Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the tax extenders package that the Senate Finance Committee put forward which would reinstate a number of tax provisions to help with job creation and to especially help homeowners and workers get back on their feet.

Yesterday I spoke to United Egg Producers which consists of a group of many family farmers and some larger farmers. My State is No. 2 in the country in egg production, second only to the State of Iowa. I talked to Tom Hertzfeld, Jr., and his son Jordan, who are third and fourth generation egg farmers in Grand Rapids, OH, a community not too far from Toledo in northwest Ohio.

The farm has been in the family since 1959. They produce about 100,000 dozen eggs every day. It is a technical business. The eggs go from the chicken to

the carton and then into the customers' hands. The production equipment requires major investment. So when farmers like Tom need to buy new equipment, build new barns, and acquire more property, they should be able to accelerate their writeoffs. Bonus depreciation and section 179 gives our small businesses the capital to invest in tools that are important for them to expand, hire people, and make their communities more prosperous.

As we help existing businesses expand, we need to focus on reviving industries, especially manufacturing. We know wealth is created when we make it, mine it or grow it. We do all three of those in a significant way in my State. Ohio is the Nation's third largest manufacturing State, only behind California, which is three times our population, and Texas, which is twice our population.

The new markets tax credit will help revitalize communities hit hard by shuttered factories by leveraging tens of billions of dollars in private investments. We know what the new markets tax credit has done for development in areas that are generally a little poorer than most. We want to be able to target manufacturing too, and that is what our Manufacturing Communities Investment Act does. Last year, for instance, in Portage County, the community of Streetsboro lost 300 jobs after Commercial Turf Products shut its doors. Under the Manufacturing Communities Investment Act, the city could access financing to bring new manufacturing businesses back to Streetsboro.

For those workers who have lost their jobs and benefits, the health coverage tax credit, or the HCTC, needs to be extended. The HCTC preserves a program that Ohioans--such as the Delphi salaried retirees who worked hard and played by the rules--know, understand, and trust.

Extending the tax credit for 2 years is fiscally responsible. We should improve the HCTC and make it permanent, as I have proposed in the legislation that I have introduced with Senators Rockefeller, Stabenow, Hirono, and Donnelly. At the very least we should renew this critical tax credit.

Earlier this year I traveled across Ohio and met with homeowners such as Hattie Wilkins from Youngstown, OH. She was laid off, fell behind on her mortgage, and began the foreclosure process. Her bank--because it was in their interest too--forgave the $35,000 she still owed, but Hattie and thousands of homeowners across the country face higher taxes if we don't move to extend the Mortgage Forgiveness Tax Relief Act.

In many ways it is a phantom income. If it is a short sale or they get a principal reduction--as I was discussing with Ohio realtors today--the homeowners never really get the money for it, but they are hit with the tax bill as if they had gotten that income. We have extended this tax forgiveness, if you will, in the past because Members of both parties recognize there is still a critical need for it.

All of these items--as part of the tax extenders package--help create jobs, put money in homeowners' pockets, pay for health insurance, and allow people to stay in their homes. As I said, it also creates jobs and is good for our communities. It is important that we pass the tax extenders package as soon as possible in this Chamber.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of Senator Franken and Senators Durbin and Warren and Jack Reed, who will speak after me, for their efforts on dealing with the terrible burden of debt that far too many young people in this country face. We know it is bad for them. We know this is a burdensome, onerous debt. We know it is bad for their families. In many cases, mothers and fathers cosign these loans and have to put off other kinds of things they want to and should do in their lives.

We know what it means to those families and to the economy and those communities where these students come out of college with huge debt. They cannot buy a car. They cannot buy a home. They cannot start a business. In many cases they put off getting married and starting a family because of debt. None of this is good.

Think back a generation. I heard Senator Klobuchar speak today on the floor. She went to what we consider in this country an exclusive, very expensive university. She scrounged together, her teacher mother, her father--I was in the Presiding Officer's chair as she was speaking. Her father is a reporter, a journalist, columnist, as my wife is. He did not make a lot of money. It was difficult to come up with tuition, room and board for Amy Klobuchar, a young 18-year-old student then, but they were able to do it. I looked back at my wife who graduated college 30- plus years ago, the daughter of a maintenance worker in a powerplant, a union member, 35 years in the union. She is the oldest of four. Her parents absolutely had a commitment to send her to college but could not afford it. Her mother took a job as a home care worker as Connie was approaching college age. She is the oldest. She went to a State university, Kent State University, one of the fine State universities in our State.

She graduated in 1979 with only about $1,200 in student loan debt. She worked part of that time, she got grants, but college tuition was so much less expensive then, not just at private, more elite schools but at State universities especially and community colleges. Now it is so out of reach for far too many families.

As the students approach that day and have these discussions with their parents, it is important to try to think through how these students who do not necessarily have a lot of sophistication yet in finances, how they look at this. A recent study found that two-thirds of student loan borrowers were not as aware of the difference between Federal student loans and riskier, higher interest private student loans.

So they go into this not necessarily always with eyes wide open. They are idealistic. They are enthusiastic about going off to school. They want to get ahead. They do not want to put too big a burden on their parents or obviously on themselves, but they are not, according to the study, aware of the differences between Federal student loans and these higher interest private student loans.

Many students then take out private student loans, even though they are eligible for the more affordable Federal ones. You can't expect students to have a fair shot at building a successful livelihood if we don't give them the tools to succeed. That is why the Know Before You Owe Private Student Loan Act is so important. The bill would require private student loan lenders to clearly state the difference between the student's ultimate cost of attending college and the student's estimated financial assistance.

