Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 464, which was submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be

agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 465, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I understand that S. 2422, introduced earlier today by Senator Sanders, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Madam President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2014; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes; that at 11 a.m. the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

There will be four rollcall votes at 11 a.m. tomorrow on confirmation of three district judges and cloture on the Burwell nomination.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is considering H.R. 724, a bill to remove a redundant paperwork requirement whenever a customer buys a new car.

Every new vehicle must comply with the Clean Air Act when it is manufactured and H.R. 724 will not change this. H.R. 724 simply eliminates an out-of-date requirement that auto dealers provide a piece of paper to each customer to certify that a new car or truck complies with the Clean Air Act's emissions requirements. Information confirming that the vehicle complies with all applicable emission requirements is already available under the hood of the vehicle and on the EPA's website, so providing the certification on a piece of paper is redundant. In addition to removing an unnecessary requirement, H.R. 724 eliminates 15 million pieces of paper that would otherwise be handed out each year with every new vehicle sold.

The bill was authored by Representative Gary Peters and Representative Bob Latta and was passed by the House of Representatives on January 8 by a vote of 405-0. I was glad to lead the effort to pass this bill in the Senate. I thank Senator Boxer, who helped ensure timely consideration and unanimous passage of the bill by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I urge my fellow Senators to pass H.R. 724 so we can send this commonsense bill to the President to become law.

Madam President, I am here to talk about the future of our country and the future of our middle class, which I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply about as well.

A few years ago in Michigan something quite extraordinary happened. In 1914 a man named Henry Ford did

something that all his business friends said was crazy. He doubled the wages of his workers to $5 a day. The headlines at that time showed that those on Wall Street literally thought he was going to ruin the economy, and everyone said he was going to go under. It was the craziest thing they had ever seen.

Exactly the opposite happened. In fact, there were stories a month after he did this--by the way, tens of thousands of people showed up for these jobs. Around the plant there were newspaper interviews about how all the small businesses had seen their profits double and how they were hiring new people for the hotdog stand or the clothing entrepreneur who was selling shoes and suits, and so on. Small businesses said that it had been wonderful for them.

We all know what happened to Henry Ford. He went on to become one of the wealthiest men of his generation by doing the right thing and understanding that we all do better if everybody has a fair shot to make it and that he would do better as a business person if everybody had a shot. In fact, we are very proud, and we believe we started the middle class in Detroit, MI.

We celebrate success in this country. We also understand that we are all in this together--our family, our community, and our country. We can do great things by ourselves, but ultimately what makes us great as Americans is that we are connected and in it together. That is the idea on which America was built. Everybody contributes their fair share, and we give everybody a fair shot to work hard and get ahead in life.

Just like Henry Ford, we understand that the economy is not working-- our country is not as strong as it could be--unless it is working for everyone and not just the wealthy few.

In fact, Henry Ford showed that you can become very wealthy yourself by doing the right thing. We now have choices to make. Unfortunately, today a small number of incredibly rich people are doing the opposite of what Henry Ford did. They are literally trying to buy a government that works only for them at the expense of every other American.

The Supreme Court's outrageous Citizens United decision and other decisions that have followed have paved the way for multimillionaires to spend secret money on fake front groups and hundreds of millions of dollars on television and radio ads to twist the facts or just make things up so they can impose their own extreme views on our country.

I want to speak about the two people who are at the forefront of this effort and what their views mean for the people I represent in Michigan, the people in Wisconsin, and the future of middle class families all across America. The Koch brothers, two petrochemical magnates, are reportedly now worth over $100 billion. Last month, their fortune grew by $1.3 billion in just 1 day. How many average Americans would work a lifetime--added up together across the country--to try to reach the $1.3 billion they made in a day? They have built what the Washington Post called ``a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloak its donors'' in secrecy. This ``maze of groups'' raised $400 million in 2012.

Just last week we found out one of the groups, Americans for Prosperity, plans to spend $125 million in secret, undisclosed money in this year's election alone--$125 million on people who support their views of America.

One expert on taxes and political groups, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, said he had never seen anything like the network of Koch groups before. He said:

It is designed to make it opaque as to where the money is

coming from and where the money is going . . . It would only

be worth it if you were spending the kind of dollars the Koch

brothers are, because this was not cheap.

These are front groups that pose as senior citizen groups, environmental groups, and veterans groups. I could go on and on about all of the fake groups through which they are funneling money.

The Koch brothers may be able to hide their money and hide behind shadowy groups, but they can't hide their radical views from the American people. Let me be clear. It is not only me who is saying they are being radical. Charles Koch described his own views as ``radical.''

Senator Sanders recently spoke on the Senate floor about some of the Koch brothers' extreme anti-middle-class views. I want to thank him for shedding light on some ideas that I know the vast majority of Americans disagree with and many of us find frightening, frankly, for the future of our country.

We don't have to guess what these views are since David Koch ran for Vice President on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 and loudly trumpeted them for all to see. What did David Koch promise to do when he ran for the second-highest office in the country? He promised to end the ``fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system,'' which has lifted a generation of seniors out of poverty and given them dignity as they have moved on over the years.

He promised to abolish Medicare and Medicaid. By the way, the majority of Medicaid funds is used on low-income seniors in nursing homes. He promised to get rid of the post office. He didn't suggest that it be cut it back to 5 days a week, he wanted to get rid of it. I suppose you can deliver the mail yourself or go hire somebody from someplace to somehow deal with the mail. What about trying to get your Social Security check? I guess it doesn't matter. Since he thinks you should not get Social Security or Medicare, it doesn't matter if you get that check as a senior.

