[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S39-S45]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair 
directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 265, S. 1845, a bill to provide for 
     the extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other 
     purposes.
         Jack Reed, Richard J. Durbin, Martin Heinrich, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Charles E. Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Patty 
           Murray, Bernard Sanders, Angus S. King, Jr., Al 
           Franken, Tom Harkin, Jeff Merkley, Elizabeth Warren, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara Boxer, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Sherrod Brown.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has 
been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1845, a bill to provide for the extension of 
certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Begich
     Hatch
     Thune
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not an order to reconsider; it is a 
separate cloture motion.
  Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S40]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so pleased that six Republicans--six 
out of all the Republicans--joined with us--every Democrat present--to 
reach that magic 60 votes we needed to proceed to consider the 
unemployment compensation bill.
  I think it is so important to recognize that Federal unemployment 
programs have been extended no less than 28 times since 1958--15 times 
under Republican Presidents and 13 times under Democratic Presidents. 
So this is nothing new--this is nothing new--and the fact that it has 
been made such a big deal is incomprehensible given the circumstances 
of us recovering from the greatest recession since the Great 
Depression, with a very special number, a very large number. The fact 
is we have a long-term unemployment rate that is very high, way higher 
than normal.
  The fact is, since we have extended Federal unemployment benefits so 
many times it should not be a problem, it is shocking it is a problem. 
In November 2008, unemployment insurance was extended with bipartisan 
support without an offset, which seems to be the excuse the Republicans 
have for not voting with us.
  What is very interesting about that is these are the same Republicans 
who voted to go to war twice and put those wars on the credit card--
never paid for them. These are the same Republicans who voted for tax 
cuts to billionaires and multimillionaires and never paid for it. Yet 
still, when it comes to the middle class, oh, they cannot possibly 
extend unemployment benefits without paying for it. If anyone knows 
anything about economics, they should know that when we are trying to 
stimulate jobs and stimulate the economy--not depress jobs and lose 
jobs--we do not contract spending.
  We have already dealt with deficits, and we continue to deal with 
deficits. I want to show the progress we have made under President 
Obama. This is something we never hear from the Republicans. They would 
make us feel deficits are raging, as they were under George W. Bush.
  When President Obama took over, he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit 
from George Bush. George Bush inherited surpluses from Bill Clinton. It 
took him--and I am exaggerating--15 minutes to change it: two wars on a 
credit card, no problem, no offsets; tax cuts to billionaires, no 
problem, no offsets--and the deficits soared to $1.4 trillion.
  When President Obama came in, he not only had to deal with raging 
deficits, he had to deal with the worst recession since the Great 
Depression, and all we hear from the Republican side is: This President 
did not do enough here, did not do enough there. Nothing is enough.
  We are now in a situation where this deficit has been cut in half--
cut in half--down to $560 billion, and we want to see it disappear, 
just as we did when Bill Clinton was President and the Democrats passed 
a budget that balanced and set in motion a surplus, which was destroyed 
when George W. Bush was President. Let's be clear on the history. There 
are facts. There are stubborn things. They are real. These are the 
facts.
  Now we come to a place where we want to extend long-term unemployment 
benefits for those who got deeply hurt in this great recession, and we 
hear that we have to offset it, which goes against the economic experts 
who say it is important that we stimulate this economy and keep these 
jobs rolling.
  Remember, in the President George W. Bush recession, we had a similar 
extended benefit. It was not offset. It was extended twice in 2003 with 
strong bipartisan support and no offset. So why is it when a Republican 
is President the Republicans say: OK, let's help the unemployed without 
an offset, without spending cuts. But when a Democrat is President, oh 
no, we could not do it?
  Honestly, it just is so political on its face. Democrats have been 
consistent. Whether a Republican is President or a Democrat is 
President, we want to help the middle class. We want to help the 
unemployed. That is the difference between the parties. I say God bless 
those six Republicans who joined with us today so we can do our job and 
help the long-term unemployed.
  The long-term unemployment rate is 2.6 percent--the long-term 
unemployment rate, twice as high as it was at any other time that these 
extended unemployment benefits were allowed to expire. Let me say that 
again, how urgent this is. The long-term unemployment rate--that means 
people who have been out of work for a long time, 6 months or more, is 
2.6 percent, twice as high as it was at any other time in our history 
where we have extended unemployment benefits.
  There are almost three unemployed people for every job opening 
nationwide. Let me repeat. There are almost three unemployed people for 
every job opening nationwide. We need to understand, while some of our 
Republican colleagues are blaming the unemployed and saying it is a 
disservice to give them unemployment compensation, that these folks are 
actively looking for jobs. That is part of the deal.
  First of all, this is insurance. Second of all, they are looking for 
work. Third of all, they are stuck in the situation where it is not 
their fault. A Christmas present was given by the Republicans to the 
1.3 million unemployed. That Christmas present was: Sorry, you are not 
getting your unemployment benefits. We left here without being able to 
deal with it.
  But today we have a chance, a chance to do the right thing. In 
California, my State alone, there are 222,000 people who have lost 
their extended unemployment benefits. An additional 1.9 million people 
are projected to lose their benefits over the next 6 months if 
unemployment insurance is not extended.
  What are these grandiose amounts of money that people get when they 
are long-term unemployed: $300 a week, on average--$300 a week, on 
average. So for our colleagues to say that people want to be 
purposefully unemployed to collect $300 a week, could I tell you, try 
living on $300 a week. If you are lucky, you can keep a roof over your 
head but you have to be pretty lucky. If you are lucky, you can get 
maybe a little bit of nutrition. That $300 a week is a lifeline. They 
can put some groceries on the table, pay their rent, and cover the 
expenses they have in looking for a job.
  This keeps American families afloat at a critical time. I want to 
give you a few stories from my home State of the real face of long-term 
unemployment and why we have to vote to extend these benefits. One 
woman wrote:

