Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the achievements of Ms. Vivian E. ``Bo'' Smith-Tallan. During her years of service, Ms. Smith demonstrated tireless dedication to her country, and specifically to Fairchild Air Force Base and the greater Spokane area.

Ms. Smith-Tallan, who hails from Maryland, entered the Air Force in 1976 directly out of high school. She retired from the Air Force as a master sergeant after serving for 20 years on active duty. Ms. Smith- Tallan completed a degree in law enforcement and is a graduate of the Spokane County Police Academy. Prior to her present position, she was a police officer with the Medical Lake Police Department and bailiff for the Airway Heights courts system.

While on Active Duty in the law enforcement career field, Ms. Smith- Tallan served in numerous capacities including gate guard, patrolman, investigator, pass and registration noncommissioned officer in charge, and flight chief. Her talent earned her a selection as the first female motorcycle patrolman. In 1992 she was assigned as the treaty compliance superintendent and finalized Fairchild Air Force Base's role under the START Treaty in which B-52s were removed from assignment to the base. From there she was assigned as the wing protocol superintendent until her retirement from Active Duty in 1996.

Ms. Smith-Tallan then began serving at Fairchild Air Force Base as a Department of Defense civilian. Through the following 18 years she led an office of 12 airmen as the wing chief of protocol and public relations, consistently ensuring that Fairchild presented a welcoming and professional environment to visitors and the local community.

As chief of protocol she planned, evaluated, and led the arrangements,

protocol and coordination for dignitaries visiting the wing. She developed and executed itineraries compatible with the scope of the visit, to include social events, ceremonies, briefings, lodging, transportation, courtesy and office calls, and tours. She planned and supervised countless renderings of honors, awards, promotions, retirements, change of command ceremonies, dining outs, airshows, intra-service competitions, parades, and other recognitions.

As chief of public relations, Ms. Smith-Tallan planned, organized and directed the activities of the 92nd Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs office to provide installation-level multimedia activities composed of media, community relations, photography and videography. She developed the community relations program and ran the Honorary Commanders and Eagles program to ensure continual outreach of installation commanders with civic leaders. Ms. Smith-Tallan also served as the wing foreign disclosure officer.

Ms. Smith-Tallan consistently goes above and beyond, as exemplified by her multiple Civilian of the Year and Civilian of the Quarter awards, an Exemplary Civilian Service Award, and many more awards she received while serving on Active Duty. Her record of achievement would not have been possible without the love and support of her husband, Robert ``Bob'' Tallan. We thank her family for sharing her with us. Mr. President, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Ms. Smith-Tallan on her 38 years of outstanding service. For her commitment to the people of Fairchild Air Force Base and the greater Spokane area, she is worthy of the highest praise.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, one would think, now more than ever, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would recognize the American people really want us focused squarely on jobs and the economy. It is what every poll says. It is what the vast majority of all of our constituents say, and it is absolutely what is needed at a time when families, especially working women, continue to struggle to make ends meet. But instead of working with us across the aisle to give every American a fair shot, it seems as though Republicans are focused on something else entirely: Politics.

Today, the senior Senator from South Carolina came to the floor and attempted to pass a bill that not only undermines women's access to their doctors but restricts their rights to access reproductive health services. I am not sure what our colleagues think has changed since they last introduced this bill in November, but just as it was back then, this extreme, unconstitutional abortion ban is an absolute nonstarter. It is not going anywhere in the Senate and, as they know, it is a cheap political ploy. I would like to think that over the last 41 years, since the historic decision of Roe v. Wade, we have moved on from debating this issue. I would like to think that after four decades, many of those who want to make women's health care decisions for them have come to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is settled law. After all, many of the signs of progress are all around us.

In this Congress there is a record 20 women serving in this body. In 2012 women's power and voice at the ballot box was heard pretty loudly and clearly. In fact, when Republican candidates for office thought that rape was a political talking point, that idea and their candidacies were swiftly rejected, thanks in large part to the voices of women.

So sometimes it is tempting to think that times indeed have changed and that maybe, just maybe, politicians have finally realized that getting between a woman and her doctor is not their job, that it is possible rightwing legislators have a newfound respect for women. But the truth is that the drumbeat of politically-driven, extreme, and unconstitutional laws continues to get louder.

In 2013 our Nation saw yet another record-breaking year of State legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to abortion services. In fact, in the past 3 years, more of these restrictions have been enacted across this country than in the previous 10 years combined. And anti-choice lawmakers here in our Nation's capital have filed 50 legislative attacks on reproductive rights in this Congress alone.

By the way, these haven't just been attacks on a woman's right to choose, they have been an all-out assault on everything from shaming pregnant women to drafting politically-driven legislation intended to create geographical roadblocks for low-income and racial minorities wishing to access safe reproductive services.

Not surprisingly, these States that have enacted some of the most extreme and archaic restrictions are also the same States that fail to achieve even mediocre standards when it comes to critical issues such as education and the economy. But despite these shortcomings, some Members of this body refuse to work with us to address those critical issues and instead want to distract the American public with these purely political bills until the small pocket of their extreme audience is satisfied.

In fact, according to the Senator from South Carolina, debating a woman's access to her own doctor is a ``debate worthy of a great democracy.'' The fact is it is a debate we have already had. This is a directed attack on Roe v. Wade, and it is attack on what is already settled law.

I wish to remind my colleagues today that real women's lives and the most difficult health care decisions they could ever possibly make are at stake.

Let me share with my colleagues the story of Judy Nicastro. She is from my home State of Washington. She bravely shared her story publicly in the New York Times. I have told her story before, but it bears repeating now because we are under attack again. In an op-ed she wrote, just days before the House passed a bill that was virtually identical to the one that was introduced today, Judy talked about being faced with every pregnant woman's worst nightmare.

In describing the news that one of the twins she was carrying was facing a condition where only one lung chamber had formed and that it was only 20 percent complete, Judy captured the anguish countless other women in similar positions have faced. ``My world stopped,'' she wrote.

I loved being pregnant with twins and trying to figure out

which one was where in my uterus. Sometimes it felt like a

party in there, with eight limbs moving. The thought of

losing one child was unbearable.

