[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 181 (Thursday, December 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8986-S9001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 
3304, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, that the House concur in the Senate amendment to 
     the title of the bill (H.R. 3304) entitled ``An Act to 
     authorize and request the President to award the Medal of 
     Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United 
     States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and 
     to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other 
     veterans who were previously recommended for award of the 
     Medal of Honor,'' and be it further
       Resolved, that the House concur in the first three Senate 
     amendments to the text of the aforementioned bill, and be it 
     further

[[Page S8987]]

       Resolved, that the House concur in the fourth Senate 
     amendment to the text of the aforementioned bill, with an 
     amendment.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No. 
     2552, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2553 (to amendment No. 2552), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill 
     to the Committee on Armed Services, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 2554, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2555 (to (the instructions of the motion 
     to refer) amendment No. 2554), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2556 (to amendment No. 2555), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1859

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S. 1859, 
submitted earlier today, a bill that includes the following provisions: 
an extension of the provision to exclude mortgage debt forgiveness from 
taxable income; deductions for State and local sales taxes, qualified 
tuition expenses for students, and classroom expenses that teachers pay 
for out of their own pockets; a commuter benefit that helps workers who 
take mass transit to their jobs every day; the new markets tax credit 
and the low-income housing credit; tax benefits to encourage investment 
in our Nation's infrastructure, such as the short line rail tax credit; 
provisions that encourage the development of renewable energy 
technology, including the production tax credit for wind, as well as 
credits to promote biofuels, alternative fuel vehicles, and energy-
efficient buildings; and tax incentives for small and large businesses, 
including section 179 expensing, bonus depreciation, and the R&D 
credit.
  I further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the 
motions to reconsider be made and laid on the table, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, it is unfortunate the 
Senate's schedule is completely full with pending cloture motions on 
controversial or completely nonurgent nominations.
  If these nomination were deferred, we could consider this timely and 
important legislation today.
  I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the pending cloture motions 
on executive nominations be withdrawn; that following disposition of 
the Defense bill, the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of H.R. 
2668, a House-passed revenue measure; that the text of S. 1859 be the 
first amendment in order; and that the majority and minority sides then 
be recognized to offer amendments in an alternating fashion so these 
important issues could be considered this week.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I would refer to the 
statement I gave earlier today, and I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard to the 
modification. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I wish to briefly comment on the absurdity of what just 
transpired on the Senate floor. My friends on the other side have been 
the longest serving majority since 1980. We are enduring, some would 
say, the 7th consecutive year of their majority. Yet if someone were to 
take a close look at the strategy and tactics of the Senate Democratic 
leadership, they would think the roles were reversed.
  Democrats are the majority. They have even enhanced their majority by 
breaking the rules of the Senate to give themselves more power. Indeed, 
they have not been a bit reluctant to overreach.
  Part and parcel of having a majority in the Senate is control over 
the Senate's schedule and committees. Yet still we see what we saw 
today from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Under the Senate rules, tax policy matters, including the tax 
extenders, are referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Trade 
adjustment assistance, which was also included in this bill, also falls 
under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
  The Finance Committee processed tax extenders in a bipartisan fashion 
last year and that legislation was eventually enacted into law. The 
committee has also been able, though without as much bipartisan 
support, to deal with the TAA in the recent past.
  Yet now what do my friends want to do? They want to ignore the Senate 
rules, the expertise and proper role of the Finance Committee, and pass 
a complicated set of policies on the floor without discussion or 
debate. With regard to tax extenders, Finance Committee staff from both 
parties have, in only the past few days, started the process of 
developing tax extenders legislation.
  To put it bluntly, the majority leader's partisan actions today make 
a sham of that deliberative, methodical, and constructive bipartisan 
effort.
  Why are they afraid of going through regular order? They are the 
majority. Including my friend, the chairman, there are 13 Democrats on 
the Finance Committee and only 11 Republicans.
  What are they afraid of? Don't they set the committee agenda? Don't 
they have the votes?
  Political stunts, such as unanimous consent requests that are 
designed only to draw objections from the other side, may be good 
political fun for the proponents, they might even provide some good 
campaign fodder, but they don't solve any problems.
  It is amazing to see this kind of activity from the Senate majority 
party when it controls the agenda both on the floor and in the 
committees. We might expect these kinds of actions from a frustrated 
minority party that feels shut out of its role in committees and on the 
floor, but here we have a role reversal.
  I am currently a member of the minority party in the Senate, 
defending regular order, Senate customs, and the role of the committee 
system. I will reiterate my challenge to my friends in the Senate 
Democratic leadership: Why are you so afraid of regular order? Why not 
process this legislation in a careful, methodical, and transparent 
manner?
  Being in the majority means being accountable. Today my friends on 
the other side of the aisle tried, once again, to avoid accountability 
in order to blame their own failings on Republicans. As the saying 
goes: That dog just won't hunt.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I may, before the Senator from Utah leaves the 
floor, he correctly stated the state of the Senate today. It is not the 
same body it was only a few years ago in the way we are being treated. 
It is a very discouraging development, as we approach the end of the 
year, to see the way the Senate deteriorated under the current 
leadership.
  I thank the senior Senator from Utah for pointing out that it was not 
too long ago that the two parties actually functioned on issues such as 
the majority leader was trying to ram through today without any 
committee consideration.
  Mr. HATCH. The distinguished minority leader expresses it very well. 
I am appalled. I have only been here 37 years, but I have never seen 
the rules violated as they have been--frankly, violated in a way that 
is destructive to the Senate, not helpful or constructive to the 
Senate. This is just another illustration. Our side is getting very 
sick of it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Utah.


                            Stifling Dissent

  Earlier this year the Internal Revenue Service admitted 
responsibility for an incredible abuse of power. In the midst of an 
election season, it targeted and harassed Americans for the supposed 
crime of thinking differently. An agency with access to some of the 
most

[[Page S8988]]

personal information of every tax-paying American betrayed their trust. 
In doing so, it showed the lengths to which this administration will go 
to stifle those who dissent from its policies. All of this was and 
remains a complete outrage.
  It is the kind of thing we might expect from a banana republic or a 
third-world dictatorship, not the world's leading democracy. The worst 
part is we still don't know everything that happened or if it is still 
going on. That is because the bipartisan investigation into all of this 
still hasn't concluded.
  It is unclear to me how seriously the White House is taking this 
investigation. In many ways it seems to have treated the scandal more 
as a public relations problem to get past than a serious problem to 
solve and now, get this, they expect the elected representatives of the 
people to roll over and rubberstamp a new Presidential nominee to head 
the IRS. They want Congress to forget what happened and simply move on. 
They expect us to clear the way tomorrow and let them ram through the 
President's new pick to run the IRS. The American people deserve 
answers about how and why this targeting happened. They deserve justice 
too.
  I will not be supporting any nominee to lead this agency until the 
American people get the answers they deserve. Of course, the Democrats 
in charge of the Senate changed the rules a few weeks back in order to 
ensure they could get their way on nominees, no matter what the 
American people think. It is the same kind of attitude we have seen on 
the Defense bill, where the majority leader prevented other Members 
from offering amendments. They will do what they want, even if it means 
breaking the rules.
  If John Koskinen does find himself confirmed tomorrow, I want him to 
know a few things. First, he should understand I don't hold any animus 
toward him personally. Under different circumstances, I might well have 
been able to support him. We had a good conversation when we met 
recently to discuss his nomination, but he is also someone I will be 
keeping a close watch on, as will the other members of my conference, 
as will the American people, because big challenges lie ahead for the 
next IRS Commissioner, no matter who he or she may be.
  We expect the next IRS Commissioner to cooperate fully with the 
ongoing investigation into this scandal. We expect whoever is 
eventually confirmed to hold those who broke or bent the rules fully 
accountable. We expect the next Commissioner to fairly implement the 
laws he or she is charged with executing.
  To his credit, the nominee has assured me he agrees with me on a 
topic I feel very strongly about--that the IRS should stay out of 
regulating political speech. Let me say that again. The IRS should stay 
out of regulating political speech. He told me himself he agreed with 
that, and I was pleased to hear it.
  Were he to become Commissioner, I would expect him to oppose the 
extremely misguided proposed IRS rule that aims to overturn more than 
50 years of settled law and practice by unfairly targeting the speech 
of those who criticize the administration while leaving its supporters 
untouched.
  This proposed role, which will redefine what social welfare means in 
order to target certain groups that seek to educate the public, would 
end up penalizing Federal, State, and local organizations for the 
supposed crime of providing information, much of it nonpartisan or 
bipartisan. The goal is clear: to make it easier to push through the 
backdoor what congressional Democrats have been unable to pass through 
the front door, discriminatory policies that seek to silence those who 
dare to oppose them. It is just the latest in a long and troubling 
pattern of Chicago-style tactics under this administration, and it is 
exactly the kind of political meddling the next Commissioner needs to 
ensure never happens again.
  Let us not forget, the IRS should be a boring place, an impartial 
agency of tax collectors, not the vanguard of the left.
  The next Commissioner needs to see to it that the organization 
finally returns to its mission, and he or she needs to root out those 
who would have the IRS target Americans for the way they think.
  Lastly, as I have told the nominee, I am deeply concerned about the 
IRS role in implementing ObamaCare. The fact is that ObamaCare 
represents a dramatic expansion of the use of the Tax Code to pick 
winners and losers. It gives the agency broad new responsibilities for 
enforcing ObamaCare's most onerous mandates and to hand out nearly $1 
trillion in taxpayer subsidies. And in order to do all this, it will 
need to know who has insurance, penalize those who don't, and determine 
who is eligible for subsidies and how much they ought to receive--
something the agency has a very troubled history in doing with other 
programs. If they get any of that wrong, they will need to come back 
and repossess subsidies after the fact.

  In my view, the IRS doesn't have any business snooping even further 
into the lives of our constituents, especially at a time when it is 
already under a cloud of scandal. It is just one of the many reasons I 
opposed ObamaCare in the first place and why I continue to oppose it.
  If the nominee is to become Commissioner, then at a minimum I expect 
him to hold the agency to the highest standards--the highest 
standards--when it comes to protecting the privacy of the people we all 
represent. I expect him to provide regular transparent updates to 
Congress on the status of implementation and to let us know of any 
problems as soon as they arise. The last thing we need is for the IRS 
to compound the pain it and ObamaCare have already inflicted upon the 
American people by allowing fraud and further mistreatment to happen 
under its watch. The IRS has done a lot to lose the trust of the 
American people. It will need to do a lot more to regain it.
  Following the advice I just laid out will put the IRS on a better 
path. If this nominee ends up becoming the next Commissioner, that 
advice will form the criteria upon which his performance will be 
judged.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from New Jersey.


                       Tax Extenders Act of 2013

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to call attention to 
a critical provision in the Tax Extenders Act, which I wish had 
received consent because it is important for creating prosperity and 
economic opportunity in our country and giving certainty to businesses 
in order to achieve that goal. That Tax Extenders Act provides our 
Nation's most innovative businesses with some certainty as they plan 
their investments for next year.
  Every year the Congress extends a very popular law that provides a 
tax credit to businesses for certain research expenses. This credit is 
important for a number of reasons. It creates jobs, it encourages more 
research, and it bolsters U.S. competitiveness.
  Unfortunately, despite the efforts of a number of us here in the 
Congress--notably, the distinguished chairman of the Finance 
Committee--this credit is temporary and has been extended on what has 
been an annual basis. That is unfortunate because the lack of long-term 
certainty prevents businesses from fully relying on the credit when 
making their global investment decisions.
  I know the Presiding Officer understands this very well, as the State 
of New Jersey has some of the leading innovative companies in the world 
that very often rely on the research and development tax credit to make 
those millions and sometimes billions of dollars' worth of investment 
in order to produce the next lifesaving or life-enhancing drugs or the 
next technology breakthrough.
  In the meantime, at the very least, we can ensure the credit is 
extended. If we can't make it permanent, it should be extended in a 
timely fashion to give businesses confidence in putting more investment 
in research in the United States in 2014. This bill would extend the 
research and development tax credit for another year, and I sincerely 
hope we will be able to get this done very soon in order to maximize 
the credit's effectiveness and unlock that investment which creates 
economic opportunity and jobs and growth in our economy.
  I yield for my colleague the senior Senator from Ohio to discuss 
another important provision in this bill.

