rand paul to give a speech today about stopping aid to the palestinian government until it recognizes israel's right to exist. vote scheduled for 53:00. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord of history strong to save, remind us that you are not an indifferent spectator to the progress and pathology in our world. help us, dear god, to view our world as you see it, becoming

your ambassadors of reconciliation. empower us to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, and to pray for those who maliciously use us. today, guide our senators through all their deliberations, keeping ever before them the vision of a better world that is yet to be. may they work for justice and peace, advancing your kingdom on earth. sustain us all with the knowledge that our prayers are not in vain. we pray in your merciful name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 28, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher murphy, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 354. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 354, s. 2223,

a bill to provide for an increase in the federal minimum wage and so forth. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 354, s. 2223, a bill to provide for an increase in the federal minimum wage and so forth signed by 17 senators as follows: reid of nevada, harkin, merkley, leahy, booker, warren, reed of rhode island, durbin, cardin, carper, coons, nelson, franken, gillibrand, whitehouse, casey, sanders. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leader, if any, the senate will be in

morning business until 5:30 today, the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or her designees. at 5:30 there will be up to four roll call votes. first, confirmation of the friedland nomination, the next a cloture vote on the weil nomination, stob administrator of the wage and hour division of the department of labor, and a confirmation vote on the weil nomination. finally, a vote onccompanying mr. regan, assistant secretary of housing and urban development. today as we convene, i call to the senate's attention today is the commemoration of the holocaust. the holocaust was the systematic genocide of 6 million jews and countless others carried out by adolf hitler and his minions. today is holocaust remembrance today, a reminder that we must continue to fight against genocide, racism, hat hatred, ad

violence. yet, this day also is hope provided us to by the survivors. i think of my friend, the late-tom lantos, congressman from california. tom was a hungarian jew and survivor of the holocaust and a survivor he was, mr. president. i had the good fortune of going to hungary with him, and i didn't go with him, but i met him there, and he showed us a number of places that he escaped from the nazis. it was a remarkable story, and he was a remarkable man. he once said, "i like to work hard to make this a better country, to provide a justice government for people and make sure we have -- whreerned from e learn from the past." his statement should apply to all of us. today we remember those who were lost and those who survive and share our grief with the families that suffered the tragedy of nationalcy germany --

the tragedy of nationalcy germ. let us remember the words of congressman l.a.n. troughs. he had great hope and faith that we would work to stop genocide in the future. i ask unanimous consent that the statement i just made appear at a separate place in the record than the statement i'm going to give now. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, nevada, especially las vegas, is home to the best in the on the planet. you'll find the best performances anyplace in the world. some of the most popular performances are musicians, illusionists who entertain their audiences by making impossible scenery. they distract viewers from what they know to be true and i stead funnel their attention to something entertaining and is really fake.

it seems that the republican party has decided to follow how dean knee and copperfield'fields footsteps. "the wall street journal" reported that the republican party has a newly adopted campaigning strategy, to defeat senate democrats, they're going to attacks me because they are attacks and fabrications regarding the affordable care act have borne little fruit. in senate races across the country, republicans will avoid the issues that matter most to americans. instead trying to focus ateption on a senator not even up for election. that senator is me. what are those issues the republicans so desperately want to avoid? how about immigration? that bill was introduced a year ago, and it passed the senate many, many months ago. it's a good piece of legislation, mr. president, but the vast majority of the

american people sympathy a good idea. yet instead of explaining to the american people why this bipartisan bill sits idly in the republican-controlled house of representatives, they wnts to change the subject. the speaker of the house of representatives refuses to allow a vote, a vote were allow to occur, it would pass ever whelmingly. that's a good piece of legislation. no only is it fair and equitable, but it also would reyoreduce the detect by $1 trillion, mr. president. -- reduce the debt by $1 trillion, mr. president. while struggling families plead to government for help getting work, house republicans prefer to talk about anything but what is relevant. why? because their billionaire sugar dad di diddaddies aren't interen helping americans. the koch brothers aren't concerned about the lon long-unemployed families.

