[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 2 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3-S5]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM

  Mr. REID. I am optimistic, cautiously optimistic, that the new year 
will bring a renewed spirit of cooperation to this Chamber. It is very 
badly needed.
  Last year the Senate passed a number of momentous pieces of 
legislation, including comprehensive immigration, a budget agreement, 
and a bill to prevent workplace discrimination based on sexual 
orientation.
  There is so much more that needs to be done and there is so much left 
undone. There has been never-ending obstruction during the entire 5 
years that President Obama has been President of the United States.
  Setting that aside for a brief moment, today we will address two 
pressing matters held over from last year: the nomination of Janet 
Yellen to be head of the Federal Reserve, and extension of unemployment 
benefits for 1.3 million Americans still struggling to find work. 
Instead of celebrating the beginning of the New Year on January 1, more 
than 1 million Americans, including 20,000 veterans and about 20,000 
Nevadans, were left wondering how they would feed their families and 
make their mortgage payments while they continue to look for jobs. 
Frankly, most of these people aren't making mortgage payments; they are 
renting. They are trying to make ends meet from month to month.

[[Page S4]]

  Today there is only one job opening for every three people searching. 
We have never had so many unemployed for such a long period of time.
  The long-term unemployment rate is twice as high as it was any other 
time we have allowed emergency unemployment benefits to end. It will be 
catastrophic for this to happen for men and women, boys and girls.
  What is more, failing to extend unemployment insurance won't only be 
a hardship for hard-working Americans, it will be a drag on our 
economy. Allowing this important lifeline to lapse will cost 240,000 
jobs.
  These people who are drawing unemployment benefits are just getting 
by. They have to buy groceries, maybe at 7-Eleven. Sometimes they go to 
a regular store. They have to buy gas for their vehicles. They have to 
buy bus tickets to get across town to look for a job. A multitude of 
other things they need are going to be eliminated. That will cost 
almost a quarter of a million jobs.
  By contrast, helping Americans while they search for full-time 
unemployment is one of the most efficient ways to support economic 
growth. Each dollar we spend on unemployment insurance benefits 
increases the gross domestic product by $1.50. According to leading 
economists--including Mark Zandi, John McCain's chief economic adviser 
when he ran for President--they agree that every dollar we spend brings 
back $1.50 to our gross domestic product.
  In 2012 alone, 500,000 children were kept out of poverty by 
unemployment benefits. That is one reason it is outrageous that 
Congress allowed this program--which helps tens of millions of American 
families with millions of children get by each year--to lapse in 
December is unconscionable. Today the Senate has a chance to correct 
this terrible omission.
  Just before Christmas my colleague from Nevada, a Republican, Dean 
Heller, joined with the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, a 
Democrat, to propose an extension of unemployment insurance for 1.3 
million Americans who lost benefits this past week. I commend these two 
Senators for their compassionate stance on this issue. The Senate will 
vote on moving forward on this Reed-Heller bill this evening. I hope a 
few reasonable and empathetic Republicans will join my colleague from 
Nevada Mr. Heller and help us advance this bill today.
  Passing this measure is one of the best things we can do for our 
economy, and it is cost-effective. It is cost-effective in so many 
different ways, but it is cost-effective to immediately address the 
worst consequences of growing income inequality in this Nation.
  Another way to raise millions of Americans out of poverty is to 
increase the minimum wage and make it a living wage. People can work 
two jobs, work so hard--80 hours a week, and some are working over 100 
hours a week--just to make ends meet. They work minimum-wage jobs. 
Minimum-wage jobs are not living-wage jobs. We are seeing this change 
all over the country. In the State of Washington, there is one 
community that has raised it to $15 an hour.
  We have to do more to help people who are willing to work. We want 
them to make a living wage. The reason that is so very important is 
that it is believed--it is not believed, polling will indicate this--
that two-thirds of small businesses want the minimum wage to be 
increased. Why? Because it helps them grow their businesses.
  When a mother or a father working two or three jobs still can't 
afford groceries and rent the same month, it is a sign that something 
is wrong in this country.
  Last year the top 1 percent, the very rich, took home so much money 
that it broke a 1928 record percentagewise. In the last 30 years the 
