vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 57, the -- 67, the nays are 32, and the bill is -- as amend, is passed. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i move to reconsider. and lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator prosecute maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. cardin: madam president, on tuesday evening, president obama in his state of the union address made the point that america must be the land of opportunity for all, and he acknowledged, quite frankly, that for many families in this country, the american dream is just that -- a dream. and many families have lost hope

that their children or grandchildren will be able to achieve the american dream. president obama made the point that if we all work together that the outlook for this country is strong and that we can make not only the american dream something that people can continue to believe but can become a reality for more and more american families. but he also expressed the reality of where we are. the facts indicate that intergenerational mobility -- that is, a child born into poverty, their ability to move up the economic ladder -- hasn't changed over the last several decades. the american dream has become just that for too many families. let me just point out some of the income disparity that we've seen grow in the united states. and some of this is very understandable. it's understandable that people get paid differently. some people work a lot harder, some people come up with

incredibly ingenius ways of doing things. that's the american way, developing new technologies. people are willing to take risks, greater risks than others. and, yes, the reward will be greater. so we do expect and we do appreciate and we do look up to people who can be very successful in our economic system. but what is not understandable is how we've seen a growth in the income disparities among americans during good times and bad times. between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% in income in america saw their income go up 275%, whereas the three middle quintiles -- this is what we usually consider to be the middle class, those from 20% to 80% -- they saw their income go up only 40%. this is a period of economic growth in this country, from

1979. to see your income only go up 40%, whereas the wealthiest are going up close to 300%, that should be of concern to the people of this country. well, as we all know, in 2007 we went through a recession. and since that recession, median income in this country has declined. it went down 31% during the recession. but, for the wealthiest, it actually went up. it went up 31% for the wealthiest. the median income went down for most americans. so we have a problem. during good times we're seeing income -- wealth get larger. in bad times we see wealthy people protected, whereas middle-income families are doing worse. we even have what's known as the birth lottery. if you're born into poverty, we know you have a hard time getting out of poverty today. but if you are in certain communities, it is even much more difficult. so president obama was right to

concentrate on america as opportunity for all. how can we get a growing middle class in this country? what can woe d we do to help eve do better in our country? many countries are doing much better than we are. this disparity strikes at the heart of who we are as a nation. we believe that if you work harksd yohard, you play accordie rules, you should be able to you can is need in country. for people families, that's not the reality. what can we do to make a difference? i know we've had a lost talk about what we can do to help in that regard, what we can do make it better. it's very important to do that for the values of our country. it's important for the families that are affected. but it's also important for our economy. so, yes, we need to increase opportunity for middle-income families and more people can live the american dream. we need to do that because that's what we stand for as a country. and that's our values. but we also need do this for our

economy. it's very interesting that the companies that are making money today, are ready to invest in the grog of ou growth of our ecy need consumers, they need people who will buy the all, they need people who will eat in the restaurants, they need people who will go on vacations, they need people who have buy clothing in the stores. and if they don't have the income do it, they don't buy the products, our economy doesn't grow. so a growing middle complas is a growing middle class is critically important. we've already taken one very important step with the passage of the affordable care act. the affordable care act dealt with health care costs. and we've seen a reduction in the growth rate of health care costs over the last couple of years. it's a major cost in our -- among american families. it's been growing and growing every year. well, we're now starting to sigh a slowdown in that. why? because we're dealing with health delivery. we're trying to make the health

care system more efficient by looking at the total care of an individual rather than just looking at a specific episode. we're trying to reduce readmissions, we're dealing with healthy lifestyles, the affordable care act rewards all of those issues. and we make quality, affordable insurance available to all americans. last year nearly 2 million families had to go through bankruptcy in america because of health care costs. last year it was estimated that 56 million american families struggled to pay their medical bills. so this is an issue that we really need to look at from the point of view of helping middle-income families. alleallenalan krueger, the econ, observed, "we helped the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class by lowering the cost of health care

costs, by protestin preventing h preexisting condition from being allowed health insurance, and by providing tax subsidies to small businesses and lower-income workers to purchase insurance." so the point that mr. krueger was make something that when we eliminate preexisting conditions, when we have health exchanges that allow individuals and small businesses to be able to give competitive rates, we are helping the middle-income growth in america. well, there's a lot more we need to do in addition to just the health care problems we have in this country. the president mentioned during his state of the union address that america need a pay raise. americans need a pay raise. i couldn't agree with him more. in 1968 -- madam president, that was 46 years ago -- the minimum wage in this country was set at $1.60 per hour. if you adjust that for

inflation, the minimum wage today would be $10.77. the minimum wage in america is not $10.77. it's $7.25 per hour. the tip employee minimum wage is $2.13. for a full-time worker at the minimum wage -- the $ 7.25 per hour wage -- woos would be makia little over $15,000 a year. you cannot support your family on $15,000 a year. the national low-income housing coalition has done a study, and there's not a single state in the union where you can afford affordable housing -- and they define that as a two-bedroom housing unit on the rental market. there isn't a single state in

the nation where the $15,000-a-year income allows you to be able to afford that housing for your family. madam president, the american dream is on life support. we need to do more about that. one thing we can easily do in this congress this year is raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. we also need to adjust it for inflation. what does that mean? we've only adjusted minimum wage i think three times in the last 30-some years. we need to have the minimum wage keep up with inflation, and that way we don't have to deal with abrupt increases. we'll have gentle increases, which any is better for our economy to start off with but it also keeps the minimum wage what is we want to set it at. it doesn't erode the year after we've passed it. i think that makes sense. let me just dispel some of the myths about the minimum wage. i hear frequently, well, we're

only talking about teenagers or those in their early 20's. this is their first job. you know, it's not so serious. well, let's look at the facts. the average age -- the average age age o of a person earning mm wage is 35. median age is 31. 56% are women. only 50% of our workforce are women, but at the minimum wage it's much more likely to be a woman than a man earning the minimum wage. 28% of the people who are earning the minimum wage have children. these are families trying to live on minimum wage. increasing the minimum wage will help to grow the middle class, help our economy. a $10.10 increase in minimum wage will generate $34 billion

to our economy. $34 billion, you know what that means to the local businesses that are there? you know what that means for our economy? i know our economy is on the right path right now, but we need to help it along. we don't have enough jobs in america. $35 billion will allow that local supermarket or that restaurant or that business owner to hire some more people, creating more jobs, helping our economy continue to grow. people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. today with the current minimum wage, and even with the tax credits we have available, most individuals will live in poverty. that's unacceptable. at $10.10 per hour, we will be above the poverty line with the tax credits. that's what we should be. play according to rules, should be able to succeed.

