[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6390-6418]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3:30 
p.m. will be under the control of the majority.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, we are now debating legislation that 
will be up for a vote tomorrow. It will be a cloture vote on bringing a 
minimum wage increase bill to the floor.
  Let's be clear about this. It is a cloture vote. This means it is 
going to take 60 votes, and that will happen tomorrow. I assume most of 
the day we will be discussing that. I hope so. I know others have come 
to the floor previously to discuss this.
  As the chairman of the committee and as the chief sponsor of this 
bill, I intend to be back on the floor later today to respond to some 
of the allegations made by Senators on the other side of the aisle 
regarding this bill and minimum wage as a concept, but I wish to take a 
few minutes to sort of set the stage for this legislation and what it 
is going to mean for our economy and for working Americans.
  What I would say at the outset is that the minimum wage bill is about 
a lot of things: It is going to give an economic boost. It will 
increase the GDP of our country. It will do a lot of good economically 
for our society, but basically it is about economic fairness. It is 
about what kind of society we want America to be.
  Keep in mind, the Fair Labor Standards Act which set the minimum wage 
was passed at the end of the Depression, 1939, when we were still in 
the Depression, and it was immediately to give a raise in wages to 
hard-working Americans. That is what it did.
  Since that time, actually on both sides of the aisle, we have raised 
the minimum wage a number of times. This is just another step in making 
sure that those at the bottom of the economic ladder in America also 
get a hand up, to get help to make sure they too have a fair shot at 
the American dream.
  So that is what this minimum wage bill is truly about. It is about 
core American values; the value that no one

[[Page 6391]]

who works full time all year long should live in poverty. That is what 
this is about.
  The fact is the value of the minimum wage has eroded so much over the 
last few years that the minimum wage right now is way below poverty. In 
other words, someone can work full time every day, all year long, and 
they are still in poverty. But they are working every day. That is not 
fair. The American value system is one that if someone puts in their 
work and works hard, they ought not to be living in poverty.
  Right now, tens of millions of Americans are struggling just to keep 
a roof over their heads, to pay the heating bill, to find some money 
for an extra pair of shoes for a growing child, even getting money 
together to take the bus to work. Think about this: A minimum wage 
worker's paycheck has stayed the same since 2009. This chart 
illustrates what has happened.
  If we go back to 2009, the minimum wage has increased zero percent. 
But look what has gone up: Electricity has gone up 4.2 percent; rent, 
7.3 percent; auto repairs, 7.6 percent; food at home, 8.8 percent. This 
is since 2009. Childcare has gone up 11.7 percent. Mass transit, which 
is how people who make minimum wage get back and forth to work, has 
gone up 17.8 percent since 2009. Yet their paycheck has not gone up.
  What does this chart tell us? This tells us that people making 
minimum wage are falling further and further behind because these are 
things that low-income Americans have to spend money on: lights, rent, 
fixing up their old car, food, childcare, and mass transit. Look how 
much they have gone up. Yet the minimum wage has stayed the same. That 
is why this is a value issue.
  When people who work hard and play by the rules have to rely upon 
food stamps and food banks to feed their children and the minimum wage 
has them trapped in poverty, it is unacceptable. It is un-American. It 
is not what our Nation is about.
  So Americans deserve a raise. That is why this bill raises it from 
$7.25 to $10.10 an hour in three annual steps. It will link the minimum 
wage to the cost of living in the future. In other words, we index it 
for the future so we don't have this prospect that as other things 
increase in price, the minimum wage stays the same. It is time to index 
it in the future.
  Our bill also provides for a raise for tipped workers--the people who 
serve your food, push the wheelchairs at the airports, and park cars. 
Every time I tell somebody this, they tell me I can't be right; I must 
be mistaken. I tell them the tipped wage today is $2.13 an hour, and it 
has been that way since 1991. Not a 1-cent increase since 1991. People 
find that hard to believe. It is hard to believe, but it is very true.
  So our bill would increase tipped wages from $2.13 an hour up to 70 
percent of the minimum wage over a 6-year period of time, the first 
increase in tipped wages in 23 years.
  An increase in the minimum wage benefits everyone. Twenty-eight 
million workers will get a raise--15 million are women, so over 50 
percent of the increase--4 million African-American workers; 7 million 
Hispanic workers; and 7 million parents will get a raise. And we forget 
about this. How about our kids? Fourteen million kids will benefit from 
a minimum wage increase. That means their families will get an increase 
in the minimum wage. This benefits the kids. So think about the 
children in America. They are going to get a raise too.
  Again, raising the minimum wage helps our families and it helps our 
economy. This is why we had a press conference this morning with a 
group called Business for a Fair Minimum Wage. One thousand businesses 
across the country representing every State in our Nation have signed 
on saying: Yes, we need to increase the minimum wage to at least $10.10 
an hour. They understand and Main Street businesses understand this.
  If we increase the minimum wage for people in the community, they are 
not running off to Paris, France, to spend the money. They are going to 
spend that money on Main Street, and that helps our small businesses. 
This is why so many small businesses get it. They understand that if we 
raise the minimum wage, that helps them. That helps the local economy 
on Main Street.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that our minimum wage bill 
will put $35 billion in the hands of millions of workers, and that 
money will be spent on Main Street. It will pump an additional $22 
billion into our GDP, supporting 85,000 new jobs as the raise is phased 
in over 3 years.
  There is another issue I think we need to address, and that is what 
happens with low-wage workers and how they do sustain themselves. They 
are in poverty from the minimum wage. So what do they rely on? They 
rely on food stamps, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. They rely upon the earned-income tax credit and the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families Program. That costs taxpayers in America 
$243 billion a year.
  Again, I am not saying that by increasing the minimum wage we are 
going to knock that down to zero. I can't say that, but what I can say 
is that a study was done just on food stamps, and if we raise the 
minimum wage, in the first year we will save $4.6 billion in taxpayers' 
money because people will now have enough money to go out and buy their 
own food. They will not rely on food stamps.
  A lot of these other things will be cut back too, such as TANF and 
Medicaid or CHIP. I can't say how much, but people understand that this 
is what we are paying as taxpayers to support a minimum wage below the 
poverty line.
  Again, people understand how important this minimum wage is. That is 
why it is so broadly supported by such a cross-section of American 
people.
  Here is a poll that has been done. A USA Today and Pew Research 
Center poll this year indicated that 73 percent of all voters support 
raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour--90 percent Democrats, 71 
percent Independents, and even 53 percent of Republicans believe we 
ought to raise it to at least $10.10 an hour.
  So the American people get it. There is overwhelming support for 
raising the minimum wage. But I am just mystified by how vehemently my 
Republican colleagues oppose this modest increase. I just don't 
understand it. But what I hear is the same old outdated, disproved 
arguments against giving working Americans a raise.
  There are some on the other side who believe we should do away with 
the minimum wage. There should be no minimum wage at all. Try that one 
on for size. Talk about a race to the bottom. Four dollars an hour 
maybe? Three dollars an hour? Two dollars an hour? You see, I have 
always said that without a strong minimum wage and without a good, 
strong Wage and Hour Division at the Department of Labor to make sure 
people adhere to it--if we don't have that, then there is always 
someone a little worse off than you who will bid lower than you for 
that job.
  So someone says: We will pay $7 an hour. There is always somebody 
that just needs the job a little more, they are desperate, and they 
say: I will take it for $6 an hour. Then there are some a little worse 
off than that who say: We will take it for $5 an hour, and we get a 
downward spiral.
  That is why I say our American value is to have a strong minimum 
wage, whereby people who work hard--and some of these jobs are hard 
work. People are on their feet 8 hours a day or they are doing some 
manual labor or they are doing the kind of jobs a lot of people don't 
do. Yet they live in poverty. It is not right. Raising the minimum wage 
is common sense that adheres to our American values and gives everyone 
a fair shot at the American dream.
  I hope my colleagues will do the right thing and vote for cloture, 
allow us to get on the bill. We can have some amendments offered, and 
we can vote to give working Americans a raise after all these years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise to join my 
colleagues to urge support for increasing the Federal minimum wage.

[[Page 6392]]

  Today's minimum wage of $7.25 falls short and working families are 
falling behind. It hasn't kept up with the rising cost of everyday 
life. In fact, it is $2 less than it was in 1968, when adjusted for 
inflation. A full-time worker earning the minimum wage in 2014 makes 
less than someone did in 1968, almost half a century ago.
  Now, $7.25 may be just a number to some but not for so many families 
in my State struggling to get by. It means working two or three jobs 
just to put food on the table or fill the gas tank or buy clothes for 
their children and still not be able to climb out of poverty.
  Our Nation was founded on a basic premise that no matter who you are, 
if you work hard, you can get ahead. You can make a decent living. We 
haven't always kept that promise. We have the opportunity to do so this 
week for millions of hard-working men and women, young and old, who are 
paid the minimum wage.
  Working Americans are not moving forward. They are falling behind. 
Year after year, paycheck by paycheck, they work just as hard, but they 
earn less and less. This is a disturbing trend, not just for minimum 
wage workers but all across the board. Worker productivity is rising 
pretty dramatically--69 percent in the last 25 years--but real hourly 
wages are not keeping pace, up 26.5 percent in the last 25 years. For 
the top 1 percent it couldn't be better. Their share of earned income 
is the highest it has been since 1929. But the average worker has to 
run faster and faster just to stay in place.
  This is not the promise we made. This is not the way to a better 
America for each generation, but this is the reality for too many 
workers in New Mexico and across the Nation. They are living it every 
day. They get up, they take care of their kids, and they go to work. 
They may run faster, they may work harder, but they cannot get ahead.
  A full-time minimum wage worker makes only $15,000 a year, well below 
the $23,550 poverty line for a family of four with two children. New 
Mexico has too many families in poverty, working hard, doing their best 
but falling further and further behind. This bill would give them a 
chance to build a better future for themselves and for their children.
  I have received many letters from my constituents because they know 
how important raising the minimum wage is. Here is a letter from 
Kathryn from Fruitland, NM. She says: ``Morally, raising the minimum 
wage is the right thing to do, because people working full time deserve 
to live decently.''
  Barbara from Clovis, NM, told me: ``There are so many people who work 
for minimum wage and have a desperately hard time paying the bills.''
  Liz from Albuquerque says: ``I hope you will do all in your power to 
assure that every working American will be assured of making a living 
wage, not just a `minimum' wage.''
  Increasing the minimum wage helps families and helps the economy. It 
is one of the best things we can do to kick-start New Mexico's economy. 
It means workers in New Mexico would have over $200 million more to 
spend. It means boosting our State's GDP by $127 million, helping local 
businesses and generating 500 new jobs. It means moving forward, and it 
means that we honor an important idea that folks receive a fair day's 
pay for a hard day's work. That is the deal, and it is a big deal. 
Let's consider the alternative: When every year costs rise and the 
minimum wage stays the same, that is like a pay cut for families that 
can least afford it.
  The bill before us increases the minimum wage in three steps. Six 
months after the bill is signed, it raises the minimum wage by less 
than $1. A year later it bumps up the minimum wage by 95 cents, and two 
years after the first increase, it would finally reach $10.10, which is 
about where it would be if it had kept up with inflation over the past 
40 years. But this bill does more than just give hard workers today the 
chance to earn a decent wage. It also includes an important provision 
to allow the minimum wage to continue to keep up with every-day costs 
so that future generations who are working their way up can have a fair 
shot.
  Our country has debated raising the minimum wage several times in the 
past. Opponents always paint a very gloomy picture, but we have been 
able to get bipartisan agreement to do it. Afterwards, families and the 
economy have been better off, and the pessimistic predictions haven't 
come true. We need to build an economy that works for everyone. Most 
Americans believe it is time to increase the minimum wage because it is 
the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing to do. It is time to 
keep our Nation's promise to reward hard work. It is time for all 
families to have a fair chance at the American dream.
  I urge my colleagues to support increasing the minimum wage. It is 
long overdue for millions of working families who continue to struggle, 
who continue to wait, and who have waited long enough.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam President.
  I came to the floor to join Senator Harkin, Senator Udall, and 
Senator Boxer in supporting the increase in the minimum wage that would 
give 28 million American workers a very long overdue raise.
  I know that the years since the economic collapse in 2008 have really 
been hard for families in New Hampshire and across the country. 
Although we have seen CEO salaries rise, pay for working families has 
stagnated. While the cost of food, transportation, and childcare all 
continue to climb and families struggle to make ends meet, the minimum 
wage for American workers has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009. 
At that rate a single mother working full time in New Hampshire does 
not earn enough to keep her family out of poverty. So let me just be 
clear: Adults working full time cannot support their families on the 
minimum wage, and that needs to change.
  The fair minimum wage act would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 
over 2 years. That would provide a raise to nearly 20 percent of New 
Hampshire's workforce and lift 10,000 people in New Hampshire out of 
poverty. Nationwide, nearly one-third of all minimum wage workers are 
women over the age of 25. In New Hampshire 70 percent of minimum wage 
workers are women. This effort is about these women and the 34,000 
children in the Granite State whose parents would have a little more in 
their paychecks each week if we increased the minimum pay to $10.10.
  I know that many critics claim that only teenagers hold those minimum 
wage jobs but, sadly, that is just not true. Teens make up only 12 
percent of those who would get a raise if we boosted pay to $10.10 an 
hour. Minimum wage workers are also veterans. The fair minimum wage act 
is about giving a raise to the 4,500 New Hampshire veterans who now 
earn $7.25 an hour--the minimum wage--and who are struggling to get by. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to give these veterans a 
raise.
  Making sure workers in New Hampshire get a fair wage for an honest 
day's work is something that I have focused on since I was Governor. In 
1997 I signed a bill into law that boosted minimum wages for tipped 
workers in New Hampshire. Nearly 75 percent of those tipped workers are 
women. As was the case then, today we must act to raise the minimum 
wage to ensure that hard-working Americans get a fair shot at success. 
I urge my colleagues to join me on both sides of the aisle in 
supporting the fair minimum wage act. Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is my honor to rise today to support 
this very important bill, the Minimum Wage Fairness Act of 2014. I am 
very proud of my colleagues who have just spoken, and particularly, I 
want to say, of Senator Shaheen who, as I understand it, is the only 
woman here in the Senate who is both a former Governor and a Senator; 
is that correct?
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. It is.
  Mrs. BOXER. When Senator Shaheen was a Governor she stood up for the

[[Page 6393]]

people, and as a Senator she certainly fights for her people.
  Part of this fight involves making sure that when you work hard and 
you work full time you don't have to live in poverty. It just isn't 
fair. Remember most of the people on the minimum wage are adults. They 
are not children. They are not teenagers. They are adults. So many of 
them are trying to raise their children in jobs at the minimum wage 
level, and you don't have to be a mathematician to know that the 
current minimum wage leaves you in poverty. So you have a full-time 
job, you work your heart out, and you wind up in poverty.
  I went back into my little memory books, and I found my son's first 
paycheck when he was working his way through school. He went to a 
supermarket to work as a checkout clerk. He came into a store called 
Lucky Stores. They were a union store, so he joined the union. Do you 
know what that young man made in those years? In 1986, 28 years ago--it 
is right here--it was $7.41 an hour. Imagine. So he was so proud he 
could work hard. When he came home, he was able to help pay for his 
tuition and his books.
  We are talking about a minimum wage that is $10.10 an hour. Here is 
this young man working as an entry level checkout clerk at a 
supermarket in 1986 making over $7 an hour. This minimum wage has got 
to be raised.
  We have the chart. If you put inflation on the minimum wage as it was 
in 1968--just inflation--the minimum wage would be $10.69 an hour. We 
are not even going that far. We are saying $10.10 an hour. So all we 
are suggesting is, make sure inflation is covered. That is all we are 
saying.
  Increasing the minimum wage will give people a chance, a fair shot. 
Remember, most of the people on minimum wage are adults. If you stop 
someone on the street and ask who they think is on the minimum wage, a 
lot of folks guess it is teenagers. No. By the way, most of those 
happen to be women.
  I am deeply disappointed and distressed that the Republicans are 
opposing this measure. Why do Republicans want to deny hard-working 
Americans a raise? The country supports it overwhelmingly. I don't 
understand it because in 2007, the last time we raised the minimum 
wage, it was bipartisan. A huge majority of Senators then agreed that a 
full day's work deserved a fair paycheck. The minimum wage in 2007 was 
during George W. Bush's Presidency. Let me say that again. For the 
minimum wage in 2007, which was the last time we raised it, the 
increase passed 94 to 3, and George W. Bush signed it into law. What 
has changed in the Republicans' hearts? What has changed in the 
Republicans' minds? Are they turning against the people?
  If you ask them they will say that it is just not fair to small 
businesses. Well, more than 80 percent of small businesses pay their 
people more than the minimum wage. So come on. A majority of small 
businesses support what we are trying to do. So don't come on the floor 
and say you are opposing it because it is too much too soon. Wrong. It 
is even lower than the inflation rate, and secondly, regarding that 
small business doesn't want it, in fact, they do.
  Now before that was 1989. We raised the minimum wage then, and it was 
89 to 8, and at that time it was George H. W. Bush. So wait a minute. 
What is going on here? I don't get this. It is not about who is in the 
White House; it is about the working people of this country. Where is 
the bipartisan spirit? It is gone, and America is paying a heavy price 
with the minimum wage stuck at $7.25 an hour and with inflation eating 
away every day at it.
  Let me read you just two or three stories about workers. Alicia 
McCrary, a single mom who testified in March before the Senate HELP 
Committee, struggles to support her sons with a minimum wage job in 
fast food. She has trouble getting them haircuts, shoes, clothing, and 
other items that kids need. She says: ``My boys ask: Why isn't there 
enough money? You work, and you work really hard, Mom.''
  She said: ``I don't have a good answer other than I don't get paid 
enough.''
  She is right. She doesn't get paid a fair minimum wage.
  NBC News ran a story of a man who works three jobs. Two of them are 
overnight--he works three jobs--two of them are overnight jobs for 
minimum wage. He said:

       I have four young children. They need a dad around. That is 
     why I work a day job when they are in school and then go back 
     to work when they go to bed. But it takes 3 jobs to make ends 
     meet because of $7.25 an hour. I am 43 and have over 20 
     years' experience and make $7.25 an hour.

  That is wrong. These parents work so hard and their kids are growing 
up with so little, and their parents look in their children's eyes and 
they suffer because they want to do more for their children.
  Economists project that this bill--which I hope most or almost every 
Democrat will support--will raise the wages of 28 million people in 
America. All we need is a handful of Republicans to join with us and we 
will get it done. By the way, if it were a majority rule, we would get 
it done. They are filibustering it. Let's be clear. They not only 
oppose it; they are forcing us to get 60 votes.
  Twenty percent of the children in America are counting on this, 14 
million children who would be lifted out of poverty if we pass the 
Harkin bill.
  Then we have tipped workers. If I asked anyone on the street how much 
tipped workers make, they would say minimum wage. Most people don't 
know what the Federal tipped minimum wage is. I know the Presiding 
Officer has worked on this. It is $2.13 an hour. Can my colleagues 
imagine? Again, $2.13 an hour is the tipped minimum wage.
  Many tipped workers live in poverty and instability. They don't know 
if they will make enough to cover the bills.
  We will hear that if we pay the full minimum wage, it will be too 
hard on the restaurant owners. In my State the tipped workers get the 
full minimum wage, and that wage is $8 an hour, going up to $10, in 
California. So the tipped workers get the minimum wage amount every 
hour. Guess what. Our restaurants are going gangbusters. And guess what 
else. When a person does well and has their minimum wage plus their 
tips, they get to go out once in a while to a restaurant. They can go 
down to the corner store and get something for their children.
  Sandra Samoa is a bartender in Chicago. She says if the bar is slow, 
she might take home just $40 after an 8-hour shift. She lives with her 
mom and her young son. This woman sleeps on the floor so her son can 
sleep in a bed. If we don't represent people such as these, who the 
heck do we represent--the Koch brothers? They are worth billions. This 
woman comes home Sundays with $40 in her pocket, she sleeps on the 
floor, and she says, ``My whole plan is to have a room for him one 
day.''
  So, listen, if we are who we are supposed to be--the representatives 
of the people and working families--then we want to make sure we raise 
the minimum wage. It helps everybody, including those in business. That 
is why most small businesses support this.
  We know the great story of Henry Ford, who raised the day rate of his 
workers way back in the olden days, and people said: What are you 
doing? You are raising wages? You could get away with paying them--
whatever it was.
  He said: I am raising them because I want them to buy my car--the 
cars we make.
  What we are going to hear on this floor from our colleagues is that 
we are going too fast, we are raising this too much. I have already 
shown my colleagues that we are raising it less than inflation, so that 
is baloney on its face.
  No. 2, they say: Oh, it is going to hurt small business.
  I have already stated that 82 percent of small businesses already pay 
all of their employees more than the Federal minimum wage, and more 
than half of them support raising it to $10.10 because they know people 
will spend money on their products and in their stores.
  Then the next thing they are going to say is it is a job-loser. They 
are