They should be taking full advantage of any Federal financial aid packages they may qualify for before taking on any private student loan debt, although they so often don't know that because this is complicated.

Second, our bill would provide loan statements to borrowers and their families at least once every 3 months so they can understand what they are getting into. Also, it would require private student loan lenders to submit an annual report to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about student loans.

We know private student loans typically have significantly higher interest rates. They offer more limited payment options. They offer no relief for graduates who are underpaid, have been laid off or are unable to find work.

That is why my Refinancing Education Funding to Invest for the Future, or REFIF Act, addresses this problem by authorizing the Treasury Department to make the private student loan market more efficient. It would allow borrowers to refinance their more costly private loans into more affordable loans at no cost to taxpayers.

Now the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act would allow homeowners to refinance and lock in lower Federal interest rates. All of these pieces of legislation will give students a fair shot at the American dream of going to school--whether they choose to go to Lorain or Cincinnati State Technical and Community College, whether they want to go west to Otterbein, a private school in Ohio or Denison or Oberlin or whether they want to go to a larger State university such as Ohio State or usually Toledo or Youngstown State.

It would allow those with private student loans into the Federal program, saving hundreds and possibly thousands of dollars by switching to the lower Federal interest rates.

We all hear it. The Presiding Officer hears it from his Connecticut residents. Senator Reed hears it from Rhode Island, and we will hear from people in our States pleading for help. Let me share a couple of them, and then I will yield the floor for Senator Reed.

Kelly McVicker, a father of three in Toledo--I spoke with him on the phone and I talked to him. We went to Perrysburg High School, a suburb of Toledo--an affluent suburb--but still a place where students struggle with student loans and student debt.

When Kelly was 17, he took out a $48,000 student loan to get his degree. Today he is 31, working to pay down that original loan, which has now grown to $73,000, while also trying to support his family.

He took out a $48,000 loan. He has been working, he has been going to school, and he has been doing what people and what society asked of him, and yet he is now saddled with this $73,000 debt.

Andrea, from the same part of the State, the northeast corner of Ohio, wrote to me from Williams County saying:

I have been repaying my student loan religiously for about

14 years, and I feel as though my payment never goes down.

My interest rate is 7.75 percent. When I contact my lender,

they have no offer to lower the rate.

I find it hard to believe when my mortgage is 3.25 percent,

and so is my auto loan. I can even get a credit card with

zero percent interest.

I would be better off defaulting and let the companies take

care of it.

I am married with three children. At this rate, I will

still be paying off school loans when my oldest goes to

college.

I did not have the luxury of having financial help from my

parents, and I am trying not to let that happen to my own

children.

Higher education is extremely important to my husband and

me, and as a middle class family, there doesn't seem to be

much help in this area.

I am a frustrated person who seems to be indebted to

student loans, and I don't want the same for my children.

All of these pleas, whether they come from Providence or whether they come from Cleveland, are from people who want to do the right thing. They want to get out from under these loans, but they want to pay them. They want to pay them back. They just want an interest rate that is more competitive when they see what their home mortgage interest rates are.

For Andrea from Williams County, her interest rates for her home mortgage are less than half of what she is paying for student loans. Why should that be? We need to respond to these pleas for help from so many of our constituents of all ages, of both genders, from all across our States in communities, small towns, big cities, and rural areas.

Across the country there are responsible borrowers who have played by the rules and are still finding themselves coming up short. Unless we act, we will have a generation of Americans unable to build a life for themselves because they are in a nonstop cycle of dealing with costly loan repayment.

It is important. We have the opportunity, by passing these bills, to give Americans the fair shot they need at paying off their loans, of going to school, of getting ahead, starting businesses, starting families, buying homes, and getting this economy back on track.

We can do this, and it is important we start today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss partly the state of our economy but more precisely the state of our workers. Working Americans are in some sense being attacked from both ends. We have seen an orchestrated attempt to cut safety net programs where a low-income worker making $9, $10, or $11 an hour might be eligible in some cases for SNAP or is surely eligible for the earned income tax credit.

Opponents strongly say that programs such as SNAP foster a culture of dependency and do not reward work. Those same elected officials--some of whom, I might add, have voted to raise their own pay--oppose efforts to ensure that hard work is reworded with fair pay. Last fall one House Republican said: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

I am all for quoting Scripture. I do not think it should be used to vilify hard-working people. Detractors of SNAP, opponents of the minimum wage, cannot have it both ways. By raising the minimum wage, it means, frankly, fewer people will be eligible for SNAP, because if their wages are higher, they cannot and should not be eligible for certain benefits. So we create opportunities for Americans to earn a living wage and no longer need those benefits.

One hundred years ago in January, Henry Ford, in 1914, announced that he was going to pay his workers $5 a day. Nobody thought, when they looked at Henry Ford and his life, nobody thought he was doing it out of the kindness of his heart. But that did not matter; he decided to pay everybody in his plant $5 a day because he understood that paying them more would mean a more prosperous workforce who could then, presto, have the money in their pocket to begin to buy a car, to buy a Model T or to buy one of Henry Ford's cars.

We should be taking a page from Ford's playbook. Productivity has increased 85 percent in this country since 1979. It used to be as productivity went up, wages went up. Since World War II, between 1945 and 1973, productivity went like this: Wages pretty much paralleled the increase. In other words, workers who were producing more for their boss would get part of the wealth, would share in the wealth they were helping to create for their company, for their boss.

