensure that each full time working American 
receives a wage they can live on and that will give them a fighting 
chance to get ahead in the economy. Every hard-working American should 
have the opportunity to put a roof over their head and that of their 
family, and every full-time employee should have a fair shot at the 
American dream.
  So I invite my Republican colleagues to consider what is fair for 
their constituents and to work with us to increase the Federal minimum 
wage, as 75 percent of the American people think we should do. They 
should join in giving every American a fair shot to provide for their 
families.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                     Condolences to Tornado Victims

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to offer 
condolences to those affected by this week's storms. Tornadoes struck a 
terrible blow in several towns, and we are thinking today of all of 
those who were killed and injured and their friends and families as 
well.


                                  Jobs

  Mr. President, the American people want Congress to focus on one 
thing above all else: Jobs. Jobs. One would think the Democrats who 
control the Senate would want to help us advance bipartisan ideas to 
boost job creation. One would think they would actually work with us to 
address the concerns and anxieties of our constituents. But, instead, 
Senate Democrats are pushing legislation this week that would actually 
cost--not create but actually cost--up to a million American jobs.
  This is completely tone deaf. Their bill would cost up to 17,000 jobs 
in Kentucky alone. Apparently, this is what Senate Democrats have made 
their top priority. It is not much of a surprise, though. As I have 
said many times, Washington Democrats often seem to hurt the very 
people they claim to be fighting for. When it comes to so many of their 
proposals, Washington Democrats appear to prioritize the desires of the 
far left over the needs of the middle class. Let's be honest. The 
interests of the far left and the interests of the middle class seem to 
be in fierce opposition these days.
  Take the Keystone Pipeline, for example. The Obama administration 
recently announced yet another punt on this critical jobs project--one 
that would lead to the creation of thousands--literally thousands--of 
good jobs. Why? Because of pressure from the far left. One union leader 
called the administration's decision ``a cold, hard slap in the face 
for hard-working Americans.'' Another labor leader, whose union 
endorsed the President twice, put it this way: ``No one seriously 
believes that the administration's nearly-dark-of-night announcement . 
. . was anything but politically motivated. It represented,'' he said, 
``another low blow to the working men and women of our country for whom 
the Keystone XL Pipeline is a lifeline to good jobs and to energy 
security. . . . ''
  Here is a project the government has been studying for 5 or 6 years 
now. For 5 or 6 years they have been studying this project.
  Americans have learned that building Keystone would produce 
significant economic benefit for our country, that it would lower 
energy prices, and that it would lead to the creation of thousands of 
jobs at a time when we need them more than ever. President Obama's own 
administration has concluded that approving Keystone would not 
significantly impact net carbon emissions anyway. Approving the project 
wouldn't have an adverse impact on carbon emissions.
  So one would think Washington Democrats would join the large majority 
of Americans who say Keystone is a good deal for our country. One would 
think they would jump at the chance to advance sound policy that has 
already been thoroughly vetted. But, then, we would be missing the 
point because Democrats' opposition to Keystone isn't really about 
policy at all. They basically surrendered the policy argument a long 
time ago. That is not really what this is about for them. Remember: 
This is the same party that effectively conceded its agenda for the 
rest of this year was drafted by campaign staffers. The whole agenda 
for the rest of the year was drafted by campaign staffers. They said 
that.
  So for them this is more about politics and symbolism, and the far 
left has apparently decided that killing Keystone is the symbolic scalp 
they want. In fact, they are demanding it. Washington Democrats seem 
perfectly willing to go along.
  Of course, the big loser in all of this is the American middle 
class--the moms and dads and sisters and brothers whose primary concern 
is paying the bills and putting food on the table. These are the people 
who have had it worse in the Obama economy--the very people Washington 
Democrats should be doing literally everything to help.
  What I am saying to my colleagues today is it is not too late. They 
can still work with Republicans to create more opportunity and to help 
us rebuild the middle class, but to do so they need to abandon the left 
and start focusing on the middle class for a change. If they are ready 
to get serious about job creation, then there are some easy ways to 
demonstrate that to the American people. For starters, they can stop 
pushing legislation that would cut rather than create jobs, and they 
can stop blocking projects such as Keystone--a project that almost 
everyone knows will create jobs. Americans want jobs, not symbolism. So 
start working with us to give the American people the kind of pro-jobs 
policies they want and deserve.


                       Reservation Of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.

                          ____________________