She went on to say:

The MRI at Seattle Children's Hospital confirmed our worst

fears: The organs were pushed up into our boy's chest and not

developing properly. We were in the 22nd week.

Under the bill proposed today, the decision Judy ultimately made, through very painful conversations with her family and with consultation with her

doctors, would be illegal. The decision to make sure, as she put it, that ``our son was not born only to suffer'' would be taken from her and given to politicians.

I am here today to provide a simple reality check. We are not going back. We are not going back on settled law such as Roe v. Wade or the Affordable Care Act. We are not going to take away a woman's ability to make her own decisions about her own health care and her own body.

Just as with the many attempts before this bill, there are those who would like the American public to believe that all of these efforts are anything but an attack on women's health care. They try to say it is a debate about freedom, except, of course, the freedom for women to access care.

It is no different than when we were told attacks on abortion rights are not an infringement on a woman's right to choose; they are about religion or States rights. Or when we are told that restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting women's ability to make their own family planning decisions, but it is somehow about protecting pharmacists. Or as demonstrated last month when a Republican State lawmaker in Missouri introduced legislation to triple the State's mandatory waiting period for abortion services, claiming it would give women more time to do their ``research.''

Not that we should be surprised, he went on then to compare this deeply personal and difficult choice to that of purchasing an automobile saying: ``In making a decision to buy a car, I put research in there to find out what to do.''

The truth is this is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care. This is about women. Instead of playing a game of political football with women and their health, Republicans should instead consider joining with us in working on what women truly want.

Women today want to have a fair shot at success. First and foremost, that means not rolling back the clock or eroding the gains we have made. We took a very good step forward with the Affordable Care Act, which now prevents insurance companies from charging women more than men for coverage, ensuring preventive services such as mammograms and contraception coverage is covered and increasing access to comprehensive health coverage, thanks to the Medicaid expansion and the exchanges. There is no doubt we need to make sure women have access in this country to opportunities such as getting equal pay for equal work or giving the millions of women earning the minimum wage a raise, which would go a long way towards that effort. We need to update our Tax Code so that mothers who are returning to the workforce do not face a marriage penalty.

There is much more we could be doing to address the issues of concerned women. Those are the issues we ought to be focused on--how to move our country forward, not backward.

So if it wasn't clear the last time the senior Senator from South Carolina made this attempt, it ought to be clear now. Senators such as myself are not going anywhere. Advocates and doctors who treat those women every day and know their health must be protected are not going anywhere. And women who continue to believe their health care decisions are theirs and theirs alone are not going to go anywhere. By the way, the Constitution is not going to go anywhere. Therefore, this extreme bill that was offered today is not going anywhere.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening, along with my colleague Senator Cantwell, to talk about a truly remarkable man from our own State of Washington whom we just lost last week.

Billy Frank, Jr., was many things to many different people. To his family he was a loving husband and father, to the dozens of Native American tribes in Washington State he was a hero and a champion for hard-fought treaty rights, and to millions across our State, Billy Frank, Jr., was a marine who represented what the best of America is all about, fighting for what you believe in and never, ever giving up.

I was back in Washington State yesterday for Billy's memorial service, and looking around at all the people there whose lives he had touched, I was reminded of what made Billy so special. Billy was the type of person who defined the term ``larger than life.'' He was the type of person who had so much personality and so much ability and so much passion and love in his heart that it was very hard to believe it could all be contained in just one person.

When Billy believed in something, he didn't just make his argument, he held a fish-in. He built a movement. He did raise his voice just to be heard, he banged down the doors in Olympia and here in Washington, DC, until he got what he needed. Most of all, he never flinched in the face of opposition, and he faced plenty of it, from hate and discrimination to being arrested and abused. Over a lifetime that took him from the banks of the Nisqually River to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, Billy made sure the rights of Native Americans were protected and honored by the United States of America. He led the fight to ensure tribal rights to Native lands and salmon harvest could never be stolen away and over time he became much more than an advocate. He became in many ways a face of so many Native American communities across this country.

Now as we grieve and try to think about how to move forward without this larger-than-life man, I am reminded that while we have lost Billy, so much of his life's work truly remains with us because all he accomplished and all he achieved, whether it was power and influence or court decisions and new laws, it was never about him. It was always about his community, his tribe, and protecting treaty rights for all Native Americans. Billy was someone who did so much and worked so hard not so he could gain power or wealth but so the people, the land, and the fish he cared so much for would never be brushed aside or forgotten. That is a rare thing.

Billy's life wasn't a job for one man or one woman, but somehow he pulled it off by himself. So now it is going to take everyone who knew him to fill his shoes together and fight with the tribes that call Washington State home.

I wish to conclude by quoting something Billy once said:

I don't believe in magic. I believe in the sun and the

stars, the water, the tides, the floods, the owls, the hawks

flying, the river running, the wind talking. They are

measurements. They tell us how healthy things are. They tell

us because we and they are the same, and that is what I

believe in. Those who listen to the world that sustains them

can hear the message brought forth by the salmon.

That is Billy and we will miss him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 passed in December not only provided relief to families and the economy from the harmful effects of sequestration but also put an end to the recent fiscal crises and uncertainty by establishing a bipartisan congressional budget for 2 years. Specifically, the act authorizes the chairmen of the Senate and House Budget Committees to file allocations, aggregates, levels, and other enforcement mechanisms in the Senate and the House for budget years 2014 and 2015.

On January 15, I filed the first of the two budgets in the Senate for fiscal year 2014. Today, pursuant to section 116 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, I am filing the budget in the Senate for fiscal year 2015. Specifically, for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 116 directs the chairman of the Budget Committee to file: allocations for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for the Committee on Appropriations; allocations for fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2015 through 2019, and 2015 through 2024 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations; aggregate spending levels for fiscal year 2014 and 2015; aggregate revenue levels for fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2015 through 2019, and 2015 through 2024; and aggregate levels of outlays and revenue for fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2015 through 2019, and 2015 through 2024 for Social Security. That authority to file allocations, aggregates, levels, and other enforcement tools exists from April 15 through May 15.