So while productivity has increased 85 percent in the last 35 years, inflation-adjusted wages increased 6 percent, and the value of the minimum wage fell 21 percent. Think about that. Productivity went up 85 percent. Profits went up significantly. Wages went up only 6 percent. The value of the minimum wage fell 21 percent. The value of the minimum wage, since 1968, is actually one-third less today--the minimum wage today is worth one-third less in buying power of the minimum wage in 1968.

Simply put, workers, while they are earning more for their bosses, they are making their companies more profitable, workers are not seeing the wealth they helped to create. Fundamentally, the contract--not literally a legal contract but the contract we once had in this country was, if you work hard, if you take responsibility, if you are productive, if you do things according to sort of society's mores, you would benefit. You would benefit in higher wages. You would benefit in a higher standard of living.

In the aftermath of the recession, the job growth, the increase in jobs, has been in the low-wage job sectors. Men and women who lost good-paying middle-class jobs, generally through no fault of their own, are returning to work at low-wage jobs, jobs that make it difficult to support a family.

Enrollment for programs such as SNAP has grown. I hear some of my sort of tea party colleagues complain that more and more people are getting SNAP. They are, because wages are not going up, because the minimum wage has less buying power than it used to. So many workers that were union, middle-class workers now are making lower wages 45 million people. So, yes, the number of people who are receiving SNAP benefits, food stamps has gone up.

In 2011, 45 million people relied on those benefits. SNAP spending increased, but that is a reason to pass the minimum wage. Increase their wages and fewer people will need that. Too many people who work harder than ever are barely getting by despite their best efforts. That is why millions of fast-food workers in cities across the country took to the streets in December for a National Day of Action, asking for and demanding an increase in the minimum wage.

More than half of frontline fast-food workers, more than half of those who work more than 40 hours per week, earn so little that they are forced to enroll their family in public assistance. Think of all the companies, all the companies where workers are making such low wages and they are getting food stamps.

So I come to the floor to talk about the minimum wage and to specifically discuss support for the Fair Minimum Wage Act. Majority Leader Reid has been supportive of this measure, as have most of my colleagues in this Chamber. We have not yet been able to corral 60 votes, which is what we need to break a filibuster, from those who I think are far out of step with the country, with their constituents, who oppose the minimum wage.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three 95-cent increments. In other words, it is $7.25 now. Upon the President's signature, it would be $8.20. One year later it would be $9.15. Then one year later it would be $10.10 an hour. The bill also--this is important to note because it is rarely talked about. The bill also raises the Federal minimum wage for tipped workers from the current $2.13 an hour to 70 percent of the regular minimum wage. If you work in a restaurant, if you are a server, if you push a wheelchair at an airport, if you are a valet, if you are working in a hotel where you get tips, in most cases those employers are only required to pay the subminimum wage, assuming that you are going to get up to the minimum wage with tips.

It does not always happen that way. It is a Federal law that it should, but it does not always happen that way. As Senator Durbin and I were talking earlier, it is not so easy to enforce that. So if you are in a diner and you are talking to your server, the chances are that your server is making significantly less than the minimum wage, maybe higher than $2.13--that is the law--but maybe no more than $3 or $4 an hour.

If you are in an airport and you see someone pushing an older person in a wheelchair, usually down the concourse, or someone who is disabled for whatever reason, they are only making $3, $4 or $5 an hour.

The tipped minimum wage, $2.13, has not been raised since 1991. So every time we have raised the minimum wage--we did it bipartisanly; President Bush signed it in 2007. We did one a few years before that--I was in the House then--bipartisanly. The Presiding Officer from Indiana supported these minimum wage increases. But every time we have raised the minimum wage since 1991, the $2.13 subminimum wage, the tipped wage, has been stuck. It has never been raised. This will raise the tipped wage.

Let me share a couple of letters. I got a letter from Tom in Cuyahoga County, the county I live in, in Northeast Ohio:

Senator Brown, I'm a 50 year old food service worker with a

college degree, and I make $7.40 an hour. I just closed my

retirement account that had $2,500 in it to pay my bills--

and it's still not enough to cover everything. Now with that

money gone, I should be able to qualify for food stamps. I

only have the most basic bills, and I don't have any credit

card debt or loans. How much longer do we have to wait for a

livable wage?

The people whom I have met who are working minimum wage or close to minimum wage, $8-, $9-, $10-an-hour jobs, are people who often hold two jobs. They are working hard. They have so little to show for it. For somebody who is willing to work as most people in this country do, they should have a livable wage.

We know there are many more stories such as Tom's that all of us will hear if we go out in our States and listen. Pope Francis I exhorted his parish priests to go out and ``smell like the flock.'' The illusion of the Old and New Testaments and sheep and shepherds was obviously what he was referring to, but he was also referring to the fact of how important it is for people in his church, in the Roman Catholic Church, the priests, the people who minister to people, should understand how people live.

It is an important admonition for politicians too. I think more of my colleagues should get out of Washington and ``smell like the flock'' as Pope Francis said, meet people trying to make a go of it on a minimum wage, put food on their table to support their families, to put a little aside maybe for retirement someday; all of those are so important.

When we are seeing people working harder and harder, and, frankly, getting paid less and less money for it because of the decline of the buying power of the minimum wage, we know it is time for change.

I ask my colleagues to support the Fair Minimum Wage Act. It will pull millions of people out of poverty. It will help our economy because it will put money in people's pockets that they will immediately spend, generating other economic activity and creating jobs.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I understand that S. 2262, introduced earlier today by Senators Shaheen, Portman, and others is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders to be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that at 11 a.m. the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; further, that following the votes, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; and, finally, that the majority control the time from 2:15 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. and the Republicans control the time from 3:30 p.m. until 4:45 p.m.

