Floor Statements

The vote was 53 in favor and 40 opposed.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Murray on the floor to stand up for America's women because it is time for a tough conversation about the economics of being a woman. I applaud her leadership, and I am very pleased she is bringing the women of the Senate to the floor today.

Women are working hard, earning their own way, and supporting their families, but they are not getting the same pay, the same security or the same respect. Take a look at the minimum wage. Two out of every three minimum wage workers are women. Women make up about three- quarters of all tipped minimum wage workers. A woman who works minimum wage can work full time and yet she will not earn enough to keep herself and a baby out of poverty. Minimum wage workers have not received a wage increase in 7 years. This is bad for women and it does not reflect America's value. CEOs got raises, managers got raises, but the women who cook and clean and care for our children are still stuck at the same $7.25 an hour they earned 7 years ago.

We could change this. If Congress would pass a bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, more than 15 million women and their families would have more economic security, but Republicans have blocked this bill. They say they care about women, but they will not help the women who earn minimum wage or consider equal pay for equal work. I cannot believe I am saying this in 2014, but women still earn, on average, only 77 cents to the dollar what their male colleagues earn. Bloomberg analyzed the census data to find that in 99.6 percent of jobs, women get paid less than men. That is not an accident. That is discrimination.

Today, if a woman wonders if she is being paid the same as the guys are getting, she can, in some jobs, get fired just for asking. This is bad for women and it does not reflect America's values. We could change this by passing Senator Barb Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, a law that would make sure women do not get fired just for asking what the guy down the hall is getting paid, but Republicans have blocked this bill. They say they care about women but will not help the women who do the same work as a man but get paid less.

Consider health care. Before the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, some insurance companies charged women higher premiums simply because they were women. Some insurance policies refused to cover preventive services for women such as mammograms and cervical cancer screenings. Pregnancy costs could be excluded and birth control coverage could be left out. In other words, affordable women's health care took a backseat to the profits of insurance companies.

But now we have the Affordable Care Act; women pay the same insurance rates as men. We have the Affordable Care Act; women get free coverage for mammograms and birth control. We have the Affordable Care Act; women can worry a little less about whether health problems will land them in bankruptcy.

Where are the Republicans? They want to repeal ObamaCare. The House has now voted more than 50 times to repeal ObamaCare. The Senate Republicans have come to the floor day after day to demand that ObamaCare be done away with. The Republicans say they care about women, but they will not help women pay for health care or get the full medical coverage they need at a price they can afford.

Women are working hard earning their own way and supporting their families. They are entitled to the same pay, the same security, and the same respect as men. Policies such as these--minimum wage, equal pay, and the Affordable Care Act--provide a measure of equality, better security, and some basic respect. Republicans want to block or repeal all three. Women are not asking for special deals. They just want a fair shot at building lives for themselves and their families.

The women of the Senate, the Democratic women of the Senate, are ready to fight the Republicans to make sure women across this country have their fair shot.

I thank Senator Murray for her leadership in fighting for real economic equality for women.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier today the Senate confirmed Indira Talwani to fill a judicial vacancy on the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Ms. Talwani's nomination came after she was recommended to me for this position by the Advisory Committee on Massachusetts Judicial Nominations. The Advisory Committee is comprised of distinguished members of the Massachusetts legal community, including prominent academics and litigators, and is chaired by former Massachusetts district court judge Nancy Gertner. The Advisory Committee's recommendation reflects the strength of Ms. Talwani's resume, the exceptionally warm reviews she received from those who have worked with her, and the firm conviction of the Massachusetts legal community that she will make an excellent district court judge.

Indira Talwani is the daughter of immigrants from India and Germany. She graduated with honors from Harvard University, and was later named Order of the Coif at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. Immediately after law school, Ms. Talwani spent 1 year serving as a law clerk to Judge Stanley A. Weigel on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, building practical experience that will serve her well as a district court judge. She subsequently worked for several years as an associate and later as a partner at the firm Altschuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon & Rubin in San Francisco, before moving in 1999 to join Segal Roitman, LLP in Boston, where she is currently a partner.