these billionaire oil bear rones don't care about working women being deprived of fair wages. mr. president, my daughter or your wife, they can do the exact same work as a man but get 77 cents where the man gets a dollar. we want to change that. koch-driven republican congress refuses to allow us even to have a vote on it. here in the senate they have started filibusters time and time again on this issue. in the house they won't have a vet on that either. mr. president, as the senate turns its attention to increasing the federal minimum wage, which we learned to earlier today, is there any question that the republicans will once again do the koch brothers' bidding? of course not. $80 billion in is not enough for these two brothers. evidently, the kochs feel that

$10.10 per hour is too much for a hardworking american with a family to take care of. if a person works 40 hours at $10.10 an hour, it i you're no r in poverty. they refuse to allow millions of americans the opportunity to get out of poverty by giving them a raise. the republican party instead choose touses distract the american people by attacking me. like all illusions, they are a using misdirection to call the american people's attention away from reality but instead are attempting to buy america with their billions. the koch brothers and their acomaccomplices continue to dump millions of dollars on anything and anyone who stands in their way. senate democrats refuse to stand

idly by while two megarich individuals attempt to create an american oligarchy. we have spoken here on the a? the floor -- i have spoken out against the koch brothers' attempts to rig the system in their fai failure because it cos at the expense of families across this great country. in response, one of the koch brothers' puppet organizations planned to run ads against me in the state of nevada. i am not running for a few more years. as i've said before, being the target of a couple rich billionaires is not going to intimidate me. shockingly, the leadership of the republican party has decided to follow suit with their new campaign strategy. it's obvious their street strategy attacking obamacare has approven to be a miserable failure. over 8 million americans have chosen coverage through the affordable care act, plus 3 million more are on their parents' insurance because of the affordable care act and up to 6 million people are on the

way to having health care because of medicaid that's part of obamacare. and, mr. president, for example, in the state of kentucky, 413 people have already signed up for the state-sponsored health care they have in the state of kentucky. so with one failed strategy behind them, the republicans are trying something new, but it's still the same smoke-and-mirrors retune they've tried in the past. object verobstruct. charles and david koch and their radical henchmen feel free to attack me as much as you want. i can take it. but don't expect the american people to be fooled by this newest tactic. voters will see this for what it is: a distraction that's keeping american families from getting a

fair shot at financial stability. in the meantime, senate democrats will continue to speak out against the shadowy influence of two power-drunk billionaires and their devoted followers on capitol hill. most important, mr. president, senate democrats will continue working on meaningful legislation that will get our nation's middle class back on track. will the chair anoins the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum and have the 250eu7time charged equally defee majoritmajority and minority. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, in just a few hours, at 7:00 this evening -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, in just a couple of hours in milford, connecticut, at 7:00 p.m. this evening, there will be a vigil bringing together many different members of the milford community to celebrate and mourn and grieve the life of a beautiful young woman who suffered senselessly and brutally her death last

friday morning. in this inexpoliticsable act of violence, she was killed by a fellow classmate shortly after 7:00 in the morning, the jonathan law high school was turned into a crime scene. as members of the first responder team, first the police and then medics sought to save her life. tragically and unfortunately, they were unable to do so. and the evening that was to be their prom, their junior prom, instead became a vigil then. we will perhaps never know what prompted this horrific and unimaginable act of brutality, this horrific event has united

and brought together people who are mourning now, but we know with certainty what a wonderful human being maren sanchez was, and we know also that this community has shown strength and courage in coming together and uniteing to help each other and particularly those students who knew her, and we know also with certainty how gifted and talented, how compassionate and caring she was as a manager of sports teams, as a gifted singer, as an athlete, as school president and an honors student. her whole future was ahead of her. and most remarkably, she was a person of consummate caring and

compassion for her fellow student. those students struggle today to make some sense of this violence, to derive some meaning and maybe some comfort. i went to jonathan law high school last sunday, yesterday, for a part of the afternoon and spoke with the chief of police, keith mellow, whose men and women have helped the community so deeply, the mayor of milford, ben blake, who has demonstrated leadership in this crisis, the superintendent of schools and principal of jonathan law high school and the many teachers and parents and students and grief counselors and therapists who came to speak with those students and help them to think through and live through this horrible tragedy. what is remarkable and so