Mr. President, there will be six rollcall votes starting at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today on three matters. First and most importantly is the issue of pay equity. Frankly, we should not be talking about this in 2014--the fact that women still too often do not get equal pay for equal work. Senate Republicans showed this morning-- it is disappointing--that too many in this Chamber simply do not think closing the wage gap between men and women--closing the wage gap by which working women are victimized--is that important.

Think back to 1963, the beginning, not of the civil rights movement, of course, but of Congressional action in 1963, 1964, and 1965 on voting rights and civil rights. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act came up first. President Kennedy signed it. Women were earning 60 cents for every dollar men earned. Now, 50 years later, that figure has increased only 17 cents.

How many more years should people in this country wait? In 2012, median earnings for men working full time in Ohio were $46,700; for women $35,900, an earnings ratio of about 77 percent. The Paycheck Fairness Act would shore up the Equal Pay Act and create stronger incentives for employers to follow the law while helping women fight pay discrimination.

The pay gap persists across all occupations and educational levels. From the outset women are paid less than men just 1 year after college in nearly every occupation. The gap grows from there. As the gap grows in pay, the gap grows in pensions. Lilly Ledbetter taught us that. The decidedly lower pay that she received working at Goodyear showed up in a significantly lower pension when she retired. Over the course of a 35-year career, a woman with a college degree will make about $1.2 million less than a man with the same level of education.

As I said, women make less, their families have less, and the retirement income and savings are smaller. For Women 65 and older, their annual median income from all retirement sources--Social Security, pensions, and private savings--is about $11,000 less than men in the same age group. It is even more discouraging for African- American women, who make 64 percent less, and Hispanic women, who earn 53 percent less. That is so, so unacceptable.

As a father of daughters, as a husband, as a grandfather of 2-week- old Jacqueline Sally, I know--and so does America--this pay gap devalues women's work and discourages economic growth because women make up nearly half of today's workforce. At a time when families are struggling to make

ends meet, equal pay for equal work is not just a gender issue; it is a family issue.

In more than one-third of families, women are the primary wage earner. As the main breadwinner, women are asked to carry a greater economic load while making less than they deserve and, frankly, less than they have actually earned.

Many of these woman get up early, they take the bus to work, they stand on their feet all day, they come home, they take care of their children, and they do not ask for a handout. But they are asking for equal pay. If the wage gap were eliminated, an Ohio woman working full time would have enough money for 88 more weeks of food for her family, 9 more months of mortgage and utility payments, 15 months of rent, and 3,000 additional gallons of gas. Our economy would grow, boosting GDP by 2.9 percent, or $450 billion.

The Minimum Wage

Senator Jack Reed was in the Chamber 45 minutes or so ago when I was the Presiding Officer. Senator Reed talked about Rhode Island and the minimum wage and the impact of a lower minimum wage than it should be. They have a bit higher one in Rhode Island than in some States, and we have a bit higher one in Ohio than in some States. But raising the minimum wage to 10.10 an hour nationally would mean--he said 90,000 people in Rhode Island. It would be way more, hundreds of thousands in Ohio who would get an increase in the minimum wage and would get a pay raise if this body did what it should, which we are going to try to do in the next 3 or 4 weeks; that is, to raise the minimum wage.

The impact of the minimum wage is especially important for women. What is especially important for women is the so called ``tipped wage.'' This is the tipped wage for people who work in jobs where there are tips. It could be a valet, it could be a waitress or a server or it could be somebody pushing a wheelchair at an airport. Their minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour, plus tips, if people know to tip the man or woman who is pushing the wheelchair in the airport.

I watch pretty closely. I spend a lot of time flying between Cleveland and Washington or Columbus and Washington. I notice that more often than not, people who ride in the carts or are sitting in a wheelchair do not tip the worker whose minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. They do not tip the worker because I think they do not know to tip the worker. I do not think they are cheap. They do not know that worker may be only making $2, $3, $4 or $5 an hour.

But the minimum wage for that tipped worker is only $2.13 an hour. Whether they work in a diner in Gallipolis, or Chillicothe, whether they are working at the Toledo or Cleveland airport driving a cart or pushing a wheelchair, whether they are working as a valet in Cincinnati or Dayton, their tipped wage has been stuck at $2.13 since 1991.

The State of Maryland recently raised their minimum wage. They did not raise the tipped wage which is stuck where it has been for a number of years. Americans do not know this--that typically there is a subminimum wage that is a lot less. Most of the workers--the overwhelming majority of workers that get that tipped wage--are women.

We know that in restaurants the sexual harassment rate of workers is one of the highest in the country because they depend on customers for their tips and they depend on their boss for the distribution of the tips to get their minimum wage--$2.13 an hour. Some restaurants pay $3, $4 or $5--I am not saying none of them do, but to get their minimum wage--their tipped wage--simply up to the minimum wage.

Surely, as some will say, in some restaurants the workers make way, way, way more than the minimum wage. They are more likely than not male workers who work in the highest end restaurants. You are more likely going to see women in the diners and the lower-paid service jobs in restaurants.

Doolittle Tokyo Raiders

April 18 will mark the 72nd anniversary of the 1942 Doolittle Raid, the first offensive action by the U.S. military following Pearl Harbor. Eighty men, known today as the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders, volunteered for an ``extremely hazardous mission'' without knowing the target, location or assignment. The Raiders, led by LTC James Doolittle, launched their B-25 Mitchell Bombers 650 miles from their target. After hitting their military and industrial targets in Tokyo and five other cities, they were low on fuel, the weather was deteriorating. All 16 planes were forced to crash-land in China or Russia.