He proposed to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency--the agency that makes sure we have clean air to breathe and safe water we can drink. For those of us in the Great Lakes region, we have the blessing of being able to fish and boat and have the beauty of the Great Lakes.

He promised to end all programs for children and seniors, low-income veterans, and repeal all taxation--no funding for the police department, fire department, roads, military, and veterans.

We just heard Senator Cornyn--and I agree with him--talk about our veterans and the great concern we have with what is happening to our veterans. The people supporting our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the top two donors, said there should be no taxation and that we should get rid of the minimum wage. Remember how Henry Ford became one of the wealthiest men of his generation. He helped build the middle class by doubling their wages. By the way, if we were using Henry Ford's formula, the minimum wage would be close to $15 right now.

The Koch brothers don't want a minimum wage, Social Security or Medicare. They don't want help for anyone. They expect people to go out and earn $1.3 billion in a day and purchase whatever they need. Seniors, children, people with disabilities, including our veterans, would be left with no support, and, of course, no taxes for the Koch brothers and their big-shot friends.

This is truly a radical agenda. Here is the truly shocking part. The Koch brothers' agenda, which, again, Charles Koch himself proudly calls a ``radical'' agenda, is exactly the agenda we are seeing emerge from the Republican House of Representatives right now. Too many Members in our Senate Republican caucus want to privatize Social Security and gamble seniors' money away in the stock market. They want to eliminate Medicare as we know it. They passed the Ryan budget, which does that. They want to privatize the post office.

They passed a budget that guts efforts to help Americans in need or invest in the future of education and innovation. This is not what was said in 1980. This is what has passed and is being promoted right now, which is why they are putting so much money into the elections. Their agenda is being promoted right now, which they themselves call radical.

They refuse to join us in giving Americans a raise so that people who work 40 hours a week in a full-time job and make minimum wage--by the way, a majority of them are women who are raising children--are at least above poverty level and have a fair shot to get ahead.

We also don't have to guess how this radical, ``I've got mine and you're on your own'' Koch brothers agenda works in practice. We have seen how this plays out in Michigan.

In Gaylord, MI--beautiful northern Michigan--hundreds of workers used to work at a plant making particleboard--that is, until the Koch brothers bought their company, closed the plant, and left town. Instead of good-paying jobs that paid workers $15 to $20 an hour so they could with their family enjoy the great outdoors in Michigan and send their kids to college--jobs that gave workers a fair shot to get ahead--the Koch brothers left behind rubble and scrap metal. But that is not all the Koch brothers left behind.

Imagine you are outside with your family--or even inside your apartment or home--and suddenly you see a giant cloud of toxic black dust blowing towards you. It is piling up, and later you discover that this black dust includes a toxic metal that is believed to cause cancer. Imagine you own a restaurant and are forced to sweep up the same toxic dust from your patio, and you have to worry about what it is doing to your pregnant wife and unborn child. This is not something out of a Charles Dickens' novel or a story about the pollution in China today. This actually happened to the people in Detroit. Why? Because a company owned by the Koch brothers decided to illegally store piles of petcoke--a byproduct of refined, dirty tar sands oil--alongside the Detroit River. These piles were up to four stories high and piled up next to where people lived.

Just the other day I read a story about the exact same thing happening to people in Chicago. Another company owned by the Koch brothers is storing giant piles of petcoke in a residential area, which is something I know Senator Durbin is very concerned about. It doesn't stop there.

Last Wednesday, Senator Levin, Congressman Fred Upton from Kalamazoo, and I wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency about a toxic waste site in Kalamazoo, MI. We want to make sure it finally gets cleaned up. Guess who owns that toxic waste site and hasn't cleaned it up for years and years. That is right, the Koch brothers.

We have come together in this country and decided that it is not fair for the rest of us to have to breathe dirty air and drink dirty water so a multibillionaire can have an even bigger profit. The Koch brothers, however, whose companies have been fined numerous times, apparently think it is just fine to pollute our air and our water and then say to every American: You are on your own; you clean it up.

The New York Times reported this weekend that David Koch even ran ads calling for the complete deregulation of the energy industry. Can we believe it. A billionaire oilman who thinks there should be no rules for Big Oil at the expense of the public.

So whether it is clean air and clean water rules, whether it is Medicare, whether it is Social Security, funding for seniors in nursing homes through Medicaid, other vital services that keep the promise of the American dream within reach for every American, the Koch brothers want to get rid of those things in order to help themselves and their powerful friends. They want to rig the game in their favor. They are trying very hard to do that, with hundreds of millions of dollars of secret money and phony groups. They are willing to use their billions to create a government that works for them--just them and their friends. Heads they win; tails the rest of America loses.

That is not what this country is about. We need to stop this assault on our democracy and our middle class by passing a constitutional amendment to get this secret money out of our elections. That is why I am so proud to join in supporting and cosponsoring an amendment sponsored by Senator Tom Udall that so many of our caucus are supporting because we need to make it clear that this is not acceptable in a democracy. In the meantime, though, we need to make sure the American people understand the real agenda behind the front groups and the secret money. That is why I am here today. That is why our majority leader and others speak out. It is because it matters. It is the money promoting the agenda, the money promoting actions such as closing plants and petcoke going into the rivers in our neighborhoods.