[[Page 6394]]

going to cite one study, which I call an outlier, from CBO. It said the 
minimum wage would reduce employment by three-tenths of 1 percent over 
the next 2 years. When I heard that, I thought, what is this about? I 
looked at some other studies. A study by three prominent labor 
economists from the University of Massachusetts, the University of 
North Carolina, and the University of California-Berkeley found that 
minimum wage increases absolutely do not cause job losses. The Economic 
Policy Institute found that the Harkin bill would increase employment 
by 84,000 jobs and add $22 billion to our economy over 2\1/2\ years. 
Let me repeat that. The Harkin bill would increase employment by 84,000 
jobs and add $22 billion to our economy.
  But let's look at history. We have to really ask ourselves--these 
guys and gals who are saying don't raise the minimum wage because it 
will lose jobs--what if they said that going back through time and they 
prevailed? We would never have raised the minimum wage. I worked for 
the minimum wage a long time ago. At that time it was a dollar an hour, 
and I earned 50 cents an hour because I was a teenager. It was great 
then. I earned 50 cents an hour. I am looking at the young people here, 
and they are thinking, you must be really old. They would be right.
  My point is that the minimum wage was a buck an hour and it was 
raised many times. Since 1989 the minimum wage has been raised three 
times. It was raised many times before that. There have been 18 
increases since 1956. So we can put that in our minds--18 increases in 
the minimum wage since 1956. Suppose the other side had taken that 
attitude: Don't raise it. Well, it would still be, I guess, a buck an 
hour, 50 cents if you are a kid. Today ``50 Cent'' is a singing group, 
right?
  We have raised the minimum wage over and over again. What has 
happened? The economy has added millions of jobs. Since 1956 it has 
added 80 million. Since 1956, we have raised the minimum wage 18 times 
and we have created 80 million new jobs. So if anybody says this is a 
job-killer, I just say, read the history books.
  Americans support raising the minimum wage. I hope my colleagues are 
listening. The American people know $7.25 an hour is not enough. A Wall 
Street Journal/NBC poll found that 63 percent of Americans support 
raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Let me say that again. 
Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to 
$10.10 an hour.
  All we need is a handful of Republicans. If they are listening to me, 
I hope they heard some of my arguments. No. 1, it is good for business 
to raise the minimum wage because people have more to spend. No. 2, 
history has shown that we have raised the minimum wage over and over 
again and we have created 80 million jobs. No. 3, most of the people 
earning minimum wage are adults, and most of those are women, and 
people are trying to raise their families on the minimum wage.
  The last point is that we have always had strong bipartisan support. 
When George W. signed it into law, there was strong support from the 
Republicans. When his dad was in office, there was strong support. I 
can't believe the Republican Party has turned its back on working 
people, but if they have, we will find out tomorrow. The American 
people know what this is about.
  The American dream is within reach, but we have to have fairness out 
there. People need a fair shot. We shouldn't tell someone who is a dad 
that he has to work three jobs. That is wrong. We need to lift up these 
workers and not let them fall behind.
  When workers do better, families do better. When parents buy their 
kids enough to eat and shoes to wear, when they can go get a haircut at 
the local barber, when they can put gas in their car and fix up their 
house just a little, everybody does better. The community does better. 
Businesses do better. Families can walk tall when we reward hard work. 
When our workers earn a fair wage, our economy is stronger and our 
country is better. So let's give American working families a fair shot. 
We are not asking for the Moon and the Sun and the stars. All we want 
is just a little light at the end of the tunnel.
  Thank you.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, nearly 7 years ago both parties worked 
together to pass bipartisan legislation that raised the minimum wage. 
Nineteen of my Republican colleagues, with whom I serve in the Senate 
today, voted for that bipartisan legislation, and Republican President 
George W. Bush signed it into law on May 25, 2007.
  Since that time big banks on Wall Street drove our economy into a 
ditch. We faced a financial sector meltdown and were confronted with 
the worst recession since the Great Depression.
  Hard-working Americans lost jobs. They lost their homes. They lost 
their retirement savings. Hard-working families paid a steep price for 
the reckless actions of others when all they ever asked for was that 
their hard work be rewarded.
  Today people are working as hard as ever. Many are working full time. 
Many are working two jobs just to make ends meet; they deserve to get 
ahead. Yet far too many are barely getting by or living in poverty.
  Middle-class incomes have flat-lined and income inequality in the 
United States is at a record high. And, today, a full-time minimum-wage 
worker earns only $15,080 per year.
  The sad reality is the minimum wage is not high enough to keep full-
time workers out of poverty. That is simply wrong, and it is our job to 
work together to change it because in America no one who works hard 
full time should have to live in poverty.
  I am here today to urge my colleagues to help lift nearly 2 million 
people--2 million of their fellow Americans--out of poverty.
  I am here today to urge my colleagues to support the Minimum Wage 
Fairness Act and give 28 million hard-working Americans the raise they 
have earned.
  Some opponents of this bill have dismissed this effort as nothing 
more than raising the wages of teenagers who are simply working in the 
summer months. Well, that simply is no longer true. In fact, it never 
was true.
  Eighty-eight percent of minimum-wage workers are adults age 20 or 
older, and the average age of a minimum-wage worker in America is 35 
years old. More than half of minimum-wage workers are women. These are 
Americans who are working hard to get ahead, and they deserve to have 
us working together to help give them a fair shot.
  Raising the minimum wage is not just the right thing to do to reward 
hard work; it can certainly boost our economy because studies show that 
minimum-wage workers spend the extra dollars they earn on basics such 
as food and clothing at businesses right in their home communities.
  For someone earning $7.25 an hour and working full time, raising the 
minimum wage to $10.10 puts an extra $5,700 into their pockets. That 
$5,700 provides groceries for a year or utilities for a year, money to 
spend on gas and clothing for a year, or 6 months of housing--fueling 
our local economies at a time when our recovery continues to limp 
along.
  Raising the minimum wage would lift 2 million hard-working people out 
of poverty. Passing this legislation would mean that more hard-working 
Americans will be able to provide for their families without the help 
of government programs such as SNAP, otherwise known as food stamps, 
saving taxpayers $4.6 billion from reduced nutrition assistance 
payments in 1 year alone.
  I believe we need to build a fairer economy and grow the middle class 
from the bottom up. And I believe our economy is strongest when we 
expand opportunity for everyone, when everyone gets a fair shot.
  I am proud to join my colleagues here today and tomorrow to deliver a

[[Page 6395]]

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 that an honest day's work pays more.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
importance of raising the minimum wage.
  People truly deserve a fair shot at the American dream, and it is 
time to come together to raise the minimum wage.
  Our State just raised the minimum wage. We actually had one of the 
lowest minimum wages in the country--$6.15 per hour--and we are now at 
$9.50 per hour. So that was a major jump up. It was something that was 
needed, and it had a lot of support in the State of Minnesota, a State 
that has a very strong economy, with an unemployment rate of only 4.8 
percent. But even when they have jobs people still have found it very 
hard to afford basic things or to send their kids to college.
  We should follow Minnesota's example. We should raise the Federal 
minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.
  I am a cosponsor of the Minimum Wage Fairness Act. I want to thank 
Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue and his dedication to 
the working families of America.
  I also want to thank Senator Merkley and all of my colleagues who 
have worked tirelessly to raise the minimum wage.
  As the Senate chair of the Joint Economic Committee, I held a hearing 
on income inequality earlier this year with former Secretary of Labor 
Robert Reich. His data showed--and this is a number I will never 
forget--that the top 400 people in this country--the top 400 people--
have the same amount of wealth as the bottom 50 percent of Americans. 
This means that half of Americans--of everyone in this country--have 
the same amount of wealth as the top 400 people.
  So how do we address this? We know there are a lot of things we need 
to do: training people who do not have the jobs and do not have the 
skills right now, increasing exports, immigration reform--there are all 
kinds of things we can do. But we know one major thing we can do to 
help an individual family have a fair shot is to increase the minimum 
wage.
  Like many of my colleagues who have spoken today, I worked my fair 
share of minimum-wage jobs. I started as a carhop at the A&W Root Beer 
stand in Wayzata, MN. I then graduated to being a waitress, for about 3 
years, at Bakers Square pie shop, where I once spilled 12 iced teas on 
1 customer. That is when I decided to go to law school. But I worked 
those jobs, and it gave me a sense of what it was like for some of the 
people I worked with--that this was their job, this was their job 
cutting pies, this was their job washing dishes. This was how they 
supported themselves. It gave me a sense of how important it is to look 
out for those people who are doing the work we depend on every single 
day.
  Think of how this affects women. Two-thirds of today's families rely 
on the mother's income in some way. Mothers are the primary 
breadwinners in more than one-third of families. Yet we also know that 
women make up nearly two-thirds of all the workers who earn the minimum 
wage or less.
  An example of this is a waitress named Tiffany from Houston, TX, who 
recently came to Washington. We did an event together and answered 
questions. Her story is the story of so many American women across this 
country. She is a single mom. She loves her daughter so much. She is 
working as a waitress, and many times, with the way the laws work down 
in Texas, she does not make many tips in one night. So what does she 
do? She fills in by working on holidays. She has worked many Christmas 
Eves. She has missed every single Halloween with her daughter because 
it was a good night to be working at the bar at the restaurant. She has 
missed all kinds of other holidays, and she went through them, as we 
stood there.
  You think to yourself: Sometimes, especially when you first start 
off, that happens. I have had it happen. But it should not keep 
happening after you have worked years and years at the same place. But 
it is just one example of what our minimum-wage workers have to do to 
try to make ends meet. They have to work another job. They have to work 
a holiday. They have to work another shift. That goes on every single 
day in America.
  A woman working full time in a minimum-wage job only makes about 
$15,000 per year, which is not enough for her to work her way out of 
poverty. It is not enough for her to send herself or her kids to 
college. A full-time job should not mean full-time poverty.
  Today, more than 15 million women in America are counting on us to 
help them get a fairer wage. Many of them, as I noted, are working in 
demanding retail and hospitality jobs--as waitresses, store clerks, 
hotel maids--where they are on their feet and they are running all day. 
They may not be able to come here today and sit in the gallery and say: 
Hey, I need a raise. So we have to be their voices. We have to talk for 
them today.
  Despite their hard work, they have an almost impossible time making 
ends met. They struggle to afford the basics--a decent place to live or 
food for their family, never mind being able to save for a rainy day or 
for college or for their own retirement.
  I released a Joint Economic Committee report on Earnings, Income and 
Retirement Security for Women. One striking thing we saw in this report 
is that a woman's lower lifetime earnings means lower retirement 
security. So this is more than about today's wages. This is about an 
entire lifespan. Women live longer. If they are making less, if their 
minimum wage does not allow them to save for retirement, it is even 
tougher for them in their golden years.
  There is also a strong economic case for raising the minimum wage 
today. Low-wage workers would see their earnings increase by $31 
billion if we raise the minimum wage. And we know what they are going 
to do with this. They are going to try to save a little of it, but they 
are going to spend it. They are going to spend it in Washington State. 
They are going to spend it in West Virginia. They are going to spend it 
on clothes for their kids, on food for their families, and filling up 
their gas tanks. They are going to help keep the economy going.
  I once saw a documentary that Robert Reich did where he talked to a 
major CEO with tons of money. He took him into his room, and he said: 
OK. I only have three pairs of jeans. How can you really have more than 
three pairs of jeans? Maybe you could have four, but you really don't 
need more than that.
  His point was this: If we want to have an economy that works, we 
cannot have all of the profits and money sucked up by the people who 
run things. We want them to be rewarded for their work, but they can 
only buy so many jeans.
  If you have that money go fairly across the spectrum, then everyone 
gets to buy their pair of jeans. What we are doing is literally cutting 
down our markets by not making sure--in a consumer-driven economy, 
where 70 percent of our economy is consumer driven, we are putting 
ourselves in a situation where people are not able to buy things.
  We also know that raising the minimum wage is good for business. We 
know that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour could help 
approximately 28 million workers, with almost half of the benefits 
going to households with incomes below $35,000 per year.
  We know that more than 15 million women would receive a raise. We 
know that $31 billion would be added to our economy. We know that seven 
Nobel laureates in economics, along with over 600 economists, support 
raising the minimum wage to restore the value that has been lost to 
inflation over the years. The minimum wage is now a third of the value 
of what it was in 1968.
  It was the beloved late Paul Wellstone of my State who famously said: 
``We all do better when we all do better.'' If he were here today, that 
is what he would be saying. I know it is

[[Page 6396]]

still true, and so do my colleagues who join me today. We need to be 
focused on doing better so we all do better.
  With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for 
working families, and especially the working women of this country, to 
give them a fair shot and pass a long overdue minimum-wage increase.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
her really important statement. I come here today to join her and talk 
about this one small idea that stands for a huge difference in the 
lives of all of our constituents and, as she pointed out, for women in 
particular; that is, of course, the idea that if you are putting in 40 
or 50 or 60 hours of work per week, you are able to put food on the 
table and pay your bills and you will not 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. But we have to act now 
because right now one in four women in our workforce is making the 
minimum wage. That is 15 million American women who are making the 
equivalent of about two gallons of gas per hour.
  Are we prepared to tell them that should be enough to support 
themselves and their kids? In fact, as we have heard several times now 
here in this Chamber, nearly two-thirds of those who earn the minimum 
wage or less are women. This is coming at a time when more and more 
women are depended upon as the sole income earners in American 
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 
who are stuck living in poverty, who cannot save for a car, much less a 
house. They cannot pay for school to get new skills and a new job, and 
they cannot even afford to provide their children with warm winter 
clothes or basic medical care.
  Unfortunately, this also comes at a time now when we are seeing CEO 
salaries skyrocketing across the country, all while America's minimum 
wage stays flat. In 2013, the average S&P CEO earned $11.7 million. 
That is 21 percent more than they earned in 2009--21 percent--and 630 
percent more in real value than in 1983--630 percent more.
  Unbelievably, this means that the average CEO today earns more before 
lunchtime on his first day of work than a minimum-wage worker earns all 
year. That is not how it is supposed to work in America, the country 
where you are told if you work hard and you 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 we are taking the lead. In my home State of Washington, our 
workforce enjoys the highest minimum wage in the country. I wish to 
point out to 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 in our bars have expanded because more people have 
more money in their pockets to spend out at dinner at night or on the 
weekend. Poverty in Washington State has trailed the national level for 
at least 7 years.
  It is not just in Washington State that we are seeing those 
successes. In fact, this week the Center for Economic and Policy 
Research reported that of the 13 States that increased their minimum 
wage in early 2014, 11 of them have seen a gain in employment since 
then, and half of the 10 fastest growing States by employment were 
among this group of minimum-wage raisers.
  This is just one of many reasons why I strongly support increasing 
the national minimum wage to $10.10. It is not going to make anyone 
rich, but for the 400,000 Washington residents who would be directly 
impacted, it would mean an average annual raise of approximately $375. 
That is no small amount for the over 48,000 in my State who would be 
lifted out of poverty with an increase in the minimum wage.
  But we have to do more. In fact, today two-thirds of our families 
rely on income from both parents. Thanks to our outdated Tax Code, a 
woman who is thinking about reentering the workforce as the second 
earner may face higher tax rates than her husband. That is unfair and 
it has got to change. So last month I introduced the 21st Century 
Worker Tax Cut Act, which would help solve that problem by giving 
struggling two-earner families with children a tax deduction on the 
second earner's income.
  My hope is that tomorrow here in the Senate we can come together on 
behalf of the millions of Americans who, like my own mother when I was 
growing up, are the sole breadwinner and caregiver in their family. I 
hope our colleagues have gotten a sense of how $7.25 an hour translates 
to a grocery trip for a family of four or to shopping for school 
supplies or even how it impacts making the daily commute.
  That is why all of us are here today, this afternoon, to give that 
mom or that dad a fair shot at succeeding in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, if you live along the southeastern coast 
of the United States, you know the sea level is rising. We have a lot 
of people who would question the reason for this rise of the sea level. 
Some people deny there is climate change, that the Earth is warming up.
  I think as we look at the science, we will clearly understand the 
greenhouse effect is occurring. The more we put gases into the 
atmosphere by human action such as carbon dioxide, the more the Sun's 
rays come in and reflect upon the Earth's surface and would naturally 
radiate out into space. The fact is, as the Earth's surface reflects 
the Sun's rays back out into space, which is what Mother Nature 
intended, keeping the delicate balance of the temperature of the Earth, 
what happens when we put greenhouse gases such as CO2 into 
the atmosphere, a shield or blanket, the effect of a greenhouse occurs.
  As they reflect back out, they are trapped--the Sun's rays, the heat 
from them--and it continues to warm up the Earth. Thus, we have the 
greenhouse effect.
  One of the consequences of the greenhouse effect is that the icecaps 
in Greenland to the north and Antarctica to the south are melting. This 
causes the sea level to rise.
  Another effect of the greenhouse effect is that as the Earth's 
temperature rises, most of the surface of the planet is covered with 
seawater. Therefore, the water absorbs that heat. That causes 
additional effects such as the intensity, the frequency, the ferocity 
of storms that fuel the storm surge and power from the surface water 
they consume.
  Having said all of that, then, what are we seeing as a consequence? 
As I said in my opening, if you live along the southeastern coast of 
the United States, you know that seas are rising. The commerce 
committee, under the blessing of our chairman, Senator Rockefeller, 
just held a hearing in ground zero. Ground zero is Miami Beach, FL.
  One of the people to testify was a NASA scientist, a Ph.D., who 
happens to be a three-time shuttle astronaut. He testified in front of 
the committee--not predictions, not forecasts, he testified what are 
the actual measurements of the rise of the sea level over the course of 
the last half century. That rise is anywhere from 5 to 8 inches along 
the southeastern coast. The effects of that are being felt in southern 
Florida. For instance, it is now a normal occurrence at high tide that 
we are finding parts of Miami Beach are, in fact, flooded. The actual 
beach itself and the dunes are higher than some of the land as it 
progresses away from the ocean and the barrier island of Miami Beach 
becomes lower.

[[Page 6397]]

  There is a major north-south thoroughfare called Alton Road on Miami 
Beach. At high tide, it is frequent that Alton Road floods. What we are 
expecting in seasonal high tides coming this October, just as they were 
last October, is we will see maybe up to a foot of water in Alton Road.
  Why does this occur if it is not flooding over the dunes by the 
beach? Because Florida sits on a porous substrate of limestone. It is 
like Swiss cheese. This is why people say: Well, why do you not do what 
the Dutch did? The Dutch built dikes. They are under sea level; New 
Orleans, the same thing, dikes and canals. Under sea level. You cannot 
do that in Florida, because with the porous limestone supporting the 
earth, the land, what happens is the rise in tides causes more 
pressure, and it causes the saltwater to start to invade this honeycomb 
of limestone that supports the land of Florida and there you get 
saltwater intrusion.
  With the rising tides and rising sea levels, that water also starts 
coming into the drainage systems that keep Florida dry. That is 
happening now in Miami Beach at high tide. We had it last time in 
October in the seasonal high tides. We are going to have it again in 
the high tides coming this October. So naturally this is going to cause 
a considerable extra expense since you cannot build a dike for the 
local government, the State government, and the Federal Government to 
keep people dry. I am happy to say the local governments of South 
Florida have all banded together and you are seeing them speak with one 
voice as they have, for example, not competing for a grant from the 
Federal Government but instead they have banded together and supported 
the grant application for the city of Miami which is the first ground 
zero, in order for Miami to try to attack its problem.
  There is an economic consequence to this as well, as we had someone 
from the Miami-Dade convention bureau come and point out. I can sum it 
up as I did during the hearing: No beach, no bucks. Florida is blessed 
since we have more coastline than any other State save for Alaska, and 
we certainly have more beach than any other State. Florida is blessed 
with these beautiful beaches that people from all over the world want 
to come and enjoy.
  No beach, no bucks. It is going to have a huge economic consequence, 
not only in the cost of government to try to hold back the water but 
also in lost business.
  I will conclude my remarks by saying not the measurements, 5 to 8 
inches. That has already been done. That has happened, 5 to 8 inches of 
sea level rise the last 50 years.
  Now the forecast. The forecast in the scientific community--and we 
had one of the scientists from one of the State universities testify, 
along with the NASA scientist, is that it is going to be upwards of a 
foot within the next 20 to 30 years. By the end of this century, we are 
talking 2 to 3 feet.
  Let me tell you what that means for the State of Florida. The State 
of Florida this year will surpass New York in population as the third 
largest State, moving on toward 20 million people, and 75 percent of 
that population is on the coast of Florida. The east coast, the west 
coast, which is the gulf coast, is 75 percent of our population. If we 
don't turn this back 2 to 3 feet by the end of this century, that 75 
percent of our population will, in fact, be underwater.
  We are trying to get insurance companies interested. We had a major 
reinsurer testify that although insurance policies are set--property 
and casualty policy premiums--in 1- to 3-year increments, over the 
course of time that is certainly going to change.
  I conclude my remarks by complimenting the next Senator who is going 
to speak. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has been our conscience. 
He and Senator Barbara Boxer have been ringing the bell on this issue 
for months and for years in trying to get people to pay attention to 
what is happening.
  I want Senator Whitehouse to share what he has done over his Easter 
vacation in trying to bring attention to this subject.
  At the end of the day, we have to do something about it, and that 
means we are going to have to be very sensitive about all the stuff 
that not only we, the United States of America, are putting into the 
air and creating that shield, that greenhouse effect, but we are going 
to have to get other countries that are polluting even more than we are 
to do the same.
  Senator Whitehouse, I thank you for what you have done as you share 
your story with us. You have done a courageous act of patriotism in 
bringing attention to this dramatic issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I understand the time is controlled now by the 
Republicans. When Senator Hoeven arrives, I will yield the floor to 
him. But in the meantime, I thank Senator Nelson for his leadership in 
this area.
  Let the record reflect that although Rhode Island may call itself the 
Ocean State, Florida has its fair share of coastline as well. The 
effects on Florida's coast are really very significant.
  Because time is short and because I see Senator Hoeven has arrived 
and because Senator Nelson is a modest individual who would not want to 
brag on himself, let me say one thing and then I will come back later 
and discuss my Easter southern climate tour at greater length.
  The Miami Herald is a very significant newspaper in Florida, and it 
attended and reacted to the Commerce Committee hearing Senator Nelson 
led in his home State. I want to read from two short sections that 
opened by saying:

       For South Floridians, the topics of climate change and 
     rising sea levels are no longer to be dismissed as tree-
     hugger mumbo-jumbo.
       Pause next time you hear that parts of Miami Beach or the 
     intersection of A1A and Las Olas Boulevard have flooded 
     because of . . . high tides?
       Let the light go off atop your head: It's science, stupid.
       On Tuesday, Florida Democratic U.S. Senator Bill Nelson 
     brought illumination to Miami Beach--Ground Zero for our 
     unique coastal battle with Mother Nature.