Of the 80 men on the mission, eight Raiders were captured. Of these eight, three were executed; one died of disease; and four returned home. Their mission traveled an average distance of 2,200 miles over 13 hours, making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a B-25 Mitchell Bomber.

I would add that another aviation hero in Vietnam just walked into the Chamber--Senator McCain--right at the time I was talking about the Doolittle Raiders. The Senator has signed our resolution and commendation for a Medal of Honor for them. I thank Senator McCain both for his heroism, especially, and for joining us in this effort.

In 2002, I led a resolution to recognize the 70th anniversary. It passed the Senate unanimously. Early last year, I renewed my efforts to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders. We have got 78 cosponsors, nine more than the 67 necessary. This bill passed in the Senate in November by unanimous consent.

On November 9, 2013, the Raiders celebrated their final reunion. They have met every year since the end of--I believe since the end of World War II. They met at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton. The meeting marked the last planned gathering of the living Raiders, which was celebrated by the opening of an 1896 bottle of Hennessy cognac, originally given by their commander, Jimmy Doolittle, on his 60th birthday.

Of the 80 men on the raid, only four remain alive today; only 3 were able to get to the reunion. Time is running out. I appreciate the efforts of Congressman Pete Olson from Texas who is leading the effort in the House.

I hope the Speaker, the leadership, and both parties will take the final action needed to pass the legislation to honor these heroes.

150th Anniversary of Gallaudet University

It is appropriate Senator McCain is in the Chamber too. In 2008, Senator McCain, who had served as the Senate designee on the Gallaudet University board of trustees, left during his Presidential run. Senator Harkin and Senator McCain apparently had recommended that I be the Senate designee on the board at Gallaudet University.

This week Gallaudet celebrated its 150th anniversary. It is an incredible place, as Senator McCain knows. It is the only one of its kind in the world, a school for the deaf, created during the administration of President Lincoln 150 years ago in 1864.

Senator McCain certainly will have reminiscences and stories about serving on this board, but my first dinner my first night at the Gallaudet University board meeting, the students, all deaf, came out and performed a dance for the board. A number of the board hear--as I do, obviously--but a number don't and they signed everything.

The students who were dancing to the music were able to dance because of the vibrations they felt on the floor. You could see this dance troupe, but if you hadn't known better, you wouldn't have known they were deaf because they were dancing an exact rhythm with the percussion, the beat, and the vibrations on the floor in the ballroom where the dinner was for the Gallaudet board.

I wish Gallaudet another 150 years. It is an incredible institution. It has served this country so well. It is partially congressionally funded.

Senator McCain, Senator Harkin, and now Senator Moran of Kansas are all particularly interested in it. It is an honor to be part of it. I wish Gallaudet a happy 150th birthday.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Paul Rinebold, a dedicated Ohio dairy farmer, great-grandfather, and community member who passed away last month. Ohio and our Nation are made strong by people like Paul--men and women who have dedicated their lives to their family, community, and work.

A son of Fostoria, OH, Paul lived his entire life in his community. After graduating from Hopewell-Loudon High School in Bascom, OH, he joined the U.S. Army and served his country for 7 years. During that time, in 1959, he married Ardith Bloom of Fremont, OH.

Mr. Rinebold was a self-employed dairy farmer who founded PAR 3 Farms, named after himself, Paul (P), his wife, Ardith (AR), and the first three (3) of what would be their four children. PAR 3 Farms has been recognized by both the Ohio State and the National Ayrshire Breeders Associations for its contributions to the dairy business in Seneca County. Mr. Rinebold's family farm is still in operation today.

In 2008, the Ohio Ayrshire Breeders Association presented Paul with the Ohio Ayrshire Distinguished Service Award, a testament to the care with which Mr. Rinebold raised, treated, and bred his cows. It was at this awards ceremony that the association thanked Paul and Ardith for their dedication and expertise in the field of dairy farming. By 2008, the couple had attended more national Ayrshire conventions than any other Ayrshire dairy farm in the country, adding up to a total of 40 years' of conventions.

While he was not working on the farm, Paul dedicated his time to benefitting the community he called home. Active in his community, he was a member of St. John's United Church Christ in Fostoria; the Seneca County Farm Bureau; the State and National Ayrshire Associations; the National Dairy Shrine; and both the State and National level of the Loudon Center Grange. Paul helped each of his four children earn their 4-H club 10-year pins in Seneca County, and he enjoyed working with them on their county fair projects and yearly showcases at the Ohio State Fair. Paul loved farming, dairying and bowling, but most of all, his family.

This week--on what would have been Mr. Rinebold's 76th birthday--I would like to honor him for his dedication, service to our country, and contributions to the Ohio dairy community and his friends and neighbors in Fostoria community. I would also extend my thoughts and condolences to his family--his wife Ardith, sons Jeffrey and Michael, daughters Cheryl Ann and Paula, eight grandchildren, Brian, A.J., Jackson, Brittany, Brayden, Blake, Taylor, and Cameron, and two great- grandchildren, Anistyn and Chase, on their loss.

Emerson wrote ``To know one life has breathed easier because you have lived, that is to have succeeded.'' We have all breathed easier because of Paul.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Micah Murphy, a Navy fellow assigned to the office of Senator McCain, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. President, it has been more than 3 months since 2 million Americans and nearly 60,000 people in my home State of Ohio and tens of thousands of people in the Presiding Officer's State of Massachusetts--overwhelmingly most of whom have worked day in and day out for most of their lives--have had their unemployment benefits expire simply because the House of Representatives and the Senate have failed to act.

