Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Minimum Wage Fairness Act because it is time to give everyone a fair shot. More and more States are voting to raise the minimum wage. Last week, the Hawaii State legislature passed a bill to raise the minimum wage in my home State. Hawaii's bill would increase the wage from $7.25 to $10.10, and increase the tip wage to at least $9.35.

Hawaii will become the tenth State enacting a wage increase since President Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address. In 2014 alone, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, West Virginia, and Washington, DC have enacted wage increases. Hawaii will become the 26th State with the higher minimum wage than the current Federal minimum wage. It is time for Congress to join with the States that are leading the charge to give hard-working families a raise.

I am going to share a few reasons why the Senate should vote to raise the minimum wage. First, today's Federal minimum wage is a poverty wage. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation since 1968, the minimum wage today would be about $10.68. This

means that minimum-wage workers today earn less than $15,000 per year working full time. If someone is supporting a child or an elderly parent, that would put their family income below the Federal poverty line.

The bill we are considering today would raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 by 2016 and index it to inflation afterward. Increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would help lift nearly a million workers and their families out of poverty.

In Hawaii, raising the minimum wage will bring more than 12,000 people above the Federal poverty level.

Second, the minimum wage is a woman's issue. Growing up, my mother was a single parent. We were an immigrant family. She raised three children by herself on very low wages. I know what it is like to run out of money at the end of the month and what it is like for every dime to matter. Nationwide, nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers are women. In Hawaii, increasing the minimum wage will give 54,000 women a raise. One out of five Hawaii women workers will get that raise. That is important to the women in my State, where the cost of living is high.

During the legislative debate on this issue in Hawaii, numerous advocacy groups came forward to provide testimony on why the minimum wage should be increased in Hawaii. These included representatives from churches, unions, individual parents, students, and others. For example, Dr. Lori Kamemoto is an ob-gyn who came forward to testify. She told of her work in health clinics where many of her patients are minimum-wage workers. She testified:

The majority of patients I saw at the free clinic worked

multiple minimum wage jobs, and each job made sure that they

did not give my patient enough work hours to qualify for

health insurance or benefits. Oftentimes, a patient would not

be able to afford the medication needed for her health

condition. She had a choice to either pay for her children's

food or the recommended medication.

Another testifier, Laura Finlayson, is a student at Hawaii Pacific University. She testified:

As someone who has worked several minimum wage jobs, I have

experienced firsthand how the low wages perpetuate the cycle

of poverty. . . . Many must also rely on government aid in

order to make ends meet.

These stories and countless others show why we must raise the minimum wage.

Many workers in Hawaii are tipped workers. The tipped minimum wage is especially far behind. I have met restaurant workers who can't afford to eat in the very restaurants in which they work. Take the example of Nyah Potts, whom I met recently. She is a tipped worker. She works in a restaurant in the Reagan Building in Washington, DC. Due to her low wages, she has had to choose between buying diapers for her child or eating lunch that day. She decided to do something about her situation. Joining with her fellow workers and advocacy groups, she pushed the administration to raise the minimum wage for Federal contract workers. Nyah and her coworkers will now get a raise. It is time to give everyone in America a raise.

There is a common myth that tipped workers are teenagers just starting out. That is false. Eighty-eight percent of workers in tipped occupations are age 20 and over, and 45 percent are 30 or older.

Back in 2007, the last time Congress raised the minimum wage, the restaurant industry with its many tipped workers said it would cost their industry jobs. This did not happen. In fact, in 2013 the restaurant industry forecast said ``restaurants remain among the leaders in job creation.'' The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that between 2007 and 2013, restaurants added 724,000 jobs.

There is a misconception that all tipped workers are servers at fancy restaurants. This is also not true. Many people who work at the airport, who help you get your bags, who help you make it to your gate on time, are also tipped workers. Tipped workers include bar-backs, bellhops, parking attendants, car washers, airport wheelchair workers, and many people don't even realize that these workers need tips to survive.

On average, hourly wages for tipped workers are almost 40 percent lower than overall hourly wages. The fact is, raising the minimum wage is not just good for workers, it is also good for the economy. That is why a survey of small business owners found that three out of five small business owners supported raising the minimum wage. They understand a higher minimum wage would increase consumer spending on their goods and services. That is because minimum-wage workers spend new money from higher wages right away at local businesses in their communities.

In addition to the restaurant industry I referred to earlier, there are other persistent critics who claim raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. Some cite a Congressional Budget Office report that only looked at old studies and not the latest research. The fact is, the latest academic studies say a higher minimum wage increases consumer spending and does not cost jobs.

A March Goldman Sachs report said that States which raised their minimum wage in 2014 actually created more jobs than other States that didn't raise the minimum wage. Six hundred economists, including 7 Nobel prize winners, have endorsed a minimum wage of $10.10.

Raising the minimum wage also saves taxpayers money on social services, as many of my colleagues have already noted. The current minimum wage leaves many below the poverty line and eligible for assistance such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, or food stamps. If we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10, we reduce taxpayer costs for SNAP benefits by $4.6 billion a year. In Hawaii, over 15,000 workers would no longer need SNAP benefits. This would save nearly $40 million in Hawaii alone.

In America, we believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. It is time for Congress to follow the example of Hawaii and other States that have raised their minimum wages. They are doing the right thing. It is time for Congress to do what is right. Let's give America a raise so all Americans can have a fair shot.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 30, 2014, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, growing up, my mother was a single parent. She raised three children by herself. I know what it is like to run out of money at the end of the month, what it is like when every dime matters.