work 40 hours a week, shouldn't have to live in poverty, not in the united states of america. and americans get this. polls have shown over and over again that the overwhelming majority of americans support a reasonable adjustment in the minimum wage. the gallup poll had it at 76% of americans believe that congress should pass an increase in the minimum wage. president obama has already taken action, and i applaud him for that. he's going to be signing an executive order so those people who are federal workers from a contractor -- federal contractor worker, someone who is getting money from the federal government to hire people, they are going to have to pay at the minimum $10.10 minimum wage. we should do the same for all workers in this country and we have it in our power to do it. there's a lot of other things the president mentioned. there are many other issues i think we need to deal with for our agenda for a growing middle class. we clearly need to do a better

job in education. education is the key for opportunity in america. it really does open up doors. we want to create jobs but we need people who are trained to be competitive for these jobs, particularly in a global economy. so we need people trained. and the president is right to say it starts at a very early age. pre-k. and the pre-k through 12, we have to insist quality education. we have some great schools in america, but not all children have access to those good schools. so we need to do a better job educating our children in all fields, all fields. stem is very important. so is the humanities, so is the arts. we've got to do a better job in our pre-k through 12 and in higher education we've got to make it much more affordable. how do you expect to get a growing middle class when so many families are looking at tens of thousands of dollars of educational bills that they have no idea how they're going to be able to pay for. or a young worker saddled with

these large debts affecting what career they're going to go into. we've got to invest in quality higher education but also affordable higher education. that is why it is important for us to reauthorize the higher education act to demand that it there be value given for the money we invest in higher education and we make it affordable for our american families. we need a modern infrastructure and the president talked about that. good jobs go to where there are good roads, good bridges and good transit systems. almost any morning today try to get around this region and you know how important the transit system is. in my own state i know that we have three major transit projects we need to get funded so people won't spend hours in gridlock in the morning. we need modern infrastructure. in my own state of maryland we've had tremendous problems with our water infrastructure. we've had roads flooded. we've had homes damaged.

we need to rebuild our water infrastructure to make sure people get clean, safe drinking water and that we take care of our water infrastructure in america. we need a modern energy grid in this country which is critically important for economic growth. as president obama said, good jobs go to where there's good infrastructure, and we need to do a better job with the infrastructure in america. we'll have a chance again in this congress. we have the reauthorize of the surface transportation act. we have a wrda bill to get done. it is in conference today. that's things we could do that will help grow a middle class. i think one of the lines that got one of the biggest applause in his state of the union address when he said we've got to restore the cuts we should have never made to basic research, national institutes of health headquartered in my state -- they are in every state but they are headquartered in

maryland. the work they do is critically important tpo economic growth in our country. we've got to invest in research. we need a progressive tax structure. more and more economists are telling us that you have a growing middle class. we need the revenue. but you've got to do it in a way that is fair and rewards the middle class. middle class families don't take advantage of tax breaks, tax loopholes. the president also mentioned that for a growing midclass, we want to make sure they have a job, want to make sure they're trained for that job, make sure they get rewarded for that job with fair wages and make sure they have secure retirement. we're not dodd enough to -- we're not doing enough. the best way to do it is through retirement savings. this is not a partisan issue.

let me quote from a former president, theodore roosevelt, when theodore roosevelt said this country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in. i think that was what president obama was talking about when he said opportunity for all. that's what this nation stands for. and we have all the reason to believe that we can accomplish this for the people of america, but we need to work together with the president to implement commonsense changes so that we can have a growing middle class in america. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, earlier this month a quinnipiac poll asked voters what the top priority they had was for president obama and members of congress in 2014. 18% said health care. 16% said jobs and unemployment. 15% said the economy in general. only 1% of the voters said income inequality. in other words, 99% of the voters in this quinnipiac poll felt that income and equality should not be our top priority and that rather, they would like for us to focus on not just the symptoms of the problem but the root causes. how do we get people back to work? how do we increase upward income mobility, letting people climb

that ladder of success so that they can pursue their own american dream? and yet the most significant economic proposal president obama mentioned in his state of the union was aimed not at fixing our health care system, create jobs or boosting tkpwroel, but rather at this idea of reducing income income inequality. the american people are pretty darned smart and they understand that we need to grow the size of the pie, not just cut the pie up into different pieces. and the best way to do that is by guaranteeing that people have the opportunity to pursue their dreams, not some socialistic notion of let's slice the pie up here in washington, d.c.. no one does better under that kind of system. but i also mentioned the president's, aapparently

addressing income equality. i heard my friend from ph-d address the minimum wage as if washington can wave a magic wand and say you're going to now start paying your employees 40% more than you did yesterday because the big, bad federal government orders you to do so. and they act as if that would have no other consequences or costs. well, as i mentioned yesterday, there are studies that have been done that indicate that if you raise the minimum wage up to $10.10, the president argued for, that testimony dislocate as many as 700,000 people from their existing jobs. let's just think about this for a minute. if a small employer has a business, let's say they have a

fast-food restaurant. i've got hundreds of them, maybe thousands of them in my state. and an employer is worried about bringing money in the front door from selling their product, selling the food at the fast-food restaurant but they know shell have expenses. some of that is the materials, the energy they put together. a significant part of that is going to be the cost of labor, paying people to work there. if you automatically tell that small employer, instead of $7 an hour you know have to pay 40% more, what is that going to do to their ability not tonal hire and grow their business, but to maintain their current level of employment? well, perhaps there is a reason why the president has counter

intuitively decide to come up with a quick good, food bad patch like the minimum wage. perhaps he's decided to focus on this because maybe he's feeling a little bit guilty about his record over the last four and five years. according to "the new york times," hardly a bastion of conservative propaganda, the trend of rising inequality, "appears to have accelerated under the obama administration." the president appeared to concede that much in his stays of the union speech. one measure of the income gap suggests the inequality of wages has increased 4 times faster under president obama than it did the 39th president of the united states, george w. bush. the best thing we can do to

support upward mobility is not to address the symptom -- lower wages -- but to address the root cause and expand the economy and jobs and to give people the tools they tphaoeud to qualify for which they don't have good high paying jobs tpofp -- don't have the skills currently. san jacinto college does a really good job of training people for the skills they need in order to qualify for good, high-paying jobs. that is where we ought to focus our effort, not on the federal government trying to fix prices when it comes to wages and actually ends up making things worse. unfortunately, the president seems incapable of embracing an economic strategy that doesn't involve more government, and particularly more government spending and more government control over the private sector. my constituents in texas tell me one reason they don't -- that

they're feeling uncertain about the future and the economy, particularly if they're a business owner, is they don't know what kind of new taxes, they don't know what kind of new regulation, they don't know what new thing like obamacare will be thrust on them that will totally change their business model and cause them to go bankrupt perhaps because they hadn't counted on what the federal government might do to them as opposed to the market. but we tried the president's approach. big government, spending, stimulus spending and the like. and that's a big reason why we're suffering through the slowest economic recovery since the great depression. and the highest and longest period of high unemployment since that same time. even when the president seems to be supporting a fresh approach, he's actually selling old ideas in a new package.