Ms. Talwani has an impressive track record as a litigator, having represented clients in matters before the Massachusetts State trial courts and appeals courts, as well as the district court to which she has been nominated, the Federal Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition to her broad credentials and wide litigation experience, Ms. Talwani has developed particular expertise in legal issues that relate to employment. She is the associate editor of a treatise on the Family and Medical Leave Act compiled by the American Bar Association. Her work representing an investment advisor whistleblower who was allegedly retaliated against for reporting accounting irregularities to her supervisor earned her the distinction of being named one of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly's Top 10 Lawyers for 2010, and she recently won a victory in that case on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ms. Talwani is also committed to public service, providing pro bono representation to indigent clients. She has worked with Greater Boston Legal Services to ensure that low income clients have access to counsel.

Ms. Talwani's nomination is strongly supported by the Asian American Lawyers Association of Massachusetts. Asian Americans are a fast- growing segment of our State's population, and that growth is reflected in our State bench--which currently has 10 Asian American judges. Remarkably, when confirmed, Ms. Talwani will be the first

individual of Asian descent to serve on the Federal bench in Massachusetts.

Indira Talwani is a first-rate litigator with impressive credentials. Her unique professional and personal background will bring important perspective to the Federal bench in Massachusetts. I am proud to have recommended her to President Obama, and I have no doubt that she will have a long and distinguished career on as a member of the judiciary.

The Senator got an A.

I thank the Senator from Illinois.

It starts with the premise right where the Senator was, and that is the Federal Government, once upon a time, lent money to our students. My colleague remembers the NDEA loans that went out at 3 percent. The Federal Government was subsidizing those loans, making it easier for students to be able to borrow.

Where we have ended up today is that instead of there, we have students with outstanding student loan debt at 6 percent, at 7 percent, at 8 percent, at 9 percent, and even higher. So this isn't just to cover the cost of the loans. This is double, in some cases, what it takes, triple, in some cases, what it takes to cover the cost of the loans. That means the administrative costs, the bad debt costs--the costs of borrowing the money.

So last summer, we were looking at new student loans that were coming through--the interest rates were about to double--and Congress, Democrats and Republicans, said if the interest rate doubles up to 7 percent, that is too high. So Congress said that for all new borrowers in 2013, the interest rate would be 3.86 percent on undergraduate loans, 5.41 percent on graduate loans, and 6.41 percent for PLUS loans. Make no mistake, the government still makes money--not a lot but the government still makes money on those loans.

What we propose is to take all of the outstanding student loan debt and refinance it at those interest rates--exactly the same rates that virtually every Republican agreed to last summer, many Democrats agreed to last summer, and to say we are going to finance it down. So kids who are trapped in loans at 8 percent, at 9 percent, and even higher will be able to get these lower interest rates on their loans. It will save some people hundreds of dollars a year, it will save some thousands of dollars a year.

We propose to pay for that by enacting the Buffet rule--closing some tax loopholes on millionaires and billionaires--so we can bring down the interest rate for our students.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York and all of my colleagues who have been here.

Forty million borrowers in this country have student loan debt. Student loan debt is exploding, and it threatens the financial stability of our young people and the financial stability of this country.

I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues here tonight talking about this problem because, make no mistake, this is an emergency. Outstanding student loans now total more than $1.2 trillion, and millions of young people are struggling to keep up with their payments.

It doesn't have to be this way. Congress set artificially high interest rates on old student loans which generate extra money for the government. The GAO recently projected that the government will bring in $66 billion on just the slice of student loans issued between 2007 and 2012. Those are the kinds of profits that would make a Fortune 500 CEO proud.

These young people didn't go to the mall and run up charges on a credit card. They worked hard and they learned new skills that will benefit this country and help us build a stronger America. They deserve a fair shot at an affordable education, and we can give them immediate relief by cutting the interest rate on existing student loans. We should cut those interest rates and cut those government profits.