The minimum wage is a poverty wage. Today, the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation in 1968, the minimum wage today would be $10.68. If you do the math, minimum wage workers today earn less than $15,000 per year. If you are supporting a child or an elderly parent, that is a family income below the Federal poverty line. Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would help lift nearly a million workers and their families out of poverty. In Hawaii, nearly 100,000 women would get a raise.

This is especially important for women. More and more women serve as heads of households. And nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. Nearly two-thirds of workers in tipped occupations are women.

The situation is even more dire in Hawaii, where the cost of living is higher. In Hawaii, one out of five Hawaii women workers would get a raise if we raised the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10. A person working full time making $7.25 per hour makes $14,500 per year. The average rent in Hawaii for a one-bedroom is $1,278. That is more than $15,000 per year. That is why many in Hawaii have to work more than one job.

And there are stories all across the country of women struggling. Hawaii Catholic Charities recently shared their story with me of a woman in Hawaii working for minimum wage who was unable to afford basic living expenses for herself and her son. She had to move back in with her parents. Over the course of a few years she was able to change jobs to a department store, where she eventually earned $10 per hour. At that wage she was able to contribute to her family's household expenses and start a savings account for her son. We all hear stories like this often. It's why we must raise the minimum wage--so that hard working families have a chance at building a better life for themselves and their children.

Some critics claim the minimum wage will cost jobs. The CBO report looked at old studies and not the latest research. Just last week, a Goldman Sachs report said the CBO estimate of 0.3 percent job loss is too high because raising the minimum wage would actually increase demand. Minimum-wage workers spend that money right away, at local businesses in their communities. A survey of small business owners found that three out of five supported raising the minimum wage. They said a higher minimum wage would increase consumer spending on their goods and services. The Goldman Sachs report said that States which raised their minimum wage in 2014 actually created more jobs than other states.

In Hawaii, a large part of our economy is hospitality and tourism. Many workers earn the tipped minimum wage, which is lower than the regular wage. I have met restaurant workers who can't afford to eat at the restaurant where they work. I heard one mother say she had to choose between buying diapers for her kids or eating lunch that day. Women should not have to make that choice. Back in 2007, the last time Congress raised the minimum wage, the restaurant industry said it would cost their industry jobs. But in 2013, the restaurant industry forecast said, ``Restaurants remain among the leaders in job creation.'' The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that between 2007 and 2013, restaurants added 724,000 jobs.

Raising the minimum wage also saves taxpayer money on social services. When companies pay a low minimum wage, workers in poverty can't afford to eat. Taxpayers are picking up the tab--we're subsidizing low-wage companies. If we raise the wage to $10.10, we reduce taxpayer costs for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, by $4.6 billion a year. In Hawaii, over 15,000 workers would no longer need SNAP beneifts.

In America, we believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. Let's increase the minimum wage, to give all Americans a fair shot.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an extension of time for 6 minutes to be divided equally between myself and Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, I will keep my remarks short because I know there are others who want to speak on why we need to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10. I will focus on Hawaii.

In Hawaii, nearly 100,000 women would get a raise if we were to do this. That is one out of five women workers in Hawaii. The Presiding Officer and I are both from Hawaii. We know the high cost of living in Hawaii. Minimum wage amounts to about $14,500 a year. The average rent for a one-bedroom residence in Hawaii is almost $1,300 a month. That is more than $15,000 a year. It is no wonder people in Hawaii have to work more than one job.

In Hawaii, tourism is our No. 1 industry. We have a lot of tipped workers. They work in our restaurants. Do my colleagues know there are many people who work in our restaurants who can't even afford to eat in the restaurant in which they work?

When we raise the minimum wage, we are going to enable a lot of families to not have to rely on various programs such as SNAP. In Hawaii, over 15,000 workers would no longer need these kinds of benefits.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Military Justice Improvement Act. I commend Senator Gillibrand for her outstanding work on this effort and all the survivors of sexual assault in the military who have courageously worked with us on this bill.

I also appreciate the bipartisan effort to stop military sexual assaults from happening. While we all do not agree on how to get there, I know that all of us want to stop this terrible scourge in our military.

Every few years, when interest in this topic picks up, it stays relevant for a while, the military leadership promises to stamp out sexual assault in the military, and says that zero tolerance is the policy in place. Unfortunately, despite all of the good faith actions taken by the department as well as Congress, we are still at 26,000 incidents of rape, sexual assault, and unwanted sexual contact in the military.

This bill has nothing to do with telling commanders they are fired or that they are morally bankrupt. They should continue to be held accountable for creating a command climate where sexual assaults do not occur or certainly not occur by the tens of thousands.

This bill is focused on the victims, the survivors of these crimes. When we listen to them, they are in support of the Gillibrand bill. We all agree that commanders are responsible for maintaining good order and discipline in their units. This includes creating an atmosphere of dignity and respect for everyone under their command.

Again, commanders must create an environment where sexual crimes do not occur. Our proposed changes to the military justice system do not absolve a commander of these responsibilities. It is still their job to prevent these crimes. It is still their job to maintain good order and discipline.

I have heard opponents of this legislation say that good order and discipline would be lost if the commander no longer has the court martial disposition authority. I disagree. This is similar to saying, a corporal, a sergeant or a junior officer in a unit would not act in a professional and orderly manner with respect to their O-6 commander, because the commander could no longer decide whether to proceed to trial for a rape or other felony-level offense. That does not make sense. The commander is still responsible for dolling out punishment for insubordination or other negative behavior. The commander is still responsible for maintaining the kind of good order and discipline and a command climate where these crimes not occur in the first place. Historically, when changes to the status quo are proposed--these include the integration of military units, opening military specialties to women, and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly--a familiar refrain from senior military leadership to block such changes was to claim that the proposed changes would destroy good order and discipline.