[[Page S8989]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Senator from New 
Jersey, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be 
allowed to speak following my comments on the extenders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues in asking 
for unanimous consent--which we will do formally later on--to pass the 
Tax Extenders Act of 2013.
  The bill will do a number of important extensions, including--
particularly important for my State--extending the health care tax 
credit or the HCTC. It is important that we extend it for workers and 
retirees who lose their jobs and benefits due to no fault of their own.
  Extending the HCTC preserves a program that people in my home State 
of Ohio--such as Delphi salaried retirees, who worked hard and played 
by the rules--know, understand, and trust. These tax credits are set to 
expire in just 2 weeks, at the end of the year.
  While affordable health insurance will be available on the health 
exchanges, one of the most important aspects of the Affordable Care 
Act--ObamaCare--extending the HCTC ensures that retirees who have 
already faced a number of transitions can keep insurance that is 
familiar to them while they learn about new options.
  Extending the tax credit for 1 year is fiscally responsible. We could 
and should do more. We should improve the HCTC and make it permanent, 
as I proposed in legislation I introduced along with Senators 
Rockefeller, Stabenow, Hirono, and Donnelly. But in the meantime, we 
could and should at the very least maintain this critical tax credit 
for a population that needs it desperately. That is what this bill 
does. That is why the Senate should move it soon by unanimous consent.
  I would like to take a moment to emphasize how important the Tax 
Extenders Act of 2013 is on a number of other issues besides the HCTC 
and credits my friends have discussed.
  Among other important measures, we should also move to extend the new 
markets tax credit and the low-income housing tax credit. These 
programs are oversubscribed and are able to help revitalize communities 
by leveraging tens of billions of dollars in private investments. They 
are among the best programs we have for economic development in Ohio 
and across the country. I strongly support that extension.
  Finally, I would like to associate myself with Senator Stabenow in 
calling for unanimous consent to pass the Tax Extenders Act of 2013 in 
order to extend mortgage debt relief. Without this critical extension, 
homeowners who make modifications to their mortgage or receive loan 
forgiveness could face a crippling tax bill. Imagine that. After you 
have done a loan modification, you are taxed on whatever money you 
save. Imagine getting that tax bill. That is why the mortgage debt 
relief extender is so very important.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to thank Leader Reid, Chairman 
Baucus, Senator Schumer, Senator Stabenow, Senator Wyden, Senator 
Brown, and Senator Menendez for coming to the floor to talk about this 
important issue of tax extenders and why we need to get them done now.
  In the State of Washington taxpayers are opening the morning 
newspaper and finding the Seattle Times editorial entitled ``Congress 
should extend the sales-tax deduction.'' The Seattle Times has been 
following this issue for years and knows that taxpayers are waiting to 
find out whether we can continue to deduct our sales tax from our 
Federal income tax obligation. As Washington is a State that doesn't 
have an income tax, we want parity with other States and we want to be 
able to deduct our sales tax as one of those taxes from our Federal tax 
obligations.
  Every year millions of Washingtonians have to wait to find out 
whether that particular tax provision is going to be extended. I want 
to make it permanent, and I hope when we do tax reform we will be able 
to do so. But in the meantime we have to give certainty to the 
taxpayers in Washington State that as far as these important tax 
policies are concerned, Congress can act and get things done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
that particular Seattle Times editorial.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From The Seattle Times, Dec. 18, 2013]

       Editorial: Congress Should Extend the Sales-Tax Deduction

       Congress needs to end its magical thinking and pass a 
     permanent federal income tax deduction for state and local 
     sales tax.
       Year after year, Washington state taxpayers are forced to 
     play Congress' aggravating game of fantasy role-playing. 
     Alas, there are no elixirs or elves, although there are a few 
     ogres.
       In this game, Congress pretends it will magically transform 
     into a body capable of passing a comprehensive tax bill. Such 
     a bill would almost assuredly include a permanent federal 
     income-tax deduction for state and local sales taxes, on par 
     with the existing permanent deduction for state income taxes. 
     This matters because some states, such as Washington, have 
     the former, but not the latter.
       Instead, every year since 2004, Congress has passed a 
     temporary extension of the sales-tax deduction. Next year, 
     fantastical thinking goes, will be the big fix for the tax 
     code.
       Washington's delegation, led for years by U.S. Sen. Maria 
     Cantwell, has tried to pop this absurdity. So too this year, 
     with Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, hammering away. President 
     Obama is on board, recommending a permanent sales-tax 
     deduction. But the U.S. House left town on Friday for the 
     year without so much as another temporary extension, 
     effectively ending the deduction beginning in 2014.
       This is big money for Washington state. An analysis by the 
     Pew Charitable Trusts released this week shows Washington is 
     the state most dependent on the sales-tax deduction, with 29 
     percent of filers in the Evergreen State claiming it. The top 
     seven states all have limited or no state income taxes. 
     Filers who claim the deduction typically save about $500 off 
     their tax bill.
       The fantasy game will likely resume on Jan. 6: Congress 
     could pass a retroactive exemption, allowing deductions for 
     the full 2014 calendar year. They could even pretend it had 
     never expired, and, with a sprinkle of pixie dust, wipe clean 
     the memory that the 113th U.S. Congress was the least 
     productive in the history of the country, passing just 56 
     bills as of Friday.
       Congress should end this game. Pass a permanent sales-tax 
     deduction.

  Ms. CANTWELL. At New Year's, as the ball drops in Times Square, a 
number of other tax provisions are going to expire, and the lapse of 
these important tax provisions makes it harder for Americans to invest 
in clean energy, to hire veterans, to pay for public transportation, 
and to build low-income housing.
  As my colleague Senator Brown was discussing, the Tax Extenders Act 
of 2013 is about providing predictability and certainty to citizens and 
to American businesses about tax benefits and investments.
  On January 1 the commuter tax benefit will expire. That will mean an 
increase in household expenses for 2.7 million public transit 
commuters. In King County, which is the county Seattle is in, more than 
1,600 employers use the commuter tax benefit to enable employees to get 
to and from work.
  If you have ever been in the Puget Sound area, you know that 
transportation and traffic are big issues for us. So, obviously, trying 
to defer some of that traffic congestion by getting people into 
commuter transportation is a key part of our strategy. But if we take 
away the certainty and predictability of tax deductions with regard to 
commuting, we are going to make our transportation problems worse.
  On New Year's Day the tax benefits for those employees who take 
public transit will be cut nearly in half, from $245 to $130 per month. 
We need to extend this benefit as a matter of tax fairness.
  Transportation is the second largest expense in an American 
household. American families should be able to choose whether they want 
to drive or take public transit, and they shouldn't be punished because 
they are taking a bus or ferry or train.
  Across Washington State we have seen firsthand how the other tax 
extenders help to actually create an environment of certainty and 
predictability for jobs and job creation. These are bipartisan 
principles we can all get behind.
  Of particular importance to me, as I said, is the State and local 
sales tax deduction, which affects many people in

[[Page S8990]]

our State. Individuals living in other States with a State income tax 
are not faced with these same challenges. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, 
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming are all in the same boat, 
and I am sure these citizens would want to have the sales tax deduction 
certainty and predictability. As a result, an average of $640 in 
deductions is real money back into people's pockets when they itemize 
those various tax benefits.
  We hope this won't continue to be a burden placed on Washington 
State. We need these tax extenders now.
  Additionally, there are other credits, such as the new market tax 
credit, which is a great program for encouraging investment in 
challenging areas of our country; the biodiesel tax credit; and the 
veterans work opportunity tax credit, which is a tax credit to 
encourage employers to hire veterans. We have had many of these events 
around Washington State, talking to employers who have successfully 
used this tax credit. There is also the low-income housing tax credit. 
I am sure the Presiding Officer probably has projects all over his 
State that have benefited from the low-income housing tax credit. This 
is a great incentive to get more affordable housing built in hard-to-
serve areas and challenging areas because of high cost. I have already 
mentioned the commuter tax benefit. All of these are tied to job 
creation.
  Instead of giving predictability and certainty on tax credits, here 
we are not getting our job done. We should get this done as soon as 
possible. It is time for Congress to extend these important provisions 
and to make plans accordingly.
  I hope the IRS could be given the predictability and certainty as 
well in the new year about these provisions so that we are not delaying 
or affecting the tax season at the end of next year.
  The time to act is now, and I hope my colleagues will help us get 
these measures--which are usually renewed in a bipartisan fashion--done 
as soon as possible.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I thank my friend and colleague 
from Washington for her passionate advocacy, and I join with her and 
other colleagues today in supporting the unanimous consent request to 
pass immediately the Tax Extenders Act. There is no reason not to get 
this done, as colleagues have said--absolutely none.
  We are in a situation where there are critical tax policies that will 
directly affect families. Middle-class families across the country are 
going to be hit by a number of different policies. Small businesses, 
large businesses, and a number of different entities will be affected 
if we don't get this passed.
  I would like to specifically talk about an urgent priority I have 
been offering, which we have been able to shepherd through a number of 
different times, which needs to get done as a part of this package or 
by itself, however we want to do it. We need to make sure struggling 
homeowners across the country--and in terms of all of the economy as 
well--are able to continue using tax policy to protect them from not 
only being hit with a mortgage problem that puts them underwater and 
struggling to keep their homes but an extra tax bill on top of it that 
makes absolutely no sense.
  Let me explain that. At the end of the year, a law I offered back in 
2007 to protect homeowners against unforeseen and unfair tax bills is 
set to expire. Before this law, when a portion of a distressed 
homeowner's mortgage was canceled--either in a loan workout with a 
bank, a short sale, or even a foreclosure in some instances--the IRS 
treated the canceled debt as taxable income. Think about that: You are 
already struggling with your home. You could lose your home. Or maybe 
you are able to refinance in some way, work with the bank, get a short 
sale, and then on top of that get a tax bill for whatever the value was 
of what you were able to work out. It makes absolutely no sense. It is, 
frankly, outrageous.

  The IRS was telling homeowners that money they had already lost on 
their home was income, so we have essentially been correcting that 
since 2007 through a tax change. The IRS before that was taxing 
families on what is considered phantom income at the worst possible 
time for the family.
  With the onslaught of the housing crisis, Congress recognized how 
critical it was to protect struggling homeowners from paying this kind 
of tax on mortgage debt relief. In 2007, we provided tax relief for 
homeowners by excluding mortgage forgiveness from their income for tax 
purposes. It made sense then, it makes sense now. It expires at the end 
of the year.
  We came together on a bipartisan basis. We said to millions of 
working families, middle-class families struggling to keep a roof over 
their head for their families that: If you are struggling with an 
underwater mortgage, the IRS shouldn't kick you while you are down. You 
can seek relief without having to worry about incurring a massive tax 
bill.
  This provision has aided millions of families and helped enable the 
housing market to begin to recover. However, in too many areas of the 
country and for far too many homeowners, the housing crisis is far from 
over. Nearly 6.5 million homeowners are still underwater in their 
mortgages. They owe more than their homes are worth. That includes 
250,000 hard-working families in Michigan. Nearly 13 percent of 
homeowners nationally are underwater. Again, 18 percent are in 
Michigan--above the national average.
  It is critical that we extend this provision, and it is very 
important it be done before the end of the year. It needs to be done 
ahead of time so homeowners know what the IRS rules are going to be in 
2014, as they are literally making decisions today, tomorrow, the next 
day, over Christmas. They need to know. If we don't act, homeowners who 
are offered relief from their lenders or are thinking about a short 
sale won't know if they will be hit with a major tax bill as a result, 
and that will affect decisions being made.
  On average, underwater homeowners owe $53,000 more on their mortgage 
than the market value of their homes. In some cases, of course, it is 
much more. For a typical middle-class family, that could mean a tax 
bill of more than $13,000. Merry Christmas. It is $13,000 tax bill you 
shouldn't be paying as you are trying to figure out how to protect your 
home. Who would want to take that risk?
  Brokers and housing counselors in Michigan have been asking me what 
they should be telling homeowners, and we need to act right now so we 
can tell them they don't have to worry about this.
  This is not just about fairness for homeowners. This is about keeping 
the housing recovery alive. The last thing we want to do is to tax 
people into foreclosure, where they feel their only option is default 
and walking away from their home.
  As we have seen in so many communities, foreclosures and vacant 
properties destabilize neighborhoods. I can walk from community to 
community in Michigan and show where that has happened. They push home 
values down. We can't let that happen at a time when the housing market 
and the economy are finally recovering. We all have a stake in 
extending this important tax protection for families.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the National Association of Realtors, and one from over 200 housing 
consumer and community organizations urging us to act now.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                                  of Realtors,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2013.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the more than one million 
     members of the National Association of REALTORS'. 
     I urge you to cosponsor S. 1187.'' This bipartisan 
     legislation, introduced by Senators Stabenow and Heller, 
     would extend the current law provisions that allow tax relief 
     for homeowners when lenders forgive some portion of mortgage 
     debt they owe.First enacted in 2007, this critical provision 
     has helped millions of financially distressed American 
     families. Unfortunately, the provision is temporary and is 
     currently set to expire at the end of this year. Securing 
     this extension is among our highest priorities for 2013.
       Today's housing market is finally beginning to recover from 
     a devastating multi-year decline. However, this recovery is 
     uneven, and there are still too many homeowners who find 
     themselves in foreclosure, contemplating a short sale, or 
     attempting to

