Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I have listened, as my friends--and they are my friends--and colleagues have come to the floor to talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline.

It turns out that what America needs more than anything else--more than an increase in the minimum wage, more than paycheck fairness so that men and women are paid fairly in the workplace--more than anything else, we need one more pipeline coming in from Canada.

If you listen to the other side, you would think the jobs that will be created by the Keystone XL Pipeline will finally turn this economy around.

How many jobs are we talking about? Madam President, 2,000--2,000 construction jobs? That is at the high end of estimates I have heard. How many jobs at the refineries in Texas to process this oil and ship it overseas? It is not for sale in the United States. I am not sure. But it really is amazing to me that they continue to focus on Keystone XL as if it is the only issue when it comes to the American economy.

Here is what I find particularly curious. For the record--and I am glad my friend, the Senator from North Dakota, is still in the Chamber--the Keystone XL Pipeline is not the first Keystone Pipeline. The first Keystone Pipeline, from Alberta, came into the United States and ended up in Wood River, IL, at the Conoco refinery. It is shipping Canadian tar sands down to be refined at the Conoco refinery. And then, after it is refined, in a pipeline it is distributed all across the United States.

If no Keystone XL Pipeline is ever built--and I do not know whether it will or will not be--there will still be a steady flow of Canadian tar sands into America for refining.

Just this week, Senator Kirk and I met with the North American president of BP. They have a huge refinery in Whiting, IN, at the south end of Lake Michigan. They are refining Canadian tar sands into oil that can be sold in different products.

I asked the head of the North American operations for BP what is going to happen to that refinery when it comes to Canadian tar sands? He said: We are going to triple--triple--our capacity to deal with Canadian tar sands. He did not say contingent on the Keystone XL. Because, you see, there is a vast network of pipelines moving Canadian tar sands to the United States already, and they are already going through a refinery--many of them--even the BP refinery in northern Indiana.

So this notion that we are somehow turning off the Canadian tar sands coming into the United States--if someone is suggesting that, I would ask them to bring proof to the floor. We are not.

What the President is doing is trying to make a decision on what is best for this country and our economy. He is trying to weigh it in a thoughtful manner. There is an element that needs to be part of this record. The President is trying to take into consideration the environment. I think he should. I think it is his responsibility.

We had a debate several weeks ago on the floor of the Senate. It was about global warming and climate change. It went on through the night. Many of my Democratic colleagues stayed up all night to talk about it. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island spoke at great length with their colleagues about the issue.

I came up early in the debate and simply made one point. I believe the Republican Party of the United States is the only major political party in the world--in the world--that denies climate change and global warming. I have asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give me an example. Tell me where I am wrong. Somebody said there may be a party in Australia. That is where they have to reach to find any other political party in the world that agrees with their position on global warming and climate change. So it is no wonder when we discuss energy and the future they do not want to talk about what is happening to our environment, the extreme weather situation we are even seeing this week, the devastation from storms in a magnitude we have never registered since we kept records.

What the President is trying to do is to take into consideration not just energy but also our environment, so ultimately we leave a world to our children and grandchildren which is safer and cleaner than the one we have today. My friend the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, came to the floor and talked about what he called a highly secretive, high- level meeting in Chicago, and then he proceeded to say at what hotel it was being held. It is not much of a secret if he knows where it is being held.

It is true there are meetings of people who oppose the Keystone Pipeline and support candidates who oppose it, as there are meetings of those who support the pipeline and support the candidates who join in their position. That happens to be the nature of the political scene. He even suggested that the person opposed to the pipeline was going to put $100 million into this campaign.

I, for one, would like to see an end to big money in our political campaigns. I would certainly like to see transparency and where it is coming from and how it is being spent, but the reality is, the Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court across the street changed the rules and people can play with big money now, a lot of their own.

What he did not mention were the Koch brothers. I would like to mention them for a moment because they are relevant to this discussion about Canadian tar sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Koch brothers are very wealthy, billionaires. They come to play when it comes to the American political scene. In the last cycle, we were able to identify over $248 million these two brothers spent on political causes and campaigns around the

United States, and we are told they are going to spend considerably more than that this time around.