impressed me yesterday was the love and caring that people from disparate parts of this community showed for each other and continue to show in this testing time, a time of extraordinary adversity and tragedy when people who otherwise might be strangers are drawn together by the thread of grief and reform the fabric of the community by simple acts of caring. they are united today in their grief and bewilderment, seeking to honor maren's legacy and sustain that legacy with the very qualities of courage and strength, charity and compassion

that she demonstrated throughout her life. those qualities of caring and compassion, courage and strength will see them through this tragedy as they come together for the vigil tonight. and we can all honor the legacy of this remarkable young woman in looking for ways to make the world better, as she sought to do, and fill it with song and color, the lust for life, joy and pride in her contemporary accomplishments -- contemporaries' accomplishments, searching for steps that we can take to make our schools better and safer. the time for talk about policy or steps to better school safety will come, and i hope that we will all be a part of that

continuing effort in exploring how to protect anyone and everyone who comes to school, which should be havens of safety, insulated from violence, particularly against the most vulnerable members of our communities. but those policy responses can wait until after this day, after the days of grief and mourning have passed as we celebrate this remarkable young life. she was described by members of her class as an angel. her cousin, edward covaks said on friday maren should be celebrating at her prom this evening with her friends and classmates, instead we are mourning her death and trying to understand this senseless loss of life. he said of her she was a bright light full of hope and dreams. in fact, she was among the brightest of lights, full of

the most wondrous hopes and dreams. so today my heart and prayers are with her family, her friends, the milford community, as they gather for this vigil tonight. separated by distance, i will be with them in spirit as i know my colleagues who know of this tragedy will be as well. this kind of tragedy is indecipherable, incomprehensible to young men and women, 16-year-olds, but equally so to all of us of any age. and my hope is that we will honor mayoren sanchez's legacy, that our hearts and prayers will go to her family, had her parents, all who knew her, and

all who would like to have known her. because she was such a remarkable and wonderful human being. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator fromton tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask to speak up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered ch. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we're told this week that on wednesday we're going to have a vote on the so-called minimum wage, the so-called 40% increase in the minimum wage. this is part of a jobs program by my friends on the democratic side. now, it's not a that program that's nenlded to pass anything. that was revealed in a "new york times" article by by my distinguished friend from new york, senator schumer, who may be an architect of this. it's to highlight political differences which is a fair thing to do in the united states senate. but lest anyone thinking anyone is trying to pass a law here shouldn't be confused by that. we have had three hearings on the minimum wage in the health,

education, labor and pensions committee of which i'm the ranking republican member. we've had time to have snows three hearings but the chairman of the committee, the senator from iowa, has said that we don't have time to consider any amendments to this idea about jobs and it was reported in a newspaper, one of the hill newspapers, somebody said why don't have you time for amendments on the minimum wage? he said, well, there might be embarrassing amendments. i think there probably would be, mr. president, embarrassing only if you voted against them. let me talk a little bit about this proposal by my democratic friends to create jobs by raising engage. now, they're on the right issue. the issue is jobs. i mean we've been home in maine and tennessee, around the country, too many people are having a hard time finding a job. too many people have been out of work for more than six months. we call them long-term

unemployed. 10.5 million people out of work, an average of nine months. that's beyond the time for unemployment compensation on the average. it's hard to find a job, it's hard to create a job, especially tough on people in their 40's and their 50's and their 60s. and family incomes are lower than we'd like them to be. and the critical problem is there are too few jobs especially for low-wage workers and then we saw a report this morning that said that too many of the jobs since 2008 have been lower-wage jobs rather than higher-wage jobs. so the issue is right. it's jobs. the american people want -- want it to be easier to find a good-paying job. and the democratic proposal that we're going to vote on this week as the solution to the jobs problem is a proposal that will eliminate 500,000 jobs. let me say that again,

