Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 2:15 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, on May 20, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Economic Security for Working Women: A Roundtable Discussion.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 20, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 5 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 3:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 11 a.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask to add 10 minutes to the 10 minutes I have already requested.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I listened carefully to Senator Lindsey Graham, who put forward a very dangerous bill for women and their families in this country. I will explain in a moment why I think it is dangerous, but what was interesting is that I believe he said he brought it forward today because it is the anniversary that Dr. Gosnell was convicted and sent to prison. This is a rogue doctor who committed despicable and illegal acts and is now serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for what he did--abusing the trust of being a reproductive health care doctor. Dr. Gosnell is away, as he should be. How does my friend from North Carolina commemorate this? By putting forward a bill that will drive more women to rogue doctors. If we make it illegal for a woman, regardless of her circumstance, she is going to find a way to save her health, her life, and her family. Women deserve to have protections. The bill that my friend proposed simply says that after a certain number of weeks, an abortion will not be allowed no matter what a woman's health situation is, and that is very dangerous. I ask--just rhetorically--how can a Senator say he is doing something right for women and their families when there is not a health exception? If a woman goes to the doctor and finds out she is facing cancer, kidney failure, blood clots or some other tragic complication, why should the government step into the middle of her family? Why should the government and U.S. Senators be allowed to step between the woman, her doctor, her God, and her family? It is a disgrace, especially from a party that is known for saying: Get Government off our backs. This is horrible. There is no exception for rape or incest victims who are unable to report those heinous crimes. Let's say initially they were too frightened and then suddenly they get their courage. Well, too bad. Have your rapist's child. This is not a government that cares about families. This is a government that steps into our business at the most tragic moments of our lives. The bill is so extreme that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents thousands of OB/GYNs, said these restrictions are ``dangerous to patients' safety and health.'' Who do you think stands up for the health of the women in this country? U.S. Senators or doctors who know the women, the family, and the circumstances of her health? I have a letter from Christie, who lives in Central Virginia, and she said: My husband and I were confronted with two equally horrible options--carry the pregnancy to term and watch our baby girl suffocate to death upon birth, or terminate the pregnancy early and say good-bye to our much-wanted and much-loved baby girl. Why should a Senator tell her what to do? It is a war on women. When you tell a woman in that type of circumstance what to do and take away her right to use her mind, her brain, and the love she has for her family, her husband, and her children to make that decision, it is a war on women. Christie was pregnant with her second child when that happened. She wanted this baby, but it was not until a 20-week ultrasound that she found out her daughter would suffocate to death at birth. What U.S. Senator has a right to make her watch that baby child suffocate to death? I am sorry, but that is not life-affirming. Then there is Judy from Wisconsin. She says: I know what it is like to live without a mother. My mother died when I was only 4 years old, and it changed my life forever. Four months into her pregnancy, Judy developed a pregnancy-induced blood clot in her arm. The only guarantee she would not die and leave behind her 5-year-old son was for Judy to terminate the pregnancy. She and her husband made the very difficult decision to terminate that pregnancy. What right does a U.S. Senator--who doesn't know her, doesn't know her husband, doesn't know her family history and how she lost her mother when she was young--have to step into that world at that moment and tell her what she has to do. Do we think so little of the women of this Nation? We just had Mother's Day. We lauded our mothers. We are crying out for the girls who were taken by terrorists. If we all care, then why would we support legislation such as this? Then there is Bridget's story. At the time, she was a 25-year-old mom looking forward to the birth of her third child. She initially had a normal ultrasound at 13 weeks. Her second ultrasound showed a major, complex fetal cardiac malformation, a fatal problem. Because tests could only confirm this fatal defect later in the pregnancy, she could not make a decision until after the 20 weeks. What right does a U.S. Senator have to get in the middle of her most personal, most private, most difficult decisions? There is a place for government. It is to make life better for people. It is to say: We are with you. We have your back. We understand what you are going through. It is not to make life so difficult for people. In Missouri, Julie and her husband were told relatively early in her pregnancy that the baby they were expecting had multiple abnormalities and would not survive outside the womb, but it took her 3 weeks to locate an abortion provider because they had shut down so many providers. They found out, under Missouri's restrictive laws, she would have to travel 2 hours to a facility on two separate occasions to comply with the State's 24-hour waiting period. When they were finally able to get the care they needed, her pregnancy was just over 20 weeks. What right does any U.S. Senator have to step out there and tell the American people that we know better than their families know, that we know better than their doctors know, and that we know better than their clergy knows? This bill targets doctors who risk their lives to help women who are at risk for paralysis, infertility, have cancer, and whose lives would be in danger if they continued the pregnancy. This bill would throw those