Do the Koch brothers have an agenda when it comes to this issue? Let me give an illustration. It was about 3 months ago that I went into the southeast corner of the city of Chicago, an old steel mill neighborhood, which happens to be in the neighborhood where Barrack Obama, fresh out of college, was a community organizer. They are modest homes, frame homes, primarily Hispanic and African-American populations.

They called me down to this section, the southeastern section of the city of Chicago, to show me something. What they wanted to show me were piles of black soot. It is called petcoke. Petcoke is what is left after you take the Canadian tar sands, ship them through the pipeline to a refinery, making diesel fuel, aviation fuel and gasoline. What is left over, this black gunk substance called petcoke.

It turns out that the BP refinery was selling the petcoke to a company owned by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers were shipping this petcoke into the neighborhoods of Chicago. The mothers with their kids were calling me to their homes and schools to show me what happened when the wind blew. When the wind blew, this nasty black stuff flew through the air. It was all over windowsills and buildings, nasty as can be.

The city of Chicago is doing something about it. They are kind of changing the equation in terms of petcoke and what you have to do to store it. But if the other side is coming to the floor and saying our people are pure of heart, they just want to see the Keystone XL Pipeline, the fact is, the largest benefactors to the Republican Party in the United States today, the Koch brothers, have a financial and commercial interest in these Canadian tar sands, at least in the disposal of this petcoke. The way they were doing it in the city of Chicago was the height of corporate irresponsibility--just pile it and let the wind blow it across the neighborhood. It is going to be criminal when it is all over after the city of Chicago changes its laws to prohibit this kind of conduct.

But those are the things that are at stake in this conversation. I hope at the end of the day the President makes the right, thoughtful decision, not just in terms of energy but in terms of our environment, does the best thing for America. I hope we also understand that if we do nothing with the Keystone XL Pipeline, we are still going to face the challenges with Canadian tar sands, coming down through the United States, being refined and sold in our country and around the world. It is a challenge we have to face honestly.

I may disagree with some of my colleagues on the other side. I believe that if we want to leave a world for future generations--our kids, our grandchildren--that is a cleaner and safer world, we have to accept some responsibility in our generation, in our time, to clean up the mess of this environment. It may call for some sacrifice as individuals, as families, as businesses, but I do not think it is too much to ask.

God gave us this great world and asked us to keep an eye on it for the next generation. Are we going to do it or will we ignore it and say: If there is money to be made, we can start bringing in any source you wish. That to me is irresponsible.

Tribute to Dr. Jerry Umanos, John Gabel, and Gary Gabel

Madam President, Robert Kennedy once said, ``The purpose of life is to contribute in some way to make things better.'' Around the world and here at home, dedicated American citizens are living by this principle, trying to improve the lives of those in greatest need. Sadly, on April 24, we lost three Americans from my home State of Illinois who were killed at the Cure International Hospital which focuses on maternity and pediatric care in Afghanistan: Dr. Jerry Umanos, John Gabel, and his father Gary Gabel.

Both John Gabel and Dr. Jerry Umanos were working to help the Afghan people receive health care. In a country still coping with the legacy of decades of terrible conflict that devastated the medical infrastructure of Afghanistan, they were helping by volunteering to address the real needs of the Afghan people and improving the lives of those whom they assisted.

This is Dr. Jerry Umanos. His picture is an indication of this young, dedicated, idealistic man who lost his life. He was dedicating to helping kids. After he finished his residency at the Children's Hospital of Michigan, he could have made some money with his training, but instead he decided to help those who needed a helping hand.

He worked for years at an amazing place that I have visited, the Lawndale Christian Health Center in the city of Chicago. It is one of those neighborhood health centers which makes you feel good about the world, where great professionals, such as Dr. Umanos, give of their time, make very little money, and help the poorest of the poor.

He was an important part of that community. They loved him, not only his patients but his colleagues as well. He worked to help so many in Chicago who otherwise did not have a chance for quality health care. He followed this calling to Afghanistan where the needs of people were even greater. He was dedicated to making a difference there by helping the Afghan people, by teaching, by making certain that the next generation of Afghans had a better life. The breadth and depth of his work is a testimony to his love for and commitment not only to the people of Afghanistan but to the needy. What a loss that his life was taken from us.

John Gabel was a man who cared for others and made a real difference in the lives of those he touched. He used his skills to run a health clinic in Afghanistan and to help address the glaring needs of health care with the Afghan people. John was working in other ways to help build a better tomorrow for the people of Afghanistan. He used to teach at Kabul University, where he was remembered as a great teacher and a great friend.