This body has tried to act a number of times and a number of times it has been filibustered. We could not get 60 votes to move forward. The House of Representatives has seemed, frankly, indifferent to these 2 million people.

Think about who these people are. This is about unemployment insurance. It is called insurance for a reason. Insurance means they pay in when they are working, they get benefits when they are laid off, but they must be seeking work to qualify and earn--and I underscore earn--those benefits. They are not given those benefits. They have earned them. They have paid into the unemployment insurance program and they get assistance when they lose their jobs.

Every day and week we fail in this Congress because of Republican filibusters and cold indifference in the House of Representatives to extend these benefits, more Americans slip into poverty. People are not getting rich from unemployment insurance. The average unemployment check in Massachusetts and Ohio and across this country is about $300, which helps to keep their head above water, avoid foreclosure, put gas in their car, look for work--as they are required to do so they can receive unemployment--and just keep their family going and reduce poverty.

When they don't get unemployment benefits, they are not spending that money in their community. When they do get these benefits, they are spending money at the local grocery store in Chillicothe, they are going to the local shoe store in Portsmouth or Gallipolis, they are going to the car repair shop in Toledo or Lima. They are putting money in the economy which generates economic activity which grows jobs.

Extending unemployment is not just right for families in Dayton, Akron, Springfield, OH, and Springfield, MA, it is right for the economy because it puts money into the economy and helps to create jobs.

Forget about the statistics. Forget about the numbers--60,000 people in Ohio and 2 million people across the country--and instead listen to what this does for individual lives. I have three or four stories from people around my State. Lori from Montgomery County, which is in southwest Ohio and the Dayton area, writes:

I have worked my entire life, until I lost my job last

summer. I now spend 4-5 hours a day looking for jobs, but the

positions in my field are limited.

I'm told I'm either over or under qualified.

My unemployment benefits aren't much, but it's enough to

keep a roof over my head, and allow me to make car payments,

so that when I did get a job interview, I have a car to get

me there. Please don't let me down.

Robert from Belmont County, which is on the West Virginia line near the Ohio River in eastern Ohio, writes:

I lost my job in 2012 when my employer, a steel mill, shut

down. I was unemployed for more than a year before finding

another position.

I was there for two and a half months before being let go

due to the down economy--not enough time for a new claim to

get me by.

I have a family to support and now that the extension is

gone, what am I to do until I find a good job to support my

family? Do the right thing. Many lives are depending on it.

The first person said, ``Please don't let me down,'' and the second person from Belmont County said, ``Do the right thing.''

Scott from Union County, which is in central Ohio where they are doing a little better overall but still going through tough times, writes:

I was laid off from my job at the beginning of this year. I

had only been there for six months, and it was a godsend for

me.

I don't have a college degree, but I was given a chance to

show I could do this job, even though a degree was required.

We went through a round of layoffs in October. My job was

saved at the time, but then our company closed its doors in

January.

Now I have nothing.

Zero income. Zero outside help, and a non-existing

savings--not because I didn't save, but because I didn't make

enough money to save anything the last few years.

I joined the military out of high school, and used my GI

Bill to put myself through some college. But soon enough, I

was just in a mountain of debt from school, and needed to

work full-time.

I wasn't able to save money because I couldn't afford to

pay my student loan debt.

While I'm writing you, I'm sitting here watching my son

play, and he is so happy. But he doesn't know why his dad is

so sad--nor should he ever.

I am begging you to get this figured out soon.

These are veterans and people who have struggled and worked all their lives. They are people who have never had it easy, but they do what is asked of them. As President Clinton used to say, they play by the rules. They take personal responsibility for their lives.

The Senate, because of the filibuster, has turned its back on these workers. The House of Representatives, because of its indifference, has shrugged these workers off. It is wrong. It is important that this Congress--the House and the Senate--pass the extension of unemployment. The President eagerly awaits signing this legislation because it will matter to workers in Middletown, Ravenna, Mansfield, and Shelby, OH. This legislation is important not only to my State but all over this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Columbus Chapter of the Oncology Nursing Society, or CCONS, on a legacy of excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. CCONS' 25th Annual Spring Conference, ``Kaleidoscope of Oncology Care,'' will be held on April 3, and in May, during Oncology Nursing Month, the society will celebrate its 30th anniversary. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the work and achievements of this valued organization and to especially recognize CCONS' president, Bertie Ford, for her leadership.

Since 1984, CCONS has worked to lead the transformation of cancer care. Its members are leaders in their communities and represent the most effective cancer care advocates in their workplaces. These oncology nurses are vital supports of patient-centered interventions, leveraging clinical knowledge and technology every day to provide the highest quality cancer care to patients not only in Columbus but across Ohio.

We are making progress in the fight against cancer. The 5-year survival rate for all cancers among adults is 68 percent--a marked improvement over the mid-1970s when it was 50 percent. But as cancer treatment becomes more complex, the health care system demands higher quality and more efficient care. As Congress works to increase patient access to quality health care, I praise the commitment of CCONS in fostering excellence in oncology nursing and in the care of cancer patients.

My mother passed away in 2009 while in hospice care. I will never forget the nurses who took care of her in such a loving way when they didn't know her personally until those last few weeks. It made all the difference in the world to her and our family. For that, I always thank nurses and others who care for those in need.

