Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Jon Bosworth, be granted floor privileges for the balance of the day.

Mr. President, I wish to state for the record my strong support for S. 2450, the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014. I also wish to state for the record that, though I was unfortunately already traveling to my son's high school graduation in Oregon at the time the vote was called, I would have voted aye on this legislation had I been present.

I was among the original cosponsors of this bill because I believe strongly that the VA system must do right by our veterans. Our veterans have stood up for us, and we must stand up for them.

Recent reports highlight the urgent need both for greatly increased accountability within the VA health system and for greater resources to meet the needs of increasing numbers of veterans who are turning to the VA for health care. The current situation of extremely long wait times--and in some cases, secret waiting lists--is 100 percent unacceptable and must be fixed. Those who are responsible for these failings or any efforts to cover them up should swiftly lose their jobs. If they broke the law, then they should be prosecuted as well. Going forward, we must ensure that the VA system has the doctors and the resources it needs to give our vets the timely, top-notch care they deserve.

This bill gives the VA the power both to fire the administrators who need to be held accountable and to hire the additional doctors and nurses needed to improve the system. In addition, it contains a bipartisan provision I have worked on with Senator Heller to expand education benefits for spouses of servicemembers who die in the line of duty. These are important improvements for our veterans and their families, and I am proud to support them.

I am very pleased to see this legislation move forward. I wish to once again state again my strong support, and I urge the House to take up and pass this bill without delay.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Senator. I couldn't help but hear outside the Chamber the Senator from Wyoming talking about Oregon. So I just wanted to ask, in Oregon, 400,000-plus people have signed up for health care through the Affordable Care Act. Some of those may have had insurance before. We are not sure if it is 25,000, maybe it is 50,000; there are conflicting numbers on that. But is it a good thing or a bad thing that 350,000 or more individuals have gained access to health care through this plan?

Could the Senator explain how it is for those 350,000 or more--maybe 400,000--who have newly gained access to health care, how they have been hurt by gaining access to health care?

I thank very much the Senator for responding to my questions.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I am honored to be here joining Senator Blumenthal, Senator Durbin-- Senator Baldwin is going to be here--Senator Schumer, and many others to come and address this important topic, and this topic is the college loan debt trap.

I have a letter here from Stephanie from Oregon, and she writes to me about the trap she and her husband feel they are in. She says:

I am writing to you as a potential investor into Oregon's

economy and the economy of the United States. Unfortunately,

however, I will not be able to be this investor until mine

and my husband's Private Student Loans . . . are paid off. We

owe a little less than $100,000 in . . . Student loans and

pay $1,100 per month. We will pay this amount for the next 12

years. Because of our student loans and the 7-7.2% interest

[rate] they are set at, we cannot afford to purchase a house

in the neighborhood we love . . . cannot buy a car, and

cannot even fathom starting a family. We can't even afford to

go on vacation, whether that is around Oregon, or outside of

that to the many other wonderful states and countries. We pay

rent, utilities, and try and buy good, healthy food, but in

order to even afford these basics I have to work 2 jobs at 7

days a week.

She goes on later to say:

It has been nothing but spinning in place. . . .

This is a growing reality for millions of Americans who have graduated with student loan debt the size of a home mortgage and higher interest that make these huge student loans the equivalent of a millstone around their necks. When our aspiring young adults in America--who have graduated, who have gone on to start their careers-- when they cannot afford to buy a house, that enhances inequality in the United States of America because home ownership is the major vehicle by which middle-class families in America establish a nest egg, establish wealth, establish a slice of the American dream. What is more joyous in life than having children, being able to raise children? That is the most tremendous, tremendous experience. But she is saying she and her husband cannot even think about starting a family.

The picture was quite different when I was graduating from high school in 1974. My father--when I was in grade school, we lived in a working-class neighborhood--had taken me to the school doors and said: Son, if you go through those doors and you work hard, you can do just about anything here in America.

Well, that was a message about the fact that there is a pathway to thrive, a pathway to fulfill your potential, a pathway to pursue your dreams, and in the process of doing that you are strengthening our entire Nation because when you aspire to your potential, when you aspire to your dreams, then you also find yourself giving back in all kinds of other ways, including having enough income to pay a Federal income tax and contribute property taxes and revenue, as well as the talents or fruits of your profession.