It is an agenda that is not the agenda of the American people. In America, everyone deserves a fair shot to work hard and get ahead-- everybody. It is not about rigging the game for a few. People shouldn't be able to buy all the rules of the game by putting secret money and front groups out there and saying things that aren't true and getting people in there whom they know will just work for their own radical agenda. That is not what America is about. We have too many people barely holding on to the middle class, struggling to get into the middle class, and all they want is a fair shot to make it. That is what we are about. That is what we are fighting for every single day.

I see my colleague on the floor who is offering a constitutional amendment that would address this issue of getting the light of day on the money in politics in our great country. I wish to again, in his presence, commend Senator Udall for doing that, and I urge my colleagues to come together. What is happening right now with the money is the worst of America, not the best of America. We can do better than that. People expect us to do better than that. I am going to continue with my colleagues in the Democratic caucus to fight to make sure that happens.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that impacts tens of millions of people across

the country and hangs over our entire economy, and that is student debt.

Borrowers have accumulated over $1.2 trillion in student debt. Think about that for a minute. That is more than people owe on their credit cards. Talk about a drag for not only the individual, for their family, but for the entire economy.

Students in my home State of Michigan are among the most heavily indebted in the country when they graduate. Frankly, we want them to get degrees, not debt, when they graduate.

Nearly two-thirds of students in Michigan who graduated in 2012 had student loan debt, with each student averaging nearly $29,000. So they walk outside the door--congratulations--take off the cap and gown and get a $29,000 bill.

This growing mountain of debt represents a threat to our economy and to the dreams of millions of Americans.

Today too many people are saddled with decades of debt just because they want a fair shot to go to college and to get ahead in life.

Instead of saving for a house, buying a car or just buying gas or groceries, millions of people are simply paying student loan payments month after month, year after year, decade after decade.

I hear from many of my constituents about how they are being crushed by the burden of student debt. I have seen it in my own extended family. They write about having $50,000 or $100,000 of debt. If you are going to medical school, if you are in specialty areas as a grad student, they have $200,000 or more in debt.

Some of the reforms we have already put in place help some borrowers by limiting the payments on their Federal loans relative to their incomes. That is a good thing, but this is not enough, and it doesn't do anything to help people who have private loans--oftentimes on top of the loans through the Federal Government. Some of these private loans carry interest rates like credit cards and are literally driving people into bankruptcy.

I have constituents who use words such as ``crippling'' or ``catastrophic.'' They talk about anxiety attacks.

One person wrote that because of the high interest rates on his private loans, ``it is getting to the point where [he] cannot eat because of [his] student loan payments.''

Another constituent, Thomas, wrote to me that each of his three children has a combination of Federal and private loans totaling $75,000 to $110,000--each.

What Thomas wrote to me really sums up the student debt crisis we are facing and that families across the country are facing:

Loans are designed to give students a chance to go to

college and to obtain high-income jobs. Somehow the interest

they pay has become just another wound for college grads that

have a tough time finding jobs. . . . It will leave grads

with a high risk of default, not being able to pay for their

dreams and not being able to fund their retirement accounts

for many years.

That is crazy. That is just not right, and that is not how it should work in our country. That is certainly not what we think of when we think of striving for the American dream. Whether it is the Federal Government or the big banks, we should not be making a profit off the backs of students, and that is exactly what is happening.

That is why I am so proud to be fighting alongside Senator Warren and my other colleagues to address this very urgent and growing problem.

Senator Warren and I fought last year to stop students from getting stuck with a raw deal. Now we are back at it again this year, and we are going to keep fighting until we can solve this problem.

Horace Mann once called education ``the great equalizer'' in our society. Everyone who wants to work hard and go to college in order to simply have a fair shot in life should not be denied that opportunity.

It shouldn't be the great equalizer on debt. It has to be the great equalizer on opportunity.

These folks are willing to play by the rules, work hard, and pay back their loans on time. We have to make sure that the system isn't rigged against them.

The legislation we have introduced will not only help millions of Americans, it will also boost our economy by allowing borrowers to spend their money on a home, a car or just the needs of their families instead of interest payments. Nobody should have to put off getting married or starting a family just because of student loans.

We are not just talking only about young people, this bill helps students of all ages: students in their twenties, thirties, and beyond--young professionals and parents who have stepped up to help their children. In fact, the student loan debt has gotten so out of hand that senior citizens in the country owe tens of billions of dollars on student loans.

Our bill will help millions of responsible borrowers of all ages in every State across the country. The Bank On Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act is a reasonable commonsense and fiscally responsible way to address the student loan crisis.

This is simply about giving those who want to go to college a fair shot to get ahead, making sure that those who already borrowed to get an education are not being unfairly weighed down by debt just so the government or the big banks can turn a profit.

I thank Senator Warren for her leadership on this vital issue. This is about allowing all of those who currently have student loan debt to be able to refinance--to be able to refinance at a rate actually that was voted on, 3.68 percent, by colleagues on both sides 1 year ago. It is not a number that is picked out of the a hat. It will allow people to exchange an 11 percent or 12 percent on a private loan or a 6 percent, 7 percent or 8 percent interest rate on a public loan for something that is affordable, that will allow them to take those extra precious dollars, invest in their future, and the country's future.