He used his expertise in computer science, not to enrich himself but to teach others. Perhaps it is not surprising that John was so focused on helping those in need when we consider the example of his parents Gary and Betty Gabel, who also dedicated their lives to others. Tragically, Gary Gabel, who was visiting his son and his family in Afghanistan, was lost as well in the senseless shooting.

Gary Gabel helped his community in and around Arlington Heights, IL. He was an active member of his church. He had a commitment to helping those most innocent and vulnerable members of society, our children. He worked with church youth groups. He provided a strong model to his community and his family of a man committed to helping others. I am sure my colleagues join me in expressing our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of those lost and injured in this tragic attack, as well as the countless people whom they helped, all of whom join us in mourning their loss. They represent the best of who we are as a people and make this world a better place.

Minimum Wage

Tomorrow, we are going to have an important vote. It is a vote that is going to be watched carefully by over 1 million workers in the State of Illinois and millions across our Nation. The question is whether the United States of America and its government will increase the minimum wage for workers all across the country.

It is an important vote. It would raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 in three steps of 95 cents each. If we pass it this year, the final increase would occur in the year 2016. This is a 39- percent increase in the minimum wage, roughly the same percentagewise as the last minimum wage bill we enacted over the same period of time. It provides for automatic future increases in the minimum wage based on the cost of living so we do not have those lurches from one level to $2 or $3 above it.

It raises the minimum wage for tipped workers for the first time in more than 20 years. People find it hard to believe that under Federal standards, tipped workers receive $2.13 an hour as their base wage. They are expected to make up the difference with their tips. We raise it to 70 percent of the minimum wage, phased in over 6 years. We extend some business expensing rules to help businesses invest in their equipment and what they need to grow the business. We do this in a fashion to incentivize small businesses to grow.

This increase in the minimum wage brings us down to a very fundamental

question as Americans. The fundamental question is this: If someone is willing to get up and go to work and work hard every single day, should they receive a compensation that lets them get by so they do not have to survive from paycheck to paycheck or should they be put in a position where the only way they can survive is with government assistance--food stamps, SNAP program, child care subsidies--things that we provide as a government to people in low-income categories?

Keep in mind, we are talking about workers. You see them in Chicago early in the morning. They are the blurry-eyed travelers on those buses heading off to the workplace. They are the ones we see on the trains, quietly moving from their homes to where they work and repeating the reverse journey every single day as they head back home at night.

Can you imagine the frustration of going through that day after weary day and never, ever catching up, living paycheck to paycheck, falling further and further behind? That is what is happening to too many of them. It is amazing to me when we hear the critics of minimum wages step forward. In our State of Illinois there are two prominent politicians, both of them happen to be multimillionaires. Their views on minimum wage are amazing to me. One of them, who made $53 million last year, said he adamantly opposes raising the minimum wage. He made $53 million last year. He adamantly opposes raising the minimum wage.

Another one of them who is worth millions of dollars himself has said: I will agree to raise the minimum wage but only for people over the age of 26.

He just eliminated half of the people earning the minimum wage in America today who happen to be under the age of 26.

Let's think about the people whom he wants to keep on a subminimum wage. It would include all college students under the age of 26 trying to work their way through school. He would want to give them a subminimum wage. It would include single moms raising their kids--the moms being under the age of 26, they would get a subminimum wage--and it would also include veterans coming back, struggling to find a job. If they haven't reached the age of 26, he would give them a subminimum wage.

I have one basic question: What are these politicians thinking? Have they ever left where they live and where they work and met up with some people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck to get by?

Tomorrow we have a chance on the floor of the Senate to raise the minimum wage, but we cannot do it with Democratic votes alone. If there will not be five, six or seven Republicans who cross the aisle and join us in this debate, it will fail--and that will be a sad day--because for a lot of these workers this is their only hope that they will get a decent increase in the minimum wage through the law.

I hope my colleagues on the other side will take into consideration that so many of these workers are women and so many of them are even over the age of 35 and still rely on minimum wage jobs. These are not lazy people. These are hard-working people, people who are working hard every single day for a paycheck that they know is not going to cover their expenses every single week.

It is time we give them a chance and give them a break. It used to be--and I can remember it very well--a bipartisan issue to raise the minimum wage.