In the case of the Committee on Appropriations for 2014 and 2015, the allocation shall be set consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in the Bipartisan Budget Act, which imposes limits only on the amount of budget authority and divides those limits on budget authority between the revised security category and the revised nonsecurity category.

In the case of allocations for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations and for the revenue and Social Security aggregates, the levels shall be set consistent with the most recent baseline of the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO last updated its baseline on April 14, 2014.

In the case of the spending aggregates for 2014 and 2015, the levels shall be set in accordance with the allocation for the Committee on Appropriations and the allocations for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations, as described previously.

Pursuant to section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the allocations to the Committee on Appropriations and the spending aggregates can be revised for certain adjustments specifically authorized by section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The authorized changes include adjustments for overseas contingency operations and the global war on terrorism, disaster funding, emergency appropriations, and program integrity initiatives in the areas of continuing disability reviews and redeterminations and health care fraud and abuse control. These adjustments will be made after the reporting of a bill or joint resolution or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon that includes language that qualifies for one or more of the authorized adjustments.

In addition, section 116(c) of the Bipartisan Budget Act authorizes the filing for fiscal year 2015 of deficit-neutral reserve funds included in sections 114(c) and (d) of the act, updated by 1 year to match the new enforcement windows. Accordingly, I am hereby filing and updating by 1 year each of the reserve funds included in sections 114(c) and (d) of the Bipartisan Budget Act. The reserve funds are updated to cover the period of the total of fiscal years 2014 through 2024 in the case of the reserve fund authorized in section 114(c) and the period of the total of fiscal years 2014 through 2019 and the period of the total of fiscal years 2014 through 2024 in the case of the reserve funds authorized in section 114(d). In the case of section 114(d), the reserve funds filed and updated here include sections 302,

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 338, 339, 340, 341, 344, 348, 349, 350, 353, 354, 356, 361, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 376, 378, 379, and 383 of S. Con. Res. 8 (113th Congress), as passed by the Senate.

Section 114(a) directs the chairman of the Budget Committee also to reset the Senate pay-as-you-go scorecard to zero for all fiscal years. Pursuant to section 114(a), I am notifying the Senate and including the revised scorecard as part of the submission on revised enforcement for budget year 2015.

Finally, section 112 of the Bipartisan Budget Act establishes a point of order in the Senate against appropriations bills that provide advance appropriations. That act includes limited exceptions to this prohibition including up to $28.852 billion in advance appropriations for programs, projects, activities, or accounts included in a statement submitted by the chairman of the Budget Committee in the Congressional Record. Pursuant to section 112, the list of allowable advance appropriations subject to the limit is as follows:

Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations--

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: Employment and Training Administration, Job Corps, Education for the Disadvantaged, School Improvement, Special Education, Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

Financial Services and General Government: Payment to Postal Service.

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development: Tenant-based Rental Assistance and Project-based Rental Assistance.

Mr. President, my counterpart, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Ryan, similarly has filed allocations, aggregates, and levels in the House. The two filings will allow the House and the Senate to extend budget enforcement measures for 2015, an important principle of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing enforcement in the Senate for budget year 2015, including new committee allocations, budgetary and Social Security aggregates, detail on discretionary spending limits, and the Senate pay-as-you-go scorecard, be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 1:45 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Madam President, the Highway Trust Fund is a vital resource for States to tackle much-needed transportation projects. But right now that trust fund is running on fumes. States from Vermont to California and many in between are rethinking their plans for construction because of funding uncertainty in the Highway Trust Fund. One example is New Mexico. Their State officials are starting to ramp up construction plans for Interstate 25 in Albuquerque. That project has been a high priority for city officials for a number of years. Once it is completed, it is going to reduce traffic and improve safety. That is vital for that area. But right now State officials in New Mexico have said they are concerned about Federal funding for that project and it now might be in jeopardy.

That is not an isolated case. The trust fund supports transportation projects across our entire country. It eases congestion for our commuters and for businesses that need to move their goods efficiently and quickly. It funds safety initiatives and construction that improves our roads and bridges. It sparks job creation for American workers.

But the Department of Transportation now says that trust fund will not be able to keep up with its payments to States as soon as this summer. This crisis is right around the corner. Many States are now planning for worst-case scenarios. In fact, the State of Missouri has stopped planning for

new projects. In Colorado, a State official has said: Without these funds, major projects probably will not be completed or ever get underway.

Arkansas has begun planning several projects to replace old bridges and widen highways and repair roads, but now, their transportation officials have put 10 projects on hold because of this looming crisis.

Construction is at its height during our summer months. So if the Highway Trust Fund hits a crisis in the next few months, we could potentially see a construction shutdown, meaning workers are going to be left without paychecks.

That could add up to 10,000 jobs in Florida, according to the President of the Florida Transportation Builders Association. Across the country, failing to shore up our Highway Trust Fund could cost more than 180,000 jobs in fiscal year 2015. That is according to an analysis from the Center for American Progress.

In Kentucky, Governor Steve Beshear summed it up by telling reporters: ``We can't afford for the Highway Trust Fund to go insolvent.'' States and workers are counting on us to solve this. I am hopeful that we can replenish the Highway Trust Fund in a bipartisan way. In fact, House Republican Dave Camp, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, has proposed using corporate revenue to replenish the Highway Trust Fund.

President Obama's Grow America Act also calls for corporate revenue to address this crisis and make important investments in our infrastructure. That approach makes a lot of sense. Closing wasteful loopholes so we can create jobs here at home would be good for our workers, good for our economy, and it would make our broken tax system fairer in the process. I am here today to say I am hoping that Republicans will come to the table willing to close just a few corporate loopholes so we can avoid an unnecessary crisis in our Highway Trust Fund, so that we can give our States more certainty to plan and we can help spark job growth in the summer.

But if Republicans are not willing to work with us, they are going to have to explain why egregious corporate tax loopholes are more important than workers in our construction industry and more important than drivers and businesses that rely every day on safe roads and bridges.

I am here to say and to warn that construction projects are at risk across our country. Another example happens to be in New Hampshire, where construction crews have been working on a major project to widen Interstate 93. That project was designed to ease congestion and improve safety. Last month the State transportation commissioner said the project could be stalled and thrown off schedule if Congress does not resolve the Highway Trust Fund crisis. He said, ``Any hiccup in federal funding could have a negative impact on the ending.''

