for this year. there is a process in place state by state involving state insurance commissioners, involving issuers and then, ultimately, involving the federal government as it relates to the aca. that will produce premiums for the next year. later this year. what those premiums look like will depend on assessments that are made by issuers on the mucks that they got in this -- the mix that they got in this first year under affordable care act. a lot of actuarial work will be done to make those assessments. what we know, again, is that this year's premiums came in lower than projected. what we know is that in the force be years since the affordable care act was passed and signed into law, the in health care costs has been slower than at any time in the past half century, any time since these records have been kept. and what we know is if the law itself, if the mix isn't

optimal, insureers' prices will stay affordable through the risk adjustment program. and, you know, republican objections are a movable feast here. and i know that this is one of of the ones that they are or will latch on to because of their predictions of failure in the enrollment period have proven wrong. but if they just read the law and understand there's protections against prices becoming unaffordable they would, a, recognize provisions similar to the ones in the medicaid part d law passed under president bush, and they will know that those protections work so that's what we know now as we

head into the next stage. and we feel confident that the law is written effectively. we feel confident, as i said earlier, that there is and will be a good mix broadly, demographically in the population of those who enroll in the federal insurance marketplaces. and there will be a process where the premiums are set for next year. >> the politics of this, public opinion polls still show more americans disapproving -- >> not in one poll i saw, washington post/abc. >> opponents of democrats are running against democrats and their support to obamacare. to what do you attribute that, you know, persistent political opposition to democrats about this law and success that republicans seem to have over and over? >> well, as i mentioned if my topper, there have been millions and millions of dollars spent in attacks on the affordable care

act. there has been a remarkable intensity on efforts to repeal the law, a focus that has prevented them from, say, working effectively in a bipartisan way to help the economy grow faster or create more jobs or insure that americans who are working full time trying to feed their families are paid a living wage just to name a few. but you have to commend their singular focus, right? even if it comes to naught, which it has come to naught and will come to naught. so there's no question this has been a political issue tsa been the subject of a -- that's been the subject of a great amount of debate. when it has been put to the voters as it was after a presidential campaign this 2012

when this was the singlemost discussed policy item on which there was the greatest disagreement between the two candidates, the president who fought for and signed into law the affordable care act won re-election. it was brought to the supreme court. the law was upheld. and now there are at least 7,040,000 americans who have enrolled through the marketplaces for affordable quality health insurance, and those who run against is, who run on repeal and offer in return the old status quo, you know, i think are going to have some explaining to do to those millions of americans who now have the security of affordable health insurance. we understand that every

district is different, every state is different, midterms are, obviously, different in the presidential election years. but the fact of of the matter is these are concrete benefits millions of americans now have, and that's the seven million doesn't count those who have insurance for the first time through the medicaid expansion in those states where they didn't deny their citizens that benefit. it doesn't count the, i think, three million plus young americans, young adults who have been able to stay on their parents' plan to the age of 26. so you're getting into real numbers, and they're certainly real people with real benefits. politics will always be politics, but the substance of what the american public is getting are real. >> a vote was paid attention this week that dow to high frequency trading, illegal methods used in regulated

markets to take advantage of the average investor. does the president think that's fair? >> i haven't spoken with the president about the book or the issue the book has highlighted, so i can't characterize his thinking. and is on matters of sort of regular issues, i have to point you to those agencies that regulate the markets, the department of treasury and ores, department of justice if there's a legal issue. i don't have a white house view on that at this time. jim? >> on jonathan pollard, you said the president has not made a decision, but is his release under discussion in any way? >> jim, the israelis have frequently raised jonathan pollard in our discussions, but i'm not going to get into the details of the discussions that secretary kerry has had and is having in the region. what i can tell you is the president has not decided to release jonathan pollard, and he's a person who was convicted

of espionage and is serving his sentence. beyond that i just don't have item update on his status. >> you concerned about the perception, obviously, this is going to be said that you may be thinking about trading the release of a prisoner who was convicted of espionage in exchange for making some progress when it comes to middle east peace? >> well, i'd say a couple of things. first, i will repeat what i did say which is that i think it's pretty well known that the israelis frequently raise this issue, and they have raised this issue in our discussions. beyond that, i'm not going to get ahead of the work that secretary kerry is doing and the conversations he's having. that's number one. number two, the need for and benefits of a peace between the israelis and the palestinians, a peace that provides the palestinians with their own state and provides security to a

