Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Laura Sherman, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I first wanted to acknowledge the severity of the challenges we face as a country right now, whether it is military action to stop the threat of ISIS or the crisis in Ukraine. Colorado is waiting to hear from the President tonight. We are all concerned with that, as we should be.

Today on the floor of the Senate is a proposed constitutional amendment. While it is on the floor I wanted to take a minute to talk about it.

Tonight in Colorado, a swing State, families will endure an avalanche of political ads. Many of them will come from obscure interests with deceptive names such as America, Inc., the Government Integrity Fund Action Network, something called Citizens for a Working America, and so on and so forth. There will be no way to tell who these folks are, because under the laws of the United States many of these organizations do not have any obligation to disclose where their money comes from, a privileged status that individual Americans do not have when it comes to funding political campaigns. It is enough to make everyone in our State, in Colorado, hate their TV, much less American politics, and probably not in that order.

In Washington, on the other hand, which--I guess I should say only in Washington, which has become a Disneyland when it comes to any sense of reality, there are people defending the current system--the current campaign finance system--on the grounds that it is a great victory for free speech and a great victory for our democracy. It is the position-- it is the position of the defenders of the current system that what we need in our politics is more money, not less, that more money is going to help our politics, not less.

I have never met a Coloradan who thinks what is wrong with our politics is that we do not have enough money. In fact, they believe the reverse. They believe the exact opposite. That is because they know our system of financing campaigns, far from being about elucidating the truth, is a system expressly designed to obscure the truth. From Colorado's perspective, it is a system that is really good for the special interests and the occupiers of the past, and really terrible for the American people and for our future.

Over the last several months, almost every one of us at some point has lamented the Senate's inability to address the big issues facing our Nation, whether it is reforming our broken immigration system, creating a more competitive Tax Code that encourages innovation and helps produce an economy that lifts middle-class family income again in the country. Energy, climate, education, and infrastructure are left unanswered as we barely summon the votes to approve another noncontroversial judge or nominee.

My colleagues, we share the pathetic distinction of being on target to becoming the least productive Congress ever. Ever. Close readers of American history will know this is a particularly ignominious achievement. How will it feel when the next history books are written to know that we managed to do even less than the do-nothing Congress? That is how you acquire a Congress that now has a 14-percent approval rating, below President Nixon even had during the height of Watergate.

This less-than-do-nothing Congress is not just failing the American people on the big issues. We have given up on those for now around here. We are struggling to pass basic appropriations bills, to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent over the long term. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber, this land of flickering lights, have argued that the

tea party and obstruction are to blame. Others have argued that the majority's limits on debate and floor amendments are at the root of the problem. But I think it all starts with our broken campaign finance system, which has never been perfect but recently has become substantially worse.

First, let me say when I first studied the Court's most significant prior opinion on finance, the case of Buckley against Valeo, decided in the early 1970s, it seemed to me that if the Court had actually understood what had happened as a result of that decision, they might reconsider their holding that money is speech. But by then it was abundantly clear that the wealthier you are the louder your voice, an outcome that seemed to me at odds with a democracy grounded on the notion of one person, one vote. This is not to say we should expect to live in a country where everybody has equal speech. We could never succeed in ensuring that, and we would certainly fail if we tried. But we could address unfair practices and advantages. We could devise commonsense regulations of our campaign finance laws to make sure our government could actually function. We could hope to lift the voices in the town square and on every street corner in the country and reward the effort of each individual American, no matter what they believe, no matter who they were, who became involved in politics to help create the future of this country. We could do that. In fact, we did do that for decades. We could do it until Citizens United was decided, when the Court not only did not wince at its holding in Buckley, but doubled down, holding, among other things, that independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, an absurd proposition on its face to anyone who serves in the Congress.

Also, in McCutcheon, another opinion, the Supreme Court held that there is ``only one legitimate governmental interest for restricting campaign finances: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.''

That is it. It can't be regulated to do anything else.

The Court went on to hold that ``spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner `influence or access to' elected officials or political parties.''

Think about that for a minute. The majority in McCutcheon doesn't believe that an individual who spends large sums of money would garner influence or access to elected officials? The Court doesn't think they are trying to influence our official duties? Could anyone in this Chamber agree with this conclusion with a straight face?

In fact, some do agree, but there isn't a single soul in Colorado who does.

But to me the more significant point is that the Court failed to recognize how unlimited and undisclosed campaign spending corrupts the very act of government. This extends far beyond the traditional notion of quid pro quo corruption.

In search pretty much in vain--not entirely but pretty much in vain-- for the pitiful politician hiding cash in his icebox or somewhere beneath the south 40, the Court missed the real corruption. In doing so these decisions and the looming threat of unchecked spending have led to almost complete paralysis--the end of principled compromise on behalf of the public interest.

In his dissent in Citizens United, Justice Stevens warned of this potential problem when he wrote:

The influx of unlimited corporate money into the electoral

realm also creates new opportunities for the mirror image of

quid pro quo deals: threats, both explicit and implicit.

Starting today, corporations with large war chests to deploy

on electioneering may find democratically elected bodies

becoming much more attuned to their interests.

That is precisely what we found. Inertia has become the new reality in the Senate and in the House. Congress is now frozen by its own fear of taking on incumbent interests, whether it is our failure to address long-term deficits or to create a coherent energy policy.

We can see this corruption in the difficult decisions we avoid. It is the tough vote that we will not take. It is the bill we can't pass even in the face of urgent need. It is the deal that can't be reached. It is the speech that is never made. It is the story of the do-less than the do-nothing Congress.

This corruption, by its nature, is difficult to prove because it is invisible, but it suits the incumbent interests just fine.

The Court imagined a world where people with bags of money are wandering around Capitol Hill--and only then could you regulate it-- trying to get people to do something for them. Ninety percent of what happens around here is people coming and trying to keep you from doing something, trying to keep things the same, trying to keep the incumbent interests embedded in our Tax Code, in our regulatory code, and in our statute book.

The Supreme Court was silent completely on that corruption. I would argue that is at the core of our dysfunction as a Congress.

There is a reason the dysfunction that is so hated by the people I represent coincided with the era of these Supreme Court opinions.

This is why everybody in Colorado continue to scratch their heads and wonder how we can be so disconnected from their set of priorities, so decoupled from their set of priorities--what they care about, for the future of their families, the future of their business--and how we can come here all week and just vote on judges.

To my knowledge, there are no super PACs devoted to votes on judges one way or another, which is maybe why that is what we spend our time doing.