income of the top 1 percent has increased by 300 percent 3 times. But 
what has happened in that same 30 years to middle-income Americans and 
the middle class? Their income has dropped by 10 percent--300 percent 
minus 10 percent. That is not good.
  Wages for middle-class families have actually fallen, as I have 
indicated. They have fallen by almost 10 percent while the cost of 
housing, food, and gas has gone up. The rich keep getting richer, the 
poor keep getting poorer, and the middle class is under siege.
  This country can't afford to allow the gap between the fabulously 
wealthy and those who are barely getting by--to keep their incomes 
going up, the middle class going down, and the poor getting poorer. 
That is why Democrats this year will renew our efforts to address 
poverty and economic disparities.
  I congratulate wealthy Americans on their good fortune. I think it is 
tremendous that we are a country of opportunity where people could make 
money. But we also believe it is time for the middle class to share in 
the success of economic recovery.
  (Mr. Murphy assumed the Chair.)
  The Presiding Officer has spent a great deal of time on the Senate 
floor trying to bring to the attention of the American people what is 
going on in the Republican-dominated Congress. The Presiding Officer 
hasn't come to the floor and berated Republicans about the fact that 90 
percent of the American people believe that if a person has mental 
disabilities, severe mental problems or is a criminal, that they 
shouldn't be able to buy a gun without a background check. Ninety 
percent of the American people agree with the Presiding Officer.
  Members of Congress, or Republicans, disagree, but it is the same on 
the other two issues I have talked about--minimum wage. The vast 
majority of Americans agree with this, Democrats, Independents, and 
even Republicans. Unemployment insurance is the same. But in Congress, 
they disagree with the American people as it relates to background 
checks. They disagree with the American people as it relates to minimum 
wage. They disagree with the American people as it relates to the 
unemployment insurance extension.
  They cannot get off the tune they have been singing for such a long 
time: ObamaCare, ObamaCare, ObamaCare. As we speak, the American people 
are so much better off because of ObamaCare. If they have a disability, 
they cannot be denied health insurance coverage. Children stay on their 
parents' insurance until they are 26. Seniors get wellness checks, Pap 
smears, mammograms. Many people could never afford that. The doughnut 
hole for prescription drugs is being closed. Your insurance can't be 
terminated because someone is hurt and the bill is big. They can't do 
that anymore. But Republicans can't get off trying to repeal ObamaCare.
  ObamaCare is here to stay. As we speak, there are 9 million people 
who have insurance who didn't have it before. We have about 2.5 million 
people who have gotten insurance on the Web, including the 14 exchanges 
of various States, including Nevada.
  We have 3 million people who have insurance now because they are on 
their parents' insurance and can stay there until they are 26. Three 
million Americans have that because of ObamaCare, and there are about 3 
million Americans who are so poor they now qualify for Medicaid. That 
is 9 million people who didn't have insurance before.

  But what is the first thing the House of Representatives is doing? 
They are going to vote on ObamaCare. They voted to repeal it at least 
45 times, which didn't work. We now have one Senator from Wisconsin who 
is filing a lawsuit today, and he is boasting about this lawsuit: It is 
a great deal. It would take away the health insurance of the people 
working in this body--all of these people, plus all of our staffs who 
aren't here in this building.
  Here is what longtime Republican House Member Jim Sensenbrenner from 
Wisconsin--with whom I and the Presiding Officer had the good fortune 
to serve in the House of Representatives--said:

       ``Senator Johnson's lawsuit is an unfortunate political 
     stunt. I am committed to repealing ObamaCare, but the 
     employer contribution he's attacking is nothing more than a 
     standard benefit that most private and all federal employees 
     receive--including the President, Sensenbrenner said.
       ``uccess in the suit will mean that Congress will lose some 
     of its best staff and will be staffed primarily by recent 
     college graduates who are still on their parents' 
     insurance.''
       Sensenbrenner is a longtime House Member and former 
     chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He is expressing 
     concerns that were shared publicly and privately by many 
     lawmakers and senior aides about the possible ``brain drain'' 
     from taking away the employer contribution. Several 
     Republicans, led by Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, have

[[Page S5]]

     floated legislative proposals that would accomplish the same 
     goal as the Johnson lawsuit.