For many States this looming crisis is already a reality. We have to act now. So let's show our States that together we will continue to invest in projects that help drivers and help businesses move their goods, and let's show the American people that Congress can work together to ensure vital transportation construction projects will move forward this summer. Let's shore up that Highway Trust Fund and avoid this unnecessary and totally preventable crisis.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 1, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Importance of Regional Strategies in Rural Economic Development.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 1, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 1, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 1, 2014, at 11 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``President Obama's 2014 Trade Policy Agenda.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 1, 2014, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 1, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I would like to speak about the excellent nominee we are considering to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Washington, Stan Bastian.

In my home State of Washington we have a bipartisan judicial selection process that allows us to recommend nominees who are supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, and while we don't always agree on every nominee, that process has served our State well for a long time. As the Senate votes today on the nomination of Mr. Bastian, I would like to inform my colleagues that during the bipartisan process to select him, his support was unanimous. That means every Republican and every Democrat who helps select judicial nominees in our State supports Mr. Bastian on the Federal bench. In today's political atmosphere, that is the strongest endorsement I can think of.

He has nearly 30 years of litigation experience. He is a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers. He is the chairman of the Equal Justice Coalition, and throughout his career he has served the Washington bar, first as a member of the board of governors and eventually as president. He has practiced in both State and Federal courts, tried hundreds of cases, including civil and criminal cases and jury and bench trials.

Our system of government is at its best when good people step up to the plate and are willing to serve. Throughout his legal career Stan Bastian has done just that. So I am here to express my support and urge our colleagues to do the same.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her really important statement. I come here today to join her and talk about this one small idea that stands for a huge difference in the lives of all of our constituents and, as she pointed out, for women in particular; that is, of course, the idea that if you are putting in 40 or 50 or 60 hours of work per week, you are able to put food on the table and pay your bills and you will not be stuck below the poverty line.

This idea could change the lives of millions of Americans if Congress simply acted and raised the minimum wage. But we have to act now because right now one in four women in our workforce is making the minimum wage. That is 15 million American women who are making the equivalent of about two gallons of gas per hour.

Are we prepared to tell them that should be enough to support themselves and their kids? In fact, as we have heard several times now here in this Chamber, nearly two-thirds of those who earn the minimum wage or less are women. This is coming at a time when more and more women are depended upon as the sole income earners in American families.

Right now, in cities and towns across America, there are millions of those women who are getting up at the crack of dawn for work every day who are stuck living in poverty, who cannot save for a car, much less a house. They cannot pay for school to get new skills and a new job, and they cannot even afford to provide their children with warm winter clothes or basic medical care.

Unfortunately, this also comes at a time now when we are seeing CEO salaries skyrocketing across the country, all while America's minimum wage stays flat. In 2013, the average S&P CEO earned $11.7 million. That is 21 percent more than they earned in 2009--21 percent--and 630 percent more in real value than in 1983--630 percent more.

Unbelievably, this means that the average CEO today earns more before lunchtime on his first day of work than a minimum-wage worker earns all year. That is not how it is supposed to work in America, the country where you are told if you work hard and you play by the rules, you can get ahead.

So when we talk about the minimum wage, let's be clear: Raising the minimum wage is about bringing back our middle class. I am proud that in my State we are taking the lead. In my

home State of Washington, our workforce enjoys the highest minimum wage in the country. I wish to point out to our friends on the other side of the aisle, Washington State's economy has not been negatively impacted by our high minimum wage. In fact, our economy has benefited from a high minimum wage. Job growth has continued at a rate above the national average. Payrolls in our restaurants and in our bars have expanded because more people have more money in their pockets to spend out at dinner at night or on the weekend. Poverty in Washington State has trailed the national level for at least 7 years.

It is not just in Washington State that we are seeing those successes. In fact, this week the Center for Economic and Policy Research reported that of the 13 States that increased their minimum wage in early 2014, 11 of them have seen a gain in employment since then, and half of the 10 fastest growing States by employment were among this group of minimum-wage raisers.

This is just one of many reasons why I strongly support increasing the national minimum wage to $10.10. It is not going to make anyone rich, but for the 400,000 Washington residents who would be directly impacted, it would mean an average annual raise of approximately $375. That is no small amount for the over 48,000 in my State who would be lifted out of poverty with an increase in the minimum wage.

But we have to do more. In fact, today two-thirds of our families rely on income from both parents. Thanks to our outdated Tax Code, a woman who is thinking about reentering the workforce as the second earner may face higher tax rates than her husband. That is unfair and it has got to change. So last month I introduced the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act, which would help solve that problem by giving struggling two-earner families with children a tax deduction on the second earner's income.

My hope is that tomorrow here in the Senate we can come together on behalf of the millions of Americans who, like my own mother when I was growing up, are the sole breadwinner and caregiver in their family. I hope our colleagues have gotten a sense of how $7.25 an hour translates to a grocery trip for a family of four or to shopping for school supplies or even how it impacts making the daily commute.

That is why all of us are here today, this afternoon, to give that mom or that dad a fair shot at succeeding in America.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to a strong community leader, dedicated public servant, and advocate from the State of Washington, Val Ogden.

Val was a longtime friend and I would not be where I am today without her support.

She was a community advocate, in the truest and strongest sense of the word, and she was a champion for women and children.

She was a member of the Washington State House of Representatives, serving as speaker pro tempore.

Val was a leader for her community, securing funding for Washington State University Vancouver. She was a strong Democrat and very active in the Clark County Democratic Party. Val served as the executive director of the Clark County YWCA.

But you can't talk about Val without talking about her husband of 67 years, Dan. They were a team and were always working together to make their community a better place to live.

Val was also a very dedicated mother and grandmother. Along with Dan, she is survived by three children: Dan, Janeth and Patti, six grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren.

She will be missed by many but her legacy and leadership lives on.

Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in paying homage to Val Ogden. She lived a full life and our thoughts are with her loved ones at this time of great loss.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act. This is a bill that will make critical improvements to how we support our ill and injured veterans and their caregivers.