Congratulations to CCONS on its 30th anniversary and for the important work its members do in Ohio's communities every day.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I was not planning this today, but as many of my colleagues do, I do a morning coffee where anybody from my State of Ohio--as Senator Durbin does in Illinois, Senator Udall in New Mexico, and others--and my colleague from Ohio does one too, Senator Portman--people can come in from around the State and talk about what they want.

A couple came in today, a father and a mother and two children. One looked to be maybe 10 and the other looked to be maybe 15. They came and wanted to talk to me about their private school. They have sort of a home school association, it sounded like, from a conservative part of Ohio, Southwest Ohio. We talked about what we could do to help them in terms of educating their children.

Then, right before we parted--and I was going to see other people at this coffee; we had maybe 75 people there--the mother of these two children said: By the way, thank you for the Affordable Care Act.

I said: How is that?

She pointed to her son. She said: My son--I think he was 15. She said: My son is diabetic. As I learned later, he was diagnosed at the age of 6 and has injected insulin into his arm and his leg for 8 or 9 years. She said: My son who is diabetic, we could not get insurance because of my son's preexisting condition, diabetes. We were turned down--I counted them. We were turned down 34 times for insurance. My family was turned down 34 times for insurance. Because of the Affordable Care Act we now have health insurance.

She smiled. That is one of the most poignant stories I have heard about the importance of this new law. There are 160,000 people in my State who now have insurance that did not have it in December. But this family--you think about what this is all about. This family's peace of mind, this family's ability to focus on other things now, because they have insurance that they could not get, even though he had a job--the father had a job--I am not sure where the mother worked.

But the point is, they were turned down, she said, 34 times because their son cost the insurance more money because he had a preexisting condition with diabetes. So I guess my question to my colleagues is, why do we want to repeal this? How do my colleagues, including many, many elected officials in my State who before have been resistant to the Affordable Care Act to win elections, saying: Repeal the Affordable Care Act--how do they explain that to this family--if they met this family and the mother said: We have insurance; we were turned down 34 times. Why do you want to repeal this law? Why do you want to take it away from the 160,000 Ohioans who have insurance? Why do you want to do that to the 100,000 25-, 22-, and 19-year-olds in Ohio--in my State alone, one State of the 50 where 100,000 young people have insurance and they are on their parent's plan because of the Affordable Care Act.

Some 900,000 Ohio seniors have gotten check-ups, no copay, no deductibles, free checkups, free osteoporosis screenings, and free physicals because of the Affordable Care Act.

How do you take that away from those seniors? How do you take away the $900 in savings that the average senior in my State, who is on this--President Bush's, initially--drug plan, the Medicare drug plan? How do you take away that $900 savings? You are going to repeal ObamaCare? You are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take those away? How do you face the people like the family I met today? Thirty-four times she was turned down for insurance. I did not make this up. That is her number. She said: I counted; 34 times they turned our family down for insurance because my child has diabetes. How do you think that makes him feel, first of all. But equally importantly, she has the comfort and safety in her mind now of having insurance.

I do not even understand. What do my colleagues do? Do they wake up every morning thinking: I want to take that insurance from 150,000 Ohio families; I do not want them to have it; I want to take those benefits from those 900,000 Ohio seniors. I want to make them pay $900 more.

That is what they are saying: Repeal ObamaCare.

We lose all of that, if they want to keep talking about taking these benefits away. Let's live with this law. Let's make it work well. It is starting to work really well in Ohio. We are having thousands of sign- ups every single day. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of Hawaii, they are getting lots of people to sign up. Lots of young people are signing up. Let's move on. Let's stop debating this. Help make it work better. Let's talk about how we create jobs, not how you are going to repeal some health care law that you did not like because it did not fit with your ideology or you did not like the President-- whatever the reason my colleagues seem to not like the Affordable Care Act.

History is going to say over and over: Why do you want to take these benefits away? This is working. Remember back with Medicare in 1965. They were not the tea party. They were called the John Birch Society back then. They did not like it. Insurance companies did not like it. But everybody liked it 5 years later.

Social Security--the same forces, the same far right forces opposed it. Five years later, people liked it. This stuff works. It is going to make such a difference in people's lives. Forget about the 150,000. Forget about the numbers. Focus on that family--34 times turned down for insurance. She has insurance now. Her diabetic son can get the care he needs. That is such a wonderful thing.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, on October 16, 1936, President Roosevelt visited the then-largest city in Ohio, the town my wife and I live in, Cleveland, OH. He spoke about why the ``trickle down'' theory does not work--this whole view that has been tried a number of times in our country: trickle down economics--that trickle down economics does not work. That is when you give major tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country.

President Roosevelt called them ``economic royalists''--a term that sounds a little out of date but maybe fairly descriptive. But President Roosevelt said when you help the wealthy get wealthier and wealthier-- my Republican colleagues call them the ``job creators,'' but it just does not work that way; the hope then is that some of that wealth they accumulate--and we do not resent their wealth, we do not envy their wealth; we just do not think it is good economic policy for Toledo or Gallipolis or Chillicothe or Cleveland--that when the wealthiest people get richer and richer, it does not really trickle down and create jobs.

Forget Franklin Roosevelt for a minute. Look at two decades in very recent memory--the 1990s during the Clinton years and the 8 years during the Bush years. From 1993 to 2000, the Clinton years, we actually reduced the budget deficit to the point where there was a surplus. There was an increase in taxes on upper income people and some budget cuts. But what happened during that 8 years is that 21 million private sector jobs were added to our economy between 1993 and 2000--21 million private sector jobs.