democratic jewish state of israel transcend this issue and many others that are part of the discussions that we have. it's in the interests of both parties to try to find a path forward to reach a peace agreement. they have been very difficult issues over the years that have prevented the peace agreement from being reached. it's not an accident that many american administrations have engaged if an effort to try to -- in an effort to try to help bring the parties together and try 40 help them reach an agreement. we are certainly actively engaged in that effort. it's never been easy, it's not easy now. >> and to get back to the numbers, you said over seven million -- >> let's get back to the numbers, shall we? >> let's get back to the numbers. won't you have to subtract the

number of people who have not made that first payment on those premiums, who have failed to make that payment from this seven million figure? so not to be a stickler here, but -- [inaudible] right? >> again, all i've reported to you today is that as of midnight last night, enrollments surpassed seven million, and that was not counting figures from states across the country who have their own marketplaces for that final day, and all of these states, by and large, experienced similar surges. so once those numbers come in, we'll have a more accurate total for the figure hit at the end of the own enrollment period. it also doesn't account for the people who began the process but weren't able to complete it because of the surge in sol yule, and -- in volume and, you know, we're going to be engaged with those individuals to make sure they're able to complete their enrollments.

so there's that. so whatever that total figure ends up being, we'll be sure to get you that a information when we have it. on the matter of payments, again, i'll just refer you to what i said before. in this there is no difference between the past and the present. you know, people purchase health insurance, they have a premium to pay, and overwhelmingly they pay them on time. we'll have at some point when we work with issuers and aggregate the data some figures on what those percentages look like. i think if you look anecdotally at what some major issuers have said, they look very much like testify this the past. they have in the past. so, i mean, it's something you can look at, certainly, and we're not, you know, we're not calling apples, you know, we're not mixing apples and oranges, we're giving you the data we have. but, you know, i'd be

disappointed, jim, if you suggested that somehow seven million wasn't a big deal. john. >> jay, in another life certainly you were a political analyst, and i just want to try one more time. >> go for it. >> in light of these numbers of success you're touting here, would it be a mistake for democrats not to embrace the affordable care act in the upcoming midterm elections? >> john, all i can say is that every district in every state is different, and every candidate, any incumbent is different -- >> well, as a general principle. >> sure. >> should democrats -- >> i'm not going to give campaign strategy pointers from this podium. again, because it is a fact and will continue to be the a fact that folks who want to take benefits away from the american

people, have those people who are now insured be uninsured again, who are happy putting the insurance companies back in charge of this process have spent be and will spend millions of dollars making their argument , often using false examples and false facts to make it. so that makes it challenging. it has been -- it was for the president, it will be for candidates this fall. so, yeah, i think every candidate, every incumbent will make his or her assessments on this. but i i think that what is incontrovertible is that what was predicted to be a failure has been a success when it comes to meeting the targets set by independent experts. and that has happened despite the fact that we basically lost two months because of the troubles with the web site. and that's something that members of congress who supported this effort can point

to when they have to talk about why they voted to provide quality, affordable health insurance to their constituents and why the system, despite its early troubles, ended up working effectively for all those millions of americans who wanted the product offered. >> and in terms of the numbers, isn't the, i mean, these exchanges were set up so that people who didn't have health insurance could buy health insurance through a marketplace. so isn't the critical number here how many people were able to get insurance who didn't have insurance before? isn't that, i mean, that's what this is all about, right? >> well -- >> providing insurance for the previously uninsured. >> let me refine what it's all about, if i may. it is, obviously, about insuring that everybody has access to quality and affordable health insurance. and that includes those

americans and tear families who are -- and their families who are on the individual market and subject to the vagaries of the individual market. it was one of the least regulated arenas within the broader health insurance market. the kinds of minimum benefit that is the affordable care act puts in place in that market did not exist, and you often had people who paid a very hefty price for a product that ended up not covering the very illness that they suffered or would not extend coverage to their kid with a pre-existing condition or with what they charged you. so the reform that the affordable care act put in place, the reforms that it put into place were designed to address a lot of problems within this market that was broken -- >> we will leave this white house briefing at this point. you can see the rest of it online. go to our web site, c-span.org.