i remember the president talking, for example, about tax reform. he called for abolishing loopholes in the tax code and simultaneously lowering the marginal rates. well, that sounds pretty good. i would support that, and i believe we could get a strong bipartisan support for that kind of tax reform. low -- lower the rates, cut out a lot of the underbrush of tax expenditures. they are much like the president's own bipartisan fiscal commission, the debt commission. the simpson-bowles commission recommended in september of 2010. but what did the president do when his own bipartisan fiscal commission reported to him a bipartisan plan to deal with the debt and to get the economy moving again? well, he ignored it. he walked away from it. well, unfortunately, the president when he talks about

tax reform is actually talking about a way to raise taxes, to raise revenue. and this is what i mean by that. he talks about tax reform as a vehicle for a tax increase, even though he has already raised hardworking american families' taxes by $1.7 trillion while he has been president. so the american people are plenty smart and they can figure out that if you're going to eliminate their deductions and tax credits and the like, that you have got to bring down their rate or else it will actually be a tax increase. well, there's another good reason why we need to do the kind of tax reform that i am talking about and that occasionally the president talks about when he's talking about pro-growth tax reform, and that is to make it revenue neutral, to bring down the rates, which will encourage people to invest,

create jobs because they know the incentives will be there for them. they will be able to reap the fruits of their labor and of their risk, and that's the kind of tax reform both political parties supported back in 1986 and the kind of tax reform we need to do again. but sadly, the president and the majority leader have chosen to hijack this wonderful idea of tax reform while demanding another trillion-dollar tax increase. meanwhile, the president wants to use the tax code to pick winners and losers by discriminating against certain industries and increasing government subsidies to others. i heard him talk about the oil and gas industry again. this is actually one of the brightest sectors of the economy, that the president wants to take the goose that laid the golden egg and to burden it with additional regulations and taxes.

truth be known, 80% of the tax benefits that flowed to the energy sector flow to the so-called green energy sector. many of which i think are important, but we have to be realistic. we're actually writing them a check as opposed to the millions and millions and literally hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue generated from the oil and gas industry, and if there is one sector of the energy economy that is creating more jobs and opportunity and provides more chance for us to reduce our imports from dangerous parts of the world, it's our domestic energy sector. but the president wants to raise their taxes. so the president acknowledged on tuesday night what he called average wage -- what has happened during his five-year tenure as president. he said average wages have

barely budged. inequality has deepened and upward mobility has stalled. in other words, he agrees with the assessment of the "new york times." the problem is the solution to that condition would actually make things worse and not better. so i actually agree with the president's assessment. during his five years as president, average wages have barely budged, inequal has deepened and upward mobility has stalled. but why in the world would we want to add another trillion-dollar tax burden on an economy and on the productive sector of our economy at a time when average wages have barely budged, inequality has deepened and upward mobility has stalled? why in the world would we jeopardize the renaissance in american oil and gas production which represents one of our few economic bright spots, and why in the world would the president continue to reject the keystone x.l. pipeline from canada which

would create thousands of well-paying jobs. you will notice by the way, madam president, that president obama said nothing, zero, zip, nada about the keystone x.l. pipeline in his state of the union. it really is just mind-boggling. i'd like to close by noting something the president said about health care. this is another interesting thing in his state of the union speech. it was about 40 minutes into his speech before he even mentioned health care when that is the big looming 800-pound gorilla in the room. people are anxious about this rollout of obamacare. first the web site, then the cancellations, then the sticker shock. people are worried about it. but the president waited 40 minutes into his state of the union before even addressing it. but here is what the president said to congressional republicans. he said if you have specific plans to cut costs, cover more

people, increase choice, tell america what you do differently. you know the problem is, madam president, we have been telling the president that since 2009, but he has refused to listen. he's refused to listen and he is still refusing to listen. so he went on to say the republicans owe it to the american people to say what they are for, not just what they are against. i agree with the president. and we have and continue to do so, but he continues not to listen. republicans have been offering health care alternatives for at least the last five years. most recently just this last week -- or just earlier this week, three of my colleagues, senator hatch, senator burr, senator coburn introduced a health reform blueprint that would reduce costs, expand quality insurance coverage and improve patient access to

doctors and hospitals. if president obama wasn't aware of this, then perhaps he needs to spend a little bit more time outside the white house and the democratic echo chamber and actually engage with members on this side of the aisle in serious discussions. it's really easy to knock down a straw man but only when it's not true, but given the massive problems with obamacare, not just with the web site, not just with the cancellations, not just with the sticker shock, not just with the fact that you can't keep your doctor if you like them, but given all the massive problems with the implementation of obamacare, along with all of the massive problems still plaguing our economy and stalling wages, it's time for the president to show some real leadership. and you know, the way he could show that leadership is simply to get in a room with members of the opposing party and to say, you know, let's figure this out.

let me just say that this plan or this blueprint that senator coburn, burr and hatch have introduced is just one of dozens of ideas that would actually bring down the costs of health insurance, which would make it more affordable, which means more people could buy it and more people would get covered. but the difference between our approach and the president's approach under obamacare is under obamacare, the government gets to choose. under our alternatives, you and your family get to choose what is best for you. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: madam president, i rise today to express my

support for the agricultural act of 2014, which is commonly known as the farm bill. it's been quite a journey over the past three years, and the bill before us is the result of many long hours of hard work. this bill, i understand, will be on the floor come monday, and hopefully we'll have a vote on final passage on this bill on tuesday. i believe this bill achieves the promise of reform while tackling the single largest domestic issue facing our country, the debt and the deficit. i commend chairwoman stabenow, chairman lucas, ranking members cochran and peterson as well as my fellow conferees for finishing what has been a very difficult and complex task. it's my sincere hope that the senate will adopt this bipartisan conference report, a bill that reforms critical farm programs, strengthens the nation's food security, protects the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers and preserves our efforts to remain good stewards

of the environment. the bill not only works to protect producers in a time of need but it also serves as a safety net for the nutritional well-being of low-income americans. our nutrition assistance programs play a key role in ensuring that needy americans have access to food they need to lead healthy, productive lives. we have worked to find savings while still ensuring those in greatest need are provided a helping hand. i commend the important reinvestments made in this bill to local food banks which provide support for so many of our communities. agriculture producers face a combination of challenges, such as unpredictable weather, variable input costs and market volatility that all combined to determine laws in any given year. the 2008 farm bill provided a strong safety net for producers, and i believe the farm bill