  It concludes with these last few words:

       South Florida owes Senator Nelson its thanks for shining a 
     bright light on this issue. Everyone from local residents to 
     elected officials should follow his lead, turning awareness 
     of this major environmental issue into action. It is critical 
     to saving our region.
       If we don't, we'll soon have water--not sand--in our shoes.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 4:45 
p.m. today will be under the control of the Republicans.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                          Keystone XL Pipeline

  Mr. HOEVEN. I rise to discuss the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I 
will be joined by a number of my colleagues, whom I will thank at the 
beginning for joining me. They will come today with the same message 
that I have; that is, the Keystone XL Pipeline project, the project 
that has now been under review by this administration for more than 5 
years--we are now in year 6. We are on the floor of the Senate asking 
for, quite simply, a vote to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project. 
I have put legislation in on a number of occasions. In 2012 we approved 
a time limit for the President to make a decision. I believe that bill 
got on the order of 73 votes--strong bipartisan support. We attached it 
to the payroll tax holiday, and it said that the President had to make 
a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline within 90 days. He did. He 
turned it down, and he turned it down on the basis of the routing in 
Nebraska.
  So not only did the State of Nebraska go through an incredible amount 
of work, but the State Department and others went back to work, did a 
whole new environmental impact statement after Nebraska had rerouted 
the pipeline, which was approved by both its legislature and its 
Governor, and came forward with a new route and a new environmental 
impact statement. That was right at the beginning of 2012.
  So we set a timeline for the President to make a decision. He made 
the decision and he turned down the

[[Page 6398]]

project, but we addressed the concerns he raised. They were fully 
addressed.
  Then later we also offered a resolution of support putting the Senate 
on record in support of the project. That was attached to the budget 
resolution at the beginning of 2013. We came back the next year, and on 
that occasion the Senate, with 62 votes, said: Hey, we support the 
project. Here is a resolution in support of the project stating that it 
is, in fact, in the national interest and ought to be approved.
  Since then the President has done nothing. Well, that is not quite 
right. Not only has he not made a decision now--and we are in the sixth 
year after four environmental impact statements, all of which said 
there is no significant environmental impact created by the project--
not only has the President not made a decision, with Congress on record 
supporting the project, but, in fact, a little over 1 week ago on Good 
Friday, on the afternoon of Good Friday, when he figured nobody was 
paying any attention, the President came out and basically put out a 
statement and said that not only has he not made a decision but he is 
not going to make a decision, that on the basis of litigation he is 
going to postpone the decision indefinitely.
  So we are in year 6, having met all of the requirements on numerous 
occasions on a project that will provide energy and jobs, that will 
help with national security by reducing our dependence on oil from the 
Middle East, a project that his own Department of State, after 
environmental impact statement after environmental impact statement, 
has come back and said will create no significant environmental impact, 
will create 42,000 jobs, and will help us get energy and not only move 
energy from States such as North Dakota and Montana in our country to 
the refineries safely but also bring in oil from Canada to our country 
so we don't have to import it from the Middle East.
  The President says: Well, we are in year 6, but I am going to 
postpone this decision indefinitely.
  Here we are. We have a bill I introduced some time ago. We have 27 
cosponsors on the bill, both parties. What the bill does, it approves 
the Keystone XL Pipeline project congressionally. Instead of continuing 
to wait after 6 years and now the President's announcement that he is 
going to delay the decision indefinitely, passing this bill would 
approve the project congressionally.
  The way that works is that under the foreign commerce clause in the 
Constitution, Congress has the authority to approve this project. They 
have that authority under Congress's ability to oversee foreign 
commerce, commerce with other nations. We know that because we took 
time to research it. We had the Congressional Research Service do the 
research for us, and they say this is a constitutional authority of the 
Congress.
  We have provided that bill. The bill has been filed. As I said, we 
have 27 sponsors, and now it is time to vote.
  We have been holding off on having a vote because the President said: 
You know, we are going to go through the process--or he is going to go 
through the process and he is going to honor the process.
  The environmental--actually, the fourth and supposedly final 
environmental impact statement came out at the end of January. There 
was a 90-day comment period after that, which was to expire the first 
part of May. The expectation was that now that the process at that 
point--once the process was exhausted, the President would, in fact, 
render the long-awaited decision.
  But, as I say, on Good Friday, a little over 1 week ago, he came out 
and said: No, no decision. Furthermore, he is not going to make a 
decision, and that delay is indefinite. So clearly the administration 
opposes the project and they are going to defeat it with delay. They 
are going to defeat it with endless delays. There is no amount of 
process that will ever be adequate for the administration. They will 
continue to delay this decision, thinking that at some point it will go 
away, and so they defeat the project through one delay after another. 
That is why it is time to vote.
  In a recent poll that was released last week, 70 percent of the 
American people want this project approved--70 percent. That was a 
Rasmussen poll.
  The President is trying to defeat the project through delays in order 
to appease special interest groups while the American people very much 
want this project approved. It is Congress's responsibility to take a 
stand. It is long past time to vote.
  At this point, I am making some revisions to the legislation to 
update it for the final environmental impact statement. We are working 
to get every single Republican Member of this body on board, which I 
believe we will do, and as many Democratic Members as possible. We are 
pushing as hard as we can to get a vote. It is time for the Senate to 
stand, exercise its responsibility, and vote.
  Now the Senate majority leader is looking at moving to energy 
legislation, energy efficiency legislation. That is good. Let's go 
there. Let's have the debate. Let's offer amendments. Let's have votes. 
Let's do the work of the people that this body is elected to do.
  As part of that, we are going to require a vote on the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, a vote to approve it congressionally, and everybody can 
decide where they stand. But this is a project which is long overdue. 
It is time to vote, and it is time to vote on congressional approval. 
That is our message today, and that is going to continue to be our 
message as we work on energy legislation.
  I am very pleased to have other Members who have agreed to come join 
this discussion. I turn to the good Senator from Kansas, the senior 
Senator from Kansas, somebody who has been in this body for a long 
time, who has seen these issues, and who understands the responsibility 
we have to vote on behalf of these issues, to take a stand for the 
American people.
  I yield to the senior Senator from Kansas, a State through which this 
pipeline passes, and ask him does he perceive that this project is in 
the national interest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would be more than happy to respond to my good friend and 
colleague.
  Thank you for your leadership, thank you for your bill, and thank you 
for your statement. There is no question that this is in the national 
interest--absolutely none.
  I rise today to join my fellow Republican colleagues and then to 
extend the arm of cooperation to our friends across the aisle.
  I want to express my deep disappointment in this administration's 
repeated delay of the final approval of the Keystone Pipeline. I hope 
that what the Senator has indicated will come true, that if in fact it 
is the wish of the majority leader to at least bring up an energy 
bill--and I hope he would not limit it, I hope he would allow 
amendments to it--then with the support we have within the Congress we 
could get going on something that is truly a jobs act as well as 
providing for the national security.
  The irony should not be lost on anyone that while those on the other 
side continue messaging and messaging and talking about supposed 
government solutions to our high national unemployment rate--including 
emergency unemployment insurance, income inequality, minimum wage--we 
have a project right before us waiting for approval that would create 
tens of thousands of jobs and all without using one dime of taxpayer 
money. If you want an actual solution to unemployment, here it is: 
Provide eager Americans with full-time jobs making well over the 
national minimum wage. That is a jobs package.
  Regarding the pipeline's environmental soundness, the Senator has 
been absolutely correct. Just last June the President indicated he 
would not grant final approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline if it would 
exacerbate carbon emissions. The good news is this, Mr. President: The 
State Department has already indicated that the construction of the 
pipeline will have no

[[Page 6399]]

measurable impact--none--on increasing global carbon emissions. So from 
an economic standpoint, it is a no-brainer, and from the scientific 
conclusions reached by this administration's own State Department 
regarding the environmental soundness of the project, it is a no-
brainer.
  At the end of the day, the Canadian oil sands are going to be 
developed. That is a fact. The real question is, Will that oil be 
shipped overseas? Will it be transported to the United States by rail 
or will it travel by pipeline? In fact, transporting oil via pipeline 
is the most environmentally sound way to do it.
  Lastly--and this plays into the larger discussion we are having about 
the escalating issues with regard to the Middle East, Ukraine, and 
Russia reverting again to a growling bear--why not send a strong 
message to the rest of the world--most especially to Russia--that we 
are serious about energy security? At last, at last, energy security; 
that we will work with our friends in Canada to start challenging 
nationally run oil cartels as to who can supply our friends with needed 
energy.
  While the larger energy discussion regarding situations unfolding 
around the world are focused mostly on LNG, Russia's influence goes 
well beyond natural gas. We should understand that. Just look at our 
own data produced by the Energy Information Administration, which shows 
that Russia is second only to Saudi Arabia in exports of oil.
  So this is our opportunity from a national security standpoint to 
send an important message that the time of despotic governments wishing 
to wield power by controlling the flow of energy is coming to an end. 
Let's allow this project to be the first step in hopefully many more 
toward showing we are serious as a government about achieving North 
American energy security.
  Again, this project has been reviewed, as has been noted by my 
distinguished friend, for over 5 years, with five environmental impact 
statements concluding it is safe. This project makes sense 
economically, environmentally, and from a national security 
perspective. What does not make sense is yet another treading-water 
non-decision, another delay beyond the fall elections. With regard to 
our national energy policy, it is long overdue for the United States to 
lead by leading.
  Mr. President, approve the pipeline.
  To the majority leader: Let us have an amendment--if, in fact, we do 
go on to consider energy legislation this work period--that will be in 
the best interest of every State in the Union, every American, for our 
national security, and our overall energy policy.
  I thank my colleague again for his leadership. I really appreciate 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for 
his words today and for his support of this important project.
  I would also like to turn to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, 
somebody who truly believes we should have an ``all of the above'' 
energy approach but one that means actually doing--not only producing 
from our traditional sources of fossil fuels but also our renewable 
sources. He is someone who also understands that if we are truly going 
to have an ``all of the above'' energy plan in this country and do it, 
not just talk about it, we need the infrastructure to make it happen.
  So I turn to the good Senator from Iowa and ask him: Isn't this the 
vital infrastructure this country needs in order to truly have an ``all 
of the above'' energy plan that works?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It is a jobs bill, it is an energy bill, it is a 
national security issue, and it sends the message around the world that 
we are not going to be dependent upon the rest of the world for our 
energy. It is all those things and probably a lot more, and I thank the 
Senator from North Dakota for putting this afternoon together and also, 
over a long period of time, being a spokesman for the Keystone XL 
Pipeline not only here in the Senate, but I have seen the Senator on 
Sunday news shows speaking to the entire Nation about the value of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline.
  I think today we are saying enough is enough. We are saying it is 
time to end the unjustified and--now we know--the political delay of 
the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. I am glad so many of my 
colleagues are coming to the floor today to call for the approval of 
this project.
  The TransCanada Corporation applied for a Presidential permit from 
the U.S. Department of State to construct and operate the Keystone XL 
Pipeline way back in September of 2008. Yet here we are still talking 
about it. For nearly 6 years this administration has been sitting on 
the application. Time and time again the State Department, which has 
the responsibility to review, reviewed the environmental impacts of the 
pipeline, and once again, time and time again, they found that the 
pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.
  In 2011 Secretary Clinton said a decision would come before the end 
of 2011. In March 2013, when President Obama was invited to come and 
talk to Senate Republicans in our caucus--and he was told he could talk 
about anything he wanted to talk about--one of the topics that came up 
was that a decision would be made on this pipeline before the end of 
2013. He said that 13 months ago, yet still no decision.
  As has been stated by my colleagues, on Good Friday afternoon of this 
year, the State Department announced an indefinite delay in the comment 
period on the pipeline project. So it appears unlikely that President 
Obama will make a decision at any time in the near future, if ever.
  This indefinite delay is mind-boggling considering all the advantages 
of this pipeline. Granting the permit for the pipeline will create 
thousands of jobs directly and indirectly. It will provide more than 
800,000 barrels of Canadian oil daily from a friendly economic partner.
  Rejection of the pipeline permit will not affect Canada's decision to 
develop these oil resources because they are smarter than we are. They 
have made a national decision that they are going to harvest their 
energy resources, whereas we are playing around as to whether we ought 
to do that. As we play around, we tend to be more dependent upon 
foreign sources. So the Keystone Pipeline is clearly in the national 
interest of the United States. Yet President Obama is unwilling and 
unable--or maybe I should say ``or unable''--to make a decision.
  Just think of the economy today and what this could do to improve the 
economy, particularly with regard to the unemployment factor in our 
economy, currently at 6.7 percent. That means 10 million jobs that are 
not available for Americans. That number is the unemployed. The labor 
force participation rate remains near a 35-year low, at 63.2 percent. 
If the labor force participation rate were the same as when President 
Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.3 percent instead 
of 6.7 percent. With these deplorable unemployment numbers, one would 
think the President would be very anxious to get as many people 
employed as he could.
  The President and the Senate majority here, which happens to be 55 
Democrats, should be doing everything they can to grow the economy and 
create jobs. This would be something that could be bipartisan. In fact, 
we have already had bipartisan votes on this subject. Yet the Senate 
Democratic leadership continues to block Senate action to approve the 
permit. Instead, they are proposing ideas that would actually cost jobs 
rather than create jobs at a time of 6.7 percent unemployment. For 
example, later this week we in the Senate will vote on a proposal to 
increase the minimum wage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
concluded that this proposal will cost 500,000 jobs and perhaps as many 
as 1 million jobs. That is not the Republican Party making that 
statement; that is the professional people of the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  It should be noted that while a higher minimum wage will benefit 
those low-wage workers who remain employed, it will also push the least 
skilled, most disadvantaged, and most

[[Page 6400]]

vulnerable workers out of employment. We should be doing everything to 
increase employment, not having more people laid off.
  We have the health care reform bill--another great example. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year that the health 
care reform bill will result in 2\1/2\ million fewer workers in our 
workforce by 2025.
  President Obama has also proposed another $1.8 trillion in new taxes 
in his latest budget proposal. Higher taxes stifle economic growth and 
cost jobs.
  The policies being advocated by the majority party and by the 
President limit opportunities for working families, reduce economic 
growth, and prevent the economy from achieving its full potential.
  Obviously, getting back to the Keystone Pipeline, the decision to 
grant the permit for that pipeline is no longer being considered based 
on policy but based on politics. That is too bad for America's energy 
consumers and thousands of job seekers who would benefit.
  I don't happen to come from the oil patches of Texas, Oklahoma, or 
North Dakota. There are no oil or gas producers in my State. But I do 
support an energy policy that is truly ``all of the above.'' I 
represent farmers and consumers who want access to affordable, reliable 
energy. I represent Iowans who would rather get their energy from a 
friend and ally such as Canada rather than Venezuela or unstable parts 
of the Middle East, where they will take our money and probably use it 
to train people who want to kill Americans. I represent Iowans who 
actually know that this oil will be developed regardless of this 
pipeline, and they know it is just a question of whether it will come 
to the United States or end up in China.
  I represent Iowans who understand the economic and national security 
impact of this pipeline. They want to see the government get out of the 
way of this shovel-ready, private-sector infrastructure project.
  How many times were we promised in the stimulus bill that we were 
going to create X number of jobs that were shovel ready? Most of that 
$800 billion went to public employment, not to shovel-ready jobs. The 
President even admitted that.
  This pipeline is shovel ready. It is time to end the political delay 
and approve this pipeline.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, who has 
made the case so well, and I look to his experience on energy issues 
and ag issues and his understanding of what it takes to truly have an 
all-of-the-above energy policy. As he said so well, it is not only 
needed infrastructure but it is jobs.
  Here we are, talking about getting the economy going and getting 
people back to work. This doesn't cost one penny of Federal spending, 
and it puts people to work and creates hundreds of millions of dollars 
in revenue to help reduce our deficit and our debt.
  So we are talking about putting people back to work, we are talking 
about energy for this country, we are talking about revenues to reduce 
the debt, and the administration refuses to make a decision. It is 
almost beyond belief.
  I turn next to the Senator from Alabama, the ranking member on the 
Budget Committee. He speaks eloquently and often on the need to balance 
our budget, on the need to reduce the deficit and the debt and to get 
our spending under control.
  So here we have a project that, without spending one penny, will 
generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues to help reduce the 
deficit and debt while we put people to work.
  Those statistics are provided by this administration's State 
Department. Those aren't our statistics. Those statistics come out of 
the environmental impact statement put together by the State Department 
of this administration.
  So I turn to the Senator from Alabama, somebody who has led on the 
need to get this economy going, to create good, quality jobs and to 
reduce the deficit and debt. I ask the good the Senator from Alabama: 
Won't this project help do all of those things?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Hoeven.
  The Senator is exactly right; it will do all of those things. It is a 
step in the right direction in every area.
  I appreciate my leader on the Judiciary Committee and ranking member, 
Senator Grassley. I would ask a rather simple question of Senator 
Grassley which ought not to be forgotten in this process. If a pipeline 
is built and an additional source of gasoline is brought into the 
Midwest or other areas, if it is not cheaper than the gas that is 
already being supplied, isn't it true that nobody will buy it?
  So won't this mean an opportunity for people in the whole country to 
be able to have another source of fuel which would be less costly and 
help bring down costs?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad to yield.
  I think that is very basic economics: Increase supply and reduce 
price.
  The other matter is it makes us more energy independent. We spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars every day to import oil. There is no 
sense doing that when we can get it right here in North America.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  I thank Senator Hoeven for his steadfast, consistent, principled 
leadership on this important issue. He has been there consistently. I 
don't think there is any Senator in this body who understands the 
details of this issue more than he does. It is just a positive thing 
for America. It just is, and I thank the Senator for his efforts.
  We have been reviewing this for 5 years. Legally, as I see this 
situation, it is this: There is no Federal law at this time dealing 
with this issue. Presidents have issued Executive orders that created a 
mechanism to allow the State Department to review a request for a 
pipeline like Keystone XL. But clearly there is no doubt that Congress 
has every right to legislate on this issue. Just because we haven't 
yet, that doesn't mean we never will or never should, and I strongly 
believe that with the failed leadership of President Obama on this 
question, we are going to have to pass legislation. It is just that 
critical.
  The Secretary of State has essentially asserted that under these 
Executive orders the State Department must evaluate the environmental 
issue. They have dealt with that, and they have satisfied that 
environmental process. There is the question left of the national 
interest.
  So if we don't have a serious environmental issue--which I don't 
think we do, and pretty clearly we don't--then the question is: What is 
in the national interest?
  Senator Hoeven represents a state on the border with Canada, and we 
have good relations with Canada.
  First, I don't think there is any nation in the world with which we 
need to maintain and enhance our relationship more than with our good 
partner, Canada.
  Second, let me ask the Senator this. The Senator is close to Canada. 
He knows the situation. If this pipeline is not approved, will it 
weaken and harm our relationship with our good neighbor, Canada, or 
will it make it better?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, Prime Minister Harper of Canada has said 
on a number of occasions how important this project is to Canada. The 
Ambassador of Canada to the United States is Gary Doer, somebody who 
was formerly the Premier of Manitoba and somebody I worked with when I 
was Governor of North Dakota. We worked together for about a decade on 
all kinds of issues. As the Senator said, Canada is our closest friend 
and ally, and they are a huge energy producer. And we are producing 
more energy.
  So here is a project which is incredibly important to Canada. It is 
an opportunity for us to get more energy, both energy that we are 
producing and energy from Canada, rather than from the Middle East--
something the American people very much want. If we don't approve it, 
what are we saying to

[[Page 6401]]

our closest friend and ally, when they have said very clearly and 
repeatedly, this project is very, very important to them?
  To add irony to that indignity, they will still produce the oil, but 
they will be forced to send it to China. So we will import oil from the 
Middle East and force our closest friend and ally to export their oil 
to China, creating more greenhouse gas emissions, not less? That is 
what happens if we don't approve the project.
  If the President refuses to do it, then we have the responsibility to 
step up and do it. Yes, the Senator is 100 percent right that it is not 
only a project that our people very much want approved but it is also 
something the people of Canada and the Government of Canada very much 
want approved. So the Senator is right.
  I would yield the floor back to the good Senator from Alabama and 
encourage him to bring in our esteemed colleagues from South Dakota and 
South Carolina as well into this important discussion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is so correct. In my time here in the 
Senate, this is one of the most inexplicable actions by a President I 
have ever seen. He has persisted in this after months and years have 
gone by and when the facts continue to come forward that justify this 
pipeline--for jobs in America, for lower energy costs in America, for 
importing oil from our ally Canada, where the people buy a great deal 
from us. Any wealth that goes to Canada, we can be sure a lot of that 
will come back to the United States because they purchase a great deal 
from us. But does Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or other countries that we 
buy oil from buy a lot from us? No.
  So this is a partnership and relationship which benefits both 
parties. I just am astounded that it has not been approved to date.
  The Washington Post editorial board wrote last week that the 
President's decision to delay the Keystone Pipeline was ``absurd.'' 
This is an independent, liberal-leaning newspaper that cares about the 
environment. So it seems the President is clearly acquiescing in favor 
of special interests.
  Senator Thune is familiar with Mr. Tom Steyer, who a recent 
Associated Press article characterized as ``a former hedge fund manager 
and environmentalist, who says he will spend $100 million--$50 million 
of his own money and $50 million from other donors''--to defeat 
Republicans to promote environmental issues. He asked for some things 
if he is going to put up $100 million.
  I am not happy about it. I believe the interests of the people of 
this country have been subordinated to either an extreme 
environmentalist agenda or to plain money. There is no other rational 
basis for the position we find ourselves in. It is really tragic.
  We need jobs in this country. We have the fewest percentage of people 
working in America today in the working age group since 1975. Median 
income has dropped over $2,000 to $26,000. We are not doing well. These 
are high-paying jobs. It keeps growth and creativity here in the United 
States and in North America through our partner, Canada.
  I am grateful to see others who are so interested in this issue. I 
feel really strongly we should move forward with this. It is the right 
thing to do. It is not politics. It is the right thing.
  A lot of Democratic members favor this pipeline. Union groups, who 
tend to be Democrats, favor this pipeline. It is not a Republican-
Democratic issue. This is an extremist issue against a commonsense 
issue. Sixty-two Senators voted for a budget amendment last year during 
the Senate budget debate that was supportive of the Keystone pipeline.
  My good staffer Jeff Wood found a Charles Dickens quote about the 
fictional ``Circumlocution Office,'' of which Dickens wrote:

       Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office 
     was beforehand with all the public departments in the art of 
     perceiving--how not to do it. . . . [W]ith projects for the 
     general welfare . . . , which in slow lapse of time and agony 
     had passed safely through other public departments . . . got 
     referred at last to the Circumlocution Office, and never 
     reappeared in the light of day. Boards sat upon them, 
     secretaries minuted upon them, commissioners gabbled about 
     them, clerks registered, entered, checked, and ticked them 
     off, and they melted away. In short, all the business of the 
     country went through the Circumlocution Office, except the 
     business that never came out of it . . .
       (Chapter 10 of Charles Dickens' ``Little Dorrit,'' 1855).