That is what this is about. It is very simple, and it is paid for by what has been commonly called the Buffett rule, which basically says those who have benefited by the blessings of this country and those who are the wealthiest among us would contribute a little bit more to make sure that everybody has a fair shot at getting ahead.

We can't afford for America to be a big-shot economy. We have to make sure that everyone has a fair shot to make it. Nobody is asking for a handout; they are asking to work hard. They are asking to know that the system is not rigged against them.

They are asking to know that they are going to be able to go to college, get out of college, pay back their student loans at a reasonable, fair rate, buy a house, get married, have a career, have children, and go on to have the American dream. That is what this is about. This needs to get passed as quickly as possible so people know they are going to have the opportunity to get ahead in America.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this year marks the 40th anniversary of Gerald R. Ford taking the oath of office and becoming the 38th President of the United States. The Gerald R. Ford Museum in Grand Rapids, MI will be commemorating this significant anniversary throughout 2014 by highlighting the impact of his service to our country.

Gerald Ford took the oath of office on August 9, 1974, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam war, and President Nixon's resignation, a very tumultuous time in our Nation's history. He reflected this when he stated:

I assume the Presidency under extraordinary circumstances .

. . . This is an hour of history that troubles our minds and

hurts our hearts.

Although he was born in Omaha, NE, his family made Grand Rapids, MI, their home very soon after his birth. After high school, he attended the University of Michigan and played football for the Wolverines, earning the designation of Most Valuable Player. Choosing to attend law school instead of pursuing a professional football career, he completed his law degree at Yale University and then returned to Michigan, where he started a law practice.

After serving with the U.S. Navy during World War II, he returned to his home State where he became a partner in a Grand Rapids law firm and involved in the political scene. His experiences in the war led him to reject his previously isolationist leanings and adopt an outlook of internationalism. As a result, at the age of 35, he challenged the isolationist incumbent for Michigan's Fifth Congressional District in Congress and won.

He served his district, our State, and the Nation honorably. He was reelected 12 times, each with more than 60 percent of the vote. As a new Congressman, he quickly established a reputation for personal integrity, hard work, and the ability to deal effectively with both Republicans and Democrats, qualities that would define his entire political career. During his time in Congress, he was appointed to the Appropriations Committee and rose to prominence on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He was well respected by his colleagues and was a leader in the Republican Party, serving as the minority leader for 8 years.

After the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew, Ford was nominated by President Nixon and confirmed by Congress to fill the vacancy. Less than a year later, Nixon resigned and Ford became President, making him the first President who was not elected to either the Presidency or Vice Presidency.

As President, Gerald Ford was confronted with the challenges of dealing with inflation, reviving a depressed economy, solving chronic energy shortages, and trying to ensure world peace. He described himself as a moderate in domestic affairs, an internationalist in foreign affairs, and a conservative in fiscal policy. Respected for his integrity and openness, he worked to restore our country's trust and confidence in the Presidency.

One of his first acts as President was to pardon Richard Nixon before criminal charges were brought against him. Despite strong negative public reaction and political backlash, Ford maintained that this was the right thing to do for the good of the country, and history has borne this out. When the new President, Jimmy Carter, took the oath of office, President Carter summed up the sentiment expressed by many about Ford's Presidency by saying, ``For myself and for our Nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land.''

Gerald Ford and his wife Betty continued to be active in the political process after leaving office. We are proud that Gerald Ford was from Michigan and an important part of the Ford legacy lives on through the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library in Ann Arbor, MI, and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids.

I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing our 38th President and his outstanding contributions to our country on the 40th anniversary of his Presidency.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Madam President, I believe we are done with the voting at this point.

Madam President, I would like to talk for a moment about the critical importance to women and families across Michigan and the country of ending pay discrimination against women so women will finally get equal pay for equal work.

I was so proud to see so many colleagues on the floor earlier today, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, speaking about the importance of women being able to earn a full dollar instead of 77 cents on every dollar.

Part of giving everyone in this country a fair shot to get ahead is not only making sure they are getting paid a fair wage, which we are fighting to make sure happens, but also to make sure they are not getting paid less simply because of their gender. If somebody is working 40 hours a week, they ought to be paid the same for 40 hours a week if it is the same job. That is what the Paycheck Fairness Act is really all about. It gives everyone, regardless of their gender, the tools they need to help end gender discrimination in pay and hold those engaged in discriminatory behavior accountable. That is really what it is all about, and we will have a chance very soon to vote.

I hope we would all agree that discrimination because of gender or for any reason has no place in our society. Yet too many Americans rightly feel they are trapped in a rigged game where heads, the privileged and powerful win, and tails, everybody else loses.

When it comes to pay, we know the system is rigged against women. Today, in 2014, women still only make 77 cents for every dollar compared to a man doing exactly the same work. That is the national average. It is even worse in many places around the country. Frankly, it is even worse for women of color, with African-American women getting paid even less and Latinas doing worse still.

My colleagues and I have been speaking on the floor today not just because we are voting on the Paycheck Fairness Act tomorrow but also because today is what we are calling Equal Pay Day. April 8 is the day women finally catch up. When you look at all the work that was done during the whole calendar year of 2013, and then add January, February, and March through April 8, that is how long it has taken women to make the same income as a man in the same job who worked last year. A woman has to work 1 year, 3 months, and 8 days in order to earn the same amount as a man who has worked 1 year. That is just not right, and that is what this debate is all about.