Yesterday I joined with 27 of my colleagues to introduce the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which will do just that. The idea is simple. With interest rates near historic lows, businesses, homeowners, and even local governments have refinanced their debts. But a graduate who took out an unsubsidized loan before July 1 of last year is locked in to an interest rate of nearly 7 percent. Older loans run 8 percent, 9 percent, and even higher. We need to bring those rates down, and we need to do it now.

Bank on Students would allow student loan borrowers the opportunity to lower their interest rates on old loans to match the rates the government offers to new borrowers--3.86 percent on undergraduate loans, 5.41 percent for graduate loans, and 6.41 percent for PLUS loans.

I wish to be clear. These rates are still higher than what it costs the government to run its student loan program. Our work will not be done until we have eliminated all of the Federal profits on these loans. But this legislation is an important step in that direction, and it is a step both Republicans and Democrats should support.

Last year nearly every Republican in Congress--in the House and the Senate--voted for the exact same loan rates in this legislation. If Republicans believe that 3.86 percent is good enough for new undergraduate borrowers, then

it should be good enough for all existing undergraduate borrowers. There is no reason on Earth to say some kids can get a better deal than others when they all worked hard to do exactly what we wanted them to do--get an education.

This legislation won't add a single dime to our deficit. The Bank on Students legislation adopts the Buffett rule, which limits tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. Every dollar we bring in as a result of that change will go directly to supporting lower interest rates on existing student loans.

We only introduced this bill yesterday, but we are already getting a great response. Think tanks such as Demos, student groups such as Young Invincibles, teacher groups such as the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have all come forward and endorsed this proposal. Letters and emails and phone calls are already pouring in. I am also encouraged by the fact that some Republicans have also come forward to say they are open to considering a refinancing proposal.

I want to be clear. This should not be a partisan issue. I am eager to work with any of my colleagues who believe we need to do something about the growing student debt crisis. If the Republicans have issues with this proposal, if they want to suggest different offsets or policy changes, they should bring their ideas forward. What we can't do is continue to ignore this problem and hope it will go away on its own.

Congress made this mess by setting artificially high interest rates that are crushing our kids. It is Congress's responsibility to clean it up.

I don't kid myself. Refinancing will not fix everything broken in the higher education system. But the need for comprehensive reform must not blind us to the urgency of addressing the massive debt that is already crushing our young people.

This is personal for me. I grew up in an America that made it a priority to invest in its young people and the opportunity to go to college. An affordable college and affordable loans opened a million doors for me. I will keep fighting to make sure every kid who works hard and plays by the rules gets a fair shot.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to announce the introduction of emergency legislation to provide relief to students and young graduates who are drowning in debt. Make no mistake. This is an emergency. Student loan debt is exploding, and it threatens the stability of our young people and the future of our economy.

Outstanding student loan debt now totals $1.2 trillion, and each year students are taking on more and more debt. In 2012 an astonishing 71 percent of college seniors owed student loans. From 2004 to 2012 the average student loan balance increased by 70 percent. Millions of young people are struggling to keep up with student loan payments.

The economic impact is real. Federal watchdog agencies such as the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Consumer Protection Bureau are all sounding the alarm. Every day this exploding debt stops more and more young people from moving out of their parents' homes, from saving for a downpayment, from buying a home, from buying cars, from starting small businesses, from saving for retirement, from making the purchases that keep this economy moving forward.

It doesn't have to be this way. Congress set interest rates on student loans at artificially high rates that generate extra money for the government. The GAO recently projected that the government will bring in $66 billion just on the slice of student loans from 2007 to 2012. Those are the kinds of profits that would make a Fortune 500 CEO proud.

We should cut those interest rates and we should cut those government profits. We should give our young people a break and boost our economy. This morning two dozens Senators joined to introduce the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act which will do just that. The idea is simple. With interest rates near historic lows, homeowners, businesses, and even local governments have refinanced their debts, but many people who took out student loans before July 1 of last year are locked into a rate of nearly 7 percent. Older loans run 8 percent, 9 percent, and even higher. We need to bring those rates down, and we need to do it now.