mr. president, in case anyone thought i misread my page of notes. we're talking about jobs, and the democratic proposal -- this is the big deal this week. we're not going to do anything in the united states senate this week of anything significance on the floor as far as i know, a few nominations except to have procedural vote wednesday on the minimum wage proposal, and the democratic proposal to make it easier to find a job is to eliminate 500,000 jobs. now, in case you think i'm making this up, let me quote where i got this piece of information. this is from the nonpartisan congressional budget office. now, the congressional budget office is something we set up by law because, you know, we'll make our republican points and then we'll make our democratic points and we may shade it a little bit this way or a little bit that way and we say to the c.b.o., we call them, you tell us the truth best as you can

tell it. they're nonpartisan. don't want always like what they say and this is what he they said about the democratic proposal to create more jobs. once fully implemented -- quote -- "in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option to raise the minimum wage would reduce total unemployment by 500,000 people. or .3%. that's according to the congressional budget office. should we believe the congressional budget office? well, senator heller, the distinguished senator from nevada, asked janet yellen, president obama's confirmed head of the federal reserve board, what her thoughts on the impact of iz raking the minimum wage would be and this is what she said, and i quote president obama's new fed cheech. "the c.b.o. is as qualified as anyone to evaluate that literature and, she said, i wouldn't want to argue with their assessment." so there we have the

congressional budget office saying it will reduce 500,000 jobs and the new head of the federal reserve board appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate saying she wouldn't want to argue with their assessment. we'll be hearing more this week about the number of people whose wages will be raised by the minimum wage. there will be that. but the c.b.o. also reported that four out of five dollars earned from the increase in the minimum wage will go to workers in families who are above the part level. four out of five dollars will go to workers in families who are above the poverty level. and nearly one-third of those families would benefit from the minimum wage already earn more than three times the poverty level. mr. president, this reminds me of obamacare in this way -- according to a recent "washington post" story, only about one in four people signing

up for obamacare were previously uninsured. about three quarters of people with obamacare insurance already had insurance before we went through all the turmoil of the last three or four years. in the same sort of way, minimum wage is said to benefit low-income americans, but only $1 in $5 from an increase will go to families below the poverty line. and that isn't all. in addition to cutting 500,000 jobs and providing 80% of the benefits to the families above the poverty level, the democratic jobs proposal imposes one more burden on the only americans who are capable of solving this problem, and that is the job creators. i ask consent to include in the record following my remarks the testimony of laurie palmer of waterville, maine, who owns four

burger king franchises with approximately 140 employees. i say to the distinguished presiding officer, i had no idea he might be presiding today, but i'm glad to have a maine story. ms. palmer says in her testimony -- quote -- "an increase in the minimum wage will directly and negatively impact my ability" she says "to create new jobs while limiting the benefits available to my current employees. i currently employ 60 people who work an average of 25 hours per week and earn the current minimum wage as defined by maine law, $7.50 an hour. all but a hand full of these people were hired within the last six months. mathematically an increase in the federal minimum wage would cost me an extra $3,900 per week or $208,000 per year. my net income for last year was approximately $35,100, with an

extra $208,000 in expenses, she says, "i will very likely be forced to close my business." she also notes 100% of my current staff starting at the minimum wage are under the age of 25 years. mr. president, republicans believe that we want to create jobs; there's a better way. we'd like to offer our ideas through the health, education, labor and pensions committee. but as i mentioned, although we've had time for three hearings, although we're able to spend a whole week on this on the floor for one procedural vote, we're not allowed to offer amendments in the committee. and so far as i know here, because there might be embarrassing amendments. let's consider what those embarrassing amendments might be. they might be about the earned-income tax credit. senator rubio, florida, the president, congressman paul ryan

have all suggested that the earned-income tax credit is a better way to make sure that the lowest-earning workers in america have a better wage if we're going to get the government involved in it. of course if we're going to do that, we're going to have to deal with some problems, including the internal revenue service estimates that 25% of the payments aren't properly made. and we could consider the proposals that rather than giving those earned income tax credits out in a lump sum each year, they might be given out with each paycheck. but the congressional budget office also said something about earned income tax credits. they said one-third of low-wage workers would be in families benefiting from the minimum-wage increases whose income was more than three times the federal poverty level in 2016. by contrast, said c.b.o., an increase in the earned-income