Well, I still live in that blue-collar community. My kids still go to the same high school I went to. But the message to our students today is very different. They are familiar with many families such as Stephanie and her husband. They are familiar with the fact that student tuition has gone up faster than virtually anything else in our society. It is a much bigger share. I think a rough estimate is about 2\1/2\ times the amount in terms of a working income than it was when I was going to school, starting college. Let's make this comparison: In Germany, the cost of a year in college is around 4 percent of the median income. In the United States of America, the cost of a year in college is about 50 percent of the median income. Well, what a difference between less than $1 out of $20 and $1 out of every $2. What an incredible difference. So, at a minimum, shouldn't we be acting today to enable those who have these high-interest student loans to refinance them to a reasonable low rate? Shouldn't we be able to do that?

I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I will wrap up simply by saying that this is common sense. Let's lower this burden, and then let's go on and do much more: control the cost of tuition, raise the impact of Pell grants, and pursue low- interest student loans as a tool for our students from here going forward.

Mr. President, I am delighted to have had this chance to speak to a fundamental challenge to young Americans in every State of the United States of America.

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration of H.R. 4120, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 437.

The clerk will report the resolution by title.

Mr. 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 102 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I understand that S. 2280 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2014; that following the prayer and 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 time until 11 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees prior to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2262, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act; that the Senate recess at 12:30 p.m. subject to the call of the Chair to allow for the weekly caucus meetings and the official photograph of the 113th Congress; that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 2262, the time during the recess count postcloture.

There will be a rollcall vote at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Additionally, the official photograph of the 113th Congress will be at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow.

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

I rise in this Chamber to address an issue that is critical to working families across our Nation; that is, the Federal minimum wage.

First, I thank Senator Tom Harkin for his leadership on this issue. He has advocated year after year, decade after decade that we need to ensure that we have an economy where workers fully participate in the fruits of their labor.

We should not have a society in which all of those fruits go simply to the very few at the expense of a fair wage for those who create that success. I thank Senator Harkin for leading this fight over this extended period of time on behalf of working families.

He believes, as I believe, that we should measure the success of our Nation not by the growth of the GDP, not by having one eye on the Dow Jones and one eye on the S&P 500, we should measure the success by the success of our families. That is what this debate on the minimum wage is all about.

This issue matters a great deal to me because I come from a blue- collar family. My father was a mechanic. He employed those skills in a sawmill. He was the millwright, the person who keeps the machinery going so the plant can keep operating. When it is operating, there is work for the workers, and there is certainly success for the company. He went on to work as a mechanic in many other ways.

On that mechanic's wage, he was able to raise a family and participate fully in the American dream. He and my mother were able to buy a home. They could afford to take us camping. They could afford to save a little bit to help us be able to go to college. That is what happens when workers get to participate in the success of our economy.

A minimum wage is part of this story because it is the foundation and the benchmark that helps set wages throughout the economy.

In the time period after World War II, our economy grew quickly, our wages

grew quickly, and workers took those wages and they bought products, and that demand fueled further production, which put more people to work. It was an upward cycle.

But more recently we have had a philosophy imposed, advocated, and put forward by the top 1 percent that if all the growth in revenue comes to them, they will be the job makers. They will be the job creators and everyone else will thrive.

If there was ever a moment in U.S. history when the complete falseness of this philosophy was evident, it is right now, because from 2008 until now, 95 percent of the newly created wages have gone to the 1 percent, to the very top. So we should have more jobs than we know what to do with on the philosophy that has been advocated so recently on the floor of this Senate, that we should minimize the wages at the bottom to maximize the profits at the top.

That is a downward spiral for a very clear reason, and it is this: People don't make things in society if the middle class doesn't have the money in their pockets to buy them. If they don't have the money, they don't go to the restaurant, the restaurant doesn't hire the waiter, and the restaurant doesn't hire the dishwasher. It doesn't open a new outlet and employ more people.

There are certainly many factors that have contributed to shrinking paychecks for working Americans, but the declining purchasing power of the Federal minimum wage is a major factor.

