Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today on three matters. First and most importantly is the issue of pay equity. Frankly, we should not be talking about this in 2014--the fact that women still too often do not get equal pay for equal work. Senate Republicans showed this morning-- it is disappointing--that too many in this Chamber simply do not think closing the wage gap between men and women--closing the wage gap by which working women are victimized--is that important. Think back to 1963, the beginning, not of the civil rights movement, of course, but of Congressional action in 1963, 1964, and 1965 on voting rights and civil rights. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act came up first. President Kennedy signed it. Women were earning 60 cents for every dollar men earned. Now, 50 years later, that figure has increased only 17 cents. How many more years should people in this country wait? In 2012, median earnings for men working full time in Ohio were $46,700; for women $35,900, an earnings ratio of about 77 percent. The Paycheck Fairness Act would shore up the Equal Pay Act and create stronger incentives for employers to follow the law while helping women fight pay discrimination. The pay gap persists across all occupations and educational levels. From the outset women are paid less than men just 1 year after college in nearly every occupation. The gap grows from there. As the gap grows in pay, the gap grows in pensions. Lilly Ledbetter taught us that. The decidedly lower pay that she received working at Goodyear showed up in a significantly lower pension when she retired. Over the course of a 35-year career, a woman with a college degree will make about $1.2 million less than a man with the same level of education. As I said, women make less, their families have less, and the retirement income and savings are smaller. For Women 65 and older, their annual median income from all retirement sources--Social Security, pensions, and private savings--is about $11,000 less than men in the same age group. It is even more discouraging for African- American women, who make 64 percent less, and Hispanic women, who earn 53 percent less. That is so, so unacceptable. As a father of daughters, as a husband, as a grandfather of 2-week- old Jacqueline Sally, I know--and so does America--this pay gap devalues women's work and discourages economic growth because women make up nearly half of today's workforce. At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, equal pay for equal work is not just a gender issue; it is a family issue. In more than one-third of families, women are the primary wage earner. As the main breadwinner, women are asked to carry a greater economic load while making less than they deserve and, frankly, less than they have actually earned. Many of these woman get up early, they take the bus to work, they stand on their feet all day, they come home, they take care of their children, and they do not ask for a handout. But they are asking for equal pay. If the wage gap were eliminated, an Ohio woman working full time would have enough money for 88 more weeks of food for her family, 9 more months of mortgage and utility payments, 15 months of rent, and 3,000 additional gallons of gas. Our economy would grow, boosting GDP by 2.9 percent, or $450 billion. The Minimum Wage Senator Jack Reed was in the Chamber 45 minutes or so ago when I was the Presiding Officer. Senator Reed talked about Rhode Island and the minimum wage and the impact of a lower minimum wage than it should be. They have a bit higher one in Rhode Island than in some States, and we have a bit higher one in Ohio than in some States. But raising the minimum wage to 10.10 an hour nationally would mean--he said 90,000 people in Rhode Island. It would be way more, hundreds of thousands in Ohio who would get an increase in the minimum wage and would get a pay raise if this body did what it should, which we are going to try to do in the next 3 or 4 weeks; that is, to raise the minimum wage. The impact of the minimum wage is especially important for women. What is especially important for women is the so called ``tipped wage.'' This is the tipped wage for people who work in jobs where there are tips. It could be a valet, it could be a waitress or a server or it could be somebody pushing a wheelchair at an airport. Their minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour, plus tips, if people know to tip the man or woman who is pushing the wheelchair in the airport. I watch pretty closely. I spend a lot of time flying between Cleveland and Washington or Columbus and Washington. I notice that more often than not, people who ride in the carts or are sitting in a wheelchair do not tip the worker whose minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. They do not tip the worker because I think they do not know to tip the worker. I do not think they are cheap. They do not know that worker may be only making $2, $3, $4 or $5 an hour. But the minimum wage for that tipped worker is only $2.13 an hour. Whether they work in a diner in Gallipolis, or Chillicothe, whether they are working at the Toledo or Cleveland airport driving a cart or pushing a wheelchair, whether they are working as a valet in Cincinnati or Dayton, their tipped wage has been stuck at $2.13 since 1991. The State of Maryland recently raised their minimum wage. They did not raise the tipped wage which is stuck where it has been for a number of years. Americans do not know this--that typically there is a subminimum wage that is a lot less. Most of the workers--the overwhelming majority of workers that get that tipped wage--are women. We know that in restaurants the sexual harassment rate of workers is one of the highest in the country because they depend on customers for their tips and they depend on their boss for the distribution of the tips to get their minimum wage--$2.13 an hour. Some restaurants pay $3, $4 or $5--I am not saying none of them do, but to get their minimum wage--their tipped wage--simply up to the minimum wage. Surely, as some will say, in some restaurants the workers make way, way, way more than the minimum wage. They are more likely than not male workers who work in the highest end restaurants. You are more likely going to see women in the diners and the lower-paid service jobs in restaurants. Doolittle Tokyo Raiders April 18 will mark the 72nd anniversary of the 1942 Doolittle Raid, the first offensive action by the U.S. military following Pearl Harbor. Eighty men, known today as the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders, volunteered for an ``extremely hazardous mission'' without knowing the target, location or assignment. The Raiders, led by LTC James Doolittle, launched their B-25 Mitchell Bombers 650 miles from their target. After hitting their military and industrial targets in Tokyo and five other cities, they were low on