to have an open trading mechanism on all degrees, 360 around ukraine. and whatever path they choose, i can guarantee this, the united states and our allies will stand together in support of ukraine. this crisis is a wake-up call for us to accelerate the other work that we've been doing to promote a stronger, more prosperous transatlantic community. so to start, we cannot continue to allow allied defense budgets to shrink. clearly, not all allies are going to meet the nato benchmark of 2% of gdp overnight or even next year. but it's time for allies who are below that level to make credible commitments to increase their spending on defense over the next five years. and if we're going to move the trend line in a positive direction, this has to be an alliance-wide effort.

two, if we want a europe that is both whole and free, then we have to do more together immediately, with a sense of urgency, to insure that european nations are not dependent on russia for the majority of their energy. in this age of new energy markets, in this age of concern about global climate change and carbon overload we ought to be able to rush to the ability to be able to make europe less dependent. and if we do that, that will be one of the greatest single strategic differences that could be made here. we can deliver greater energy independence and help to diversify energy sources that are available to the european markets, and we can expand the energy infrastructure across europe, and we could build up energy storage capacity throughout the continent. third, we have to invest in the underpinnings of our economic partnership.

we aring to, europe and the united states -- together, europe and the united states, two of the largest marketplaces in the world, and fact is we can seriously accelerate growth and job creation and serve as a buffer to any negative impacts of some of the steps we need to take if we move on both sides of the atlantic rapidly to complete the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. that agreement will do more to change the way we do business and some of our strategic considerations than any other single economic step that we can take with the sole exception of the energy independence. so, my friends, i just close by saying to all of you that this moment, without reaching for any hyperbole because the moment is serious enough that it doesn't require that, this moment is about more than just ourselves.

the fact is that our entire model of global leadership is at stake. and if we stand together, if we draw strength from the example of the past and refuse to be complacent in the present, then i am confident that nato, the planet's strongest alliance, can meet the challenges, can absolutely take advantage of the opportunities that are presented by crisis and that we can move closer to a europe that is whole and prosperous, at peace and free and strong. that's our goal, and we look forward to working with our fellow ministers and with each of these countries to achieve it. thank you for letting me be with you. [applause] thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> just an fyi, vice president biden will be speaking at the atlantic council tomorrow. a live look at the u.s. capitol

on a rainy tuesday with the senate set to come black in at 2:15 eastern. we'll have them live here on c-span2. and a debate is likely this afternoon on the minimum wage pill, a bill that would gradually raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour over two years. the majority leader, harry reid, told senators this morning they'll begin debate this afternoon on that, and the republican leader countered saying that a cbo report or said the increase could cause the loss of 500,000 jobs nationwide. we'll she you the twoar. leaders' -- show you the two leaders' comments. w >> mr. president, this week theo senate will begin consideration on increasing the federal minimum wage. n over the next few days, memberst this bodyhe will come to the flr and make a case for or against increasing the minimum wage. most of the statements you will hear here today will be in favor of it.

they will be very silent most of the time and not talk much about increasing the minimum wage which is so vitally important to our country. the american people were inundated with figures and facts regarding the economic impact of an increase to $10.10. mr. president, why was that number chosen? it was chosen pause at that number, $10.10 an hour, for 40 hours, you are no longer in poverty. senate democrats have ample evidence to back up our position that an increase in the federal minimum wage is good for america. a recent study from the economic policy institute indicates that increasing the minimum wage and tying it to inflation would raise wages for 28 million american workers. that's about 10% of the american people. and contrary to what republicans would have you believe, these 28 million americans just aren't

high school kids looking to make a few bucks after school. that same analysis reported that the median age of minimum wage workers is 35 years, proving these employees are grown men and women, most of them with families. and if we needed more reason to pass this important legislation, the most recent polling data reveals that about 75% of americans back an increase in the minimum wage. so, mr. president, supporting an increase in the minimum wage is ample, and it's for all of us to see. however, the real issue transcends political polls and studies. the heart of the minimum wage debate is not found in statistics, but rather a question we should ask ourselves; what kind of a country do we aspire to be? this nation is home to the greatest economy on earth. even as we continue to recover from the great recession, there's no question that we're the richest question on the planet. can anyone in this chamber doubt

our economy has the capability of providing liberal wages to american workers? the fact that in america there are full-time working mothers and fathers who must juggle two to three jobs just to provide food and shelter for their children, i think that's up conscionable. now, before any sulking billionaire comes forward and is upset and pens an op-ed in some newspaper calling me a collectivist as they have done, let me be clear. this, mr. president, is a question of fairness. do we believe it's fair that fellow americans who work full time be paid less than a livable wage? i hope not. or do we value all american workers and reward them with at least the very least a baseline wage that enables them to provide for their families? a recent story in this nevada, mr. president, about a young man named galvin. works at mcdonald's. he worked hardt. but the wages were so low, he was forced to get another job.

now, working two jobs, what is this young man going to do? is he going to go to college? of course not. is he going to go to trade school? of course not. he's too busy working. what is going to happen to him to better his life? just a few months ago an incredible successful hisman visited cap -- businessman visited capitol hill. he said he put himself through college, attending harvard, and he did that being paid $2 an hour which was the minimum wage at the time. he now is an elderly, very successful businessman. he worked full time over the course of the year and was able to pay harvard's tuition. tuition at that time was $400 a -- $2400 a year, which was a lot. jim even claims he had money left over after paying his college fees. jim's daughter is now preparing to enroll at harvard. if she were to be employed at

today's minimum wage, she'd need to work full time for four years to afford even one year of tuition, room and board at harvard. the young man i just talked about, galvin, could never dream of putting himself through harvard or unlv or any place because you're working two jobs. you can't do it. simply put, it's not fair that working americans and their families are being stripped of the american dream. that's what galvin has, like the presiding officer, like i had, training to better yourself. better than what your family was able to do. well, so again, mr. president, put simply, is it fair that working men and women are being stripped of the american dream because we refuse to pay them a livable wage for working hard? that's why this legislation so critical. an increase in the minimum wage, obviously, won't make a millionaire out of anyone. each full-time working american

receives a wage they can live on. it'll give them a fighting chance to get ahead in the economy. every hard working american should have the opportunity to put a roof over tear head and that of their family, and every full-time employee should have a fair shot at the american 'em too. dream. i invite my colleagues to work with us to increase the federal minimum wage as 75% of the american people think we should do. they should join in giving every american a fair shot in providing for their families. >> the american people want congress to focus on one thing above all else; jobs. jobs. you'd think the democrats who control the senate would want to help us advance bipartisan ideas to boost job creation. you'd think they'd actually work with us to address the concerns and anxieties of our constituents. but instead senate democrats are pushing legislation this week

that would actually cost, not create, but actually cost up to a million american jobs. this is completely tone deaf. their bill would cost up to 17,000 jobs in kentucky alone. and apparently, this is what senate democrats have made their top priority. not much of a surprise though. as i've said many times, washington democrats often seem to hurt the very people they claim to be fighting for. when it comes to so many of their proposals, washington democrats appear to prioritize the desires of the far left over the needs of the middle class. and let's be honest, the interests of the far left and the be interests of the middle class seem to be in fierce opposition these days. take the keystone pipeline, for example. the obama administration recently announced yet another punt on this critical jobs project. one that would lead to the creation of thousands, literally

thousands of good jobs. why? because of pressure from the far left. one union leader called the administration's decision a cold, hard slap in the face for hard working americans. another labor leader whose union endorsed the president twice put it this way: no one seriously believes that the administration's nearly dark-of-night announcement was anything but politically motivated. it represented, he said, another low blow to the working men and women of our country for whom the keystone xl pipeline is a lifeline to good jobs and to energy security. here's a project the government has been studying for five or six years now. five or six years they've been studying this project. americans have learned that building keystone would produce significant economic benefits for our country, that it would lower energy prices and that it