as we go live now to the senate, lawmakers will be returning to session following their weekly party lunches. live coverage of the u.s. senate beginning momentarily here on c-span2. fficer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that following dispption of executive calendar 532, the senate proceed to vietnam on confirmation of executive calendar number 687 without intervening action or debate on the nomination, and with all other provisions of the previous order respecting in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: department of state, deafen whittaker of virginia to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of colombia. department of labor, christopher p.lu of virginia to be deputy secretary. department of justice, john p.

carlin of new york to be an assistant attorney general. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 15 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on the whittaker nomination. mr. reed: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak as in legislative business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. madam president, yesterday my colleagues agreed by a voice vote to proceed to a debate on the bipartisan agreement to restore emergency unemployment insurance to 2.7 million -- 2.7 million americans. this is great progress from where we have been the last few months. i'd like to thank my colleagues for their support and to urge them to continue to move this compromise to passage as it represents our best path forward

to quickly providing aid to our constituents and supporting our economic recovery. i hope that the voice vote yesterday, indicative of a broad support going forward, and this agreement won't be bogged down by roadblocks. millions of americans who have worked hard, who were laid off through no fault of their own and are accepting for work are looking to us to get this commonsense extension done and done promptly. i'd again like to thank my colleagues. they recognize that this is the right thing to do for our workers and it is the right thing to do for our economy. i'd also particularly like to thank my republican cosponsors, who have brought constructive thoughts and it'ds t ideas to t. senator heller has been a stalwart in extending these emergency benefits. senator collins, senator portman, senator murkowski, senator kirk have all contributed valuable thoughts, along with senator coats and

ayotte. this has been an effort that has truly been bipartisan. and it' it, i think rs represena coming together of proposals on both sides. but ultimately to serve the best interests of our constituents who again are looking for work and are very difficult to market. we've been working together since literally last year, december 28, when the benefits expired, and we know how important it is to provide this assistance to families throughout this nation. we also understand that we have to go ahead and not only provide support for the families but also to support the economies locally. and this will do it. it'll provide resources that will immediately go back into the economy to stimulate demand and growth. i want to also thank my colleagues, particularly my republican clerks fo colleaguese way they've approached the issues. they've helped to build on this

important reform to provide initiatives that we hope will get people to work sooner. we've incorporated another assessment in the process, and it'sfully paid for. so people will get in the course of their extended benefits the opportunity and also the obligation to come back in, be assessed, be given advice, be given some coaching to go back into the job market. and we think and some data suggests this is one of the most effective ways to get people back into the job force in a difficult market. senator portman is a former director of the office of management and budget and one of the real experts that has been key to identifying appropriate pay-fors, which are critical. and senator murkowski and senator kirk worked to include an examination of the work suitability standards across the states so we can be better-informed and better-prepared when we have to deal with further reforms to our unemployment compensation system. this agreement incorporates many good ideas from my colleagues,

and it importantly builds upon ththe reforms that this congress undertook in 2012. i will discuss these later in the week. but as i said again, most importantly it will help people who have worked, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who are desperately searching for work and must search for work in a difficult economy, and it will help our economy overall. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: i yield back all -- i ask consent to yield back all time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on the whittaker nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 99, the nays are 0, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the carlin nomination. who yields time? all time for debate -- is there

a sufficient second? mr. reid: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we hope this is the last vote of the day. the next vote we hope will be by voice. there could be other votes procedural in nature this afternoon. we hope not, but you never know. i'm not going to agree to anything. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, all time has expired for debate. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? the ayes are 99, the nays are 1.

the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the lu nomination. the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. under the previous order, the question occurs on the lu nomination. all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, the senate will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 3979, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 333, h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise to talk about a whole series of issues, including unemployment insurance and the minimum wage, issues that are designed to help americans attain economic mobility, get a fair shot to move up in the way our economy is designed to work. this morning, the budget committee had a hearing entitled "opportunity, mobility and inequality in today's economy." and we heard from three very, very strong witnesses, including nobel laureate joseph stiglitz. we talked about important topics central to understanding the long-held american dream -- work hard, play by the rules, you should be able to support your family, provide an opportunity for your kids and have a fair retirement.