I have a lot of respect for the Supreme Court, as I know the Presiding Officer does, and the separation of powers, and I know how serious it is to consider a constitutional amendment, an amendment to the Constitution, which is why it should be a last, not a first resort.

But the Court got it wrong when it came to the practical day-to-day operations of this Congress and the way its campaigns work, and its decisions have unleashed a new torrent of spending that is corroding the vibrancy of our democracy.

I think it is useful for us to take a moment to think about or to consider the practical effect of these decisions.

During the entire 2010 election cycle--that is the year Citizens United was decided--super PACs spent a total of $63 million in this country.

So far, September 10, in this election cycle, super PACs have spent $116 million. That is almost twice what was spent in 2010, and it is only the beginning of September. There are States where you cannot buy TV time because so much TV time has been bought by these outside groups.

For the three election cycles before Citizens United, outside spending totaled about $113 million. In contrast, in the three election cycles since Citizens United was decided, outside spending has totaled about $530 million. This is almost a fivefold increase in spending.

There probably are people around the country who aren't beneficiaries of this incredible speech. Unfortunately, folks in Colorado are because we are a swing State, as I mentioned at the beginning. You can't actually at this point watch anything else on television.

In 2012 the top 100 individual donors to super PACs--the top 100 people, people along with their spouses--represented 1 percent of all individual donors to super PACs, but their donations totaled 67 percent of the funding and therefore 67 percent of the spending.

But the spending doesn't only affect how this place works, as I mentioned earlier, it affects what we work on in Congress.

That is why Congress has repeatedly enacted reasonable limits on campaign spending, which have largely been upheld until very recently, until 2010.

In fact, as recently as 2003, in FEC v. Beaumont, the Supreme Court found that ``any attack on the federal prohibition of direct corporate political contributions goes against the current of a century of congressional efforts to curb corporations' potentially `deleterious influences on federal elections.' ''

The Court made the point that our current laws grew out of the late 19th century belief ``that aggregated capital unduly influenced politics, an influence not stopping short of corruption.''

It is an influence that stops the work of the Senate and the House dead in its tracks.

This concern about aggregated capital and its effect on our democracy actually goes back to the earliest days of our country.

In the Federalist Papers James Madison wrote:

We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that

name on, a government which derives all its powers directly

or indirectly from the great body of the people. . . . It is

essential to such a government that it be derived from the

great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable

proportion, or a favored class of it.

So there is nothing unprecedented about seeking to regulate campaign spending. What is unprecedented is the ease by which the Supreme Court has undone decades of campaign finance laws, which has led to this dysfunction in Congress and the misery the folks in Colorado are suffering as they watch these ads.

What is unprecedented is the sheer volume of money that is flooding the Senate and congressional races. What is unprecedented is the corrupting influence this money is having on the institution of Congress.

Because of this new world of unlimited spending, Members of Congress are a lot less likely to seek compromise than they once were and work together if they know they may become the target of a super Pac from people who can write checks that are larger than my imagination.

Reasonable limits on campaign spending can help address this problem. We believed for decades and decades and decades that the Constitution allowed us to do that.

The Supreme Court has now decided that we can't, and we are looking at this choice.

I would say also on this point that notwithstanding my observations about the Court, it is also true that eight of nine Supreme Court Justices have said that disclosure requirements are constitutional, that disclosure does not require a change to the Constitution. I, for one, say at least let's pass that, Republicans and Democrats coming together and saying, You know what. We have always had an expectation about the First Amendment that we are going to be willing to stand and say who we are--or maybe we will not require people to say who they are, but we will just say at the end: Paid for people who are so embarrassed about what they are doing that they refuse to put their actual names on this advertisement.

But it seems to me that if we can be required to say: I am Senator so and so and I paid for this message, we ought to be able to say that about everybody who is advertising in political ads.

Changing these rules would bring more compromise and consensus building to this institution but, most important, above all else, it would help give individual families a greater say in the political process. We offer this amendment not as a one-size-fits-all solution but to allow Congress and the States to place reasonable limits on campaign spending to experiment with what works and put away what doesn't work, similar to the rules that had existed for decades, similar to the rules that existed when the Congress actually functioned, similar to the rules that existed when Democrats and Republicans didn't seem to have such difficulty working across the aisle.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Alabama for allowing me to go ahead of him in cue.

Mr. President, we say that America is a nation of immigrants, and, of course, that is true. There is no other country in the world for which immigration is so central to its history and its identity. Let's take a moment to reflect on what that really means.

Here is a photo. I am afraid it is not a very good quality. I took it myself. It is a photo that I took at a naturalization ceremony held for Active Duty servicemembers in Fort Carson, CO. The 13 soldiers and spouses who became U.S. citizens on that day represented 11 different countries of origin even though they are wearing our uniform.

They came from all over the world: Colombia, Haiti, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, China, the Philippines, South Korea, Togo, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. They all came for this pursuit of the American dream, and they all came to serve this country. They are going to be the people who help us determine our future.

The same is true with the refugees fleeing persecution from around the world. The parents seeking opportunity for their children and those stepping forward to serve and sacrifice for our shared values have made this country the America we love. But our existing immigration policies do not reflect this history or the values that shaped it. Instead, it is a mess of unintended consequences that hurts our businesses, rips families apart, and keeps us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world.

Tomorrow marks 365 days--1 year--since the Senate acted to fix these problems and passed bipartisan immigration reform. Yet here we are still waiting for the House of Representatives to do the same. The House's inaction is costing our Nation. It has cost us, among other things, $13.4 billion in lost revenue in this last year alone. With each additional day that passes, we lose another $37 million of revenue.

What is most frustrating about this to me is that we agree--on both sides of the aisle--that our current immigration system is broken. We agree that our immigration system is critical for our economy and for our country.

In June of last year we passed a bill in this Chamber with strong bipartisan support. It won the support of a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats. It also has the support of countless organizations, from migrant workers to farmers and ranchers, from law enforcement agencies to the faith community, Latino leaders across this country, and the Chamber of Commerce to labor unions.

Often I tell those who despair about the lack of leadership in Congress that there is a model we can learn from, and it is the bipartisan work that was done on this bill. I cannot say enough about the Republican Members of the Gang of 8 who negotiated a bill over seven or eight months, knowing what the base of their party might say about the fact that they were in that room but still willing to do it because it was right to do for their country and it was right to do for their party--in that order.