       I am 58 years old and am receiving unemployment benefits 
     for the first time in my life. I am currently receiving my 
     first federal extension. I was laid off because the non-
     profit I was working for lost a major portion of its state 
     funding.
       Getting unemployment benefits is not preventing me from 
     looking for work. In fact, people getting extended 
     unemployment benefits are required to prove they're looking 
     for work. I spend hours every week filling out applications 
     and posting my resume without result.
       Tell me, how am I, and thousands like me supposed to pay my 
     rent and eat? I agree that Washington should ``focus on job 
     creation'' but that should be in addition to, not instead of, 
     extending benefits. I beg you,--

  She writes to me--

     Please extend unemployment benefits. Thank you.

  Another Californian wrote from Los Angeles:

       After working 27 years for one employer, the bad economy 
     finally led to my layoff and my first time ever on 
     unemployment.

  Remember, this person worked 27 years for one employer.

       I was told that because of the bad economy, I would get up 
     to 63 weeks with the Federal Extension. Now I'm being told 
     without further action from Congress and the President, my 
     benefits end at the end of the year even though that leaves 
     me 3 months short. After paying into the system for 32 years, 
     this is the only time I have ever asked for anything back and 
     this is how I'm treated.

  There are other stories. Kaitlyn of Twentynine Palms, 24 years old, 
lost her $450-a-week benefit when the Federal extension expired. She is 
a Marine Corps veteran, the mother of two young kids. She has been 
searching for work. The family cannot move because her husband, a 
veteran of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars must remain near the combat 
center until he is discharged from the Marines.
  The loss of her benefits will cut deeply into the couple's income. 
Smith said, ``The family is already skimping on basics, including 
heat.''
  Including heat.
  ``I have to keep the house at 55 degrees even though I have two 
little girls, ages 2\1/2\ and 1\1/2\.''

[[Page S41]]

  Keeping the house at 55 degrees. That is a story which appeared in 
the Los Angeles Times on New Year's Eve.
  Laura Walker, a 63-year-old paralegal has been looking for work since 
January when she was laid off from a California law firm. She counted 
on her benefits that have now run out.