Bank on Students would give student loan borrowers the opportunity to lower their interest rates on old loans to match the rates the government offers to new borrowers today; that is, 3.86 percent for undergraduate loans, 5.41 percent for graduate loans, and 6.41 percent for PLUS loans. I want to be clear--those rates are still higher than what it costs the government to run its student loan program. Our work will not be done until we have eliminated all of the profits from the student loan program, but this legislation is an important step in that direction.

Forty million borrowers in this country have student loan debt, and many of those individuals could save hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year with this bill. They need this help now.

Last year nearly every Republican in Congress--in the House and in the Senate--voted for the exact same loan rates that are in this legislation. Republican leaders, such as Speaker of the House John Boehner, embraced 3.86 percent for new undergraduate borrowers as ``consistent'' with Republican policy proposals. OK, it may not be my preferred rate, but if Republicans believe that 3.86 percent is good enough for new undergraduate borrowers, then it should be good enough for existing undergraduate borrowers who also worked hard to get an education and need to refinance their loans. Let's bring down this rate for all our kids because there is no reason on Earth to say that some kids can get a better deal when they all worked hard to do exactly what we wanted them to do--get an education.

This legislation won't add a single dime to our deficit. The Bank on Students legislation adopts the Buffett rule, which limits tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, and it requires that every dollar we bring in as a result of that change go directly to supporting lower interest rates on existing student loans. It is simple: Invest in billionaires or invest in students.

Refinancing won't fix everything that is broken in our higher education system. We need to bring down the cost of college and we need more accountability for how schools spend Federal dollars. Many of my Democratic colleagues have introduced or are introducing legislation aimed at lowering the overall cost of college, and I support those efforts.

The need for comprehensive reform must not blind us to the urgency of addressing the massive debt that is already crushing young people. This is a question of economics, but it is also a question of values. These young people are saddled with student loan debt not because they went to the mall and ran up charges on a credit card. They worked hard and learned new skills that would benefit the country and help us build a stronger America. They deserve a fair shot at an affordable education.

This is personal for me. I was the first person in my family to graduate from college. I went to a commuter college where the tuition was $50 a semester, and it opened a million doors

for me. I got a fair shot because I grew up in an America that made it a priority to invest in young people.

I believe in an America that puts students ahead of billionaires, an America that puts education within reach of every kid who works hard, an America that will give every kid a fair shot at building a future.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to announce the introduction of emergency legislation to provide relief to students and young graduates who are drowning in debt. Make no mistake. This is an emergency. Student loan debt is exploding, and it threatens the stability of our young people and the future of our economy.

Outstanding student loan debt now totals $1.2 trillion, and each year students are taking on more and more debt. In 2012 an astonishing 71 percent of college seniors owed student loans. From 2004 to 2012 the average student loan balance increased by 70 percent. Millions of young people are struggling to keep up with student loan payments.

The economic impact is real. Federal watchdog agencies such as the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Consumer Protection Bureau are all sounding the alarm. Every day this exploding debt stops more and more young people from moving out of their parents' homes, from saving for a downpayment, from buying a home, from buying cars, from starting small businesses, from saving for retirement, from making the purchases that keep this economy moving forward.

It doesn't have to be this way. Congress set interest rates on student loans at artificially high rates that generate extra money for the government. The GAO recently projected that the government will bring in $66 billion just on the slice of student loans from 2007 to 2012. Those are the kinds of profits that would make a Fortune 500 CEO proud.

We should cut those interest rates and we should cut those government profits. We should give our young people a break and boost our economy. This morning two dozens Senators joined to introduce the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act which will do just that. The idea is simple. With interest rates near historic lows, homeowners, businesses, and even local governments have refinanced their debts, but many people who took out student loans before July 1 of last year are locked into a rate of nearly 7 percent. Older loans run 8 percent, 9 percent, and even higher. We need to bring those rates down, and we need to do it now.

Bank on Students would give student loan borrowers the opportunity to lower their interest rates on old loans to match the rates the government offers to new borrowers today; that is, 3.86 percent for undergraduate loans, 5.41 percent for graduate loans, and 6.41 percent for PLUS loans. I want to be clear--those rates are still higher than what it costs the government to run its student loan program. Our work will not be done until we have eliminated all of the profits from the student loan program, but this legislation is an important step in that direction.