In this job I have had the opportunity to meet with a diverse cross section of

Coloradans throughout the State, each struggling beneath the weight of a broken immigration system. I have spoken with peach growers on the Western Slope, vegetable growers in Brighton, and melon farmers in the San Luis Valley--farmers such as Philip Davis from Mesa Winds Farm and Winery in Western Colorado who cannot get the seasonal workers he needs. He will tell you how hard he and his family have had to work to fill these gaps, and how every single day they have to keep fighting to prevent their 36-acre farm from closing.

A legal, reliable, competent workforce for our Nation's farms and ranches is essential for Colorado's $40 billion agricultural industry, and it is essential for our agricultural industry across the country. Maybe that is the reason why both the United Farm Workers union and the growers all across the United States of America endorsed this bill.

I have heard from Colorado's high-tech companies such as Full Contact, a tech startup in Boulder, CO, that acquired a company overseas. They have been unable to hire the talented engineers they need to grow their businesses and add jobs.

I have also heard from Colorado's dedicated teachers and administrators who work tirelessly to teach the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators--teachers such as Mary Edwin from Colorado Springs. Mary, a graduate of Johns Hopkins with a master's degree in education, will likely be forced to return home to Nigeria, leaving behind the children she works with at Turman Elementary School, all on account of our broken, outdated visa system.

This year on April 7, approximately 6 months before the 2015 fiscal year even begins, the government announced it had already reached its statutory cap on H-1B petitions for H-1B visas. It has also reached its exemption for 20,000 advanced-degree holders. These are exactly the type of workers our State and the national economy require.

I will paint a picture of what our country would look like if the Senate's immigration bill were actually enacted. First, millions of people who came to this country for a better life, including young people whose parents brought them here as children, would have the opportunity to enter a tough but fair pathway to citizenship. With a path in place, we would see higher wages, greater consumption of goods and increased revenue. It would reduce our debt by nearly $1 trillion-- even in Washington that is real money--over 20 years, and increase our economic growth by roughly 5.4 percent over that period of time.

Next, our bill would put in place an efficient and flexible visa system that would enable us to compete in a changing 21st century global economy. Talented entrepreneurs and innovators from around the world would have the opportunity to stay here in order to create jobs and fuel our economy. High-skilled workers in math and science, and lower-skilled workers in industries such as hospitality and tourism would come into the country to fill jobs where there are no available U.S. workers.

We would provide stability for our agricultural industry with a new streamlined program for agricultural workers--one that is more usable for employers and protects our workers.

Our borders would be more secure. There is one border security bill that has passed the Congress, and that is the bill passed by the Senate. It allows for new fencing, doubling the number of border agents, and increased spending on new technology. We would have full situational awareness on the border in order to allow us to intercept threats rapidly and successfully. And with the mandatory employment verification system and more effective entry-exit system, we would prevent future waves of illegal immigration.

A huge number of people who are here entered the country legally; we just don't know where they are. We ought to have a system that tells us that. These are all changes that our Nation urgently needs.

In the time since the Senate passed the bill, we heard a litany of reasons why it can't pass the House. They say the Senate bill doesn't have support in the House. If Speaker Boehner put the bill on the floor tomorrow, it would pass. They say the Senate bill is too long, too big, too comprehensive. I, for one, am willing to consider looking at this bill in smaller pieces as long as all the problems with the system are addressed. But the House has not produced--never mind voted--on a single bill, much less a series of smaller bills.

They say they want more border security, but what do they know about the border that our Republican colleagues from Arizona, John McCain and Jeff Flake, don't know? What do they know about the border that Senator Flake and Senator McCain don't know? We have 21,000 border agents, and we are putting another 21,000 on the border if this bill were passed. We spend more money on the border than we do on all other Federal law enforcement combined, but they say there is not enough border security--not that they passed a border security bill. The only folks who have passed a border security bill are right here in the Senate. We should ask them how many more agents they need, and how many more billions of dollars we should spend.

If the House wants to secure the border first, which the Senate bill does, let's see their legislation. We are waiting. I, for one, would like to see them think about customs agents and trade instead of adding more billions of dollars at the border.

The most common excuse we have heard is that the House has not had time to pass a bill. The House was only scheduled to work 9 days last September. Ultimately, they came back for a few extra days to shut the government down.

In the year since the Senate passed the bill, the House has found the time to vote 17 times to repeal, delay or dismantle the health care bill--54 times in total in the last 4 years. They voted to name 20 post offices and an assortment of 20 other government buildings. They have held five separate House committee hearings. They produced three different public reports and passed one resolution on the topic of Benghazi--a topic that has never come up in most of our town hall meetings.

What I hear in Colorado over and over is we have to stop excuses, stop posturing, and pass a bill--a good bipartisan bill, and that is what the House of Representatives ought to be doing now. Fixing our broken immigration system is long overdue, and I believe that the bipartisan solution crafted in our Senate bill will fix it just fine. It is time for the House to act.

With that, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague, again, for his patience and kindness in allowing me to go first.

Madam President, I say to my colleague from Wyoming that I disagree with him on this issue, but I do agree wholeheartedly with his observation about the importance of training people for this 21st century economy, and I have enjoyed working with him so much on the HELP Committee.

I am on the floor today to talk about the minimum wage bill that is before us this week, and once again to have the opportunity to come here and say that Washington, DC, is absolutely decoupled with the conversations people are having in Colorado, whether they are Republicans, Democrats or Independents. We had another example of that here today during this debate--if you can call it a debate--because once again there are people in the Senate who are using their prerogatives as Senators to keep us from debating a bill fully and to keep us from actually having an up-or-down vote on a bill that the vast majority of Americans support whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

There is a reason why America supports this legislation. If you work 40 hours a week in the United States of America--the greatest country in the world--at a Federal minimum wage, you barely make over $15,000 a year. If you work 40 hours a week--week after week after week--you make $15,000 a year. A worker in this country with a spouse and two kids, a family of four--a typical family in this country--depending on the single minimum wage paycheck is in deep trouble. They are not just below the minimum wage, that family makes two-thirds of the poverty level.

A breadwinner in a family of four working at the minimum wage is more than $8,000 below the poverty line. That family with a full-time breadwinner is impoverished in the United States of America to the tune of $8,000. If you have a family who depends on you to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table, that is not enough to get by. It is not even close.

It may be hard for people here who are paid $174,000 a year to understand what it would be like to live on $15,000, but let's think a little bit about what that family's life is like. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says that even under the cheapest plan possible--the thriftiest plan possible--where the family cuts every single corner, spending as little as can be spent, it costs over $7,000 a year to feed a family of four with growing kids. It costs $7,000 under the most difficult circumstances possible. At least half of that family's $15,000 paycheck goes just to groceries--just to feeding a family and keeping them nourished. After payroll taxes, that leaves a family with less than $7,000 to cover every other cost--that is it. Food is half of what you bring home and you are left with $7,000.