By all accounts, I would say that these successful changes to military policies do not destroy good order and discipline. When these crimes do occur, survivors deserve the ability to seek justice. They deserve a chain of command that will take their claims seriously and take appropriate action. We have data that show that many victims do not come forward because they do not trust that the chain of command within the current system will act impartially.

They feel that they might suffer retaliatory actions and ultimately do not report the crime. This allows the perpetrator to go free and commit additional crimes. The Gillibrand bill will increase trust and confidence in the system and help the survivors seek justice. It is time to make fundamental changes to how sexual assault cases are handled in the military.

Senator Gillibrand's bill would be a big step in the right direction. Her amendment would take the decision to go forward with a trial out of the chain of command and place it in the hands of an experienced military lawyer. This change would improve the traditional process by increasing transparency, by increasing trust. It would also eliminate potential bias and conflicts of interest because unlike the commanding officer, the military lawyer would be unconnected to either the survivor or the accused.

I commend our colleagues once again, Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill, for their tireless efforts to help survivors of sexual assault in the military. I would also commend Senator Levin, my Armed Services Committee colleagues, and many other Senators for working so hard on this difficult, painful issue.

We have instituted many positive changes in this area, but I urge my colleagues to take the next step and support the Gillibrand Military Justice Improvement Act.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, nearly 4 months ago the most powerful storm on record struck the Philippines, killing 6,000 people and injuring 27,000 people. According to USAID, more than 4 million people were displaced, and one out of six people in the country was affected. Photographs show the immense destruction caused by Typhoon Haiyan. In some areas nearly all of the buildings were destroyed.

Today, because of the magnitude of the devastation, the Philippines has not yet recovered. It will take them a long time. Relief efforts continue. These efforts have been aided by direct assistance from the U.S. Government to the Philippines, one of our closest allies in Asia. Relief efforts have also been funded by charitable donations made by individuals in the United States. Many of these donations come from Filipino Americans in this country, part of the extensive diaspora here that is the foundation of the deep connections between the Philippines and the United States.

I am about to ask unanimous consent to pass legislation that will encourage people to continue donating to typhoon relief efforts in the Philippines. It has been 4 months since Typhoon Haiyan but help is still desperately needed. Four months is a virtual eternity of news cycles, and other crises in other parts of the world demand our attention. But we should not forget the immense human suffering caused by Typhoon Haiyan.

This legislation, S. 1821, would allow people who make donations after the date of enactment to deduct those donations from last year's taxes. In other words, they can reduce their 2013 tax bill by contributing now. It is a modest step, but it is one we should take.

This is bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Heller. This legislation is also cosponsored by Senator Menendez and the majority leader, Senator Reid. I thank them for their support.

Identical bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Swalwell and Thompson. That bill has 35 cosponsors, including 9 Republicans: Representatives Calvert, Franks, Grimm, Heck, Issa, Miller, Royce, Valadao, and Young. I thank them for their support.

After the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, Congress passed nearly identical legislation to encourage donations to that country. That legislation passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. The Senate companion bill, S. 2936, had 40 cosponsors, 15 of whom were Republicans. They included Senators Alexander, Cornyn, Enzi, Grassley, Hatch, Johanns, Roberts, and Thune. I hope the Senate will provide the same support to the Philippines that it provided to Haiti.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1821; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Hirono-Heller amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; further, that upon passage, the bill be held at the desk, and that if the Senate receives from the House a bill, the text of which is identical to S. 1821, as passed by the Senate, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times and passed, without any intervening action or debate; finally, that passage of the Senate bill be vitiated and the bill be indefinitely postponed, and all motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I thank Senator Sessions very much for his agreement regarding the concerns we have for our friends in the Philippines, and I look forward to working

with the Senator to come up with a measure that will accomplish what my bill seeks to accomplish.

Mr. President, today, I introduced bipartisan legislation that would promote trade and investment in America from a critical partner of ours in the Asia-Pacific region, New Zealand. I want to thank Senators Lee, McCain, Rubio, Schumer and Murray for cosponsoring this bill and for their support for this commonsense proposal.

The Encouraging Trade and Investment from New Zealand Act would extend eligibility for E-1 and E-2 visas to New Zealand citizens. E-1 visas are available to certain foreign nationals coming to the United States to engage in substantial trade, including trade in services or technology principally between the United States and their home country. E-2 visas are for certain foreign investors coming here to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which they invested a substantial amount of capital.

These non-immigrant visas are distinct from EB-5 investor immigrant visas, H1-B work visas and B-1 business visitor visas. Because of the unique structure of E-1 and E-2 visas, they are scrutinized closely by the State Department so that they directly support economic activity and jobs in the United States.

Allowing New Zealanders to apply for these visas would directly promote job creation. In 2010, New Zealand-owned U.S. firms in the United States supported 10,900 American jobs. By the end of 2011, the total value of direct investment from New Zealand to the United States reached $6 billion. While these positive trends continue, the New Zealand government and New Zealand businesses have indicated that the lack of E-1 and E-2 visas is a dominant factor impeding further investment in our country.

The Encouraging Trade and Investment from New Zealand Act would fix that. Because of the changes in our treaty practices, the E-1 and E-2 visas can only be extended to New Zealand through legislation. Historically, we extended trade and investment visas to any country possessing a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation with the United States or through other agreements.

Today more than 50 countries have access to E-1, trade, visas, and more than 80 countries have access to E-2, investors, visas. In recent years, the U.S. government has generally stopped pursuing treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation.