[[Page S8991]]

     have an existing loan restructured. Our estimates show about 
     9.6 million homeowners whose homes are still worth less than 
     what they owe on them. This means that about 20 percent of 
     all homeowners with mortgages in the U.S. are ``under 
     water.'' In addition, the Mortgage Bankers Association 
     estimates there are still 1.45 million homes in the process 
     of foreclosure. This is down from the peak of just over 2 
     million, but way above the average of about 430,000 from the 
     pre-housing crisis period of between 2000 and 2006. It is 
     clear that timely enactment of this bill is critical to the 
     ongoing recovery of the housing market.
       If S. 1187 is not enacted, hundreds of thousands of 
     American families starting next January will have to pay 
     income tax on ``phantom income.'' They will owe tax on money 
     they've already lost and will be required to pay that tax at 
     a time of dire hardship, when they are least likely to have 
     the means to pay it. Moreover, if the mortgage debt 
     forgiveness provision is allowed to expire, many distressed 
     homeowners may decide to take a pass on opportunities for 
     short sales, opting instead for continued default until 
     foreclosure or simply to walk away from the property. Either 
     way, this would destabilize the communities where such homes 
     are located, as foreclosed and vacant houses drive down 
     values in the surrounding neighborhood.
       We hope you will join Senators Stabenow and Heller to 
     cosponsor S. 1187 . Please contact Seth Hanlon with Senator 
     Stabenow ([email protected] or 4-4822) or Scott 
     Riplinger with Senator Heller 
     ([email protected] or 4-6244) to be added.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Gary Thomas,
     2013 President.
                                  ____



                               Americans for Financial Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, December 6, 2013.
       Dear Senator, We write to urge you to support S. 1187, the 
     Mortgage Forgiveness Tax Relief Act.
       Extending the qualified principal residence indebtedness 
     exclusion (QPRI) is of critical importance as we work to 
     resolve the housing crisis. More than six years after the 
     mortgage market imploded, we have still not returned to pre-
     2008 foreclosure levels. In the next year, many more 
     homeowners will receive loan modifications with principal 
     reduction under HAMP, the National Mortgage Settlement, or 
     through private, proprietary modifications. The recent 
     settlement with JP Morgan Chase, which requires a minimum of 
     $1.5 billion in principal reductions, further ups the ante. 
     Homeowners who need a principal reduction on their mortgage 
     in order to avoid foreclosure should not face a tax bill. The 
     imposition of tax in these circumstances undermines national 
     housing policy.
       The extension of QPRI will allow many homeowners to remain 
     in their homes, paying on their mortgages, restoring some 
     small measure of financial stability to their lives and to 
     their communities. Extension of QPRI has received uncommonly 
     wide bipartisan support across the entire spectrum of 
     stakeholders.
       We would ask that you go further, as well. QPRI has never 
     reached the majority of homeowners who need principal 
     reductions because QPRI is, as a practical matter, only 
     available to homeowners receiving reductions on their 
     purchase money mortgage. Homeowners who refinanced and 
     received cash-out, or who paid off medical bills or student 
     loans, or who took out a home equity loan to address deferred 
     maintenance on their homes, cannot use QPRI to avoid paying 
     income tax, even though they will have no additional income 
     with which to pay the increased taxes and even if they remain 
     deeply underwater after the loan modification. For example, 
     under the terms of a recent principal reduction modification 
     offered a Connecticut homeowner, the homeowner would, after 
     the modification, owe nearly $250,000 more than the house is 
     worth and face an increase in their annual taxes of over 
     $10,000 a year, for three years, on a total annual income of 
     only $71,000. In order to protect homeowners who need 
     principal reductions from adverse tax consequences and to 
     promote tax equity, QPRI should be expanded to include all 
     residential mortgage debt forgiven due to a decrease in the 
     value of the home or the homeowner's financial condition.
       The Mortgage Debt Forgiveness Tax Relief Act expires on 
     December 31, 2013. Principal reduction modifications entered 
     into after this date, including those authorized by the 
     recent settlement with JP Morgan Chase, will result in 
     additional tax consequences for homeowners. Without an 
     extension, far fewer modifications will be done and the 
     modifications done will be less sustainable, with wide-
     reaching consequences for homeowners, the communities they 
     live in, and our national economy. The settlements with some 
     of the large financial institutions which are finally 
     providing modifications with principal reductions for 
     qualified homeowners should not end up penalizing the 
     homeowners who have waited so long for assistance.
       An extension of the Mortgage Debt Forgiveness Tax Relief 
     Act cannot wait for a more global tax reform bill; it should 
     be enacted swiftly.
           Sincerely,
                                             National Signatories.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan initiative which I 
have introduced with Senator Heller and 18 other bipartisan cosponsors. 
To my knowledge, it is not controversial. There is no excuse not to act 
before we leave, and I urge colleagues to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for 
her heartfelt words. I couldn't agree with her more. I thank the 
majority leader and my colleagues from Ohio and New Jersey as well for 
recognizing the importance of this package of tax relief.
  The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 would extend tax relief which business 
and middle-class families in my home State of New York and across the 
country depend on. They are noncontroversial. They have received 
bipartisan support in the past. And because of the great uncertainty 
over our economy, doing this quickly and not saying we will do it 3 
months after they expire makes a great deal of sense. I know my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have objected to all of 
these. I hope they will reconsider, because for the good of the 
economy--which is just beginning to pick up a little bit--we need to do 
these extenders.
  I am going to talk about four of them, but one is particularly 
critical because it doesn't work very well retroactively. The others 
do. That is why I urge my colleagues to reconsider and will ask for a 
separate UC before we leave here on this particular one because it has 
particular need right now, and that is the mass transit commuter tax 
benefit.
  There are about 700,000 commuters in the New York metropolitan area, 
including from the Presiding Officer's home State, who take advantage 
of this current incentive. The commuter benefit currently covers up to 
$245 a month from a person's income to pay for their mass transit 
commute to and from work. So whether you take the subway, bus, train, 
or drive to work and park, the benefit provides significant savings.
  The tradition, unfortunately, in this Senate and in this Congress was 
to treat mass transit as a second-class citizen, because the benefit 
traditionally had been significantly greater for those who drive and 
park than for those who take mass transit, and we have had serious 
problems.
  First, until we changed it a few years back, the mass transit was 
half the benefit of parking and driving. Second, it was not indexed for 
inflation the way the parking benefit was. So if we let this provision 
expire, the mass transit benefit will revert to $130 a month, while 
those who drive and park will actually get an increase to $250 for 2014 
because of inflation.
  We cannot let these transit benefits for mass transit users get left 
behind. To do them is a win-win. It is a win, of course, for those who 
use mass transit--and we have so many in the New York area. It is also 
a win for drivers, because every person who is encouraged to use mass 
transit by this benefit will actually take a car off the road, remove 
some degree of congestion, and allow drivers to move more quickly. And, 
of course, it is a win for our environment, because mass transit is a 
far more effective way environmentally of moving things along.
  So when the leader a few minutes ago requested the Senate pass the 
tax extenders act, I was disappointed it was blocked, and particularly 
disappointed that this benefit was blocked, because while we can do it 
retroactively, it is harder to implement than the others that are done 
retroactively, because most of them take effect when you pay your taxes 
in 2015, whereas this one takes effect month by month.
  The proposal we are asking for is exactly the same as was included in 
the bipartisan negotiated tax extenders package considered by the 
Senate Finance Committee and passed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis 
for one additional year, through 2014. I hope we will consider it now, 
not retroactively later next year as we did last year. Employers need 
to plan whether they will provide the benefit. Commuters need to elect 
to take it. And as I said, it is done on a monthly basis. You can do it 
retroactively, but it is much harder.
  I know we have lots of problems here between the parties, but we 
should not hold the mass transit commuters of America hostage. We 
should not make

[[Page S8992]]