before us adheres to and honors the same commitment that we made five years ago in that farm bill. notably, congress has taken a fresh look in our commodity programs. maintaining a safety net is critical to our nation's farmers and the bill before us eliminates direct payments while enhancing options for farmers to manage their risk. we do so in a way that doesn't disadvantage one region over another, a formula i thought was lacking in versions of this bill in the last congress. since then, i have stressed to my colleagues the importance of producer choice, and i am truly pleased with the options that are built into this piece of legislation. one part of this bill i am uniquely proud of concerns cotton, a crop that is particularly close to my heart and close to my home. more than any other part of this

bill, the upland cotton program represents fundamental reform. it meets our commitments in the world trade organization and will resolve our dispute with brazil. moreover, our nation's farmers and landowners deserve to have long-term conservation programs that have certainty to effectively and efficiently manage their land and resources for the years ahead. locally led conservation is critical in supporting america's long-term environmental and economic stability. not only do farm bill conservation programs play a key role in supporting clean air, clean water and productive souls, they also help producers avoid unnecessary regulation and support our nation's long-term economic and food security. i also want to highlight language in this bill that links conservation compliance to crop insurance. my amendment led many leading

agricultural, conservation and crop insurance groups to come together and forge a compromise, ensuring crop insurance doesn't compromise our national -- natural resources for generations to come. it also provides an opportunity for wildlife habitat to flourish and thus this farm bill is supported by virtually every hunting or fishing organization in the country. while all of the regulatory issues i supported were not able to be included in the final conference report, i am happy that language was included to clarify forest roads are not point sources and are not subject to permit requirements under the clean water act. we must do what we can to protect producers, businesses and all of our constituents from overburdensome regulations coming out of e.p.a. after all, i am confident that

we have balanced the needs and interests between commodities and regions. ultimately, the reason we are here is to represent those who work the land each and every day, to ensure that americans continue to have the highest quality agriculture products in the world. contrary to popular belief, food does not come from the grocery store. for every piece of fresh produce purchased, every pound of meat, every cotton t-shirt and for every jar of peanut butter, there is a farmer or a rancher somewhere in america working each and every day and working very hard to get it there. i hope that we never take for granted the ability to get safe, quality food to stores across america for consumers to purchase. now, this will be my fourth and final farm bill as a member of congress. as a former chairman and ranking member of the senate agriculture

committee, i am very proud of this bill and of all previous farm bills that i have had a privilege to be a part of. as i have said, as i have been around the country as a member of congress over the last 20 years, that when i leave congress, as i will at the end of this year, i want to make sure that we have got strong agricultural policies in place so that young people like my grandson john and my grandson jay, if they make a decision to come back to the farm, then they are going to have an incentive to do so and that they will be able to provide a quality of life for their family very much like the quality of life that they have today. good agricultural policy will incentivize those young people to stay in rural america and stay on the farm, and i think this farm bill does that. there is no single piece of legislation that impacts as many

people in my state as this one. i believe it is vitally important to the farmers, ranchers, and consumers of georgia as well as those across this great nation that we support this legislation. in closing let me say it's been my diswingt honor to represent and work with the people and the farmers and ranchers of georgia for 20 years. you provide the highest quality food, feed and fiber in the world. thanks for the opportunity to represent you in congress and to be a member of what i think is an outstanding agricultural committee. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: before he leaves the

fluoride like to thank the senator from georgia through the chair for all of his extraordinary leadership on the agriculture committee for so many years. as a new member of that committee, i saw firsthand how important he was to our getting to a compromise. so through the chair i want to say thank you to him for his great service and particularly his great service to farmers and ranchers all across his home state but also across the great state of colorado. and i, too, wanted to speak today on this compromise bill, this bipartisan bill, this bill, this farm bill that has such a long history. in 2012 the senate agriculture committee was the only committee in the entire united states congress with a bipartisan deficit plan. it passed the senate, the house didn't take it up, it was an enormous disservice i think to rural america we didn't pass this bill two years ago particularly when folks in my

region, farmers and ranchers are facing an unprecedented drought. i remember distinctly being out during the summer of 2012 on the eastern plains of colorado and the western slope of colorado right before the presidential election, and while this town was completely consumed with who is going to win that election, people in colorado weren't talking about it at all. they were asking why in the world can't we pass the farm bill through the united states congress and get it to the president's desk. now, finally after a series of extensions and hatch measures, we've actually got to conference committee. i think it may be the only conference committee in this congress -- this is how we used to do business around here, i'm told. i was glad to be a member of the one conference committee in this congress. we got to a committee on a long-term bill. madam president, i've said on this floor before talking about the land of flickering lights.

this town has become will place where the standard of success is keeping the lights on two more weeks or two more months. here we have an honest to goodness five-year farm bill agreed agreed to by both republicans and democrats, passed by the house of representatives and next week we will have a chance to pass it here. and a lot of that is thanks to the tireless work of chairwoman stabenow and ranking member cochran and the other conferees. we now will have the chance to vote. madam president, our rural communities are demanding that certainty come with this long-term bill. under the last farm bill, and history ought to be our guide here -- our farmers and ranchers were remarkably productive. they delivered the strongest five-year stretch of farm exports in the history of the united states of america. now it's time to make reforms to foreign policy and once again

rural america the stability it needs to provide fuel, fuel and fiebor the nation -- fiber to the nation. this bill reflects the values and process we want to see in other areas of the legislation. -- the budget. we came together as democrats and republicans to identify priority, streamline duplication, to get rid of things we didn't need to do anymore and to focus in the areas that were important, to break away from old, inefficient habits, to eliminate for the first time direct payments issued to farmers regardless of economic need or market signals. that's a significant reform. this bill prioritizes what is working for producers instead, namely crop insurance, which is a large part of what keeps farmers in rural economies in business in this country and that's why it's a priority. beyond drop insurance, another key highlight of this bill are

the great tools it includes for livestock, it includes resources for the livestock disaster programs that are critical to southeast colorado where ranchers are battling conditions we haven't seen since the dust bowl. when i visited last august, producers who are facing stubbornly persistent drought and feed shortages, told me nearly 70% of their livestock had been liquidated or relocated from the region in two years. that's part of a boom and bust cycle that comes with our livestock industry that makes it difficult to build for the future. this farm bill couldn't come sooner for colorado's ranchers. beyond livestock disaster, there's a lot to support our ranching community in this bill. we've included a revamped conservation title and i chair that subcommittee that will keep our ranching lands in the west in their current state rather than being divided up for