Indeed, in 2012, Congress enacted legislation extending E-1 and E-2 visas to Israel. It is now the right time to do the same for New Zealand.

Attracting trade and investment capital from New Zealand would bolster the reach of the United States' economy in the fast growing Asia-Pacific region. President Obama has made engagement with the Asia- Pacific region a top economic and security priority, the so called ``pivot to Asia,'' and New Zealand is a valued strategic partner.

Extending trade and investment visas would bolster the bilateral relationship, increase foreign investment, and strengthen America's ties to the Asia-Pacific region. Every state will gain from greater trade and investment from New Zealand. In 2012 over 350,000 foreign traders and investors holding E-1 or E-2 visas came to our country and managed a business in all 50 states.

Substantial benefits will accrue to Hawaii--the United States' gateway to Asia and the Pacific. Hawaii has recently seen a substantial increase in tourism from New Zealand, fostered by increased direct flights between New Zealand and Hawaii. In fact, Hawaiian Airlines is the only U.S. airline offering direct service to New Zealand.

New Zealand recently announced that it would be opening a consulate in Honolulu, Hawaii. This consulate will help further bilateral ties and benefit from its proximity to the heart Hawaii's financial district and headquarters of U.S. Pacific Command.

U.S. citizens are already eligible for a similar visa in New Zealand. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative to allow them to do the same here to create jobs in our country.

Mr. President, today, I introduced bipartisan legislation that would promote trade and investment in America from a critical partner of ours in the Asia-Pacific region, New Zealand. I want to thank Senators Lee, McCain, Rubio, Schumer and Murray for cosponsoring this bill and for their support for this commonsense proposal.

The Encouraging Trade and Investment from New Zealand Act would extend eligibility for E-1 and E-2 visas to New Zealand citizens. E-1 visas are available to certain foreign nationals coming to the United States to engage in substantial trade, including trade in services or technology principally between the United States and their home country. E-2 visas are for certain foreign investors coming here to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which they invested a substantial amount of capital.

These non-immigrant visas are distinct from EB-5 investor immigrant visas, H1-B work visas and B-1 business visitor visas. Because of the unique structure of E-1 and E-2 visas, they are scrutinized closely by the State Department so that they directly support economic activity and jobs in the United States.

Allowing New Zealanders to apply for these visas would directly promote job creation. In 2010, New Zealand-owned U.S. firms in the United States supported 10,900 American jobs. By the end of 2011, the total value of direct investment from New Zealand to the United States reached $6 billion. While these positive trends continue, the New Zealand government and New Zealand businesses have indicated that the lack of E-1 and E-2 visas is a dominant factor impeding further investment in our country.

The Encouraging Trade and Investment from New Zealand Act would fix that. Because of the changes in our treaty practices, the E-1 and E-2 visas can only be extended to New Zealand through legislation. Historically, we extended trade and investment visas to any country possessing a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation with the United States or through other agreements.

Today more than 50 countries have access to E-1, trade, visas, and more than 80 countries have access to E-2, investors, visas. In recent years, the U.S. government has generally stopped pursuing treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation.

Indeed, in 2012, Congress enacted legislation extending E-1 and E-2 visas to Israel. It is now the right time to do the same for New Zealand.

Attracting trade and investment capital from New Zealand would bolster the reach of the United States' economy in the fast growing Asia-Pacific region. President Obama has made engagement with the Asia- Pacific region a top economic and security priority, the so called ``pivot to Asia,'' and New Zealand is a valued strategic partner.

Extending trade and investment visas would bolster the bilateral relationship, increase foreign investment, and strengthen America's ties to the Asia-Pacific region. Every state will gain from greater trade and investment from New Zealand. In 2012 over 350,000 foreign traders and investors holding E-1 or E-2 visas came to our country and managed a business in all 50 states.

Substantial benefits will accrue to Hawaii--the United States' gateway to Asia and the Pacific. Hawaii has recently seen a substantial increase in tourism from New Zealand, fostered by increased direct flights between New Zealand and Hawaii. In fact, Hawaiian Airlines is the only U.S. airline offering direct service to New Zealand.

New Zealand recently announced that it would be opening a consulate in Honolulu, Hawaii. This consulate will help further bilateral ties and benefit from its proximity to the heart Hawaii's financial district and headquarters of U.S. Pacific Command.

U.S. citizens are already eligible for a similar visa in New Zealand. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative to allow them to do the same here to create jobs in our country.

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

Madam President, there is overwhelming bipartisan support to repeal the COLA reduction for military retirees that was enacted last December in the budget bill. The debate now is whether and how to pay for the cost of this repeal. I agree with my friend Senator Mark Begich of Alaska that our veterans have already paid for this repeal with their service to this country. However, there are some Senators who take a different view and have offered what we refer to as pay-for amendments.

Today I rise in strong opposition to the Ayotte pay-for amendment. The bill before us, S. 1963, the Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act, would repeal the COLA reduction for military retirees. This bill is sponsored by Senators Pryor, Hagan, and Begich, and I applaud their leadership on this issue.

Cutting military pensions was a bad idea. An even worse idea is to set up a contest between providing pensions to veterans and providing antipoverty assistance to children. That is the choice Republicans want us to make. I wish I could honestly say this so-called choice is hard to believe, but I can't. It is like choosing between cutting off an arm or a leg from the body politic. Vets or poor children--aren't they both in need of fair treatment?

Again, there is bipartisan support to restore the COLA cuts for veterans, but I am told that my Republican colleagues won't allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act unless we also vote on the Ayotte amendment No. 2732.