would lead to the creation of thousands of jobs at a time when we need them more than ever. and president obama's own administration has concluded that approving keystone would not significantly impact net carbon emissions anyway. improving the project -- approving the project wouldn't have an adverse impact on carbon we missions. so you'd think washington democrats would join the large majorities of americans who say that keystone is a good deal for our country. you'd think they'd jump at the chance to advance sound policy that's already been thoroughly vetted. but then you'd be missing the point. because democrats' opposition to keystone isn't really about policy at all. they're basically surrendering the policy argument a long time ago. that's not really what this is about for them. remember, this is the same party

that effectively conceded that its agenda for the rest of this year was drafted by campaign staffers. the whole agenda for the rest of the year drafted by campaign staffers. they said that. so for them this is more about politics and symbolism and the far left has apparently decided that killing keystone is the symbolic scalp that today want. in fact -- that they want. in fact, they're demanding it. washington democrats seem perfectly willing to go along. of course, the big loser in all of this is the american middle class. the moms and dads and sisters and brothers whose primary concern is paying the bills and putting food on the table. the kind of people who have had it worst in the obama economy. the very people washington democrats should be doing literally everything to help. what i'm saying to my colleagues

today is this:st not too late. you can still work with republicans for more opportunity and help us rebuild the middle class. but to do so, you need to abandon the left and start focusing on the middle class for a change. and if you're ready to get serious -- >> and the leaders from this morning, we'll take you live back to the senate floor where the debate will get under way shortly on that minimum wage bill. live coverage now here on c-span2. sponsor of this bill, i intend to be back on the floor later today to -- to respond to some of the allegations made by senators on the other side of the aisle regarding this bill and the minimum wage as a concept. but i just want to take a few minutes to sort of set the stage for this legislation. and what it's going to mean for our economy and for working americans.

i guess, madam president, what i'd say at the outset is the minimum wage bill is about a lot of things, it's going to give an economic boost, it will increase the g.d.p. of our country, do a lot of good economic things for our society. but basically it's really about economic fairness. it's really about what kind of society we want america to be. keep in mind, the fair labor standards act that set the minimum wage was passed at the end of the are depreciation, 1939 when we were still in the depreciation. and it was immediately to give a raise in wages to hardworking americans and that's what it did. and since that time, actually on both sides of the aisle, we have raised the minimum wage a number of times. and so this is just another step in making sure that those that

are at the bottom of the economic ladder in america also get a hand up. to get a help, to make sure that they, too, have a fair shot at the american dream. and so that's what this minimum wage bill is really about, it's about core american values. the value that no one who works full time all year long should live in poverty. that's really what this is about. the fact is that the value of the minimum wage has eroded so much over the last few years that the minimum wage right now is way below poverty. in other words, you can work full time every day, all year long, and you're still in poverty. but you work. you're working every day. that's just not fair. the american value system is one that, look, if you work and you work hard and -- you ought

not to be living in poverty. so right now tens of millions of americans are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads, to pay the heating bill, to find some money for an extra pair of shoes for a growing child, even getting money together to take the bus to work. if you're a minimum wage worker, think about this, if you're a marriage worker, your paycheck has stayed the same since 2009. since 2009. so this chart sort of illustrates what's happened. so if we go back here to 2009, the minimum wage has increased zero percent. but look what else has gone up. electricity has gone up 4.2%. rent, 7.3%. auto repairs, 7.6%. food at home, 8.8% increase. this is since 2009. child care has gone up 11.7%.

mass transit, that's what people who make the minimum wage, that's how they get back and forth to work, it's gone up 17.8% since 2009 yet your paycheck has not gone up one cent. what does that chart tell you? this tells you that peel making the minimum wage are falling further and further and further behind. because these are the things that low-income americans have to spend money on. lights, rent, fixing up their old car, food, child care, and mass transit. look how much they've gone up and yet minimum wage has stayed the same. that's why this is a value -- value issue. when people who work hard, play by the rules, when they have to rely upon food stamps and food banks to feed their children and the minimum wage have then trapped in poverty, that's unacceptable. it's un-american. not what our nation is about.

so americans deserve a raise. and that's why this bill to raise it from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour in three handle steps, it will link the minimum wage to the cost of living in the future, we index it so you don't want have this prospect that as other things increase in price, that the minimum wage stays the same. it's time to index it in the future. and our bill also provides for a raise for tipped workers. that's the people who serve your food, push the wheelchairs in airports, park your cars, the tipped workers. believe it or not and every time i tell someone this, they say i can't be right, i must be mistaken in this. i tell them the tipped wage today is $2.13 an hour and it's been that way since 1991. not one cent increase since 1991. people find that hard to believe.

it is hard to believe but it's very true. so our bill would increase tipped wages from $2.13 an hour up to 70% of the minimum wage over a six-year period of time. the first increase in tipped wages in, again, what, 23 years. an increase in the minimum wage benefits everyone. 28 million workers will get a raise. 15 million are women. over 50% of the increase will be women. four million african-americans workers, seven million hispanic workers, seven million parents will get a raise. and kids. we forget about this. how about our kids? 14 million kids will benefit from a minimum wage increase. that means their families will get an increase in the minimum wage, that benefits the kids. so think about the children in america. they're going to get a raise, too.

so, again, raising the minimum wage helps our families, it helps our economy. that's why, madam president, we have had a press conference this morning, there's a group called business for a fair minimum wage, business for a fair minimum wage.org, a thousand businesses across the country representing every state in our nation, a thousand businesses have signed on saying yes, we need to increase the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour. a thousand different businesses. they understand. and we had main street businesses understand this. see, if you increase the minimum wage, for people in that community, they're not running off to paris, france, to spend the money. they're going to spend that money on main street. and that helps our small businesses. and that's why so many small businesses, they get it. they understand. if you raise the minimum wage, that helps them.

that helps the local economy on main street. the economic policy institute estimates that our minimum wage bill would put $35 billion in the hands of millions of workers and that money will be spent on main street. it will pump an additional $22 billion into our g.d.p., supporting 85,000 new jobs as the raise is phased in over three years. there's another issue that i think we need to address and that is what happens with low-wage workers and how they do sustain themselves. obviously they're in poverty from the minimum wage. so what do they rely on? they rely on food stamps, medicaid or the children's health insurance program, they rely upon the earned income tax credit, and the temporary assistance for needy families. well, that costs taxpayers in america $243 billion a year,

$243 billion a year. now, again, i'm not saying that by increasing the minimum wage we're going to knock that down to zero. i can't say that but what i can say is a good study was done just on food stamps. if you raise the minimum wage in the first year, we will save $4.6 billion in taxpayers' money because people will now have enough money to go out and buy their own food. they won't rely on food stamps. a lot of these other things will be cut back, too. like tanf, medicaid/chip program, i can't say how much but people understand that this is what we're paying as taxpayers to support a minimum wage that is below the poverty line. so, again, i also -- people understand how important this minimum wage is and that's why

it's so broadly supported by such a cross section of american people. here's a the polls that have been done, the pew research center, "usa today" poll this year, 7% of all voters support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. 90% democrats, 71% independents, even 53% of republicans believe we ought to raise it to at least $10.10 an hour. so the american people get it. overwhelming support for raising the minimum wage. but i am mystified, just mystified by how vehemently my republican colleagues oppose this modest increase. i just don't understand it. what i hear is the same old outdated, disproven arguments against giving working americans a raise. there are some on the other

sield who believe there should be no minimum wage at all. try that one on for size. talk about a race to the bottom. $4 an hour, $3, $2 -- i've always said this -- without a strong minimum wage, and without a good, strong wage an hour division in the department of labor to make sure people adhere to it, if you don't have that, there's always someone a little worse off than you that will bid lower than you for that job. so someone -- we'll pay $7 an hour, somebody just needs the job a little bit more, they're desperate, they'll say i'll take it for $6 an hour. there's someone worse off than than that, they'll they'll take it for $5 an hour and we'll get a downward spiral, a downward spiral. that's why i say our american value is to have a strong

minimum wage whereby people who work hard and some of these jobs are hard work, people are on their feet eight hours a day. eight hours a day on their feet. or they're doing some manual labor doing the kind of jobs that a lot of people don't -- don't do. and yet they live in poverty. it's not right. raising the minimum wage is common sense, it adheres to our american values, it gives everyone a fair shot at the american dream. so i hope my colleagues will do the right thing, vote for cloture, allow us to get on the bill, we can have some amendments offered and we can vote to give working americans a raise after all these years. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico.