fuel, the weather was deteriorating. All 16 planes were forced to crash-land in China or Russia. Of the 80 men on the mission, eight Raiders were captured. Of these eight, three were executed; one died of disease; and four returned home. Their mission traveled an average distance of 2,200 miles over 13 hours, making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a B-25 Mitchell Bomber. I would add that another aviation hero in Vietnam just walked into the Chamber--Senator McCain--right at the time I was talking about the Doolittle Raiders. The Senator has signed our resolution and commendation for a Medal of Honor for them. I thank Senator McCain both for his heroism, especially, and for joining us in this effort. In 2002, I led a resolution to recognize the 70th anniversary. It passed the Senate unanimously. Early last year, I renewed my efforts to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders. We have got 78 cosponsors, nine more than the 67 necessary. This bill passed in the Senate in November by unanimous consent. On November 9, 2013, the Raiders celebrated their final reunion. They have met every year since the end of--I believe since the end of World War II. They met at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton. The meeting marked the last planned gathering of the living Raiders, which was celebrated by the opening of an 1896 bottle of Hennessy cognac, originally given by their commander, Jimmy Doolittle, on his 60th birthday. Of the 80 men on the raid, only four remain alive today; only 3 were able to get to the reunion. Time is running out. I appreciate the efforts of Congressman Pete Olson from Texas who is leading the effort in the House. I hope the Speaker, the leadership, and both parties will take the final action needed to pass the legislation to honor these heroes. 150th Anniversary of Gallaudet University It is appropriate Senator McCain is in the Chamber too. In 2008, Senator McCain, who had served as the Senate designee on the Gallaudet University board of trustees, left during his Presidential run. Senator Harkin and Senator McCain apparently had recommended that I be the Senate designee on the board at Gallaudet University. This week Gallaudet celebrated its 150th anniversary. It is an incredible place, as Senator McCain knows. It is the only one of its kind in the world, a school for the deaf, created during the administration of President Lincoln 150 years ago in 1864. Senator McCain certainly will have reminiscences and stories about serving on this board, but my first dinner my first night at the Gallaudet University board meeting, the students, all deaf, came out and performed a dance for the board. A number of the board hear--as I do, obviously--but a number don't and they signed everything. The students who were dancing to the music were able to dance because of the vibrations they felt on the floor. You could see this dance troupe, but if you hadn't known better, you wouldn't have known they were deaf because they were dancing an exact rhythm with the percussion, the beat, and the vibrations on the floor in the ballroom where the dinner was for the Gallaudet board. I wish Gallaudet another 150 years. It is an incredible institution. It has served this country so well. It is partially congressionally funded. Senator McCain, Senator Harkin, and now Senator Moran of Kansas are all particularly interested in it. It is an honor to be part of it. I wish Gallaudet a happy 150th birthday. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to honor Paul Rinebold, a dedicated Ohio dairy farmer, great-grandfather, and community member who passed away last month. Ohio and our Nation are made strong by people like Paul--men and women who have dedicated their lives to their family, community, and work. A son of Fostoria, OH, Paul lived his entire life in his community. After graduating from Hopewell-Loudon High School in Bascom, OH, he joined the U.S. Army and served his country for 7 years. During that time, in 1959, he married Ardith Bloom of Fremont, OH. Mr. Rinebold was a self-employed dairy farmer who founded PAR 3 Farms, named after himself, Paul (P), his wife, Ardith (AR), and the first three (3) of what would be their four children. PAR 3 Farms has been recognized by both the Ohio State and the National Ayrshire Breeders Associations for its contributions to the dairy business in Seneca County. Mr. Rinebold's family farm is still in operation today. In 2008, the Ohio Ayrshire Breeders Association presented Paul with the Ohio Ayrshire Distinguished Service Award, a testament to the care with which Mr. Rinebold raised, treated, and bred his cows. It was at this awards ceremony that the association thanked Paul and Ardith for their dedication and expertise in the field of dairy farming. By 2008, the couple had attended more national Ayrshire conventions than any other Ayrshire dairy farm in the country, adding up to a total of 40 years' of conventions. While he was not working on the farm, Paul dedicated his time to benefitting the community he called home. Active in his community, he was a member of St. John's United Church Christ in Fostoria; the Seneca County Farm Bureau; the State and National Ayrshire Associations; the National Dairy Shrine; and both the State and National level of the Loudon Center Grange. Paul helped each of his four children earn their 4-H club 10-year pins in Seneca County, and he enjoyed working with them on their county fair projects and yearly showcases at the Ohio State Fair. Paul loved farming, dairying and bowling, but most of all, his family. This week--on what would have been Mr. Rinebold's 76th birthday--I would like to honor him for his dedication, service to our country, and contributions to the Ohio dairy community and his friends and neighbors in Fostoria community. I would also extend my thoughts and condolences to his family--his wife Ardith, sons Jeffrey and Michael, daughters Cheryl Ann and Paula, eight grandchildren, Brian, A.J., Jackson, Brittany, Brayden, Blake, Taylor, and Cameron, and two great- grandchildren, Anistyn and Chase, on their loss. Emerson wrote ``To know one life has breathed easier because you have lived, that is to have succeeded.'' We have all breathed easier because of Paul.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

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