them second-class citizens. Their deduction is every bit as important, 
every bit as justifiable, as for those who drive and park. I hope my 
colleagues, before we adjourn this year for the Christmas holiday, 
would in the Christmas spirit extend this benefit.
  Now I wish to talk about a few other credits which are also part of 
the package being blocked right now. One is the new market tax credit. 
Individuals and businesses across my State are counting on the new 
market tax credit. The new market credit program was created to 
stimulate private-sector investment in economically distressed 
communities. It has done exactly that. I have seen it work in Buffalo, 
Rochester, Syracuse, and the capital district in New York.
  Over the first decade of the program, $20 billion in new market tax 
credit investment leveraged an additional $25 billion in capital from 
other sources to finance economic development in communities where 
financing might be difficult to come by.
  The program is a proven job creator. Between 2003 and 2010, new 
market tax credit investments created over 500,000 jobs across the 
country. Again, it has always had bipartisan support. It is sort of a 
no-brainer. It should be continued.
  I will now talk about the short line rail tax credit. It is a little 
like the new market tax credit in that it is a tax credit which 
encourages private investment and jobs.
  We have short lines all across the country. They connect the main 
trunk lines on rail to the more isolated regions. But in those somewhat 
isolated regions are factories. We have opportunities for tourism, say, 
in the Adirondacks, and the short line rail tax credit helps maintain 
and renovate the short line rail system.
  Rail is very prosperous these days. The big carriers can maintain the 
trunk lines very well. But it is harder to maintain the short line, and 
Congress in its wisdom decided to give a tax break for those. If you 
are unfamiliar, the short line rails are a web of tracks all over the 
country connecting local businesses and manufacturers to interstate 
rail systems. The unheralded links that bring raw materials into our 
businesses and connect them with other cities and supply chains must be 
maintained. Over 50 percent of rail track in my home State is short 
line rails. Approximately 550 short line railroads provide 50,000 miles 
of track in the country, and the credit is extremely useful in my 
State, financing hundreds of thousands of dollars of rail 
infrastructure investment annually. It is used all across the country. 
We have 42 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate for this legislation. So 
I hope we will consider this one and pass it.
  Finally, the IRA rollover. The IRA rollover provision is also set to 
expire, affecting so many retirees. They need to know whether it will 
be extended in order to plan their charitable giving in the coming 
year. If it isn't extended, many taxpayers over 70\1/2\ years of age 
will be surprised with a tax bill when they transfer funds from their 
IRA to their favorite charity in 2014. So this is important and, again, 
is one that truly is in the Christmas spirit.
  In conclusion, businesses, families, retirees will pay the price if 
all of these valuable tax relief provisions, and many of the others 
mentioned by Senator Reid, are not extended by the end of the year. I 
would hope, in the same spirit of comity that we passed the budget, we 
could come together and pass these extenders. They have always had 
bipartisan support. They are, after all, tax reductions. I know my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe in tax reductions. To 
delay them and do them retroactively would be doing a disservice to our 
economy and to the millions of Americans who are working or seeking 
work in our country today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I commend my 
colleague from New York for a very fine statement. He and I sit next to 
each other on the Finance Committee, and we are going to be working 
very closely together on these issues.
  I have long felt that the best choice in terms of looking at these 
tax issues is comprehensive tax reform. The reality is the Tax Code in 
America is a dysfunctional mess. It is 100 years old at this point. I 
think it is pretty fair to say it looks its age every year.
  When it comes to energy--and clearly a lot of Senators on both sides 
of the aisle have done a lot of work on this--my preference would be 
Congress would simplify the various energy provisions, replace the 
dozens of separate incentives for each energy technology with fewer 
technology-neutral, performance-based incentives that bring us to a 
more level playing field in the energy area--a more level playing 
field, and one where there would be certainty for those who are going 
to do the innovation--those in New Jersey, Oregon, and elsewhere, who 
have those kinds of breakthrough innovative ideas and who are telling 
us that they badly need to get off this roller coaster of extenders and 
have some real predictability for the important innovative work that 
needs to be done.
  Those kinds of incentives should take into account important policy 
goals of domestic energy security and reducing this country's carbon 
footprint, while getting the Tax Code more out of the way and letting 
the free market decide which technologies break through and ultimately 
succeed. It is my view that what Chairman Baucus released yesterday--
and he consulted with us extensively--certainly has some promising 
ideas in that regard.
  With respect to where this debate is now, I think it is important to 
be clear about the challenge. It looks more and more like the other 
body has in effect decided to, if not slow walk tax reform, certainly 
take its time. Last month the news in Washington was full of headlines 
about various discussions among the House leaders. You got the sense--I 
will let them speak for themselves--on tax reform issues they 
apparently were going to take their foot off the gas. It does not seem 
the other body is poised to move forward any time soon on comprehensive 
tax reform. Because there is little indication the other body is going 
to move on this, my view is letting the incentives for the renewable 
energy resources--in particular solar and wind and other renewables and 
energy efficiency--in effect get thrown overboard, in effect sacrificed 
on this altar of inaction, would be a huge mistake. If we do that, we 
are talking about putting at risk thousands and thousands of American 
jobs in industries that are critical to our country's energy, 
environmental and economic security.
  My view is that having these employers and having these innovative, 
cutting-edge technologies fall off the cliff would be a mistake. That 
is why it is critical Congress address and extend these key energy tax 
benefits as soon as possible.
  Until the Congress takes the prudent step of broad-based reform of 
our tax system, the American people should not be left hanging. We 
ought to minimize the roller coaster of uncertainty that has been a 
drag on growth in recent years. Passing the Tax Extenders Act of 2013 
and extending these important expiring provisions delivers a measure of 
confidence and continuity, and it builds a bridge between the current 
tax system and where all Members of Congress ought to hope we end up; 
that is, with a modern, progrowth Tax Code, worthy of the American 
economy and ready for the 21st century.
  I have been interested in the subject for a number of years. I can 
briefly recount some of the history. Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of 
Chicago, and I introduced the first comprehensive reform effort when he 
was still in the other body. We were not even able to get a Republican 
to join us in that effort.
  Then Senator Judd Gregg, our former colleague from New Hampshire who 
sat across from me on a sofa every week for 2 years--and I were able to 
come together with a tax reform proposal, much of which I continue to 
believe is valid. Then our current colleague Senator Dan Coats was 
willing to work with myself and Senator Begich and others and he made 
important contributions. We very much need to have a modern progrowth, 
pro-entrepreneurial Tax Code that is up to the challenges of the 21st 
century. That is my first choice.
  That is not what is in front of us today. Clearly, when the House 
made the decision to pull back for various reasons, we were faced with 
the question of whether we were just going to

[[Page S8993]]

sit by and, as a result of inaction, see these important renewable 
energy industries and the jobs they represent sacrificed. I hope the 
Congress, on a bipartisan basis, will say that is not acceptable and 
pass the Tax Extenders Act of 2013 on a bipartisan basis.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from New 
Hampshire Senator Shaheen to talk about the Energy Savings and 
Industrial Competitiveness Act. This is one of those pieces of 
legislation we ought to pass around here. It is bipartisan. It is good 
for the country. It is part of an energy plan for America that can help 
bring the jobs back, help fix our trade deficit, help make our 
manufacturers more competitive, help save taxpayers money, and actually 
help to clean the environment. That all sounds pretty good, doesn't it, 
and it does so without a single mandate. It does so without any new 
spending. It is fully offset, and, in fact, I would make the strong 
argument it is going to save taxpayers a lot of money. Why? Because 
putting energy efficiencies in place in the Federal Government, the 
biggest energy user in the world, we are going to see a lot of savings 
to U.S. taxpayers.
  Over the last several months we have been working to clear a few last 
few hurdles that stand in the way of passing this legislation. I am 
pleased to say from what I am hearing from the other side of the 
aisle--Senator Shaheen can talk more about this--it looks as though we 
are going to have a good shot to move this early next year.
  Before we leave for the holidays, I wanted to have a chance to talk 
about it a little bit. I know Senator Shaheen did, I know Senator 
Wyden, who is here with us, the chairman, and Senator Murkowski, the 
ranking member on energy, are all highly supportive of this 
legislation. After all, it got out of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee with a strong bipartisan vote, 19 to 3. This doesn't often 
happen with regard to energy policy around this place. This is one of 
those things where Republicans and Democrats alike can come together to 
do something good for our country.
  It is also important we do it now because it gives the economy a shot 
in the arm at a time we need it. There is a lot of talk in this place 
about an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. To me, this fits 
perfectly with that. On this side of the aisle we talk a little more 
about the production side. In other words, we ought to be using more of 
the energy in the ground in America right now and I think we should. We 
should be producing more energy. At the same time, the energy we 
produce we should use more efficiently, and it has all those benefits 
we talked about earlier if we do that.
  We still import a lot of oil. In combination with China it 
contributes to our trade deficit. In fact, the entire trade deficit one 
could say is due to energy imports and trade with China alone. By doing 
away with some of those energy imports, because we are using energy we 
have more efficiently here, we are going to see lower trade deficits.
  The bill creates jobs and that is why it is supported by over 260 
trade associations and companies, including the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and others. But it is 
also good for the environment, which is why the coalition also includes 
the Alliance to Save Energy, the Sierra Club, and others--again, a big 
reason this passed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with a 
bipartisan vote of 19 to 3.
  Simply put, the legislation the senior Senator from New Hampshire and 
I have worked on for 2\1/2\ years makes good environmental sense, makes 
good energy sense, makes good economic sense. It makes sense to help 
move this economy forward.
  I visited with businesses and job creators all over my State of Ohio. 
They tell me the same thing. Energy efficiency is critical to their 
ability to compete. Think about it. We do live in a global economy. We 
live in an economy where we are competing in Ohio not just with Indiana 
but with India. As a result, we have to look at our cost of doing 
business, and one cost of doing business of course is labor. We don't 
want to compete with developing countries on labor rates. We want our 
labor rates to be good. We want benefits to be good.
  Another aspect we could look at, of course, is the quality of our 
goods. We don't want to cut corners on the quality of the manufactured 
product we produce in this country. In fact, we want to make sure we 
produce the best in the world. But energy is an area where we can cut 
costs. By making our manufacturers more competitive by reducing their 
costs, we are going to be able to compete globally, add more jobs in 
the country, and again be able to help on our trade deficit. That is 
why this legislation is so important, because what the Federal 
Government can do is help the private sector take advantage of the best 
research that is out there, the best practices that are out there, so 
our companies can reduce their costs putting those savings toward 
expanding companies' plants and equipment, hiring more workers.
  The proposals contained in this bill are very commonsense reforms 
needed for a long time. Again, there are no mandates on the private 
sector, none. In fact, many of our proposals come as a direct result of 
conversations we had with people in the private sector as to what they 
actually want and need. That is how we put this together.
  It is also about how the Federal Government can become more energy 
efficient. We talked earlier about the fact that the Federal Government 
is the largest user of energy in the world. Think about that. Our bill 
basically says to the Federal Government: Why don't you start 
practicing what you preach. There is a lot of talk about green energy, 
green technology, and so on at the Federal Government level. But 
actually, it turns out the Federal Government itself is inefficient. We 
have lots of studies that show that.
  More importantly, we have ideas to make the Federal Government more 
efficient and less wasteful. It directs the Department of Energy to 
issue recommendations that employ energy efficiency on everything from 
computer hardware to operational and maintenance processes, energy 
efficiency software, and power management tools. It also takes the 
commonsense step of allowing the General Services Administration to 
update building designs to meet efficiency standards that have been 
developed since those designs were finalized. They cannot do that now. 
And that makes no sense.
  The Federal Government has been looking for places to tighten its 
belt. Energy efficiency is a very good place to start. It will save 
taxpayer money and help the environment in the process.
  All this adds up to a piece of legislation that Americans across the 
political spectrum should be able to support, again fully offset, no 
mandates, and requires the Federal Government to become more efficient. 
All this makes sense.
  What will the impact be? There is a recent study of our legislation 
that says that by 2025, the Shaheen-Portman legislation is estimated to 
aid in the creation of 136,000 new jobs while saving consumers $13.7 
billion a year in reduced energy costs by the year 2030. It is the 
equivalent of taking millions of homes off the grid. It is the 
equivalent of the entire energy use of the State of Oklahoma, for 
instance, if we just put some of these commonsense efficiency standards 
in place.
  This legislation is not everything everybody wanted. Some of the 
environmental groups would like to have gone further, and some of the 
business groups would probably like to see some other things to help 
them. But this is legislation that is sensible. It will make a 
difference. It is bipartisan. It can pass in the Senate significantly, 
and it can also be legislation that will be mirrored in the House of 
Representatives and passed.
  There is a bicameral interest. A number of House Democrats and 
Republicans are on board. They are interested in our moving this 
legislation in part so they can then move legislation in the House and 
we can get it to the President's desk for his signature.

[[Page S8994]]

  The Secretary of Energy has made energy efficiency one of his new 
priorities. So this is something we should and can do.
  We all often lament the fact that there is not much bipartisanship 
around this place and not much is getting done; and it is true. It is 
true. The budget agreement was good this week. We had to do something. 
It is far from perfect, as I have said, even though in the end I voted 
for it because I think we need to move forward on this issue and have a 
budget for the first time in 4 years. But this is an example of 
bipartisan legislation that is positive and that can help move the 
country forward.
  Any true, all-of-the-above energy strategy has to include not just 
producing more energy but using it more efficiently. Produce more, use 
less. That is good for jobs, good for taxpayers, and good for the 
environment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I hope we will hear from the 
Senator from New Hampshire who has been my partner in this effort for 
the past 2\1/2\ years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am really pleased to be here on the 
floor today with, as the Senator from Ohio put it so well, my partner 
Senator Portman in developing this energy efficiency legislation--the 
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as 
Shaheen-Portman. It is a long name, but as the Senator from Ohio 
pointed out, it really goes a long way to address some of the energy 
challenges we face in this country. It is a win-win-win.
  We heard a discussion earlier today about the importance of renewable 
energy as a way to create jobs. This is one of the most important 
things about our legislation. It does promote job creation. As the 
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy said, 136,000 new jobs 
will be created by 2025 if we pass this legislation. By 2030, it would 
net an annual savings of almost $14 billion--$13.7 billion for 
consumers--and it would lower CO2 emissions and other air 
pollutants by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road.
  So as Senator Portman said so well, this is a win for job creation, 
it is a win for the environment, it is a win for national security, and 
it is a win for saving costs.
  Senator Portman talked about the importance of continuing bipartisan 
efforts as we saw this week with passing a budget. As did Senator 
Portman, I supported that budget as well, despite some of the 
misgivings I had about it, but I think it was important to work 
together to move forward on addressing the issues we face in this 
country. That is exactly what the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act would do. It is a bill that will create jobs, lower 
pollution, and save taxpayer money.
  We had a great opportunity to pass this legislation back in 
September. Unfortunately, we saw some people come to the floor and 
object because of nonrelevant amendments. But we have an opportunity to 
come back to it in the new year to try to pass it again. I am hoping we 
can do that.
  One reason we are on the floor today is to talk about that second 
opportunity we are going to have. Senator Portman and I have been 
working on some of the bipartisan amendments offered for the bill, and 
we are hopeful some of our colleagues who support those bipartisan 
amendments, who have authored them, will come on board with this 
legislation and help us get this passed in the new year.
  As Senator Portman said, to date, this legislation has more than 260 
endorsements from groups that include business, the environment, think 
tanks, and trade associations. Supporters include everybody from the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, 
the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the International Union of 
Painters and Allied Trades. I think any time we can get the Sierra Club 
and the American Chemistry Council supporting a piece of legislation, 
we know we have a good bill that can attract a lot of support. That is 
where we are in this legislation.
  As we know, passage of the bill was delayed by a small group of 
Senators back in September. But I think there still remains a real 
interest in debating energy efficiency policy on the floor of the 
Senate. We have also heard from the House that both Representatives 
Fred Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Ed 
Whitfield, chair of the relevant subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
energy efficiency, have expressed interest in Shaheen-Portman and have 
said they will move energy efficiency legislation if the Senate passes 
a bill.
  Since the bill was taken off the floor, Senator Portman and I have 
continued to work with Chairman Wyden. He was here a few minutes ago 
and plans to come back, hopefully, to speak to the legislation. We have 
been working with Ranking Member Murkowski to incorporate some of those 
relevant bipartisan amendments that have been cleared by the committee, 
which I talked about a few minutes ago. If we can do that--if we can 
include those amendments--it would make the legislation even better, 
and it would secure additional support necessary to ensure passage. It 
would allow us, I hope, assuming the leadership agrees, to bring this 
bill back to the floor.
  I am confident we can pass this legislation if we can get it back to 
the floor. It has bipartisan, bicameral support. It is exactly the kind 
of smart, affordable energy and jobs bill Congress needs to pass and 
the President needs to sign in order to spur private sector growth, in 
order to save on costs of energy, and in order to address some of the 
environmental issues we are facing.
  So I thank Senator Portman, as well as Chairman Wyden and Ranking 
Member Murkowski, for all of their help in working with us to promote 
this legislation and advance the bill. I really look forward to working 
with those 260 groups, which also include the Alliance to Save Energy--
and it is important to recognize them for their support--to be able to 
bring this bill back, to get it through, and for the first time since 
2007 to get some energy policy done in the Senate.
  So I thank the Chair. Thanks to my colleague, Senator Portman, we 
will be back after January.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                            Davis Nomination