What does this amendment do? The Ayotte amendment would deny antipoverty assistance to the children of undocumented immigrants who are working and paying billions of dollars in taxes. It would cut this child poverty program by more than $18 billion over 10 years to pay for the restoration of COLAs for military retirees, which would cost about $6 billion over 10 years. In other words, the Ayotte amendment would deny $3 of antipoverty assistance to children in order to restore $1 of retirement pay to our veterans. That is unconscionable. We should not take the benefits we provide to veterans by hurting children in the process. Hurting children does no honor to our veterans' service.

The children targeted by the Ayotte amendment did not decide on their own to come to this country illegally. They were brought here by their parents. These children are DREAMers--our DREAMers. We should not punish them for their parents' decisions. We should help these children to succeed so they can contribute to this great country. Their parents are doing their part by working and paying more than $16 billion in taxes each year, more than $160 billion over 10 years. We should not deny them this small measure of help.

Let me acknowledge that it is politically difficult to vote against the offset in the Ayotte amendment. Why? Because the amendment targets people who have no political power. These are children of parents who cannot vote. These are children of parents who are very poor, who themselves live on the edge of poverty or far into the depths of it. Their parents work one, two, or even three jobs and pay the taxes they owe, but they are barely making ends meet. They are far removed from the level of wealth that too often today translates into political power. These are children of parents who came to this country the same way many of our ancestors came to this country 100 or 200 years ago and for the same reasons--to escape poverty, to seek opportunity, and to give their children a better life than they had. Their parents are working and paying billions of dollars in taxes each year, which is extending the lives of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, as examples. Their parents are working and paying taxes, but they came here illegally, and therefore they must live in the shadows and live in fear.

Put simply, these are children of families who have no political power--none. They are the easiest to go after, and that is what this Ayotte amendment does. But we should help these families. We should help these DREAMers. It is an ancient and universal principle that we should help the least among us. To paraphrase the Book of Matthew, we should treat the least among us as we would treat the mightiest among us. That is why the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops opposes the Ayotte amendment. We should not hurt the least among us in order to help our veterans.

How much money would the Ayotte amendment deny to these children? The maximum child tax credit is $1,000 per child, which is about $2.74 per day per child. To many of us, $2.74 per day seems like a small amount, but to a child in poverty it is literally the difference between eating and not eating.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 the average cost of one meal for one person was $2.67. That was the average cost, which means that a lot of people spent less than $2.67 on each meal. By way of comparison, SNAP benefits average about $4 per person per day--$4 for three meals, not just one. So our own food program is less than what our own Bureau of Labor Statistics says is the average cost of a meal.

So for a low-income child, the $2.74 per day she gets from the child tax credit is equivalent to about one meal. If a child is very poor, it probably means two meals. Put simply, if she gets the child tax credit, she eats. If she doesn't, she doesn't.

Of course, not every child receives the maximum refundable credit. The amount of the refund is determined, in part, on a family's income, so poor families receive even less. The average income for the families who would be affected by the Ayotte amendment is about $21,000 per year. They have to be working and paying taxes to get even one dime from the child tax credit program. Their average child tax credit refund is about $1,800, which is about $5 a day. That may not be much money to the Senators in this body, but that $5 pays for a meal for the whole family. It is about 8 percent of their income.

We should not be denying this basic level of assistance to any child in this country, no matter who their parents are or how they came here. We should not deny children this assistance when their parents--and I am going to repeat it--will pay over $160 billion in taxes in the 10 years during which this provision is cutting $18 billion. The way the child tax credit is structured, only working families who are paying these kinds of taxes can claim the refundable portion. It is not fair that families work and pay taxes but are then denied help--$2.74 per day per child.

We should not deny children this assistance under the guise of combating fraud. Imposing a Social Security number requirement on qualifying children will not end the fraud the proponents of this amendment have cited. We should go after the fraud, but it should

be obvious that any criminal willing to commit the fraud described by the proponents will not be deterred by having to fill in a 9-digit Social Security number. This does not solve the fraud problem.

The fraud we have heard about involves undocumented immigrants who are falsifying where they live and where their children live in order to claim their tax credit. We are told about four immigrants using a single address, and yet we hear nothing about the 18,000 corporations that use one address in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share of corporate tax. Instead of going after working families who are paying taxes, we should close the loophole that allows these corporations to evade their taxes.

How many groups in this country is this Congress going to hurt? We hurt women when we don't raise the minimum wage. We hurt people who are out of work through no fault of their own when we don't extend unemployment benefits. Now we are hurting DREAMers. We should not do this. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ayotte amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Senator Booker for his maiden speech. It is great to have him with us, and I thank Senator Booker also for calling upon the better angels in all of us to do what is right. Opportunity and fairness for all are not just empty words. They are words to live by and words to live up to.

Today I rise to add my support for extending unemployment benefits to those among us who need and deserve this lifeline.

In December over 2,000 Hawaii workers lost their unemployment benefits. Since then about 250 more Hawaii workers are losing their benefits every week.

In 2008 our country was plunged into the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Many lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Many are still unemployed. Since 2008 unemployment benefits have kept over 11 million people out of poverty. Unemployed workers spend their benefits immediately on food and other necessities. Unemployment benefits go immediately into the local economy. Every dollar of spending on unemployment benefits generates almost $1.60 in local economic activity.

But this isn't just about numbers. For people struggling to find work, emergency unemployment insurance is a vital safety net. It can mean the difference between being able to get back on your feet or falling into poverty. These programs provide real hope and real opportunity for people. I know this because I have lived it.

My mother raised three children by herself as a single parent. Most of us have relied upon or know families who have used the earned unemployment assistance they paid for. When my mother lost her job through no fault of her own, her unemployment checks went for rent and putting food on the table for her three children while she searched for work. So I know the anxiety when the family breadwinner loses her job, when every dime makes a difference.