Forty million borrowers in this country have student loan debt, and many of those individuals could save hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year with this bill. They need this help now.

Last year nearly every Republican in Congress--in the House and in the Senate--voted for the exact same loan rates that are in this legislation. Republican leaders, such as Speaker of the House John Boehner, embraced 3.86 percent for new undergraduate borrowers as ``consistent'' with Republican policy proposals. OK, it may not be my preferred rate, but if Republicans believe that 3.86 percent is good enough for new undergraduate borrowers, then it should be good enough for existing undergraduate borrowers who also worked hard to get an education and need to refinance their loans. Let's bring down this rate for all our kids because there is no reason on Earth to say that some kids can get a better deal when they all worked hard to do exactly what we wanted them to do--get an education.

This legislation won't add a single dime to our deficit. The Bank on Students legislation adopts the Buffett rule, which limits tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, and it requires that every dollar we bring in as a result of that change go directly to supporting lower interest rates on existing student loans. It is simple: Invest in billionaires or invest in students.

Refinancing won't fix everything that is broken in our higher education system. We need to bring down the cost of college and we need more accountability for how schools spend Federal dollars. Many of my Democratic colleagues have introduced or are introducing legislation aimed at lowering the overall cost of college, and I support those efforts.

The need for comprehensive reform must not blind us to the urgency of addressing the massive debt that is already crushing young people. This is a question of economics, but it is also a question of values. These young people are saddled with student loan debt not because they went to the mall and ran up charges on a credit card. They worked hard and learned new skills that would benefit the country and help us build a stronger America. They deserve a fair shot at an affordable education.

This is personal for me. I was the first person in my family to graduate from college. I went to a commuter college where the tuition was $50 a semester, and it opened a million doors

for me. I got a fair shot because I grew up in an America that made it a priority to invest in young people.

I believe in an America that puts students ahead of billionaires, an America that puts education within reach of every kid who works hard, an America that will give every kid a fair shot at building a future.

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

Mr. President, it has been 7 years since Congress increased the minimum wage, 7 years since Congress stood up for our working families, 7 years since Congress gave America a raise.

Earlier today the Senate had a chance to do something about that when we voted on whether to increase the minimum wage. Earlier today we had a chance to give a raise to the parents of at least 14 million children, a chance to lift nearly 1 million full-time workers out of poverty. A majority of Senators tried to do that today. Fifty-five Senators supported raising the minimum wage, but Republicans filibustered the bill, so it didn't pass. This is outrageous.

For nearly half a century, as we came out of the Great Depression, the people of this country lived by the basic principle that we all do better when we work together and build opportunities for everyone. For nearly

half a century, as our country got richer, our people got richer, and as our people got richer, our country got richer. The basic idea was that as the pie gets bigger, we all get a little more--even those who only make the minimum wage.

I know this story because it is my story. Like a lot of folks, I grew up in a family who had ups and downs. When I was 12, my daddy had a heart attack and was out of work for a long time. The bills piled up. We lost our car, and we were right on the edge of losing our home. My mom was 50 years old when she pulled on her best dress and walked to the Sears to get a job. It paid minimum wage, but back then a minimum wage job was enough to keep a family of three above water, and that is how it was for us. That is one of the ways our country built and protected America's great middle class. But that is not how it works anymore.

In 1968 the minimum wage was high enough to keep a working parent with a family of three out of poverty. In 1980 the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a working parent with a family of two out of poverty. Today the minimum wage is not even enough to keep a fully employed mother and a baby out of poverty.

Something is fundamentally wrong when millions of Americans can work full time and still live in poverty, and something is fundamentally wrong when big companies can get away with paying poverty-level wages and then stick taxpayers with the cost when their full-time workers end up on food stamps and Medicaid.