but for too many, mr. president, as you know, opportunity and mobility especially are hard to find and income inequality is growing. i'm an optimist. i know the solutions are here if we work to find them and i want to take a couple of minutes to talk about some of the solutions. but first let's try to put a human face on the problem of inequality in our country. income inequality in the united states is at a record level. it is higher in the united states than virtually any other developed country. president obama has called income inequality the central challenge of our times, and, mr. president, you and i share a roman catholic background. last week the president was in the vatican talking with pope frances and they both were sharing that this is not just an american challenge but a global challenge. according to the c.b.o., the average income of a household in the richest 1% in this country was nearly 180% higher in 2010 than it was in 1979 in real dollars. but by comparison, the average

income for a household in the middle 20% of the income distribution had only grown about 25%, about 1-7 of what a household in the highest incomes had grown. since 1979, the top 1% of our population's share in national income grew from 8.9% to 14.9%. so 1% has 15% of the national income by 2010 but at the same time the bottom 80% of our american population saw their share of national income significantly shrink. and, mr. president, for me, the issue is not just inequality because there will always be some inequality -- fate, luck, health will produce some unequal outcomes. but what i think is great about this country is while we can see inequality and tolerate some degree of it, what we will not tolerate is people being locked in to unequal situations. we want to have a society where

people may be born poor, may have an accident or fate that will have them in a lower economic stat us but they can be able -- status but they can be able to raise their ceiling and achieve all they k. but in this. but in this, social mobility, the united states is now one of the poorest in the world. today a child born in the bottom quintile only has a 7% chance of he have being in the top n. a country like denmark, when we look at europe as a more stratified society, that number is nearly double what it is in the united states. so it's not uninequality. we are not giving people a fair shot, to use the words a great american singer, curtis mayfie mayfield, "to move on up," to move on up to a place where their dreams will take them if they'll work hard enough. so what we need to do is embrace strategies that let people move on up, that let people have a

fair shot to achieve and we don't only need to embrace strategies for success, we have to eliminate structures, limb eliminate barriers that lock people in and lock people out of economic opportunities that they should be able to achieve like anyone else. one solution, mr. president, to this is the minimum-wage bill that we will start to talk about soon. it's working americans who are earning minimum wage or just above minimum wage in how that will affect them. i think i can safely say for the vast majority of virginians would agree with this proposition, no one who works full time, eight hours a day, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year should live in poverty. no one. no one. but today someone making the minimum wage earns about $15,000 a year, $3,000 below the poverty

level for a family of three. so if you're a single mom with a couple of kids and so many people are raising children on their own, you work full time at minimum wage and you're below the poverty level. the minimum wage today is at a historic low. minimum wage has lost 33% of its buying power since its nea peakn 1968. if the minimum wage in 1968 had just kept pace with inflation, it would be $10.71 today not in the $7 range. now, workers who regularly receive tips are treated even worse. they get paid a sub-minimum wage, what's called a tipped minimum wage of $2.13 an hour. companies -- as long as you make $30 of tips a month, your company can pay you $2.13 an hour. overwhelmingly these workers work in restaurants but not exclusively. and like other minimum-wage

workers, they are predominantly women. 28 million americans will receive a wage -- an increase in pay if we raise the minimum wage urunder the bill that's currenty pending on the floor of the senate, it's been reported out of the help committee and we'll take it up soon. more than half of those who will receive a raise are women. the vast majority of adult workers. over 14 million american children have a parent who will receive a raise if we increase the minimum wage. the minimum wage fairness act will boost the minimum wage to about $21,000, lifting families above the poverty line. in total -- get this -- the bill that we will hopefully debate and vote on soon is estimated to lift nearly 7 million americans out of poverty, above the poverty level. what could we do as we debate here that would have more effect on people's lives than lift 7 million people above the poft

poverty level. which we would do if we pass this bill. increasing the minimum twiej $10.10 would increase g.d.p. by nearly $10 billion as workers spend their money in local communities n. virginia, about 744,000 of my fellow citizens will receive a raise. now, for this reason, mr. president, business owners i talk to -- not all, but a huge number, and especially small business owners -- know that the minimum wage increase makes good business sense. yesterday i visited a supermarket just across the potomac in alexandria. it's called mom's market. they have 11 locations in the d.c. metropolitan area and philadelphia. they're contemplating opening up another store in new york city. i met with the owner, scott nash, and i talked to his employees. i go ask how long you worked here, seven years, eight years, 10 years. they've made it a practice to pay their employees $10 a minimum wage and they are going to increase it and they fully support the bill currently