Those who say people on unemployment are lazy or don't want to work are insulting and injuring millions of Americans, about whom nothing could be further from the truth.

High unemployment particularly hurts women. Among female heads of households, the U.S. unemployment rate was 8.7 percent in December. That is two points higher than the 6.7 percent unemployment rate for the Nation as a whole. Neither one of these statistics takes into account workers who have given up looking for work. We should support a short-term extension of unemployment benefits while Congress works on a needed longer-term bill.

Last Friday President Obama announced a new effort to support the long-term unemployed. He gathered over 300 companies who have signed onto a set of best practices for recruiting and hiring unemployed-- especially those long-term unemployed--to prevent discrimination against these Americans.

The Federal Government will lead by example in a new Presidential memorandum to improve its own recruiting and hiring of long-term unemployed people. Congress can do its part by updating and strengthening job-training programs, such as through the Workforce Investment Act which we will take up later this year. For right now, millions of families are counting on us to extend a vital life line to them. I urge my colleagues to support extending unemployment benefits.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am here to speak in opposition to the offset in Ayotte amendment No. 2603. The bipartisan budget that passed in December included a Republican provision that changed the annual cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, for military retirees. I opposed that provision, and I believe there is bipartisan support for repealing it. The main question that needs to be debated is how to pay for that repeal. Amendment No. 2603 would pay for fixing the military retirement COLA problem by denying the refundable child tax credit to millions of eligible U.S. citizen children. That amendment asks, in effect, whether military retirees are more deserving of help than U.S. citizen children who are on the edge of poverty. That is a false choice. That is not the right approach.

The child tax credit is one of our most important programs to reduce child poverty. Tens of millions of families claim the child tax credit each year--more than 35 million families in 2009--both using Social Security numbers and individual taxpayer identification numbers. According to the Congressional Research Service, the child tax credit reduces child poverty by approximately one-fifth. For such an important and widely used program as this, we should be careful that any changes we make to the program do not harm low-income children and working families. Many of these low-income families are headed by women.

Any large program is susceptible to fraud and misuse. When fraud is alleged, the cases should be investigated and the people who commit fraud should be punished. This means targeted, aggressive auditing and enforcement, not wholesale changes to the program that will deny help to kids who are legally receiving it today.

The proponents of the amendment tell us that individuals are fraudulently claiming the child tax credit for kids who live in Mexico or for kids who do not exist. That is already a violation of the law. This is fraud. I agree with the sponsor that we should take steps to prevent this fraud.

The IRS says this amendment would not solve the fraud problem. In 2012, five Senators wrote to the IRS regarding this matter, and their letter asked:

Does the fact that the person filing the return has a

Social Security number indicate whether the child claimed for

the credit met the residency requirements required under the

law?

The response from the IRS, in a letter dated July 20, 2012, was:

The possession of a SSN [Social Security number] by the

filer is not relevant in determining whether the child met

the residency requirements.

In other words, imposing a Social Security number requirement does not prevent the fraud that the sponsor seeks to prevent. That makes intuitive sense. If a person is going to lie about the existence of a kid, they will lie about the SSN too. This amendment does not solve the problem.

If this amendment does not solve the problem, then what would be the real impact of this amendment? Here is what the amendment would do.

First, it would deny help to roughly 4 million U.S. citizen children from low-income households by making their families ineligible for the child tax credit. The average family claiming the refundable child tax credit earns only about $21,000 a year, and, as I mentioned earlier, many of these families are led by women. Every dollar matters to these families. The child tax credit lifts roughly 1.5 million children out of poverty each year. This amendment would plunge many of these children back into poverty.

I wish to emphasize that because of the way the child tax credit is structured in the Tax Code, only working families are eligible for the refundable portion. These families are working and paying taxes, but in lean years they would be denied help from the child tax credit if this amendment were to become law. They are paying taxes but would be denied help. That is not fair.

Second, this amendment would render these 4 million U.S. children second-class citizens because of who their parents are. That is contrary to the principle of equality on which this country was founded. All citizens should be treated fairly and equally. This amendment says some citizen children will receive help and others will not, depending on who their parents are. That is simply not right.

In closing, there is a better way to pay for repealing the military COLA provision that was included in the budget, and that is to close corporate tax loopholes. The proponents cite a news report from Indiana in which an undocumented worker admitted he had allowed four other undocumented workers to use his address to file tax returns. The four workers did not live there, but he allowed them to use his address anyway. I agree that this is fraud and should be stopped.

This story reminds me of the story of the Ugland House in the Cayman Islands. The Ugland House is a 5-story building that has been identified as the official address for 18,857 companies, all at the same time. Some of the inhabitants of this address are some of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States. As I understand it, this is not a violation of U.S. laws. Tens of thousands of corporations can legally use the same building for their official address. It is not fraud but merely tax planning, I am told.

Offshore mailing addresses and accounting tricks are allowing corporations to shelter enormous profits from U.S. taxes. According to Bloomberg News, 83 of the largest companies in the United States held $1.46 trillion in profits offshore in 2012. Another report, by JPMorgan Chase, estimates that the amount of offshore profits is even higher-- nearly $1.7 trillion. How does this work? They funnel their revenues through shell companies to escape taxation. Countries such as Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland--which combined account for less than one-half of 1 percent of the world's population-- generated 43 percent of the profits reported by American companies in 2008. Clearly, there is a major tax problem here.