Some people say we are just talking about pennies on the dollar and dismiss the issue as nonsense or worse. Those pennies add up--hour after hour, day after day, week after week, year after year.

In my home State of Michigan, pay discrimination robs the average working woman and her family of more than $13,000 in wages every single year--$13,000 out of their pocket just because they are a woman rather than a man in the same job. While these women are working for discounted wages, they certainly don't get a 23-percent discount on their gas. They don't pay 23 cents less on every dollar at the grocery store or when the rent or the mortgage comes due.

In fact, I have a chart to show what the average working woman and her family in Michigan could buy with the $13,000 a year she has worked hard every day to earn but never sees in her paycheck. She could buy just over 2 year's worth of food for her family. She could pay for almost a year on her mortgage and utility. Can you imagine that? Mortgage and utility payments go right out the window because she is not getting equal pay for equal work. She could buy almost 3,500 gallons of gasoline for her car. That is enough gas for me to drive back and forth from Detroit to Los Angeles more than 16

times. That is how much a woman loses in her pay every year because of discrimination and lack of equal pay for equal work. But gender discrimination is not just about numbers on a page. In fact, it is not about numbers on a page. It is about real women who are working hard, who have suffered and continue to suffer, because we have not given women and their families the tools they need to make sure they can get equal pay for equal work. That is what this is about: knowing what your coworkers in the workplace are making so you can find out whether you are being paid fairly--the information, the tools women need.

Let's be clear. Women aren't the only ones paying the price for wages lost and benefits denied. Gender discrimination in pay costs everybody in the family. The cost of gas is for everybody in the family. The cost of food is for everybody in the family. The inability to buy some extra sports equipment or clothing or pay for the cost of college affects everybody in the family. I hear far too many stories about this problem from my constituents in Michigan.

Linda from South Lyon wrote to tell me her story. Not only does she make less than her male counterparts, but a senior executive even bragged to her that he hires women because he can pay them less. This is 2014, and we have an executive who thinks it is OK to even say that.

Last week I met Kerri Sleeman, an engineer from Hancock, MI, who came to the Senate to testify about her story. I have to say, in Hancock, MI, we still have 20 feet of snow. This is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. One has to be tough to live in beautiful Hancock, MI, and have a lot of great winter clothing. But it is an absolutely gorgeous place.

Kerri was working for an auto parts supplier that was forced into bankruptcy in 2003. As with the company's other employees, she had to be involved in the bankruptcy process to get her last paycheck and the other wages she was owed. One day she received an update from the bankruptcy court about the claims against her former company and she made a shocking discovery: All of the men she had been supervising had been paid more than her--all of them. All of them. An engineer in Hancock, MI.

Kerri said: It was heartbreaking. It was embarrassing. It was infuriating. And it will affect me for the rest of my life.

Can my colleagues imagine it? First, she is out of a job. She has to go to court just to get her paycheck, and then, adding insult to injury, she finds out she has been discriminated against for years without even knowing it. Kerri lost out on thousands of dollars in pay and benefits simply because she is a woman. As is the case for most people, she could have used that money. She said she would have used it to help pay the copay for her husband's heart surgery, which instead she had to put on her credit card. Her story underscores why we need to pass this vital legislation before the Senate.

Kerri not only lost out on her pay at her job week after week, month after month, she will lose out on Social Security benefits for the rest of her life as well. This is not fair. It is not how things should work. Kerri deserves a fair shot, and she has not been given it.

We have heard other stories such as Kerri's before, and one of those was that of Lilly Ledbetter, who worked hard at a Goodyear tire plant and was discriminated against for nearly 20 years. She did not realize, again, that she was being paid less. Just as with Kerri, she will never get the Social Security benefits she would have earned if she hadn't been paid less for just being a woman. The law that bears her name--the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act--was a huge step in the right direction. But today more than 50 years after we passed the Equal Pay Act-- imagine, 50 years ago we thought we dealt with this; 50 years ago, the Equal Pay Act--and 5 years after we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we still have so much work to do to make sure women are actually receiving equal pay for equal work.

It was a great day when the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act became the very first bill President Barack Obama signed into law after he took office. I wish to thank the President for today signing two Executive orders that will help protect the employees of Federal contractors from pay discrimination. As the President has said, he doesn't want his daughters or anyone's daughters to be paid less just because they are women. I agree. I know the Presiding Officer does as well.

Now we must do our part here in the Senate to make sure all Americans have the tools they need to protect themselves from this form of discrimination and hold those responsible accountable.

This is not about special protections. In fact, I find any language-- any discussion of ``special protections''--so offensive, as I know women in Michigan and across the country do: somehow protections because we want to go to work and know we are being paid the same as the person next to us, who just happens to be a man, and we are women. This is simply about treating all Americans fairly. That is exactly what Democrats are committed to. We want to make sure everybody has a fair shot to get ahead. It has to start with equal pay for equal work. That means paying a fair wage, paying men and women what they earn, and it means if a woman works 40 hours a week, she should get paid for 40 hours a week, not for 30 hours or 31 hours.

The difference in pay simply because of gender discrimination really is the difference. That $13,000 I talked about earlier is the difference between whether a woman is able to fully benefit from her work and have what she needs to put food on the table and gas in the car and tuition for her son or daughter to be able to go to college, and all of the other things we want for our families.