development. the conference report also carries over important conservation title reforms from the senate bill. notably it carries forward a senate provision to ensure that recipients of government supported crop insurance comply with basic conservation requirements. that measure was the result of a historic agreement between the commodity groups and our conservation groups. it's supported by a wide variety of people from the farm bill bureau to the national wildlife federation. this revamped conservation title is huge for rural america. it's huge for farming and ranching families looking to keep their land in agriculture, it's huge for sportsmen, it's huge for anyone who cares about the long-term health of our soil, our air, and our water, and i want to thank again both the groups that traditional represent producers and the groups that traditionally represent the environmental

community and conservationsist and sportsmen for coming together on scerns reforms. these measures will help improve the efficiency, production of agriculture and improve the quality of the environment in farm country. we recognize that keeping these land scaips in their historical undeveloped state is an economic driver for our state anyway and i suspect for many states for tourism and for wildlife, habitat and i've traveled the state of colorado, farmers and ranchers are constantly talking to me about the importance of conservation, and their commitment to be stewards of the land for the next generation. they highlighted in particular conservation easements which provide the department of agriculture assistance to help landowners voluntarily conserve the farming and ranching heritage of their land and i want to spend a couple of minutes sharing a story that i've told on this floor before

about just one of the many coloradans who have benefited from the easement program. this is a picture of the music meadows ranch, actually i like this photo so much when i was on the floor the last time with it that that i now have a copy of it hanging in my office here in washington. it's outside of west cliff, colorado, at an elevation of 9,000 feet, 4,000 acres to the ranch, ellen ganchow raises some of the finest grass-fed beef in the country. thanks to the grassland reserve program, ellen's ranch has now -- has a permanent conservation easement, providing habitat for elk, mule deer, black bear and mountain lions. species prized by coloradans that contribute millions to our state's economy. thanks to an amendment included in the conference report we'll see even more of these easements

happen on high priority landscapes like the music meadows ranch. this is critical to our legacy to the next generation of coloradans. make sure we can find a way when the land prices are rising the way they are to keep farms and ranches in the hands of our family farmers and our family ranches and that's what this bill will help us do. and i want to thank chairwoman stabenow and senator cochran for working with me to get that amendment approved and carried into the final bill. i would like to thank all the colorado ranchers and sportsmen and advocates of the outdoors for their support drafting this legislation. also important to the west this legislation makes great strides on forest health. this is a huge issue for colorado and all western states as we deal with terrible droughts, overgrown forests and

massive wildfires, a number of which have occurred in colorado. this conference report gives the forest service new tools to treat areas in need of restoration like acreage suffering from the bark beetle. it reauthorizes programs like stewardship contracting and so called good neighbor authority for our national forests. so all in all, i again just want to say thank you to my colleagues on the committee for working so hard together for acknowledging regional interests that we have in the west that may not be shared with everybody, although anybody who is downstream from colorado -- that's basically the entire country -- ought to care about forest health in colorado, about quarter water quality in colorado and i think we were heard in this bill and i deeply appreciate that. the final point i'd like to make, madam president, while i'm sheer is shoog that just came up in the last two weeks

and we were able to resolve. we had an appropriation bills that passed that failed to include a very important provision to states that have a high percentage of their land occupied with federal land and that's the so-called pilt payments, payment in lieu of taxes. this program helps rural counties that contain federal land within their boundaries offset the revenue that they lose because they can't drive -- derive property taxes from that land. dozens of colorado counties derive significant portions of their operating budgets from pilt, and, by the way, they use those operating budgets to help maintain a lot of these federal assets that are out there by, for example, providing search and rescue missions and i can tell you 340es of the people that we're rescuing are not even from colorado. so i'm very, very grateful for

chairwoman stabenow for working with me and other senators from the west to include a pilt extension in the conference report. it's only one year, though, and unlike the five-year farm bill this is not going to give us the predictability we need and i'll continue to work with my senior senator, senator udall and others to make sure people hear the voice of the west in this chamber. finally, this bill reduces the deficit by $23 billion and as i said is going to bring certainty and continued prosperity to rural america from our forests 0 our farms, our ranches and rural communities. it's long overdue. and this bill has been supported across my home state of colorado from the orchards of the grand valley to the wheat fields of washington county and on the editorial pages of the greeley tribune and "the denver post." this is a good bill. it passed the house with strong bipartisan support and i urge a

yes vote when we take up the farm bill conference report next week. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

o quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, i want to share some remarks this afternoon concerning a very important issue and that is the financial condition of working americans. things are not good for them at this point in time. just a few weeks ago, on january 5, jean spurling, the key economic advisor to president barack obama, appeared on cnn's "face the nation." he said -- quote -- "most of the people are desperately looking for jobs." "you know, our economy still three people looking for every job opening." three people looking for every job opening. now it is reported that the house is having a retreat today and they're discussing whether or not to proceed with an

immigration reform -- apparent it will would have to be somewhat like that that passed the senate or it would have no chance of passing the senate -- and they want to move this bill to try to solve a problem out there. but i think it's not practical at this point in time and i want to share some thoughts about what we should consider as we evaluate what a proper immigration flow into the united states is. we're a nation that is founded on immigrants. we believe in that. we admit a million people a year now lawfully and that's the most -- largest number of any country in the world. and we are about to the point and i think have reached it, we have the largest percentage of foreign born in the history of the united states. but so we hear advice from

certain businesses, despite mr. spurling's statement that there are three jobs -- three applicants for every job. this is a post from the c.e.o. of marriott hotels, mr. bill marriott, by all accounts a fine world citizen. he says the house is ready to tackle immigration, that's great. quote -- "as unemployment inches downward, we also need a functioning immigration system that helps us staff positions that might go otherwise unfill unfilled." so he'd like to have even more apparently applicants for the positions and would probably suggest that the republic would be in great danger if there isn't somebody available at every one of his hotel resorts to roll down somebody's covers

and put a chocolate drop on it. i don't know that that's going to -- that's number-one challenge america faces at this time. so business groups are pushing republicans for immigration reform, says th "the financial times, london." i want to talk about the economics of it. we need to understand it. we need to understand it clearly. the proper flow of immigration into america is good for our country, but we need to be careful about this, particularly at a time of financial stress for millions of americans who can't get a job or who can only get a part-time job or who haven't seen their wages increase for many years. so responsible immigration i would suggest first and foremost should help the economy, not hurt it. the great public policy question

of immigration reform is now before the house, and given the poor state of the economy and the abysmal condition of the federal budget, immigration reform has become a cutting-edge debate and vigorous national discussion over our country's economic future and reform of federal programs that are driving unsustainable annual deficits. significantly, increasingly inflow of immigrants into our country at this time would adversely shock an already weak economy, lower average wages, increase unemployment, and decrease each american's prosperity. decrease each american's share of the total output. as experts tell us, the g.d.p., growth of america's economy, per