pending before the senate to increase the minimum wage. and scott nash is not alone. in fact, mr. president, we're celebrating a really important centennial this year, a centennial of one of the smartest things an american employer ever did and i'm going to read you a quote. "after the success at a moving assembly line, henry ford had another transformative idea. in january 1914, he startled the world by announcing that the ford motor company would pay $5 a day to its workers. the pay increase would be accompanied also by a shorter workday, from 9 to 8 hours. while this rate didn't automatically apply to every worker, it more than doubled the average auto worker's wage." while henry's primary object i have was to reduce worker attrition, newspapers from all over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of goodwill. here's the important part. "henry ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be

sold if employees could afford to buy them. a $5-a-day helped better the lot of all american workers and contributed to the emergence of the american middle class. in the process, henry ford had changed manufacturing forever." mr. president, this quote is not from some democratic talking point. this is from the ford motor company, a press release they issued in january to commemorate the 100th anniversary of henry ford's novel decision. now, there was an employer who knew that the american economy was based on consumer demand, and if workers could be paid more, they would buy more, it would help his company and would help america. the senate can take action in this way, and the senate can take action in other ways to give people a fair shot to move on up in american society. in fact, mr. president, we've already acted 0en a couple of bills that i -- on a couple of bills at that i hope the house will pick up. we acted on immigration reform,

which creates a pathway for citizenship. this eliminates a barrier that keeps people from moving up. the c.b.o. says it will significantly improve the american economy. immigration reform is about a fair shot. immigration reform is about moving up. we also acted on enda, legislation to end discrimination in the workplace against folks based on sexual orientation. you can't move on up and achieve your economic dreams if folks can fire you because they don't like the person you love. enda helps people move on up. we're now working on legislation to provide unemployment insurance to those who are struggling in the economy. soon we'll consider paycheck fairness for women. you cajts achieve all you can if you are going to be paid slig less than your colleagues because of your gender. if coming weeks we'll also

consider job skills and education legislation which are real key to economic opportunity for so many. what we need to do, mr. president, is pretty simple, what you and i both did with so many others in this chamber when we were goarchtion is tr governe individuals the tools to create their own opportunity and mobility and also take the steps that we ca they can when they ae barriers in the way. with that, i thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican whip from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, today marks the beginning of national sexual assault awareness month, and it comes at a time when congress is about ready to take up reauthorization of the justice for all act, a law that's improved public safety, strengthened victims'

rights and delivered justice all across this country. i'm proud to be the lead republican sponsor of this bill, and i'm even prouder of what it has accomplished and what it will continue to accomplish. thanks to the justice for all act and similar initiatives, law enforcement agencies across america now have greater resources to reduce the rape kit backlog. and i might just explain. a rape kit is, as it sounds, a forensic selectio collection ofe collected at the scene of a sexual assault, and we've learned over time that many of these rape kits, this forensic evidence, is not forwarded to a lab for testing and, thus, the d.n.a. of the assailant is not identified. and so we realized that local jurisdictions needed more resources and more guidance and more expertise when it came to testing these untested rape kits

because of the incredible evidence that it provides, both to acquit people who've been falsely accused of crimes but to identify, indict, and convict serial sexual assailants. this is a sort of unique, in --s sort of unique, in many ways because people who commit rape don't just do it one time. many times they will do it time and time and time again until they're caught, and worse yet, this is a crime of opportunity. and many times it involves children as well, as we know. so we now know that thanks to the justice for all act and similar initiatives that have allowed these rape kits to be taken off the evidence shelf and be tested, that what has been a national scandal has allowed

violent to remain on the streets is now being addressed more and more and more. but i'm not here to suggest that everything that can be done has been done, but it is important for us to make sure that these rape kits are tested and to get these serial sexual assailants off the street and brought before a court of law and justice. even a relatively small reduction in the backlog can lead to major gains in public safety and peace of mind. in the city of detroit, for example, the processing of 1,600 old sexual assault kits, including some from the 1980's, allowed authorities to identify 100 different serial rapists, ten of whom were convicted rapists already. so this is powerful evidence, and incredibly police sometimes