  In my opinion, this bill would create thousands of good jobs if it is 
passed and this pipeline is built. It would strengthen, not weaken, our 
relationship with Canada. It would bring a new flow of oil into the 
United States and the Midwest which will provide competition and which 
would reduce costs. It would be a competitive source of energy for 
America.
  Canada is a good trading partner. They buy a lot from us. The oil 
will be sold somewhere else if it is not sold in the United States.
  By the way, pipelines are everywhere in this country. In my State of 
Alabama, pipelines crisscross the State. We don't have any problems 
with this. The idea that we can't build another pipeline in this 
country is about as ludicrous as one can imagine.
  So I thank Senator Hoeven for the great leadership he has provided. I 
appreciate the opportunity to join with him. It is the right thing for 
the people of this country, and we need to get this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama not only for his outstanding argument but for his passion as 
somebody who truly cares about getting this economy going.
  I would turn to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and also 
to the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I would like to ask that 
they both engage in this discussion, starting with the good Senator 
from South Dakota.
  In South Dakota they understand how to create a good business 
climate. They have no income tax. They have a strong economy because 
they understand what it takes to create a good environment so that 
businesses will invest and grow and create jobs. I would like to ask 
the Senator how this relates to the discussion of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline.
  To the distinguished senior Senator from Texas--clearly Texas knows 
energy production--I would ask for his thoughts in terms of how 
important this infrastructure is for energy development and production 
in our State.
  First, I would like to turn to the Senator from South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Let me just say to my colleague from North Dakota that we 
would like to have more North Dakota energy in South Dakota, of course, 
and have the direct benefit of that, but we focus in our State on jobs, 
and that is what this is all about--jobs, jobs, jobs.
  The President's own State Department says that this project would 
support 42,000 jobs--16,100 direct jobs including construction, and 
another 26,000 jobs that would be from indirect spending. That is not 
us. That is not the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Texas, 
the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Missouri on this side 
saying it would create jobs. That is the President's own State 
Department saying it would create jobs and $2 billion in earnings--a 
$3.4 billion contribution to the U.S. economy. When you think about the 
States that are impacted--the State of North Dakota directly and my 
State of South Dakota would be traversed by the pipeline--we have a lot 
of local and State governments that would benefit from this.
  They say in the first year of operations it would generate $55.6 
million of tax revenue, $17.9 million in my State of South Dakota. When 
you talk about what that can do in terms of infrastructure, what it can 
do in terms of providing revenue to build schools, public services, 
those sorts of things, it takes the pressure off the local property tax 
owners, area ranchers, homeowners, and businesses. That is another 
impact.
  I would also say to my colleagues on the floor that it would 
strengthen our energy security. Some 830,000 barrels a

[[Page 6402]]

day would come through that pipeline. That is half of what we import 
from the Middle East and about the total of what we import on a daily 
basis from Venezuela. So if you look at how much we can ship from that 
pipeline and how much that lessens the dependence we have on areas of 
the world that are much less favorable to the United States than is our 
neighbor of Canada, that is a very real consideration in this debate.
  Finally, I would say to my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota--
and I thank him for his leadership on this issue--that the time to act 
is now. This has been studied and scrutinized and reviewed more than 
any project in history--8\1/2\ years, 2,048 days as of Tuesday, today, 
April 29. Five environmental reviews all concluded the pipeline would 
not have a significant impact on the environment. Just when you thought 
the process couldn't be dragged out any longer, this administration 
once again decided to block construction of this project and delay the 
national interest determination process.
  Sean McGarvey, President of North America's Building Trades Union, 
called this latest move:

     . . . a cold, hard slap in the face for hard working 
     Americans who are literally waiting for President Obama's 
     approval and the tens of thousands of jobs it will generate.

  That comes from a labor union leader in this country. The unions want 
this, businesses in this country want it, and the American people want 
it by overwhelming margins. The only people who don't want it are some 
of the President's political supporters who, as the Senator from 
Alabama has pointed out, are extending hundreds, hundreds of millions 
of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, $400 million, as the Senator 
from Alabama pointed out. That is what is holding this up.
  It is an offense to the American people to have a project like this 
that can do so much in terms of job creation and lessening our 
dependence upon foreign sources of energy and helping millions of 
Americans who are looking for work and simply being held up by the 
President of the United States. I hope the Senate Democrats and 
Republicans would come together to pass legislation that supports this 
pipeline's being built, whether the President agrees to it or not.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished 
Senator from South Dakota and turn to our colleague from the State of 
Oklahoma, certainly a State that understands energy production and 
understands how vital this pipeline infrastructure is. So with the 
indulgence of the Senator from Texas, I would ask to return to the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the Senator from Texas yielding at this 
time.
  Every time I hear people talking about the jobs at stake here I think 
about my State of Oklahoma, which probably has more jobs at stake than 
any other state because Cushing, OK, is the crossroads of the pipeline 
now throughout America.
  Looking at this chart, just over 2 years ago President Obama came to 
Cushing to give a speech on national TV with all the pipeline in the 
background. You can see these tubes over there. He talked about how 
this is a major breakthrough and that we are going to ``. . . cut 
through the red tape, break through bureaucratic hurdles and make this 
project a priority, to go ahead and get it done.''
  Yet he has done nothing but obstruct this since that time. The 
southern leg of the pipeline may be finished, but that was part of the 
project that the President didn't have any say in. The President could 
do something when you cross international lines, but he could not do it 
from that point south. The portion between Canada and Cushing is 
completely stalled because the President has delayed making a decision, 
as has been said, for 5 years now.
  To me the Keystone XL Pipeline is the tip of the iceberg when it 
comes to the way President Obama thinks about the oil and natural gas 
industry. Today we heard great speeches from many of my colleagues, and 
they are highlighting the great impact of the Keystone Pipeline's 
construction and what it would mean to the economy. We know that it 
would directly create 42,000 jobs and 10,000 more would be supported by 
the overall manufacturing materials and processes that are required to 
complete the project, but the real impact on the President's failure to 
act on Keystone can be seen in this chart.
  This chart shows the potential around this country. These are federal 
lands. If we were able to develop these federal lands, what all would 
be involved here? You know, it is incredible that we have a President 
who talks about being friendly to oil and gas and denies the war 
against fossil fuels. While we have had an increase in production on 
State and private land of some 40 percent, on the Federal land we have 
had a decrease in production of 16 percent. I don't know how that is 
even possible, but the midstream infrastructure and the pipelines in 
particular are one of the most important things we need to fully 
develop in these resources. We need to be able to move oil and gas from 
areas where it has been developed to areas where it is refined, 
processed, and consumed. The need for infrastructure expansion is 
astounding.
  ICF International is a consulting firm, and I think their credibility 
has been established. They released a report last week that says U.S. 
companies will need to invest $641 billion over the next 20 years in 
infrastructure to keep up with the growing oil and gas production. That 
is just what they know about that right now. If you add to that what 
would happen if they were able to open all of this and end the war on 
fossil fuels, look at the potential we would have in this country.
  The increase in oil and gas production we have seen in recent years 
has occurred solely on State and private lands. There are many things 
President Obama could do to make the numbers far higher. In fact, we 
could have total energy independence in a matter of months, not a 
matter of years, if the President were to lift his ban on federal 
lands.
  So the President has continued his war on fossil fuels. The 
President's efforts have been intently focused on hurting the 
production of oil and gas resources--be it through stall tactics or 
efforts to establish complex and confusing regulations on the hydraulic 
fracturing process. Every way we turn we see President Obama trying to 
put the oil and gas industry out of business.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline is the bellwether of energy policy today. It 
is a simple decision. I know many of my colleagues have talked about it 
and have had the information, as the leader of our group has here 
today, on what we could be doing in this country. Yet there is some 
kind of assumption that if we don't complete the pipeline, they will 
stop the process up in Alberta, Canada. They are going to continue, but 
it is going to be China and other countries that are going to benefit 
from it. So I applaud the Senator for the great work he is doing. We 
have to let the American people know of the potential we have right 
here in this country and develop that potential. I thank the Senator 
from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma for his work on this important issue, and I turn to the 
Senator from Texas, a State that produces more oil and gas than any 
other State in the Union, and ask for his thoughts and support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership from the 
Senator from North Dakota. He has been a champion of this important 
program that enjoys the support of huge bipartisan majorities all 
across the country because they understand the importance of energy 
security. They understand the importance of getting this energy from a 
friendly country such as Canada. They understand the jobs that go along 
with it. They understand the need for hard-working American families to 
have affordable energy, whether it is gasoline, heating fuel or the 
like. So this makes sense on so many different levels, but I have to 
say that

[[Page 6403]]

really the biggest obstacle is the Federal Government itself.
  Not approving this pipeline makes exactly zero sense. I know some 
people are put off a little bit--I would say to the Senator from North 
Dakota--by the idea of a new pipeline as if this is some novel 
creation. But just as an exercise in my own personal edification, I 
happened to Google--or maybe it was Bing or some other search engine--
``oil and gas pipelines'' on the Internet, and I was astonished at the 
huge complex interplay of oil and gas pipelines all across the United 
States of America. Most Americans aren't even aware they exist because 
they safely operate, and they move this oil and gas around the country 
in a way that benefits our economy and creates jobs and helps us put 
people back to work which is the most important thing we can do.
  So we know for the last 5 years, since the great recession, we have 
had an economy characterized by stubbornly slow economic growth and 
persistently high unemployment. We have the smallest percentage of 
people actually participating in the workforce since World War II. We 
have seen a decline in median household incomes, so average hard-
working families have seen their income go down, and we have seen this 
nagging sense of uncertainty about the future, not just because of the 
economy but because of the obstacles the Federal Government puts in its 
way.
  I would ask the Senator from North Dakota--I know that North Dakota 
has had some experience here--by not building this pipeline, what are 
the other ways that this oil is being transported, and what is the risk 
and benefit associated with that? People may think this is sort of an 
either/or--you either have the oil flow or not. But the truth is there 
are other alternatives, but they are not necessarily in the public 
interest or as safe as this pipeline might be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. To respond to the Senator from Texas, of course, by not 
having a median pipeline infrastructure we are forced to move oil by 
other means and that means primarily railcars, and it is overburdening 
our rail system. As you have seen, we have had accidents, and it is 
just the overburdening of the current capacity of our rail system.
  For example, in North Dakota we produce a million barrels of oil a 
day. Over 700,000 now has to move by rail car because we don't have 
adequate pipelines. So this is not just about bringing oil from Canada 
to the United States. It is also about moving oil from States such as 
Montana and North Dakota to refineries in the most efficient and safest 
way possible. For example, the Keystone XL Pipeline on the day it opens 
will take 500 trucks a day off some of our roads in the western part of 
our State. So it is clearly a safety issue. The State Department says 
if this pipeline isn't built, to move that amount of oil you would have 
to move 1,400 railcars a day. That is 14 unit trains of 100 railcars a 
day. Clearly, we don't have that rail capacity. Clearly we don't have 
that rail capacity, so we need this vital infrastructure. We can't 
develop the energy in this country and work with Canada to truly become 
energy independent without vital infrastructure, which this project 
represents.
  Mr. CORNYN. I know there are other Senators who wish to speak, and I 
will conclude on this point. It is with some sense of appreciation that 
I note the two lowest unemployment rate cities and regions in the 
country are, I believe, Bismarck, ND, and Midland-Odessa, the Permian 
Basin in Texas. Not coincidentally, those are the sites of some of the 
shale gas and the oil and gas production we are seeing that is thanks 
to modern drilling techniques and innovative practices that produce 
this American renaissance in energy, for which we should be enormously 
grateful.
  This is the way to get our economy back on track. This is the way to 
extract ourselves from dangerous parts of the world and unreliable 
sources of energy. And this is the way to get Americans back to work.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership, and I am happy to participate 
in this colloquy. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the esteemed Senator from 
Texas.
  I wish to turn to the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his 
thoughts on the importance of this project and the need for our country 
to become energy independent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I thank my friend for leading this 
colloquy. I think the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Scott, is going 
to speak for a few minutes before I do, and then I will be glad to 
enter into this discussion. It is an important topic. Nobody has been a 
greater leader on this than my friend from North Dakota, and I thank 
him for organizing this colloquy, as many of us wish to come to the 
floor today to speak on this critical issue.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I turn to the Senator from South Carolina 
and I welcome his comments on this important topic.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his strong 
leadership on that which is obvious to most of us, which is the need to 
move forward on the Keystone Pipeline.
  I was a businessman before I arrived here in Congress and I will tell 
my colleagues that our goal in business was to do the right thing. As a 
Senator, I wish to do the right thing for all of the American people. 
Thanks to the strong leadership of Senator Hoeven, we have an 
opportunity to do just that. Yet this administration continues to 
ignore policies that would help hard-working, hard-hit American 
families.
  I think back several years ago when I was growing up in a single-
parent household, and I think about the very difficult choices my mom 
had to make between food and gas and energy consumption. What a 
horrible position to put any American family in. Yet every single day 
we delay a decision on the pipeline, we say to struggling families: Not 
now, not here, but maybe later. That is not the right message to send 
on the broader topic of this energy economy.
  The fact is, if we factor in incomes under $30,000, 25 percent of 
that income goes toward energy consumption. What a difficult position 
to find a single parent in, struggling to make ends meet. Yet we have 
an opportunity not only to address that issue in the broader topic of 
the energy conversation but to specifically address the issue faced by 
millions and millions of Americans, and that is the issue of 
unemployment.
  The pipeline is not an issue of politics, it is an issue of the 
American people. The fact is that over 42,000 jobs would be created and 
we would pump billions of dollars into the Nation's economy. Yet the 
administration simply says--after 5\1/2\ years, after several studies--
we should wait a little longer, as if we have not waited long enough, 
with those 42,000 American families who could be positively impacted by 
going back to work. How long should we wait to see this administration 
do the right thing?
  I support this proposal. I support the legislation. I support 
congressional action to move this administration into a position where 
61 percent of the American people already find themselves. They are 
already saying, Let's move forward on the pipeline. They are ready to 
see action on constructing the pipeline because they understand that if 
we can't solve this simple issue, where there is already bipartisan 
support, how do we address the deeper challenges in the energy economy?
  I don't often find myself in the position to quote from members or 
even presidents of labor unions. I have to gulp when I make my next 
statement, because it is so rare, so foreign to me. But I will say that 
Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the Laborers' International 
Union of North America, got it right when he said, ``This is once again 
politics at its worst.''
  Here we see an amazing collaboration between labor unions, Democratic 
Senators, Republican Senators, and conservative groups, all coming 
together, asking--even begging--the President to

[[Page 6404]]

do the right thing. I don't know exactly what it will take to get the 
President to do what he said during a lunch meeting with all of the 
Republican Senators when he said, Do you know what we should do? By the 
end of 2013, we should find ourselves with a decision coming out of his 
office, his administration. Yet this is 2014. It reminds me a little 
bit of ObamaCare; they continue to move the deadlines.
  We need action for the American people and we need action for the 
American people right now.
  Let me close, Mr. President by thinking through where we are today on 
such a simple decision. I believe 62 Senators in this body during the 
budget resolution debate supported moving forward on the Keystone 
Pipeline; is that correct?
  Mr. HOEVEN. That is correct.
  Mr. SCOTT. I believe we have had a number of votes over the last 2 
years where many Senators have said, have voted, and have written 
letters asking for action on this pipeline. I think that is correct. 
Yet if we can't solve a bipartisan issue on the pipeline today, how do 
we start solving the broader issues regarding energy, including 
offshore energy production? How do we get ourselves into a position, I 
say to the Senator from Alaska, where we could have a conversation 
about offshore production? My State could see 7,500 new jobs and $2.2 
billion annually added to our economy, and $87.5 million of new revenue 
generated for my State. But we can't solve the simple, bipartisan-
supported effort of the Keystone Pipeline.
  I thank Senator Hoeven for his strong leadership and I hope we will 
find it possible to move this legislation forward quickly, and let's 
get it done.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the Senator from South Carolina for 
putting this issue in very human terms, including what it means for 
people in this country who want a job. I thank him for his passion on 
this important issue.
  I turn now to the Senator from Missouri for his input on this 
important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for pointing out 
that bad Economic Policies have the most impact on the most vulnerable 
among us, including the number he gave of the percentage of income of 
families who have less than $30,000 of income a year, how much of that 
already goes to energy.
  The administration says they are for an all-of-the-above energy 
policy. That appears to be an all-of-the-above energy policy unless we 
know it works and unless we know it is available and unless we know we 
could get it, in this case, from a friendly source. Somehow, they are 
not for that. They are for ``all of the above'' until we really look at 
what is there and what we know works and what makes our current energy 
needs met in the best way.
  The pipeline is an example of a solution that would decrease our 
country's dependence on nations we can't rely on quite as heavily. It 
increases our trading relationship with our very best trading partner. 
That oil is going to be sold to somebody and a pipeline will be built. 
The question is, Is the pipeline built to connect to the most logical 
customer and the best trading partner and come south or does the 
pipeline go to the west and the oil goes to Asia? This is not about 
whether the oil comes out of the ground. It is not about whether a 
pipeline gets built. It is about whether we do that which makes the 
most sense.
  On April 18, the State Department, by the direction of the President, 
once again, said we are going to wait a little while longer. How many 
deadlines do we have to blow by? I think it is interesting that in the 
last couple of months when people have left the administration--when 
the Secretary of the Interior leaves and is asked about the pipeline, 
he says, Oh, of course we should build the pipeline. When the Secretary 
of Energy leaves and is asked about the pipeline, he says, Oh, of 
course we should build the pipeline. Everybody knows that the logical, 
commonsense thing to do is to build this pipeline and let us benefit 
from this energy. It has become an example of a commonsense decision 
versus regulators out of control--regulators who don't want us to use 
the resources we have or the resources that are right next to us.
  The national security implications of Canadian oil are pretty great 
and pretty obvious for everybody to figure out. The economic security 
implications of doing business with somebody who does business with 
us--every time we send the Canadians a dollar, for decades, they have 
sent us back at least 90 cents. Every time we involve ourselves in that 
trade and strengthen their economy, they turn right back around and 
strengthen our economy. Why wouldn't we want to do that?
  Just the cost alone of building the pipeline, talk about a shovel-
ready project: 20,000 jobs, not a single taxpayer dollar involved. In 
fact, the company immediately starts paying taxes to State and local 
government as that pipeline is extended through communities and almost 
all of our States. Another 830,000 barrels of oil a day. Roughly 6 
percent of all of our daily imports come from this one new source. But, 
as others have pointed out, that pipeline then becomes available for 
other objectives as well. A bipartisan determination on this floor has 
shown that we should obviously build this pipeline.
  We constantly talk about private sector job creation. Believe me, it 
is not just building and producing more American energy that are the 
jobs created, it is the jobs created when we have a utility bill we can 
rely on and a delivery system we can count on. People will make things 
in the United States again. The right kind of American energy policy 
becomes immediately the right kind of American manufacturing policy.
  The pipeline has almost become the tip of the iceberg that everybody 
has their eye on, but it is an example of the problem that we refuse to 
do things that will make our economy stronger, make our families 
stronger, and create jobs in America that have better take-home pay 
than the jobs that people have seen in the last 5 years. The take-home 
pay for American families has gone down and down and down in every one 
of those years when we look at the surveys.
  This is a fight worth having. Again, nobody has been more dedicated 
to that effort than the Senator from North Dakota who understands what 
a difference energy can make in the State. He saw that happen as 
Governor. We have seen that happen in the State he lives in. The right 
kind of American energy policy can provide so many of those exact same 
benefits for the United States of America. This is one of the easy 
examples to talk about, out of a volume of examples of the 
administration clearly headed on a path that makes no sense when we 
really look at the national security impact, the economic impact, or, 
most importantly, the impact on American families.
  I again thank the Senator for leading this fight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Missouri and turn to our ranking 
member on the Energy Committee, the Senator from Alaska, who deals with 
energy issues every day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I wish to thank my colleague from North Dakota. I have 
had an opportunity to go to North Dakota and see firsthand how, in 
Senator Hoeven's State, they are embracing this energy renaissance we 
are seeing in this country--a renaissance that is truly allowing us to 
move forward with jobs and economic opportunity not only for the good 
of this country but really for the good of so many others.
  When we are talking about our neighbors to the north in Canada--or if 
one is from Alaska our neighbors to the east--there is a recognition 
that the United States and Canada are really joined at the well, if you 
will. That is a term I have used quite frequently.
  But when it comes to energy issues, there are 17 operating oil 
pipelines between the United States and Canada.