capita will decline if the bill that passed -- that was introduced in the senate were to become law and pass the senate. so as the congressional budget office -- our experts, the people in advise us -- has reported in its evaluation of the senate's effort to increase immigration substantially -- the immigration bill was touted as a tough immigration bill that was going to end all kind of problems but it dramatically increased the amount of immigration. and so they evaluated this bill and they found that the economy would, indeed, grow bigger because it will contain more people. but it would not be a stronger economy for americans. g.d.p. per person would actually decline. so that means the relative financial position of each american here would decline if the legislation were passed

based on the congressional budget office careful analysis. considering the acute current weaknesses of labor markets and the slowest economic recovery from a recession since the end of world war ii, the last thing the u.s. economy needs is any handicap, much less an enormous, harmful economic shock. look, we've not seen jobs -- we still have not seen jobs recovery reach the 2007 levels six years after the start of the recession. our economy still has three people looking for every job opening. president obama's advisor has said. labor markets still have not recovered. a significant expansion of the flow of immigrants into america would be occurring at a time of substantial weakness in labor

markets. it's not the unemployment rate that's so definitive. it's the number of people who are actually able to find the job and that are working. the current economic recovery has been too slow to produce an economic rebound. we still have fewer jobs than we had in 2007 when the recession began, even though the population increased each year. all right. this chart is the employment rate, employment as a share of the population, and it shows at the period of the recession, we had this rapid drop from 63% of the population working down to a little bit above 58%, and it's stuck there. so these are millions of people that are not working today because they cannot find a job.

and the concept that we would bring in more foreign workers to take the limited number of jobs we have, increasing our flow over the normal generous flow, makes no sense to me. and i don't see how it can be defended intellectually. yes, it might help mr. marriott have more cheaper labor and he may have to pay less to get somebody to work at his resorts, but that's not our problem here. our problem and our challenge is to help the average american citizen live a better life and we're not doing that effectively and it's not happening. and this is years into this post-recession recovery, so-called recovery. so the economy has produced 4.7 million jobs since the recovery which might sound okay and the recovery began in 2009, but 6.3 million people, these

people here, have dropped out of the work force. they've given up. they're discouraged workers who've ceased to look for a job and do not show up on the unemployment rolls. some of them have taken disability. some of them took early retirement. some of them just quit. maybe they have a spouse that's working and they are no longer able to work. this is an amazing statistic ann that dropouts exceed newly employed and it's unprecedented since the post-world war ii period. as of the end of 2013, 58.6% of the adult population was employed. this is down from 62.7% at the start of the recession. and the percentage has been stuck at about 58% -- 58.6% since september of 2009. it hasn't improved since 2009. if the same percentage of the

population that is working -- that worked today as was working at the start of the recession, we'd have 10 million more jobs. we'd have 10 million more people working, 10 million more people able to support their families better. 10 million more people that are not on welfare, perhaps, than are today. in 2007, there were 146 million americans employed. 146 million. today there are 144.6 million. at the same time, the population of those older than 16 years of age has grown by 13.5 million. so while the population is increasing, the number of people actually working is lower than it was in 2007. and working family incomes know

there's been no growth in the incomes of working americans. working american families are stressed. jobs just aren't being created at nearly the rate to keep up with the population, and millions are simply dropping o out. to make matters even worse, the census bureau reported in august of 2013 that the incomes of working families have been in decline since 2007 adjusting for inflation. and this chart shows it's been a fairly steady decline over a long period of time. look at this chart. so the median income in 2012 dollars, constant dollars, was $56,000 in 1999. today, in 2012, it's down to about $51,000. that's a dramatic reduction in

the average net income of the american workers. and you say, what's that got to do with immigration? i'll discuss it. it's a factor in what's happening here, it just is. so what does c.b.o. say about immigration and wages? so it's against this difficult economic back drop that our reformers want to massively increase the number of work visas, doubling them, by increasing the flow of migrants and legalizing those in the country without documents. basically, we would increase the current flow of legal immigrants to america from 10 million over ten years to 30 million that would get permanent resident status in the united states over a ten-year period. each of that -- of those 30 million would be available to compete for any job on the marketplace. and having come from poor countries, many of them are glad

to take a job for even the most minimal of wages. and that's understandable. we respect that. i'm not criticizing them. i'm talking about the policy of the united states congress and the president of the united states. c.b.o. found in an increase of this kind, if the bill that passed the senate had become law, would do a number of things. one, it would depress wages among low- and high-skilled native-born workers. depress wages further across the entire economy. that's what they reported to us. that's their official analysis. they went to on to say, "in addition, it would raise the national unemployment rate, increase the number of people unemployed, and, three, it would slow the growth of per-capita

output." now, there ma may be somebody tt says, this isn't so and insist this is not so. but i would suggest that if you bring more iron ore into america, the price declines, you tbli more cotton, the price of cotton declines, you bring in more text tiecialtio textiles s declines. that is the law of economics. it is amazing to me some of the c.e.o.'s and some of our free-market geniuses don't understand that simple fact. what about depressing wages? the congressional budget office concluded based on extensive academic evidence that low- and high-skilled native-born workers would compete at a wage disadvantage with similarly skilled immigrant workers. c.b.o. wrote, i'm wroting from them, "based on c.b.o.'s reading

of that research, a 1% increase in the labor force attributable to immigration has tended to lower the relative wages for all workers with less than a high school diploma by roughly .3% to lower the relative wages for workers abou with at least a coe degree by .1%. c.b. os analysis of s. 744, the bill that passed the senate, shows that average wages across the entire economy are lower for the first 12 years of this policy change. so what c.b.o. says, if you pass this bill that passed the senate, it will lower wages across the entire economy for 12 years. now, is it not the deep fundamental responsibility of the members of i this senate toe attuned to and concerned about the wages of working americans,

and should we not immediately reject, in a time of low wages, declining wages, any policy that our c.b.o. tells us certainly correctly will pull down further the wages of american workers? at a time we've got record unemployment, record numbers of people outside the workforce. how simple is this for us to understand? i cannot comprehend what that is this exong is thinking. -- that this congress is thinking. professor george borjas, dr. borjas from haras harvard, e leading expert in the worlgd, i think, on immigration and wages, recently noted that immigration from 1960 through 2012, which is the last year we had data, has cost native-born workers an average of $402 billion, madam president.