I understand that some big businesses might like to keep things the way they are, but I really don't understand this Republican filibuster. There is nothing conservative about leaving millions of working people in poverty. There is nothing conservative about expanding enrollment in government-assistance programs. There is nothing conservative about preserving a sweetheart deal for companies that would rather milk the taxpayers for more corporate welfare than compete on a level playing field.

I am disappointed about what happened today, but I am also hopeful. A majority of the Senate--Democrats in the Senate--voted to honor work, to honor the people who get up every day and bust their tails to try to build a better life for themselves and their children. This is an uphill fight, but it is not over yet. It took us 4 months and many Republican filibusters before we finally convinced a handful of our Republican colleagues to support an extension of emergency unemployment benefits, but we passed that bill in the Senate, and we will pass this bill too, because after 7 years, with millions of our working families struggling to get by, with millions of children depending on a mom or dad who works long hours for low pay, it is long past time to increase the minimum wage.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, 1 year ago I rose to speak in this Chamber. I rose with a heart heavy with mourning and yet filled with gratitude because 1 year ago cowards set off bombs at our beloved Boston Marathon, trying to terrorize our city, but Boston responded with courage and community.

Today I rise with a heart filled with the spirit of healing and restoration to commemorate the anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing and celebrate the strength and character of the people of Boston.

One year ago terror knocked on Boston's door. It was not just the momentary terror of smoke and sound but the terror of uncertainty and speculation, the terror of siege and lockdown. Such terrors can break a people's spirit. They seek to do no less. But Boston was fearless.

Our first responders, our protectors and investigators, our heroes, our citizen heroes, our families, our friends, and our neighbors--we did not waiver. In that moment when all the world had its eyes upon us, we responded with a cry of defiance, not of fear.

Scripture says: ``Be brave, be strong. Let all that you do be done with love.'' In the last year we have seen what bravery and strength and love can do.

Friends and family, classmates and teachers have come together to keep alive the memories of Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Martin Richards, and Sean Collier, and to celebrate their lives and to promise they will live on in our hearts.

Investigators and prosecutors have pursued justice, impartial and fair but with righteous conviction and an unwavering sense of purpose.

Healers and neighbors, friends and family have restored life and energy to those who thought it lost and in doing so have felt their own spirits lift.

Inventors and doctors have returned a ballroom dancer to the dance floor and helped children run and play, focused not on what they have lost but on what they can do next.

Families have rejoiced with graduations and birthdays, weddings and children, with the sweetest and most hopeful moments of life.

In the last year we have found that when we are united as one community, bravery and strength and love can heal the body and restore the spirit.

One hundred years after the original Patriots' Day of 1775, an orator celebrating the anniversary of the first battles of the Revolutionary War told the people of Massachusetts that ``our common liberty is consecrated by a common sorrow.'' From time to time, as a community and as a country we are reminded of this wisdom, through the awful grace of God. Our common tragedies and sufferings unite us as one people, and that unity brings with it strength and courage and ultimately renews our commitment to liberty.

Now, with the strength of One Boston still with us, we look ahead to justice that has yet to be served, to healing that remains to be done, to a future of achievements, of celebrations, and of memories.

May God bless those we have lost. May He inspire those who survived to carry forward. May He keep our community united in bravery and strength and love. And may He always watch over the people of Boston, of Massachusetts, and of the United States of America.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on April 4, 2014, I was unavoidably absent from the following votes as a result of memorial events related to the tragic deaths of Lieutenant Eddie Walsh and Firefighter Mike Kennedy in Boston on March 26, 2014--rollcall votes No. 97 and 98. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on vote No. 97, on the motion to table Reid Amendment No. 2878 to H.R. 3979; and ``yes'' on vote No. 98, on the motion to table the appeal of the appeal of the ruling of the chair that a third degree amendment was not in order.

Madam President, I thank Senator Mikulski for her incredible leadership on this issue.

I come to the floor today in support of equal pay for equal work. I honestly cannot believe we are still arguing over equal pay in 2014. Congress first moved to solve this problem more than 50 years ago when the Equal Pay Act was signed into law.

In 1963 women were earning 59 cents on the dollar for every dollar earned by a man. Today women earn only 77 cents on the dollar compared to what a man earns.