       Not all of us have savings and a lot of us have to take 
     care of family because of what happened in the economy, said 
     Walker, of Santa Clarita, who said she has applied for at 
     least three jobs a week and shares an apartment with her 
     unemployed son, his wife and two children. It's going to put 
     my family and me out on the streets.

  That appeared in Bloomberg News on December 31.
  We have a story of a software engineer who lives in San Diego County. 
She is one of 18,000 San Diego County residents to lose their payments. 
She says her $450 weekly unemployment payment goes to food, dental 
insurance, and other living necessities. She has tried zealously to 
find work. She has volunteered. She has attended meetings. She has cold 
called. She has written letters. She has joined the Project Management 
Institute of San Diego. She said:

       I haven't been sitting here watching soap operas. I would 
     go to work tomorrow, or today. I really am tired of this.

  That story appeared in the San Diego Tribune. I ask unanimous consent 
that several additional stories be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Cindy Snow, of Beaumont, CA, lost her job as a social 
     worker in April when the San Bernardino school system 
     terminated the child-care program where she worked. Her 
     husband, employed in the construction industry, has been 
     without a job since 2009. They have been relying on 
     assistance from the California Housing Finance Agency to 
     cover a $1,424-a-month payment on their home.
       When she loses her unemployment benefits, she said, the 
     family will no longer qualify for the housing assistance. 
     ``Why are they using us as pawns? They're playing games with 
     people's lives,'' Snow said, referring to politicians in 
     Washington.
       --Bloomberg News, 12/30/13
                                  ____

       Steven Swanson of Madera Ranchos, CA, worked for 33 years 
     in wholesale, mostly in beverage sales, before losing his job 
     in 2011. Since then, he estimates that he's submitted resumes 
     for more than 500 positions and in the last six months filled 
     out more than 200 job applications--all to no avail.
       ``I want a job, I want to work,'' said Swanson whose 
     daughter and son-in-law live with him and pay rent to help 
     him keep up the mortgage on the house he owns. ``As a 
     taxpayer, I paid into the system for a lot of years. For them 
     to just shut it off and say, `These people need to get weaned 
     off and get a job'--well, yeah, I need to get a job. But for 
     them to suggest that I just go get welfare or go get food 
     stamps--that's why I'm frustrated with the Republican Party. 
     They just don't get it.''
       --Fresno Bee, 1/2/14