where did that money go, according to professor borjas? it went to the corporate profi profits, an almost exact same amount. he says that native-owned firms would gain $437 billion in income. so they would have their income increase and almost the entirety of that increase in income is paid for by the reduction in wages of of their workers. so right now we have healthy profits. what we don't have is healthy wages. look at -- this chart paint poit out. it is directly caused by the advantage that accrues to a business out doing what it's supposed to do, try to produce widgets at the lowest possible price and make the best profits they can make and for their

stockholders, and they pay people competitive wages. and when there are a lot more workers applying for jobs, they don't have to pay as high a wages as they would pay if there weren't many people applying for jobs. i'm not criticizing the businesses. what i'm saying is as a matter of national policy, shouldn't it be our policy to listen to people like professor borjas, who studied this issue, and tells us there is a direct relationship between declining wages and the immigrant -- the number of aisl immigrants we hae coming into our country? i am not demeaning a single person who wants to come to america to work. just talking about facts. so, in other words, professor borjas finds the increase for business is almost entirely paid for by the decline in wages for working americans. you have this increase and this decrease. and the problem today is decline

in wages for working americans. a lot more than it is about profits. i don't have any problem with corporate profits. i wish corporate profits were higher, but we should not be setting up economic factors and creating economic conditions that exacerbate an income problem that we have in america. that's all i'm saismgh saying. and i think american workers variety to demand it. the and they understand this. maybe some of our geniuses don't understand it. some have political gains they look for out of this. some have economic gains they look for out this. but somebody better be dealing with the concerns of the people on our country who are hurting. now, professor borjas found that

the impact of increased immigration from 1980 to 2000 -- he studied this period, this 20-year period -- resulted in a 3% decrease in the wage of average native workers and an 8% increase in the wage of high school dropouts, those who don't have a high school degree, the poorest workers in america suffered the greatest amount during this 20-year period, based on census data, empirical data that he can defend. as a matter of fact, this chart is a ar recent chart. professor borjas presented paper to a large group of economists in june of last year, last surges and to my knowledge -- last summer, and to my knowledge nobody challenged it then or since. so a 10% increase in the size of a skill group -- that is, high

school dropouts, for example -- reduces the wages of that group significantly. professor borjas wrote, "immigration has its largest negative impact on the wage of native workers who lack a high school diploma." "a group that makes up a modest and in recent decades shrinking share of the workforce. these workers are among the poorest americans, the children of these workers make up a disproportionate number of the children in poverty. 24 highwa.8% of all chimp of the native-born working poor live in households headed bid a high school dropout." that's what he said. not me. and i think the economics has not been disputed, and it's just common sense. so professor borjas is not alone in these findings.

and i would note, professor borjas is -- i believe was born in cuba and came to this country as a young man, as an immigrant. so similar results were found by economists at the federal reserve board bank in atlanta. so they had a look at it. the prominent labor economist david card of the university of california-berkeley, this is his statement: statement: it shows that the result is higher unemployment. however, it is not only lower wages that working americans have to about a ir, but it will be higher unemployment as well. so the rapid increase in immigrant population, especially those in low-skilled segment of the income distribution, will overwhelm the ability of the economy to produce jobs and increase wages. thus, congressional budget office that senate

744, a bill that passed here, would raise the number of unemployed americans during the first five years by an average annual number of 162,000, and that unemployment would -- quote -- "remain elevated through 2020." this is a stunning conclusion, especially when compared with what c.b.o. argued in its 2013 budget outlook of februar februy 20136789c.b.o-- februarfebruary 20 ^1 13. they project that we would only create 75,000 jobs a month. i don't know what the future holds, but we are not seeing the kind of job growth we expected.

this past december the job growth was 74,00 74,000, well bw what the 200,000 or so we need to just have a modest increase in the number of working americans. so 163,000 reduction as a result of the passage of this bill annually in the number of people that would be getting jobs in america? are we only going to create 75,000 a month? that's a serious hammer blow to working americans and their ability to get a job. in other words, c.b.o.'s estimate increases -- estimated increase in unemployment americans will equal about a full month of average employment gain for the first five years after the enactment at today's job growth rate.

that additional unemployment is like losing about a month of job gains every year. what about economic output? as you might expect, the lower wages and higher unemployment reflect an economy that's not growing fast enough to absorb all the new workers that we have in the country now that are naturally being born and become work-age eligible. and to keep up with economic growth. while the size of the economy expands because of the larger population, the growth rate is not fast enough to raise wages or lower unemployment. c.b.o. estimates that g.n.p. per capita will fall below the baseline. that is, without passage of the immigration bill. so if you pass the immigration bill, the g.n.p. -- gross national product -- of america

per person per capita will be lower and stay lower until 2030. than it would be if the bill didn't pass at awvmen all. so to president obama, who talked to us last night about his concern over wages, i'd suggest the first thing he needs to do is to revise -- revise his commitment to the passage of the senate immigration bill and quit pushing for it because it's guaranteed to have a negative impact on jobs and g.d.p. per capita in america. it just is. it's something that i hope all of us will consider. i know the house wants to do the right thing. i know they wnts t want to react and be a positive force in america. i know a lost our senators felt

the same way. but they weren't focused on the realities and the impacts that the legislation, if passed, would have. it would lower wages. it would increase unemployment. and it would reduce the growth in the economy per person over the next almost 30 years. this is not what we can afford to do now, colleagues. so i urge all of us to be honest about this and do the right thing. i know there are big businesses that want this. i know there are political interest groups that want this. i know that some of the democratic leaders, they want this real badly. and we have special activist groups that have one reason or another favor virtually open borders in america. but we can't go in that direction. it's not good for our constituents, the people who sent us here to serve their national interests. and i would just propose that instead of taking steps that are

guaranteed, documented to make things worse, let's do a few things to make things better, things that would make jobs better and more profitable in america without adding to the debt of the united states, which in itself is hurting the american economy. we need more american energy that creates good-paying jobs right here in america. we need a more competitive tax and regulatory code that allows businesses and workers to compete on a global marketplace. we need a trade policy, a good trade policy that increases our exports and expands domestic manufacturing and demands that the united states manufacturers and workers have their products fairly competed on a level playing field around the world. fair trade as well as free trade. we need an immigration policy that serves the interest of the

american people, as i've just noted. we need to convert the welfare office from a check-delivering institution to a job-creating, job-training center to help move people into jobs and help them become employed at better wages. we need to make the government of this country leaner and more accountable to the taxpayers so that it produces more for every tax dollar that's extracted from the american public. we have an obligation to produce for the money they give us, and we're not being very productive by any fair analysis and we need to restore economic confidence by continuing our effort to produce a balanced budget. madam president, i appreciate the opportunity to share this. i believe what i've said represents one of the most significant public policy issues facing our country today. we need to understand what we're doing. we need to understand the impact of our legislation.