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it has been more than 3 months since 2 million Americans and nearly 60,000 people in my home State of Ohio and tens of thousands of people in the Presiding Officer's State of Massachusetts--overwhelmingly most of whom have worked day in and day out for most of their lives--have had their unemployment benefits expire simply because the House of Representatives and the Senate have failed to act. This body has tried to act a number of times and a number of times it has been filibustered. We could not get 60 votes to move forward. The House of Representatives has seemed, frankly, indifferent to these 2 million people. Think about who these people are. This is about unemployment insurance. It is called insurance for a reason. Insurance means they pay in when they are working, they get benefits when they are laid off, but they must be seeking work to qualify and earn--and I underscore earn--those benefits. They are not given those benefits. They have earned them. They have paid into the unemployment insurance program and they get assistance when they lose their jobs. Every day and week we fail in this Congress because of Republican filibusters and cold indifference in the House of Representatives to extend these benefits, more Americans slip into poverty. People are not getting rich from unemployment insurance. The average unemployment check in Massachusetts and Ohio and across this country is about $300, which helps to keep their head above water, avoid foreclosure, put gas in their car, look for work--as they are required to do so they can receive unemployment--and just keep their family going and reduce poverty. When they don't get unemployment benefits, they are not spending that money in their community. When they do get these benefits, they are spending money at the local grocery store in Chillicothe, they are going to the local shoe store in Portsmouth or Gallipolis, they are going to the car repair shop in Toledo or Lima. They are putting money in the economy which generates economic activity which grows jobs. Extending unemployment is not just right for families in Dayton, Akron, Springfield, OH, and Springfield, MA, it is right for the economy because it puts money into the economy and helps to create jobs. Forget about the statistics. Forget about the numbers--60,000 people in Ohio and 2 million people across the country--and instead listen to what this does for individual lives. I have three or four stories from people around my State. Lori from Montgomery County, which is in southwest Ohio and the Dayton area, writes: I have worked my entire life, until I lost my job last summer. I now spend 4-5 hours a day looking for jobs, but the positions in my field are limited. I'm told I'm either over or under qualified. My unemployment benefits aren't much, but it's enough to keep a roof over my head, and allow me to make car payments, so that when I did get a job interview, I have a car to get me there. Please don't let me down. Robert from Belmont County, which is on the West Virginia line near the Ohio River in eastern Ohio, writes: I lost my job in 2012 when my employer, a steel mill, shut down. I was unemployed for more than a year before finding another position. I was there for two and a half months before being let go due to the down economy--not enough time for a new claim to get me by. I have a family to support and now that the extension is gone, what am I to do until I find a good job to support my family? Do the right thing. Many lives are depending on it. The first person said, ``Please don't let me down,'' and the second person from Belmont County said, ``Do the right thing.'' Scott from Union County, which is in central Ohio where they are doing a little better overall but still going through tough times, writes: I was laid off from my job at the beginning of this year. I had only been there for six months, and it was a godsend for me. I don't have a college degree, but I was given a chance to show I could do this job, even though a degree was required. We went through a round of layoffs in October. My job was saved at the time, but then our company closed its doors in January. Now I have nothing. Zero income. Zero outside help, and a non-existing savings--not because I didn't save, but because I didn't make enough money to save anything the last few years. I joined the military out of high school, and used my GI Bill to put myself through some college. But soon enough, I was just in a mountain of debt from school, and needed to work full-time. I wasn't able to save money because I couldn't afford to pay my student loan debt. While I'm writing you, I'm sitting here watching my son play, and he is so happy. But he doesn't know why his dad is so sad--nor should he ever. I am begging you to get this figured out soon. These are veterans and people who have struggled and worked all their lives. They are people who have never had it easy, but they do what is asked of them. As President Clinton used to say, they play by the rules. They take personal responsibility for their lives. The Senate, because of the filibuster, has turned its back on these workers. The House of Representatives, because of its indifference, has shrugged these workers off. It is wrong. It is important that this Congress--the House and the Senate--pass the extension of unemployment. The President eagerly awaits signing this legislation because it will matter to workers in Middletown, Ravenna, Mansfield, and Shelby, OH. This legislation is important not only to my State but all over this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Columbus Chapter of the Oncology Nursing Society, or CCONS, on a legacy of excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. CCONS' 25th Annual Spring Conference, ``Kaleidoscope of Oncology Care,'' will be held on April 3, and in May, during Oncology Nursing Month, the society will celebrate its 30th anniversary. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the work and achievements of this valued organization and to especially recognize CCONS' president, Bertie Ford, for her leadership. Since 1984, CCONS has worked to lead the transformation of cancer care. Its members are leaders in their communities and represent the most effective cancer care advocates in their workplaces. These oncology nurses are vital supports of patient-centered interventions, leveraging clinical knowledge and technology every day to provide the highest quality cancer care to patients not only in Columbus but across Ohio. We are making progress in the fight against cancer. The 5-year survival rate for all cancers among adults is 68 percent--a marked improvement over the mid-1970s when it was 50 percent. But as cancer treatment becomes more complex, the health care system demands higher quality and more efficient care. As Congress works to increase patient access to quality health care, I praise the commitment of CCONS in fostering excellence in oncology nursing and in the care of cancer patients. My mother passed away in 2009 while in hospice care. I will never forget the nurses who took care of her in such a loving way when they didn't know her personally until those last few weeks. It made all the difference in the world to her and our family. For that, I always thank nurses and others who care for those in need. Congratulations to CCONS on its 30th anniversary and for the important work its members do in Ohio's communities every day.