I am especially pleased to be joined this morning by our former colleague Senator Elizabeth Dole, who has come to the floor today and who has been such a tremendous and invaluable person in working to bring these caregiver issues to national attention. I really appreciate her being here and being such a champion on this, and a leader. She has brought people from all over the country together to make a difference for our caregivers and for our veterans.

We also have many of the very caregivers this bill is designed to help--representing, by the way, almost every State--in the gallery today to see this legislation introduced. I am very proud they are here. It is incredibly important that they are here today and on Capitol Hill because, as the Presiding Officer knows, our caregivers work extremely hard without any recognition, and they rarely ask for anything for themselves. In fact, most of the caregivers I have met sound much like the veterans and servicemembers they care for when they say: Oh, this isn't about me; I am just doing my part.

So last week, when RAND released their comprehensive, groundbreaking study on military caregivers, they chose a very appropriate title: ``Hidden Heroes.'' That is why it is so important to have all of those caregivers here today and working constantly to make sure we all understand what they do.

I am very proud to be introducing this bill not only as a Senator and a senior member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and someone who has fought so hard for the implementation of the VA caregivers program, but, as many of my colleagues know, for me, this is really a deeply personal issue.

Growing up, I saw firsthand the many ways military service can affect both veterans and their families. My father served in World War II. He was among the first soldiers to land in Okinawa. He came home as a disabled veteran and was awarded the Purple Heart.

Later in life he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Eventually he became too sick to work at the little five-and-dime store he managed, and my mom became his caregiver. This was no small burden for my mom, who had to raise seven children, care for my dad, and was now all of a sudden the primary source of income for our family.

Today, after more than a decade of two wars, men and women in uniform, as did my father, have done everything that has been asked of them and so much more. But now, as our role in this conflict winds down, the support we provide cannot end when the war no longer leads the nightly news broadcasts and disappears from the front pages of our newspapers. It is an enduring commitment for those who will first need help now or those who will need help later in their lives. It is a lifetime of care for so many.

In so many cases, the responsibility for providing that care often falls on the loved ones of severely injured veterans. Their courage and their devotion in taking on these responsibilities is inspiring for all of us. They are the reason we created the VA caregivers program, which now provides these family members with health care and counseling and training and respite and a living stipend.

I was proud to lead congressional efforts to push the VA to stop delaying the implementation of the caregivers program and restore the eligibility criteria to the intent of the law. Thankfully, as we know, in the end the White House and the VA announced they would allow more caregivers of more veterans to be eligible for benefits and finally got the program implemented. But there is a lot more we can do because, as the RAND study clearly shows us, caregivers are still struggling. Military caregivers have significantly worse health than noncaregivers, and they are at higher risk for depression. The stress they live under jeopardizes their relationships and puts them at greater risk of divorce, and they have trouble with employment and keeping health insurance. There is no way we will sit by and let caregivers and veterans face this on their own--not when we can make it a little bit easier.

The bill we are introducing this morning, the Military and Veterans Caregivers and Services Improvement Act, makes some broad changes to help give caregivers and veterans the tools they need to help tackle what they face. I wish to take a moment on the floor today to highlight just a few of the important provisions contained in this bill.

First and foremost, this bill will make veterans of all eras eligible for the full range of caregiver support services. We took an important first step in creating the post-9/11 veterans caregivers program. Now that the VA has had some time to get this program

working, it is time for us to get services to our older veterans who are also in great need.

The bill also expands eligibility for the VA caregivers program by recognizing a wider array of needs which may require caregiving, placing greater emphasis on mental health injuries and removing restrictions on who is eligible to become a caregiver.

Under the bill, caregiver services will also be expanded to include childcare, financial advice, and legal counseling. Those are some of the top and currently unmet needs of family caregivers.

The bill will also require the Federal Government to meet the unique needs of employees who are caregivers with flexible work arrangements so they can stay employed while caring for their veteran. I, of course, want to see all employers make these kinds of accommodations for caregivers, but I want the Federal Government to lead by example.

When it comes to the Department of Defense, the bill makes several improvements to the special compensation for assistance with activities of daily living--first, by making those benefits tax exempt, and second, eligibility for special compensation would also be set at a more appropriate level of disability and would be more inclusive of mental health injuries and TBI.

The Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act also addresses a key theme identified by RAND. There are many services inside the government and outside to assist caregivers, but these programs are not coordinated. Eligibility criteria are different for each one of them, and there is not enough oversight to ensure the quality of those services. So what our bill does is create a national interagency working group on caregiver services. It will coordinate caregiver policy among all the different departments and create standards of care and oversight tools to make sure our veterans and their caregivers receive high-quality services.

The last provision I wish to highlight is intended to help a military spouse who may be required to become the primary source of income for the family after the servicemember has been injured, just as my mom was. In order to help that spouse get the job they need to support the family, this bill will allow the injured servicemember or veteran to transfer their post-9/11 GI bill benefits to their dependents by exempting them from the length of service requirements that would currently prevent them from transferring those benefits. Injured veterans should not be penalized because their injury occurred early in their service.

This provision is extremely important because for 2013 the unemployment rate for people with bachelor's degrees was only 4 percent--about one-third lower than the national average--and their median weekly earnings were 34 percent higher than the national average. Meanwhile, the RAND study found that 62 percent of post-9/11 caregivers reported financial strain because of their caregiving.

I know this is important because I saw it in my family. For my family, the additional education my mom obtained got her a better job so she could support her family while she was caring for my dad. It is what made the difference.

I want to again thank some key people who have been true leaders to get this to this point.

I again want to thank Senator Dole and her great staff at the Elizabeth Dole Foundation for keeping our country focused on the needs of our military and veteran caregivers and for bringing such national momentum to make the changes we need.

I also want to thank the Wounded Warrior Project, which was a driving force in creating the very first VA caregivers program. They have provided invaluable advice in developing the bill I am introducing today.

Finally, I really want to thank the outstanding folks at the RAND Corporation. They have put together a truly groundbreaking study that takes stock of where care and benefits have fallen short, where new needs are emerging, and how we can make it easier for veterans to get the care and benefits they deserve.

There are many ways for the whole country--government, nonprofits, businesses, community leaders, faith leaders--to do more to help. For all of us in Congress, that starts with passing this legislation to help our hidden heroes--our military and veteran caregivers.