In Denver, where my family lives, the average rental unit costs over $12,000 a year. That is an average. That includes tiny studio apartments. In Denver, this family of four would have to squeeze into a rental unit well under half that cost. They would need to live in a space woefully inadequate for their needs, their family, and their children. That family would have to stretch their pocket change--and whatever is left after they spend the money they barely have to feed and house their children--to cover utilities, medicine, health, clothes, transportation, school supplies, and the countless other expenses that life throws at us. It cannot be done. It is simple arithmetic.

A family such as the one I just described needs thousands of additional dollars from the Federal and local government just to get by. We don't want to have a minimum wage that is so low that people who are working 40 hours a week have to be on public assistance just to support their families. Think about how crazy that is. Someone working full time, 40 hours a week in a minimum wage job today, needs thousands of dollars in support from the Government to provide for their family. That is not what we want in America.

The situation is a lot worse than it used to be because the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation. So as costs rise, the minimum wage loses its purchasing power and stays the same until Congress raises it, which is why we are trying to have this debate here. There is no one else who can do this in America. Democratic and Republican Congresses that have dealt with this over the years have found ways to do it. Congress has raised the minimum wage over and over for precisely that reason.

Even so, today, as we stand on this floor with the responsibility to the American people, our minimum wage is down substantially from where it used to be. The Federal minimum wage stands at $7.25 an hour. That is $3.44 an hour and more than $7,000 a year below what it was in 1968 in real inflation-adjusted dollars. It is a $7,000 gap, which makes a huge difference to the family of four we just considered trying to survive on the minimum wage.

In 1968, a minimum wage job kept a family of three out of poverty. That is what the Congress did in 1968. They said if you work 40 hours a week, your family ought to live above the poverty line. A full-time worker with two children was 20 percent above the poverty line. Today that same family is 19 percent below the poverty line all because the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. It also has not kept pace with average earnings.

In 1968, the minimum wage was 54 percent of the average hourly pay for a U.S. worker; today it is just 36 percent. At the same time, even when you account for inflation, college costs are three times what they were four decades ago. It is no wonder that the working families I hear from in Colorado feel they are working harder than ever before but falling farther behind.

The bill we are talking about today raises the Federal minimum wage by 39 percent to $10.10 an hour. That is actually less than the 47- percent increase that is required to get back to the 1968 level. So we are still not going to be back where we were in 1968, but we will make progress in the sense that the people who are earning minimum wage will no longer be living in poverty.

Consider what this bill does for a family's ability to provide for itself. Look at just one major Federal safety net program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. Food stamps is what that is. The reason the House of Representatives held up the farm bill for so long was over the issue of food stamps. As we think about what we are doing here and the debate we are having, I think that is important to keep in context. This is a program that millions of low- income families depend on in order to eat.

This minimum wage bill would reduce SNAP enrollments by over 7\1/2\ percent because people would now be making a living wage. That is over 3.1 million Americans who would no longer have to depend on a program to feed their kids. If you vote for this legislation, you are voting to reduce the roles of those who depend on food stamps by 3 million Americans. It is not a virtue that we have those 3 million Americans on food stamps. They ought to be earning a living wage. We would save $46 billion in SNAP payments over the next decade if we pass this bill.

It applies to other programs as well. Two-thirds of Americans who earn under $10 an hour use public assistance in some form--two-thirds, two-thirds, two-thirds. Working families--Americans who actually have a job who are working 40 hours a week--cost the Government about $243 million a year through programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, and other safety-net programs. Raising the minimum wage makes American workers less dependent on these programs to support their families.

There are many compelling reasons to raise the minimum wage. There is a compelling reason why all the surveys show that the American people, no matter what party they are in, think we ought to raise the minimum wage. Yet in a few hours, if nothing changes, a minority of Senators will most likely not even come to the floor to vote on this but will use their powers in the Senate to block an honest up-or-down vote about whether we ought to raise the minimum wage in this country. They don't even want us to have a proper debate on this bill much less pass it.

What is so radical about what we are trying to do that they won't even let us have an up or down vote? Is this somehow unprecedented? Is what we are talking about unknown in the annals of the Senate? Actually, it is not. Since the minimum wage was enacted by the Congress in the 1930s, we have managed to raise the minimum wage on 10 different occasions over 70 years. We have raised the minimum wage very routinely to try--not always successfully--to keep pace with inflation. We have done it many times.

Democratic and Republican Congresses have raised the minimum wage. Democratic Presidents have signed minimum wage increases into law and Republican Presidents have signed minimum wage increases into law. President Eisenhower signed a 33-percent increase in the minimum wage in 1955. President Nixon signed a 44-percent minimum wage increase into law in 1974. George H. W. Bush signed a 27-percent minimum wage increase into law in 1989. In 1996, a Republican-controlled Congress enacted a 21-percent minimum wage increase which President Clinton signed into law. Most recently in 2007, President George W. Bush signed a 41-percent increase into law.

You can see on this chart all the different times the minimum wage has been raised and by how much. If you look at the 10 different times we have increased the minimum wage, the average increase has been about 41 percent. This increase increases it by 39 percent, and that is below average. But to hear some people talk, you would think this bill is an unprecedented assault on American capitalism.

Tom Delay described the minimum wage earlier this year as unconstitutional. Others have said it doesn't affect a lot of workers. Several years ago the Speaker--before he was Speaker--said he would ``commit suicide before [he voted] on a clean minimum-wage bill.'' This makes no sense. It is at war with our history.

I see my colleagues are here.

I ask and beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are not allowing us to have an up-or-down vote on something that the American people want--whether they are Democrats, Republicans or Independents--to allow us to have that vote.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Transportation Security Administration Oversight: Confronting America's Transportation Security Challenges.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a Near Eastern and Southern and Central Asian Affairs Subcommittee hearing entitled, ``A Transformation: Afghanistan Beyond 2014.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2014, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Lessons Learned from the Boston Marathon Bombings: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 30, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Drug Enforcement Administration.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dollars and Sense: How Undisclosed Money and Post-McCutcheon Campaign Finance Will Affect the 2014 Election and Beyond.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Overmedication: Problems and Solutions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 30, 2014, in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Exploring the Perils of the Precious Metals Market.''