While our colleagues rail against five workers using one address to file taxes, we hear nothing about more than 18,000 companies that have used one address to file their taxes. Talk about egregious. These corporate tax loopholes resulting in the huge amount of taxes companies don't pay are what this Congress should focus on, not on denying a few hundred dollars of help to a U.S. citizen child who is on the edge of poverty.

Senator Shaheen has filed an amendment that begins to address these corporate tax problems. Her amendment, No. 2618, of which I am a cosponsor, will prevent more than 18,000 corporations from pretending they are headquartered in a single building in the Cayman Islands. Like the amendment of Senator Ayotte, the Shaheen amendment will repeal the military retiree COLA provision that was in the budget deal. The difference is that the amendment of Senator Shaheen will pay for the repeal by holding corporations accountable for the taxes they owe instead of denying help to U.S. citizen children of working parents, many of whom are women, who are in poverty.

We all recognize that we have a responsibility to our veterans, taxpayers, and to future generations. The amendment of Senator Shaheen will allow us to meet all of these commitments at the same time. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense approach and vote in favor of the Shaheen amendment and not the Ayotte amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, 50 years ago today President Johnson declared a war on poverty. He said:

Very often a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of

poverty, but the symptom. The

cause may lie deeper in our failure to give citizens a fair

chance to develop their own capacities, in a lack of

education and training, in a lack of medical care and

housing.

He proposed a broad range of new initiatives to address these deeper failures: Medicare, Head Start, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and housing and transportation programs. These initiatives have given millions of people more opportunities to succeed and help them get back on their feet when they stumble. President Johnson called on Congress to take up these proposals because, he said, ``many Americans live on the outskirts of hope. Our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity.'' That is still our task today.

We have come a long way since 1964, but clearly the fight is not over. For years our American dream has been that if people work hard and play by the rules, they will succeed. However, the divide between the very rich and the very poor is as wide as it has ever been. Wages have stagnated, and more and more middle-class families struggle to get ahead and provide opportunities for their children.

We have to carry on the work that began 50 years ago and update it for the needs of our modern economy. Let's keep fighting to create new, good-paying jobs and sustainable American industries. Let's make sure all Americans have access to the education and training needed to get those jobs and succeed. Let's work to make sure that as our economy grows, so do middle-class incomes and the opportunity to climb into the middle class and beyond.

I wish to speak briefly about three ideas for these goals. First, let's increase the minimum wage so workers earn more than poverty-level wages. Second, let's make education more accessible from pre-K through college so that Americans are well prepared for the jobs of the future. Finally, let's strengthen the safety net programs that have kept so many out of poverty so working families can get through the tough times and get back on their feet.

First, our economy has grown fourfold over the last 50 years, but the poor and middle class have not seen enough of the benefits of this growth. According to Census data, the economy is producing 45 percent more per person than it was in 1987, but real median income has remained flat.

Workers earning minimum wage have fared even worse because today's Federal minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. The 1968 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, would be $10.68 today, not $7.25. That means the minimum wage has lost one-third of its buying power. It is no wonder our families are struggling. The minimum wage should be increased.

Raising the minimum wage is important for many Americans, but it is particularly important for women. Most minimum wage workers--over 64 percent of them--are women. Today millions of women are trapped in minimum wage jobs.

The Federal minimum wage of $7.25 yields only $15,000 per year for a full-time worker. If this woman is supporting a child or an elderly parent, as is often the case, their family income would be below the Federal poverty line. Their situation is even more dire in Hawaii, where the cost of living is much higher.

Fighting poverty is a women's issue. Poverty hurts more women and children than men. More than 58 percent of adults in poverty are women. More than one in seven women--nearly 17.8 million--live in poverty. More than one in five children--about 21.8 percent--are poor, almost twice the rate for adult men.

The low minimum wage hurts not only workers--and particularly women workers and children--it is unfair to taxpayers. That is because minimum wage workers are often eligible for food assistance, housing vouchers, and other safety-net programs. This means we taxpayers are subsidizing companies that pay their workers poverty wages. If we want to reduce government spending--and make more workers fully self- sufficient--raising the minimum wage is a good place to start.

Second, expanding access to education--from birth to college and career training--will build new ladders out of poverty.

When I came to this country as an 8-year-old immigrant, my mother enrolled me in Hawaii public schools. That is where I learned English and developed a love of reading. When I graduated from Kaimuki High School, I attended the University of Hawaii. The Higher Education Act of 1965 helped me--and millions of other students--pay for college through work-study and low-interest Federal student loans. Today we need to strengthen our commitment to our next generation of scientists, architects, teachers, and innovators.

I know firsthand the power of a quality education. That is why for years I have been fighting for quality preschool in Hawaii and nationwide. Children in poverty come to kindergarten with half the vocabulary of their higher-income peers. If they start school already behind, how can we expect them to catch up?

President Johnson helped pass the Head Start Act. This law helped millions of poor children attend preschool, while parents got the skills they needed to help their kids at home. Since then, we have reformed and strengthened Head Start quality, but, still, fewer than half of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds can get a Head Start seat. Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible infants and toddlers can get a spot in Early Head Start.

The Federal Government cannot do it all. States and local governments want to do their part too. That is why Governors, educators, and legislators across the country--both Republicans and Democrats--have expanded State preschool in 2013. Let's support their efforts.

This Congress I worked with Senators Harkin, Murray, Casey, and others to introduce the Strong Start for America's Children Act. This bill would create a Federal-State partnership for high-quality preschool. It includes elements from our PRE-K Act so States such as Hawaii that have further to go can have more support as they build their preschool system.

The bill's supporters include parents, educators, business leaders, and even police. They recognize that we can pay for quality preschool now or pay later for law enforcement when kids drop out of school and commit crimes. Let's come together to get this done.