What this chart shows just isn't good enough. We want the full dollar, because 77 cents on every dollar is not enough. If we truly reward work, it shouldn't matter if a person is a man or a woman. A person's work should be equally rewarded for the same jobs. It is time the Senate come together--and we are going to have a chance to do that--to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is right for women and their families. It is right for our economy. It is simply the right thing to do.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, first let me say that we should be congratulating everyone who has gotten us to a point where we are going to be able to help people who have been

working hard to find a job and still have not found a job to put food on the table for their families and pay their rent. To be able to allow them to receive emergency unemployment assistance is incredibly important. The votes we are doing here are very important to give people who want a job and need a job a fair shot to be able to survive until they can get a job.

The Minimum Wage

I also want to speak for just a moment, as so many of my colleagues have today, about what it means for women to have a pay raise through the minimum wage because the minimum wage is very much a women's issue, as you have heard, because a disproportionate number of folks who are earning the minimum wage are, in fact, women. And it is not college students; the average age is about 30, 35 years old.

This is a critical issue for Michigan families, including 416,000 women in Michigan who would directly benefit from raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and another 141,000 whose wages would also increase. This is not just about people earning the minimum wage; it is about lifting up wages, increasing purchasing power, and helping businesses large and small be able to get more customers because people can buy things because they have money in their pockets.

Let me repeat, in terms of the numbers for Michigan, 557,000 women in Michigan who are working hard and just want a fair shot--just a fair shot--to get ahead would benefit from the legislation the Senate will soon be voting on called the Minimum Wage Fairness Act.

Too many people, including far too many women, are simply trying to stay afloat, let alone get ahead. The minimum wage used to be worth more. Its value has eroded since it peaked back in 1968, and it is harder and harder for people to put food on the table and a roof over their family's heads.

Today, a single mom can clean houses and scrub floors for 40 hours a week--working hard--and still find that she earns less than the poverty level. There is something wrong with that. If you are going to work hard 40 hours a week, you ought to be able to lift your family out of poverty.

Work ought to be valued in this country. In fact, for a family of three, you are $4,000 below the poverty line if you are working for the minimum wage. It is just not right.

To add insult to injury, if you compare that to the average CEO's salary today, you could put 933 minimum-wage workers, 933 women working hard--and I would daresay maybe harder than the folks who are at the top as CEOs--trying to put food on the table for their kids, buy them cloths, make sure they can care for them, 933 minimum-wage workers combined equals the salary of the average CEO.

So I would urge that we come together and look at this as Henry Ford did 100 years ago in 1914 when he doubled the salary of his workers to $5 a day. He lifted them up. The small businesses around his plant saw increases in their business and hired more people because more people had money in their pockets. They could come in and buy the food and goods.

We are talking about people working hard, again, every single day-- moms who are cleaning hotel rooms and are on their feet all day; they are mopping floors, preparing food; they go home; they take care of their families. All they want is a fair shot to succeed and be able to make their lives and their children's lives better.

Let's have a strong, bipartisan vote on raising the minimum wage.

Mr. President, I come to speak about the economy in terms of wages, but I do want to respond to the last discussion in terms of health care for a moment. Part of the fair shot is to make sure they have a fair shot that they need for their families, and thank goodness, under the Affordable Care Act, now folks are going to get what they are paying for. They cannot just get dropped if they get sick or if their child has juvenile diabetes or they have heart disease or some other condition. They are going to be able to know they can get insurance without preexisting conditions.

But it is also going to be incredibly important moving forward for women. As the author of the provision to improve maternity care, I do want to say to my friend who just spoke that prior to health reform, about 60 percent of the plans in the private market wouldn't provide maternity care for women, amazingly. Being a woman was viewed as a preexisting condition because you might be of childbearing age or maybe you are not.

I remember hearing from one young couple where the husband couldn't get insurance because his wife was of childbearing age. They couldn't get maternity care. This is not true anymore--not true anymore. Thank goodness for the comprehensive care that our friends on the other side call regulations on insurance companies--and actually that regulation is a requirement--so that women can get maternity care, and there is a requirement that we treat mental health and physical health the same in terms of insurance, which by the way affects 1 out of 4 people in our country. I think that it is a good thing.

We can always improve on it, and we will, to make it better, listen to the concerns and do what needs to be done to make it work better. But I think that families now have a fair shot to get health care coverage and not as parents go to bed at night worrying about whether their kids are going to get sick. It is a good thing, and we will move forward in a positive way.

Mr. President, let me tell you now about a business owner who said the minimum wage wasn't good enough--wasn't good enough--and his employees needed more. So he doubled everybody's wages. He doubled everybody's wages, and people thought he was crazy. He was shunned by the business community. People said he would go bankrupt. His name was Henry Ford--Henry Ford. Because of his decision to pay his workers $5 a day, which was unheard of 100 years ago, he became one of the richest men in America.

When he first announced a $5 workday, not everybody was happy. Economists had a fit. Ford's competitors were furious. The Wall Street elite were calling the $5 day ``an economic crime.'' They said Ford wouldn't be competitive in the economy anymore. They questioned his judgment and his business sense.

They were wrong. His decision to pay his workers $5 a day not only was a brilliant business decision, it created the middle class of this country. We are very proud in Michigan that it started with us.