[[Page 6405]]

There are another 30 electric transmission lines. There are 29 natural 
gas pipelines. This is all energy infrastructure that crosses the 
border with Canada--whether it is into Montana, Washington, North 
Dakota, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Idaho, Maine.
  You have to wonder--you have to wonder--are not these all in the 
national interest? What is so unique, what is so compelling about this 
Keystone XL Pipeline that it is not only taking the 5 years of study 
that has already been done but is now on indefinite hold for yet 
further study?
  So it causes one to kind of go back in time. Let's look at some of 
the pipelines that have been already determined as being in the 
national interest.
  Back in August of 2009, the Department of State signed off on 
Enbridge Energy's Alberta Clipper Pipeline. When you look at what they 
did in signing off on that, it is exactly what we are talking about 
here with the Keystone XL. It said--and this is coming from the 
national interest determination on the Alberta Clipper. I ask unanimous 
consent to have that application printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  7.0 Decision and Basis for Decision

       The Deputy Secretary of State has determined that a 
     Presidential Permit will be issued to Enbridge Energy, 
     Limited Partnership to construct, connect, operate, and 
     maintain facilities at the border for the transport of crude 
     oil between the United States and Canada across the 
     international boundary, as described in the Application for a 
     Presidential Permit dated May 15, 2007 and as further amended 
     by the subsequent filings of Enbridge with the DOS and by 
     information incorporated into the Final EIS issued June 5, 
     2009. The Deputy Secretary also finds that:
       Construction and Operation of the Alberta Clipper Project 
     Serves the National Interest--The addition of crude oil 
     pipeline capacity between the Western Canada Sedimentary 
     Basin (WCSB) and the United States serves the strategic 
     interests of the United States for the following reasons:
       It increases the diversity of available supplies among the 
     United States' worldwide crude oil sources in a time of 
     considerable political tension in other major oil producing 
     countries and regions. Increased output from the WCSB can be 
     utilized by a growing number of refineries in the United 
     States that have access and means of transport for these 
     increased supplies.
       It shortens the transportation pathway for a sizeable 
     portion of United States crude oil imports. Crude oil 
     supplies in Western Canada represent the largest and closest 
     foreign supply source to domestic refineries that do not 
     require, in contrast to other suppliers, many days or weeks 
     of marine transportation.
       It increases crude oil supplies from a major non-
     Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer which 
     is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the 
     United States, with which we have free trade agreements which 
     augment the security of this energy supply.
       Moreover, the United States and Canada, through bilateral 
     diplomacy and a Clean Energy Dialogue process that is now 
     underway, are working across our respective energy sectors to 
     cooperate on best practices and technology, including carbon 
     sequestration and storage, so as to lower the overall 
     environmental footprint of our energy sectors. The Government 
     of Canada and the Province of Alberta have also set 
     greenhouse gas reduction targets and implementation programs 
     to help them achieve them.
       Approval of this permit will also send a positive economic 
     signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future 
     reliability and availability of a portion of United State's 
     energy imports, and in the immediate term, will provide 
     construction jobs.
       It provides additional supplies of crude oil to make up for 
     the continued decline in imports from several other major 
     U.S. suppliers.
       Construction and Operation of the Alberta Clipper Project 
     Meets Environmental Protection Policies--The DOS concludes 
     that the proposed Alberta Clipper Project, if designed, 
     constructed, and operated in accordance with the Project 
     Description in Section 2.0 of the FEIS, as amended by 
     additional approaches and mitigation measures agreed to by 
     Enbridge as a result of the DOS environmental analyses and as 
     further amended by specific permit conditions contained in 
     the permit and those to be assigned by the state and federal 
     agencies with jurisdiction over aspects of the project along 
     the pipeline corridor, would result in limited adverse 
     environmental impacts.
       Concerns have been raised about higher-than-average levels 
     of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with oil sands 
     crude. The Department has considered these concerns, and 
     considers that they are best addressed in the context of the 
     overall set of domestic policies that Canada and the United 
     States will take to address their respective greenhouse gas 
     emissions. The United States will continue to reduce reliance 
     on oil through conservation and energy efficiency measures, 
     such as recently increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
     (CAFE) standards, as well as through the pursuit of 
     comprehensive climate legislation and an ambitious global 
     agreement on climate change that includes substantial 
     emission reductions for both the United States and Canada. 
     The Department, on behalf of the Administration, will urge 
     ambitious action by Canada, and will cooperate with the 
     Canadian government through the U.S.-Canada Clean Energy 
     Dialogue and other processes to promote the deployment of 
     technologies that reduce our respective GHG emissions.
       The Scope of the Permit Issued to Enbridge shall extend 
     only up to and including the first mainline shut-off valve or 
     pumping station in the United States. Executive Order 11423, 
     initially delegating the President's authority to the DOS, 
     specifically notes that ``the proper conduct of the foreign 
     relations of the United States requires that Executive 
     permission be obtained for the construction and maintenance 
     at the borders of the United States of facilities connecting 
     the United States with a foreign country.'' Similarly, 
     Section I of Executive Order 13337, further delegating the 
     President's authority, states that DOS has authority for 
     issuance of Presidential permits for the ``construction, 
     connection, operation, and maintenance at the borders of the 
     United States of facilities . . . to or from a foreign 
     country.'' Hence, in reviewing an application for a 
     Presidential permit, the DOS, takes into account the impact 
     the proposed cross-border facility (i.e., pipeline, bridge, 
     road, etc.) will have upon U.S. relations with the country in 
     question, whether Canada or Mexico, and also on the impact it 
     will have on U.S. foreign relations generally. While the DOS 
     also takes into account the various environmental and other 
     domestic issues mentioned above, DOS does not have, and has 
     never had, authority over facilities, including pipeline, 
     bridges, roads, etc., located entirely within the United 
     States that do not cross the international border with either 
     Canada or Mexico. For these reasons, the Department does not 
     believe that the scope of the permit it issues in this case 
     should extend any further than necessary to protect that 
     foreign relations interest. The permits the DOS issues under 
     Executive Orders 11423 and 13337 routinely include provisions 
     permitting DOS to take possession of the facilities at the 
     border for national security reasons or to direct the 
     permittee to remove the facilities in the immediate vicinity 
     of the international border if so directed by the DOS. Since 
     that is the case, the DOS has concluded that a limitation of 
     the scope of the permit in this case to those pipeline 
     facilities within the United States up to and including the 
     first mainline shut-off valve or pumping station would 
     adequately protect the DOS' foreign relations interest in 
     implementing Executive Orders 11423 and 13337.

                  8.0 National Interest Determination

       Pursuant to the authority vested in me under Executive 
     Order 13337 of April 30, 2004, as amended, Department of 
     State Delegation of Authority No. 118-2 of January 23, 2006, 
     and Department of State Delegation No. 245-1 of February 13, 
     2009, and subject to satisfaction of the requirements of 
     sections 1(g) and 1(i) of Executive Order 13337, I hereby 
     determine that issuance of a permit to Enbridge Energy, 
     Limited Partnership, a limited partnership organized under 
     the laws of the State of Delaware, which is a wholly owned 
     subsidiary of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (``Enbridge 
     Partners'') which is a Delaware master limited partnership 
     headquartered at 1100 Louisiana, Suite 3300, Houston, Texas 
     77002, to construct, connect, operate and maintain facilities 
     at the border of the United States and Canada for the 
     transport of crude oil between the United States and Canada 
     across the international boundary at Cavalier County, North 
     Dakota, would serve the national interest.
       The Presidential Permit issued to Enbridge shall include 
     authorization to construct, connect, operate, and maintain at 
     the border of the United States facilities for the transport 
     of crude oil between the United States and Canada across the 
     international boundary as described in the Presidential 
     Permit application received from Enbridge by DOS on May 15, 
     2007, as amended, and in accordance with the mitigation 
     measures described in the Environmental Mitigation Plan (and 
     other similar mitigation plans) contained in the FEIS, as 
     amended. No construction or other actions shall be taken by 
     Enbridge prior to Enbridge's acquisition of all other 
     necessary federal, state, and local permits and approvals 
     from agencies of competent jurisdiction. Enbridge shall 
     provide written notice to the Department at such time as the 
     construction authorized by this permit is begun, and again at 
     such time as construction is completed, interrupted or 
     discontinued.
       This determination shall become final fifteen days after 
     the Secretaries of Defense, Interior, Commerce, Energy, 
     Homeland Security and Transportation, the Attorney

[[Page 6406]]

     General, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency have been notified of this determination, 
     unless the matter must be referred to the President for 
     consideration and final decision pursuant to section 1(i) of 
     said Executive Order.
       Date: 03 August 2009.
                                               James B. Steinberg,
                                        Deputy Secretary of State.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Some of the things the Alberta Clipper line provided 
were increasing the diversity of available supplies. It shortens the 
transportation pathway for a sizable portion of our crude imports. It 
increases crude oil supplies from major non-OPEC countries. It allows 
our country to cooperate on best practices in technology. And then, 
finally, approval of the permit would send a positive economic signal, 
in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and 
availability of a portion of U.S. energy imports.
  These are not from the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is coming from the 
Alberta Clipper Pipeline, approved back in 2009, for exactly the same 
reasons that President Obama should sign off on the Keystone XL 
Pipeline and sign off now. It is in the country's best interests. It is 
clearly in the best interests of our friend and ally and neighbor to 
the north, Canada.
  I think we recognize there is so much opportunity for us. But we need 
to get out of the way of the stops and the hurdles that have been 
placed by this administration--limiting our jobs, limiting our economic 
opportunities, and truly working to restrict our energy independence.
  With that, I yield the floor, as I know several other colleagues wish 
to speak in the time remaining.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to again express my great 
disappointment about a matter of importance to our Nation--the 
administration's decision to put off a decision to start building the 
Keystone Pipeline so they can do a little more study and review--again. 
It is getting to be like watching a rerun of the same show--over and 
over and over again.
  How many times have we been through this? I have lost count. Time 
after time momentum seems to build to finally approve this project so 
we can reap the benefits that will come from the pipeline--namely, the 
jobs that will be available to people who need them and the boost to 
our Nation's energy supplies that will help to bring some certainty to 
our energy policy.
  Well, we can forget about those benefits in the near term. The 
administration has once again spoken with certainty that they aren't 
certain about what they want to do--they just know they don't want to 
do it now. If one is supportive of the pipeline one can still hope it 
may happen someday. If one is opposed to it, one can be assured that 
``someday'' won't happen anytime soon.
  I think there is more of a political reason than a practical reason 
for this delay. After all, there have already been 5 years of studies 
that have reaffirmed the benefits of building the pipeline now.
  That isn't all. The State Department reviewed the proposal and found 
that it was the safest way to transport the oil. Most pipelines require 
a presidential permit that is issued after an 18-to 24-month review 
process. We did that. In fact, the first leg of the Keystone XL 
pipeline took 21 months to obtain approval. Most times that would be a 
cause for optimism. Not this time. We are 5 years down the road and we 
are still awaiting the start of construction.
  Instead of spending this week on misguided legislation that will 
actually discourage new hiring and harm the job prospects of long-term 
unemployed individuals, we should be doing everything we can to 
encourage the creation of new jobs and the growth of new business 
opportunities. According to the State Department, the Keystone XL has 
the potential to create 42,000 jobs with good wages that will help to 
get the economy going again, strengthen our energy supplies, and put 
those 42,000 individuals further along the road of living the American 
dream and supporting their families. What is not to like about that? 
Plus, it will accomplish all that without raising taxes or increasing 
our crushing national debt. In fact, this would increase revenues--jobs 
increase revenues, sales increase revenues. More people driving to work 
also creates more money for highways.
  Getting this massive private sector job creator moving into high gear 
is a win-win for all Americans. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet 
and the White House has decided to step in again and once again delay 
the project for political reasons. Instead of supporting a job creator, 
the administration is putting up a job barrier. We deserve better. We 
deserve an administration that is willing to work overtime to lead us 
out of this dismal time of long-term unemployment--a slump that shows 
no signs of ending soon.
  That isn't the only reason why we need to take action on this 
immediately. Haven't we all spoken time and time again about the need 
to do something to reduce our dependence on sources of energy from 
unstable countries? This pipeline will help us to do that.
  The administration's own Department of Energy stated in a June 2011 
memo that Keystone XL would lower gas prices in all the markets in the 
United States. Flipping the XL switch from ``standby'' to ``on'' should 
have been done years ago. It is a no-brainer that calls for action--not 
more thought, reflection, meditation, consideration, review, and 
planning--and who knows what else.
  The record is clear. We have been told time and time again that a 
decision on the pipeline was ``in the pipeline'' and would be coming 
our way shortly. In March of last year the President told us that the 
final decision as to whether or not he would approve the pipeline would 
reach us by year's end. We never heard from him.
  Before that, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a promise that 
we would have a decision on the status of the pipeline by the end of 
2011. We never heard from her, either.
  That is unacceptable for so many different reasons. We need the jobs. 
We need the energy. We need the certainty that comes from knowing 
whether this project will be completed or not.
  The resources this pipeline is intended to carry will be developed 
whether the administration approves it or not. Doesn't it make sense by 
having the United States of America receive the benefit of all that 
energy instead of our competitors?
  We have an alternative before us. The senior Senator from North 
Dakota has a new bill that I am cosponsoring that would recognize the 
final supplemental environmental impact statement and give approval to 
the Keystone XL Pipeline. It will put the Senate on record and 
recognize the need for the pipeline and all the benefits it will 
provide. It has strong bipartisan support and should move forward with 
all deliberate speed.
  There is an old saying that reminds us that he who hesitates is lost. 
We have been hesitating for years and have nothing to show for it but 
lost time. We have a chance to change things and put ourselves on the 
right side of this equation. It is time to do it--now! Let's leave 
yesterday behind and move forward to tomorrow by taking action instead 
of putting it off again for another round of thoughtful gazing and 
reflection while our problems grow more serious and our options start 
to diminish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I have conferred with the good Senator 
from Illinois and beg his indulgence. He has offered 3 minutes for each 
of our remaining speakers. I thank him for that and ask for the Chair's 
indulgence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Illinois and turn to 
the Senator from South Carolina for his thoughts on this important 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank you.
  I have been to the Canadian oil sands that I would recommend every 
person in this body go visit. The Canadians are being very 
environmentally responsible when it comes to extracting the oil sands 
product. This is an equivalent to a Saudi Arabian oil find from our 
Canadian friends.

[[Page 6407]]

  Here is the choice and here is the debate: They are going to sell the 
oil to China or they are going to sell it to us. How many people in 
America really have a hard time figuring out what we should do? It is 
not as though the oil is not going to be sold and extracted from the 
ground. It is going to be sold to us or the Chinese. If we buy oil from 
Canada, it is like buying oil from your cousin. We trade with the 
Canadians. They are very reliable partners. It is less oil to buy from 
Russia and Venezuela, and you can go down the list.
  What is at stake here is that the people who object to this 
pipeline--I do not doubt their sincerity--would not allow us to buy oil 
from anybody or explore for oil here at home. The people objecting to 
this pipeline do not have an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to 
American energy. If you left it up to them, we would be doing 
windmills, solar, no nuclear power.
  So the President of the United States has turned this issue over to 
the most extreme people in the country when it comes to politics. They 
are trumping the unions. They are trumping the former Presiding 
Officer. They are locking down developing an energy source that we need 
as a nation. I really regret that the President has let them take over 
this issue at a time when we need more oil from friendly people and 
less oil from people who hate our guts.
  Dirty oil to me is buying oil from people who will take the proceeds 
and share it with terrorists. This oil content from Canada is slightly 
greater in carbon content than Mideast sweet crude, the same level as 
oil we find off the coast of California, and has less sulfur. So the 
environmental argument does not bear scrutiny.
  At the end of the day, we are not going to get this oil from our 
friends in Canada because of the upcoming elections. President Obama is 
afraid of turning off environmental support so he has turned off the 
pipeline--very bad for America.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina 
and turn to the esteemed Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, 
and I acknowledge and thank the distinguished majority whip for 
allowing us extra time to talk about a subject he would probably prefer 
us not to talk about, but I appreciate it very much. So I will be very 
brief and succinct.
  For this administration and our country not to build the Keystone 
Pipeline or delay it is at best professional malpractice. There are 
three reasons for that.
  We are a country that 40 years ago was held hostage by OPEC. We had 
our parents waiting in line to fill up their cars. Businesses closed 
because there was no oil supply, and prices went through the roof.
  With the Keystone Pipeline and its capacity added to the Marcellus 
and the Haynesville shale, America will truly be independent in its 
energy and never be held hostage again by someone like OPEC. That is 
No. 1.
  No. 2, it is important for our diplomacy around the world. Soft power 
is always preferable to hard power. And one of the best soft powers you 
can possibly have is having energy. Think about it for a second.
  If Russia were not a factor in Ukraine because America could supplant 
their natural gas, think what that would do to what is happening right 
now in that part of the world. We need it for our soft power and for 
our diplomatic power.
  Lastly, it is environmentally the thing to do. That oil is going to 
be refined somewhere in the world, and it is going to be delivered in 
some way. The safest and most environmentally sound way to deliver it 
is in a pipeline, No. 1. The best country in the world to refine it is 
the United States of America, No. 2. And, No. 3, and most importantly, 
it is environmentally sound because you keep trucks off the road, 
trains off the track. The oil goes underground. It does not generate 
any carbon and go into the global warming or any other part of our 
environmental threat.
  It is the right thing to do, and it is professional malpractice for 
us not to be doing it for our people, for our country, for our 
diplomacy, and for peace around the world.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Georgia, who 
is putting forward common sense.
  I would like to turn, in closing, to the Senator from Wyoming, who is 
a senior member of the energy committee and truly understands energy 
issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it seems the President's decision is 
absurd, to delay the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is not just me saying 
that. That is the Washington Post, Thursday morning, April 24: 
``Keystone XL's absurd delay. President Obama should approve the 
pipeline project now.'' They say:

       If foot-dragging were a competitive sport, President Obama 
     and his administration would be world champions for their 
     performance in delaying the approval of the Keystone XL 
     pipeline.

  They go on to say:

       The administration's latest decision is not responsible; it 
     is embarrassing. The United States continues to insult its 
     Canadian allies by holding up what should have been a routine 
     permitting decision amid a funhouse-mirror environmental 
     debate that got way out of hand.

  They conclude by saying:

       The president should end this national psychodrama now, bow 
     to reason--

  Think about that: ``bow to reason''--

     approve the pipeline and go do something more productive for 
     the climate.

  That is not just the Washington Post. We see also the Wall Street 
Journal, on Wednesday: ``Keystone Uncensored.'' They talk about a labor 
leader calling the administration ``gutless,'' ``dirty,'' and more.
  So why would a union leader--who endorsed President Obama in 2008 as 
a candidate, endorsed him again in 2012--why would he say this? He 
actually went on to say: ``It's not the oil that's dirty, it's the 
politics.''
  To get an answer to that, you have to look at an article that 
Politico ran last Thursday called ``The left's secret club.'' It said:

       Some of the country's biggest Democratic donors--including 
     Tom Steyer . . .--are huddling behind closed doors next week 
     in Chicago to plan how to pull their party--and the country--
     to the left.

  The meeting will be held in the ballroom of the Ritz-Carlton. 
Politico describes the group as ``a secretive club of wealthy 
liberals.''
  So who is Tom Steyer? Well, he is a hedge fund billionaire who has 
said he is hoping to spend at least $100 million to defeat candidates 
who support the Keystone XL Pipeline and who oppose his extreme 
environmental agenda.
  I want to be absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with legal 
participation in elections. If a hedge fund billionaire like Mr. Steyer 
wants to spend his money talking about his views, he is free to do it. 
I disagree with his views, but I would never come to the floor of the 
Senate and denounce him as un-American. But that is exactly what the 
majority leader, Senator Reid, has done, repeatedly coming to the floor 
to criticize and demonize people who do not share his views. I have not 
heard Senator Reid demonizing Tom Steyer or any other wealthy liberal 
donors.
  According to Politico, the majority leader was actually scheduled to 
attend a fundraising dinner at Mr. Steyer's home a few months ago.
  So the coincidence, to me, of the administration's announcement right 
before this big liberal political event remains suspicious. The silence 
of the majority leader about one person's spending when he has been so 
outspoken about the spending of other people is certainly suspicious as 
well.
  Maybe that is what the union head meant when he said: ``It's not the 
oil that's dirty, it's the politics.'' Whatever the reason, the 
important thing is that President Obama continues to

[[Page 6408]]

turn his back on thousands of middle-class families in desperate need 
of jobs.
  That is what needs to change. The administration and this body, 
controlled by Senator Reid and the Democrats, can no longer put 
politics ahead of policy substance. It is time for the administration 
to do the right thing and to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline no matter 
what the Democrats' secretive billionaires say.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I will close.
  It is time for the Senate to vote on this important issue.
  With that, I will turn to the Senator from Illinois and again thank 
him for the additional time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have listened, as my friends--and they 
are my friends--and colleagues have come to the floor to talk about the 
Keystone XL Pipeline.
  It turns out that what America needs more than anything else--more 
than an increase in the minimum wage, more than paycheck fairness so 
that men and women are paid fairly in the workplace--more than anything 
else, we need one more pipeline coming in from Canada.
  If you listen to the other side, you would think the jobs that will 
be created by the Keystone XL Pipeline will finally turn this economy 
around.
  How many jobs are we talking about? Madam President, 2,000--2,000 
construction jobs? That is at the high end of estimates I have heard. 
How many jobs at the refineries in Texas to process this oil and ship 
it overseas? It is not for sale in the United States. I am not sure. 
But it really is amazing to me that they continue to focus on Keystone 
XL as if it is the only issue when it comes to the American economy.
  Here is what I find particularly curious. For the record--and I am 
glad my friend, the Senator from North Dakota, is still in the 
Chamber--the Keystone XL Pipeline is not the first Keystone Pipeline. 
The first Keystone Pipeline, from Alberta, came into the United States 
and ended up in Wood River, IL, at the Conoco refinery. It is shipping 
Canadian tar sands down to be refined at the Conoco refinery. And then, 
after it is refined, in a pipeline it is distributed all across the 
United States.
  If no Keystone XL Pipeline is ever built--and I do not know whether 
it will or will not be--there will still be a steady flow of Canadian 
tar sands into America for refining.
  Just this week, Senator Kirk and I met with the North American 
president of BP. They have a huge refinery in Whiting, IN, at the south 
end of Lake Michigan. They are refining Canadian tar sands into oil 
that can be sold in different products.
  I asked the head of the North American operations for BP what is 
going to happen to that refinery when it comes to Canadian tar sands? 
He said: We are going to triple--triple--our capacity to deal with 
Canadian tar sands. He did not say contingent on the Keystone XL. 
Because, you see, there is a vast network of pipelines moving Canadian 
tar sands to the United States already, and they are already going 
through a refinery--many of them--even the BP refinery in northern 
Indiana.
  So this notion that we are somehow turning off the Canadian tar sands 
coming into the United States--if someone is suggesting that, I would 
ask them to bring proof to the floor. We are not.
  What the President is doing is trying to make a decision on what is 
best for this country and our economy. He is trying to weigh it in a 
thoughtful manner. There is an element that needs to be part of this 
record. The President is trying to take into consideration the 
environment. I think he should. I think it is his responsibility.
  We had a debate several weeks ago on the floor of the Senate. It was 
about global warming and climate change. It went on through the night. 
Many of my Democratic colleagues stayed up all night to talk about it. 
Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island spoke at 
great length with their colleagues about the issue.
  I came up early in the debate and simply made one point. I believe 
the Republican Party of the United States is the only major political 
party in the world--in the world--that denies climate change and global 
warming. I have asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
give me an example. Tell me where I am wrong. Somebody said there may 
be a party in Australia. That is where they have to reach to find any 
other political party in the world that agrees with their position on 
global warming and climate change. So it is no wonder when we discuss 
energy and the future they do not want to talk about what is happening 
to our environment, the extreme weather situation we are even seeing 
this week, the devastation from storms in a magnitude we have never 
registered since we kept records.
  What the President is trying to do is to take into consideration not 
just energy but also our environment, so ultimately we leave a world to 
our children and grandchildren which is safer and cleaner than the one 
we have today. My friend the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, came 
to the floor and talked about what he called a highly secretive, high-
level meeting in Chicago, and then he proceeded to say at what hotel it 
was being held. It is not much of a secret if he knows where it is 
being held.
  It is true there are meetings of people who oppose the Keystone 
Pipeline and support candidates who oppose it, as there are meetings of 
those who support the pipeline and support the candidates who join in 
their position. That happens to be the nature of the political scene. 
He even suggested that the person opposed to the pipeline was going to 
put $100 million into this campaign.
  I, for one, would like to see an end to big money in our political 
campaigns. I would certainly like to see transparency and where it is 
coming from and how it is being spent, but the reality is, the Citizens 
United decision from the Supreme Court across the street changed the 
rules and people can play with big money now, a lot of their own.
  What he did not mention were the Koch brothers. I would like to 
mention them for a moment because they are relevant to this discussion 
about Canadian tar sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Koch 
brothers are very wealthy, billionaires. They come to play when it 
comes to the American political scene. In the last cycle, we were able 
to identify over $248 million these two brothers spent on political 
causes and campaigns around the United States, and we are told they are 
going to spend considerably more than that this time around.
  Do the Koch brothers have an agenda when it comes to this issue? Let 
me give an illustration. It was about 3 months ago that I went into the 
southeast corner of the city of Chicago, an old steel mill 
neighborhood, which happens to be in the neighborhood where Barrack 
Obama, fresh out of college, was a community organizer. They are modest 
homes, frame homes, primarily Hispanic and African-American 
populations.
  They called me down to this section, the southeastern section of the 
city of Chicago, to show me something. What they wanted to show me were 
piles of black soot. It is called petcoke. Petcoke is what is left 
after you take the Canadian tar sands, ship them through the pipeline 
to a refinery, making diesel fuel, aviation fuel and gasoline. What is 
left over, this black gunk substance called petcoke.
  It turns out that the BP refinery was selling the petcoke to a 
company owned by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers were shipping 
this petcoke into the neighborhoods of Chicago. The mothers with their 
kids were calling me to their homes and schools to show me what 
happened when the wind blew. When the wind blew, this nasty black stuff 
flew through the air. It was all over windowsills and buildings, nasty 
as can be.
  The city of Chicago is doing something about it. They are kind of 
changing the equation in terms of petcoke and what you have to do to 
store it.