While we need to focus on helping kids start kindergarten ready to succeed, we also need to improve access to higher education when they graduate from high school.

With student debt skyrocketing, the Pell grant is a bedrock investment in college access. In 1978, the Pell grant helped pay for 75 percent of college costs at a 4-year public university. Today it pays for only a third.

This year I plan to introduce the Pell Grant Protection Act, a bill to strengthen and preserve the Pell grant. There is also more we can do--like simplifying the Federal student aid process, improving work- study, and expanding access to adult basic education. I look forward to working on these and other efforts in the Higher Education Act and Workforce Investment Act this year.

Third, let's strengthen our safety net programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

These programs provide real hope and real opportunity for people. I know this because I have lived it. My mother raised three children by herself. Most of us have relied upon or known families who have relied upon food stamps or unemployment insurance. My mother's unemployment checks were a safety net for us, providing us with much needed temporary help. They gave us breathing room and put food on the table while she searched for work. I know the anxiety when the family breadwinner loses her job through no fault of her own.

These safety net programs have helped keep millions of Americans out of poverty. Using the Census Supplemental Poverty Measure, the national poverty rate has gone down from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012. Without safety-net programs, the poverty rate would have climbed to 29 percent. Seniors would have been hurt especially badly.

Thus, it is alarming to see many of my Republican colleagues calling to shred the safety net programs. They have proposed drastic cuts to SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and a host of other vital supports.

The basic idea of the safety net is to prevent people from falling so far behind that they cannot catch up. So instead of making cuts, we should strengthen these programs and, of course, focus on creating jobs.

With the challenges facing our families today, the war on poverty continues. Let's not give in to the naysayers seeking to dismantle our safety net. Let's not retreat in our efforts to help people climb out of poverty. Let's fight even harder to provide an opportunity agenda, one that reaffirms the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. If we work together, I know we can get this done.

I yield.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there is not a single Senator here who does not acknowledge the seriousness of sexual assault in the military and that we must do something to prevent and prosecute these crimes. Yes, there are differences of opinion as to what we need to do, but make no mistake, we share the common goal of preventing and prosecuting these crimes.

I thank two strong women on the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand, for their leadership in pushing for solutions that will make a difference. I also thank Chairman Levin for his commitment and leadership in bringing forth a bill that includes a number of important improvements to the current system. We all support these changes. However, I believe there is a fundamental structural problem with how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in the military. We need to make the changes proposed by the Gillibrand amendment.

I am a cosponsor of the Gillibrand amendment. I spoke on the floor last week and explained why I think we need to remove disposition authority from the chain of command. I don't want to repeat everything I said last week, so let me make a few points.

First, for two decades or longer the Department of Defense has had a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault and sexual harassment. Yet the problem persists. Servicemembers continue to be assaulted and raped, and in too many cases the perpetrators continue to go unpunished. Year after year, Secretary after Secretary and commander after commander has told us about all the efforts to correct this problem, but those efforts have not worked. There are probably many reasons why these incremental changes have not worked, but every year that these changes do not work, many more of our brave men and women in the military endure the trauma of sexual assault. It is time to make a major change to the military justice system.

Second, too often these attacks are not reported, which allows the attacker to prey on more victims. The survivors tell us the biggest reason they do not report these crimes is because they do not believe their chain of command will ensure that justice is done. Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Amos, has acknowledged that many victims do not come forward because ``they do not trust the command.''

The concerns of survivors in coming forward makes sense because there are inherent biases and conflicts of interest in the chain of command. These concerns are echoed in a letter from GEN Claudia Kennedy that was signed by more than two dozen former officers from all branches of the military. The letter states:

We know that, in too many cases, servicemembers have not

reported incidents of sexual assault because they lack

confidence in the current system. The inherent conflicts that

exist in the military justice system have led servicemembers

to believe that their allegations of sexual assault will not

receive a fair and impartial hearing and that perpetrators

will not be held accountable.

We should give weight to these concerns and act today to remove the chain of command from prosecutorial decisions in sexual assault cases and instead put these decisions in the hands of an impartial, experienced military lawyer.

Third, removing prosecutorial decisions from the chain of command will not harm good order and discipline. I have heard this concern from many military leaders, as well as from others who oppose this amendment. They say eliminating a commander's ability to decide whether a case should go to trial would undermine the commander's ability to maintain good order and discipline within the unit, and yet--and yet-- we have heard from many others who have command experience who support the Gillibrand amendment.

Good order and discipline should not depend upon a commander's ability to decide whether to prosecute a sexual crime. A commander's authority and leadership must certainly be based on more than that.

Furthermore, the Gillibrand amendment preserves a commander's disposition authority over crimes that are uniquely military--crimes such as desertion, AWOL, contempt, and noncompliance with procedural rules. This ensures that commanders will have the authority they need to maintain good order.

In closing, it is undeniable that the current system does not work. We know it does not work because, according to the Department of Defense, in 2012 there were an estimated 26,000 cases--26,000 cases--of unwanted sexual contact.

We know that not all survivors report these crimes because, in the words of General Amos, ``They do not trust the command.'' We know we can eliminate bias and conflicts of interest by entrusting prosecutorial decisions to

an impartial, experienced military lawyer. We know that removing disposition authority from the chain of command will not undermine good order and discipline.

We know what needs to be done. We ought to do it and do it today. We owe it to the men and women who serve our country in uniform. We owe it to the families and loved ones of those who serve because the trauma of sexual assault often extends beyond the trauma experienced by the survivor. I urge my colleagues to support the Gillibrand amendment.

I yield the floor.

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