Mr. BROWN

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

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

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I was not planning this today, but as many of my colleagues do, I do a morning coffee where anybody from my State of Ohio--as Senator Durbin does in Illinois, Senator Udall in New Mexico, and others--and my colleague from Ohio does one too, Senator Portman--people can come in from around the State and talk about what they want. A couple came in today, a father and a mother and two children. One looked to be maybe 10 and the other looked to be maybe 15. They came and wanted to talk to me about their private school. They have sort of a home school association, it sounded like, from a conservative part of Ohio, Southwest Ohio. We talked about what we could do to help them in terms of educating their children. Then, right before we parted--and I was going to see other people at this coffee; we had maybe 75 people there--the mother of these two children said: By the way, thank you for the Affordable Care Act. I said: How is that? She pointed to her son. She said: My son--I think he was 15. She said: My son is diabetic. As I learned later, he was diagnosed at the age of 6 and has injected insulin into his arm and his leg for 8 or 9 years. She said: My son who is diabetic, we could not get insurance because of my son's preexisting condition, diabetes. We were turned down--I counted them. We were turned down 34 times for insurance. My family was turned down 34 times for insurance. Because of the Affordable Care Act we now have health insurance. She smiled. That is one of the most poignant stories I have heard about the importance of this new law. There are 160,000 people in my State who now have insurance that did not have it in December. But this family--you think about what this is all about. This family's peace of mind, this family's ability to focus on other things now, because they have insurance that they could not get, even though he had a job--the father had a job--I am not sure where the mother worked. But the point is, they were turned down, she said, 34 times because their son cost the insurance more money because he had a preexisting condition with diabetes. So I guess my question to my colleagues is, why do we want to repeal this? How do my colleagues, including many, many elected officials in my State who before have been resistant to the Affordable Care Act to win elections, saying: Repeal the Affordable Care Act--how do they explain that to this family--if they met this family and the mother said: We have insurance; we were turned down 34 times. Why do you want to repeal this law? Why do you want to take it away from the 160,000 Ohioans who have insurance? Why do you want to do that to the 100,000 25-, 22-, and 19-year-olds in Ohio--in my State alone, one State of the 50 where 100,000 young people have insurance and they are on their parent's plan because of the Affordable Care Act. Some 900,000 Ohio seniors have gotten check-ups, no copay, no deductibles, free checkups, free osteoporosis screenings, and free physicals because of the Affordable Care Act. How do you take that away from those seniors? How do you take away the $900 in savings that the average senior in my State, who is on this--President Bush's, initially--drug plan, the Medicare drug plan? How do you take away that $900 savings? You are going to repeal ObamaCare? You are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take those away? How do you face the people like the family I met today? Thirty-four times she was turned down for insurance. I did not make this up. That is her number. She said: I counted; 34 times they turned our family down for insurance because my child has diabetes. How do you think that makes him feel, first of all. But equally importantly, she has the comfort and safety in her mind now of having insurance. I do not even understand. What do my colleagues do? Do they wake up every morning thinking: I want to take that insurance from 150,000 Ohio families; I do not want them to have it; I want to take those benefits from those 900,000 Ohio seniors. I want to make them pay $900 more. That is what they are saying: Repeal ObamaCare. We lose all of that, if they want to keep talking about taking these benefits away. Let's live with this law. Let's make it work well. It is starting to work really well in Ohio. We are having thousands of sign- ups every single day. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of Hawaii, they are getting lots of people to sign up. Lots of young people are signing up. Let's move on. Let's stop debating this. Help make it work better. Let's talk about how we create jobs, not how you are going to repeal some health care law that you did not like because it did not fit with your ideology or you did not like the President-- whatever the reason my colleagues seem to not like the Affordable Care Act. History is going to say over and over: Why do you want to take these benefits away? This is working. Remember back with Medicare in 1965. They were not the tea party. They were called the John Birch Society back then. They did not like it. Insurance companies did not like it. But everybody liked it 5 years later. Social Security--the same forces, the same far right forces opposed it. Five years later, people liked it. This stuff works. It is going to make such a difference in people's lives. Forget about the 150,000. Forget about the numbers. Focus on that family--34 times turned down for insurance. She has insurance now. Her diabetic son can get the care he needs. That is such a wonderful thing. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

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

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, on October 16, 1936, President Roosevelt visited the then-largest city in Ohio, the town my wife and I live in, Cleveland, OH. He spoke about why the ``trickle down'' theory does not work--this whole view that has been tried a number of times in our country: trickle down economics--that trickle down economics does not work. That is when you give major tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country. President Roosevelt called them ``economic royalists''--a term that sounds a little out of date but maybe fairly descriptive. But President Roosevelt said when you help the wealthy get wealthier and wealthier-- my Republican colleagues call them the ``job creators,'' but it just does not work that way; the hope then is that some of that wealth they accumulate--and we do not resent their wealth, we do not envy their wealth; we just do not think it is good economic policy for Toledo or Gallipolis or Chillicothe or Cleveland--that when the wealthiest people get richer and richer, it does not really trickle down and create jobs. Forget Franklin Roosevelt for a minute. Look at two decades in very recent memory--the 1990s during the Clinton years and the 8 years during the Bush years. From 1993 to 2000, the Clinton years, we actually reduced the budget deficit to the point where there was a surplus. There was an increase in taxes on upper income people and some budget cuts. But what happened during that 8 years is that 21 million private sector jobs were added to our economy between 1993 and 2000--21 million private sector jobs. Then President Bush took office. Twice--once in 2001 and once in 2003--with the assistance of kind of a bought-and-sold special interest Congress in those days, President Bush gave major tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country. You know the theory, ``trickle down.'' You give tax breaks to the rich and it trickles down to moderate-income, middle-class people and creates jobs. Well, the middle class shrank during those 