Madam President, April 20 marked the 15th anniversary of the tragic shooting at Columbine High School. I come to the floor to honor the memories of the 12 young, innocent students, and beloved teacher we lost, and to recognize the bravery that so many educators and first responders showed on that horrific day.

On the day of the anniversary, Coloradans gathered at Clement Park in Littleton to remember the victims and recommit to preventing these acts of senseless violence from ever happening again. Coni Sanders, the daughter of Coach Dave Sanders who was killed that day, spoke at the gathering. If I could just share a few of her words, I think they ring very true.

She said,

Fifteen years ago, Columbine was a massacre. Columbine was

a tragedy. Columbine was synonymous with death. Today, we

recognize that Columbine is a community and that even the

most violent of hate could not shake us.

Coni's words express the pain we have all been left with in the wake of too many similar tragedies in Colorado and across the country. But her words also remind us of the enduring strength of our communities and the need to do more to combat gun violence in the United States.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize a respected leader from Southwest Colorado, city attorney David P. Smith, of Durango, for his impeccable leadership and service. David retired on April 1, 2014, after a long and distinguished career.

David is a consummate public servant, having served the city of Durango for 37 years. In his capacity as city attorney, David has served at the pleasure of 55 different city councilors. His tenure is the longest of any city attorney in the city of Durango's 133 year history.

David's legal career, which began 45 years ago in general practice, is marked by his outstanding level of professionalism. David is recognized as a leader among legal professionals in Southwest Colorado, fostering cooperative relationships among community stakeholders and governmental entities.

In service to his local community, David is committed to the advancement of high-quality education. David has served as a board member and president of the school board for the 9R School District, on the Durango Foundation for Educational Excellence, and on the advisory board for Animas High School.

After full engagement and an integral role in shaping the future of Durango and Southern Colorado for decades, David is transitioning from his service as the city attorney to enter a well-deserved retirement. I am pleased to recognize David's extraordinary service to the city of Durango before the Senate today. I wish him all the best in his retirement; may the next phase of his life be equally as remarkable.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to return today to the subject of immigration. Today marks the 285th day since the immigration bill passed right here in the Senate with almost 70 votes, and 285 days later we are still waiting for the House of Representatives to act on that bipartisan piece of legislation.

Every single day the House drags its feet on immigration, our borders remain less secure, our visa system keeps us less competitive, our economy suffers, and millions of families remain in the shadows.

Hard-working immigrants who came here to live the American dream and who are part of the fabric of our communities all over the State of Colorado and all over the United States of America are suffering because Congress has not passed a bill, families such as Dulce Saenz's family from Hudson, CO.

When Dulce's father was deported, she and one of her sisters stayed in Colorado to start college while her mom and younger sister moved to Mexico to be with their dad. It was a heartbreaking decision for the family to separate, but that is what they needed to do. Now all three sisters have gone to the University of Denver in Colorado. They have started careers in public service. But they rarely see their parents. They worry about their safety.

It is clear to everybody I talk to here and at home that our current immigration system is broken. It is also clear to me and I think to many people that separating families does not reflect our history and it does not do honor to the values that shape that history. So while the House stalls, the Secretary of Homeland Security is reviewing our deportation policy and exploring other ways we can help keep families together. It is a good step in the absence of a bill. We should prioritize deportation in a way that reflects our values as a country, upholds the rule of law, and keeps families together. But in the end, the only way to come to a full and permanent solution is to pass this immigration reform bill.

Of course, this is not unusual in Washington these days when we have become so used to getting the bare minimum accomplished, keeping the lights on for another week or for another month. But what is so frustrating on this issue is that we have bipartisan agreement that the current immigration system is broken and that it is doing no favors to this country.

The coalition we built in favor of reform is unprecedented. I was not surprised. When we started this in Colorado, first I would travel around the State and I would hear peach growers in Palisade say one thing about what they hoped for in an immigration bill, I would hear the cattle ranchers say something else, the ski resorts say something else, our high-tech community, our immigrant rights community-- everybody coming together to say: You know what, it is long past time to get this fixed.

When we brought this to the national level, working together with the so-called group or gang of 8 on immigration, we were able to build a coalition that really is unprecedented. In the 5 years I have been here, I have not seen universal agreement on anything like we have seen on the immigration bill.

In June of last year, right here in the Senate, we passed a strong bipartisan bill--a bill that strengthens our economy and reduces our debt, a bill that keeps families together, protects our borders and our communities, and gives families who came to this country for a better life a chance to earn citizenship and contribute to our economy and to our society.

As I mentioned, I was part of that Gang of 8 who negotiated the bill. For those who despair about the lack of leadership in Congress--and I hear about this all the time, as I know all of my colleagues do--I tell them that for my part, as one American, the greatest sign or signal of legislative leadership that I have seen in the past 5 years was the leadership provided by John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Jeff Flake, the four Republicans who sat at that table for 7 or 8 months and negotiated the immigration bill. It was a lot harder for them to stay there than it was for the Democrats. But those four Republicans sat at the table for 8 months and negotiated a bill because they knew it was the right thing to do for the country and, parenthetically, the right thing to do for their party in that order.

Yet here we are. After all that bipartisan agreement, after all that bipartisan work, after a great bipartisan vote on the floor of the Senate on one of the most immediate issues facing this country, 9 months after our bill passed the Senate we still do not have a bill at the President's desk.

The House of Representatives is privileged to have the opportunity to rise above politics as usual and to do something big, something real, something consequential that will last for this country. The House of Representatives has the privilege to show that stalemate does not have to be standard operating procedure in Washington, DC.

This issue is completely bipartisan at home. I hear about this as much from Republicans--maybe even more from Republicans in farm country than I do from Democrats, the chance to do something important for our Nation and for our future. But until the House acts, families, farmers, and businesses all across my State and all across the United States will continue to suffer, farmers such as Eric Hanagan and Michael Hirakata outside of Rocky Ford, who cannot get the seasonal workers they need and are forced to watch crops--in their case, melons--die in the field.

Colorado's high-tech companies on the front range--ranging from bioscience, engineering, and aerospace--cannot always find the employees they need. In fact, they often cannot find the employees, which introduces an entirely different subject that relates to our K-12 education system, but that is not the topic of the speech today.

We know that almost one-quarter of STEM graduates from Colorado's STEM--math and science graduates from Colorado's leading universities are immigrants who are graduating in the United States, many of whose education has been subsidized by us. Instead of saying to them, ``Please stay here; build our business here; go work for one of our high-tech companies here,'' we are saying to them, ``Go home. We would much rather have you compete with us from India. Go home. We would much rather have you compete with us from China.'' It is ridiculous. It makes no sense.