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I know we are awaiting the arrival of 
Senator Johnson.
  I wish to take a moment to express my appreciation to the majority 
leader for including in the items we will be handling before we adjourn 
for Christmas the confirmation of Judge Brian Davis to the U.S. 
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
  Judge Davis has been waiting for 2 years. This is a good example of 
how things have gone very slowly for a very deserving judge. He has 
been waiting for 658 days. He has the support of Senator Rubio and 
myself. The American Bar Association has found him to be unanimously 
well qualified to serve on the Federal district court, and it is the 
ABA's highest rating.
  Judge Davis is a native Floridian who grew up African American in 
segregated Jacksonville, FL, and despite those circumstances was 
accepted to Princeton for his college education. He returned later to 
the University of Florida Law School and then became a top prosecutor 
in Jacksonville and 20 years ago went on the bench as a State circuit 
judge. He has an impeccable record. He is, in a huge bipartisan way, 
embraced by the lawyers who have practiced in front of him. Yet it has 
taken 658 days.
  I thank the majority leader and I thank the Senate. I thank Senator 
Grassley, who initially had concerns, but when he looked at the record 
he had an open mind, and then he saw the character, the quality, the 
excellence of Judge Davis.
  There are 37 judicial emergencies around the country, and two of them 
are in the Middle District of Florida where Judge Davis is, and three 
of them are in the Southern District of Florida. The courts are 
overburdened, and we need to fill these vacancies.
  So I thank the Senate in advance for giving this good man, this 
excellent jurist, the opportunity to serve in a greater capacity, to 
serve his country. I want my colleagues to know this is a great 
Christmas present for me, but it is nothing compared to the Christmas 
present it is going to be for Judge Brian Davis and his family.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S8995]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Yellen Nomination

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise to speak in 
support of Dr. Janet Yellen to be chair of the Board of Governors of 
the Federal Reserve System.
  As we continue to recover from the worst economic crisis since the 
Great Depression, we need a strong and thoughtful chairman of the 
Federal Reserve. We need a chair who has learned from our economic 
successes and mistakes over the past several decades. We need a chair 
who understands how monetary policy affects the everyday lives of 
Americans seeking employment or saving for retirement, and we need a 
chair who understands the importance of implementing Wall Street reform 
to promote financial stability. Dr. Yellen has all of these qualities, 
and she is ideally suited to be the next Fed chair.
  Dr. Yellen's experience is unmatched. She currently serves as a 
member and vice chair of the Board of Governors. She previously served 
as a member of the Board of Governors in the 1990s. She was chair of 
President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, and she served 6 
years as president of the San Francisco Fed.
  Dr. Yellen also has an impressive academic record. She is a professor 
at Berkeley's Haas School of Business and was previously a professor at 
Harvard University, as well as a faculty member at the London School of 
Economics. Dr. Yellen graduated summa cum laude from Brown University 
and received her Ph.D. in economics from Yale.
  Dr. Yellen has written numerous research papers on the labor market, 
unemployment, monetary policy, and the economy. Her expertise in these 
areas, including her understanding of the relationship between Fed 
policy and the labor market, would be valuable as we chart the course 
back to full employment.
  But my colleagues do not have to take my word for it. Dr. Yellen's 
economic expertise is borne out by the facts. The New York Times 
recently noted that she was ``the first Fed official, in 2005, to 
describe the rise in housing prices as a bubble that might damage the 
economy.'' She was also the first, in 2008, to say that ``the economy 
had fallen into a recession.''
  The Wall Street Journal recently analyzed 700 predictions made 
between 2009 and 2012 in speeches and congressional testimony by 14 
Federal Reserve policymakers and found Dr. Yellen was the most 
accurate.
  At her confirmation hearing, Dr. Yellen displayed her impressive 
understanding of our complex 21st-century economy. She showed that she 
understands the complexities of Fed policymaking, and that--although 
abstract to many--monetary policy has ripple effects that affect the 
everyday lives of workers, savers, small businesses, and job seekers.
  Dr. Yellen has proven through her extensive and impressive record in 
public service and academia that she is most qualified to be the next 
Chair of the Federal Reserve. We need her expertise at the helm of the 
Fed as our Nation continues to recover from the great recession, 
completes Wall Street reform rulemakings, and continues to enhance the 
stability of our financial sector. I am excited to cast my vote to 
confirm her as the first woman to serve as Chair of the Federal 
Reserve, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the floor, I 
thank him for his leadership of the banking committee in the Senate for 
now several years and his commitment to try to find the right 
regulatory framework for the largest banks in our country as well as 
our community banks. I think the chairman has had a lot of challenges, 
as we all have, and I thank him, and for his strong advocacy of this 
particular nominee and for his help on so many issues, one of which I 
am going to speak about now with my colleagues from Florida and New 
York.


                    National Flood Insurance Program

  Mr. President, many of us on both sides of the aisle, from all parts 
of the country, have been working very hard for the last year--and some 
of us even longer than that--to try to present good, solid information 
to the Senate and to Congress about how important the National Flood 
Insurance Program is in many different dimensions, first of all for 
those who live along the coast, which is 60 percent of our population 
in the United States, and those who live on inland waterways, whether 
it is in the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey or in States such 
as Pennsylvania, New Mexico, North Dakota--not near any ocean--or 
whether it is in States such as Florida or Louisiana that do sit, in 
Florida's case, on the Atlantic, and in our case the Gulf of Mexico.
  This is a very important issue because our businesses and our 
families have to have a system of very strong levees, smart building 
codes, and ways of building and expanding our communities with a good 
flood insurance safety net, if you will, or security net, along with 
levees that do not break as they did in New Orleans in 52 places and 
three-quarters of a great international city of half a million people 
in a region of almost 1.2 million virtually went underwater. We have to 
do better than that because we are the greatest Nation in the world, we 
are the greatest economy, and this is an important issue for the 
Nation.
  Some of us in places such as these spend a lot of time thinking about 
levee infrastructure, flood protection, all of the different pieces. It 
is not just one piece. Insurance is a very important piece, as my 
colleague from Florida will explain in a minute. He was a former 
insurance commissioner and knows this as well as anyone in this body. 
But flood insurance is one piece for Americans, some of whom live in 
low-lying areas, some in flood-prone areas, but they have been there a 
long time--like 300 years in our case. They did not just move down here 
in the 1980s. We have been here since the 1780s and the 1680s. So we 
have been here a long time as a country. We have built up a protection, 
if you will, of good, solid affordable flood insurance over the last 40 
years. We have been building levees a long time. Thank goodness we are 
building more of them and building them better because our people need 
them and we could all use more of those. I try to provide funding for 
that every chance I can as a member of that Appropriations Committee.
  Contrary to some of our critics, we are promoting very good policies 
in this country about smart growth, how to build stronger, higher, more 
resiliently. We are not blind to the challenges. But we have right now 
before this body a flood insurance bill that will fix the most 
pernicious parts of a ``reform bill'' that was passed 2 years ago 
called Biggert-Waters with all the best intentions, but it had 
disastrous--disastrous--consequences for people in New Jersey, Florida, 
New York, Louisiana, and Texas.
  There are 5 million policies.
  I want to put up one chart, and then I am going to turn it over to 
the Senators who want to join me. But because critics say this is just 
a Louisiana issue or this is just a Florida issue or this is really not 
about anything other than coastal States, let me put that to rest. That 
is not factual. It is a damaging myth. You can see here on this chart 
that all of the flood maps in effect are in purple. These are Mardi 
Gras colors in honor of our season coming up after Christmas. But these 
are the flood maps in purple that exist as of July 12. These are 
proposed flood maps in green and new flood maps in yellow. Literally, 
there will not be a State in the Union--not one State in the Union; not 
one--that is exempt from the requirements of Biggert-Waters to produce 
new flood maps, some of which have not been produced for decades, 
putting communities that have never been in a flood zone, in a flood 
zone and then having these pernicious pieces of Biggert-Waters say: OK, 
you have never flooded, you have never been in a flood zone, but let me 
tell you, when you put your house up for sale, your rates are going to 
go up 10 percent. It is like stealing, taking--whatever word you want 
to call it--the equity right out of someone's home. It is 
unconscionable, and it must be fixed now--not a year from now but now. 
These rates have gone up in October, in January.

  So I am here to say a couple of things. This is a national issue, No. 
1. No. 2, we are very proud of putting together a great coalition. The 
leaders of this coalition are Senator Menendez