President Ronald Reagan, when he was President, raised the minimum wage. He understood it. If you value work and you value working people, you should give them a wage which respects the integrity and decency of work. That is what this is about. That is what this minimum wage is about tomorrow.

Without the help of Republicans, it will fail. If it isn't done on a bipartisan basis, it will not go forward.

I might add one other item. A minimum wage is injecting into the economy literally millions of dollars of purchasing power. People who are living paycheck to paycheck spend those checks as fast as they can for food, clothing or shoes, paying the utility bills, paying for a cell phone, putting gas in a car. That money goes right back into the economy.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, tomorrow break with some of the extreme people in your party, join us in a bipartisan fashion and raise the minimum wage. It is only fair.

I yield the floor.

I respond through the Chair to the Senator from Alaska.

There was a time when there wasn't that much controversy associated with this. We knew that we waited too long. People had fallen behind in their earning potential. We had to pick the right number. We came up with it and moved forward on a bipartisan basis. But now things are so partisan and so poisonous in the Senate that even something as basic as raising the minimum wage for hard-working families turns out to be a political lift.

It basically does for some, but what I found though is if you are a family with two kids, for example, you have to make almost $15 an hour to get beyond the poverty level. We are talking about $10.10 phased in, and many of those people will still qualify for a helping hand from the government because they are still in very low- income categories.

Madam President, I wish to recognize the 100th birthday of an American icon: Wrigley Field. As the second oldest Major League ball park and oldest in the National League, Wrigley Field has hosted millions of fans and easily earned its nickname, The Friendly Confines.

On April 23rd, 1914, it opened its doors not to the Chicago Cubs, and it wasn't even called Wrigley Field. It was called Weeghman Park, and the Chicago Chifeds of the short-lived Federal League played there. The Chicago Cubs moved into their home in 1916.

From the ivy-covered outfield walls, to its hand-turned score board, to the bleachers and the marquee, you always know you are at Wrigley Field. It was

the last baseball stadium to have lights installed in 1988. It was the first stadium to have an organ playing music, and that music remains to this day, the first to build permanent concession stands, the first to have live broadcast of games. While there is some dispute whether Wrigley was the first place to allow fans to keep the balls hit into the stands, it certainly is where the custom began of throwing back the opponent's homerun balls.

Wrigley hasn't always been home to the Cubs exclusively. The Decatur Staleys moved to play football there in 1921. You know them today as the Chicago Bears, and from 1921 to 1970, Wrigley was their home too. And the reason they are called the Bears is because the Cubs were already playing there. Wrigley has hosted soccer matches, concerts, and even a National Hockey League game. The first All-American Girls Professional Baseball League's first All Star Game during the 1943 midseason was played at Wrigley Field. They brought in temporary lights for that game.

The Wrigley experience means people come to have fun at the game and be involved in the game. It was as true in 1920 as it is today. Generations of kids have come to Wrigley to watch their first ballgame in the same seat their parents and grandparents watched theirs. For Cubs fans, the ball park is a community as much as a place where baseball is played. Wrigley Field is surrounded by small businesses that depend on the community. Fans go every day by foot, by bicycle, by train, or by car into the neighborhood known as Wrigleyville to see the Chicago Cubs play at their treasure of a stadium.

And they have seen legends. On June 26, 1920, a 17-year-old high school player hit a game-winning grand slam completely out of the park when his New York School of Commerce team played Chicago's Lane Tech High School. That was Lou Gehrig. Babe Ruth's called shot? It was at Wrigley Field in 1932 in the World Series. It is still debated. My boyhood hero, St. Louis Cardinal Stan Musial, recorded his 3000th hit in Wrigley. In fact, it has been said that the visiting clubhouse has had more Hall of Famers in one room than any other facility that exists in sports.

It is not just those visiting Wrigley that made the memories but those we claim as our own. Harry Caray was an announcer for decades, but it was at Wrigley Field where he became a legend with his dark- framed glasses, joviality, and his singing ``Take Me Out To The Ball Game'' with the crowd. It is a tradition still carried today. Ernie Banks' boundless energy and joy for the game, ``Let's play two!'' Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins, Ryne Sandberg, Hack Wilson, Andre Dawson, Kerry Wood, and so many others are beloved for their time playing for the Cubs in The Friendly Confines.