keep this forensic evidence for 20 or 30 years, and it's still susceptible of being tested, the rapeest identified and being taken out of circulation. in the city of houston, meanwhile, a backlog that once reached 6,600 untested rape kits is now in the process of being completely eliminated, thanks in large part to the support provided by this legislation. i want to take a second, mr. president, to highlight the safer act, which was included in the violence against women act and which passed just this last year, and the fact that it fund add provision of the justice for all act known as the debbie smith act. i've had the pleasure of meeting debbie smith for whom this legislation was named, and she has become a tireless advocate for the sorts of reforms and

improved funding that is -- are contained in the safer act and in the justice for all reauthorization. but the safer act, where we mandated that more of the money that the federal government granted must be used to actually test old rape kits as well as dedicated a portion of that money to inventory, those that had been sitting on police locker -- evidence locker shelves or had been sent to laboratories but not been yet tested. but this law passed in 2013 has already played a crucial role in making more federal support available for tackling the rape kit backlog. i was proud to introduce that legislation, and i'm proud to sponsor reauthorization of the justice for all act. and as i said a moment ago, i'm enormously gratified and proud of of wha what these laws have d us accomplish. upholding victims s. rights and

-- uptolding victims s upholdins should never be stopped. we have a long way to go. it is incouraging to see the progress that's been made and hopefully this will encourage us to take even further steps to make sure these untested rape kits are tested and the people who are innocent are vindicated from any charges, but the people who commit serial sexual assault, both against other adults and minors, should be and will be brought to justice. mr. president, shifting gears to the economy, i want to repeat a call that i made yesterday and once again urge the majority leader in the context of the legislation that we're currently considering to allow republican ideas for economic growth and job creation to come to the

floor for a vote. i realize that president obama has stubborning chosen to stick with the same policies that have given us the weakest economic recovery following a recession since world war ii. it's also the highest period -- the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression. indeed, after promoting the same fiscal and economic strategy for the last five years, a strategy that involves higher taxes, more federal spending, and more debt, the president and his allies seem to be -- seem to see no reason to change course. this proposed budget for 2015, for example, would increase federal spending by $791 billion. it would also increase taxes by $1.8 trillion over ten years and increase our national debt by

$8.3 trillion. that's on top of the $17 trillion already, about $56,000 for every man, worth and child in america. for those keeping score, the president has already raised taxes by $1.7 trillion during his presidency and increased our national debt by four times that much. in other words, if more taxes and more spending were the path to prosperity for this great nation, america would be booming, unemployment would be at zero, and our economy would be chugging along, creating new jobs right and left. instead, the evidence is in. we're experiencing stagnation and mass unemployment. you know, it's said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again

but somehow expecting a different result. well, if that's the definition of insanity, then maintaining the current policies of spending, tax, and debt are the definition of insanity. there has to be a better way, and there is. if only the majority leader would allow the senate to the do what it's supposed to do, this body used to once be known as the world's greatest deliberative body, where we had the great debates on the issues of the time and then we had a vote and we all accepted the majority vote in those instances. but now the new -- the new tactic teamed to be b seems to e majority leader to bring a bill to the floor, without going through a committee where members of that legislative committee are allowed to offer amendments and get votes on those amendments to help shape the committee product, w; we dot

even do that anymore. we didn't do that on this underlying unemployment extension bill that we will be voting on this week. so members of the republican conference -- republican members of the senate have offered 45 amendments, all of which are designed to improve the underlying piece of legislation and not just kick the can down the road. i would think that the majority leader and the president of the united states would welcome our efforts to try to improve the underlying legislation, but apparently not. for example, can't we do a better job, let's say, of directing federal dollars for workforce training efforts in places like west virginia and texas so that the good jobs that do exist, you can match the skills of these people who've been unemployed for a long time to those good jobs that pay very well and do exist in abundance? so we've got 45 different

suggestions and ideas that we'd like to offer in the spirit of cooperation and trying to do our jobs as members of the senate. but so far the majority leader has steadfastly -- and i might add stubbornly -- pushed for another extension of unemployment insurance without anything else attached that would actually improve workforce training and programs that would upgrade stale skills for people who've been unemployed for a long period of time, so that they can qualify to do the good-paying jobs that exist. now, i know that washington, d.c., one of the favorite parlor games here is to spin various narevernaturives to thrain -- vs naturives is to. i've heard the other side say