[[Page 6409]]

But if the other side is coming to the floor and saying our people are 
pure of heart, they just want to see the Keystone XL Pipeline, the fact 
is, the largest benefactors to the Republican Party in the United 
States today, the Koch brothers, have a financial and commercial 
interest in these Canadian tar sands, at least in the disposal of this 
petcoke. The way they were doing it in the city of Chicago was the 
height of corporate irresponsibility--just pile it and let the wind 
blow it across the neighborhood. It is going to be criminal when it is 
all over after the city of Chicago changes its laws to prohibit this 
kind of conduct.
  But those are the things that are at stake in this conversation. I 
hope at the end of the day the President makes the right, thoughtful 
decision, not just in terms of energy but in terms of our environment, 
does the best thing for America. I hope we also understand that if we 
do nothing with the Keystone XL Pipeline, we are still going to face 
the challenges with Canadian tar sands, coming down through the United 
States, being refined and sold in our country and around the world. It 
is a challenge we have to face honestly.
  I may disagree with some of my colleagues on the other side. I 
believe that if we want to leave a world for future generations--our 
kids, our grandchildren--that is a cleaner and safer world, we have to 
accept some responsibility in our generation, in our time, to clean up 
the mess of this environment. It may call for some sacrifice as 
individuals, as families, as businesses, but I do not think it is too 
much to ask.
  God gave us this great world and asked us to keep an eye on it for 
the next generation. Are we going to do it or will we ignore it and 
say: If there is money to be made, we can start bringing in any source 
you wish. That to me is irresponsible.


        Tribute to Dr. Jerry Umanos, John Gabel, and Gary Gabel

  Madam President, Robert Kennedy once said, ``The purpose of life is 
to contribute in some way to make things better.'' Around the world and 
here at home, dedicated American citizens are living by this principle, 
trying to improve the lives of those in greatest need. Sadly, on April 
24, we lost three Americans from my home State of Illinois who were 
killed at the Cure International Hospital which focuses on maternity 
and pediatric care in Afghanistan: Dr. Jerry Umanos, John Gabel, and 
his father Gary Gabel.
  Both John Gabel and Dr. Jerry Umanos were working to help the Afghan 
people receive health care. In a country still coping with the legacy 
of decades of terrible conflict that devastated the medical 
infrastructure of Afghanistan, they were helping by volunteering to 
address the real needs of the Afghan people and improving the lives of 
those whom they assisted.
  This is Dr. Jerry Umanos. His picture is an indication of this 
dedicated, idealistic man who lost his life. He was dedicated to 
helping kids. After he finished his residency at the Children's 
Hospital of Michigan, he could have made some money with his training, 
but instead he decided to help those who needed a helping hand.
  He worked for years at an amazing place that I have visited, the 
Lawndale Christian Health Center in the city of Chicago. It is one of 
those neighborhood health centers which makes you feel good about the 
world, where great professionals, such as Dr. Umanos, give of their 
time, make very little money, and help the poorest of the poor.
  He was an important part of that community. They loved him, not only 
his patients but his colleagues as well. He worked to help so many in 
Chicago who otherwise did not have a chance for quality health care. He 
followed this calling to Afghanistan where the needs of people were 
even greater. He was dedicated to making a difference there by helping 
the Afghan people, by teaching, by making certain that the next 
generation of Afghans had a better life. The breadth and depth of his 
work is a testimony to his love for and commitment not only to the 
people of Afghanistan but to the needy. What a loss that his life was 
taken from us.
  John Gabel was a man who cared for others and made a real difference 
in the lives of those he touched. He used his skills to run a health 
clinic in Afghanistan and to help address the glaring needs of health 
care with the Afghan people. John was working in other ways to help 
build a better tomorrow for the people of Afghanistan. He taught at 
Kabul University, where he was remembered as a great teacher and a 
great friend.
  He used his expertise in computer science, not to enrich himself but 
to teach others. Perhaps it is not surprising that John was so focused 
on helping those in need when we consider the example of his parents 
Gary and Betty Gabel, who also dedicated their lives to others. 
Tragically, Gary Gabel, who was visiting his son and his family in 
Afghanistan, was lost as well in the senseless shooting.
  Gary Gabel helped his community in and around Arlington Heights, IL. 
He was an active member of his church. He had a commitment to helping 
those most innocent and vulnerable members of society, our children. He 
worked with church youth groups. He provided a strong model to his 
community and his family of a man committed to helping others. I am 
sure my colleagues join me in expressing our heartfelt condolences to 
the families and loved ones of those lost and injured in this tragic 
attack, as well as the countless people whom they helped, all of whom 
join us in mourning their loss. They represent the best of who we are 
as a people and make this world a better place.


                              Minimum Wage

  Tomorrow, we are going to have an important vote. It is a vote that 
is going to be watched carefully by over 1 million workers in the State 
of Illinois and millions across our Nation. The question is whether the 
United States of America and its government will increase the minimum 
wage for workers all across the country.
  It is an important vote. It would raise the Federal minimum wage from 
$7.25 to $10.10 in three steps of 95 cents each. If we pass it this 
year, the final increase would occur in the year 2016. This is a 39-
percent increase in the minimum wage, roughly the same percentagewise 
as the last minimum wage bill we enacted over the same period of time. 
It provides for automatic future increases in the minimum wage based on 
the cost of living so we do not have those lurches from one level to $2 
or $3 above it.
  It raises the minimum wage for tipped workers for the first time in 
more than 20 years. People find it hard to believe that under Federal 
standards, tipped workers receive $2.13 an hour as their base wage. 
They are expected to make up the difference with their tips. We raise 
it to 70 percent of the minimum wage, phased in over 6 years. We extend 
some business expensing rules to help businesses invest in their 
equipment and what they need to grow the business. We do this in a 
fashion to incentivize small businesses to grow.
  This increase in the minimum wage brings us down to a very 
fundamental question as Americans. The fundamental question is this: If 
someone is willing to get up and go to work and work hard every single 
day, should they receive a compensation that lets them get by so they 
do not have to survive from paycheck to paycheck or should they be put 
in a position where the only way they can survive is with government 
assistance--food stamps, SNAP program, child care subsidies--things 
that we provide as a government to people in low-income categories?
  Keep in mind, we are talking about workers. You see them in Chicago 
early in the morning. They are the blurry-eyed travelers on those buses 
heading off to the workplace. They are the ones we see on the trains, 
quietly moving from their homes to where they work and repeating the 
reverse journey every single day as they head back home at night.
  Can you imagine the frustration of going through that day after weary 
day and never, ever catching up, living paycheck to paycheck, falling 
further and further behind? That is what is happening to too many of 
them. It is amazing to me when we hear the critics of minimum wages 
step forward. In our State of Illinois there are two prominent 
politicians, both of them happen to be multimillionaires. Their

[[Page 6410]]

views on minimum wage are amazing to me. One of them, who made $53 
million last year, said he adamantly opposes raising the minimum wage. 
He made $53 million last year. He adamantly opposes raising the minimum 
wage.
  Another one of them who is worth millions of dollars himself has 
said: I will agree to raise the minimum wage but only for people over 
the age of 26.
  He just eliminated half of the people earning the minimum wage in 
America today who happen to be under the age of 26.
  Let's think about the people whom he wants to keep on a subminimum 
wage. It would include all college students under the age of 26 trying 
to work their way through school. He would want to give them a 
subminimum wage. It would include single moms raising their kids--the 
moms being under the age of 26, they would get a subminimum wage--and 
it would also include veterans coming back, struggling to find a job. 
If they haven't reached the age of 26, he would give them a subminimum 
wage.
  I have one basic question: What are these politicians thinking? Have 
they ever left where they live and where they work and met up with some 
people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck to get by?
  Tomorrow we have a chance on the floor of the Senate to raise the 
minimum wage, but we cannot do it with Democratic votes alone. If there 
will not be five, six or seven Republicans who cross the aisle and join 
us in this debate, it will fail--and that will be a sad day--because 
for a lot of these workers this is their only hope that they will get a 
decent increase in the minimum wage through the law.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side will take into consideration 
that so many of these workers are women and so many of them are even 
over the age of 35 and still rely on minimum wage jobs. These are not 
lazy people. These are hard-working people, people who are working hard 
every single day for a paycheck that they know is not going to cover 
their expenses every single week.
  It is time we give them a chance and give them a break. It used to 
be--and I can remember it very well--a bipartisan issue to raise the 
minimum wage.
  President Ronald Reagan, when he was President, raised the minimum 
wage. He understood it. If you value work and you value working people, 
you should give them a wage which respects the integrity and decency of 
work. That is what this is about. That is what this minimum wage is 
about tomorrow.
  Without the help of Republicans, it will fail. If it isn't done on a 
bipartisan basis, it will not go forward.
  I might add one other item. A minimum wage is injecting into the 
economy literally millions of dollars of purchasing power. People who 
are living paycheck to paycheck spend those checks as fast as they can 
for food, clothing or shoes, paying the utility bills, paying for a 
cell phone, putting gas in a car. That money goes right back into the 
economy.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, tomorrow break 
with some of the extreme people in your party, join us in a bipartisan 
fashion and raise the minimum wage. It is only fair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Before the Senator leaves I would like to ask him a quick 
question if I could. I know he talked toward the end of his comments--
and I am going to speak on minimum wage also--but he mentioned 
President Reagan. I think the last time minimum wage passed was under 
President Bush, again a bipartisan approach; is that correct? I wasn't 
here during those times, but I know the Senator has served in Congress 
a long time.
  Mr. DURBIN. I respond through the Chair to the Senator from Alaska.
  There was a time when there wasn't that much controversy associated 
with this. We knew that we waited too long. People had fallen behind in 
their earning potential. We had to pick the right number. We came up 
with it and moved forward on a bipartisan basis. But now things are so 
partisan and so poisonous in the Senate that even something as basic as 
raising the minimum wage for hard-working families turns out to be a 
political lift.
  Mr. BEGICH. The $10.10 wage is just getting to the poverty level. 
That is what I understand and why I cosponsored this legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. It basically does for some, but what I found though is if 
you are a family with two kids, for example, you have to make almost 
$15 an hour to get beyond the poverty level. We are talking about 
$10.10 phased in, and many of those people will still qualify for a 
helping hand from the government because they are still in very low-
income categories.
  Mr. BEGICH. Thank you for giving me a moment to ask those questions.
  I rise to address an important issue--just as we were asking some 
questions back and forth--that would help 49,000 Alaskans, raising the 
minimum wage. The bill before us would increase the minimum wage to 
$10.10 an hour.
  The minimum wage, as mentioned by my colleagues a little earlier, has 
lost its purchasing power by one-third over my lifetime. The increase 
will lift millions of Americans out of poverty, reduce their reliance 
on the safety net, and literally pump billions more into the economy.
  I know I look at this a little differently. I come from the business 
world. I come from the small business world. My first business was at 
the age of 14. I have been in it ever since in some form or another. 
You can probably name the business--retail, real estate. I have been a 
publisher. I have owned different companies, and I have even owned a 
small, very small, percentage of a restaurant. I felt like I was a 100-
percent owner at one point because it is a tough business. I was in 
there moving the slop buckets and doing a remodel to the kitchen on a 
Saturday night. I am there like everyone else working double time and 
trying to make sure we get the job done.
  My wife is a small retailer. Her business is selling smoked salmon on 
a counter or a cart--no bigger than two of these desks--and building 
her business now to 5 retail stores, 30-some employees. I might note 
none of our employees are paid minimum wage. They are paid above 
minimum wage.
  I know some people are concerned minimum wage will cut into their 
business. There is no question in my mind what it does; that is, when 
we increase the minimum wage, it is actually good for business because 
we help consumers have more resources to put into the economy that then 
churn back into the business world.
  Along with this bill another provision a lot of people don't realize 
is the minimum wage is one piece, a pretty significant piece but also a 
provision that I requested be put in this bill, what they call a 179. 
It is a business tax deduction, something that is important for 
businesses that are growing, expanding, building new business, small 
businesses mostly.
  This is the No. 1 priority of the business community that I talk to, 
not the politically driven business communities but the ones that 
actually do business and actually work with small businesses, the ones 
that look at their local communities and try to figure out what is 
important in legislation. One is to make sure they can write off some 
of their improvements in an expedited way which, in turn, puts more 
money into the business for reinvestment. That is another piece of this 
bill.
  So it not only has an important part for the hard-working folks who 
are making minimum wage to raise that amount, but it also helps the 
hard-working small businesses ensure that they can continue to put 
money back in their business, grow their business, expand their 
business, and then receive some benefit from that.
  As we know, we look at the whole issue in Alaska a little 
differently. Our minimum wage is 50 cents higher than the Federal 
level, $7.75. There is a reason: Because it is very expensive, similar 
to the Presiding Officer's State. It is not cheap in our two States, 
Hawaii and Alaska. The cost of living is much greater. In order for 
folks to have a decent living, we pay a little bit more,

[[Page 6411]]

and we play it off of the Federal legislation, but still it is a 
problem in keeping the wage competitive to the cost of living.
  When we look at Alaska and we look at the cost of living in Alaska--
Anchorage specifically is 30 percent higher than the average cost of 
living in this country and Fairbanks is 40 percent higher. Again, 
having this higher ratio for us is very important.
  It doesn't mean all the time that a dollar still goes far. When we 
look at the whole country, in terms of buying power, what you can buy 
for the dollar you earn, Alaska has 3 of the cities in the bottom 11. 
When you look at the whole list, there are 11 at the bottom. Alaska has 
three of them: Juneau, Kodiak, and Fairbanks, because their dollar 
can't go far enough. That is why raising the minimum wage will help 
them be able to purchase more and enjoy a better quality of life.
  I will say Alaskans, similar to Hawaiians, know challenges, and we 
have tough jobs because we are kind of isolated lots of times and 
sometimes forgotten that we actually exist in the Union. And we have to 
make that point more than once. But it doesn't matter if we are doing 
the drilling in the Arctic, which is a great challenge, or fishing for 
crab in the Bering Sea, which is an unbelievable test of someone's 
capacity and ability, but we know how to overcome challenges. We just 
don't want more challenges.
  A minimum wage increase will help reduce some of those challenges. 
The minimum wage is truly, at the rate it is today, an obstacle to try 
to get people moved forward because we don't have it at the rate it 
should be. The $10.10, in a lot of minds, is an easy step over a 2- to 
3-year period, and it is honestly one we can fix. We can fix it 
tomorrow. We just need a bipartisan approach as it happened under the 
Reagan administration, it happened under the Bush administration. 
Again, to remind folks who may not be familiar with those two 
Presidents, they were Republicans. We did it, and I wasn't here, but 
Democrats and Republicans sat down and said: Let's figure this out 
because it is important for the working people of this country who are 
working hard every day.
  Another group it impacts in my State of 49,000 Alaskans is 1,700 
veterans--veterans in our country, veterans in my State who will get a 
boost.
  What does that mean? When you calculate by family members, it is 
about 3,000 families of veterans will benefit from raising the minimum 
wage. As I said earlier, it is 49,000 Alaskans, and this is one subset. 
More than half of the Alaskans are women. About 5,000 Alaskans will be 
boosted right out of poverty with this change, and it means they will 
be on less government programs such as food stamps.
  I would think we are all here to try to make government run more 
efficiently, improve the economy, and create jobs. That is what we do 
every day, we attempt to do every day, and we do every day. If we can 
get people above poverty, that means fewer government programs, which 
means fewer government tax dollars, which means they are living on 
their own and they have their own capacity to make it in this world.
  One would think this is a unique opportunity for Democrats and 
Republicans to be joined together. Why wouldn't we want fewer people on 
food stamps because they are making a living now and able to take care 
of themselves? That is what we all work toward, to have the American 
dream to buy that home or live that quality of life, have that great 
education, all the pieces to the equation.
  Again, I cannot believe we are having a struggle trying to get just a 
few votes. We don't want them all. We get there are some who are 
opposed to anything about the Federal Government, but why not support 
this effort to raise people up as President Reagan thought about and 
President Bush thought about.
  It is this moment, giving these people a fair shot, a fair shot to 
have their American dream come true; $10.10 doesn't seem like a big 
stretch, but it seems today it is by some politicians.
  In fact, when we look at this--and I know the complaint on the other 
side is this will hurt business. Again, as I said earlier, this is 
good. You are talking to someone who is a small businessperson, who 
pays above minimum wage. I understand the value of making sure my 
employees, my wife's employees, have a good, decent wage, because when 
they leave the workplace, when they get their paycheck, they will spend 
it in the economy. That will help grow the economy.
  I know some will talk about the CBO report and all of these 
government reports, but let me put it this way. The last two times the 
minimum wage has been raised, the economy didn't collapse, people 
weren't fired--actually, the economy grew. So I don't understand that 
comment and debate.
  I know they will whip out these reports, and I am appreciative of 
those and the work CBO does, but I can only go by history and what has 
happened. If we raise the minimum wage, jobs are great, economy grows, 
and the next issue is businesses are reinvesting because they have more 
customers, which means more customers more profit. More profit means 
more investment. This is not only a fair shot for the people working, 
it gives an opportunity for small businesses and businesses across this 
country.
  To put it in perspective for my colleagues who have never been in 
small business or have not run a business, the reason you hire people 
is because you have demand. Demand is created by expenditures, 
expenditures by consumers.
  The reason you lay off people is because demand has gone down because 
there are not expenditures by consumers. Raising the minimum wage gives 
more opportunity, more investment, more people making money, and more 
return.
  Let me give some national statistics. Again, this is about making 
sure we give every American, especially those making a minimum wage 
today--a raise in their minimum wage, to give them a fair shot to be 
part of the American dream.
  The bill will help 30 million Americans earning an additional $51 
billion to put back into the economy over the next 3 years by this 
raise--huge. The family who today can't afford the new car can now 
maybe look at a new car or maybe they are choosing between groceries 
and paying their heating bill. Now because you are raising the minimum 
wage they have an opportunity to pay these bills and enjoy life a 
little bit more.
  The higher minimum wage will also help 12 million people in our 
country to get out of poverty. It could lift 4.6 million out of poverty 
immediately.
  This is about empowering families, giving them a fair shot, a chance 
again to achieve the American dream, helping parents to make ends meet 
and to raise children in a healthy home and an opportunity for them. 
More than a one-fifth of all children in our country have a parent on 
minimum wage; 56 percent on a national level are women making the 
minimum wage.
  Right now, thousands of Alaskans work full time--maybe extra work on 
the side--but still struggle to put food on the table. It is wrong. 
That is why raising the minimum wage will be helpful to those families. 
It saves the government money by helping people get off food stamps. 
Also, higher wages would cut, as I said, food stamps, they estimate by 
$4.6 billion a year. We have been very good at moving the deficit 
down--a $1.4 trillion deficit annually, down a little over $500 billion 
and continuing to go down. I think we all want to see that deficit go 
to zero.
  The way we do that is with programs such as this that engage the 
private sector and their responsibility, at the same time lowering 
costs for the government. Also, an interesting statistic is that it 
also increases the wages, obviously, by the minimum wage going up. So 
it increases and strengthens Social Security because now they are 
paying into Social Security. Social Security contributions from an 
extra $51 billion in wages would go right to the trust fund. Since 
benefits are tied to lifetime earnings, workers will earn larger checks 
when they retire. Right now an average minimum wage worker with 40 
years of paying into the system receives only 900 bucks, give or take a 
few bucks, at the age of 65. That is well below the poverty line.