``There is always next year,'' a phrase too often uttered by Cubs fans, could just as easily be a promise that our field, Wrigley Field, is as much a part of the future as it is our past.

Madam President, it is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of one of America's greatest landmarks, Wrigley Field. Holy cow, what a ride it has been for such a wonderful place at 1060 W. Addison in Chicago, IL.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I will make a statement in the nature of a question since we discussed this this morning. We had a lengthy discussion in the Foreign Relations Committee about this twitter project, whatever it was, and whether it was wise--and I think it was the consensus of our committee--that if it opens up Cuban people to other ideas and more information, it is a positive thing.

You and I discussed afterward the fact that there are other things we can do. I think you just alluded specifically to them on the floor, and I wanted to associate myself with your thinking on this and hope that after some 50-years-plus, some fresh thinking on our foreign policy in terms of Cuba may lead to what we ultimately want, and that is giving the Cuban people an opportunity to be part of a real democracy and have real freedoms. Isn't that right?

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, can you tell me the order of business we are in now?

Mr. President, I yield back that time.

Mr. President, a generation ago, an AIDS diagnosis meant a sure and agonizing death. It was 23 years ago, when I was in the House of Representatives, when I was walking to the Chamber for a vote when I saw a colleague and friend, Tom McMillen, a Congressman from Maryland, coming my way. You would not miss Tom McMillen. He played in the NBA. He was tall. As he passed by on the sidewalk, he stopped and said: Magic has AIDS. It was a stunning announcement that Magic Johnson had been diagnosed with AIDS. The reality is that was 23 years ago. At the time we felt this was a death verdict, there was no way to escape it.

Last month American researchers revealed that a second American baby born with HIV has apparently been cured of the virus with drugs delivered just minutes after birth.

How far we have come in 23 years--from an AIDS diagnosis meaning certain death to being able to cure for the second time a baby born with HIV with drugs delivered minutes after birth.

These babies were treated as part of a research program at the National Institutes of Health. Their apparent cures offer real hope for a quarter of a million babies who were born into the world this year with HIV--many of them in desperately poor nations.

It is not the only happening when it comes to medical research, by a long shot. In my home State of Illinois, Dr. Jose Oberholzer from the University of Illinois-Chicago and Dr. Xunrong Luo from Northwestern University are among scores of researchers throughout the country on an NIH-sponsored project to find a cure for Type 1 diabetes.

Do you know anyone with type 1 diabetes? I do. To think that we are close enough to even consider the possibility of a cure should spur us all on to want more research in this area done as quickly as possible.

These two doctors are part of an effort called the Clinical Islet Transplantation Consortium. Islets are a group of beta cells in the pancreas that produce insulin. Type 1 diabetes destroys these cells. Transplanting healthy beta cells into the liver of someone with type 1 diabetes can enable the person's body to start producing insulin on its own--a functional cure for type 1 diabetes.

This is not just a theory; it is starting to show results when it comes to this clinical research.

Why do I raise these amazing medical research stories on the floor of the Senate? Because the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives each year vote on how much money we are going to put into the National Institutes of Health, and we have had some sad outcomes in recent years.

Did you know that over the last 10 years we have been unwilling to give the National Institutes of Health even a cost-of-living adjustment? So each year they have fallen behind in medical research just because of inflation. They have fallen behind 22 percent in awarding research grants such as the ones I just described because we have failed to provide a cost-of-living adjustment for them.

Does anyone believe we are saving money by cutting back on medical research? If they do, they are just plain wrong.

They had a program announced about a month ago at NIH called the AMP Program. It is a new undertaking. The 10 largest pharmaceutical companies have put up $150 million--not a great amount of money for successful pharmaceutical companies but an investment--to be matched by NIH, and they are setting out to use human genomic mapping and cell information to find cures for Alzheimer's, type 1 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis.

Can we afford this? Can we afford this research? Do you know what we paid last year in Medicare and Medicaid just for Alzheimer's patients? It was $203 billion--1 year. If we can, through our research, find a way to at least delay, if not cure, Alzheimer's, think of the misery that will be spared these poor families who suffer from Alzheimer's and think of the money we will save.

Are we so shortsighted as a nation that we have forgotten that medical research not only finds cures but saves us money that would otherwise be spent for medical care?