[[Page S8996]]

from New Jersey, the Presiding Officer's senior Senator, who has worked 
so hard; and our Republican leader, for whom everyone has a lot of 
respect, is Johnny Isakson from Georgia, who is recognized as an expert 
in the real estate markets of this country. It is his expertise. We 
should listen to him when he says real estate markets are going to take 
a terrible hit if we cannot fix this.
  The final point is that this is not just to help homeowners and 
businesses; it is also to save the program because, as Chuck Schumer, 
the Senator from New York, has said many times, if we do not fix this, 
not only will people not be able to afford the insurance but because 
they cannot, the program will collapse under its own weight of 
inaccessibility and unaffordability, and then the taxpayers are going 
to pick up a bigger tab.
  We could not make any clearer, stronger arguments. A coalition has 
come together. We have 60 votes.
  I see my colleagues from Florida and New York. I do not know what 
their schedules are in terms of time. The Senator from Florida is well-
versed. Again, as through the Chair, the Senator from Florida served, 
before being a Senator, as an insurance commissioner. I would like for 
him to add a word because our goal today is to acknowledge that, 
unfortunately, because of the difficulties we are having on process, we 
are not able to get a vote, it looks like, before we leave, but we are 
under the understanding--and I want to ask the Senator--that Leader 
Reid has agreed to call this bill up for a vote, for a cloture vote, in 
which we have accepted the 60-vote threshold. We believe we actually 
have more than 60 votes. We just need to get it up when we come back in 
early January.
  Through the Chair, is that the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding. But in the 
newfound felicity and spirit of the season, wouldn't you think that 
since the real estate market along the coast has dried up--why? Because 
if you cannot get flood insurance because you cannot afford it, you 
cannot get a mortgage. If you cannot get a mortgage, there are a lot of 
folks who cannot buy a house. By the way, those who need to sell their 
houses cannot get the buyers. So what happens to the real estate market 
in places such as the Tampa Bay region of Florida, as chronicled by the 
Tampa Bay Times--an example that a homeowner's present flood insurance 
premium is $4,000; under the new bill, $44,000. That is unaffordable.
  What we are merely asking for is that FEMA do an affordability study 
while this is delayed for a few years to determine what is the 
affordability.
  If this is supposed to be actuarially sound, then that came as a 
result of huge losses to the program because of an unusual thing--not a 
hurricane called Katrina but because the waters rose, it put pressure 
on the dikes and it breached the levees, and that flooded the bowl 
called New Orleans, and that caused lots of economic loss, and they are 
figuring all of that in the flood insurance premiums. And oh, by the 
way, 40 percent of all those flood insurance policies are in my State 
of Florida.
  Before we hear from the Senator from New York, I want to say this: 
Floods come from many sources. Obviously, floods come from hurricanes. 
People used to think hurricanes were Florida's problem. Well, now we 
know, because of the experience on the gulf coast, they can do an awful 
lot of damage in many different ways.
  But oh, by the way, people up in the Northeast suddenly realized 
hurricanes are a problem. Why? Because the ocean temperature is rising, 
and when the water gets warmer, the frequency of the storms is more and 
the ferocity of the storms is greater. Thus, in a time when it is 
normally cool water, cold air temperature, all of a sudden we have a 
major storm that comes to a part of the country that is completely 
unprepared, and now not only do you have all the damage from the water 
and the wind--and think what happened all the way up into New England, 
all the way up into Vermont. You heard about all those rivers that 
suddenly completely overran and inundated that little town with a lot 
of water, and they are calling this a thousand-year storm.
  But the 1,000-year storm happened a year ago. I am not here to speak 
about climate change, on which I certainly think we better get our 
heads out of the sand. I am here to talk about an immediate problem for 
the people all up and down the coasts of the United States; that is, 
the affordability of flood insurance. Why would not our colleagues give 
us a little Christmas present since we have over 60 votes in the 
Senate, and let's give some hope to those homeowners back home who now 
cannot afford flood insurance.
  I want to hear from the Senator from New York who has been a leader, 
and his State has suffered. Fortunately, it is going to take folks like 
him and the great Senator from Louisiana to keep beating this drum to 
bring some relief to our people who are desperate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to echo the outstanding words of 
my colleagues from both Florida and Louisiana. They echo the views of 
many. Everyone says the public is exasperated with the Congress. Our 
approval ratings are low. They are. Why? It is simply because when huge 
problems occur that affect ordinary people, we seem paralyzed. What is 
happening with flood insurance embodies what I am talking about. 
Average homeowners who purchased flood insurance through the years for 
$800, $1,000, are now being hit with bills of $4,000, $5,000, $6,000. 
If you are rich, that is nothing. But the vast majority of people who 
have flood insurance, whether they live on the oceans in my State or 
the State of the Senator from Florida or on the gulf of the State of 
the Senator from Louisiana or on the bodies of water such as the 
Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, are not wealthy people. You tell them 
all of a sudden out of the clear blue they have to pay $4,000, $5,000, 
$6,000 for flood insurance, they do not know what to do. It is a crisis 
for them. They say to us: Congress, fix this.
  This is what we are supposed to do. So in their wisdom, the Senator 
from New Jersey, the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Georgia, 
the Senator from Florida, myself, many others have come up with a 
proposal that says: We know flood insurance is broken, but we do not 
want to see it broken on the backs of average homeowners. We have a 
plan that will delay these increases until 2017, while FEMA studies 
affordability, and while Congress reexamines this issue.
  There was an affordability study in Biggert-Waters. Somehow FEMA 
ignored it. We are not letting that happen. So that is why we have to 
act here. There are three types of people who are in danger. The first 
are those who know or are about to know they are going to be hit. They 
have flood insurance already and their costs are going to go way up. 
The vast majority are middle-class people.
  The second are those who will be told: Your insurance will not go up, 
but when you sell your home it is going to go way up. Any bureaucrat 
who tells us, well, that does not affect the average person--it affects 
the value of their home immediately. But it also says they cannot sell 
their home. In my area, if flood insurance is going to be $8,000 or 
$10,000 or even $20,000 a year, who is going to buy the home, except at 
a greatly reduced value?
  But, my colleagues, there is a third group. They do not know who they 
are. FEMA is changing flood maps throughout the country. They will get 
to your State, unless maybe Utah or a State such as that does not have 
any flood insurance. I do not know. But the vast majority of our States 
that either bound the Great Lakes, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic 
Ocean, the gulf, the great rivers--the Mississippi, the Missouri, the 
Ohio, the Platte--are all going to be affected.
  A year from now your constituents are going to come to you and say: 
Stop this. This will affect the overwhelming majority of States and 
Senators, even if they do not know it now. So our solution is not an 
ideological solution, it is not a solution that picks one side or the 
other. It says: Put a moratorium on this until we can figure it out in 
the right way that does not put the burden of flood insurance solely on 
the backs of people who cannot afford it--average folks.
  In my State--my good friend from Florida mentioned it--we have people 
who have struggled to fix their homes from Sandy, spending tens, even 
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then all

[[Page S8997]]

of a sudden they are hit with a huge flood insurance bill. They are 
already in debt.
  That is not fair. Just when they move back finally into their homes, 
FEMA comes in and tells them in a year or two they cannot afford to 
live in those homes they fixed. That is intolerable.
  The bottom line is simple. We have a good piece of legislation. We 
would hope we could pass it by unanimous consent, as my colleagues from 
Florida and Louisiana said, as a nice Christmas--not present, because 
it is not a present. These are people who deserve to have this. But it 
is a nice Christmas thought. But if not, we will come back in January. 
That is my expectation. That is what the leader has told us. We are 
willing to go through a cloture vote and bring this legislation to the 
floor. We expect and hope that we will get the same kind of bipartisan 
support that has helped us put this bill together with Senators from 
every part of the country.

  I would say to homeowners: It is my hope and prayer and indeed 
expectation, although around here expectations sometimes are not met, 
that we will have this bill on the floor and then passed so that 
homeowners, millions of homeowners across America, can breathe a sign 
of relief; they can stay in their homes, and flood insurance will be 
amended in the right way.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Through the Chair, could the Senator explain a little 
bit more clearly for so many people who are listening to what we are 
saying this morning, because the Senator has been around here a while 
in leadership. When the leader, Harry Reid, rule XIV's a piece of 
legislation, how sure are we that we are going to get what is required 
and can we be--I have been saying I am very confident this vote will 
occur sometime in a week or two when we get back. What is the Senator's 
understanding?
  Mr. SCHUMER. My understanding is just that, that in the--even 
possibly in the first week when we get back, that the leader, having 
rule XIV'd it, which means he can bring it to the floor right away, can 
put it on the floor and, of course, then people can demand--those 
opposed--that we invoke cloture so we can proceed to the bill and then 
vote on the bill. But if we have 60 votes, we will be able to meet that 
cloture barrier. So it is my understanding the plan is to actually do 
it as soon in January as the first week we get back, which I believe is 
January 6. If we cannot do it then, we will be pushing very hard to do 
it shortly thereafter.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Is the Senator aware of a comparable effort going on in 
the House? The Senator has been at a couple of news conferences with 
us. Could the Senator maybe speak for a minute to explain, does he 
think there is pretty good support building in the House of 
Representatives from the Senator's delegation in New York as well as 
other delegations the Senator might be aware of?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for that question. Exactly. This is 
affecting so many people in so many parts of the country. It does not 
affect just Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or moderates, 
Independents or liberals. The support is building daily. Senators and 
Congress Members are getting calls from their constituents pleading 
with them to do something.
  So it is my view, it is my understanding that the House is 
undertaking a very similar piece of legislation. I would expect it 
would pass the House, where they do not even need the 60-vote majority. 
I know in my delegation it has bipartisan support. As I understand it, 
in most delegations it has bipartisan support.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. To the Senator from Florida, through the Chair, what is 
the Senator's understanding of the Florida delegation? The Senator has 
one of the largest States in the Union and has one of the largest 
delegations. Is it something that the Senator is sensing people are 
becoming more and more aware of, not just from the coastal counties but 
throughout all parts of Florida?
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, in response to the Senator, the Florida 
delegation is clearly united in recognizing that if you cannot sell 
your home because you cannot get a mortgage, because the bank requires 
flood insurance, and you cannot afford the flood insurance, the real 
estate market starts to dry up. In a State such as Florida, the real 
estate market is one of the main economic engines that fuel the ability 
of people to have work and to be able to support their families. As a 
result, we are seeing in places along the coast with--taking examples: 
That was a tenfold increase from 4,000 to 44,000, a flood insurance 
premium, told by the Tampa Bay Times. It is not only ridiculous, it is 
stunning to the point that people cannot believe something is facing 
them in their personal lives with their homes that could be so easily 
taken care of if we could get the approvals to get the legislation we 
already have 60 votes or more for. They cannot believe people are 
opposing bringing up this legislation to fix what is so obviously in 
need of fixing.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Florida. I would ask unanimous 
consent if we want to extend our colloquy, but I think I am going to 
wrap up with a few remarks for about 5 minutes.
  I see the Senator from Texas on the floor and he may want to speak. 
But let me put a couple of startling facts in the Record.
  There are over 450 counties, parishes, and boroughs which are located 
directly on open oceans, the Great Lakes, major estuaries, or coastal 
flood plains. We know from our geography that there are over 3,144 
counties--parishes in our case, boroughs in some--in the country. But 
this is the important fact here. In 2010, these coastal counties 
contributed more than $8.3 trillion, which is 55 percent of the 
national economy. I want to underscore that and highlight its 
importance. We have 3,100 counties. But there is a subset of those 
counties which is mostly affected by this particular issue, flood 
control and flood protection, that produces 55 percent of the GDP for 
this country.
  So, yes, this is a homeowner's issue, it is a middle-class issue, it 
is: They are suffering, let's relieve the pain. But it is also: We 
better wake up and realize the economic impact this is going to have on 
the entire country if this is not fixed. This is not about millionaires 
on a beach. It is about the future of the economic strength of America.
  I cannot be more emphatic about that. It is not overstating our 
challenge. This is not about millionaires. It is about the middle 
class. It is about the middle class who need affordable insurance so 
they can live where they need to work--let me say that again: Live 
where they need to work--not rest where they need to vacation. There is 
a big myth here that flood insurance is about resting on vacation.
  Flood insurance is about working hard where you need to work to keep 
this economy moving forward. Nothing could be more clear than in the 
State of Louisiana, but this is true in Texas, this is true in New 
Jersey, this is true in many places, in California, in our country.
  People live near the water to harvest seafood, to produce domestic 
energy, to manufacture and transport the goods necessary to keep this 
economy moving.
  If we shut down these communities because of a capricious law such as 
this that was not well thought through, that was not fully debated the 
way it should have been throughout this Congress, we are jeopardizing 
the dreams of not only these particular homeowners and business owners, 
but--and people will hear this from me--we are jeopardizing the future 
of the economy in the United States.
  We cannot let this get any further than it has gone or we will start 
feeling the ramifications. Again, this is not flood insurance for 
people resting on vacation. This is flood insurance for people working 
every day because they need to live where they work to do the jobs our 
economy requires.
  I showed this flood map graph a few minutes ago, which is where all 
of the flood maps are going to be. No State is exempt, not one--
clustered in some areas, more than others, but not one State is exempt. 
Heads up to Oregon, Washington, California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, of 
course, the east coast, the gulf coast, and everywhere in between.
  But this is where levees are. I know a lot about levees. 
Unfortunately, I have to know a lot about them because we have a lot of 
them. They break too

[[Page S8998]]

often and breach too often. I am trying to figure out ways to build 
them higher and better with nickels and dimes and trying to piece them 
together. I was surprised there are levees in other parts of the 
country that I was not aware of. This is a big issue, flood protection, 
particularly with our sea levels rising, the weather patterns getting 
more erratic, flash floods happening in deserts.
  Colorado is not even around an ocean. How could we have millionaires 
on a beach when there is no beach? I mean, there are millionaires in 
Colorado, but there is no ocean. This visual some critics have painted 
is so wrong. It is so distorted.
  What Colorado does have--and look at Arizona--they have these flash 
floods, important flood controls for people who even live in dry parts 
of our country. We have to fix this.
  The great news is we have a bill that is broadly supported by both 
Republicans and Democrats. I am sorry there is seemingly one objection 
from the other side, a Republican Senator from Idaho. Many colleagues 
are talking with him about lifting his objections. If he has 
suggestions for amendments, we are flexible, we are open to hear any 
reasonable suggestions.
  We have more than 60 votes. Around here, in the old days, when we had 
60 votes, we could do a lot.
  Unfortunately, there are some people who think we have to have 100 
votes to do anything, and that is a big problem. It is a big problem 
for our democracy because that is not the way it was structured to be.
  However, we are going to continue to work. I thank the coalition. I 
wish to read a couple of things into the Record, and I will turn the 
floor over in a minute.
  I have on my Web site--and I have encouraged Senators to have ``My 
Home My Story.'' There are literally hundreds every day that come into 
my office with a picture of the house and their individual stories. I 
think it is worth reading one or two into the Record briefly.
  This is from the New Orleans area where there are 303,000 policies. 
This particular story is from Jefferson Parish, a suburb of New 
Orleans, which has the most insurance policies of any parish of our 
State.
  Richard of Metairie writes:

       My wife and I purchased it as our first and so far only 
     house in the fall of 1997.
       We put down roots, befriended our neighbors, hosted family 
     gatherings, and celebrated the birth of our daughter.
       If the rate increases we're hearing about go forward, you 
     will have succeeded in doing what Katrina didn't; break the 
     back of Southeast Louisiana.
       Homes will be unsellable, businesses will shutter, banks 
     will fail from the doubtless tens of thousands of defaults 
     that will occur as people simply walk away from their now 
     worthless homes.