8 years. President Bush gave major tax cuts to the rich twice. Do you know how many jobs were created during those 8 years? Under 1 million private sector jobs. So from 1993 to 2000 when we did not follow trickle-down economics, there were 21 million private sector jobs. During the 8 years of the Bush administration, there were big tax cuts for the rich--twice. There was essentially no real job creation in the private sector. A number of my colleagues want to continue that policy. But let's look at it the other way. The real job creation is not tax breaks for the richest people, it trickles down, and maybe some jobs will be created for the middle class and for low-income people. Let's look at it the other way. Let's look at it as the real job creation is from the bottom up. One of the ways to do that is a minimum wage increase. It will not mean everything, but look at this. The minimum wage today is worth $7.25 an hour nationally, in some States a little bit higher. My State is 90 cents higher than that, I believe. But the minimum wage today has one-third less buying power than it did in 1968. In 1968 a couple with minimum wage jobs--a husband and wife--actually had an OK standard of living. They were not doing great, but they were making it. They could afford to pay their rent. They could afford a car. They could afford some things. They were doing sort of OK. The minimum wage today--again, a minimum wage job--has one-third less buying power than it had in 1968. But think about this: The minimum wage for tipped employees--I imagine a number of the pages who are sitting here today are not indicative; it is really older people generally who have had minimum wage jobs and have had jobs where they rely on tips. It is a myth that minimum wage jobs are held by mostly teenagers. They are not. Minimum wage jobs are often held by people supporting themselves, and they are supporting kids sometimes on minimum wage jobs. They are not teenagers or mostly in their twenties and thirties. But get this. Do you know how much the tipped minimum wage is? It is $2.13 an hour. That means when you see a valet at an airport--if you go to Cleveland Hopkins Airport and you see someone pushing a wheelchair with an often older disabled person in it, those are tipped jobs. Those people do not even make $7.25 an hour. But they can make as little as $2.13 an hour. Do you know the last time they got a raise, the last time the tipped minimum wage was raised? It was 1992. For 20-plus years the tipped minimum wage has been $2.13 an hour. It has been that for 20 years. That means that the waitress in the diner, the server in the diner, the valet in front of the restaurant, the person pushing the wheelchair or driving the cart at the airport, the person working in the hotel, their minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. The people opposed to this minimum wage increase--to me, some of the most self-absorbed interest groups in this country and some of the best off--say: Well, nobody really makes that because people get these tips. Well, if they work at a really high-end restaurant where the average patron will spend $75 or $100, buy a few drinks, where there is an expensive menu and all of that, the waiters do a little better. They make $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 a year if they are busy enough and if they are working enough hours, some even more than that. But in the diner where three retirees will come in on a Tuesday morning and drink coffee and sit there for 2 hours and take up a table, that waitress is usually a woman who is a sub-minimum wage tipped employee. The people may leave $1 on the table, and she has worked for 2 hours. All they buy is coffee, and she keeps filling it up and filling it up. Think about the wear and tear on her body. She is standing on her feet all the time. She is working hard. You know, we like to think we work hard in the Senate. We do, but we do not do that and it is not so hard on our bodies. When I think about this minimum wage--I am never angry about politics. One of my heroes was Hubert Humphrey. They called him the ``Happy Warrior'' because he always fought for justice but he was not angry. But there are some things that make me angry about this job, such as when I see some of my colleagues--and there are a number of them--vote for pay increases for themselves and then vote against the minimum wage. They may tell you they work hard. They are not working harder than that person pushing the cart at the airport. They are not working harder than the woman in the diner who is filling the coffee cup. I urge my colleagues to do something that Pope Francis mentioned. Pope Francis exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. You think about the Biblical allegory of that, the sheep and the Old Testament and the shepherd. When he said ``go out and smell like the flock'' to his parish priests, what he was saying is pretty obvious: Go out and find out how they live. Go out and try to live among them. Go out and do what they do. Go out and understand their way of life. I ask my colleagues to think about it. I am not asking them to live on a minimum wage job. I am not asking them to wait tables. But I do ask them to spend some time talking to people about the hopes and dreams for their children and in their lives, people who are minimum wage workers, people making $7.25 an hour and working hard, people who are making less than that and rely on tips that may or may not be there. It is justice. Are we going to reward work? If so, we ought to increase the minimum wage. At the same time, we ought to expand the earned-income tax credit. It actually rewards work. If you are a trickle-down economics guy--and most of them are guys--and you believe that you reward people by cutting their taxes so they will work harder, maybe we ought to think about rewarding hand-working lower income people with tax breaks. For someone making $28,000 a year, that extra thousand dollars really means they can maybe put a little aside for their kid's community college or maybe they can actually go out to eat once in a while or maybe they can occasionally buy a really nice dinner for their kids or maybe they can buy school supplies or whatever with that extra thousand or two thousand dollars from the earned-income tax credit. We need to increase the minimum wage and the earned-income tax credit. It will not only be better for those families, it will help the economy because you put money into the economy. The unemployed worker or a minimum wage worker is going to spend that money. They are not going to invest it in a Swiss bank account the way some wealthy people might; they are going to spend that money, and that is going to create jobs in the local community. So increasing the minimum wage and expanding the earned-income tax credit is good for those families, it is good for those communities, and it is good for our economy. It is something we ought to do. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to honor John Lanigan, the longtime northeast Ohio radio personality, who will broadcast his final show on WMJI/Cleveland on March 31, 2014. John and I haven't always agreed on all of the issues, but he has always been well-read and outspoken, and his at times sharp-witted, controversial personality captured the attention of Cleveland listeners, whether you agreed with him or not. John grew up in Ogallala, NE, and got his start in radio broadcasting while still in high school. He worked in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado--where he would work the overnight shift in Denver and then travel to Colorado Springs for the dayshift--before coming to Cleveland in 1970. He was hired at WGAR to replace Don Imus, and, within a year, the show's ratings had nearly doubled, no doubt thanks to his trademark style of interjecting jokes in between songs. John would go on to Tampa for 2 years, but returned to Cleveland and WMJI in 1985, where he made his mark. In 1989, comedian Jimmy Malone appeared on the show, and the ``Lanigan and Malone Show'' was created soon after. No topic was off limits for John--politics, sports, music, and entertainment--he covered it all. And, if you were a guest, you had better come prepared because John was always ready to fire off the tough questions. John would occasionally take the show on the road to DC and broadcast live from my office in the Senate. I would arrange for guests like then-Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, to come on and be interviewed with me. While John cemented his loyal following on the radio, they came with him when he took his skills to the silver screen, hosting a weekly TV show named ``Prize Movie'' on WUAB. While he is not on the air, John dedicates his time to benefitting his adopted city. He volunteers for the Our Lady of the Wayside, an organization that serves hundreds of children and adults with developmental disabilities throughout northeast Ohio, even winning their Starlight Guardian Humanitarian Award in 2012. John came to Cleveland nearly 40 years ago, and though his talents could have taken him to any big city in the country, he chose to stay in Cleveland. He won the ear of his listeners and viewers because they could trust him. It is that admirable trait that we will miss with his retirement, but it is also what has earned him this retirement--and no more early morning wake-up calls. John, I wish you all the best in your retirement. Thank you for all you have done for your listeners, viewers, and for the city of Cleveland.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most concerning issues our country faces today, an issue that Chairman Harkin particularly has been outspoken on, and that is the growing retirement crisis. A couple weeks ago I chaired in the Finance Committee the first congressional hearing on the MyRA retirement plan for low- and middle- income workers that President Obama proposed in his 2014 State of the Union Address. We will explore some of the issues, especially the Harkin legislation, later. But I want to talk for a moment about that hearing. We know for many Americans, the traditional three-legged retirement system--Social Security, defined pension benefit, and personal retirement savings--that three-legged stool is simply no longer working. For many, two of those legs are gone, and the third leg--the Social Security monthly payment for low-income workers--is, frankly, way too short. We know that Social Security remains the safeguard of retirement security for working-class families. But, as I said, it was never meant to be the only method of saving for retirement. As we emerge from the greatest recession since the Great Depression, the private retirement system is not working. Over the last 30 years, the defined pension benefit has, for far too many people, disappeared. The new system of tax incentives for 401(k)s and IRAs only works if you are middle income, typically, or wealthier. The top fifth--the top quintile, if you will--of households hold three- quarters of all 401(k) and IRA assets. The average worker nearing retirement--believe this--has $12,000 in savings. So the question our subcommittee asked was: What do we do? One point of bipartisan agreement is that Social Security works. Witnesses from Vanguard to senior advocates agree on that point. We heard testimony from the left and from the right, from the private sector and from the Treasury Department. Everyone agreed that for low- income workers, Social Security is the most important and the most reliable way to guarantee a secure retirement. But it is not enough. An upper income worker, once receiving Social Security, may get as much as $2,000 or more a month in Social Security earned benefits, while a low-income worker, who is used to receiving $9 or $10 or $11 an hour or less--even though working as many as 25 or 30 years--may get less than $1,000 a month in Social Security. That is the only wealth, that is the only income, so often, those in the bottom half have. The only question, obviously, is whether the benefit is adequate. Too often it is not. Two-thirds of low-income families are at risk of not having enough income to maintain anything close to their standard of living in retirement. Expanding Social Security could be the difference between a modest retirement--an earned modest retirement--and living in poverty. The hearing discussed the administration's new MyRA accounts. ``MyRA'' stands for ``my retirement account''--a play, obviously, on the words of the IRA, the individual retirement account. It represents a small but important first step. Access to tax preferenced retirement accounts must not be something workers receive when they cross the threshold into the middle class but a tool that helps them start their journey into the middle class. There is no easy fix to retirement savings. But in a system where we primarily administer our programs to encourage private retirement accounts through the Tax Code, we need to make sure the incentives are going to the people who need them. So what we are doing through the Tax Code, as Senator Cardin from Maryland, who has been a long-time advocate of stronger, better retirement security for seniors--and he attended our subcommittee hearing; he is a member of the Finance Committee--are the issues we need to work on. When President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, he said: ``This law represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but is by no means complete.'' The same could be said, maybe even more so, for our retirement system today. That structure is still being built. It is up to this body to ensure that it is built, that it does not collapse in the meantime, and that we can bring more retirement security to far more Americans who have worked their entire work lives. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, when we think of those who provide treatment to our loved ones, we think of registered nurses like Ann Wayt--a long-time staff member of Affinity Medical Center in Massillon, OH. Ms. Wayt has earned both the Affinity Medical Center Nurse Excellence Award and the esteemed Cameos of Caring award from the University of Akron's College of Nursing. Patients and fellow nurses in the hospital's orthopedic unit, were touched daily by Ms. Wayt's professionalism and care. Several of Ms. Wayt's coworkers have referred to her as a role model. It does not come as a surprise that a nurse who cares so much about her patients also cares about her fellow workers and their working conditions. Collective bargaining in health care isn't just about a paycheck. It is about staffing levels, patient safety, and ensuring health care quality. For years, joining a union was a ticket to the middle class and ensured that those who work hard and take responsibility can still get ahead. However, on September 26, 2012, Ann was fired by Community Health Systems, the hospital's parent company, shortly after she rallied with co-workers to organize a collective voice for better, safer workplace conditions and patient care. In fact, Ms. Wayt was fired by the hospital the day before the nurses voted to form a collective bargaining unit. Though other grounds were given, both the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, and the Federal Court ruled Ms. Wayt was fired because she was a lead organizer for her fellow nurses. We have seen too many attacks on workers' rights in recent years. We have seen too many efforts to hamstring the NLRB and its ability to protect the rights of workers, and we have seen too many people fired for engaging in collective activity. Fortunately, the NLRB stepped in and held a hearing last year, and the findings speak for themselves: Community Health Systems was ordered to reinstate Ms. Wayt and to recognize the nurses' union. Community Health Systems refused to comply. In January 2014, Federal Judge John Adams ordered Ann's reinstatement, the recognition of the nurses' collective bargaining unit and for the hospital to stop harassing the nurses because they want a voice at work. Nurses are on the front lines of patient care and deserve to have their voices heard on important, common sense issues such as: Minimum staffing levels based on patient acuity; the right to refuse unsafe assignments; the right to advocate for patients; and lift equipment safety protections for RNs and patients. A 2013 study by the American Nurses Association shows that when workplaces collaborate and listen to worker input, nurses are able to provide care more effectively, and hospitals gain better overall patient outcomes. Welcome back, Ann, and congratulations.