tax credit would go almost entirely to low-income families. the c.b.o. also noted that the earned-income tax credit encourages more people with low-income families to work, a value we should encourage. so if our goal as a country is provide a minimum wage for working americans, why is it fair to assess the cost of that goal on just the americans who create the jobs? of course it makes creating the jobs harder, but even more important, why shouldn't everyone, every one of us who pay taxes share in the burden of paying a higher working wage to american workers? that's what happens with the earned-income tax credit. or there's another proposal, a bipartisan one. we call it the 30- to 40-hour workweek. senator collins of maine is one of the principal sponsors. the senator from connecticut i

believe is a democratic sponsor. it is a bipartisan proposal that would in fact be a 33% pay increase for millions of american workers who have already seen their hours cut because of obamacare. it's a way to prevent, said another way, prevent millions of workers from getting a 25% pay cut. the reason all this occurs is because obamacare changed the definition of full-time work from 40 hours to 30 hours. we'd like to change it back to 40 hours. obamacare says employers with 50 or more full-time workers must offer government-approved insurance or pay a fine. full time is defined as 30 hours or more. that sounds like it was made in france. the u.s. chamber of commerce says 74% of their members say the health care law makes it harder for their firms to hire workers, changing the definition of full time to 40 hours would make it easier. senator collins and donnelly

introduced the 40 hours as full time act. it would change the definition of full time in the law to 40 hours per week. we could be discussing that this week. we could have brought that up in our committee had we been allowed to. or the skills act. there are 47 separate federal jobs programs for which taxpayers are spending $18 billion. the government accountability office says 44 of those programs are duplicative. the skills act passed by the house consolidates 35 federal programs, increase a single workforce investment fund. members of the senate have been working with members of the house to see if we can agree on a revision of the workforce investment act, and we're making good progress. if we can do a better job spending those dollars across america, that would be a good way to help create more jobs in america, or at least make them easier to obtain.

but we don't have time for that in our hearings. we could spend time debating amendments to transform long-term unemployment compensation into job training, but we don't have time for that amendment. today americans have been out of work for an average of nine months. they don't need more compensation. they need new skills. they need skills that help them get the job. ask almost anyone on either side of the aisle what's the best long-term way to make sure that children of low-income families are prepared for a good job, i know almost every governor i know is focused like a laser on this. that's the chance to go to a better school. i've introduced legislation that would allow states to take their money, say maine's money, or tennessee's money from 80 federal programs and turn it into $2,100 scholarships that would follow low-income children

to the school they attend. we could create $2,100 scholarships for one out of five kids in america. 11 million children. and when i say schools they attend, that could include a private school if the state decided that. but this wouldn't be a federal mandate to that effect. the state would make that decision. it would simply make sure that these federal dollars follow the child to the school the child attends. if the state wants it to be public, if the state wants it to be on this corner, that's up to the state. we could offer and discuss that amendment. why not give elementary and secondary children a ticket to a better school? we give them a ticket to a child care development center. we did that in a bipartisan way last month. we have tickets to college. we call those pell grants. why not help them go to better schools? then there are other amendments that we think on our side of the aisle have more to do with

creating jobs than a so-called minimum-wage proposal that had congressional budget office says will destroy 500,000 jobs. for example, we could build the keystone pipeline which passed the senate last year during our budget discussion 52-37. that would create jobs. we could pass the trade promotion authority. president obama has asked us to do that. both in europe and in asia. we have a chance to negotiate, the president has a chance to negotiate, to negotiate trade agreements that would create more jobs in america as we ship automobiles and soybeans from tennessee and other places to the rest of the world. but the majority leader of the senate says no, that's dead for this year. we could debate a proposal to reform the national labor relations board. i don't like the fact that think they have become more of an advocate than umpire with