  Mrs. BOXER. So here you have the facts. I will just recap them. We 
have a situation where the long-term unemployment rate--those looking 
for work and out of work for more than 6 months is higher than it has 
ever been, 2.6 percent.
  We have a situation where we are coming out of the worst recession 
since the Great Depression. Even though President Obama has done an 
amazing job on job creation, creating 8 million private sector jobs in 
his time--8 million private sector jobs under President Obama. We lost 
more than 600 million private sector jobs by the end of 8 years under 
George W. Bush. But we still have a problem. How many private sector 
jobs were lost in the recession? More than 8 million. So we need to 
restore those jobs.
  So this is not the time--when you go for a job and there are three 
applicants for one job--to tell people they are cut off from 
unemployment.
  Here is the issue. In a State that has a really good economy with a 
very low unemployment rate, less than about 5 percent, the full 
extension does not go forward. It only goes forward to States that have 
a high unemployment rate. So it is targeted. It is not going to States 
where there is a boom going on or a really strong economy. It goes to 
States that have a tough unemployment rate, and have all these people 
coming for one job opening.
  In some States it is five to one. Remember, the average is almost 
three to one, three people for every job. In some States they are doing 
better. Maybe there is just two people for every job. But there are 
three nationally. In some States it is way higher. So we are just 
saying at this particular point in time: Let's extend this for a 3-
month period. Do it without offsets, because when you offset you cut 
something else and you constrict the economy at a time when you should 
be expanding it. Two-thirds of the time we have never paid for 
unemployment extensions. Under George W. Bush, who started the current 
program, we never did--at least in the beginning we did not.
  We care about jobs in this country. Everybody does. If we extend 
unemployment insurance, we would prevent the loss of 240,000 jobs. You 
say: Why? That is because when folks get their checks, what do they do 
with it? They go down to the store, and they spend it buying food for 
their families. They do not hold back. They pay their rent. The 
landlord gets that check and spends that check. So it is an immediate 
boon to the economy and an immediate fact that we can definitely prove 
that jobs are not lost because economic activity in those communities 
goes down.
  We are talking, in my State, of 46,000 jobs that will be lost if we 
do not correct this problem. The Congressional Budget Office has said 
another year-long extension, if we do this and do it for a year--this 
particular bill is only a few months extension--if we did it for a 
year, we would add two-tenths of 1 percent to our gross domestic 
product.
  Extending unemployment insurance is one of the most cost effective 
ways to grow the economy and create jobs. In the end, that reduces the 
deficit. So all of this talk to cut this and cut that to pay for this, 
it is counterproductive because you will pull back on gross domestic 
product growth, and there will be less revenue coming into the 
government.
  So I do not see how this extension of unemployment is anything but a 
win-win. It is an obvious win-win. If you took the politics out of it, 
you would do the right thing, Republicans, because you have done it in 
the past. When Republicans were President, you did it without an 
offset. You did not hold up a bill. You passed it. You stimulated the 
economy. You create more jobs. The deficit then goes down even faster 
than it is going down. Look at how it is coming down.
  There is no reason why we have to cut something that then depresses 
spending over here, while doing unemployment over here. It does not 
make sense. I was an economics major a long time ago. So I am not 
saying that I am up to date on the latest theories. But one thing we 
know makes sense: When you are trying to create jobs, when you are 
trying to get out of a recession, you do not turn to austerity, 
especially since we have wrapped our arms around this deficit. It has 
been hard to do. But who would have thought we could have done it. We 
did it.
  So we do not have to say now that, while we give an unemployment 
extension on the one hand, we are going to cut something on the other 
hand and lose those jobs over there. It does not make sense. Then you 
put those people on unemployment. It really does not make sense.
  Would I vote to give a little higher tax rate to the billionaires? I 
just watched a documentary called ``Park Avenue.'' This is what they 
said. I have not fact-checked it, so we have to fact check this. But 
this is what the documentary said: Approximately 400 or 500 families 
are worth more than 150 million Americans--net worth. That is what they 
said. We are going to fact-check it this afternoon. If I am wrong, I 
will correct the Record.
  That is what the movie said: 450, 500 families have more net worth 
than half the population of America.
  That is the income inequality.
  So would I pay for this by putting a little tax on the billionaires? 
Oh, yes, I would. But I don't wish to start cutting programs: 
education, housing, health care, whatever they come up with, which then 
means people would be laid off.
  We can do this. We are not afraid to cut spending. We are not afraid 
to reduce the deficit. We did it under Bill Clinton. We got a surplus, 
and we are doing it under Barack Obama.
  I defy any Republican to show me how this shapes up in a bad way with 
the Bush record, which was taking surpluses that George Bush inherited 
and turning it into massive deficits and literally no job creation. It 
was 1.1 million jobs created, compared to cutting

[[Page S42]]