Women are taking a hit in nearly every occupation. Bloomberg analyzed census data and found that median earnings for women were lower than those for men in 264 out of 265 major occupational categories. In 99.6 percent of all occupations, men get paid more than women--99.6 percent. That is not an accident; that is discrimination.

The effects of this discrimination are real and they are long lasting. Women, for example, borrow roughly the same amount of money as men to pay for college, but according to the American Association of University Women, these women make only 82 cents on the dollar compared with men 1 year after graduating. So women take out the same loans to go to college, but they face an even steeper road to repay those loans.

Unequal pay also means a tougher retirement. The average woman in Massachusetts who collects Social Security will receive about $3,000 less each year than a similarly situated man because the benefits are tied to how much people earn while they are working.

This is a problem--a big problem--and women are fed up. Fifty years and a woman still cannot earn the same as a man for doing the same work. Women are ready to fix it, but it is not easy.

Today some women can be fired just for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes. Earlier today the President issued Executive orders to stop Federal contractors from retaliating against women who ask about their pay and to instruct the Department of Labor to collect better data for the gender pay gap. Good for him, and good for women working for contractors. Now the Congress should extend these protections to all women.

The Senate will soon vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is a commonsense proposal: No discrimination and no retaliation when women ask how much the guys are getting paid. We will get basic data to tell us how much men and women are getting paid for key jobs.

So there it is. It is basic protection, basic information--a fair shot. That is essentially what this bill does.

Sure, sometimes men are paid more than women. Employers can pay different salaries based on factors such as skill, performance, expertise, seniority, and so forth. The Paycheck Fairness Act does not touch any of that. It simply provides the tools that women need to make sure salary differences have something to do with the actual job they are doing and not just the fact that they are women.

Several States have already adopted similar rules. Businesses in these States continue to thrive without any explosion of lawsuits. This bill is about good business, a level playing field for men and women, an equal chance to get the job done, a fair shot for all of us.

America's women are tired of hearing that pay inequality is not real. We are tired of hearing that somehow it is our fault. We are ready to fight back against pay discrimination.

I thank Senator Mikulski and all of my colleagues who are speaking on the floor today for their leadership on this important proposal. I urge the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen America's middle-class families and to level the playing field for hard-working women.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has taken us 4 months, but we are finally on the verge of passing a long-overdue emergency extension of unemployment benefits. So I come to the floor this afternoon to urge my colleagues to continue supporting America's working families by raising the minimum wage.

Over the past 50 years the value of the minimum wage has sharply declined. In 1968 the minimum wage was high enough to keep a working parent with a family of three out of poverty. In 1980 the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a working parent with a family of two out of poverty. Today the minimum wage isn't even high enough to keep a fully employed mother and a baby out of poverty. This is fundamentally wrong. Anyone who works full time should not live in poverty.

For nearly half a century, as we came out of the Great Depression, we lived by the basic principle that we all do better when we work together and build opportunities for everyone. For nearly half a century, as our country got richer our workers got richer, and as our workers got richer our country got richer. As the pie got bigger, we all got a little bit more. That is how it was, and that is how we built America's great middle class.

But that is not how it works now for low-income workers. Dr. Arin Dube of the University of Massachusetts has explained that if the minimum wage had kept up with increases in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today. But it didn't keep up. So today, while corporate profits soar, millions of hard-working moms and dads are left behind, working full time and still living in poverty.

Democrats aren't proposing to increase the minimum wage to $22 an hour. Our proposal is much more modest--a raise to $10.10 an hour. That is modest by comparison, but for at least 14 million children who depend on a parent whose wages would go up as a result of this legislation, this increase will make their lives a whole lot more secure.

This bill is about the lives of minimum-wage workers, but it is also about every taxpayer in America and about the corporate welfare taxpayers are forced to dole out when these companies pay poverty-level wages.

More than half of low-wage working families participate in government assistance programs for food, for health care, and for other expenses. A study by researchers at UC Berkeley and the University of Illinois show that we spend about $240 billion a year providing benefits to working families through food stamps, Medicaid, and other antipoverty programs.