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. It is good to see my long-time friend from Massachusetts in the Presiding Officer's chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, President Kennedy, from the Presiding Officer's home State said, if I could paraphrase a bit: A nation reveals itself not only by the men and women it produces but also by the men and women it honors, the men and women it remembers. It is our duty to take care of those who served in uniform. Today, this Nation has revealed itself, and the image is shameful. This body failed to consider the important veterans legislation of this Congress--the most important veterans legislation of this Congress: the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014. I sit on the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee. I am the first Senator from my State ever to sit on that committee for a full term. I consider that an honor. I consider it a privilege to serve those who served us in this Nation. I have worked alongside Republicans and Democrats, as has Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr. We have produced good legislation here. Next to the post-9/11 GI bill, which Senator Webb worked on 4 or 5 years ago, it is the most important advancement in veterans legislation and assistance to our Nation's veterans at my time in the Senate. That is the good news. The bad news is this debate has been about politics, not about veterans. Again, people in Washington want to score political points by filibuster, by obstruction, by blocking good bipartisan legislation, supported by a whole panoply of veterans organizations and community groups. There are those who have concerns who want to add to this bill, concerns that are not related to veterans. To hold up this bill with something unrelated to veterans is unconscionable. Whether you are in Marblehead, MA, or Mansfield, OH, we all have heard our constituents say: Why do they attach these unrelated things to legislation instead of voting them up or down on their merits? That is what people want to do here. Those who want to filibuster this bill are the people who want to add things to the bill that have nothing to do with serving our veterans. This legislation by itself improves vital programs to honor our commitment to those who served in uniform and for those who care for our veterans. Whether it is a community-based outpatient clinic in Zanesville or Chillicothe or Springfield, whether it is a VA center in Dayton or Chillicothe or Cleveland, we care about those who care for our veterans, many of whom are veterans themselves, and we take care of those veterans. This corrects errors in programs and benefits and, as I said, has widespread support in the veterans community. The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America all support this legislation. I will not go through a lot of the details we have discussed before that Senator Sanders brought to the floor, but I want to talk about a couple. This bill renews our VOW to Hire Heroes Act by reauthorizing provisions such as the VRAP, the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program. This program retrains unemployed veterans for high-demand occupations. I traveled across Ohio throughout 2012 spreading the word about VRAP, encouraging our veterans to apply. Ohio veterans applied in larger numbers than our State's population would suggest because of the outreach of so many in encouraging people to sign up for VRAP. I met veterans such as Everett Chambers in Cleveland, who used VRAP funds to get retrained as an electrical engineering technician at Cuyahoga Community College, or Tri-C. I remember meeting a veteran in Youngstown who went back to school because of VRAP and got the opportunity to work at a health care center in information technology. We know VRAP works. It helps our veterans get back to work. It lowers the unacceptably high unemployment rate for recently separated servicemembers who have so much to offer employers. This program is aimed for those veterans who are a little bit older who are no longer eligible for the GI bill and those veterans who have been out of the service for a while. But it does not stop there. It adds other important improvements in education benefits, in reproductive health, in the delivery of care and benefits to veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military. Too many Members in this body will say they support the programs in this bill but that finding the money to do so is not possible. So they are for the bill, they say, until they are not. Well, there is a disconnect between what they say and what they do. Those same elected leaders--those same elected leaders who say: I am for this bill, but we can't pay for it, so we can't pass it--those same people want to give tax breaks to companies that take jobs and factories overseas when we say we cannot find the money to provide a caregiver the support he needs to care for his wife, a veteran. We fight a decade-long war in Afghanistan that goes unpaid for and we cannot find the resources to ensure the very people who fought that war will be cared for. It would be a little more simple than that. When a company closes down in Springfield, or Springfield, MA, and moves to Wuhan, China, or Shihan, China, they can deduct the cost of the plant shutdown in one of the Springfields and they can deduct the cost of building the new plant in Wuhan, China. That is a loophole we could close. It would mean more companies would stay in Springfield, OH, or Springfield, MA, helping our communities, helping our tax base, and it would mean those companies would not be deducting that move and that money could then be used for these veterans programs. But no, they say: We can't find the money. It is important to end this filibuster and pass this bill. Buying Government Mr. President, I heard my friend from Kansas talk about what he calls the personal attacks on two I believe he said great Americans, but Americans nonetheless, which they are, and prominent businesspeople in Kansas and around the country. These two Americans--and this is not personal to me--these two Americans have spent millions of dollars trying to defeat me, as they have tried to defeat a number of people in this Chamber who think government has a role in preserving Medicare and government should provide funds for Head Start and government should give tax breaks to low-income people, not just rich people, and government should play a role, as the Presiding Officer has, in a cleaner environment and deal with climate change. But I disagree with these two Americans. I do not personally dislike them or personally know them. But I do know they have spent millions of dollars in ads, millions of dollars in an