the deficit in half after President Barack Obama inherited the worst 
recession since the Great Depression, creating 8 million new jobs in 
the private sector alone and reducing the deficit by half.
  We know what we are doing, despite what they say, and it is OK, 
because at the end of the day the facts are the facts. I didn't make up 
this chart. This is a chart that comes from the Congressional Budget 
Office. These are their numbers.
  The stories I have told and that I have put in the Record are 
poignant. There are people out there who are at their wit's end holding 
their lives together, keeping their homes at 55 degrees when they have 
little children in them, not knowing if they can pay the rent, not 
knowing if they can go to the grocery store, not knowing if they will 
be homeless, not knowing what the future holds.
  The least we can do, the least we can do in this Chamber is stand and 
fight for them.
  What are we here for anyway? Are we here for the Koch brothers? I 
hope not. The billionaires are doing just fine. This country is a great 
country. It is a great country because everyone can dream to go to the 
top. But if we lose the middle class and we are not there with the 
safety net when they fall, we will lose everything and this country 
will not resemble the America I grew up in and that I knew. I had 
nothing and my husband had nothing. He lost his father when he was only 
a young boy. His mother was a school crossing guard and raised three 
boys.
  In this country, my husband went to college, to law school, and 
started his own law firm, his own small business. That is what America 
is.
  But when we were in trouble when we were young, we knew we had the 
hope and the dream. It was real. It wasn't unreachable. It was 
reachable because there was a safety net, and part of that safety net 
is unemployment insurance. Part of that safety net is extending it for 
the long-term unemployed.
  I am going to close with a couple of facts about health care because 
I am so tired of the ``bad news bears'' coming out here every day 
whining about ObamaCare. I wish to tell everyone some of the good news 
about health care because we don't hear it enough.
  Across this country, over 2.1 million Americans have enrolled through 
the exchanges in private health insurance--2.1. It is pretty amazing, 
and I wish to state some more facts.
  In California, I wish to tell you what is happening. We have our own 
exchange, Covered California, coveredCA.com. What has happened so far 
we don't hear around the beltway. All we hear is: ObamaCare is bad. 
ObamaCare is bad.
  I wish to tell some stories of what is truly happening and these 
facts will catch up as well, such as 400,000 Californians now have 
coverage through the California exchange, private coverage.
  We have more than 200,000 Californians on Medi-Cal, which is 
California's Medicaid Program.
  A truly great number is more than 1 million California families--not 
people, families, so we are talking about probably a few million 
people--have begun the process of applying for coverage.
  Across the country, I can state--and we know we have had our bumps in 
the road--today we are resolving some of those bumps. We had about 2 
percent of the people who wound up in a problem where they couldn't get 
the insurance they wanted. President Obama fixed that problem.
  Now we have that 2-percent problem down to way less than .2 percent, 
very few families. Let's get that clear. Will there be more bumps? Yes. 
Will we fix them, yes. Are we still worried about the few thousand 
families who need our help? Yes. We will fix it.
  I don't shy away from this. If we have a problem, we fix it. Somebody 
point out to me any business that doesn't have a few problems in the 
rollout, and I will say that is pretty amazing.
  We had problems with the rollout. It was bad. We are fixing it, and 
the proof is in the pudding. Today, 9 million Americans have new secure 
health insurance; 2.1 million, on that other chart, have received it 
through all the different exchanges, 2.1 million; 3.9 million have 
enrolled in Medicaid; and 3 million young adults can now stay on their 
parents' plans. There were bumps in the road, we fixed them, and we 
will continue to do so, but this is a good story.
  I wish to read from some constituents who have written to me about 
the Affordable Care Act. These are real people speaking, not 
politicians, not I--them.
  Mary Natwick of Monrovia signed up for a platinum plan for her family 
of three through the Covered California Web site. Even though she makes 
too much to qualify for a subsidy and even though she purchased the 
highest level plan, she is saving $1,000 a month on her premiums and 
she has a lower deductible.
  Mary wrote:

       Needless to say, we are thrilled beyond belief. Please 
     accept our gratitude, and pass on our thanks to all who voted 
     for this bill.

  This is a constituent who likes ObamaCare and she thanks the Senator 
from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
  David Specter of Ventura and his wife are young retirees, 62 and 58. 
Their old premiums cost $882 a month. Now because David and his wife 
qualify for subsidized premiums on the Covered California exchange, 
they will pay a total of $434 a month with lower deductibles. That is 
$400 a month in savings. Calculate what that means in 1 year, $400 a 
month. They can spend it in the neighborhood, in the movies, at a 
restaurant, in the grocery store, on a vacation, gifts for their 
grandkids.
  David wrote:

       Thank you so much for supporting the Affordable Care Act. 
     It may not be perfect, but it sure makes a big difference for 
     us.