doctors in prison for 5 years just for providing needed health care to their patients. I don't know what kind of country people envision when we have the government policing the private health care decisions of women and their families. Why would we want to go back to the last century and open battles that have long been fought? Those battles were fought in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was the decision of the Supreme Court, and do you know what that court said? They balanced all the rights--the rights of the fetus with the rights of the mother--and they said early in the pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose. It is her decision, but as she goes along with the pregnancy, then later, yes, there will be restrictions, and that is fine as long as the health and the life of the mother are in the forefront. This legislation that Senator Graham wants to vote on--before it goes to any committee as Senator Blumenthal was saying--it is not what is best for women and their families or our communities, it is about an extreme rightwing agenda that needs to stop. This is a moderate country. We work together. I don't get everything I want, you don't get everything you want, but we work it out. To come and offer legislation that is extremely dangerous to women is, in my opinion--I don't know what to call it. It is out of sync with what we ought to be doing. As Senator Baldwin said, we ought to be fighting, and she used that word ``fighting.'' We should be fighting for health care for women, fighting for the rights of our families, so they can have decent health care, and not putting rules in the books that are so onerous that a woman is desperate. I don't understand it. I believe the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, it is unrecognizable to me. When I started out in politics--which was a long time ago--Republicans and Democrats worked together on the environment. Now we can't get a vote from them so we can ensure that the Clean Air Act is protecting our people. We can't get them to address climate change. We cannot get a vote from them. Maybe once in a blue moon we get a vote from one or two. George Herbert Walker Bush was the President who worked hard at Planned Parenthood, and that is where Republicans used to be. We would come together on protecting a woman's right to choose. There were more Republicans in Planned Parenthood than Republicans when I got started in politics. Now the Republicans want to run Planned Parenthood out. They want to shut down their clinics and stop all the good they are doing to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I call it a war on women. We heard people say: Well, maybe there is such a thing as legitimate rape. Have you ever heard of anything so outrageous? We can't even get anyone to move forward on equal pay for equal work around here. I am sad to say that I think this bill is part of the war on women. Clearly, they are the ones who will suffer, along with their doctors. We don't put women in grave danger. We don't put up legislation without a health exception. We don't step in the middle of our families' most difficult decisions. Americans want us to focus on making life better for our families. They don't want us to create new health risks. God knows we have enough health stressors just breathing the air out there, getting the flu and everything else. We don't need legislation that restricts a woman's rights when she needs to have us at her back, helping her, making her safe. Let's not go back to the last century. If somebody has a bill such as this, I hope they will let it go through the whole committee process. We need these women who I quoted today to look Senators in the eye and say: Senator, please stay out of my life. These decisions are difficult enough, but I know I can handle them with my family, with my God, with my support system. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. In the early stages, a woman has a pretty much unfettered right. As we go along, there are more restrictions. But we never, ever turn our back on a woman's health or her life. That is what Roe says. Frankly, I hope this bill and others like it will not see the light of day because it could only make life very difficult for many of our families. I thank the Chair. It is an honor to work with the Presiding Officer on this issue. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeptha Nafziger, a detailee from OMB with the Senate Budget Committee, be granted floor privileges beginning today, May 13, and ending August 1, 2014.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I reserve my right to oppose this modification, and I wish to briefly explain why, as my colleague explained his reason why he wanted to modify. I think what Senator Landrieu has offered is what everybody in this country thought we were going to do. Senator Landrieu and I disagree on Keystone. No one could be a stronger advocate for Keystone than she is, period. I believe tar sands should not be brought into this country the way they would be brought in at a 45-percent increase with this pipeline-- eventually 300 percent. We could have had a robust debate. The Senator and I would have been respectful and caring about each other, but we would have disagreed. We could have had the vote. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I believe when you give your word, you keep your word. Leadership was very clear that if we were able to give the Republicans and Senator Landrieu a vote on Keystone, we could move forward with Shaheen-Portman, a bipartisan, incredibly important energy efficiency bill. Instead, what we know is Republicans want to offer--and it is in my jurisdiction so I can speak about it--environmental riders, the likes of which I have never seen in one grouping, essentially repealing the essence of the Clean Air Act that was signed into law in 1970 by Richard Nixon, and the 1990 amendments which were signed into law by George Herbert Walker Bush. They want to put those on this bill. You have got to be kidding. Something as serious as that? So I object to the modification.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Shaheen and other Senators leave, I wish to say how disappointed I am, because energy efficiency is so good for this country, and they have stopped it because they want to repeal the Clean Air Act. Let's call it what it is. It is really a sad state of affairs. I was so looking forward not only to the debate on energy efficiency, but, frankly, the debate on the Keystone Pipeline, which my Republican friends say is a major priority. If they felt it was a major priority, why have they filibustered this bill when we could have made that deal which they came up with in the first place? So I am very disappointed. I hope we will have another chance to pass this bipartisan energy efficiency bill that Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman worked so hard on. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 433 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a voice vote on the resolution.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I further ask the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, am I correct in assuming that we have now agreed to this resolution?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank my friends. It looks as though the Chamber is empty here, but everyone had to sign off on this measure, and I want to explain what we just did. We passed a very important resolution expressing our support for the young girls who were kidnapped in Nigeria. As I think the world is learning, this is a horrific situation. Kidnapping certainly has no place in any village, in any region, or in any country--not in our country. We know how we feel. We have seen kidnappings recently of women held in captivity. There should be no room anywhere for kidnapping. Today we heard new reports that the suspected Boko Haram gunmen kidnapped eight more girls from the Nigerian village overnight. So clearly the voices of the civilized world must rise and be louder than the terrorists who are taking away basic human rights. Senator Landrieu's resolution we just passed has many supporters on it, including myself. I am also pleased to hear today the administration has committed to acting with the Nigerian Government. As a mother and grandmother, my heart is with all those mothers and grandmothers and dads and grandfathers who want their daughters and granddaughters to come home safely. We cannot stay silent in the face of these unspeakable crimes. We are not silent today as a U.S. Senate. I am so proud we have agreed to this resolution. I want to commend my friend Senator Mikulski. She and Senator Collins have worked on a letter we are sending to the administration. I am about to go outside to be part of a vigil, an event that has been organized by the Congressional African Staff Association as well as the Congressional Hispanic Staff Association and the Congressional Black Associates, and I am so proud of the Senate for standing for these girls. We will do everything we possibly can to get them home to their families. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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 is both a former Governor and a Senator; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. When Senator Shaheen was a Governor she stood up for the people, and as a Senator she certainly fights for her people. 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 are not children. They are not teenagers. They are adults. 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. I went back into my little memory books, and I found my son's first paycheck when he was working his way through school. He went to a supermarket to work as a checkout clerk. He came into a store called Lucky Stores. They were a union store, so he joined the union. Do you know what that young man made in those years? In 1986, 28 years ago--it is right here--it was $7.41 an hour. Imagine. So he was so proud he could work hard. When he came home, he was able to help pay for his tuition and his books. We are talking about a minimum wage that is $10.10 an hour. Here is 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. We have the 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. We are not even going that far. We are saying $10.10 an hour. So all we are suggesting is, make sure inflation is covered. That is all we are saying. Increasing the minimum wage will give people a chance, a fair shot. Remember, most of the people on minimum wage are adults. If you stop someone on the street and ask who they think is on the minimum wage, a lot of folks guess it is teenagers. No. By the way, most of those happen to be women. I am deeply disappointed and distressed that the Republicans are opposing this measure. Why do Republicans want to deny hard-working 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 was during George W. Bush's Presidency. Let me say that again. For the minimum wage in 2007, which was the last time we raised it, the increase passed 94 to 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 will say that it is just not fair to small businesses. Well, more than 80 percent of small businesses pay their people more than the minimum wage. So come on. A majority of small businesses support what we are trying to do. So don't come on the floor and say you are opposing it because it is too much too soon. Wrong. It is even lower than the inflation rate, and secondly, regarding that small business doesn't want it, in fact, they do. Now before that was 1989. We raised the minimum wage then, and it was 89 to 8, and at that time it was George H. W. Bush. So wait a minute. What is going on here? I don't get this. It is not about who is in the White House; it is about the working people of this country. Where is the bipartisan spirit? It is gone, and America is paying a heavy price with the minimum wage stuck at $7.25 an hour and with inflation eating away every day at it. Let me read you just two or three stories about workers. Alicia McCrary, a single mom who testified in March before the Senate HELP Committee, struggles to support her sons with a minimum wage job in fast food. She has trouble getting them haircuts, shoes, clothing, and other items that kids need. She says: ``My boys ask: 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 is right. She doesn't get paid a fair minimum wage. NBC News ran a story of a man who works three jobs. Two of them are overnight--he works three jobs--two of them are overnight jobs for minimum wage. He said: I have four young children. They need a dad around. That is why I work a day job when they are in school and then go back to work when they go to bed. But it takes 3 jobs to make ends meet because of $7.25 an hour. I am 43 and have over 20 years' experience and make $7.25 an hour. That is wrong. These parents work so hard and their kids are growing up with so little, and their parents look in their children's eyes and they suffer because they want to