mr. udall: thank you, madam president. i rise today to join my colleagues to urge support for increasing the federal minimum wage. today's minimum wage of 7.25 falls short and working families are falling behind. it hasn't kept up with the rising costs of everyday life. in fact, it's $2 less than it was in 1968 when adjusted for inflation. a full-time worker earning minimum wage in 2014 makes less than someone did in 1968, almost half a century ago. $7.25 may be just a number to some but not for so many families in my state. struggling to get by, it means working two or three jobs just to future food on the table or fill up the gas tank or buy clothes for their children and still not able to climb out of

poverty. our nation was founded on a basic premise, that no matter month who you are, if you work hard, you can get ahead, you can make a decent living. we haven't always kept that promise. we have the opportunity to do so this week for millions of hardworking men and women, young and old, who are paid the minimum wage. working americans are not moving forward. they are falling behind. year after year, paycheck by paycheck, they work just as hard, but they earn less and less, and this is a disturbing trend, not just for minimum wage workers but all across the board. worker productivity is rising pretty dramatically. 69% in the last 25 years, but real hourly wages are not keeping pace. up 26.5% in the last 25 years. that's quite a comparison, 69%,

26%. for the top 1%, this couldn't be better. their share of earned income is the highest it's been since 1929. but the average worker has to run faster and faster just to even stay in place. this is not the promise we made. this is not the way to a better america for each generation, but this is the reality for too many workers in new mexico and across the nation. they are living every day. they get up, they take care of their kids, they go to work, and they may run faster, they may work harder, but they cannot get ahead. a full-time minimum wage worker makes only $15,000 a year, well below the $23,550 poverty line for a family of four with two children. new mexico has too many families in poverty, working hard, doing their best but falling further

and further behind. this bill would give them a chance to build a better future for themselves and for their children. now, i have received many letters from my constituents because they know how important raising the minimum wage is. hears is a letter from katherine in fruitland, new mexico. she says morally, raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do because people working full time deserve to live decently. and barbara from clovis told me there are so many people who work for minimum wage and have a desperately hard time paying the bills. liz from albuquerque says i hope you will do all in your power to ensure that every working american will be assured of making a living wage, not just a minimum wage. increasing the minimum wage helps families and helps the economy. it's one of the best things we can do to kick start new

mexico's economy. it means workers in new mexico would have over $200 million more to spend. it means boosting our state's g.d.p. by $127 million, helping local businesses and generating 500 new jobs. it means moving forward, and it means that we honor an important idea, that folks receive a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. that's the deal, and it's a big deal, because let's consider the alternative, when every year costs rise and the minimum wage stays the same, that is like a pay cut for families that can least afford it. the bill before us increases the minimum wage in three steps. it raises the minimum wage by less than $1 six months after the bill is signed. a year later, it bumps up the minimum wage by 95 cents.

and two years after the first increase, it would finally reach $10.10, which is about where it would be if it had kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. but this bill does more than just give hardworking -- hard workers today a chance to earn a decent wage. it also includes an important provision to allow the minimum wage to continue to keep up with everyday costs so that future generations who are working their way up can have a fair shot. our country has debated raising the minimum wage several times in the past. opponents always paint a very gloomy picture, but we have been able to get bipartisan agreement to do it, and afterward, families and the economy have been better off, and the pessimistic predictions haven't come true. we need to build an economy that works for everyone. most americans believe it is time to increase the minimum

wage because it is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do. it's time to keep our nation's promise to reward hard work. it's time for all families to have a fair chance at the american dream. i urge my colleagues to support increasing the minimum wage. it's long overdue for millions of working families who continue to struggle, who continue to wait and who have waited long enough. i yield the floor, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i came to the floor today to join my colleagues, senator harkin, senator udall, senator boxer in supporting an increase in the minimum wage that would give 28 million american workers a very long overdue raise. i know that the years since the economic collapse in 2008 have really been hard for families in new hampshire and across the

country, and although we have seen c.e.o. salaries rise, pay for working families has stagnated, and while the cost of food, transportation and child care all continue to climb and families struggle to make ends meet, the minimum wage for american workers has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009. at that rate, a single mother working full time in new hampshire does not earn enough to keep her family out of poverty. so let me just be clear. adults working full time cannot support their families on the minimum wage, and that needs to change. the fair minimum wage act would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 over two years. that would provide a raise to nearly 20% of new hampshire's work force and lift 10,000 people in new hampshire out of poverty.

nationwide, nearly one-third of all minimum wage workers are women over the age of 25. in new hampshire, 70% of minimum wage workers are women. this effort is about these women and the 34,000 children in the granite state whose parents would have a little more in their paychecks each week if we increase the minimum pay to $10.10. now, i know that many critics claim that only teenagers hold those minimum wage jobs, but sadly that's just not true. teens make up only 12% of those who would get a raise if we boosted pay to $10.10 an hour. minimum wage workers are also veterans. the fair minimum wage act is about giving a raise to the 4,500 new hampshire veterans who now earn $7.25 an hour, the minimum wage, and are struggling

to get by. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting to give these veterans a raise. making sure workers in new hampshire get a fair wage for an honest day's work is something that i have focused on since i was governor. in 1997, i signed a bill into law that boosted minimum wages for tipped workers in new hampshire, and nearly 75% of those tipped workers are women. as was the case then, today we must act to raise the minimum wage to ensure that hardworking americans get a fair shot at success. i urge my colleagues to join me on both sides of the aisle in supporting the fair minimum wage act. thank you, madam president. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california.

mrs. boxer: madam president, it is my honor to rise today to support this very important bill, the minimum wage fairness act of 2014. i am very proud of my colleagues who have just spoken. and particularly i want to say of senator shaheen, who as i understand it is the only woman here in the senate who was both a governor and a senator, is that correct? and when she was a governor, she stood up for the people, and as a senator, she certainly fights for her people. and part of this fight involves making sure that when you work hard and you work full time, you don't have to live in poverty. it just isn't fair. remember, most of the people on the minimum wage are adults. they're not children. they're not teenagers. they're adults. and so many of them are trying to raise their children in jobs

at the minimum wage level, and you don't have to be a mathematician to know that the current minimum wage leaves you in poverty. so you have a full-time job, you work your heart out, and you wind up in poverty. now, i went back into my little memory book and i found my son's first paycheck when he was working his way through school, and he came in to a supermarket to work as a checkout clerk, and he came in to a store called lucky stores. they were a union store, so he joined the union. and do you know what that young man made in those years, 1986,

28 years ago? it's right here. $7.41 an hour. imagine. and so he was so proud he could work hard and he came home, he was able to help pay for his tuition for -- tuition, for his books. we're talking about a minimum wage that's $10.10 an hour. here's this young man working as an entry-level checkout clerk at a supermarket in 1986 making over $7 an hour. this minimum wage has got to be raised, madam president. if you put -- do we have that chart? if you put inflation on the minimum wage as it was in 1968, just inflation, the minimum wage would be $10.69 an hour, and

we're not even going that far. we're saying $10.10 an hour. so all we're suggesting is make sure that inflation is covered. that's all we're saying. increasing the minimum wage will give people a chance, a fair shot. and remember, most of the people on minimum wage are arelt lot od someone in the street and you say who do you think is on the minimum wage, they would guess oh, it's teenagers. no. and by the way, most of those happen to be women. now, i am deeply disappointed and distressed that the republicans are opposing this measure. why do republicans want to deny hardworking americans a raise? the country supports it overwhelmingly. i don't understand it, because in 2007, the last time we raised the minimum wage, it was

bipartisan. a huge majority of senators then agreed that a full day's work deserved a fair paycheck. the minimum wage in 2007 -- it was during george w. bush's presidency. let me say that again. the minimum wage in 2007, which was the last time we raised it, the increase passed 94-3, and george w. bush signed it into law. what has changed in the republicans' hearts? what has changed in the republicans' minds? are they turning against the people? if you ask them, they'll say well, it's just not fair to -- to small businesses. well, small businesses, more than 80% of them, pay their people more than the minimum wage. so come on. and a majority of small businesses support what we're trying to do.