unprecedented way--they and a small number of people--to try to hijack our political system. People are sick and tired, first, of the TV ads; second, of the lies in the TV ads; and, third, that there are people--a few billionaires-- who are trying to buy elections in this country, billionaires who are looking for tax breaks for themselves, billionaires who are looking for the opportunity to weaken environmental laws, billionaires who want to kill the union movement in this country. I want to read from one editorial that was printed in, I believe, Roll Call or The Hill newspaper talking about some of these ads. Here is what this editorial said: Were this an ad for Stainmaster carpet, a Koch product-- Koch, this is the family, the brothers-- Were this an ad for Stainmaster carpet, a Koch product, Federal Trade Commission guidelines would require the ad to ``conspicuously disclose that the persons in such advertisements are not actual consumers.'' Moreover, the FTC would require them to either demonstrate that these results of ObamaCare are typical or make clear in the ad that they are not. Needless to say, the ad meets none of these requirements, thereby conforming to the legal definition of false advertising. That tells you a lot. I rest my case in just those terms. It is never personal. It should never be. It is whom you fight for in this body and what you fight against. But there are people in this country who think they can buy our government. We have seen that throughout our history. We have seen the oil companies try to do everything they can to at least if not buy government take a long-term lease. We saw the robber barons 100 years ago, including one from my State, Mark Hanna, who used to try to control the legislature. They used to say that he wore President McKinley like a watchfob when he was Governor of Ohio. So we have seen this in the past. We have never seen it in such an incredibly big way as we have seen it in the last few election cycles. Minimum Wage Mr. President, I want to speak about the minimum wage, something this Chamber, frankly, needs to do. The Presiding Officer in his time in the House saw, as I did, a number of Members of Congress who would vote to raise their own pay but then vote against a minimum-wage increase, which I find morally inconsistent or worse. But let me make a couple comments about that. In 1991, the average price of gas was $1.15 a gallon, a loaf of bread around 70 cents, a dozen eggs about $1. The tipped minimum wage--that is the minimum wage for people who work in a diner who get tips, people who push a wheelchair in an airport who rely on tips, a valet, someone who does nail manicures, people who work in jobs where they are receiving tips--the minimum wage in 1991 for those workers at the local diner or the local airport was $2.13 an hour--in 1991. Today, the average price of gas is $3.30 a gallon; a loaf of bread costs $1.35, more or less; eggs are about $2. The tipped minimum wage is still $2.13. Its value has fallen by 36 percent in real terms. Think about that--$2.13 an hour. Americans who work hard and take responsibility should be able to take care of their families. That is why I support the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three 95-cent increments and then provide annual cost-of-living increases linked to changes in the cost of living. The bill would also gradually raise the Federal minimum wage for tipped workers at the diner, the valet, the person doing the manicure from $2.13 an hour to 70 percent of the regular minimum wage. In 1980 the minimum wage for tipped workers was 60 percent of the regular minimum wage. It is now less than 30 percent of the regular minimum wage. In Canada the minimum wage in Ontario is $11; the tipped minimum wage is $8.90. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world--except for Canada--where a large number of workers must depend on tips for a large share of their income. So in Canada the tipped minimum wage is only slightly less than the minimum wage. In the United States it is less than 30 percent of the minimum wage. In the rest of the world it is 100 percent of the minimum wage. Interestingly, servers in the United States, people who work at diners or restaurants in the United States--when a European comes across the ocean and eats at a restaurant in Cleveland or in Cincinnati, the European will usually leave a really small tip because they are not used to tipping. The American worker relies on those tips for any kind of a decent wage. Ohio's current tipped minimum wage is a little higher; it is $3.98. That is still not enough. These are men and women who have bills to pay and families to support. Most tipped workers do not work at fine dining establishments where the average bill is $50, $60, or $70, so someone is making pretty good money on tips. A server in a high-class restaurant, an expensive restaurant, can make hundreds of dollars in a night. But for a server who works in a diner where four people come in, get coffee, spend an hour there, and have a bill of $6, the tip might be $1. That person has worked for an hour. They are not getting to the minimum wage with the tipped wage, and, often, neither is the valet or the person at the airport who is getting someone off the plane and pushing their wheelchair to their connecting flight. They often do not even receive tips because so often the person in the wheelchair never thinks about it, does not know that these are tipped workers, that they are only making $2, $3, or $4 an hour. They are working hard. We work hard for the money we make. We are very well paid here. It is a privilege to serve in the Senate. But when you think about those workers who are working very hard, their minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. There is something not right about that. One more point. The Center for American Progress completed an analysis of 20 years' worth of minimum wage increases in States across the country. They conclude that there is no clear evidence that the minimum wage leads to further job loss during periods of high unemployment. The opponents of raising the minimum wage say that it is going to cause price increases and that there are going to be layoffs. But what is interesting is that every time there is a minimum wage bill we are debating, the opponents say: You know, these businesses are going to have to raise their prices or lay people off to pay the minimum wage. But when an executive gets a $1 million bonus, when a CEO gets paid $12 million and gets a raise to $16 million the next year, I never hear them say: Boy, they are going to have to lay people off to pay those executive salaries. It is only when it is low-wage workers that my friends on that side of the aisle stand and say: This is going to hurt business. This is going to hurt commerce. This is going to hurt employment. Their arguments are weak. Their arguments are, in many cases, a bit hardhearted. I wish my colleagues would do what Pope Francis said. Recently, Pope Francis exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock; go out among your parishioners and listen to them and try to understand their lives and try to live like them. Well, a lot of those parishioners are minimum wage workers or slightly above minimum wage. Smelling like the flock might help some of my colleagues come to the conclusion that raising the minimum wage is important to do, is humane, is right for our country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of Senator Hagan, who has been a leader in the Senate on issues for our veterans, for their health care and Camp Lejeune and so many other ways, looking out for pensions and health care for those who have earned it and sacrificed for us. She, as do I, believes it is an honor to honor those who have sacrificed for us.