microunions, undermining the trite work law. but democrats could come back and say when the republicans are in, they're more of an advocate for employers, and maybe there's truth to that. let's pass a law saying it would be better to create jobs in america if employers and employees could count on the nlrb be a fair and unbiased tribunal. umpire, not advocate. we could create jobs in america and slow the spread of jobs to europe from america by repealing the medical device tax. that also passed the senate last year 79-20, which means there are lots of democrats for it as well as lots of republicans. as i say, mr. president, the only thing embarrassing about voting for these amendments to a jobs bill would be voting against them. on the most important issue facing the country, surely we can do better than this stale bankrupt idea that's been proposed this week on the floor of the senate that according to

office that we're supposed to trust for advice -- the congressional budget office -- would, number one, destroy 500,000 jobs; number two, concentrate most of the benefits on those above the poverty line; and number three, make it more skpepb sieve to create -- suspension sieve to create jobs; and number four tax only some taxpayers for a policy designed to benefit the entire society. this kind of thinking is right in line with obamacare, dodd-frank and all the other policies that have spread a big wet blanket of rules and regulations over our free enterprise system and made it harder to create a job and harder to find a job in the united states of america. that's why we have 10.5 million unemployed in america today for an average of nine months. this is con tapbt parade -- constant parade of ideas that increase the big, wet smothering blanket of rules and regulations over the free enterprise system

and that do nothing to make it easier to create jobs and easier to find a job. there are better ideas, mr. president. reform, refundable tax credits benefit all low-income workers. replace long-term unemployment compensation with job training. change obamacare's workweek definition from 30 hours to 40 hours to encourage full-time jobs. use existing federal education dollars to give children of low-income families a $2,100 scholarship to choose a better school. all those would create an environment in which the job creators could create more jobs and which those who want them could find a job more easily. that's what we should be about instead of pretending that we can pass a law in america and give many people a higher income. we can do that. we can do that. but when we do it, make no mistake about it, we're destroying 500,000 jobs and

giving benefits to people above the poverty line instead of he below. mr. president, i thank the chair. i yield the floor. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, every member of this body has expressed our bipartisan commitment for the united states to stand resolutely with our friend and ally, the nation of israel. doing so is right and it is overwhelmingly in the national security interest of the united states of america. it was, therefore, with great sadness that i read this morning about the comments of secretary of state john kerry, who reportedly suggested at the trilateral commission that israel would become an apartheid

state if his proposed two-state solution to the peace israeli-palestinian process fails. secretary kerry has long experience in foreign policy and he understands that words matt matter. apartheid is inextricably associated with one of the worst examples of state-sponsored discrimination in history. the apartheid system in south africa that was ultimately brought down by the heroic resistance of nelson mandela inside the country, supported by a concerted campaign of diplomatic and economic sanctions by the international community. there is no place for this word in the context of the state of israel. the term "apartheid," means "apart, different, isolated." the state of the victims of

apartheid with which the jews are tragically all too familiar. the notion that israel would go down that path and so face the same condemnation that faced south africa is unconscionable. the united states should be aggressively asserting that israel can never be made an apartheid nation while america exists and stands beside her. because america will be with israel regardless of the status of the diplomatic process. 15 months ago almost to the day, john kerry was confirmed by this body by a vote of 94-3. despite my prefns fo preferenceg the president the cabinet members of his choice, i found that i could not join the vast majority of my colleagues and support his nomination because i was convinced that as secretary of state, john kerry would place what he considered to be the

wishes of the international community above the national security interest of the united states. i fear that with these most recent ill-chosen remarks, secretary kerry has proven these concerns well-founded. rather than focusing on our clear national security intere interest, which is continuing to guarantee israel's security through our unquestionable commitment to it, secretary kerry has instead repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to countenance a world in which israel is made a pariah because it will not sacrifice its security to his diplomatic initiatives. likewise, he's previously suggested that israel might properly be subject to boycotts for the same grounds. it is no wonder that israel's