I again want to thank all of our tremendous caregivers in this country for their service, for not asking for help, as they should. We are the ones who need to ask for help for them and to be there to provide it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act. This is a bill that will make critical improvements to how we support our ill and injured veterans and their caregivers.

I am especially pleased to be joined this morning by our former colleague Senator Elizabeth Dole, who has come to the floor today and who has been such a tremendous and invaluable person in working to bring these caregiver issues to national attention. I really appreciate her being here and being such a champion on this, and a leader. She has brought people from all over the country together to make a difference for our caregivers and for our veterans.

We also have many of the very caregivers this bill is designed to help--representing, by the way, almost every State--in the gallery today to see this legislation introduced. I am very proud they are here. It is incredibly important that they are here today and on Capitol Hill because, as the Presiding Officer knows, our caregivers work extremely hard without any recognition, and they rarely ask for anything for themselves. In fact, most of the caregivers I have met sound much like the veterans and servicemembers they care for when they say: Oh, this isn't about me; I am just doing my part.

So last week, when RAND released their comprehensive, groundbreaking study on military caregivers, they chose a very appropriate title: ``Hidden Heroes.'' That is why it is so important to have all of those caregivers here today and working constantly to make sure we all understand what they do.

I am very proud to be introducing this bill not only as a Senator and a senior member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and someone who has fought so hard for the implementation of the VA caregivers program, but, as many of my colleagues know, for me, this is really a deeply personal issue.

Growing up, I saw firsthand the many ways military service can affect both veterans and their families. My father served in World War II. He was among the first soldiers to land in Okinawa. He came home as a disabled veteran and was awarded the Purple Heart.

Later in life he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Eventually he became too sick to work at the little five-and-dime store he managed, and my mom became his caregiver. This was no small burden for my mom, who had to raise seven children, care for my dad, and was now all of a sudden the primary source of income for our family.

Today, after more than a decade of two wars, men and women in uniform, as did my father, have done everything that has been asked of them and so much more. But now, as our role in this conflict winds down, the support we provide cannot end when the war no longer leads the nightly news broadcasts and disappears from the front pages of our newspapers. It is an enduring commitment for those who will first need help now or those who will need help later in their lives. It is a lifetime of care for so many.

In so many cases, the responsibility for providing that care often falls on the loved ones of severely injured veterans. Their courage and their devotion in taking on these responsibilities is inspiring for all of us. They are the reason we created the VA caregivers program, which now provides these family members with health care and counseling and training and respite and a living stipend.

I was proud to lead congressional efforts to push the VA to stop delaying the implementation of the caregivers program and restore the eligibility criteria to the intent of the law. Thankfully, as we know, in the end the White House and the VA announced they would allow more caregivers of more veterans to be eligible for benefits and finally got the program implemented. But there is a lot more we can do because, as the RAND study clearly shows us, caregivers are still struggling. Military caregivers have significantly worse health than noncaregivers, and they are at higher risk for depression. The stress they live under jeopardizes their relationships and puts them at greater risk of divorce, and they have trouble with employment and keeping health insurance. There is no way we will sit by and let caregivers and veterans face this on their own--not when we can make it a little bit easier.

The bill we are introducing this morning, the Military and Veterans Caregivers and Services Improvement Act, makes some broad changes to help give caregivers and veterans the tools they need to help tackle what they face. I wish to take a moment on the floor today to highlight just a few of the important provisions contained in this bill.

First and foremost, this bill will make veterans of all eras eligible for the full range of caregiver support services. We took an important first step in creating the post-9/11 veterans caregivers program. Now that the VA has had some time to get this program

working, it is time for us to get services to our older veterans who are also in great need.

The bill also expands eligibility for the VA caregivers program by recognizing a wider array of needs which may require caregiving, placing greater emphasis on mental health injuries and removing restrictions on who is eligible to become a caregiver.

Under the bill, caregiver services will also be expanded to include childcare, financial advice, and legal counseling. Those are some of the top and currently unmet needs of family caregivers.

The bill will also require the Federal Government to meet the unique needs of employees who are caregivers with flexible work arrangements so they can stay employed while caring for their veteran. I, of course, want to see all employers make these kinds of accommodations for caregivers, but I want the Federal Government to lead by example.

When it comes to the Department of Defense, the bill makes several improvements to the special compensation for assistance with activities of daily living--first, by making those benefits tax exempt, and second, eligibility for special compensation would also be set at a more appropriate level of disability and would be more inclusive of mental health injuries and TBI.

The Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act also addresses a key theme identified by RAND. There are many services inside the government and outside to assist caregivers, but these programs are not coordinated. Eligibility criteria are different for each one of them, and there is not enough oversight to ensure the quality of those services. So what our bill does is create a national interagency working group on caregiver services. It will coordinate caregiver policy among all the different departments and create standards of care and oversight tools to make sure our veterans and their caregivers receive high-quality services.

The last provision I wish to highlight is intended to help a military spouse who may be required to become the primary source of income for the family after the servicemember has been injured, just as my mom was. In order to help that spouse get the job they need to support the family, this bill will allow the injured servicemember or veteran to transfer their post-9/11 GI bill benefits to their dependents by exempting them from the length of service requirements that would currently prevent them from transferring those benefits. Injured veterans should not be penalized because their injury occurred early in their service.

This provision is extremely important because for 2013 the unemployment rate for people with bachelor's degrees was only 4 percent--about one-third lower than the national average--and their median weekly earnings were 34 percent higher than the national average. Meanwhile, the RAND study found that 62 percent of post-9/11 caregivers reported financial strain because of their caregiving.

I know this is important because I saw it in my family. For my family, the additional education my mom obtained got her a better job so she could support her family while she was caring for my dad. It is what made the difference.

I want to again thank some key people who have been true leaders to get this to this point.

I again want to thank Senator Dole and her great staff at the Elizabeth Dole Foundation for keeping our country focused on the needs of our military and veteran caregivers and for bringing such national momentum to make the changes we need.

I also want to thank the Wounded Warrior Project, which was a driving force in creating the very first VA caregivers program. They have provided invaluable advice in developing the bill I am introducing today.