[[Page 6412]]

  So why wouldn't we want to raise the minimum wage, move people out of 
poverty, get more people off of food stamps, save the government some 
money, and, by the way, help strengthen Social Security and give 
families and individuals a fair shot to meet and reach the American 
dream? Why wouldn't we want to do that? Again, under the Reagan 
administration and the Bush administration, they seemed to think it was 
a good idea.
  I agree with the Senator from Illinois who was on the floor a little 
while ago. If we weren't in this toxic political environment where 
everything has to be politicized until the last man is standing, we 
would probably do this. We would be down here together talking about 
how it would help our folks in our different States and in our 
communities and in the country overall. Instead, everyone wants to just 
kind of even the scorecard. This is not about a scorecard; this is 
about giving a fair shot to Americans, to Alaskans, so they have a 
chance to make a living and meet and reach the American dream.
  This is a simple thing for us to do, and we could do it tomorrow. I 
don't know what the House will do, but maybe if we act in a bipartisan 
way here, the House will see that. Maybe they will wake up and see this 
is a good thing to do because if we want to build the economy, if we 
want to make a difference, as I said--and I am talking as a small 
businessperson--if we grow the amount of money consumers spend by 
making sure they make a good living, the net result will be that every 
businessperson benefits because they have more consumers, more people 
buying products. In turn, everything from manufacturing, to shipping to 
the retailer, to the large business, the small business--all benefit.
  Again, it is amazing to me that we debate this issue. Actually, I was 
not planning to come to the floor until last week because I thought 
this should be easy. Why are we not doing this? Republican Presidents 
saw it as a good idea. Now that it has been a long time coming, it is 
time.
  I know some don't like the current President. I have my issues with 
him, I can tell you that. The list is long. But we should not get 
caught up in the personalities. I tell my staff all the time--when I 
get a piece of legislation a Member is proposing, I say: Don't look at 
who is sponsoring; look at the content of the bill. If we like the 
bill, we sign on. We participate. Too much time is spent here worrying 
about who is sponsoring what, who is on the list, who made the comment. 
Who cares? If it is a good piece of legislation, then we should do it.
  In my State we will have raising the minimum wage on the November 
ballot because Alaskans signed an initiative--35,000 or 40,000 people--
saying this is the right thing to do for Alaska. I think it is the 
right thing to do not only for Alaska but for this country. It is 
important that we do this because it is our obligation to make sure for 
Alaskans and for all Americans that we don't create obstacles in their 
ability to reach the American dream, that we make sure they have a fair 
shot at anything they want to do.
  I hope tomorrow we will have a different outcome than the pundits are 
predicting. They think it will fail tomorrow. I hope not. But if we 
fail tomorrow and don't get enough votes from the other side, it is not 
that we lose the battle today but that the American people lose. 
Alaskans lose. The 49,000 Alaskans I mentioned will lose. The 1,700 
veterans in my State will lose. Let's try to do something to make them 
winners and give them a shot.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I think many of my colleagues feel 
very at home with this image, which is a reminder of a household name--
Ramona and her father. It is a great story written by Beverly Cleary. 
In fact, it is a prize-winning story, part of a series, and my favorite 
of the series, Ramona the Pest, was written in 1968.
  In 1968 and in this story Ramona's dad is struggling, along with his 
wife Dorothy--his name is Robert--to get by and keep the family 
together on a minimum wage job, which in 1968 paid $1.60 an hour. Today 
the minimum wage, if it had kept pace with inflation, would be $10.71 
an hour.
  We know, many of us--and probably many of my colleagues who have read 
this story--that Robert and Dorothy Quimby are engaged in a quiet 
struggle to make ends meet. Even as Ramona is engaged in all kinds of 
antics and play, he is working as a grocery bagger at a local store. 
Ramona's mother is working too--an early example of a two-family 
household and two-income family. They are able to keep their family 
afloat on that minimum wage in 1968--$1.60 an hour in 1968.
  For millions of Americans who read Ramona's story today, the idea of 
a minimum wage enabling a family to stay afloat, keep a roof over their 
heads, and food on the table is a storybook fiction. It is very 
difficult today to believe that Robert Quimby, as a bagger in a grocery 
store, could enable his daughters, Ramona and her sister, to have the 
life they did then. In fact, it would be impossible because today the 
minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation. The minimum wage 
today is $7.25--nowhere near what it would need to be to keep pace with 
the rise in the cost of living.
  That is why we are here today--to raise the minimum wage to $10.10, 
which is still below the $10.71 it would have been for Robert Quimby, 
making minimum wage in a grocery store, if it had kept pace with 
inflation. In fact, it is well below what is necessary to enable 
families to continue a normal life. That is why they are living in 
poverty--working men and women living in poverty--despite being paid 
the minimum wage. That is a travesty and a mockery. It is a moral 
outrage. It is bad for our economy, it is bad for our families, it is 
bad for the fabric of our society, and it is bad for America.
  I am proud to support an increase in the minimum wage. I am proud 
Connecticut has decided it will raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an 
hour--still below that $10.71 that is needed to get by today.
  We know the impact on families. We know the impact on children. We 
see them in our schools--millions of children, 14 million children--in 
families who are paid less than a minimum wage. We know the impact on 
our veterans. Half a million or more are paid less than the new minimum 
wage our bill would establish. That is itself an outrage. Men and women 
who have served and sacrificed for our country come back to civilian 
life to be paid less than what they need to stay out of poverty. They 
are working and working hard but still making less than a minimum wage. 
These are veterans who have served our country, who have put their 
lives on the line, have put themselves at risk, coming back to a 
society that rewards them--rewards them--with less than what they need 
to survive.
  I have talked to a lot of businesspeople. Some of them are 
apprehensive, no question about it, but a lot of them say: Our workers 
are more productive because we pay well above the minimum wage.
  Many who will be impacted by this law if it is passed say it is the 
right thing to do, and they support it. I am talking about, for 
example, Max Kothari. For 25 years he, along with his wife Parul, has 
owned and operated Star Hardware in Hartford--one of the oldest 
hardware stores in the State of Connecticut. He supports this measure 
to raise the minimum wage to $10.10.
  So does Doug Wade, who operates one of the oldest dairy companies in 
the State, started by Doug's great-grandfather in 1893--Wade's Dairy in 
Bridgeport. He supports raising the minimum wage.
  A thousand businesspeople have signed a statement and petition--we 
mentioned it this morning--that supports raising the minimum wage. They 
say it is a fairness issue. It is simply a way to give folks a fair 
shot at the American dream, a fair shot at a quality of life that is 
good for their families and children, good for our society, and, by the 
way, also good for our economy.

[[Page 6413]]

  We know that $35 billion would be added to consumer demand because 
folks who make minimum wage, if it is raised to $10.10, are not going 
to put the difference under their mattresses. They are going to spend 
it. They are going to buy more food, clothing, and gas for their cars. 
They are going to buy things that drive the economy. They are going to 
purchase stuff that creates demand and more jobs and business for Max 
Kothari at his hardware store and for Dough Wade at his dairy.
  This kind of reasoning is not advanced economic theory; it is basic 
common sense. Americans understand it. That is why Americans support 
raising the minimum wage as a matter of fairness and enlightened self-
interest economically. It is the right thing to do.
  The arguments made against it are without basis rationally and 
economically. The ones who suffer from the minimum wage as it exists 
right now are not teenagers. I know there is a myth that they are part-
time workers or teenagers. That is just not true. Nearly ninety percent 
of minimum wage workers are adults. They are disproportionately women 
and people of color and workers with disabilities, and they will be 
helped disproportionately by raising the minimum wage. But they are not 
teenagers or part-time workers. They are deserving, for the hard work 
they do, of fair pay and a fair shot. That is all the minimum wage 
would really do, is give them a fair shot at economic opportunity.
  And those veterans, they deserve more than a fair shot. They deserve 
a hand up, not a handout. There is nothing about the minimum wage that 
is an entitlement. It is simply fair pay and a fair shot. We have 
trapped half a million of those veterans in poverty--3,800 veterans in 
Connecticut alone who will benefit from the $10.10 minimum wage.
  But we should guarantee that in this great land--the greatest in the 
history of the world--people such as Ramona's dad, Robert Quimby, and 
Dorothy Quimby and her sister are being paid at least what they were 
getting back in 1968 in today's dollars. That is the way to keep 
families together. That is the way to keep faith with the dream all 
Americans have that they will have a fair shot.
  No one who works full time should live in poverty. No one who works 
should be so poor that they can't put food on the table or provide 
clothes for their children, or give them the erasers that Robert Quimby 
gave his daughters as a gift.
  To enable 14 million children in America to have a better life, let's 
pass this measure. And let's make sure that if it fails this week--and 
it shouldn't, but if it does, we bring it back, and we continue to 
bring it back as long as necessary to ensure a fair shot for all 
Americans who work hard and play by the rules.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be 
recognized for up to 2 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Bill Cathcart

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, this Friday, May 2, a gentleman from 
Georgia will retire after 29 years of service.
  William--Bill--Cathcart, with WTOC for 29 years as general manager 
and 2 years with the firm, will be saying goodbye to his leadership 
with WTOC, one of the leading media stations of the coast of Georgia 
and one of the leading media stations around our State--a station I 
have dealt with often, and a station I have found to be professional, 
fair, and thorough.
  In fact, even as I speak on the floor of the Senate today, my State 
of Georgia has already had a bad shooting incident this morning, 
terrible tornadoes this afternoon, and bad weather coming in this 
evening. It makes me appreciate the broadcast network and the people 
who come together to let our citizens know about things happening, 
giving them early warnings about bad weather and reporting the news 
fairly and straight.
  Bill Cathcart is a great Georgian and a great American. He has done a 
tremendous job for our State and for WTOC. I wish him the best upon his 
retirement. I hope he will always call on me if I can ever be of help, 
and I thank him for all he has done for me.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, tomorrow about noon we will be voting on 
something in the Senate that I daresay a lot of Americans will be 
paying close attention to. The reason they are going to be paying close 
attention is because that vote will affect them and their families in 
the future in a very big way. That vote will be on whether we will 
actually bring debate to a close and vote on increasing the minimum 
wage in America.
  If we were to bring that to a vote, we could pass it, the President 
would sign something like that into law, and in 6 months the minimum 
wage would go up by 95 cents an hour; then next year it would go up by 
another 95 cents; and the year after another 95 cents from where it is 
now at $7.25 an hour.
  What we are going to vote on tomorrow will have a drastic effect on 
millions of American families--and it is going to have a big effect on 
our economy, because it will boost our economy and get the wheels going 
again, because people will have more money to spend. They will spend it 
on Main Street. And that is what is lacking right now--consumer 
demand--consumers with enough money to spend on Main Street. All the 
economists will basically tell you it is the lack of aggregate demand 
that is keeping our economy from moving ahead. Tomorrow at noon we will 
have a vote on that.
  Tens of millions of American families are struggling, trying to make 
ends meet to give their kids a little bit better life. And, quite 
frankly, a lot of them on low wages are on public assistance which is 
costing American taxpayers nearly $250 billion every year--in food 
stamps, earned income tax credits, Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families, and Medicaid. Add all those up and it is about $243 billion a 
year.
  Taxpayers are subsidizing a lot of these companies that are paying 
very low wages. Many of the companies that pay such low wages are 
large, multibillion dollar companies raking in big profits and 
showering their CEOs with wealth. The average CEO pay of a Standard & 
Poors 500 company was 21 percent more last year than in 2009. In other 
words, from 2009 until the end of last year, CEO pay at these 500 
companies went up an average of 21 percent. However, since 2009, the 
minimum wage has not increased 1 penny. The CEO pay averages now about 
$11.7 million a year, while a minimum-wage worker today makes $15,000 a 
year. That is working full time, all year, no time off.
  It was pointed out to me that a CEO earns that $15,000 by about 11:30 
a.m. on the first day of work of the year. Imagine that. By 11:30 a.m. 
on January 2--assuming they don't work on January 1--they make $15,000. 
The minimum-wage earner has to work the rest of the year to make that 
$15,000. And many of these companies are paying the minimum wage.
  It is the families who are getting hurt. This is wrong. This is not 
what America is about. We want people who get up and go to work every 
day to be able to rely on that work to support themselves. Working 
families want that, too. They want a paycheck which supports them, 
gives them a fair shot at being a member of the middle class, and a 
fair shot of achieving the American dream.
  So now we can do something about it. We know that raising the minimum 
wage will help tens of millions of workers. When we raise it to $10.10, 
as our bill does, the bottom fifth of the workforce--nearly 30 million 
workers--will get a raise.
  By the time this fully phases in at $10.10 in 3 years, nearly 7 
million people will be lifted out of poverty. If we want an antipoverty 
program, we have it tomorrow when we vote on raising the minimum wage. 
Seven million people will be lifted out of poverty, and it

[[Page 6414]]

won't cost the American taxpayers one single dime, and taxpayers 
basically will save money because we won't be putting as much money out 
for public assistance such as food stamps.
  I thought it was kind of interesting that the Ryan budget the House 
passed cuts more than 3.8 million people off of food stamps. In raising 
the minimum wage, our bill would save billions of dollars--about $4.6 
billion a year--not by cutting people off of food stamps, but by 
getting their income up so that over 3 million people don't have to 
rely on food stamps. So under the Ryan budget, people are kicked off of 
food stamps and they still get minimum wage. Under ours, you get a 
raise in the minimum wage and you don't have to rely on food stamps, 
and you save about the same amount of money.
  Again, I am mystified by how vehemently my Republican colleagues 
oppose raising the minimum wage. Certainly they must know the polling 
data, that the vast majority of Americans support raising the minimum 
wage to $10.10 an hour. But it seems my friends on the Republican side 
are sort of locked into some philosophy or ideology that says there 
shouldn't be a minimum wage. In fact, some of my colleagues on the 
Republican side actually believe there should be no minimum wage. None. 
Nothing. Well, we got over that 70 years or more ago, in 1938, when we 
first passed a minimum-wage law in America.
  Again, we hear from the other side that by raising the minimum wage 
there will be this massive loss of jobs. That is simply not true. It is 
a myth. But it is brought up every time.
  I have been in Congress now 40 years. We have raised the minimum wage 
several times during that period of time both under Democratic and 
Republican Presidents. Every time it has come up, we hear that same old 
song: It is going to cost jobs. Guess what. Every time we raise the 
minimum wage, there has been no big loss of jobs. So there are no 
historic facts my Republican colleagues can point to to show that 
raising the minimum wage costs jobs.
  They do refer to the Congressional Budget Office study. Actually, 
that is wrong. It was not a Congressional Budget Office study. They 
didn't do a study themselves. What they did is looked at the literature 
out there going back many years on potential job losses. Some of the 
old studies showed there would be a job loss; under a new study they 
said there wouldn't be. What CBO did is they averaged them all and 
said: Here is the average. They didn't say specifically 500,000 jobs 
would be lost. They said somewhere between zero and 1 million jobs will 
be lost, so we will pick the midpoint at 500,000. But, again, there is 
no historical evidence for this in terms of looking back.
  We can go back and look at what happened to our economy every time we 
raised the minimum wage, and there has not been a massive job loss. 
There has been shifting of jobs. People have been raised out of 
poverty. Working families do better. But there has been no massive job 
loss. So this is another myth.
  As I said, the historical evidence is there has not been any job loss 
generally--not among teenagers, not among restaurant workers. In fact, 
this year there has been more job growth in the 13 States that raised 
their State minimum wages at the start of this year than in the States 
that didn't raise their minimum wage. Let me repeat that. There has 
been more job growth in States that raised their minimum wage beginning 
in January of this year than in the States that didn't raise their 
minimum wage. A lot of businesses are now understanding this. They 
understand that, as economists will tell you, it is the lack of 
aggregate demand: not enough customers. People don't have enough money.
  My Republican friends want to give more money to the top, more tax 
cuts for the wealthy. They get more money--millions more--a year. They 
don't necessarily spend that on Main Street. They may go to Paris, they 
may buy a new jet, a new big yacht. They do things like that, but it 
doesn't really put money right on Main Street.
  What small businesses and most economists know is that when you raise 
the minimum wage, those people who get that raise aren't going off to 
Paris. They aren't buying a private jet. They are spending it on Main 
Street in their local stores and local businesses, and that gives a 
great economic boost to our whole economy.
  So when we focus on the best research, the latest research that has 
been done, it unequivocally shows that raising the minimum wage does 
not cause a job loss. Again, 600 economists, including 7 Nobel prize 
winners, have endorsed a minimum wage hike of $10.10 an hour. Six 
hundred economists, including 7 Nobel prize winners, signed a letter 
supporting $10.10.

       We urge you to act now and enact a three-step raise of 95 
     cents a year for three years--which would mean a minimum wage 
     of $10.10 by 2016--and then index it to protect against 
     inflation . . . these proposals will also usefully raise the 
     tipped minimum wage to 70 percent of the regular minimum.
       The evidence now shows that increases in the minimum wage 
     have had little or no negative effect on the employment of 
     minimum-wage workers. Even during times of weakness in the 
     labor market research suggests that a minimum-wage increase 
     could have a small stimulative effect on the economy, as low-
     wage workers spend their additional earnings raising demand 
     and job growth and providing some help on the job front.

  So, again, forget about the job loss. That is not going to take 
place. What will take place is we will lift 7 million people out of 
poverty and 14 million children in America will be in families who will 
get a raise. That will be good for our kids.
  We also hear from Republicans that some of the people who are going 
to benefit from a raise in the minimum wage aren't the poorest of the 
poor. It is not just people below the poverty line, but a lot of other 
people will make more money, so therefore it must not be a good policy.
  First of all, I want to dispel the myth that raising the minimum wage 
does not affect poverty. It does. Whether you use the CBO estimate of 
close to 1 million workers lifted out of poverty or the results of more 
sophisticated economic research showing that up to 7 million workers 
will be lifted out of poverty by the time the bill is fully 
implemented, the evidence unequivocally shows that raising the minimum 
wage is an effective poverty-reduction tool.
  But I will be the first to admit--and gladly, proudly--that this bill 
doesn't just help people in poverty. It also helps low-income families 
who are above the poverty line, and that is a good thing. That is a 
good thing. A lot of low-income working families will get a raise. Here 
is basically the breakdown: 52 percent of those who will get a raise 
have family incomes under $40,000; 31 percent, $60,000; and 17 percent, 
$40 to $60,000. So, again, it is for the people. Families making 
$40,000 a year will actually get a boost. How could that be? One person 
may be making $20,000 and the other person may be making $15,000 or 
$18,000. They get a boost in the minimum wage, and they benefit. Is 
that wrong? I don't think that is wrong at all. These are still 
struggling families, struggling to make sure they get enough for their 
kids, make sure they put a little away for a rainy day, help their kids 
get a good education.
  Evidently, our friends the Republicans are saying: Look, we should 
only have something that benefits those who are in extreme poverty. 
Then they turn around in the Ryan budget and cut food stamps. What are 
they saying? You know what they are really saying: Tough luck. You are 
on your own. If you are a minimum wage worker, tough luck, and we don't 
want to raise your minimum wage.
  Well, 69 percent of the workers who would get a raise under this bill 
have incomes that are under $60,000. So, yes, not everybody who is 
going to get a benefit from this is in poverty, but it will raise 
nearly 7 million people out of poverty and will also help some of our 
lower and middle-income families in America. I say that is a good 
thing, and I am proud that it does.
  Consider an example. Jane and Joe--those are not their real names--
are from Buchanan County in Iowa. They have two young boys. She is a 
waitress and earns a few dollars an hour plus tips. He works at a gas 
station for $7.25 an hour. They rely on food stamps and Medicaid. They 
have applied for assistance through the Low Income Home

[[Page 6415]]