  I don't know how much clearer we could be, and this is not an 
exaggeration. The data shows it. The coalition has proved it. We are 
building tremendous support, and I can only hope we vote as soon as 
possible within the first week of coming back.
  Wendy of Metairie, another person from Jefferson Parish, says:

       I built my house 3 feet above required base flood elevation 
     in 1998.
       Now with elimination of grandfathering, I will be paying 
     $28,000 per year for flood insurance.
       Why should we be penalized for building our houses in 
     compliance?

  That is a very good question, and I don't have an answer for her 
other than to say we hear you and we are changing the law. It was 
poorly designed, it can be fixed, and it should be fixed.
  Finally, from Baton Rouge, which is our capital city now, because so 
many people were literally flooded out of New Orleans in the 
southeastern part of the State. Baton Rouge is now the largest city, 
almost 500,000 people.
  Ken writes:

       My wife and I live on Social Security and a small annuity 
     from my work.
       We have lived in this house for 37 years.
       All our bills take almost all the income.
       We constantly look at our finances to see if there is 
     anything else we can cut or reduce.
       An increase in flood insurance may increase my house note 
     beyond our capacity to pay for it.

  Brian of Baton Rouge writes:

       My house was built in 1969 before there were flood maps.
       I accepted a job in TN, I thought my house would sell.
       I have a neighbor who wants to buy my house, but they have 
     withdrawn their offer since they found out how much flood 
     insurance will be.
       Flood insurance rate hikes on this single property affects 
     3 families; my family, the family I want to buy from, and the 
     family that wants to buy my house.

  I wish to underscore this and then I will end. I wish everyone to get 
a picture of the 5 million people caught in this web. We think: Well, 
we have a lot of people in America with 350 million. This is 5 million. 
Let's say 2 per house. That is only 10 million. This is a very small 
number compared to 350. Maybe we don't need to pay attention to the 10 
million people.
  But every home has a buyer and a seller. Most every home has a bank. 
Most every home has a worker or two or sometimes three in that house. 
It is affecting so many businesses. If this gentleman can't get his 
finances straight, he will leave his job in Tennessee. The business in 
Tennessee that is not anywhere near an ocean will be affected.
  I know I sound a little bit like a broken record, and I don't mean 
to, but this is serious for the whole country.
  I wish to end by thanking Harry Reid for understanding, for hearing 
us amidst all of the yelling and screaming that is going on around here 
about this and that. He has been able to focus and understand that this 
is an important bill for the country. He has agreed to use his power--
which he has only; only the leader has this power--to pull the bill 
from the calendar. He has promised us he will do that the first week we 
get back, and then it is our job to deliver the 60 votes to pass it. If 
we don't get 60 votes, the bill will fail and it will be a terrible 
shame.
  I don't think this bill will fail because I know how important this 
issue is for every single Member of this Senate. I know they are 
hearing from their middle-class homeowners, lower income homeowners, 
businesses, bankers, and realtors. All I can say is we are going to 
have to work over the holidays--unfortunately, we would like to rest 
but no rest for the weary--and we are going to have to work hard to 
convince many people so we have a successful vote when we get back.
  I have hundreds of personal requests I received. I know Senator 
Vitter has received the same. I thank him for his help as well. Again, 
this is a Democrat and Republican working together to get the job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. As we all learned in civics class in high school, the 
purpose of the Senate was to ensure that every State in the Nation had 
at least two votes on important matters that might affect not only the 
country generally but also our States. Some of us represent small 
States and some of us represent large States.
  I am privileged to represent one that has 26 million people in it, 
and we are growing by roughly 1,000 or more people a day. They are 
moving to Texas because that is where the jobs are. Our economy is 
prospering relative to the rest of the country because, as I like to 
tell my friends in this Chamber from time to time, we still believe in 
the free enterprise system in Texas and the private sector that creates 
jobs, opportunities, and where people can move to pursue their American 
dream.
  Regardless of which party we come from or which part of the country 
we come from or who controls this Chamber, the Senate has historically 
recognized two fundamental rights; the right to debate legislation and 
the right to offer amendments to legislation.
  When those rights are denied, our constituents--particularly of those 
of us who are serving in the minority--are essentially severed. They 
lose their voice. They lose their opportunity to have their views 
represented in the amendment process, the shaping of legislation that 
could be improved or not.
  We know that when the minority voice is quashed--as this majority 
leader has done time and time again--and when minority rights are 
trampled, the Senate becomes a very different place indeed. We have 
become a place where mistakes get made, where purely partisan 
legislation is passed. The most obvious current example is ObamaCare, 
which was jammed through this body on a party-line vote in the House 
and in the Senate.
  People are finding out that if they like what they have, they can't 
keep it.

[[Page S8999]]

Families of four will not see their premiums go down by $2,500. That is 
the kind of thing that happens when the majority succumbs to the 
temptation to jam things through without giving the back-and-forth 
opportunity, the deliberation that national legislation--legislation 
that will affect all 300-plus million Americans--should have.
  When the majority leader denies those rights and those opportunities 
or those sorts of checks, balances, and the natural correction that 
comes from building consensus in the Senate and instead resorts to a 
partisan power play, mistakes get made and people get hurt.
  Since the majority leader has taken that role, Senator Reid, the 
senior Senator from Nevada, has filled the amendment tree more than 70 
times.
  For those who get bored at the concept of Senate procedure and how 
the Senate's rules actually work, I wish to say what that means is 
effectively the majority leader has denied the opportunity to offer any 
amendments to legislation by ``filling the amendment tree.'' That is 
the way he actually accomplishes that.
  By comparison to this majority leader who has done it more than 70 
times since he has been majority leader, the previous majority leader, 
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, did it 12 times in 4 years. Before 
him, majority leader Tom Daschle only did it once in 1\1/2\ years. 
Majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi did it 10 times in his 5-year 
tenure as majority leader of the Senate. Majority leader George 
Mitchell did it only three times in 6 years and majority leader Robert 
C. Byrd did it only three times in 2 years.
  In other words, this used to be an extraordinarily rare use of the 
tool that the majority leader has to block amendments to legislation. 
Majority leader Bob Dole did it seven times in 3\1/2\ years, about once 
every 6 months.
  By contrast, Majority Leader Reid has done it 70 times. What recourse 
does the minority have when they are blocked out of the legislative 
process on the Senate floor? The only tool we have available to us is 
to block cloture because it still takes 60 votes to get to a final 
passage of legislation. But when the minority exercises its rights, 
then we are called obstructionists. Because the majority leader has 
blocked any amendments and denied us an opportunity to have a choice in 
shaping legislation, the only recourse we have is to say that 41 
Republicans will stick together and block the legislation, and, 
hopefully, set up a negotiation. But what happens more often than not 
is it is a politically posturing exercise and the majority leader will 
pull the bill down and rail against the minority as obstructionists. 
Well, this is a manufactured crisis.

  This place did not always work the way it does now. Last month this 
resulted in an unprecedented power grab by our friends across the aisle 
when they violated the Senate rules in order to further weaken the 
rights of the minority and to help President Obama turn the second most 
important court in the Nation into a liberal rubberstamp. I am talking 
about the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the fact this 
court has the lightest caseload of any of the circuit courts, the 
intermediary appellate courts in the Nation, it literally doesn't have 
enough work to do, while there are other judicial emergencies both at 
the district court and at the appeals court level that need additional 
judges--but because this court is the one that reviews many of the 
administrative regulations issued by the Department of Labor, the 
Environmental Protection Agency--in other words, they are the ones that 
will do the review of ObamaCare regulations or Dodd-Frank regulations--
the President and his allies saw this as an essential way to stack the 
court in a way that will rubberstamp his agenda.
  So what happened is the majority leader decided to further erode or 
basically deny the minority any right in the process for executive 
nominations and judicial nominations and said: You know what. With 51 
Democratic votes, we can do anything we want--anything--when it comes 
to nominations.
  By using the so-called nuclear option, as it has been called, the 
majority leader and his allies went against the advice of some pretty 
wise Members who have been in the Senate for a long time, and I am 
thinking particularly about the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, 
who has served for six terms in the Senate and who is going to be 
retiring at the end of this next term.
  Prior to that vote, Senator Levin warned his fellow Democrats not to 
take up the nuclear option, to leave it on the table and to walk away, 
because he said pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an 
important check on majority overreach, which is central to our system 
of government. It is the checks and balances that are so important that 
Senator Levin was talking about.
  I know most people get bored when talking about the process by which 
things happen here or don't happen or the Senate rules, but they happen 
to be pretty important to our democracy and demonstrating respect for 
minority rights. And when minority rights aren't respected, we make 
some pretty bad mistakes, and I am thinking about two of them right 
now.
  We are currently debating the Defense authorization bill, which is a 
very important piece of legislation, because this is the authorization 
given to our national security agencies, particularly the Department of 
Defense, to be able to function and to keep our country safe. Yet once 
again, the majority leader is refusing any amendments to this 
underlying piece of legislation, including an amendment which would 
address the military pension cuts that were part of the recent budget 
agreement that passed yesterday.
  It was amazing to hear the mock horror of people in this Chamber when 
they found out that our Active-Duty military were being discriminated 
against and punished by the budget agreement that was passed yesterday 
to the tune of roughly $6 billion over 10 years. In other words, among 
everybody else in the Federal Government, they were singled out for 
worse treatment and were not grandfathered in to the pension reforms 
that were part of this deal for other Federal Government employees.
  This is one of the things that happens when things get jammed 
through: Mistakes are made and people get hurt. In this instance, the 
people who happen to get hurt are those who wear the uniform of the 
U.S. military and who have served with great hardship in places such as 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of these people have suffered the wounds of 
war--lost a leg, lost an arm, suffered traumatic brain injury or post-
traumatic stress syndrome. What is the majority leader's answer to our 
attempt to fix that mistake in that legislation? You are out of luck. 
And not just those of us who are trying to fix it, he is telling those 
wounded warriors: You are out of luck.
  So when power plays take place in the Senate, when minority rights 
are denied and an opportunity to amend and improve and fix mistakes in 
legislation because of this power play by the majority leader, and the 
majority party that supports him, people get hurt. These pension cuts 
will impact veterans across the country. As I said, they will even 
impact combat wounded veterans who have been medically retired. This is 
a provision my colleague from Washington State, the Senate Budget 
Committee chair, called a technical error.
  As I said, not surprisingly, Members of both parties have come to the 
floor since this was highlighted and they have called either for 
rescinding those cuts to the pension benefits of our Active-Duty 
members or those who have been medically retired or they have proposed 
to come up with alternative measures to reduce the deficit by a 
commensurate amount. At the very least, the military retirees who have 
already sacrificed so much for our country should have been exempted. 
Well, they weren't.
  I am encouraged there has been some talk across the aisle about 
acknowledging the problem and the mistake. Yet instead of taking action 
today or yesterday, when we passed the budget deal that discriminated 
against other Active-Duty military, we were told: Just wait until next 
month; we will take care of it then.
  It sort of reminds me of why the most feared words in the English 
language are sometimes said to be: Don't worry, we are from the 
government. We are here to help.
  These wounded warriors need more than our rhetoric. They need our 
action. And they are the ones who are