do more for their children. Economists project that this bill--which I hope most or almost every Democrat will support--will raise the wages of 28 million people in America. All we need is a handful of Republicans to join with us and we will get it done. By the way, if it were a majority rule, we would get it done. They are filibustering it. Let's be clear. They not only oppose it; they are forcing us to get 60 votes. Twenty percent of the children in America are counting on this, 14 million children who would be lifted out of poverty if we pass the Harkin bill. Then we have tipped workers. If I asked anyone on the street how much tipped workers make, they would say minimum wage. Most people don't know what the Federal tipped minimum wage is. I know the Presiding Officer has worked on this. It is $2.13 an hour. Can my colleagues imagine? Again, $2.13 an hour is the tipped minimum wage. Many tipped workers live in poverty and instability. They don't know if they will make enough to cover the bills. We will hear that if we pay the full minimum wage, it will be too hard on the restaurant owners. 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 hour. Guess what. Our restaurants are going gangbusters. And guess what else. When a person does well and has their minimum wage plus their tips, they get to go out once in a while to a restaurant. They can go down to the corner store and get something for their children. Sandra Samoa is a bartender in Chicago. She says if the bar is slow, she might take home just $40 after an 8-hour shift. She lives with her mom and her young son. This woman sleeps on the floor so her son can sleep in a bed. If we don't represent people such as these, who the heck do we represent--the Koch brothers? They are worth billions. This woman comes home Sundays with $40 in her pocket, she sleeps on the floor, and she says, ``My whole plan is to have a room for him one day.'' So, listen, if we are who we are supposed to be--the representatives of the people and working families--then we want to make sure we raise the minimum wage. It helps everybody, including those in business. That is why most small businesses support this. We know 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 are raising wages? You could get away with paying them-- whatever it was. He said: I am raising them because I want them to buy my car--the cars we make. What we are going to hear on this floor from our colleagues is that we are going too fast, we are raising this too much. I have already shown my colleagues that we are raising it less than inflation, so that is baloney on its face. No. 2, they say: Oh, it is going to hurt small business. I have already stated that 82 percent of small businesses already pay all of 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 are going to say is it is a job-loser. They are going to cite one study, which I call an outlier, from CBO. It said the minimum wage would reduce employment by three-tenths of 1 percent over the next 2 years. When I heard that, I thought, what is this about? I looked at some other studies. A study by three prominent labor economists from the University of Massachusetts, the University of North Carolina, and the University of California-Berkeley found that minimum wage increases absolutely do not cause job losses. The Economic Policy Institute found that the Harkin bill would increase employment by 84,000 jobs and add $22 billion to our economy over 2\1/2\ years. Let me repeat that. The Harkin bill would increase employment by 84,000 jobs and add $22 billion to our economy. But let's look at history. We have to really ask ourselves--these guys and gals who are saying don't raise the minimum wage because 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 cents an hour because I was a teenager. It was great then. I earned 50 cents an hour. I am looking at the young people here, and they are thinking, you must be really old. They would be right. My point is that the minimum wage was a buck an hour and it was raised many times. Since 1989 the minimum wage has been raised three times. It was raised many times before that. There have been 18 increases since 1956. So we can put that in our minds--18 increases in the minimum wage since 1956. Suppose the other side had taken that attitude: Don't raise it. Well, it would still be, I guess, a buck an hour, 50 cents if you are a kid. Today ``50 Cent'' is a singing group, right? We have raised the minimum wage over and over again. What has happened? The economy has added millions of jobs. Since 1956 it has added 80 million. Since 1956, we have raised the minimum wage 18 times and we have created 80 million new jobs. So if anybody says this is a job-killer, I just say, read the history books. Americans support raising the minimum wage. I hope my colleagues are listening. The American people know $7.25 an hour is not enough. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 63 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Let me say that again. Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. All we need is a handful of Republicans. If they are listening to me, I hope they heard some of my arguments. No. 1, it is good for business to raise the minimum wage because people have more to spend. No. 2, history has shown that we have raised the minimum wage over and over again and we have created 80 million jobs. No. 3, most of the people earning minimum wage are adults, and most of those are women, and people are trying to raise their families on the minimum wage. The last point is that we have always had strong bipartisan support. When George W. signed it into law, there was strong support from the Republicans. When his dad was in office, there was strong support. I can't believe the Republican Party has turned its back on working people, but if they have, we will find out tomorrow. The American people know what this is about. The American dream is within reach, but we have to have fairness out there. People need a fair shot. We shouldn't tell someone who is a dad that he has to work three jobs. That is wrong. We need to lift up these workers 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 go get a haircut at the local barber, when they can put gas in their car and fix up their 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 earn a fair wage, our economy is stronger and our country is better. So let's give American working families a fair shot. We are 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 note the absence of a quorum.