The Senate bill, the bill we passed, changes that. The bill we passed says: If you are a STEM graduate from another country and you graduate from an American university and you have a job offer in the United States of America, we will staple the green card to your diploma.

That is what we need in this country. That is what the high-tech industry in Colorado needs out of the House of Representatives.

I mentioned tourism at our ski resorts. They will continue to suffer. This is Colorado's second largest industry.

There are a lot of reasons to act, there are a lot of economic reasons to act, but I think there are also fundamental reasons that have to do with who we are as a country. It is often said that America is a nation of immigrants. Of course that is true. There is literally no other country in the world for which immigration is so central to its history and to its identity.

I have heard enough speeches in this Chamber to know that for a lot of us, for a lot of the 100 of us, it is very personal as well. I am a first-generation American. I know there are many others who are here. There is not a person in this Chamber who does not have immigration as part of their family's history.

But this is not just a theoretical idea, that we are a nation of immigrants. I want to take a moment to reflect on what this really means. This is a photo I am proud to say I actually managed to take with my cell phone. My daughters would be shocked to know that I was able not only to get the picture taken, but it is not even blurry.

I had an occasion--I hope the Presiding Officer has had the opportunity to do it--to do something I never imagined I would ever have the chance to do. I attended a naturalization ceremony held for Active-Duty servicemembers at Fort Carson, CO. Let's be clear. These are men and women who are serving the United States of America in uniform. On that day they became citizens of the United States. Until that day they were not citizens but still they were serving and are serving in our Armed Forces. The 13 soldiers and spouses who became U.S. citizens that day represented 12 different countries. This is a picture of them--12 different countries among the 13.

I am going to read the list. I was so blown away by the list that I asked one of the people from the INS who was there to give me what is called the oath ceremony nationality report from which they read the names of the countries. It is an astonishing list. Here are the countries these folks are from: China, the People's Republic of China, Colombia, Haiti, Jamaica, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Philippines, South Korea, Togo, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom--12 different countries.

Every single one of them came here in pursuit of the American dream, just as generations of people from around

the world have sought out the United States to build their future. These are the people--and people just like them all across the United States of America--who are going to determine our future, just as every generation of immigrants has helped us to determine our future. Whether it is refugees fleeing persecution, whether it is parents seeking opportunity for their children, it is those stepping forward to sacrifice for our shared values, as all of these young men and women are, who make America the country we love. There is no way to argue that our current immigration policies reflect that history or our values.

Let me paint a picture of what our country would look like if this immigration bill were passed. Just to be clear, again, it is not imaginary; we passed the bill in the Senate.

If people on the other side have issues with the bill, what I say is we have no monopoly on wisdom. Bring your ideas; improve the bill. I can think of some things I would do to improve that bill, but you can't just do nothing. You can't do nothing, because if we pass the bill in the House, those who come to this country for a better life, including young people--whose parents brought them here as children, and they are here through no fault of their own--would have the opportunity to enter a tough but fair path to citizenship. With a path in place we would then see higher wages, more consumption of goods and increased taxes.

It would reduce our debt. This bill--and this is not me talking, Michael Bennet from Colorado, this is the Congressional Budget Office-- would reduce our debt by nearly $1 trillion over 20 years. I am unaware of any other piece of legislation that has passed with a bipartisan majority in the Congress that reduces our debt by $1 trillion but this would. It wouldn't do it in across-the-board cuts. It would do it because of the growth it would create in our economy, the incremental economic growth. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has said that if we pass this bill, we would see an increase of almost 6 percent of incremental GDP growth over this 20-year period, 3 percent in the first 10 years and 5 percent in the second 10 years.

Second, our bill would put into place an efficient and flexible visa system that would catapult our competitiveness in a changing 21st century economy. Canada, our neighbor to the North, is figuring out how to attract the world's talent to its shores. That is what they are spending their time doing. We, a historic nation of immigrants, are saying please go home and compete with us from someplace else or maybe go to Canada and compete with us from there. Talented entrepreneurs and innovators from around the world would have the opportunity to stay if we passed this bill and create jobs to fuel our economy. It is well- documented how many Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants, but millions of small businesses across the United States have been started by immigrants as well. High-skilled workers in science, technology, engineering, and math and lower skilled workers in industries such as hospitality and tourism would come into the country to fill jobs where there are no available U.S. workers. This was a bill that labor and the chamber endorsed. That is the first time that has happened. It was a difficult and painful negotiation, but we were able to get it done, and they agreed we ought to get it done.

It is very important for Colorado and a lot of other States. We would stabilize the challenges facing our agricultural industry with a new streamlined program for agricultural guest workers that is more usable for employees and protects our workers.

Again, this is the first bill ever. We call this portion the AgJOBS bill, the first one--first one--to be endorsed by the growers and the farm workers. That has never happened before, but working with Senator Rubio, Senator Hatch, and Senator Feinstein, we were able to get that done.

Finally, and more importantly, our borders would be more secure with new fencing, double the number of border agents, and increased spending on new technology. We have what they call full situational awareness on the border to allow us to interdict threats rapidly and successfully-- and, very importantly, with a mandatory employment verification system and more effective entry-exit system, we would prevent future waves in illegal immigration so we don't end back up in the problem we are facing today. Then our small businesses all across the country can stop being the INS and concentrate on building their businesses. These are all changes our Nation urgently needs, and there are more.

I am not here to argue for some partisan piece of legislation that didn't attract votes on both sides. This bill was entirely bipartisan from beginning to end. I have heard a laundry list of excuses out of people in the House why they haven't addressed immigration reform, but at some point it is time for those excuses to stop and for the stalling to stop. If they want to show the country they are serious about growing our economy and keeping families together, then they need to show us they are serious about immigration reform.

I actually think the Speaker wants to pass a bill. In fact, I think he could pass a bill if he put it on the floor tomorrow and let the House work its will. But it is not my job, obviously, to try to tell him how to do his job. It is no one's job in the Senate to tell him how to do his job, but I suppose it is our job to give him encouragement, to say we will be there to support you if you can find a way to get this bill passed.

If they want to show the country they are serious about growing our economy and keeping families together, then they need to show us they are serious about immigration reform. It doesn't have to be a carbon copy of what we passed, although if they look at it, what they will find is the elements that are in there hang very well together.

Look at this photo. Again, this is what America looks like. This is what Colorado looks like. This is what America looks like. It is what it is all about. These are faces of people who want to contribute. This diversity is how we thrive as a country, and it is how we are going to thrive in the future. It has always been our strength, and it is what sets us apart in many ways from countries all over the world.