defense minister remarked in january that -- quote -- "the only thing that can save us from john kerry" -- "can save us, is for john kerry to win a nobel peace prize and leave us in peace." indeed, my colleague, the senior senator from arizona, has suggested that the foreign policy carried out by mr. kerry is the equivalent of a -- quote -- "human wrecking ball." mr. president, the fact that secretary kerry sees nothing wrong with making a statement comparing israel's policy to the abhorrent apartheid policies of south africa and doing so on the eve of holocaust remembrance d day, demonstrates a shocking lack of sensitivity to the incendiary and damaging nature of his rhetoric. mr. president, sadly, it is my

belief that secretary kerry has proven himself unsuitable for the position he holds and, therefore, before any further harm is done to our national security interests and to our critical alliance with the nation of israel, that john kerry should offer president obama his resignation and the president should accept it. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i ask that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following fogs which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, michelle t. friedland of california to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question

occurs on the nomination. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 51. the nays are 40. the nomination is confirmed. the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the rest of the votes tonight be ten minutes in duration. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of david weil of massachusetts to be administrator of the wage and hour division department of labor signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense

of the senate that debate on the nomination of david weil of massachusetts to be administrator of the wage and hour division department of labor shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 51, the nays are 42. the motion to invoke cloture is

agreed. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of labor, david weil of massachusetts to be administrator of the wage and hour division. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: this should be the last vote this evening. the next vote -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. reid: this should be the last vote this evening. the next vote will be by voice. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 51, the nays are 42. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the clerk will report the o'regan nomination. the clerk: department of housing and urban development, katherine m.o'regan of new york to be assistant secretary. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to yield back

all time. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes seem to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the president shall be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i rise today to discuss part the state of our economy but most-hour precisely, the sait of our workers. working americans are some in some sense being attacked on both ends. we've seen an orchestrated attempt to cut safety net programs where a low-income worker making 9-point or $10 or $11 an hour might be eligible in some cases for the snap program or is surely eligible for the earned income tax credit.

opponents strongly say that programs like snap foster a culture of dpensdy and don't reward work. those same elected officials some of whom i might add, mr. president, have voted to raise their own pay, those same elected officials oppose efforts to ensure that hard work is rewarded with fair pay. last fall one house republican said if anyone is not willing to work,about let him not eat. well, i'm all for quoting scripture, i don't think it should be used to villainize hardworking people. detractors of snap, opponents to minimum wage can't 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 can't and shouldn't be eligible for certain benefits. so we create opportunities for americans to earn a living wage and no longer need those benefits. a hundred years ago in january, henry ford in 1914 announced he

was going to pay his workers $5 a day. nobody really thought when they look at henry ford and his life, nobody really thought he was doing it out of the kindness of his heart. but that didn't matter. he decided to pay everybody in his plant $5 a day because he understood that paying them more would mean a more prosperous work force who could then, presto, have the money in their pocket to begin to buy a car, to buy a model t or one of henny henry ford's cars. productivity increased 58% in this country since 1979. used to be as productivity went up, wages went up. since world war ii between 1945, 1973, productivity went like this, wages preach parallelled increase. workers producing more for their boss would get part of the

wealth would share in the wealth that they were helping to create for their company, for their boss. so while productivity has increased 85% in the last 35 years, inflation-adjusted wages increased 6% and the value of the minimum wage fell 21%. think about that. proicht went up 85%. profits went up significantly. wages went up only 6% and the value of the minimum wage fell 21%. the value of the minimum wage since 1968 is actually one-third less today -- i'll say it again. the minimum wage today is worth one-third less in buying power of the minimum wage in 1968. simply put, workers while they're earning more for their bosses, they're making their companies more profitable, workers are not seeing the wealth that they help to create. and fundamentally, the contract not literally in -- not a legal contract but the contract we once had in this country was if

you work hard, take responsibility, if you're productive, if you do things according to sort of society's mores, you would benefit from that, would you benefit in higher wages, in a higher standard of living. in the aftermath of the recession, job growth -- 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 like snap has grown. i hear some of my sort of tea party colleagues complain more and more people are getting snap. they are because wages aren't going up because the minimum wage has less buying power than it used to, that so many workers that were union middle-class workers now are making lower wages. 45 million people. so yes, the number of people that are receiving snap