if we take the time to do so, we'll thraebg when we reform -- we'll recognize that when we reform immigration it must be quite different from that that would be done if the senate bill were to become law. i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. murphy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i'd ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. since the failure of the gun bill on the floor of the senate, i've tried to come down to the floor every week or so to talk about the voices of thousands of victims who died of gun violence across this country, about 30 a day not even counting of suicides, die from gun violence. it is a tragedy, a travesty. it is a scourge on our country, inflicting pain on our cities and suburbs. and the united states senate and

the house of representatives, the most deliberative, most represented bodies in the history of the world are doing absolutely nothing about it. and if you want to know why it continues, we can give a long list of reasons. there is no one panacea to solving the problem of gun violence. it is about tightening our gun laws, about better he mental health programs, more funding, about addressing a culture of violence. but it's also about a signal that we send here, a signal of complicity. our silence essentially sends a message to young men and women all across this country that we must be okay, we must be all right with epidemic levels of gun violence if the numbers continue to spiral upwards and we do absolutely nothing about it. the statistics alone should tell

you that we should step up to the plate and change our laws, address the problem, give new resources. but seeing that those numbers of that data hasn't really moved the senate to action, maybe the voices of the victims will. a lot of attention here in the greater washington area was paid to a seemingly random shooting without apparent motive in a suburban maryland mall on saturday, january 25. a gunman came in, a 19-year-old with a shotgun and sprayed bullets into a zumiez store, which is a store that sells clothing and merchandise for skateboarders and snowboarders. he killed briana benlolo and tyler johnson, two people he apparently had no connection to. briana was 21 years old and she left behind a little two-year-old boy, elijah.

her friends who worked at the mall with her said brianna was really proud of her job. they spoke about how positive she was. one friend said she never seemed like she had any negativity. she left behind a little notebook that she had filled with fanciful drawings and phrases from pop culture. she was a really, really happy young woman who was raising a really, really happy little boy, little two-year-old elijah is never going to get to see his mother again because of a seemingly random, unprovoked act of violence in another mass shooting. tyler johnson had a tough life. he had had a history of substance abuse, but he had been clean from drugs and alcohol for two years, and he had pretty much completely turned his life around. he was working, earning a paycheck at in store at the mall, but then after work he had become a board member at a local

12-step recovery house called the serenity center in colombia, and he was now all about the business of mentoring other young people to make sure they wouldn't fall into the same cycle of abuse of drugs and alcohol that he had. the president of serenity center said "i thought he was a remarkable young man. i don't see a lot of young people stepping up like that. i just thought he was an up and coming leader." we're desperate in this country to have these kind of role models like tyler johnson, somebody that had struggled with dependence and not only conquered it for himself but then had gone out and set himself about being a role model. the difference that tyler johnson could have made, tyler was 25 years old, wasn't halfway through his life and he decided he was going to spend his life turning people's lives around. he had decided that he was going to go back and get a degree that would help him become a

counselor for young people. we just lost maybe 50 years of life transformations because tyler johnson is gone. tyler johnson was going to help turn kids' lives around, get them back on the path of being straight and narrow like he had. but we don't get that benefit any longer because of another mass shooting at a maryland mall. and, madam president, when you read these just obituaries and horrific newspaper articles about shooting after shooting, as i have since i became so personally connected to this issue in the wake of the shooting in sandy hook that took dylan hockley's life and jesse lewis' life, ben wheeler's life, you see how casual the violence is. chad olson lost his life on january 13 of this year in wesley chapel, florida.

chad was going to see a new movie -- i haven't seen it but heard it's pretty good -- "lone survivor." he was texting his three-year-old daughter as the previews were playing. one of the movie patrons didn't like the fact that chad was texting during the previews of the movie. and so he confronted chad about it. they had an argument. they had an altercation. this guy left the theater to go get a security guard. and when he returned, he came back alone, took out a gun and he shot chad. chad was struck in the chest and died. his wife was hit in the head and suffered injuries. an off duty police officer and two nurses who happened to be in the theater made sure no more shots were fired. they tried to recess tate chad until he died.

his family said he was an all around guy, the father of a beautiful girl, a girl he was texting with at the time of his murder. you would be hard pressed to find somebody who didn't like him, somebody said. he was a friend to everybody, whoever he met. two days later in dallas, texas, trinidad salazar was killed over a dispute about roof shingles. there was a dispute as to whether he owned these shingles or whether another guy owned the shingles, and this 38-year-old guy decided the best way to resolve the dispute over who owned these roof shingles was to shoot 33-year-old trinidad salazar. .40 caliber glock pistol was fired out, fired one warning shot to the ground and then fired one shot directly into trinidad and trinidad at 30 years old is no longer with us.

the casualness and randomness of this gun violence makes it even harder to take. it's not that you can ever defend this kind of carnage, but when no one can see it coming, when it becomes the result of simple arguments over housing materials or nuisances in movie theaters or items of clothing, it just makes it even more absurd that we don't step up to the plate and do something about it. in 2013, the year after sandy hook happened, we paid even more attention to school shootings, and so when one came across our transom, when we saw evidence or reports of shooting on tv, we all paid attention. and over the course of 2013, there were 28 school shootings. 28 school shootings happened in 2013, the year after sandy hook.

that's a lot. we are 28 days into 2014, and in those 28 days we have had 11 school shootings. we had 28 in all of 2013. we have had 11 school shootings in just the first month of 2014 alone. we are on pace -- we are on pace to have over 120 school shootings this year. january 9 in jackson, tennessee; january 13 in new haven, connecticut; january 14 in roswell, new mexico; january 17 in philadelphia, pennsylvania; january 17 in a ban in a, georgia; on the 21st at purdue university; again on the 21 at wakefield elementary in california; on the 24th at south carolina state university; the 27th in carbondale, illinois; the 28th in

honolulu, haofplt. -- honolulu, hawaii. in each one of these school shootings there has only been one or two or three people shot. but it is a matter of time when there is another sandy hook. when you're having the rate of one or two every few days it is a matter of time until somebody pulls that trigger over and over again or somebody doesn't intervene as quickly as they did in these situations and if we don't recognize the trend that is developing, if we don't at least send a message that the united states senate and the united states house does not condone with our silence these act, they will just continue to happen. mr. president, i'm not suggesting that there's a magical act of congress that we can pass that is going to end gun violence in this country or, frankly, that's going to stop people with deep psychological illnesses from walking into malls and churches and schools

occasionally and firing weapons. but we can take steps to make sure that it doesn't happen as often. we can take steps to make sure that the carnage isn't as bad or as significant when someone decides to walk into a crowded place and do that kind of damage. that is within our power. that is something that republicans and democrats should be able to agree on. and so, mr. president, i'll continue to come down to the floor to tell the stories of the voices of victims until we can find the ability to reach across party lines and do something to at least send a message that the united states senate stands against the developing awful, terrible trend of mass violence in this country. i yield back the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk a little about the farm bill that will be on the floor, that is on