Finally, I really want to thank the outstanding folks at the RAND Corporation. They have put together a truly groundbreaking study that takes stock of where care and benefits have fallen short, where new needs are emerging, and how we can make it easier for veterans to get the care and benefits they deserve.

There are many ways for the whole country--government, nonprofits, businesses, community leaders, faith leaders--to do more to help. For all of us in Congress, that starts with passing this legislation to help our hidden heroes--our military and veteran caregivers.

I again want to thank all of our tremendous caregivers in this country for their service, for not asking for help, as they should. We are the ones who need to ask for help for them and to be there to provide it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I want to start by expressing my deep thanks and appreciation to Senator Mikulski for her tremendous leadership in the fight for equal pay and for bringing the Paycheck Fairness Act to the forefront of the debate this session.

The role of women in our families and in our economy has really shifted dramatically over the last few decades. Today 60 percent of families rely on earnings from both parents. That is up from 37 percent in 1975--60 percent. Women today make up nearly half the workforce, and more than ever women are likely to be the primary breadwinner in their families. Women are making a difference in our economy, in board rooms, lecture halls and small businesses.

But despite the important progress we have made since the Equal Pay Act passed now 50 years ago, including passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act in 2009--thanks again to Senator Mikulski--giving women more tools to fight against pay discrimination, women's wages have not caught up with the times. Across the country today women still earn 77 cents on the dollar, on average, to do the exact same work as men. It would take a typical woman until today to earn what a man would earn doing the same work in 2013.

That difference really adds up. In Seattle, in my home State, last year women earned 73 cents on the dollar--73 cents on the dollar-- compared to their male counterparts. That translated to a yearly gap of $16,346. Nationwide, over a typical woman's lifetime, pay discrimination amounts to $464,320 in lost wages. That is not only unfair to women, it is bad for our families, and it is bad for our economy.

At a time when more and more families rely on women's wages to put food on the table or stay in their homes or build a nest egg for retirement or help pay for their children's education, it is absolutely critical we do more to eliminate pay discrimination and unfairness in the workplace. The Paycheck Fairness Act would tackle pay discrimination head on. It would ramp up enforcement of equal pay laws and strengthen assistance to businesses to improve equal pay practices. I hope we can all agree that 21st century workers should be compensated based on how they do their job, not whether they are male or female.

I hope to be able to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act as quickly as possible for working women and their families in this country, but we can't stop there. We need to build then on these critical reforms with other steps toward giving women a better and a fairer shot at getting ahead. One out of four women in the United States today would benefit from raising the minimum wage. That is 15 million American women who are making the equivalent of about 2 gallons of gas per hour. It is clearly time to raise the minimum wage and give working women in the country some much deserved relief.

There are other ways we can, and should be, updating our policies to help working women and their families make ends meet. For example, thanks to our outdated Tax Code, a woman who is thinking about reentering the workforce as the second earner in her family is likely going to face higher tax rates than her husband. That would come in addition to increased costs that she would then have with child care and transportation and the possibility of losing tax credits and other benefits as her household income rises. All of this means struggling families will experience higher tax rates than what many of the wealthiest Americans pay. This can discourage a potential second earner, such as a mom who is talking about reentering the workforce and returning to her professional career.

I recently introduced the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act, which would help solve this problem by giving struggling two-earner families with children a tax deduction on the second earner's income. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that change alone would cut taxes by an average of $700 for 7.3 million families next year.

The 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act would also expand the EITC for childless workers and lower the eligibility age so that people without dependents and young workers just starting out can benefit from the credit.

By the way, this has bipartisan support. It builds on work incentives from the EITC and is paid for by getting rid of wasteful corporate tax loopholes that both Ways and Means Chairman Camp and Democrats agree ought to be closed.

Opinion leaders from across the political spectrum have said this bill would provide much-needed relief to workers and families. One conservative commentator wrote in the National Review that the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act is ``a serious proposal that has the potential to better the lives of a large number of workers.'' A New York Times editorial columnist says it would be ``a huge benefit to low-income childless families and two-earner families.''

So I am hopeful that here in Congress we will see similar support on both sides of the aisle for a bill that would help women and working families keep more of what they earn.

We have come a long way in terms of the opportunities women have in our country today, but there is no question we have a lot more work to do. If we take these steps I have talked about, and that others here are talking about, we will do much to break down the very real barriers that still exist today. We will help working women and their families, we will strengthen our economy, and we will expand opportunity for the next generation of women who enter the workforce.

So I am here today to urge my colleagues to support the Paycheck Fairness Act and then build on that step by continuing to help level the playing field for American women and their families.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last October families and communities across our country were forced to endure a completely unnecessary government shutdown. Coming after years of budget uncertainty and constant crises, the shutdown hurt our workers and threatened our fragile economic recovery. It shook the confidence of people across the country who expected their elected officials to come together to avoid such a needless and self-inflicted crisis. It was a dark time here in Congress. I think many of my colleagues regret letting the tea party minority push us into that.

When the shutdown finally ended, I sat down with House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan in a budget conference that many of us had been trying to start for months. We worked through the issues. We compromised. We reached a 2-year budget deal that rolled back the devastating cuts from sequestration. We prevented another government shutdown and restored much needed certainty to the budget process.

That budget deal was a strong step in the right direction, but it was not the only step Congress needs to take to create jobs and economic growth. It was not the only step we need to take to ensure that we do not lurch to another avoidable crisis because if Congress does not act, we are headed toward another crisis in just a few months--not a budget crisis this time but a construction shutdown that could ramp up when our highway trust fund reaches critically low levels.

It will get worse and worse if we do not solve the problem. So I have come to the floor today to call on my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to work together to avert this looming crisis and to do it in a commonsense way that gives our States the multiyear certainty they need to plan projects, to invest in their communities, and to create jobs.

Since the mid-1950s our Nation has relied on the highway trust fund to support transportation projects that create jobs and keep our economy moving. The fund helps to repave our roads so they are not pockmarked with potholes. It helps congestion on our Nation's highways, and it helps repair bridges that are outdated and unsafe.