Energy Assistance Program. They work opposite shifts, so they don't 
have to pay for childcare--and it is difficult to find adequate care 
for their younger son's medical needs--but this means they hardly ever 
see each other. A minimum wage increase would allow them to be together 
more as a family.
  David is a pizza cook in Iowa. He is getting married soon and has a 
child on the way. He earns $9 an hour at his pizza job. So what did he 
do? He took on another job framing houses. He is working about 65 hours 
a week, no overtime. He has two jobs, so he is working 65 hours a week. 
That is still not enough. If he worked an entire year at 65 hours a 
week, he would only earn $30,400 a year. He is working 65 hours a week. 
That is technically above the poverty line, but no one would say he is 
making plenty of money and he couldn't use a raise. He is starting a 
family.
  When we raise the minimum wage, David will get a raise at both of his 
jobs. At one job he is making $9 an hour, and at the other job he is 
making $9 an hour. He gets a raise at both. He told the Quad City Times 
that a minimum wage raise would mean quite a bit to improve his life 
and help his growing family. So, yes, he is making 30,400 bucks a year 
working 65 hours a week--two jobs.
  You say: No, he shouldn't get this minimum wage increase.
  That is what I hear from my Republican colleagues. But these are the 
types of families who are struggling. They need a boost, and we want to 
give them a boost. We want to help them earn more money--not get more 
in food stamps or government programs but earn more money to provide 
for their families and build a better life and have a fair shot at the 
American dream.
  My Republican friends are not only opposing a raise, they are 
proposing drastic cuts to programs that low-wage workers must rely on 
to survive. As I said earlier, the Ryan budget cuts more than 3.8 
million people off of food stamps, leaving them without any lifeline to 
put food on the table. By contrast, raising the minimum wage would 
reduce the food stamp rolls by almost the same amount--as many as 3.6 
million people--because it would allow them to earn enough money to buy 
food for themselves. Both proposals save the taxpayer money, but under 
our proposal people get to eat. They get to put food on the table.
  I have a hard time giving a lot of credence to people who say the 
increase of the minimum wage doesn't really help people who are in 
poverty. It is untrue. The professed concern about the poorest of the 
poor stands in stark contrast with a Republican agenda that would 
increase poverty and sacrifice a program that helps low-wage working 
families survive.
  Now I want to dispel another myth--that it would hurt small business. 
We hear about this all the time, but every small business I have talked 
to says their biggest problem is not payroll costs; it is lack of 
demand, lack of customers. They don't have customers with money to 
spend. So raising the minimum wage would help their bottom line.
  A lot of small businesses I talk to also tell me they are frustrated, 
infuriated by the fact that their competitors--the Walmarts and 
McDonalds and other big businesses--pay rock-bottom wages that force 
their workers into public assistance. Well, this places responsible 
small businesses at a competitive disadvantage. It forces them to 
subsidize their competitors' low wages through their tax dollars. That 
is not fair. It is bad for workers, small business, and our economy. 
Small business owners understand this, and that is why the majority of 
them support this bill. Again, opinion polls--small businesses support 
the minimum wage 57 percent to 43 percent because they understand that 
a raise in the minimum wage means their customers are going to have 
more money to spend on Main Street.
  That is why today I received a letter from Business for a Fair 
Minimum Wage, and 1,000 businesses, large and small, across the country 
support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour--1,000 all across 
America. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  So this letter and the polls show that most small businesses get it. 
They know that increases in the minimum wage will increase consumer 
demand. They also know they will have loyal, productive workers who 
will stay longer and save businesses from having to constantly hire and 
train new people. Experienced workers who have been on the job longer 
are more efficient and deliver great customer service that keeps 
customers coming back.
  Finally, some of my Republican colleagues have suggested that we 
shouldn't raise the minimum wage because they are better served by the 
earned-income tax credit. I support the earned-income tax credit, and, 
unlike many of my colleagues on the other side, I actually want to see 
it expanded so it better serves young and childless workers. Right now, 
if you are under the age of 25 and you are making the minimum wage of 
$7.25 an hour, you are making too much money to qualify for the earned-
income tax credit. If you are over age 25 and you make the minimum 
wage, $7.25 an hour, and you have one child, you get $3,250 in earned-
income tax credit, plus your childcare tax credit. That gets you up to 
19,300 bucks a year. What a deal. But if you are childless, you get no 
earned-income tax credit.
  The veterans who were mentioned earlier--let's say a vet went into 
the military when he or she was age 18. They got out after 3 years, 21 
or 22, and they went out and got a job, a minimum wage job. They do not 
get the earned-income tax credit.
  I am for expanding it. Let's expand the earned-income tax credit to 
cover childless workers under the age of 25. My Republican colleagues 
won't support that. They won't support that.
  The earned-income tax credit does provide some good support, but 
think about this: It only does it once a year. The only time you get 
the earned-income tax credit is after you file your taxes--then you get 
a refund. That is once a year. Families don't live like that, 
especially low-income families. They have a budget month after month 
for heating, for electricity, for fuel, for car repairs, for clothes 
for the kids. They cannot count on what is going to happen next year. 
Their income tax credit is good, but it only happens once a year. That 
is not very good for budgeting purposes for any family. After all, the 
gas company will turn your gas off in the winter even if you are going 
to get an earned-income tax credit next April or May. They don't take 
that into account. They take into account the fact that you cannot pay 
your bill then. So the best way to help low-income families--minimum 
wage-earning families plus low-income families--the best way to help 
them throughout the year is to increase the minimum wage.
  Again, all the arguments we hear from the other side of the aisle 
don't hold water. Today, while what I heard from the other side of the 
aisle is more talk about the Keystone Pipeline--as if that is going to 
solve all our problems--all we have to do is build the Keystone 
Pipeline, and that solves all of our problems. It does? The restaurant 
worker in Maine, the hospital orderly in South Carolina, the parking 
lot attendant in Mississippi--they are all going to benefit from the 
Keystone Pipeline? I don't think so. Somehow that is going to take the 
place of raising the minimum wage.
  So they are trying a little diversion on this Keystone Pipeline. We 
will provide some jobs, yes, for a couple of years, and when that is 
over, then what are you left with? And those kinds of jobs are not the 
kinds of jobs low-income workers would get, which would be pretty high-
skilled, high-paying jobs for the Keystone Pipeline. So it doesn't 
really hold water that the Keystone Pipeline is going to be the end-all 
and be-all for the economy. It just won't.
  Raising the minimum wage is the most commonsense, practical thing we 
can do right now to help low-income families, give a boost to our 
economy, and save the taxpayers money. So I hope all my colleagues will 
do the right thing.
  So I hope all of my colleagues will do the right thing tomorrow, 
allow us to

[[Page 6416]]

proceed to debate, and vote on increasing the minimum wage. Millions of 
American families will be watching this vote tomorrow. If they are 
working hard during the day, they won't be tuning in to C-SPAN, but 
they will read about it, and they will know what this Senate did about 
their paychecks and what we did about their desire to have a better 
life for their families, for their kids, and for their future.
  I will also say this. If my Republican colleagues will join with us--
at least five or six of them because we need 60 votes to get over the 
filibuster--if we get five or six, then we can move to the bill. I hope 
we will get 5 or 6 or 8 or 10 Republicans who will join us. If not, we 
will be back. This issue is not going away. I can guarantee we will be 
back. We will be back again and again and again.
  The American people need a raise. CEOs are getting their raises: a 
21-percent increase since 2009--a 21-percent increase, an average CEO 
is paid; zero increase for minimum wage workers. It is now time to play 
a little catchup ball and provide fairness for low-income workers in 
America. So that is the vote tomorrow--a values vote, American values, 
family values, sound economic values. That is what the vote is about 
tomorrow. I hope and I trust that some of my colleagues on the 
Republican side will join with us so we can move ahead to give working 
Americans a raise and a fair shot at the American dream.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Business for a Fair Minimum Wage Federal Sign on Statement

       As business owners and executives, we support raising the 
     federal minimum wage to strengthen our economy. The minimum 
     wage of $7.25 an hour amounts to just $15,080 a year for 
     health aides, childcare workers, cashiers, security guards 
     and other minimum wage workers. With less buying power than 
     it had in the 1960s, today's minimum wage impoverishes 
     working families and weakens the consumer demand at the heart 
     of our economy.
       Raising the minimum wage makes good business sense. Workers 
     are also customers. Minimum wage increases boost sales at 
     local businesses as workers buy needed goods and services 
     they could not afford before. And nothing drives job creation 
     more than consumer demand. Businesses also see cost savings 
     from lower employee turnover and benefit from increased 
     productivity, product quality and customer satisfaction. 
     Increasing the minimum wage will also reduce the strain on 
     our social safety net caused by inadequate wages.
       A recent national poll shows that 67 percent of small 
     business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage 
     and adjusting it yearly to keep pace with the cost of living. 
     The most rigorous studies of the impact of actual minimum 
     wage increases show they do not cause job loss--whether 
     during periods of economic growth or during recessions. The 
     minimum wage would be over $10 if it had kept up with the 
     rising cost of living since the 1960s instead of falling 
     behind.
       We support gradually raising the federal minimum wage over 
     three years to at least $10.10 an hour, and then adjusting it 
     annually for inflation to keep up with the cost of living. A 
     fair minimum wage makes good sense for our businesses, our 
     workforce, our communities and our nation.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to address the idea of 
raising the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. 
But first I wish to spend a few moments talking about the state of the 
Senate and why the latest push for a higher Federal minimum wage isn't 
an issue that appears to be driven by solving the underlying economic 
problems our Nation faces.
  Over the past few weeks, the Senate majority leader has relished in 
making personal attacks on two private citizens, David and Charles 
Koch, on this Senate floor. He has used the Senate floor for the 
purpose of attempting to assassinate their character. They have 
committed no crimes, although the majority leader appears to treat it 
as a crime that they don't support him politically. Many political 
observers can see this for exactly what it is: a desperate political 
strategy designed to distract from the economic misery that is being 
visited on the American people by a failed economic agenda. The Senate 
majority leader is using the Senate floor to run a political campaign 
against entrepreneurs and philanthropists who have dared to stand and 
speak out against the failed Obama economic agenda. The reason he is 
doing so should not surprise anyone. On substance, the record of this 
administration cannot be defended. They can't talk about how great 
ObamaCare is working because millions of Americans have lost their 
health insurance plans and lost the doctors they like, despite the 
President's repeated promises to the contrary. Health insurance plans 
have skyrocketed in States all across this country, especially for 
young people in the individual market who are seeing their rates 
sometimes double or triple. And they certainly can't talk about the 
state of the economy.
  Today, we have the lowest labor force participation since 1978. The 
official unemployment rate is 6.7 percent, but that doesn't capture the 
millions who are underemployed. When we include them, the number rises 
to 12.7 percent. The rates of poverty in the United States are right 
now at historic highs--15 percent. As CNN recently noted, this is ``the 
first time the poverty rate has remained at or above 15 percent 3 years 
running since 1965.''
  Among full-time workers, there are more than 3.8 million fewer 
employed today than there were before the recession. The number of 
people not in the labor force today is at its highest level since 1978. 
Over 91 million people are not in the American workforce. Roughly three 
of five working-age Americans have jobs today. This is a travesty. It 
is a denial of the American dream to millions of people across this 
country.
  Long-term unemployment persists. Nearly 36 percent of the unemployed 
are long-term unemployed. When President Obama took office, the average 
number of weeks that an individual was unemployed was 19.8. Today, the 
average duration is 35.6 weeks.
  It is also a good thing the President has begun to talk about income 
inequality. It is a good thing because income inequality has increased 
dramatically under President Obama. Today, the top 1 percent in our 
economy earn a higher share of our income than any year since 1928, and 
those who are being hurt the most in the Obama economy are the most 
vulnerable among us--the people who are struggling. The working class 
Hispanics, African Americans, and single moms are the ones paying the 
price for the great stagnation in which we find ourselves.
  According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who describe 
themselves as middle or upper class fell 8 points between 2008 and 
2012. President Obama's terrible economy doesn't discriminate. It hurts 
Americans from every demographic. On the President's watch, women have 
lower incomes today. The median income for women has dropped by $733 
since President Obama took office, and, indeed, poverty among women has 
gone up markedly under President Obama. The poverty rate for women has 
increased from 14.4 percent when the President took office to 16.3 
percent. In real terms, that means 3.7 million more American women are 
in poverty today than when the President took office.
  The President is not responding to any of this. Instead, we see the 
President, we see the Senate majority leader shifting to the topic of a 
mandated Federal minimum wage in an effort to change the subject. But 
the undeniable reality, the undeniable truth is that if the President 
succeeded in raising the minimum wage, it would cost jobs for the most 
vulnerable. The people who have been hurt by this Obama economy would 
be hurt worse by the minimum wage proposal before this body.
  In 2013, the President, in his State of the Union address, proposed 
raising the minimum wage to $9. A year later, the request has magically 
changed to $10.10. There is no economic justification. The only reason 
is politics. I suppose if the approval ratings of Democratic Members of 
this body continue to fall, in another month we will see a proposal for 
$15 an hour and then maybe $20 or $25 an hour.
  But I think the American people are tired of empty political show 
votes.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that raising the 
minimum wage could cause the loss of

[[Page 6417]]

500,000 to 1 million jobs. I want the American people to realize, and 
every Member of this Senate, that votes for the minimum wage is voting 
to tell up to 1 million Americans: Your jobs don't matter to me because 
I am voting to take away your job.
  By the way, this view is not only the view of the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office. On March 12, 2014, over 500 economists, 
including three Nobel Laureates, sent a letter to Congress that said 
the minimum wage is a poorly targeted anti-poverty measure. I will give 
one example from my home State. GO-Burgers, which is a Texas company 
with six Burger King restaurants, analyzed the effect of the minimum 
wage increase on their employees and their businesses. The last minimum 
wage increase we have seen was from $5.85 an hour in 2007 to $7.25 an 
hour in July of 2009, and 2010 was the first complete calendar year 
that GO-Burgers had to analyze the impact on their workers. GO-Burgers 
discovered that raising the minimum wage by 23.93 percent caused these 
Burger King restaurants to reduce the available hours worked by 24.98 
percent, for a net sum loss in hours and wages for the typical 
employee.
  Let me repeat that. The experience in these Burger King restaurants 
was the employees were worse off after the minimum wage was raised 
because their hours got cut in direct response to the increase. These 
six restaurants eliminated over 40 jobs and reduced the average number 
of hours worked per employee. In total, these six Burger King 
restaurants reduced the man-hours allocated by over 60,000 hours in 
2010. Sadly, the people that bear the brunt of that are not the rich 
and powerful. They are not those who walk the corridors of power in 
Washington, DC, and have gotten fat and happy under the Obama 
administration. The people who would bear the brunt if this bill were 
passed would be, to a substantial degree, young African American 
teenagers and young Hispanic teenagers. Right now, young minorities, if 
we look at unemployment rates by race--just looking at the official 
unemployment rates, Anglos have an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent; 
Hispanics, 7.9 percent; African Americans, 12.4 percent--nearly double 
that in the white community. It is even more heartbreaking among 
teenagers. White teens currently have an unemployment rate of 18.3 
percent, but African American teenagers have an unemployment rate of 
36.1 percent--36.1 percent. Every Senator who votes yes is voting with 
an absolute certainty that hundreds of thousands of workers, including 
a great many African American teenagers and a great many Hispanic 
teenagers, will be laid off as a consequence of their vote. I would 
challenge any of the Senators in this Chamber to look in the eyes of 
those African American teenagers, those Hispanic teenagers who are 
looking for a better opportunity.
  If my colleagues detect a note of passion in my voice as I discuss 
this, it is because in my family this is not an abstract, hypothetical 
situation. Fifty-seven years ago, when my father fled Cuba and came to 
Texas at the age of 18, penniless, not speaking English, his first job 
was working in the restaurant industry as a dishwasher making 50 cents 
an hour. The restaurant industry had been such a terrific avenue for 
climbing the economic ladder, for achieving the American dream. My dad 
washed dishes at 50 cents an hour to pay his way through college to go 
on and start a small business to work toward the American dream. If the 
majority leader had his way, if the minimum wage were jacked up, if 
back in 1957 the restaurant where my father worked were forced to pay 
every worker $2 an hour, the odds are very high that restaurant would 
have fired my dad and bought a dishwasher instead. It was that entry-
level job that gave him the grip on the first rung of the economic 
ladder that led him to pull to the second and the third and the fourth. 
This bill, if it were to pass, would hammer those on the bottom of the 
economic ladder and would take away jobs from the most vulnerable among 
us.
  So what should we do instead? We can talk about the problems we have 
in this country, but we need to talk proactively about better 
solutions. Fortunately, we are on the cusp of a great American energy 
renaissance.
  I have introduced legislation to remove the barriers to developing 
the abundant energy resources we have in this country--barriers that, 
if removed, would allow the creation of millions of high-paying jobs.
  The discussion before this Chamber is whether to raise the minimum 
wage to $10.10 an hour. But even if it passed, that is not the Obama 
minimum wage. Rather, the real Obama minimum wage is $0.00 an hour. We 
have right now the lowest labor participation rate since 1978.
  To the millions of Americans who have lost their job because of $1.7 
trillion in new taxes, because of crushing regulations, this is the 
Obama minimum wage: $0.00--not the political window dressing of $10.10; 
the reality, the hard, brutal reality.
  Last week, I was in Nebraska at a rally. A woman named Barb came up 
to me. She hugged my neck. She said: Ted, I am a single mom. I have six 
little kids at home. My husband left me, and he is not paying child 
support. I am working five jobs, trying to keep my kids fed, trying to 
keep them with clothes on their backs. Barb had tears in her eyes.
  One of the most brutal consequences of ObamaCare is it has forced 
millions of Americans like Barb into part-time work because the 
threshold for ObamaCare is 30 hours a week.
  So instead of having one or two jobs, Barb and millions of other 
single moms are going from one job to another, to another, to another, 
and they are not spending the time with their kids. This is the brutal 
reality of the Obama minimum wage.
  But, Madam President, I am happy to tell you, there is a better 
alternative. The better alternative, I would note--far better than 
zero, far better than the promise of $10.10 an hour--is $46.98. Madam 
President, $46.98--that is the average hourly wage in the oil and gas 
industry in the State of North Dakota.
  Every one of us should want to see millions more jobs at $46.98 an 
hour, and we should want millions rescued from the Obama minimum wage 
of $0.00 an hour. That is the choice before this body--of expanding 
this American energy renaissance, creating opportunity.
  Let me tell you, in the State of Texas--Texas is an incredible 
example--there is a reason why 1,400 people a day are moving to Texas, 
moving from high-tax, high-regulation States, represented by many of 
our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. They are coming to 
Texas because Texas is where the jobs are and Texas is where the 
salaries are.
  Oil and gas industry jobs in Texas paid, on average, 150 percent more 
than other private sector jobs in Texas--$128,000 a year compared to 
$51,000 a year--in 2012.
  In the 23 counties atop the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, average 
wages for all citizens have grown by 14.6 percent annually since 2005.
  The top five counties in the Eagle Ford shale region have experienced 
an average 63-percent annual rate of wage growth.
  How many millions of Americans would love to see 63 percent annual 
wage growth?
  In Texas, the average pay for an entry-level truckdriver ranges from 
$36,000 to $45,000, but it rises to $50,000 to $70,000 in the oilfield. 
These are kids straight out of high school making $70,000 a year.
  As reported in an AP story from March 28, 2014: ``James LeBas, 
economist for the Texas Oil and Gas Association, said the industry 
directly employed 416,000 employees in 2013 and they averaged $120,000 
a year in wages.''
  As a separate nation, Texas right now would rank as the ninth largest 
oil-producing country in the world.
  Not only can energy development bring good-paying jobs, it can also 
help our children and schools. Cotulla, TX, was once one of the poorest 
districts in Texas, but now--because of the Eagle Ford shale energy 
development--it is one of the richest. The taxes that are coming from 
the energy development mean money for fixing schools, for hiring 
teachers, for paying them more,

[[Page 6418]]

and for purchasing technology in the classrooms.
  One thing that is striking is what has happened across the country. 
If you look, this is a map I have in the Chamber of changes in median 
household income by county from 2007 to 2012. Madam President, 2007 to 
2012 is a long time.
  On this map, green indicates that the median household income has 
gone up; yellow indicates no statistically significant change; and red 
indicates it has gone down.
  Overlaid on this map is an overlay of the geological shale formations 
in this country. What is striking about looking at median incomes in 
the United States is where median incomes have gone up. This is almost 
exactly a geological shale map of the United States.
  You can see median incomes have gone up up here in the Bakken shale 
in and around North Dakota. You can see the Permian Basin shale, the 
Eagle Ford shale, the Barnett shale. You can see the Marcellus shale. 
Green, green, green, green--median income going up--for everyone in the 
county median income going up where energy production is occurring.
  Now, strikingly, the Marcellus shale extends north to New York, and 
yet for the entire State of New York, you can see there is not a county 
in the State of New York where median income has gone up. Why? Well, 
one of the main reasons is the Democratic politicians in New York have 
prohibited developing those natural resources because they ban 
fracking.
  So in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanians apparently would like jobs, would 
like higher median incomes. They are seeing the benefits. But in New 
York, New Yorkers are not because Democratic politicians in New York 
have prohibited developing those resources.
  I would note that one of the most promising areas is the Monterey 
shale in California--abundant resources--and you would note, in the 
entire State of California there is not one green county. That is 
because California, likewise--even though they have those resources, 
the Democratic politicians there have concluded Californians do not 
want jobs, they do not want higher incomes, and they are going to 
prohibit developing their natural resources rather than providing for 
the very real suffering that is being caused.
  I would note, there is one striking exception from this pattern being 
largely a geological shale formation of this country, and that is the 
bright green on the map that is located right here where we are 
standing--the District of Columbia and the surrounding areas.
  Let me tell you, it is a good time to be in and around government. 
The lobbyists, the consultants, those who make money on the growing and 
growing and growing Federal Government spending and debt, are getting 
fatter and happier every day. You look at the rest of the country, and 
you see stagnation, you see median income falling.
  Rather than engaging in political games--driven by polling done by 
the Democratic Senatorial Committee on this minimum wage bill that, if 
passed, would only hurt low-income African-American and Hispanic 
teenagers--instead, we ought to come together with bipartisan unanimity 
to say: We will stand with the American people to bring millions of 
jobs. We will stand with the American people to raise median income. We 
will stand with the American people to make it easier for people who 
are struggling to achieve the American dream.
  Therefore, I have proposed an amendment to replace the text of S. 
2223, the minimum wage act, with the text of the American Energy 
Renaissance Act that I have introduced, S. 2170.
  We should all come together and vote on removing the government 
barriers, opening new Federal lands and resources, developing high-
paying, promising jobs that expand opportunity.
  In conclusion, let me say this debate comes down to two numbers. It 
is not a complicated debate. This debate comes down to two numbers. On 
my left, the real Obama minimum wage: $0.00 an hour. I am sorry to say, 
in this Democratic Senate, this Chamber is largely empty. There is no 
discussion of fundamental tax reform or regulatory reform, of removing 
the barriers that have caused the lowest labor force participation 
since 1978.
  Instead, we are debating a bill to increase unemployment. This 
minimum-wage bill--the nonpartisan CBO has told us more people would be 
paid $0.00 an hour under the bill before this Chamber. No wonder 
Congress's approval rating is 8, 10, 12 percent, when you take the 
greatest challenge facing Americans right now--the need for economic 
growth and jobs--and the U.S. Senate in Democratic control will not 
even talk about providing real relief there. No wonder people are 
disgusted with the U.S. Congress.
  You want to know what this debate is about? Compare $0.00 an hour to 
$46.98 an hour. I want to see millions of Americans making $40, $50, 
$60 an hour, providing for their kids, having a better future.
  As I travel this country, over and over again, men and women come up 
to me. They look me in the eyes and say: Ted, I am scared. I am scared 
that we are bankrupting this country. I am scared that my kids and 
grandkids are not going to have the future, the opportunity, the 
freedom we have been blessed to have.
  This U.S. Senate has an opportunity to address that. We should pass 
the American Energy Renaissance Act. We should stop making it harder 
for working Americans, but, instead, we should come together for jobs 
and economic growth.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________