That is why I introduced, 2 weeks ago, the American Cures Act. It is different. There are not a lot of proposals like it before Congress. What I am doing with this proposal is trying to get Congress, on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers, to make a commitment to American medical research, American cures.

Here is the commitment: Over the next 10 years, I want a commitment that we will increase the funding in medical research beyond inflation 5 percent a year--5 percent--for the National Institutes of Health, for the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Defense medical research, and the Veterans' Administration medical research.

What is the cost of that? The cost of that is $150 billion over 10 years--to make a commitment to go forward on medical research. It is a lot of money. It is a lot of money until you consider what the cost is each year of Alzheimer's--$200 billion--not to mention the cost of diabetes, arthritis, and so many other illnesses and diseases that call for huge investments when it comes to medical care.

Where in the world can we get $150 billion over 10 years? Where could we possibly find it? Let me give you a starting place. Increase the Federal tax on tobacco products by 95 cents. I am for that. I will tell you why I am for it. I have been fighting tobacco as long as I have been in Congress--the House and Senate--and what I have discovered is, if you want to discourage young people from smoking, taking up tobacco addictions that will ultimately cost them their lives, raise the price of the product. They stop buying it.

In my lifetime, we have seen the percentage of Americans smoking cut in

half. So raising that tobacco tax gives us money for medical research and reduces the likelihood that people will become addicted to nicotine and tobacco.

Mr. President, 700,000 Americans will not take up the tobacco habit if we raise that tax 95 cents. It is money well spent on medical research.

If we do not do this, what happens? We fail to find the cures for diseases, we continue to make massive expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid and other health programs, and we watch the world pass us by.

If the United States decides to retreat when it comes to biomedical research, other countries are ready to step in. Now, today, China is investing 12 to 20 percent more each year in government research and medical research--each year. In 8 years China will surpass the United States in dollars spent on government research and medical research. Are we ready to let that happen? I hope not.

For the sake of the people who live in this country who need cures for these diseases, and help, for the sake of the cost to our health care system that all of this medical challenge presents, and if we want to maintain a lead when it comes to researchers and doctors and hospitals, it is time for us on a bipartisan basis to make a commitment to medical research.

I hope others will join in cosponsoring this American Cures Act. A number have done this already, and I thank them for joining me. One of them is on the floor, my colleague from California Mrs. Boxer. She is always by my side. We have fought a lot of these battles together. And the list goes on: Senators Reed, Brown, Hirono, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Cardin, Hagen, Casey, Markey, and Mikulski, and we are just getting started. I might also say that Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is cosponsoring this measure in the House.

I cannot think of a more important thing that we can do to make this a better, safer nation, to reward research, to find cures for diseases, and to make sure our country continues to lead the world when it comes to biomedical research.

I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, my wife and I are blessed with a son and daughter who are good people, hard workers with good values. We basically believe the following: If they did the same job, they deserve the same pay--my daughter and my son. Most Americans agree with that. People should be judged on what they do, their performance, their productivity, not on their gender. That is at the heart of the issue pending before the Senate at this moment.

Tomorrow we will take a vote. It is a procedural vote, so it takes 60 Senators to vote to move forward on what is known as the Paycheck Fairness Act. We have 55 Democrats. The simple math tells you that unless five Republican Senators join us to move forward on this issue, that is the end of the story. It would be unfortunate if it is the end of the story.

The Paycheck Fairness Act amends the Equal Pay Act to discourage discrimination based on gender and to help narrow the pay gap in America. No. 1, the bill provides women the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are available to people today based on racial or national origin discrimination. No. 2, the bill prohibits retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. Think about that for a second.

Lilly Ledbetter worked in a tire factory in Alabama for years. Toward the end of her work life, she received an anonymous note that said: Lilly, you have been underpaid. You have been making less than the men do in the same job in this plant since you have been here. She was crushed. She thought she was a valued employee. No one ever questioned the quality of her work, and she was being paid less than the men doing the same job at her factory.

She filed a lawsuit, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court--across the street. Not surprisingly, this conservative, business-oriented, Republican-oriented Supreme Court said: Sorry, Ms. Ledbetter. You should have reported that pay discrimination when it first started. Well, why didn't she? She didn't know. How could she know? Payroll information is not published--except perhaps for government employees. That payroll information was not available to her to file the lawsuit when it first occurred. When she found out about it, she filed the lawsuit across the street, and the learned Supreme Court said: Too late.