so don't come on the floor and say you're opposing this because it's too much too soon. wrong. it's even lower than inflation, the raise. and second, small business doesn't want it when, in fact, they do. now, the time before was 1989, we raised the minimum wage then, it was 89-8. at that time, it was george h.w. bush. so wait a minute. what's going on here? they only vote to raise the minimum wage when a republican's in the white house? i don't get this. it's not about who's in the white house. it's about the working people of this country. where is the bipartisan spirit? it is gone, and america is paying a heavy price. minimum wage is stuck at $7.25

with vagues eating away every day at it. let me read you just two stories -- two or three stories about workers. alicia mccrery, a single mom, she testified in march before the senate help committee. she struggles to support her sons with a minimum wage job in fast food. she has trouble getting them haircuts, shoes, cloalt everything, things that kids need. she says my boys ask -- quote -- "why isn't there enough money, you work and you work really hard, mom." she said i don't have a good answer other than i don't get paid enough. she's right. she doesn't get paid a fair minimum wage. nbc ran a news story of a man who works three jobs, two of them are overnight, he works three jobs. two of them are overnight jobs for the minimum wage. he said -- quote -- "i have four

young children. they need a dad around. that's why i work a day job when they're in school and then i go back to work when they go to bed but it takes three jobs to make ends meet because of $7.25 an hour. he says i'm 43, i have over 20 years' experience and i make $7.25 an hour. madam president, that is wrong. these parents work so hard and their kids are growing up with so little and their parents look in those children's eyes and they -- they suffer because they want to do more for their children. now, economists project that this bill that i hope most -- well, almost every democrat will support, almost every democrat will support, it would raise the wages of 28 million people in america. all sweend a handful of republicans to join with us and we get it done. by the way, if it was a majority

rule, we would get it done. they're filibustering it. let's be clear. they're not only opposing it, they're forcing us to get 60 votes. 20% of the children in america are counting on us. that's 14 million children who would be lifted out of poverty if we pass the harkin bill. and tipped workers, if i asked you, anyone in the street, how much do tipped workers make,, they'd say minimum wage. what most people don't know is the federal tipped minimum wage is -- and i know, madam president, you and i have worked on this -- $2.13 an hour is the tipped minimum wage. and many tipped workers live in poverty and instability. they don't know if they'll make enough to cover the bills. now, what you'll hear is if you pay the full minimum wage, it's too hard not to restaurant owners. i just want to say something. in my state, the tipped workers

get the full minimum wage. and that wage is $8 an hour going up to $10 in california. so the tipped workers get the minimum wage amount, every an hour and guess what, our restaurants are going gangbusters, and guess what else -- when you do well and have your minimum wage plus your tips, you can get to go out once in a while to a restaurant. you can go down to the corner store and get something for your children. sandra samoa is a bar tender in chicago. she says if the bar is show slow she could take home $40 after an eight-hour shift. she lives with her mom and young son. this woman sloips sleeps on this floor so her son can sleep in a bed. i mean, madam president, if we

don't represent people like this, who the heck do we represent? the koch brothers? they're worth billions. this woman comes home some days with $40 in her pocket and her son has to sleep -- she sleeps on the floor and she says my hope -- quote -- "is to have a room for him one day." so listen, if we are who we're supposed to be, the representative of the people and working families, then we want to make sure that we raise the minimum wage. it helps everybody, including those in business. that's why most small businesses support this. the great story of henry ford, who raised the day rate of his workers, way back in the olden days, and people said what are you doing? you're raising wages, you could get away with paying them whatever it was.

he says i'm raising them because i want them to buy my car. the cars that we make. now, i tell you, what you're going to hear on this floor from our colleagues is, we're going too fast. we're raising this too much. i've already shown you we're raising it less than inflation. so that's baloney. honor its face. no two, they're going to say it's going to hurt small business. i've already told you 82% of small business already pay all their employees more than the federal minimum wage and more than half of them support raising it to $10.10. because they know people will spend money on their products and in their stores. then the next thing they're going to say, it's a job loser. it's a job loser. and they're going to cite one study which i call an outlier, c.b.o., it said the minimum wage would reduce employment by

.3% over the next two years. let me tell you, when i heard that i thought what is this about? and i looked at some other studies. a study by three prominent labor economists from the university of massachusetts, university of north carolina, university of california berkeley found that minimum wages solution do not cause job losses and the economic policy institute found that the harkin bill would increase employment by 84,000 jobs and add $22 billion to our economy. over two and a half years. let me repeat that. the harkin bill would increase employment by 84,000 jobs and add $22 billion to our economy. but look, let's look at history. i mean you have to really ask yourself. these guys and gals who are

saying don't raise the minimum wage, it will lose jobs, what if they said that going back through time and they prevailed? we would never have raised the minimum wage. i worked for the minimum wage a long time ago. at that time it was a dollar an hour and i earned 50 sentsdz an hour because i was a teenager. okay? it was great then. i earned 50 cents an hour, i'm looking at the young people here and they're thinking you must be really old. they would be right but my point is, the minimum wage was a buck an hour and it was raised many times since 1989, it's been raised three times. it was raised many times before that. do you know how many? 18 increases since 1956. so put that in your mind. 18 increases in the minimum wage

since 1956. suppose the other side had had taken that attitude, don't raise it. well, it would still be, i guess, a buck an hour, 50 cents if you were kids. today 50 cents is a singing group. am i right about that? okay. so here's where we are. instead we've raised the minimum wage over and over and over again. what has happened? the economy has added millions of jobs. since 1956 it's 80 million. okay, since 1956, when we started the minimum wage, we have raised the minimum wage 18 times, we have created 80 million new jobs. so if anybody tells you this is a job killer, just say read the history books. americans support raising the minimum wage. i hope my colleagues are listening. the american people know $7.25

is not enough. a "wall street journal" poll found 6% of americans support raising the minimum wage toed $10.10 an hour. let me say that again. 6 % of americans support raise -- 63% of americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. all we need is a handful of republicans, madam president, so if they're listening to me, i hope they heard some of my arguments that, a, it's good for business to raise the minimum wage because people have more to spend, b, history has shown that we've raised the minimum wage over and over and over again and we've created 80 million jobs. three, most of the people on the minimum wage are adults. most of those are women. and people are trying to raise their families on the minimum wage. and the last point is we have always had strong bipartisan support.

when george w. signed it into law, strong support from the republicans. when his dad was in office, strong support. i can't believe the republican party has turned its back on working people but if they do, we'll find out tomorrow. the american people know what this is about. the american dream is within reach but you have to have fairness out there. people need a fair shot. we shouldn't tell someone who is a dad he has to work three jobs. that's wrong. we need to lift these workers up and not let them fall behind. when workers do better, families do better. when parents buy their kids enough to eat and shoes to wear, when they can get a haircut at the local barber, put gas in their car and fix up the house just a little, everybody does better. the community does better, businesses do better. families can walk tall when we

reward hard work. when our workers are earn a fair page. our economy is stronger, our country is better. so let's give american working families a fair shot. we're not asking for the moon and the sun and the stars. all we want is just a little light at the end of the tunnel. thank you. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president, i

ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: mr. president, nearly seven years ago both parties work together to pass bipartisan legislation that raised the minimum wage. 19 of my republican colleagues who i serve with in the senate today voted for that bipartisan legislation and republican president george w. bush signed it into law on may 25, 2007. since that time, big banks and wall street drove our economy into a ditch. we faced a financial-sector meltdown and were confronted with the worst recession since the great depression. hardworking americans lost jobs. they lost their homes. they lost their rea retirement savings. hardworking families paid a steep price for the reckless

actions of others when all they ever asked was that their hard work be rewarded. today, people are working as hard as ever. many are working full-time, many are working two jobs just to make ends meet. and they deserve to get ahead. yet far too many are barely getting by or are living in poverty. middle-class incomes have flat-lined and income inequality in the united states is at a record high. and today a full-time minimum-wage worker earns over $15,080 per year. the sad reality is that the minimum wage is not high enough to keep full-time workers out of poverty, and that is simply wrong, and it's our job to work together to change it, because in america no one who works hard

full-time should t have to liven poverty. i'm here today to urge my colleagues to help lift nearly 2 million people -- 2 million of their fellow americans -- out of poverty. i'm here today to urge my colleagues to support the minimum wage fairness act and to give 28 million hardworking americans the raise that they have earned. some opponents of this bill have dismissed this effort as nothing more than raising the wages of teenagers who are simply working in the summer months. well, that simply is no longer true. in fact it never was true. 88% of minimum-wage workers are adults age 20 or older, and the average age of a minimum-wage worker in america is 35 years old. more than half of minimum-wage workers are women.

these are americans who are working hard to get ahead, and they deserve to have us working together to help give them a fair shot. raising the minimum wage isn't just the right thing to do to reward hard work; it can certainly boost our economy, because studies show that minimum-wage workers spend the extra dollars they earn on basics like food and clothing at businesses right in their home communities. for swung earning $7 -- for someone earning $7.25 and working full-time, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 puts an extra $5,700 into their pockets. that $5,700 provides groceries for a year or utilities for a year, money to spend on gas and clothing for a year, or six

months of housing, fueling our local economies at a time when our recovery continues to limp along. raising the minimum wage would lift 2 million hardworking people out of poverty. passing this legislation would mean that more hardworking americans will be able to provide for their families without the help of government programs like snap, otherwise known as food stamps; saving taxpayers $4.6 billion from reduced nutrition assistance payments in one year alone. i believe that we need to build a fairer economy and grow the middle class from the bottom up, and i believe our economy is strongest when we expand opportunity for everyone, when everyone gets a fair shot. and i'm proud to join my colleagues here today and tomorrow to deliver a call for

action. it's simple: the time is now to give hardworking americans a raise. we can do that if both parties work together to reward hard work so that an honest day's work pays more. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the importance of raising the minimum wage. people truly deserve a fair shot at the american dream, and it's time to come together to raise the minimum wage. our state just raised the minimum wage. we actual lay had one o actualle lowest minimum wages in the country, mr. president -- $6.50 -- and we are now at $9.50 per hour. that was a major jumpup jump-upt was something that was needed in the state of minnesota, a state that has a very strong economy,

on employment rate of only 4.8%. but people even when they have jobs have found it hard to send their kids to college or buy basic things. we should follow minnesota's example and raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. i am a cosponsor of the minimum wage fairness act. and i want to thank senator harkin for his dedication to the working families of america. i also want to thank senator merkley and all of my colleagues who have worked tirelessly to raise the minimum wage. as the senate chair of the joint economic committee, i held a hearing on income inequality earlier this year with former secretary of labor robert reich, and his data showed -- and this is a number that i will never forget -- that the top 400 people in this country, the top 400 people, have the same amount of wealth as the bottom 50% of americans. this means that half of americans of everyone in this country have the same amount of

wealth as the top 400 people. so how do we address this? we know there's a lot of things we need to do, training people who don't have the jobs and don't have the skills right now, increasing exports, immigration reform, all kind of things that we can do, but we know one major thing we can do to help an individual family have a fair shot is to increase the minimum wage. like many of my colleagues who have spoken today, i have worked my fair share of minimum-wage jobs. i started as a car hop at the a & w rootbeer stand. i then graduated to being a waitress at baker square pie shop where i once spilled 12 ice teas on one customer. that's when i decided to go to law school, mr. president. but i worked those jobs and it gave me a sense of what it was like for some of the people i worked with, that this was their job; this was their job cutting

pies. this was their job washing dishes. this was how they supported themselves. it gave me a sense of how important it is to look out for those people who are doing the work we depend upon every single day. think of how this affects women. two-thirds of today's families rely on the mother's income in some way. mothers are the primary breadwinners in more than one-third of the families. yet we also know that women make up nearly two-thirds of all the workers who earn minimum wage or less. an example of this is a wai wais named tiffany from houston, texas, who recently came to washington -- we did an event together -- and answered questions. her story is the story of so many american women across this country. she is a single mom. she loves her daughters so much. and she's working as a waitress, and many times with the way the lalaws work down in texas, she doesn't make many tips. what does she do?

she fills in by working many holidays. she's missed every single halloween with her daughter because it was a good night to be working at the bar at the restaurant. she's missed all kinds of restaurants. you thought to yourself, sometimes, especially when you first start off, that assments bu-- that happens. but it shouldn't keep happening after you've worked years at the same place. but it is one example of what some workers have to do. they have to work another job, they have to work another holidays, they have to work another shift. that goes on every single day in america. a woman working full-time in a minimum-wage job only makes about $15,000 a year. it is not enough for her to work her way out of poverty or send her i ha kids or herself to col. today nearly 15 million workers in america -- 15 million women -- are counting on us to get a

fair wage. many are working in demanding retail and hospitality jobs, hotel maids where they're on their feet all day. they may not be able to sit here in the gallery and say, hey, i need a raise. we have to be their voices. despite their hard work, they have an almost impossible time making ends meet. they struggle to afford the basics -- a decent place to live or food for their family, never mind being a able save for a rainy day or for their own retirement. i released a joint economic committee report on earnings, income, and retiewrmt security for women. one striking thing we saw in this report is that a woman's lower lifetime earnings means lower ry retirement security. so this is about an entire lifespan. women live longer. if they are making less, if their minimum wage doesn't allow them to save for retirement, it is even tougher for them in their golden years.

there is also a strong economic case for raise ug the minimum -g the minimum wage. we know what will be done with it? they will try spend it in washington state, they will spend it in west virginia, they will spend it on kids for food. i once saw a documentary. a c.e.o. said, here i only have three pairs of jeans. how can you reilly have more than three pairs of jeans in maybe you could have four. but you don't need more of that. his point was this: if we want to van economy that works, we can't have all profits and money sucked up by the people who run things. we want them to be rewarded but they can only buy so many jeans. if you have that money go fairly across the spectrum, then

everybody gets to buy their pair of jeans. what we're doing is literally cutting down our markets by not making sure in a consumer-driven economy where 70% of our economy is consumer-driven, we're putting ourselves in a situation where people aren't able to buy things. we also know that raising the minimum wage is good for business. we know that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour could help approximately 28 million workers. we know that more than 15 million women would receive a raise. we know that $31 billion would be added to our economy. we no tha we know that nobel las support raising the minimum wage to restore the value last to inflation. a third of the value of what it was in 1968. it was the beloved late-paul wellstone of my state who

famously said, "we all do better with we all do better." if he was here today, that's what he would be saying. i know it's still true, and soy do my colleagues who join me today. we need to be focused on doing better so we all do better. with this in mind, i ensure -- i urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for working families and especially the working women of this country to give them a fair shot and pass a long overdue minimum-wage increase. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from minnesota for a really important statement, and i want to come here today to gi join her to tak about this one small idea that stands for a huge difference in the lives of all of our constituents and as she pointed out for women in particular, and that is of course the idea that if you are putting in 40 or 50 or 60 hours of work her week,