the republican party is party of no. we've got 45 amendments that would improve this underlying legislation but we've been shut out and more importantly the 26 million people that i represent in the state of texas have been shut out of this debate and this discussion and this effort to come forward with a better product. isn't that what we're here for? well, i mentioned some of these ideas that have been proposed yesterday. for example, i mentioned a bill sponsored in different forms by the senator -- the senior senator from maine and junior senator from south carolina that would relieve the burden of obamacare, which has been complained of mightily by organized labor and others, that has compelled or induced, i should say, employers to take 40-hour work weeks and to shrink them to 30 hours or less in order to avoid obamacare penalties. so this amendment would relieve

that burden on workers and businesses by restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek. why wouldn't that be a subject worthy of debate and a vote in the senate? i mentioned a separate bill introduced by the junior senator from south carolina that would modernize workforce training and eliminate duplicative governmental programs. there are more than 40 different government programs that purport to train people to improve their job skills all acruels the country. -- across t i've had the chance to visit some of those locations in texas and they do a very good job. but rather than having 40-plus different programs why don't we have one or two and use the extra money from all that duplication in order to put more money into these programs so that they can train more people and get them back to work faster. that's another of the amendments that have been shut out of this process so far.

i also mention legislation sponsored by the senior senator from utah and the junior senator from kentucky respectively that would eliminate obamacare's job-killing tax on medical innovation, something that i believe if allowed to come for a vote would receive an overwhelming majority vote on a bipartisan basis in the senate but also the junior senator from kentucky has a piece of legislation that would make it easier for congress to wedlock below major regulations that can't pass a simple cost/benefit analysis. meanwhile, the junior senator from wyoming and the senior senator from north dakota who i see here on the floor have a bill that would expedite the approval of natural gas exroarts to our nato -- exports to our nato partners in europe and to ukraine and relief that -- relieve that strangle hold vladimir putin has on europe because it controls its energy

supply. it would approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, crealgt thousands of well-paying north american jobs and export canadian oil down to texas where it would be refined into gasoline and jet fuel and create thousands of jobs in the process. in addition, another amendment that's been offered on this underlying legislation that would help the economy grow and get people back to work and reign in excessive federal regulation that's killing jobs, the senior senator from oklahoma has a bill that would stop new e.p.a. regulations until -- until the agency could tell us exactly what the impact of those regulations would be on jobs and the economy. so most of the ideas i've listed have been introduced as one of these 45 amendments to the underlying unemployment insurance bill. and yet the majority leader who

is the traffic cop on the senate floor, the rules of the senate give him complete 100% discretion to decide which amendments are going to get a vote and which will not, but the majority leader seems determined to prevent any votes on any of these ideas. so if we're truly serious about job creation and if we're truly serious about doing everything possible to get america back to work, because of the dignity that work provides and the means it provides people to provide for their own family and to pursue their dreams, why on earth would we deny members a chance to vote on these job creating pieces of legislation? well, unfortunately, i think we got a little bit of a peek into the majority leader's playbook last week when he and others had a press conference upstairs and talked about this agenda that they had for the time from the present through the election,

and they were pretty candid about it, this was an agenda that they dreamed up in conjunction with the democratic senatorial campaign committee. the majority leader said as much in his announcement. in other words, this is a political plan by the political arm of the democratic senator's campaign committee. so this isn't about finding solutions or else the majority leader would be -- would welcome these suggestions that we've offered. i would say to the majority leader don't allow votes on these amendments simply to placate me and others of my political party. don't do do it for us. do it for the 3.8 million people who have been unemployed for more than six months. do it for them. do it for the untold numbers of people who have simply given up looking for work. our labor participation rate, the percentage of americans actually in the work force is at

a 40-year low. so it's not only the tragedy of the unemployment numbers that we see reported, it's people who are not reflected in those unemployment numbers because those statistics don't count people who have given up. and that's what the low labor participation rate indicates. these are the people that need our help and they're the ones that deserve a vote on these constructive suggestions to the underlying piece of legislation. i hope the majority leader will reconsider. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. in january of this year i came to the floor to talk about and honor one of my constituents, javier martinez, who was killed on december 28 of last year, just as 2013 was ending, he was shot while walking to a friend's house in new haven. he was 18 years old. in the aftermath of that tragedy, i've spoken with javier's family and his friends about his life and legacy. as i said on the senate floor a few months ago, javier was a kind and intelligent young man, well on his way to becoming a leader in his community. he cared a lot about the