  Sensenbrenner went on to say:

       ``Senator Johnson should spend his time legislating rather 
     than litigating as our country is facing big problems that 
     must be addressed by Congress--not the courts. All 
     Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare, but this politically 
     motivated lawsuit only takes public attention away from how 
     bad all of ObamaCare really is and focuses it on a trivial 
     issue. Fortunately, Senator Johnson's suit is likely 
     frivolous and will not achieve the result he's seeking.''

  As I stated in my remarks today, we have been able to get a few 
things done, but we have been unable to get so many important things 
done because the goal for the last 5 years by the Republicans in the 
Congress--not Republicans in the country but Republicans in the 
Congress--has been to do everything they could to make President Obama 
look bad. Remember, my counterpart said his No. 1 goal in the last 
Congress was to do everything he could to defeat Obama from being 
reelected. Well, he was elected overwhelmingly, so that was a futile 
effort.
  We need to get back to working together, as we have always done--
until this effort which has been made to disparage and damage in any 
way they can the President of the United States and, in the process, 
our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I may take one moment while the 
distinguished leader is here.
  I wish to commend Senator Reid for his cooperation. He has worked 
very hard to bring this together. We had a very complex and very 
extensive immigration bill, with 300 amendments filed in the Judiciary 
Committee. After it went through the committee, Senator Reid worked 
hard to get time on the floor and then we passed it with an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority.
  Mr. REID. Would my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
  Mr. REID. Through the Chair to my friend, the President pro tempore 
of the Senate, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we hear the 
Republicans talking that they want to do everything they can to reduce 
the debt. I ask my friend, twofold: No. 1, the bible for how to reduce 
the debt was Bowles-Simpson. They set a goal of $4 trillion. Right now 
we are almost at $3 trillion. We have cut spending to reduce the debt 
by almost $3 trillion.
  Does my friend acknowledge that, by passing the bill reported out of 
the Judiciary Committee, it would reduce the debt by another $1 
trillion; we would basically reach the goal of Bowles-Simpson if they 
would just pass immigration reform?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, addressing the majority leader through the 
Chair, I would note that even Grover Norquist, who is sort of the guru 
of many of the Republicans, testified before the Judiciary Committee 
that passing this bill and putting it into law would add nearly $1 
trillion or more to the economy. All sorts of business leaders came in 
and said this would add to our economy. It is one of those rare cases 
where the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came together 
because it would dramatically improve the economy, dramatically improve 
the wages of people, and it would lower the deficit. It is a no-
brainer. That is why we came together in the Senate. With the 
leadership of the distinguished Senator from Nevada and others, 
Republicans and Democrats, we came together and we passed it.
  They should take it up. If they want to make some changes, do so. I 
am ready to go to conference on it at a moment's notice so we can get 
this bill passed and on the President's desk.
  We have shown we could do it before. We did it with the Violence 
Against Women Act, which they at first refused to take up in the House. 
Even the White House was backing off some of the parts we added to it 
here because they were afraid it might not go through. But Senator 
Crapo and I stuck together. A bipartisan group in the House stuck 
together, and they passed it in the House. We passed it, and it went 
into law. We added sexual trafficking. It is a good bill.
  We can do it, if people want to. But if we take the position that we 
cannot do anything, that we just want to be naysayers and nihilistic 
about government, then, of course, we don't do anything. But here is a 
way to get the economy going. Here is a way to improve our Nation.
  Frankly, I just wanted to stand and compliment the distinguished 
majority leader for speaking of what we can do, and I hope we do.

                          ____________________