When big companies pay poverty-level wages and then count on the government to cover basic expenses for their employees, they get a boost from every American taxpayer who helps pick up the ticket for food stamps and Medicaid. Taxpayer dollars are being used to boost the profits of private companies that don't want to pay their employees enough to keep them out of poverty. That is corporate welfare, plain and simple.

I understand why some businesses might like to keep it that way, but American taxpayers have had enough of this corporate welfare. American workers have had enough of this corporate welfare. America has had enough of this corporate welfare.

This is an uphill fight. Those big corporations that pay poverty- level wages want to keep wages the way they are. And why not? It is more money for corporate dividends and CEO bonuses. So those companies hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers who lean on Washington politicians to keep things exactly the way they are. Minimum-wage workers don't have an army of lobbyists and lawyers, and American taxpayers don't either. But Congress doesn't work for those big companies. We work for the workers and the taxpayers and the voters who sent us here.

It is time to call out this corporate welfare for what it is, and it is time to fight back. It has been 7 years since Congress last increased the minimum wage. Senator Ted Kennedy led that fight, and I am proud to carry that fight forward today. It is time to honor work again, time to honor people who get up every day and bust their tails to try to build a life for themselves and their children. It is time to increase the minimum wage.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this is a difficult day for the city of Boston. Yesterday Boston lost two courageous firefighters who gave up their lives battling a terrible fire in the city's Back Bay.

When others flee, our firefighters rush headlong into danger, concerned only for the safety of others. They put their lives on the line every time. Today we mourn the loss of two brave men, two heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Lieutenant Ed Walsh and firefighter Mike Kennedy were highly respected and committed members of the Boston Fire Department who dedicated their lives to keeping our families safe. Firefighter Kennedy of Ladder Company 15 on Boylston Street was a member of the Boston Fire Department for 6\1/2\ years. He grew up in Roslindale, served our country as a U.S. Marine Corps combat veteran in Iraq, and was a first responder to the Boston Marathon attacks last year. He wanted to run in this year's marathon, so to be admitted he wrote an essay about his experiences responding to the marathon bombing. He had been at training for the big day, but he won't be running this year.

Lieutenant Walsh served on Engine 33, also based at the Boylston Street Fire Station. He was a firefighter in Boston for 9\1/2\ years and lived in West Roxbury with his wife Kristen and their three young kids. Lieutenant Walsh came from a firefighting family and followed in the footsteps of his father and his uncle, both of whom served on the Watertown Fire Department. He will be missed.

I know I speak on behalf of the city of Boston and the people of Boston when I say that all our thoughts and prayers are with Lieutenant Walsh's and Firefighter Kennedy's families at this very difficult time. Boston is deeply grateful to Lieutenant Walsh and to Firefighter Kennedy, and to all our policemen, firefighters, and first responders who put their lives at risk to protect our families every single day, and to all of our firefighter families who face the risk that a loved one will rush into a burning building and give up everything to keep all of us safe.

Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as a member of the climate change task force, I am proud to join my colleagues today. I particularly wish to thank Senators Schatz, Whitehouse, and Boxer for getting us organized and bringing attention to the urgent need to address climate change. We are on the cusp of a climate crisis. We are at a point of no return that will threaten our health, our economy, and our planet.

For the next several hours and all through the night and into tomorrow, dozens of Senators will add their voices to the millions of voices around the country of people who are committed in the fight against climate change.

I got ready for this event by asking people for help. I sent out an email asking a simple question: What do people think the world will look like 25 years from now if we don't do anything at all to stop climate change? Nearly 5,000 emails have already poured in from workers, teachers, grandparents, and students. These Americans see what is happening to our environment. They see the paralysis of our politics. They see that we are headed down a dangerous path. They see that we--our country and our Congress--must change.

This is where we start--a moment of great peril for Massachusetts, for America, and for the world, but also a moment of great opportunity. This is a time for us to come together.

During my time on the floor, I plan to read letters from some of the people who have emailed me.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Massachusetts.