So we changed the law. The very first law signed by the President of the United States Barack Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which said that Lilly Ledbetter and women just like her across America, deserve an opportunity for equal pay for equal work. What we have before us today--this Paycheck Fairness Act--is an effort to make sure that law is strong and helps women across America.

No. 1, it says that women cannot be discriminated against in the workplace simply because they are women. No. 2, you can't threaten retaliation if one worker tells another what the pay is at that particular place of work. No. 3, it adds programs for training, research, technical assistance, and awards to recognize pay equity employers.

The Equal Pay Act was signed into law almost 50 years ago, but the pay gap between men and women in America is just about the same today as it was then. According to the U.S. Census Bureau--as we heard over and over--women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. African- American women make 70 cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women make about 60 cents on the dollar.

In my State of Illinois, 37 percent of married employed mothers are their family's primary wage earners. Yet they face the same income disparity. It turns out to be a yearly gap of $11,596 on average between men and women who work full time in my State. That is what the disparity in pay between men and women means in the State of Illinois. It is not just less take-home pay for women doing the same job, it means fewer Social Security benefits when they retire. They are not earning at the same level as men. They pay for this discrimination for a lifetime.

The National Partnership for Women and Families found that ending this wage gap would provide women in my State with additional earnings that would be the equivalent of 97 weeks of food, 13 months of rent, 7 months of mortgage payments or 3,000 gallons of gas. It is a big deal for a struggling family--particularly for a woman who is a struggling wage earner in Illinois.

Regardless of occupation, education, industry or marital status, pay for women in my State lags behind their male counterparts. Women in Illinois who work in business and financial management earn 72 percent of their male counterpart's salary. That is what is before the Senate.

Is it wrong? Yes, it is. Are we prepared to say so in legislation? Tune in tomorrow and find out whether five Republicans will join us to raise this issue of pay fairness for women across America.

I am not encouraged by the statement that was just made on the floor by the Senate Republican leader. He referred to this whole conversation about paycheck fairness and minimum wage increases--so that people who go to work every single day do not live in poverty--as ``the left's latest bizarre obsession.'' He said that we were blowing a few kisses to our powerful pals on the left with this legislative agenda. He called it tone deaf, blame deflection, and shadow boxing on the Senate floor.

The Senate Republican leader said the divide between the two parties is in stark relief. He is right. He went on to say: We should drop any pretense of doing anything serious in this Chamber if this is what we are going to discuss.

How serious is equal pay for equal work to working people across America? I think it is critical. It is one thing for the Senate Republican leader to talk about job creation. We all want it. We are desperate for it. We are moving toward it in many different ways, but let's talk to those who are working and have jobs and whether they are paid fairly. Is that important to them? Of course.

Simply having a job may be important, but when you get to the heart of it, people want to be rewarded for good work. They don't want to work 40 hours a week, get up every morning, get on the bus in the dark, put their kids in their neighbor's house for daycare, head to their job, and at the end of the week realize they are still living in poverty. And that is what today's minimum wage does.

The women on those buses and the CTA trains that we see every morning in Chicago, with their shopping bags full of the basics so they can go to work and leaving their kids behind, want to believe they will be paid fairly for what they do. That is not much to ask.

According to the Republican leader, it shows the stark contrast between the two parties. It is a stark contrast. The Republican leader says that we want to work for a commitment to jobs and focus on the power of ideas. I want to focus on the power of an idea too. It is the idea of fairness and fair play. It is as basic as being an American, to believe that people ought to be treated fairly, and that when they do the same work they are entitled to the same pay. That is not too much to ask. In fact, we should demand it.

I suppose we are going to have a critical, historic vote tomorrow. I am hoping five--just five--Republicans will step up on behalf of working women across America and join us on this Paycheck Fairness Act. Without them, this idea will die for now, but it is not going to die forever. The American people have the last word. They will have it in the election. They can decide if this is important. They can decide whether--as the Republican leader said--this is just a bizarre obsession on the part of the left to think of fair pay for the same work. I think it is pretty basic to America.

This is our chance. Paycheck fairness and a minimum wage to keep people who get up and go to work every day out of poverty are fundamental to a good workplace and a workforce across America which is respected by the Senate.

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