Then President Bush took office. Twice--once in 2001 and once in 2003--with the assistance of kind of a bought-and-sold special interest Congress in those days, President Bush gave major tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country. You know the theory, ``trickle down.'' You give tax breaks to the rich and it trickles down to moderate-income, middle-class people and creates jobs. Well, the middle class shrank during those 8 years. President Bush gave major tax cuts to the rich twice. Do you know how many jobs were created during those 8 years? Under 1 million private sector jobs.

So from 1993 to 2000 when we did not follow trickle-down economics, there were 21 million private sector jobs. During the 8 years of the Bush administration, there were big tax cuts for the rich--twice. There was essentially no real job creation in the private sector.

A number of my colleagues want to continue that policy. But let's look at it the other way. The real job creation is not tax breaks for the richest people, it trickles down, and maybe some jobs will be created for the middle class and for low-income people. Let's look at it the other way. Let's look at it as the real job creation is from the bottom up. One of the ways to do that is a minimum wage increase. It will not mean everything, but look at this. The minimum wage today is worth $7.25 an hour nationally, in some States a little bit higher. My State is 90 cents higher than that, I believe. But the minimum wage today has one-third less buying power than it did in 1968. In 1968 a couple with minimum wage jobs--a husband and wife--actually had an OK standard of living. They were not doing great, but they were making it. They could afford to pay their rent. They could afford a car. They could afford some things. They were doing sort of OK.

The minimum wage today--again, a minimum wage job--has one-third less buying power than it had in 1968. But think about this: The minimum wage for tipped employees--I imagine a number of the pages who are sitting here today are not indicative; it is really older people generally who have had minimum wage jobs and have had jobs where they rely on tips. It is a myth that minimum wage jobs are held by mostly teenagers. They are not. Minimum wage jobs are often held by people supporting themselves, and they are supporting kids sometimes on minimum wage jobs. They are not teenagers or mostly in their twenties and thirties.

But get this. Do you know how much the tipped minimum wage is? It is $2.13 an hour. That means when you see a valet at an airport--if you go to Cleveland Hopkins Airport and you see someone pushing a wheelchair with an often older disabled person in it, those are tipped jobs. Those people do not even make $7.25 an hour. But they can make as little as $2.13 an hour. Do you know the last time they got a raise, the last time the tipped minimum wage was raised? It was 1992. For 20-plus years the tipped minimum wage has been $2.13 an hour. It has been that for 20 years. That means that the waitress in the diner, the server in the diner, the valet in front of the restaurant, the person pushing the wheelchair or driving the cart at the airport, the person working in the hotel, their minimum wage is $2.13 an hour.

The people opposed to this minimum wage increase--to me, some of the most self-absorbed interest groups in this country and some of the best off--say: Well, nobody really makes that because people get these tips.

Well, if they work at a really high-end restaurant where the average patron will spend $75 or $100, buy a few drinks, where there is an expensive menu and all of that, the waiters do a little better. They make $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 a year if they are busy enough and if they are working enough hours, some even more than that. But in the diner where three retirees will come in on a Tuesday morning and drink coffee and sit there for 2 hours and take up a table, that waitress is usually a woman who is a sub-minimum wage tipped employee. The people may leave $1 on the table, and she has worked for 2 hours. All they buy is coffee, and she keeps filling it up and filling it up. Think about the wear and tear on her body. She is standing on her feet all the time. She is working hard. You know, we like to think we work hard in the Senate. We do, but we do not do that and it is not so hard on our bodies.

When I think about this minimum wage--I am never angry about politics. One of my heroes was Hubert Humphrey. They called him the ``Happy Warrior'' because he always fought for justice but he was not angry. But there are some things that make me angry about this job, such as when I see some of my colleagues--and there are a number of them--vote for pay increases for themselves and then vote against the minimum wage. They may tell you they work hard. They are not working harder than that person pushing the cart at the airport. They are not working harder than the woman in the diner who is filling the coffee cup.

I urge my colleagues to do something that Pope Francis mentioned. Pope Francis exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. You think about the Biblical allegory of that, the sheep and the Old Testament and the shepherd. When he said ``go out and smell like the flock'' to his parish priests, what he was saying is pretty obvious: Go out and find out how they live. Go out and try to live among them. Go out and do what they do. Go out and understand their way of life.

I ask my colleagues to think about it. I am not asking them to live on a minimum wage job. I am not asking them to wait tables. But I do ask them to spend some time talking to people about the hopes and dreams for their children and in their lives, people who are minimum wage workers, people making $7.25 an hour and working hard, people who are making less than that and rely on tips that may or may not be there.

It is justice. Are we going to reward work? If so, we ought to increase the minimum wage. At the same time, we ought to expand the earned-income tax credit. It actually rewards work. If you are a trickle-down economics guy--and most of them are guys--and you believe that you reward people by cutting their taxes so they will work harder, maybe we ought to think about rewarding hand-working lower income people with tax breaks. For someone making $28,000 a year, that extra thousand dollars really means they can maybe put a little aside for their kid's community college or maybe they can actually go out to eat once in a while or maybe they can occasionally buy a really nice dinner for their kids or maybe they can buy school supplies or whatever with that extra thousand or two thousand dollars from the earned-income tax credit.

We need to increase the minimum wage and the earned-income tax credit. It will not only be better for those families, it will help the economy because you put money into the economy. The unemployed worker or a minimum wage worker is going to spend that money. They are not going to invest it in a Swiss bank account the way some wealthy people might; they are going to spend that money, and that is going to create jobs in the local community. So increasing the minimum wage and expanding the earned-income tax credit is good for those families, it is good for those communities, and it is good for our economy. It is something we ought to do.

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