  I think that sums it up for me. The Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, 
may not be perfect, but it sure is making a difference for Americans--
so far 9 million strong, and it will be way more than that.
  Maya Walls of San Diego was diagnosed with breast cancer at 27 years 
of age. Since that diagnosis 20 years ago, she has either kept working 
to maintain insurance or paid very high COBRA premiums in between her 
jobs to keep her coverage and to avoid preexisting condition 
exclusions. That is because, as we know, until ObamaCare became the law 
of the land, insurers could walk out on people once they got sick.
  Two years ago, Maya lost her job. In September she held her breath 
and went without coverage. On October 1, she found out she finally 
qualified for California's new expanded Medicaid Program, which she had 
never qualified for before.
  She wrote:

       Please do not give an inch on the ACA. This is the first 
     time I have taken a deep breath in 20 years. Thank you.

  I see we have a new Presiding Officer, and I wish to retell this 
story.
  This is a story of one of my constituents who was diagnosed with 
breast cancer at 27 years of age. Since that diagnosis she was so 
scared she would lose her insurance because of her preexisting 
condition that she kept paying very high COBRA premiums. When she 
finally ran out of options, she lost her insurance and just found out 
she qualifies for the new expanded Medicaid.
  She wrote:

       Please do not give an inch on the ACA. This is the first 
     time I have taken a deep breath in 20 years.

  I say to the American people--I hope a few will hear my voice--
nothing in life is perfect. No bill is perfect. No business is perfect. 
No one is perfect; no individual, no President, no Senator for sure. 
But we see a problem, and we do our best to step up to the plate.
  If things go wrong, as it did with the rollout, we get mad about it, 
but we fix it, and we don't go back to the problems we had before of 
kids being kicked off their parents' insurance and having no insurance, 
of people being told: Sorry. You have asthma or you have cancer or you 
have high blood pressure. We can't help you.
  Those days are over. Being a woman was a preexisting condition. 
Having been a victim of sexual assault was a preexisting condition. If 
someone was in an abusive relationship, they said: You are just too 
high of a risk, and they walked away.
  There were lifetime caps on our policies. There were annual caps on 
our policies, gender discrimination, preexisting condition 
discrimination, all of that.
  I am going to say anyone who wants to repeal ObamaCare or the 
Affordable Care Act will go back to those days.
  I will never forget reading a New American Foundation study that 
said,

[[Page S43]]

if we hadn't changed health care in this country, we were getting to a 
place where premiums would have risen to about 50 percent of our 
incomes, on average, for at least half of American households. At that 
point, who is going to be able to afford insurance?
  I met people who were praying on their hands and knees to turn 65. As 
we get older we say: Oh, my God. I want to stay young.
  People were saying: Let me get to my 65th birthday so I can get 
Medicare because I have no insurance.
  That is what I heard from my constituents.
  What I hear may not be perfect, but it is saving their lives: Fix 
what is a problem, Senator. You can.
  I thank the President for acting to make sure the people who got 
those cancellation notices--it was about 2 percent of all Americans--
were able to stay on similar insurance for an extended period of time.
  Yes, we will fix what the problems are, but we will also rejoice when 
we get letters such as I am getting from all over my State. I ask 
unanimous consent to have three additional stories printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       John Nunnemacher is a 43-year-old freelance graphic artist 
     from San Jose and the last time he had health insurance was 
     15 years ago, when his employer paid for his coverage. But as 
     of January 1, John is covered by a plan he can finally 
     afford. He told the San Jose Mercury News, ``I hoped this day 
     would come. I worried that it wouldn't. And I'm very glad 
     that it finally has.''
                                  ____