benefits, namps food stamps, has gone up. 2011, 45 million people relied on these benefits. snap spending increased. but that's a reason to pass the minimum wage, increase their wages, fewer people will need that. too many people work harder than ever, are barely getting by despite their best efforts. why millions of fast food workers in cities across the country took to sister streets in december for a national day of action protesting the need, asking for demanding an increase the minimum wage. more than half the front-line fast food workers, more than half of those that work more than hours per week earn so little they're forced to enroll in public assistance. think of all the companies, all the companies where workers are making low wages and they're getting food stamps. i yield to the majority leader. mr. reid: i would ask my dear friend can if i could do a unanimous consent. and i would ask that the senator

who is issuing an important statement, his record -- i pleen the statement not appear interrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent tomorrow, april 29 at 11:00 a.m. the senate proceed to executive session and notwithstanding rule 22 the senate proceed to vote on cloture on calendar number 588, 589 and 590, and further if cloture is invoked on any nominations, all postcloture time be considered expired, and following the votes the senate resume legislative session and the time to be determined by me the senate proceed to executive session to vote on confirmation of the nominations on which cloture was invoked, there be two minutes twiert for debate to each rote, each be 10 minutes in length, further with respect to the nominations, that upon disposition on wednesday the motion to reconsider considered

made and laid on the table and president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i thank the majority leader. i came to the floor to talk about the minimum wage and specifically discuss support for the fair minimum wage act. the majority leader reid has been supportive of this as have most of my colleagues in this chamber. we haven't yet been able to corral 60 votes which is what we need to break a filibuster from those who i think far out of step with the country, with their constituents, oppose the minimum wage. fair minimum wage act would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three 95-cent increments. it's 7:25 now. upon the president's signature it would be $820 and then $10.10. this is important to note because it's rarely talked

about, the bill also raises the federal minimum wage for tipped workers from the current $2.13 an hour to 70% of the regular minimum wage. $2.13 an hour. if you work in a restaurant, if you're a server, if you push a wheelchair at an airport, if you're a valet, if you're working in a hotel where you get tips, in most cases those workers make -- are only -- employers are only required to pay the subminimum wage. assuming you're going to get up to the minimum wage with tips. doesn't always happen that way. it's federal law that it should but it doesn't always happen that way as senator durbin and i were talking earlier, it's not easy to enforce that. but the tipped minimum wage, if you're in a diner and your server, the chances are your server is making significantly less than minimum wage. maybe higher than $2.13, that's the law but maybe no more than

$3 or $4 an hour. if you're in an airport and someone is pushing a wheelchair, an older person usuallily or someone disabled for whatever reason, they're only making only $3 or $4 or $5 snow shower. the tipped minimum wage has not between raised since 19th 1. every time -- 1991. every time we raised the minimum wage, president bush did it in 2007, a yew years, i was in the house then, bipartisanly, the presiding officer from indiana supported these minimum wage increases. but every time we've raised the minimum wage since 1991 the $2.13 subminimum wage has been stuck. 24 will raise the tipped wage. let me share a couple letters. i got a letter from tom in i cuyahoga county in northeast ohio. senator brown,if a 50-year-old food service worker, i make $7.40 an hour. i just closed my retirement

account to pay my bills. it's still not enough to cover everything. with that money gone i should be able to qualify for food stamps. i have only the most basic bills, i don't have any credit card debt or loans. how much longer do we have to wait for a livable wage? this is somebody -- the number of people whom i've met who are working minimum wage or close to minimum wage, $8, $9, $10 an hour jobs are people often that hold two jobs. they're working hard, they have so little to show for it. for somebody willing to work as hard as most people in this country to do they should have a livable wage. there are many more stories like tom's that all of us can hear if's wee go out in our states and listen. pope francis i exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. he obviously -- the allusions of the old and new testament and

sheep and shepherds but he was referring to the fact how important it is for the people in the roman catholic church, the priests, the people that minister to people some understand how people live. it's an important admonition for politicians too. i think if more of my colleagues would get out of washington and would 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. and when we're 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's 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 peoples pockets that they will immediately spend gen