you're able to put food on the table and pay your bills and woandwon't be stuck below the py line. this idea could change the lives of millions of americans if congress simply a unanimous consented and raised the minimum wage. but we've got to act now because right now one in four women in our work force is making the minimum wage. that is 15 million american women who are making the equivalent of about two gallons of gas per hour. are we prepared to tell them that that should be enough to support themselves and their kids? in fact, as we've heard several times in this chamber, nearly two-thirds of those who earn the minimum wage or less are women. this is coming at a time when more and more women are depended upon as the sole earners in american families. right now in cities and towns across america there are

millions of those women who are getting up at the crack of dawn for work every day who are stuck, living in poverty. they can't save up for a car much less a house. they can't pay for school to get new skills and a new job and they can't even afford to provide their children with warm winter clothes or basic medical care. unfortunately, this also comes at a time now when we are seeing c.e.o.'s's salaries skyrocket while the minimum wage stays flat. in in 2013 the average s&p c.e.o. earned $11.7 million. that's 21% more than they earned in 2009. 21%. and 630% more in real value than in 1983, 630% more. unbelievably, this means that the average c.e.o. today earns more before lunchtime on his

first day of work than a minimum wage worker earns all year long. mr. president, that's not how it's supposed to work in america. the country where you're told if you work hard and you play by the rules, you can get ahead. so when we talk about the minimum wage, let's be clear. raising the minimum wage is about bringing back our middle class. and i'm proud in my state we're taking the lead. in my home state of washington our work force enjoys the highest minimum wage in the country. and i'd like to point out to our friends on the other side of the aisle, washington state's economy has not been negatively impacted by our high minimum wage. in fact, our economy has benefited from a high minimum wage, job growth has continued at a rate above the national average. payrolls in our restaurants and bars have expanded because more people have more money in their pockets to spend out at dinner, at night or on the weekend.

and poverty in washington state has trailed the national level for at least seven years now. and it's not just washington state that we're seeing these successes. in fact, just this week the senator for economic and policy research reported that of the 13 states that increased their minimum wage in early 2014, 11 of them have seen a gain in employment since then and half of the 10 fastest growing states by employment were among this group of minimum wage raisers. mr. president, this is just one of many reasons why i strongly support increasing the national minimum wage to $10.10. now, it's not going to make anyone rich. but for the 400,000 washington residents who would be directly impacted, it would mean an average annual raise of approximately $375 and that is no small amount when the over 48,000 in my state who would be lifted out of poverty with an increase in the minimum wage.

but, mr. president, we've got to do more. in fact, today, two-thirds of our families rely on income from both parents, but thanks to our outdated tax code, a woman who is thinking about reentering the work force as a second earner may face higher tax rates than her husband. that's unfair and it has got to change. so last month i introduced the 21st century worker tax cut act which would help solve that problem by giving struggling two-earner families with children a tax deduction on the second earner's income. so my hope is that tomorrow here in the senate we can come together on behalf of the millions of american women who like my own mother when i was growing up was the sole breadwinner and caregiver in their families. and i hope our colleagues have gotten a sense of how $7.25 an hour translates to a grocery trip for a family of four or to

shopping for school supplies or even how it impacts making the daily commute. and that's why all of us are here today this afternoon to give that mom or that dad a fair shot at can succeeding in america. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, if you live along the southeastern coast of the united states, you know that the sea level is rising. we have a lot of people that would question the reason for this rise of the sea level. some people deny that there is climate change, that the earth is warming up. i think as we look at the

science that we will clearly understand that the greenhouse effect is occurring, the more that we put gases into the atmosphere by human action such as carbon dioxide, the more as the sun's rays come in and reflect upon off of the earth's surface and would normally radiate out into space, the fact is --, could you all hold it down back there -- as the earth's surface reflects the sun's rays and they reflect back out into space, which is what mother nature intended, keeping the delicate balance of the temperature of the earth, what happens when we put the

greenhouse gases such as co2 into the atmosphere, a shield or blanket, the effect of a greenhouse occurs, and as they reflect back out, they are trapped. the earth's -- the sun's rays, the heat from them, and it continues to warm up the earth. thus we have the greenhouse effect. now, one of the consequences of the greenhouse effect is that the ice caps in greenland to the north and antarctica to the south, are melting. and this causes the sea level to rise. another effect of the greenhouse effect is that as the earth's

temperature rises, most of the surface of the planet is covered with sea water. and therefore the water absorbs that heat, and that causes additional effects, such as the intensity, the frequency, the ferocity of storms that fuel their -- their storm surge and power from the surface water that they consume. now, having said all of that, then what are we seeing is a consequence, and as i said in my opening statement, if you live along the southeastern coast of the united states, you notice that seas are rising. the commerce committee under the blessing of our chairman,

senator rockefeller, just had a hearing in ground zero. ground zero is miami beach, florida. one of the people to testify is a nasa scientist, a ph.d. who happens to be a three-time shuttle astronaut. he testified in front of the committee not predictions, not forecast, he testified what are the actual measurements of the rise of the sea level over the course of the last half century. and that rise is anywhere from five to eight inches along the southeastern coast, and the effects of that are being felt in southern florida.

for instance, it is now a normal occurrence at high tide that we are finding that parts of miami beach are, in fact, flooded. the beach itself and the dunes are higher than some of the land as it progresses away from the ocean on the barrier island of miami beach becomes lower. there's a major north-south thoroughfare caught alton road on miami beach. at high tide, it is frequent that alton road floods. and what we are expecting, seasonal high tides coming this october, just like they were last october, and we will see maybe up to a foot of water in alnot to road -- alton road.

now, why does this occur if it's not flooding over the dunes by the beach? because florida sits on a porous substraight of -- substrait of limestone like swiss cheese. people say why don't you do what the dutch did? the dutch build dikes and they're under sea level. new orleans, the same thing, dikes and canals under sea level. you can't do that in florida because with the porous limestone supporting the earth, the land, what happens is that the rising tides put more pressure and it causes the assault water to start -- salt war to -- salt water to inmade

this honeycomb of limestone that supports the land and there you get salt water intrusion and you get with the rising tides and sea levels that starts coming into the drainage systems that keep florida dry and is happening now in miami beach at high tide. we had it last time in october in the seasonal high tides, we're going to have it again in the high tides coming this october. so naturally, this is going to cause a considerable extra expense, since you can't build a dike for local government, for the state government, and the federal government to keep people dry. i'm happy to say that the local governments of south florida have all banded together and you are seeing them speak with one

voice as they have, for example, not competed for a grant from the federal government but instead banded together and supported the grant application for the city of miami, which is the first ground zero, in order for miami to try to attack its problem. now, there's an economic consequence to this as well. as we had someone from the miami-dade convention bureau come and point out and i can sum it up as i did chairing the hearing. no beach, no bucks. beach erosion and the loss of the beach, florida is blessed since we have more coastline than any other state save for alaska -- and we certainly have more beach than any other state.

florida is blessed with these beautiful beaches that people from all over the world want to come and enjoy. no beach, no bucks. it's going to have a huge economic consequence, not only in the cost of government to try to hold back the water, but also in the lost business. and i will conclude my remarks by saying not the measurements five to eight inches, that's already been done. that's happened. five to eight inches of sea level rise. the last 50 years. now the forecast. the forecast in the scientific community -- and we had one of the scientists from one of the state universities to testify, along with the nasa

scientist -- is that -- it's going to be up with yrdz of a foot within -- upwards of a foot and by tend of this century we're talking two to three feett and senators, let me tell you what that means for the state of florida. the state of florida which this year will surpass new york in terms of population, the third-largest state, moving 20 million people. 75% of that population is on the coast of florida, the east coast, the west coast, which is the gulf coast. 75% of our population. if we don't turn this back two to three feet by the end of this century, that 75% of population will in fact be under water.