These new citizens want to contribute to our economy and to our communities. They want to serve our country, they want to pay taxes and abide by the law, and they want to build a better life here for themselves and their families.

This picture is exactly why we need reform. These brave men and women say it all. They say it much better than I do.

I see my colleague from Pennsylvania is in the Chamber, so I will wrap up.

Let me say that two of the things that set us apart from countries all over the world, two of the essential components that make us the United States of America, are our commitment to the rule of law and our understanding of ourselves as being a nation of immigrants. Almost no other country in the world can say what we can say about that. I can tell you no other country in the world was having that naturalization ceremony the day we were having it at Fort Carson.

This bill gives us a chance to reaffirm those two ideas that we are a nation committed to the rule of law and that we are a nation of immigrants.

I had the chance this weekend to spend some time in my wife's hometown in the Mississippi Delta. It is one of the poorer parts of the country, and it has been for a very long time. It is a tough place in a lot of ways. We have a lot of great family there. After we finished, we went to Memphis to visit the civil rights museum, which has just reopened. If anybody has the chance to go, they should go to visit it, because what you see is the history of a struggle from the 1600s forward--generation upon generation--trying to perfect this country and keep it true to the idea that in this case we are all created equal.

For a long time we weren't able to perfect that. We still are having to perfect it. We are making progress, and that is what we are meant to do. Today we have that chance. The House has that chance tomorrow or next week or next month to make sure that we honor our commitment, this generation's commitment to a generation of immigrants and to the generations that are coming after them. I hope they will take up that challenge.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and the Presiding Officer as well for his patience.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about jobs and about one sector in particular that has created tremendous economic growth in Colorado and across the United States, and that is wind energy and the jobs it has brought to our State.

During last Thursday's markup in the Finance Committee, we worked in a bipartisan fashion to include a 2-year extension of the production tax credit, known as the PTC, and the investment tax credit, known as the ITC, for wind energy.

The wind credit has enjoyed broad bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle over a number of years, ranging from its original champion--who continues to be a champion--Senator Grassley from Iowa, to my friend and colleague from Colorado Senator Mark Udall, who has been a tireless and relentless supporter over the years for wind energy jobs in Colorado. I know he will be a supportive advocate when the extenders bill reaches the floor. If enacted into the law, the extension of the production tax credit and investment tax credit will continue to drive job growth in my State of Colorado.

Sometimes I hear people say the government should not pick winners and losers in their critique of the wind energy tax credits. I actually agree with that notion, but what I would say to people who are listening to this on the TV is that when you hear someone in Washington say you shouldn't pick winners and losers, that is when you should hold onto your wallet. They say that is as if those decisions haven't already been made--as if winners haven't already been produced somewhere deep in the Tax Code in the last century or the regulatory code or the statute books. It is a reminder to ask yourself: Who is more likely to have benefits in this town? Is it the incumbent industries that have been working on these for decade after decade or is it the innovators in our economy? And, of course, time and time again it is the legacy firms that have the upper hand in these debates. I don't blame them for fighting for that advantage. But I also know they are not necessarily going to be the industries that are going to create the 21st century jobs we need, and whether we know it or not that is fundamentally the debate we are having. It is not a left-right debate in this town. It is future versus past debate, and it is critically important to the next generation of Americans that we get this right.

This is an updated version of a chart I have been bringing to the floor for the last 4 years that shows some interesting relationships of lines relating to our economy. The top chart is GDP growth in the United States, and that is the green line. Here is the recession right here. You can see we are actually producing much more as an economy today than when we went into the recession. There is much greater gross domestic product.

This is the unemployment level. You can see at the depths of the recession the destruction in jobs the Presiding Officer saw in his home State, and we saw it in my home State. We were in a very difficult period at that time. We have actually begun to add jobs again, and we are almost back to where we were. I think we are back to where we were in terms of job creation.

This is a very stubborn and difficult issue for the people at home and the people I represent. This shows what has happened to median family and household income over periods of economic growth and over periods of economic decline. A way of thinking about that line is: What is happening to the middle-class income in this country? What is happening is the growth of middle-class income has decoupled from our economic growth. That, among other causes, has produced the worst income inequality we have seen in this country since 1928, I would argue, with the educational outcomes we have seen for kids, the most significant opportunity gap we have had in our lifetimes.

Why has this happened? There are a variety of reasons, but let me call your attention to this line. This is the productivity index in the United States. This shows how productive and efficient our economy has become. It has become incredibly efficient partly because of the use of technology, that is true, partly because of reaction to competition from overseas from China and India, and partly because the recession itself, which you can see, drove the line straight up because firms had to figure out how to get by with fewer people. That is our challenge. That is our central economic dilemma as we move into the second decade of this 21st century.

It is my view that there are two principal answers to that challenge. The first is education. I am not here to talk about that tonight, but just as a reminder, we are not going to recognize ourselves in this new century if we continue to perpetuate a set of outcomes in our K-12 system where if you are born poor in the United States, your chances of graduating with the equivalent of a college degree are roughly 9 in 100. That is completely unsatisfactory and outrageous, particularly for the kids we are talking about.

The other is innovation. We have to make sure we have the most innovative economy in the United States, and whether we are willing to lead the world; it is the companies that will start next week, the week after that, and the week after that, and the venture-backed companies that are somebody's bright idea today in their garage, but tomorrow could become the next Apple or Google. That is where the job growth and the wage growth is going to come from.

In my view the wind credit cuts right to the core of whether we are going to compete in a global economy. We are not talking about a fly- by-night experimental industry. This credit has triggered tremendous economic growth in Colorado and across the country. In Colorado alone, these tax credits directly support 5,000 jobs.

Vestas, which manufactures wind turbines, employs over 1,400 workers across four factories in our State from Pueblo all the way up I-25 to Brighton

and Windsor. They have hired 400 new workers this year with another 450 projected to be added before the end of 2014. This is it. Right here. Bricks and mortar. Real jobs. Made in America. It is not just manufacturing and design jobs near urban centers; it is also construction and operation jobs at the actual wind farms.

One Thursday night I left this floor, as I do almost every week--or it was a Friday morning, I guess. I flew back to Colorado. I got in the car and drove up to Peetz, where we have a wind farm. I climbed up to the top of a wind turbine. I thought that was it. I was in the pod at the top. That is not the technical term, but that is what it was. I thought I could then go home. When I got up there, they opened a trap door in the ceiling, and then I had to climb out on the roof of this thing, swaying over the Wyoming border, in the very shoes I wear on the floor of the Senate. That was an uncomfortable feeling, even though I was clipped in.