A hundred years ago $5 a day was a lot of money. A loaf of bread cost 6 cents. A gallon of milk cost about 35 cents. At 3 a.m., the day after Henry Ford made his announcement, a bitterly cold day in Detroit, something started to happen on Woodward Avenue.

Picture it. In the middle of a cold night--and we have a lot of cold nights in Michigan--people all around Detroit

at 3 o'clock in the morning began walking through the snow-covered streets to Woodward and Manchester, the site of Ford's Highland Park plant. A line was forming, getting longer every minute. Tens and then hundreds and then thousands of people were getting in line. Traffic came to a standstill. There were too many people in the road for the cars to get by.

The hours passed. The lines got longer. By 10 a.m. there were 12,000 people standing in line waiting in the freezing cold for the chance to get one of those jobs--one of those $5-a-day jobs that Henry Ford was offering, to be able to work hard, get that job, and build a better life. They were just looking for a fair shot to get ahead, like the millions of workers today who work 40 hours a week, such as the single mom who scrubs floors and works 40 hours a week and is still living in poverty, and the millions of other Americans still looking for work. Like most Americans and like those Ford workers 100 years ago, they just want a shot to work hard and play by the rules and be able to get ahead with their family.

Henry Ford knew that when his workers had money in their pocket, when they had enough money to put food on the table, when they were caught up on their bills, it meant they could afford to buy one of those cars they were building at the plant.

In fact, that is what he said when folks called him crazy. He said, ``I want to make sure I got somebody who can afford to buy my car.''

For families in 1914, a job in the Ford factory was a ticket to the middle class, and that is still true today. Henry Ford knew that paying a higher wage would mean happier workers and lower turnover, instead of workers who were frustrated about not being able to make ends meet. Henry Ford had workers who were proud to work for him. This meant greater productivity and greater profits because if the workers could make more cars he could sell more cars. If they could sell more cars, they could make more cars, so this was a win-win situation.

Henry Ford made more money than he had ever dreamed of, and his workers made more money than they had ever dreamed of. The effect this new wage had on Ford's employees went deeper than their wallets. In the first 3 weeks after the raise began, more than 50 of his employees applied for marriage licenses because they said they could now afford to get married and start a family. A lot of folks talk about the importance of starting a family. Having money in your pocket to be able to get started in life is a pretty big deal.

When the workers made enough money to live on, they were able to spread the wealth. Their local grocery stores, restaurants, and hardware stores and others also benefited from the increase in wages, which was reflected all around the neighborhood and the plant in 1914. A sandwich cart operator near the plant was interviewed about the new wages by the Detroit News in February of 1914, and he said: ``I'm for this raise in wages. I sell nearly twice as much as I did a month ago.'' Those who sold food and goods, such as hats, scarves, and gloves near the plant said the same thing. One vendor said that if things kept going like this, he would have to hire a new employee to help out with the new business.

It is simple: When workers have more money in their pockets, they have more money to spend at businesses both large and small. When businesses have more customers, they can pay their workers better and hire more of them. When the workers have more money in their pocket, they can go out and buy more things, and that is called the demand part of the economy.

Our colleagues are always talking about the supply side. They like to say: Let's just give it to the top and it will trickle down. Most people in Michigan are still holding their breath waiting for it to trickle down. We know if you put it in the pocket of workers--people who are, frankly, fighting to hold on to stay in the middle class or working to get into the middle class--you create the demand side of the economy.

As Henry Ford found out, things started turning. This kind of virtuous cycle that Henry Ford helped create in Michigan and in America 100 years ago is what we need to do today to restore our economy. We can't do that with a minimum wage that has lost most of its value in the past few decades.

Those Ford workers worked hard, saved their money, bought homes, built communities, and gave their children opportunities, such as being able to go to college. In Michigan, you can buy a little cottage up north where you can have a boat, a snowmobile, or be able to go out hunting on the weekends and enjoy life--that is the middle class.

Because of what was done by doubling people's wages--when everyone said Henry Ford was crazy--created the middle class of this country. But today everything the middle class worked for--what they built with their bare hands, elbow grease, and blood, sweat, and tears--is at risk. The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 for nearly 5 years. That single mom with two kids working for minimum wage today earns about $15,000 a year, which is $4,000 below the poverty line. That is not right, if you work 40 hours a week and make less than the poverty level. That is not how we built the middle class 100 years ago, and it is certainly not how we are going to grow it today.

Too many Americans rightly feel they are trapped in a rigged game where heads, the wealthy win, and tails, the rest of us lose. What we need is an economy that gives everybody a fair shot. That is what we are fighting for, that is what we believe in, and that is what we are promoting in everything we are doing. We want a fair shot and a fair economy for everybody--not a free shot but a fair shot for everybody who works hard. Being rewarded for your hard work is what makes this country great. You can take a good idea, you can work hard, you can build a better life, and that is the American dream.

Today there is less opportunity for people who do that, unfortunately. People need to have a chance to build something--to build a career, a company, and a future--or we will fall behind the rest of the world. They need a fair shot. They deserve a fair shot. The middle class we built over the last 100 years could cease to exist if we don't act together and understand what drives the economy.

To turn things around, we need to make sure people can get jobs that pay a fair wage just as we had 100 years ago. Let's talk about what that means. We can start by raising the minimum wage. What is appalling to me today is that the $5 a day Henry Ford paid his workers for 8 hours of work is the equivalent of $14.67 an hour. If we did what Henry Ford did 100 years ago by paying $5 to his employees to help drive the economy and create the middle class, employees today would have to be paid about $14.67 an hour.