we're trying to get insurance companies interested in this. we had a major reinsurer testify that although insurance policies are set, property and casualty, proeul premiums set in -- policy premiums set in one- to three-year increments, over the course of time that's certainly going to change. and i want to conclude my remarks by complimenting the next senator that is going to speak. sheldon whitehouse of rhode island has been our conscience. he and senator barbara boxer have been ringing the bell on this issue for months, for years in trying to get people to pay attention to what is happening. i want senator whitehouse to share what he has done over his

easter vacation in trying to bring attention to this. at the end of the day, we've got to do something about it, and that means we're going to have to be very sensitive about all of the stuff that not only we, the united states of america, are putting in to the air, creating that shield, that greenhouse effect, but we're going to have to get other countries that are even polluting more than we are to do the same. senator whitehouse, i just want to thank you for what you've done as you share your story with us. you have done a courageous act of patriotism in bringing attention to this dramatic issue. thank you very much. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. whitehouse: i understand that the time is controlled now by the republicans. when senator hoeven comes, i'll yield the floor to him. but in the meantime i wanted to thank senator nelson for his leadership in this area. let the record reflect that although rhode island may call itself the ocean state, florida has its fair share of coastline as well. and the effect on florida's coasts are very significant. because time is short and because i see that senator hoeven has arrived, and because senator nelson is a modest individual who would not want to brag on himself, let me say one thing and then i'll come back later and discuss my easter southern climate tour at greater length. the miami herald is a very significant newspaper in florida, and it attended and reacted to the commerce

committee hearing that senator nelson led in his home state, and i just want to read two short sections. it opened by saying this: "for south floridians the topics of climate change and rising sea levels are no longer to be dismissed as tree hugger mumbo jumbo. pause next time you hear that parts of miami beach or the intersection of a-s-a and los olos boulevard have flooded because of high tides. let the light go off atop your head. it's science, stupid. on tuesday florida democratic senator bill nelson brought illumination to miami beach, ground zero for a unique coastal battle with mother nature." and it concludes with these last few words: "south florida owes senator nelson its thanks for shining a bright light on this issue. everyone from local residents to

elected officials should follow his lead, turning awareness of this major environmental issue into action. it is critical to saving our region. if we don't, we'll soon have water -- not sand -- in our shoes." i yield the floor to senator hoeven. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 4:45 p.m. today will be under the control of republicans. the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, i rise to discuss the keystone x.l. pipeline project, and i'll be joined by a number of my colleagues, and i want to thank them up front for joining me. they'll come today with the same message that i have, and that is that the keystone x.l. pipeline project is a project that has now been under review by this administration for more than five years. we are now in year six. so we're here today on the floor of the senate asking quite simply for a vote to approve the

keystone x.l. pipeline project. i put legislation in on a number of occasions. in 2012 we approved a time limit for the president to make a decision. i believe that bill got on the order of 73 votes, strong bipartisan support. we attached it to the payroll tax holiday and it said the president had to make a decision on the keystone x.l. pipeline within 90 days. he did. he turned it down, and he turned it down on the basis on the routing in nebraska. and so not only did the state of nebraska go through an incredible amount of work, but the state department and others went back to work, did a whole new environmental impact statement after nebraska had rerouted the pipeline, approved it by both its legislature and its governor, and came forward with a new route and a new environmental impact statement.

that was right at the beginning of 2012. we set a time line for the president to make a decision. he made the decision. he turned down the project. but he addressed the concerns we raised. they were fully addressed. so then later we also offered a resolution of support, putting the senate on record in support of the project. that was attached to the budget resolution at the beginning of 2013. we came back the next year, and on that occasion the senate with 62 votes said hey, we support the project. here's a resolution in support of the project stating it is in the national interest and ought to be approved. since then the president has done nothing. well, that's not quite right. not only has he not made a decision now as we're in the sixth year after four environmental impact statements, all of which said there's no

significant environmental impact created by the project, not only has the president not made a decision with congress on record supporting the project, but in fact a little over a week ago, on good friday, on the afternoon of good friday when he figured nobody was paying any attention, the president comes out and basically puts out a statement and says not only has he not made a decision, but he's not going to make a decision; that on the basis of litigation he is going to postpone the decision indefinitely. so here we are in year six, having met all the requirements on numerous occasions on a project that will provide energy and jobs, it will help with national security by reducing our dependence on oil from the middle east, on a project that his own department of state after an environmental statement after environmental impact

statement has said will create no significant environmental impact, will create 42,000 jobs and will help us get energy, not only move energy from states like north dakota and montana in our country to the refineries safely but also bring in from canada so we don't have to import it from the middle east. the president says we're in year six, but i'm going to postpone this decision indefinitely. so here we are. we have a bill that i introduced some time ago. we have 27 cosponsors on the bill. both parties, both parties. and what the bill does is it approves the keystone x.l. pipeline project congressionally. so instead of continuing to wait after six years and now the president's announcement that he's going to delay the decision

indefinitely, passing this bill would approve the project congressionally. and the way that works is that under the, under the foreign commerce clause, in the constitution, congress has the authority to approve this project. they have that authority under congress's ability to oversee foreign commerce, commerce with other nations. and we know that because we took time to research it. we had the congressional research service do the research for us, and they said this is constitutional authority of the congress. so we've provided that bill. the bill has been filed. as i say, we have 27 sponsors. and now it's time to vote. we've been holding off on having a vote because the president said, you know, we're going to go through the process, or he's going to go through the process, and he's going to honor the

process. and the environmental -- the final, actually fourth and supposed final environmental impact statement came out at the end of january. there was a 90-day comment period after that which was to expire the first part of may and the expect was now that the process -- at that point once the process was exhausted the president would in fact render the long-awaited decision. but as i say, on good friday, a little over a week ago, he came out and said, no, no decision. and furthermore, he's not going to make a decision. and that delay is indefinite. so clearly the administration opposes the project and they're going to delete it with delay. defeat it with endless delays. there is no amount of process that will ever be adequate for the administration. they'll continue to delay this

decision. i guess they can until at some point it goes away, and so that they defeat the project through just one delay after another. and that's why it's time to vote. in a recent poll that was just put out last week, 70% of the american people want this project approved. 70%. rasmussen poll. so the president is trying to defeat the project through delays in order to a piece special -- to appease special interest groups. the american people very much want this project approved. it's congress's ability, it's congress's responsibility, responsibility, to take a stand. it is long past time to vote. so, at this point i am making

some revisions to the legislation to update it for the final environmental impact statement. we're working to get every single republican member of this body on board, which i believe we will do. and as many democrat members as possible. and we're pushing as hard as we can to get a vote. it's time for the senate to stand up and exercise its responsibility and vote. now, the senate, the senate majority leader is looking at moving to energy legislation, energy efficiency legislation. that's good. let's go then. let's have the debate. let's offer amendments. let's have votes. let's do the work of the people that this body is elected to do. and as part of that, we're going

to require a vote on keystone x.l. pipeline, a vote to approve it congressionally. and everybody can decide where they stand. but this is a project long overdue, and it's time to vote. and it's time to vote on congressional approval. that's our message today, and that's going to continue to be our message as we work on energy legislation. i'm very pleased today to have other members who have agreed to come join this discussion. i'd like to turn to the good senator from kansas, the senior senator from kansas, somebody who's been in this body for a long time, who has seen these issues and who understands the responsibility that we have to vote on behalf of these issues, to take a stand for the american people. and i would like to turn to the senior senator from kansas, a state through which this

pipeline passes, and ask him, does he perceive that this project is in the national interest? mr. roberts: i would be more than happy to respond to my colleague -- the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that. i would be more than happy to respond to my good friend and colleague. thank you for your leadership. thank you for your bill. thank you for your statement. there is no question this is in the national interest. absolutely none. so i rise today to join my fellow republican colleagues and then extend the arm of cooperation to our friends across the aisle. i want to express my deep disappointment in this administration's repeated delay of final approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline, and i hope that what the senator has indicated will come true, that if, in fact, it is the wish of the majority leader to at least bring up an energy bill and hope that he would not limit it, hope he would have amendments to it