       Amy Torregrossa, 27, is from San Francisco. She has been 
     without insurance since July, when coverage through her 
     partner's company ended because he changed jobs. She has a 
     congenital heart defect and a history of high blood pressure. 
     She no longer runs, she said, because ``if I twist my ankle 
     or get hit by a car. . .any doctor visit is so expensive.'' 
     She signed up on Covered California for a silver plan costing 
     $310 a month. She made sure her cardiologist was in the 
     insurer's network and plans to schedule a checkup for early 
     next year.
                                  ____

       Michel Stong, 57, is a self-employed product designer. For 
     many years, she could not afford any insurance at all because 
     of a false-positive test for lupus, which incorrectly flagged 
     her as someone with a pre-existing condition. For the past 15 
     years, she could afford only catastrophic insurance. Now, 
     thanks to a tax credit, she will pay $55 a month with no 
     deductible and a $3 copay for doctor visits. ``It just blows 
     my mind that I can get health insurance for this price! I can 
     finally afford checkups, tests, and age-related visits.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we will tell those stories and we will 
counteract the stories we hear.
  In closing, I wish to say--because I know the Senator from Oregon has 
been waiting patiently--the reason I took to the floor to talk about 
health care is to make the point that it is the middle class and the 
working poor who are truly being helped--that is so important in this 
time of income inequality--and make the point that we make sure we 
extend the unemployment compensation to the long-term unemployed as 
they, through no fault of their own, are trying to keep their house and 
home together, which is so critical.
  I thank my six Republican colleagues who showed courage, stepped up, 
and allowed us to get on this bill. I hope we pass it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I wish to make a few very brief 
comments, and the first is this: In the budget agreement that was 
hammered out right before we left for the holidays, a provision was 
inserted by Congressman Ryan that changed the COLA details for our 
veterans. This provision is outrageous. It is changing the retirement 
deal in the middle of a person's service or, for many of our veterans, 
even after they have retired--between the time they have retired and 
the time they reach age 62. In the coming days of this week, I hope 
this body can come together and reverse this provision which unfairly 
changes the terms of retirement for our veterans. Our veterans stood up 
for us as a nation when they were overseas, and we must stand up for 
them here at home.
  Secondly, I would like to express hope for the bipartisan spirit that 
led to an agreement to debate the bill regarding restoring emergency 
unemployment. I had eight townhalls over the weekend, and I can tell 
you that it strikes people as fundamentally unfair that States with 
high unemployment, such as my home State of Oregon--that these weeks of 
emergency unemployment, which was a deal hammered out in a bipartisan 
fashion under a Republican President, President Bush, should be set 
asunder.
  Indeed, on December 28, 18,000 Oregon families got a lump of coal in 
their stockings, and in the course of this coming year another 58,000 
Oregon families will be thrown out in the cold, if you will, due to the 
failure to reauthorize this program. Indeed, the failure to reauthorize 
it not only affects directly those families who need a longer bridge to 
the next job because of the high unemployment levels, but it also 
affects the economy, destroying an estimated 4,000 jobs. Our citizens 
want to see us create jobs, not destroy jobs.
  So I hope the bipartisan spirit that led to our agreeing to debate 
restoring the emergency unemployment program will lead to our actually 
reauthorizing the emergency unemployment program.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this new year represents an opportunity 
for us to refocus and plan for our year ahead. Unfortunately, for 
millions of Americans their focus will be on trying to stay afloat over 
the next year while they search for work. All of us here know there is 
no more important issue for middle-class families across America right 
now than jobs and the economy. This is what they want their elected 
officials to be focused on, and it is exactly what I think we ought to 
be working on every day.
  By reaching a bipartisan agreement last month, we did a number of 
things to work toward that goal. First of all and importantly, we 
showed the American people that Members of Congress can work together, 
that we can listen to each other, and that we can get into a room and 
talk frankly without trying to hurt each other politically. Second, by 
breaking through that partisanship, we finally ended that seemingly 
never-ending cycle of lurching from crisis to crisis. Third, we showed 
that ``compromise'' isn't a dirty word and that there is a big 
coalition that is ready to make some sacrifices politically to get 
things done. Finally and importantly, for our efforts to continue to 
grow our economy, we gave American families and businesses the 
certainty they need to grow.
  Of course, there is much more to do. As much as we are heartened by 
the headlines that predict a strong economy this year, we understand 
just how fragile our recovery still is, with millions of Americans 
still out of work.
  Now is the time to redouble our efforts, not shrink from the 
challenges we face, because the truth is that all the economic 
predictions in the world mean nothing if we don't continue to support 
policies that help our middle class. That work absolutely starts with 
extending unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have 
been losing their benefits since December 28.
  Because unemployment assistance goes right back into the economies of 
communities large and small, nonpartisan economists have found it is 
one of the most effective ways to build a recovery that lasts. Those 
same economists have said that failure to continue these benefits will 
cost us over 200,000 jobs. And renewing these benefits is simply the 
right thing to do at a time when millions of American families continue 
to teeter on the brink in States where unemployment remains stubbornly 
high.
  I have come to the Senate floor today with the hope that we can 
continue with the bipartisan momentum we saw with today's cloture vote 
and that we have seen over the last few weeks and take a final vote to 
provide a lifeline for millions of Americans. This should be an easy 
issue. It would be simply wrong to cut off the support while our 
economy continues to struggle and so many workers are really having 
difficulty finding work. Right now, in fact, there are three unemployed 
workers for every single job opening. If every opening were filled 
tomorrow, we would still have more than 7 million American workers 
across the country without a job to even apply for. More