Think about that for a minute. The millions of Americans across this country who are working today for a minimum wage are only making the equivalent of half of what Henry Ford paid his workers 100 years ago. Meanwhile, the average CEO in this country today now makes as much as the wages of 933 minimum wage workers combined. I could not fit quite that many people in here, but imagine 933 people--all working 40 hours a week, making minimum wage, and maybe working 2 or 3 jobs--combined equals the average salary of a CEO.

We are going to move this country and working-class people forward again if we understand that people need a fair shot to get ahead and we do something about it. That is why we are going to vote soon on the Fair Minimum Wage Act which does just what it says. It makes sure all of our workers are getting paid a fair wage. An hourly wage of $10.10-- not even as much as I was talking about with Henry Ford--is the right number because it gets people out of poverty. That is the number that gets people out of poverty.

Some places across the country are seeking a minimum wage hike that is higher than that, while too many States are stuck at $7.25 an hour, which is the national average. The bill before us in the Senate strikes the right balance by raising the minimum wage to the point where people are above the poverty line and have a fair shot to get ahead. If it made sense for Henry Ford in 1914, it makes sense for us today in 2014. The American people know this, and that is why raising the minimum wage enjoys broad bipartisan public support. If the public were voting, this would be done.

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents understand that it makes

sense, just as Henry Ford realized it 100 years ago. If families are making more money, it is better for everybody in the economy, and it is better for taxpayers. All of us, as taxpayers, know that higher salaries mean we are not spending so much money on food assistance. If we can get $10.10 an hour, we are saving money on SNAP and people will not need or qualify for food assistance anymore. That is the way to cut the food assistance budget the right way. We need to give people access to work that pays above poverty line. Give people a handhold on the ladder to opportunity.

This is about the future of our country. If we want to continue to be a world leader, we have to make sure everybody has a fair shot at a good education, to get a good job, start a business, and make enough money. When they can do that, they will be able to support their family.

Nobody who works 40 hours week should live in poverty. Yet that is exactly what is happening today. We can change that. We can do what Henry Ford did. This man became one of the wealthiest men in the world by lifting people up and giving them a fair shot with a fair wage. I hope that in a few days we will do that. The American people get it, and I hope we will too.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I am thrilled to be here today as the Senate gets ready to send a proposal that I have been working on for several years now to the President for signature. The proposal, which is based on my bill, the Excellence in Mental Health Act, will improve quality, expand access, and ensure greater coordination in the delivery of mental health services through community mental health providers, creating an important leap forward in ensuring mental health parity.

Specifically, this proposal establishes an eight-State demonstration program where the appropriate State agencies in the States that participate will certify that community mental health providers meet new high standards and offer a broad range of mental health services like 24-hour crisis psychiatric services. These services can then be adequately reimbursed under Medicaid just as Federally Qualified Community Health Centers are reimbursed for comprehensive primary care services.

Now, I was incredibly fortunate to work closely with several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this bill. But no one played a more important role than my friend from Missouri, Senator Blunt. Whether it was fighting on behalf of his constituents struggling with mental illness or working with our Republican colleagues in both the Senate and House to garner support, he was there every step of the way.

I would like to yield to my colleague from Missouri for a question. Specifically, I would like to hear what role he believes the community, meaning community behavioral health clinics, advocacy groups, and families with loved ones struggling with mental illness, will--and should play--in the development of this demonstration project.

I thank Senator Blunt for his thoughtful response and for his question. I could not agree with him more. From the earliest iterations of our bill and through our conversion to a demonstration project, we have fought to make sure that this is a ground-up approach where the local communities, advocates, and patients work with the appropriate State agencies to explain what the needs are and where the needs are, and then to have these groups come together to construct a State-specific approach to providing for those needs.

What our demonstration project does not intend to do is to create a top-down approach where States draft proposals without comprehensive input from local communities to create a partnership with community mental health clinics, federally qualified health clinics, and VA outpatient centers, nor does our approach intend to permit State legislatures to put obstacles in the way of communities receiving the care and services they know they need. That type of approach simply adds more bureaucracy between patients and the care they need. If we are to achieve the true aim of our demonstration project, it is simply critical that communities be intimately involved in the planning and application process.

Which leads me to my final question for my friend. Our proposal lays out a demonstration project that happens in phases. First, no later than September 1, 2015, Health and Human Services must publish criteria for a clinic to be certified as a community behavior health center and it must issue regulations describing how the program will work for States selected to participate. Then, no later than January 1, 2016, planning grants will be issued to States interested in exploring participation in the demonstration project. States are selected for participation in the program no later than September 1, 2017. Finally, the recommendations are due to Congress no later than December 31, 2021. The theme here is ``no later than.''

I ask the Senator, should we encourage--even expect--the administration to move more swiftly than the timeframe allotted?

I completely agree. People are suffering now. Families are suffering now. While we understand that the administration needs time to implement this demonstration project in a sound and effective way, we are in absolute agreement that the expectation is that the administration will work expeditiously to ensure that actions are taken well in advance of deadlines.

I thank the Senator for his tireless work on behalf of Missourians and all Americans suffering with mental illness. I thank him for fighting beside me to get us here today. I know we would not have crossed the finish line without his efforts and for that I am grateful.