and then with the support we have in the congress we could get going on something that is truly a jobs act as well as a national security act. the irony should not be lost on anyone, that while those on the other side continue messaging and messaging and messaging and talking about supposed government solutions to our high national unemployment rate, including emergency unemployment insurance, income inequality, minimum wage, while we have a project right before us waiting for approval that would create tens of thousands of jobs and all without using one dime of taxpayers' money. if you want an actual solution to unemployment, here it is. provide eager americans with a full-time job making well over the national minimum wage. that is a jobs package. now, regarding the pipeline's environmental soundness, the senator has been absolutely

correct. just last june, the president indicated he would not grant final approval of keystone pipeline if it would exacerbate carbon emissions. the good news is this -- mr. president, the state department has already indicated the construction of the pipeline will have no measurable impact, none, no measurable impact on increasing global carbon emissions. so from an economic standpoint, it's a no-brainer, and from the scientific conclusions reached by this administration's own state department regarding the environmental soundness of the project, it's a no-brainer. at the end of the day, the canadian oil sands are going to be developed. that's a fact. the real question is will that oil be shipped overseas, will it be transported by rail or will it travel by pipeline? in fact, transporting oil via

pipeline is the most environmentally sound way to do it. lastly -- and this plays into the larger discussion we are having about the escalating issues, mr. president, with regard to the middle east and ukraine and russia reverting again to a growling bear, why not send a strong message to the rest of the world, more especially to russia, that we are serious about energy security. at last, at last, energy independence. that we will work with our friends in canada to start challenging nationally run oil cartels as to who can supply our friends with needed energy. now, because what the larger energy discussion regarding situations involving around the world are focused mostly on l.n.g., russia's influence goes well beyond natural gas. we should understand that.

just look at our own data produced by the energy information administration which shows that russia is second only to saudi arabia in net exports of oil. so this is our opportunity from a national security standpoint to send an important message at a time of despotic governments wishing to wield power by controlling the flow of energy is coming to an end. let's allow this project to be the first step in. hopefully many toward showing the government that we are serious about achieving north american energy security. again, this project has been reviewed, as has been noted by my distinguished friend, for over five years, with five environmental impact statements concluding it's safe. this project makes sense economically, environmentally and from a national security perspective. what does not make sense, what does not make sense is yet

another treading water nondecision. another delay beyond the fall elections. with regard to our national energy policy, time is long overdue for the united states to lead by leading. mr. president, approve the pipeline. to the majority leader -- let us have an amendment if, in fact, we do go to energy policy that will be in the winters of every state in the union, every american, our national security and our energy policy as well. thank you again for your leadership, senator. i really appreciate it. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the distinguished senator from kansas for his words today and for his support of this important project. i'd also like to turn to the distinguished senator from iowa, somebody who i know truly

believes that we should have an all of the above energy approach, but that means actually doing -- not only producing from our traditional sources of fossil fuels but also our renewable sources but somebody who also understands that if we are truly going to have an all of the above energy plan in this state and do it, not just talk about it, we need the infrastructure to make it happen. and i would turn to the good senator from iowa and i would say isn't this the kind of vital infrastructure that this country needs in order to truly have an all of the above energy plan that works? mr. grassley: it's a jobs bill -- the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you. it's a national security issue. it's sending messages around the world that we are not going to be dependent upon the rest of the world for our energy, and it's all those things and

probably a lot more, and i thank the senator from north dakota for putting this afternoon together but over a long period of time being a spokesman for the keystone x.l. pipeline, not only here in the senate but i have seen you on sunday news shows speaking to the entire nation about the value of the keystone x.l. pipeline. so i think today we're saying enough is enough. we're saying it's time to end the unjustified and now we know political delay of the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. i'm glad so many of my colleagues are coming to the floor today to call for the approval of this project. the transcanada corporation applied for a presidential permit from the u.s. department of state to construct and operate the keystone x.l.

pipeline way back september, 2008. and here we are yet talking about it. for nearly six years, this administration has been sitting on the application. time and time again, the state department who has the responsibility to review reviewed the environmental impacts of the pipeline. and once again, time and again, they have found that the pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment. in 2011, secretary clinton said a decision would come before the end of 2011. in march, 2013, president clinton told all of the senate republicans in our caucus where

he was invited to come and visit with us about anything he wanted to talk about, one of the questions that came up, that a decision would be made on this pipeline would be made before the end of 2013. that was 13 months ago. and yet, no decision. so as has been stated by my colleagues on good friday afternoon of this year, the state department announced an indefinite delay in the comment period on the pipeline project. so it appears unlikely that president obama will make a decision any time in the near future, if ever. this indefinite delay is mind-boggling, considering all the advantages of this pipeline. granting the permit for the pipeline will create thousands

of jobs directly and indirectly. it will provide more than 800,000 barrels of canadian oil daily from a friendly economic partner. rejection of the pipeline permit will not affect canada's decision to develop these oil resources, because, you know, they are smarter than we are. they have made a national decision that they're going to harvest their energy resources. whereas we're playing around whether or not we ought to do that. and as we play around, we tend to be more dependent upon foreign sources. they have made that decision, so the keystone pipeline is clearly in the national interests of the united states. yet, president clinton is unwilling and unable -- or maybe

i should say or unable to make a decision. now, just think of the economy today and what this could do to improve the economy, particularly the unemployment factor in our economy. currently, 6.7%. that means 10,000 -- 10 million jobs that aren't available for americans. that number is the unemployed. the labor force participation rate remains near 35-year low at 63.2%. now, if the labor force participation rate were the same as when president obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.3% instead of 6.7%. so with these deplorable unemployment numbers, wouldn't you think that the president would be very anxious to get as

many people employed as he could be? so the president and the senate majority here, which happens to be 55 democrats, should be doing everything that they can to grow the economy and create jobs, and this would be something that would be bipartisan. in fact, we have already had bipartisan votes on this subject. yet, the senate democratic leadership provides -- continues to block senate action to approve the permit. instead, they are proposing ideas that would actually cost jobs rather than create jobs at a time of 6.7% unemployment. for example, later this week, we will in the senate vote on a proposal to increase the minimum wage. the nonpartisan congressional budget office concluded that this proposal will cost 500,000

jobs and perhaps as high as one million jobs, and that's not the republican party making that statement. that's the professional people at the congressional budget office. it should be noted that while higher minimum wage will benefit those low-wage workers who remain unemployed, it will also push the least skilled, most disadvantaged and most vulnerable workers out of employment. we should be doing everything to increase employment, not having more people laid off. we have the health care reform bill, another great example. the congressional budget office estimated earlier this year that that health care reform bill will result in 2.5 million fewer workers in our work force by 2025. president obama has also proposed another $1.8 trillion

of new taxes in his latest budget proposal. higher taxes stifle economic growth and cost jobs. the policies being advocated then by the majority party and by the president limit opportunities for working families, reduce economic growth, prevent the economy from achieving the full potential, so obviously get back to the keystone pipeline. the decision to grant that permit for that pipeline is no longer being considered based on policy but based on politics. that's too bad for america's energy consumers and thousands of job seekers who would benefit. now, i don't have to come from the oil patches of texas, oklahoma or north dakota. there are no oil or gas producers in my state.

but i do support an energy policy that is truly all of the above. i represent farmers and consumers who want access to affordable, reliable energy.d i represent iowans who would rather get their energy from friend and ally like canada rather than venezuela or unstable parts of the middle east where they will take our money and probably use it to train people who want to kill americans. i represent iowans who actually know that this oil will be developed regardless of this pipeline and they know that it's just a question of whether it will come to the united states or if it's going to end up in china. i represent iowans who understand the economic and national security impact of this pipeline. they want to see the government get out of the way of this