[[Page S9000]]

being punished by the strong-arm tactics of the majority leader and the 
majority party. Why should they have to wait? We know things don't 
always happen on schedule around here. There is time as the world knows 
it, and then there is Senate time, and those are very different things.
  Shouldn't we do everything possible now, today, to make sure these 
folks have peace of mind, particularly during this season of the year? 
If it was a technical error to include military retirees in the pension 
cuts, why are we not fixing the problem today? There is no good reason. 
There is zero good reason.
  These kinds of strong-arm tactics need to be called out. Because 
while some people seem to think these are technical rules of the Senate 
and they are bored by them--the press doesn't want to write any stories 
about them--what I am here to say is that people get hurt by hyper 
partisanship and strong-arm tactics in the Senate. People get hurt.
  Let me tell you about some other folks who are being shown disrespect 
as a result of the strong-arm tactics by the majority leader. I have 
introduced legislation that would allow for medals to be awarded to 
members of the armed services and civilian employees of the Department 
of Defense who were killed or wounded in an attack perpetrated by a 
home-grown violent extremist who was inspired or motivated by a foreign 
terrorist organization.
  Of course, what I am talking about is what happened about 4 years ago 
at Fort Hood, TX, when MAJ Nidal Hasan, who had been radicalized by a 
Muslim cleric the President subsequently put on his kill list, and who 
was killed in a drone attack in Yemen--Anwar al-Awlaqi. Nidal Hasan had 
communicated with al-Awlaqi more than 20 different times by email, and 
over the years he had shown increasing tendencies to blame the United 
States for what was happening in the Middle East. He basically ended up 
declaring war against his own country, even while wearing the uniform 
of the U.S. Army. Hasan killed 12 people in Fort Hood, TX--Killeen, 
TX--while standing up and yelling ``allahu Akbar,'' the cry often used 
by suicide bombers and other terrorists in the Middle East and 
elsewhere.
  Clearly, this was not a case of workplace violence. That is what the 
government called it: workplace violence. This was a terrorist attack, 
pure and simple; no more, no less than what happened that killed 3,000 
Americans on September 11, 2001. And we know what the U.S. Government 
did in 2001, quite appropriately, in my view. The Secretary of Defense 
exercised his discretion to award Purple Hearts and the appropriate and 
commensurate benefits that go along with being casualties of war. That 
was war being declared against the United States. And the U.S. Congress 
issued an authorization for the use of military force, recognizing it 
as an act of war.
  But when I tried to offer this amendment to recognize the loss of 
life in the line of duty of 11 military members and a Department of 
Defense contractor being awarded the Medal for the Defense of Freedom, 
which is sort of the civilian equivalent to a Purple Heart, when we 
sought to make sure the 30 other people who were shot but who survived 
would also be recognized and given the appropriate benefits, what was 
the response of the majority leader of the Senate? Well, about the same 
as it was for those military pensioners--the people who are wearing the 
uniform today and are hoping to accrue a retirement they can live on 
when they leave the military service. The majority leader's response to 
both the victims at Fort Hood and to Active-Duty military with regard 
to their pensions that are now being cut back as a result of the vote 
yesterday, was exactly the same: Tough luck. Tough luck. I don't care.
  As I said earlier, while people may not care about the Senate rules 
and the traditions of the Senate, while they may not recognize this 
power grab that resulted in an unprecedented trampling of minority 
rights in the Senate, when these sorts of partisan power grabs happen, 
people get hurt.
  The ones most people feel today are the broken promises of ObamaCare, 
which passed on a party-line vote in the Congress.
  Mistakes get made. People get hurt. But today the people who are 
getting hurt the worst are the people we ought to be most concerned 
about--those who lost their lives in the line of duty in the war on 
terror, those who have been injured and survived those wounds, and 
those who keep us safe by fighting our Nation's wars. These are the 
people being hurt today.
  I will support the underlying Defense authorization bill, but I did 
vote against closing off debate yesterday because I felt the denial of 
the opportunity to offer amendments and the opportunity to vote on 
important corrections to the bill, which I described a moment ago, was 
a terrible mistake. But those cries for rationality and reason were 
simply ignored.
  I will vote for the underlying Defense authorization bill because it 
does contain some good work, but I am absolutely outraged on behalf of 
the people I represent in my State, some of whom I have described, by 
the majority leader's refusal to allow consideration of any amendments 
to the bill and his blatant disregard for the rights of my 
constituents.
  I close by reminding the majority leader what he himself said--words 
out of his own mouth--7 years ago shortly before his party took control 
of the Chamber. And it is amazing to me to see how people change around 
here when they get in the majority. Sometimes they forget they will not 
always be in the majority. I have been here in the majority, and I have 
been here in the minority. I can tell you that I enjoy being in the 
majority more. But we need to respect minority rights in the Senate 
because eventually, if you serve here long enough, you will find 
yourself in the minority, and what goes around comes around.
  But here is what the majority leader said before his party took 
control of this Chamber:

       As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect 
     for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. 
     . . . The Senate was established to make sure that minorities 
     are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but 
     minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about.

  Back in 2006 I found those words inspiring. Today they are a bad 
joke.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
recess from 12:45 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. and that the time in recess 
count postcloture; further, that the time from 2:15 p.m. until 2:35 
p.m. be controlled by the majority leader or his designee and the time 
from 2:35 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. be controlled by the Republican leader 
or his designee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Extended Benefits Program

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my voice is a little weaker than usual 
thanks to a winter cold, but I nevertheless come to the floor today 
because there is an issue on which it is important not to remain 
silent; that is, just a few days from today more than 1 million people 
across America are going to lose their unemployment benefits. Those 
benefits are a bridge to the next job. Those benefits are the 
foundation for a family during a rough time while searching for that 
next job. Those benefits ensure the stability of the family and provide 
a solid foundation for the children during those weeks and months. But 
instead of maintaining this important bridge for more than 1 million 
American families, we are going to allow it to be dismantled on 
December 28 of this year, 3 days after Christmas.
  This chart gives a little bit of a feeling for how unemployment is 
working. We have the total number of those searching for work in Oregon 
who cannot find a job. We can see how it grew dramatically in 2008 when 
the economy collapsed and how it has gradually improved. Yet 
unemployment remains quite high in Oregon--not as high as it was but 
still quite high--and it remains quite high across this Nation.
  We have a structure in place where every State provides 26 weeks of 
unemployment, and then, depending on the unemployment level in 
different States, States take advantage of a Federal program for 
emergency unemployment, which works a little bit like this: If the 
State's unemployment rate is below 6 percent, the State is eligible for 
14 additional weeks of unemployment for families, so the total goes

[[Page S9001]]

from 26 weeks to 40 weeks. If the State's unemployment rate is between 
6 percent and 7 percent, the State is eligible for 28 weeks, for a 
total of 54 weeks--still less than 1 year of unemployment insurance. If 
it is between 7 percent and 9 percent, as it is in Oregon, the total 
goes to 37 additional weeks, which means, with the 26 underlying weeks 
with the State, 63 weeks. If the unemployment rate is over 9 percent, 
then the amount is 10 weeks more, for a total of 73.
  On December 28, just days from today, there will be about 17,000 
Oregonians who will be completely cut off from their unemployment--not 
tapered, not a few at a time; all of those who have more than 26 weeks 
right now will instantly be cut off. So that is 17,000 families or, at 
an average of 3 individuals per family, 50,000 Oregonians who are going 
to get from the Republicans in this Chamber a big lump of coal in their 
stocking.
  Their argument is that we shouldn't keep this program in place 
because those folks should just go out and get jobs. I would remind 
them that this program was set up under a Republican administration, 
and it was set up to balance the fact that in States where jobs are 
more readily available, the number of weeks of provided unemployment 
assistance is fewer, and in States with higher levels of unemployment, 
where it is virtually impossible to find a job because there are so 
many applicants for any one job, then the number of unemployment weeks 
is greater.

  This was a bipartisan plan, and this plan was implemented when the 
national unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate today 
is 7.3 percent. The bipartisan emergency unemployment program that 
provided more than 26 weeks was implemented when there were 137.3 
million Americans working--more Americans who were working than today.
  So what was good enough under a Republican administration, under 
bipartisan support--that created a careful balance between 
unemployment; that is, the challenge of getting a job, and the bridge 
to the next job--if it worked then, why not now? Why throw 17,000 
families in Oregon out in the cold? I hear silence in this Chamber. I 
don't hear a reply. Why is it justified to terminate this program when 
unemployment is still high?
  Some of my colleagues want to keep all the special tax breaks for the 
oil companies and all the special tax breaks for the coal companies. 
But what do they want to give to the families who are looking for work 
in high-unemployment areas, where it is virtually impossible to find a 
job? They want to give them a lump of coal. It is wrong.
  Moreover, not only does this program help those families directly, 
but it helps the entire economy improve gradually because those 
benefits are immediately spent by these families. These benefits help 
families get through a hard time. They help them pay the mortgage, 
which solidifies not just this family but by preventing foreclosures 
solidifies the street and the community from the impacts of 
foreclosure, of empty homes. It has guarded the family between getting 
to the next job and ending up homeless.
  I call upon my colleagues to come to this Chamber and pass 
immediately the extension of this carefully balanced program which not 
only directly benefits families who are doing the hard work of finding 
the next job but provides a solid foundation for our economy. This is 
no time to try to deflate our economy and throw more people out of 
work, but that is what happens when we cut this program.
  I encourage my colleagues to think carefully about the fact that this 
program was neither a Democratic program nor a Republican program. 
Think carefully about the fact that it was developed during a 
Republican administration, that it was designed to carefully pull 
itself back in as employment improved. But what isn't right is for it 
to be cut off completely in this period of ongoing high unemployment.
  While the average in Oregon is between 7 percent and 8 percent 
unemployment, we have communities with far greater than 10 percent or 
12 percent unemployment. So many families are wanting that next job. 
There is nothing better than a job in terms of any type of social 
program. It creates a sense of self-worth, it creates a sense of 
structure, and it creates a sense of satisfaction. The families in 
Oregon want jobs and they are applying, but there are not enough jobs 
to go around.
  That brings me to my next point. This Chamber should be considering 
program after program to invest in infrastructure and invest in 
manufacturing to create jobs. But there are those here who have sought 
to paralyze this Chamber in every possible way, to prevent any 
improvements, in terms of trying to sustain partisan campaign warfare 
rather than problem solving. This is an abdication of responsibility as 
a Senator. The responsibility is to be here working hard to solve the 
problems for families across this Nation, not continuing the partisan 
politics of the last campaign.
  The American people see this partisan campaigning, and they do not 
like it. They want to see problem solving. They want to see us coming 
together to fix things.
  A few moments ago the colleague from Texas was on this floor. He was 
saying some things that were extraordinarily misleading. He said, 
basically, that all of the paralyzing strategies that his party has 
employed stem from a lack of amendments. We have seen those paralyzing 
tactics in every possible responsibility that this body has. We have 
seen them on executive nominees. There are no amendments on executive 
nominees. You either approve them or you do not. We have seen this 
paralyzing strategy on judicial nominees, but there is no tree--the 
tree he referred to, the amendment tree--on judicial nominees. We have 
seen this on conference committees, unparalleled blockade of letting 
the House and Senate meet together to resolve differences in their 
bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I know we are closing down this body, 
according to the unanimous consent agreement. I am thankful for the 
opportunity to address this important issue, about the fact that it is 
wrong to put lumps of coal into stockings of working Americans rather 
than extending the emergency unemployment insurance provisions.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________