But as soon as July--just a few months from now--the Department of Transportation predicts the highway trust fund will reach a critically low level. If this is not resolved, construction projects to improve our roads and our bridges could shut down and leave workers without a paycheck.

We are already seeing some consequences from this crisis. In Arkansas, 10 construction projects, such as building highway connections and replacing bridges, have already been put on hold. The State of Colorado wants to widen a major highway to ease congestion between Denver and Fort Collins, but officials say that with this funding shortage in the highway trust fund, that project could be delayed. These are not isolated cases. States from Vermont to California might have to stop construction in its tracks because of this highway trust fund shortfall.

This crisis will also cut jobs. As we all know, construction is at its peak in the summer months. But without funding States may have no choice but to stop construction and leave workers without a job. That is going to hurt communities with needless delays on the very improvements that would help our businesses and spur economic growth.

This is unacceptable. It is unnecessary. Congress needs to work to avoid this construction shutdown. There is no reason--none--to lurch to another avoidable crisis when workers and families across the country are struggling. We need to ensure that construction can continue this summer. We need to support workers. We need to deliver a multiyear solution for the highway trust fund.

Fortunately, we can solve this in a way that should have bipartisan support. President Obama and House Republican Dave Camp, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, have proposed using corporate revenue to shore up the highway trust fund. That approach makes a lot of sense. By closing wasteful corporate tax loopholes, we can support improvements to our roads and bridges that benefit everyone--including our big businesses, so they can move their products quickly and efficiently--and make our broken Tax Code a bit fairer in the process. We can start by taking a close look at the tax loopholes House Republicans have proposed closing in Chairman Camp's recent plan.

Replenishing the highway trust fund with revenue by closing wasteful corporate loopholes will provide multiyear funding so we can provide our States with the certainty they need to plan. That kind of certainty has been absent for a long time. It has forced States to hold off on bigger projects that will help create jobs and long-term economic growth.

I am very hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work together to restore some certainty to States around our country. I know bipartisan support is possible, especially on an issue as important as this one. Since the highway trust fund's inception under Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republicans and Democrats have come together to invest in this national priority. Under Democratic and Republican Presidencies--from President Clinton to President Reagan to President Clinton--we updated and supported the highway trust fund. Even 2 years ago in a hyperpartisan election year, Congress reached a bipartisan agreement so that we could continue to build the roads and bridges and transit systems our communities need. In the past Republicans and Democrats have stepped up to support our workers and make sure we can invest in our transportation systems that put workers on the job and help businesses move their goods and help our economy grow.

There is no reason to wait until the last minute to get this done. The threat is growing on our construction sites and for jobs across the country. We have to give our States and our communities the confidence that Congress will not push them into another crisis.

Six months ago our communities and families endured a needless government shutdown. Americans are sick and tired of the dysfunction of Washington, DC, and constant crises. There is no reason for Congress to put them through anything even remotely similar, especially over transportation projects that will benefit our families, our communities, and our economy.

We must act to prevent a construction shutdown this summer. Let's build on the common ground that Democrats and Republicans share on this issue. Let's work together to show the American people that Congress can act to support our workers, families, and communities. Let's prevent a construction shutdown and give the highway trust fund some certainty. We need to make sure our States can keep investing in jobs and economic growth at this critical time.

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.

I ask that all time be yielded back.

There are a number of women who are going to be joining me today. They are leaders in this Capitol who are working each and every day, both here and back in their home States, to give more of their constituents a chance to succeed. Today we are here to talk about one small idea that stands to make a huge difference in the lives of our constituents, and for women in particular, and that is the idea that if you are putting in 40 or 50 or 60 hours of work per week you should be able to put food on your table and pay your bills, and you won't be stuck below the poverty line.

This idea could change the lives of millions of Americans if Congress simply acted and raised the minimum wage. We need to act now because right now one in four women--one in four women--is making minimum wage today. That is 15 million American women who are making the equivalent of about 2 gallons of gas per hour. Are we prepared to tell them that should be enough to support themselves and their kids?

In fact, as I am sure you will hear repeated by others today, nearly two-thirds of those who earn minimum wage or less are women. This is coming at a time when more women are now depended upon as the sole income earners in their families. Right now in cities and towns across America there are millions of those women who are getting up at the crack of dawn for work every day. They are stuck living in poverty. They cannot save for a car, much less a house. They cannot pay for school so they can get better skills and a better paying job. They cannot even afford to provide their children with more winter clothes or basic medical care. That is not how it is supposed to work in America, the country where you are told if you work hard and play by the rules you can get ahead.

So when we talk about the minimum wage, let's be clear: Raising the minimum wage is about bringing back our middle class. I am proud that in my State of Washington we are taking the lead. In our State our workforce enjoys the highest minimum wage in the country, and I am glad to point out to all of our friends on the other side of the aisle, Washington State's economy has not been negatively impacted by our high minimum wage. In fact, our economy has benefited from a high minimum wage.

Job growth has continued at a rate above the national average. Payrolls in our restaurants and bars have expanded due to people having more money in their pockets to spend at dinner or a night on the town, and poverty in Washington State has trailed the national level for at least 7 years now. That is why I support making the national minimum wage $10.10 for families from Washington to Wisconsin, from Massachusetts to Minnesota and Hawaii and everywhere in-between.

It is not enough to make you rich, but it is a small raise for millions of families who desperately need it. It is a small raise for moms and dads who need help. We have to do more. Today, two-thirds of families rely on income from both parents, but thanks to our outdated Tax Code, a woman thinking about reentering the workforce as a second earner in her family may face higher tax rates than her husband. That is unfair, and it has to change.

Last week I introduced the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act which will help solve that problem by giving struggling two-earner families with children a tax deduction on that second earner's income.

My hope is that over the coming weeks we can all come together in this Chamber on behalf of millions of American women who--like my own mother when I was growing up--are the sole caregiver and breadwinner in their families.

I hope our colleagues have gotten a sense of how the current $7.25 an hour translates to a grocery trip for a family of four, shopping for school supplies or even how it impacts people's daily commutes.

That is why we are here today--to give that mom or that dad a fair shot at succeeding in America. I am proud to be joined today by a number of my colleagues in the Senate who are strong women and fighting for women and men in their home States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at the time set under the previous order.

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