There was a guy up there who was one of the operators, one of the workers. He said: I would never have had this job in this community if it were not for this wind farm. If it were not for a vision somebody imagined several years ago but was unimaginable a decade ago, I would not have this job in this community.

This industry drives economic growth across our State from the conference rooms of tech startups in Boulder and Denver and all the way to 6,000-acre Kit Carson Wind Power Generating Site just west of the Kansas State line.

These are good jobs. In 2012, median household income for a single male in this country was just under $37,000. Compare this figure to jobs in the wind industry--and these are all from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Crane and wind tower operators have a median annual wage of over $47,000. These are jobs that can't be exported overseas. They can't be exported overseas. The electricians on wind projects average nearly $50,000 annually. Land acquisition specialists who secure the land where wind projects are located have a median salary of $74,000, and site managers for wind projects make over $100,000 a year.

So if we are looking for a way to say we would like to see median family income start to rise again in this country instead of going down whether we are in a period of economic growth or decline, we might start to look at things such as the wind industry. These are good- paying jobs, and we are seeing it more and more in Colorado and all across the country.

The production tax credit has driven $105 billion in private investment, opened 550 industrial facilities, and provided $180 million in lease payments to farmers, ranchers, and landowners who host wind farms. Wind power accounts for more than a third of all new U.S. electric generation in recent years. It has moved our State toward a more diversified and cleaner energy portfolio. Colorado is in the lead in many ways, and we are proud of that. Most importantly, 70 percent of a U.S. wind turbine is produced right here in the United States, and that creates 80,000 American jobs. When we travel the highways of my State, we see the component parts of these wind turbines moving from one plant to another, reflecting manufacturing jobs right here in the United States of America.

So I am delighted, I am glad, that we are moving to restore the wind credit that expired at the end of last year. We have seen this before where the PTC expired without a prompt extension, and it doesn't end well. Each time the credit has expired in the past, new installations fell between 76 and 93 percent, dealing a blow to the industry and its employees--and a reminder once again that what we don't do here actually matters out there in the real lives of people.

I know I sound like a broken record, but the world is not waiting for us to get out of our own way. We can't keep going through this unnecessary political boom-and-bust cycle. I am pleased the Senate Finance Committee took an important first step last week by reporting out a 2-year extension. We need to follow that with good work by bringing the extenders package to the floor and passing it into law. That outcome will give much-needed certainty to our industries and help secure the economic future for Colorado families who work in the wind industry.

With that, I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak this evening, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with a heavy heart to honor the memory of Chairman Jimmy Newton, Jr. of the Southern Ute Tribe. Chairman Newton was a tireless advocate for his fellow tribal members and passed away on Tuesday, April 1, 2014.

Chairman Newton began his career in public service in 2003 and was a strong and dedicated leader for a new generation. He was one of the youngest people ever to serve as tribal council member, vice chairman, and acting chairman before he was elected chairman of Southern Ute in 2012. Chairman Newton leaves behind a legacy of deep respect for Southern Ute culture and tradition.

I know I speak for our entire Colorado community when I extend my deepest sympathies to the Newton family and the Southern Ute tribe during this difficult time.

Mr. President, today we recognize the distinguished public service of Ross Aragon on the occasion of his retirement after serving 36 years as mayor of Pagosa Springs--the longest serving mayor in Colorado. Since taking office in 1978, Mayor Aragon has fulfilled his duties with passion, diligence, and honor. Over his more than three decades of service he has never missed a regular monthly scheduled meeting. For over a generation, the citizens of Pagosa Springs have known Ross Aragon as the best man for the job.

Mayor Aragon's steadfast approach to city management led to many notable accomplishments, including improving the quality of police and fire protection, expanding the community's recreational programs and facilities, and establishing the town's popular river walk. He also spearheaded the development of the San Juan River's kayaking, rafting, and tubing features, improving the community for both residents and tourists alike.

Of his many achievements, which are too many to list here, two projects in particular embody Mayor Aragon's approach to leadership more than most: his advocacy for local food produced using Pagosa Springs' geothermal resources was a clear demonstration of Mayor Aragon's ability to harness Pagosa's rich assets and translate them into a brighter future; and his successful efforts to designate Chimney Rock as a national monument exemplified the enthusiasm, dedication, and collaborative mindset Mayor Aragon brought to his job. Thanks to his leadership, an important part of Southwest Colorado's cultural heritage will forever be protected.

On behalf of Pagosa Springs in particular and Southwest Colorado in general, thank you, Mayor Aragon, for your many years of public service. We wish you well in your retirement and we can't wait to see what challenges you tackle next.

Mr. President, it is a pleasure to congratulate Capt. Sean T. Hays on being selected for promotion to the rank of major within the U.S. Marine Corps.

Every day, the men and women of the Armed Forces make incalculable contributions to our society. Nearly 22 years ago, Major (select) Hays swore an oath to protect our Nation and to lead by example. Entering the Marine Corps as a private, the lowest rank, he has diligently worked his way up through the ranks and continues to serve as a role model for his peers.

I had the distinct honor of meeting Major (select) Hays while he was deployed in Afghanistan. He is one of Colorado's best and brightest. His dedication to protecting his country speaks for itself, and I am confident that as a senior officer, he will continue to lead and protect with pride.

Congratulations to Major (select) Hays. I know his continued service will contribute to a stronger U.S. military and a safer nation.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Sister Lillian Murphy, who is retiring this June after an astounding 27 years as the CEO of Denver-based Mercy Housing, one of the largest and most effective affordable housing organizations in the country.

Since 1982, Mercy Housing has worked tirelessly to develop affordable housing options in more than 40 States. Sister Lillian took over as CEO in 1987 and has overseen enormous growth in Mercy's operations, which now houses more than 135,000 residents in nearly 40,000 homes.

Sister Lillian has won a number of awards for her work, including the prestigious Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California's Affordable Housing Leadership Award for Lifetime Achievement, and the Annual Housing Leadership Award from the National Low Income Housing Coalition. In 2009, she was inducted into the Affordable Housing Hall of Fame by Affordable Housing Finance Magazine. Sister Lillian has been a remarkable leader at Mercy Housing and she will be sorely missed.

Sister Lillian is leaving the important work of Mercy Housing in very capable hands with the incoming CEO Jane Graf. We all look forward to working with Ms. Graf to ensure that middle- and low-income families continue to have access to quality, affordable housing.