environment, he worked on the nature conservancy and new haven urban resources initiative to plant trees and protect endangered species. his classmates at the common ground school in new haven would like to plant a tree at the site of his death, and dedicate a garden in his honor because of his interest in the outdoors and the natural resources that enhance the beauty of our world, which he loved so much. yesterday morning i visited some of javier's classmates at the common ground high school in new haven. and i spoke to a group of young people who were serious about ending gun violence because it is such a serious cause of heartbreak and grief, loss,

and sacrifice. not just in new haven, not just in sandy hook, but throughout our country in big and small towns, rural and urban neighborhoods, people from all backgrounds and different walks of life. i spoke to the common ground a.p. united states government class where the students and their teacher, brian kellahan were kind enough to welcome me and share with me some of their views on gun violence and the justice system in this country. and i told them what i firmly believe, that i have a duty to listen to them and to all the people who live in connecticut, because they have a unique insight and a depth of understanding and perspective that should be shared here in

washington, d.c. and in this body and around the country. and it's my job to bring that perspective, those insights, back to washington. so i want to begin by showing my colleagues a picture of those common ground students who were javier's classmates. this photograph was taken at the top of east rock. unfortunately, it's somewhat indistinct as to who is pictured here, but it is overlooking a scene that javier knew well with people who were his friends. and they are dedicated to ending gun violence in this country because they know firsthand the toll that it takes. they have been no stranger to gun violence in their neighborhoods. many of them have to travel long distances to come to this school, the common ground

school in new haven, from neighborhoods that are afflicted with gun violence. and they suffer the traumatic emotional, sometimes physical threats that come with that exposure to violence. connecticut also has been no stranger to gun violence over the last year and a half, and i've come to the floor many times with my colleague, senator murphy, to commemorate the courageous and strong people of new town and in particular the families who suffered the loss of 20 beautiful children and six great educators. what the students who met with me yesterday morning wanted me to hear bears telling and

repeating here. they were speaking truth to power. and what they wanted all of my colleagues to hear and what i strongly believe is that as tragic as the mass slayings on in this country, no less tragic, no less horrific, no less important is the shooting of one innocent 18-year-old young man like javier while walking to a friend's house. it may not make the national news. rarely does anymore because we have come to regard gun violence in a way like the background noise of our society. it may not feature prominently in the headlines. individual gun violence is a plague still that affects all of us. as it affects any one of us.

we cannot let these shootings continue in our urban communities, many of them are committed with handguns, many are the result of illegal gun trafficking, and straw purchases, far too many are ignored by the news media simply disregarded, background noise. gun violence affects all of us wherever we live in connecticut and the country, if anything positive is to come of this tragedy in newtown and in new haven and in the 30,000 other deaths that have happened since newtown as a result of gun violence, it should be the uniting and bringing together of all who have been touched by gun violence, which is all of us. and that goal is one that will

drive me, i'm sure others here, to seek an end to gun violence with commonsense, sensible measures. like the ones we considered, background checks, mental health initiatives, school safety. the presiding officer helped to craft a very sensible and commonsense approach to background check. we prohibit felons, criminals, mentally deranged people, addicts, from having these firearms, but we have no universal background check system to make sure that they don't purchase them. how effective can enforcement be if there is no real way of checking who is buying these firearms? a young woman who is a senior at

common ground in fact asked me what laws can be effective when people are willing to break them, buy firearms even though they're prohibited from doing so. that's an important question and the answer is, no law is perfect, none can be absolutely perfectly enforced, but regulations and restrictions on dangerous people having firearms can reduce the level of gun violence in our society. reduce the number of criminals buying weapons. background checks especially have been shown, there is empirical evidence, to reduce the number of guns that get into the wrong hands. students and teachers asked me about the way our country deals with criminal justice. systematic disparities continue to plague our justice system, resulting in severely disproportionate rates of incarceration for young men and

women of color. they spoke about the overlapping cultures of law enforcement and school discipline and about the need to reduce prison populations and bring about much-needed reform in the way sndz are calculated not only -- sentences are calculated not only as a matter of fairness but to reduce the cost of incarceration. these young people are thinking about where our society should be going, what's our plan and our strategy for making our neighborhoods and communities better places and safer places to live. i made a commitment to those students pictured here that i would come back again, and i will. i made a commitment that i would tell their story, which is really javier's story, a story of hope and promise, dreams and aspirations cut sho