The Federal minimum wage sets an important standard for how the contributions of working families are valued. The minimum wage sets a floor on wages. It is a benchmark not only for minimum wage workers but for our entire wage scale. When the minimum wage goes up, the value placed on working Americans all across the economy goes up.

In 1968, when I was 12 years old, the Federal minimum wage was equivalent in today's dollars to about $10.50, unlike the wage we have now which is $7.25. So the purchasing power has roughly dropped by one- third, and that is not to the benefit of the workers, that is not to the benefit of all of the small businesses that provide retail services that benefit when a worker can afford to buy those services.

Putting money into the pockets of minimum wage workers lifts millions of working families directly. It lifts millions more because of the indirect effect of providing more demand for products in the economy.

Today a worker who works 40 hours per week at the Federal minimum wage makes barely $15,000 per year. That puts a family of two below the poverty line. That is poverty despite the fact the mother is working full time 52 weeks a year. A family of three puts them further below the poverty line because of the additional expenses of taking care of a second child. That is wrong.

The more we look at the numbers, the more it becomes clear that the current minimum wage is insufficient to provide a foundation for a family. We need to raise the minimum wage because there is no way to support a family on $7.25 per hour, less than $15,000 per year.

A recent study estimated that a worker paid the Federal minimum wage in States as diverse as Minnesota, Texas, and Pennsylvania would have to work more than 90 hours per week to afford rent on a market-rate two-bedroom apartment--90 hours per week, more than two full-time jobs, 13 hours of work per day, Monday through Sunday. Imagine working from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on your feet, getting up, doing it day after day, week after week, and still you can't afford rent on a two-bedroom apartment--no breaks, no vacations, no sick days, no benefits, and you can't afford rent on a two-bedroom apartment.

Without a minimum wage that comes closer to families' real costs of living, our economy will continue to leave behind too many hard-working Americans. The legislation we are debating this week would raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and index it to inflation to sustain the purchasing power. That doesn't get us back to the purchasing power of 1968, but at least it comes a lot closer.

Let us understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about an entry wage for teenagers. The vast majority of folks who earn the minimum wage are adults--far more than 80 percent. More than four out of five are adults, more than half of whom are women. The earnings of these families contribute to the support of nearly one in four American children.

Contrary to the arguments made for the superwealthy and couched in sympathy for the poor we heard a few minutes ago on this floor, this minimum wage would lift 4.6 million Americans out of poverty. It would give America's low-wage workers paychecks that better reflect their contribution, their work, and their value in our economy.

Some in this Chamber, as we heard not so many minutes ago, would try to convince us that this is bad for business. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For proof, just look to the Northwest. In Oregon, we know this model works because Oregon has road-tested the model. We don't need to have theoretical debates about it; we have a real-life example in the State of Oregon. Our minimum wage has been indexed since 2002. It sits at $9.10 per hour. Indexing enables businesses to plan for small and steady increases rather than to speculate about potential dramatic leaps.

Oregon's restaurant industry, one of the largest employers of workers at Oregon's higher minimum wage, is projected to grow faster than the national average--faster. In fact, a higher minimum wage may well create jobs. The reason is simple: When workers have more in wages in their pockets, they spend more in our retail stores, which then hire more workers to meet the demand. When the retail stores sell more to the workers who have more money in their pocket, they order more from the factory and the factory employs more workers. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found the higher minimum wage we are debating would create 85,000 jobs.

Strengthening our Federal minimum wage is, at its core, about basic respect and basic fairness. It is about recognizing there is dignity in work and that when we allow working families to fall farther and farther down the wage chain we all pay the price. Consider the many aspects that take away from our society. A mother who has to pursue four minimum wage jobs to try to fill in when the earnings from one or more jobs are too low to support a family means she is not at home helping to guide her child. That is not helping to build a strong and productive future for that child or for our society in general.

It doesn't matter whether you are a CEO or a janitor, if you work full time in America, you should not be living in poverty. If we pay the janitor a little more, it helps a lot more people than just that one worker. Those wages go straight back into the broader economy that the CEO and his or her company depend upon.

So let's do what is right for our workers. Let's do what is right for our economy. Let's pass this bill and restore the power of the minimum wage for America's working families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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