[[Page S44]]

than one-third of all unemployed workers have been out of a job for 6 
months or longer--above historic averages and higher than in past 
recoveries.
  Millions of Americans are unemployed today not because they do not 
want to work, not because they do not have valuable skills, but simply 
because they found themselves in an economy that isn't creating jobs as 
quickly as needed. These unemployed workers are desperate to get back 
on the job, and unemployment benefits make all the difference for them 
and their families while they scour the want ads, pound the pavement, 
and send out resume after resume.
  I have received story after story from workers and families across my 
home State of Washington about what unemployment benefits have meant to 
them and what losing them would mean for their future. These men and 
women can't afford to have the rug pulled out from under them and are 
now struggling with each day that passes.
  One of these stories came from a woman named Carol from Puyallup in 
my home State. She is a nurse. She was laid off from her job. She 
decided that in order to make ends meet she would start her own legal 
nurse consulting business, so she enrolled in classes to help her hone 
her entrepreneurial skills. While taking those classes, Carol relied on 
her unemployment benefits to get by. Then, not only were her benefits 
slashed significantly due to sequestration, but Carol just found out 
she was one of the 25,000 people in Washington State whose benefits 
were completely cut off on December 28.

  As a leader in the classroom, Carol has spoken to many other soon-to-
be business owners who are suffering. In the face of unexpected job 
loss, they now feel as if they are being punished for deciding to chart 
a new course in their lives. They are creating work for themselves and 
potentially others but now have to decide whether they can continue 
following that dream without the critical support unemployment benefits 
provide them.
  Carol is not alone. I heard from a woman who was laid off from her 
job at a plant in Keyport, WA, early last year. She told me:

       Living in Kitsap County, we are geographically isolated, 
     and finding work with so many qualified applicants right now 
     is much more difficult. This year, I have applied for over 
     200 jobs and in spite of a stellar resume, have only gotten 
     four phone interviews. I have lowered my standards throughout 
     the year and applied for jobs far below my pay grade to no 
     avail . . . my husband and I have had to claim bankruptcy . . 
     . and I truly worry about losing my home and displacing my 
     children.

  Madam President, that is what people are facing today.
  Finally, there is Traci, a woman from Everett. She is a former 
executive assistant with 20 years of experience. After taking time off 
from work to care for her dying mother and a daughter who was suffering 
from bipolar disorder and drug addiction, Traci found herself without a 
job. Shortly after her mother passed, Traci fell ill, making it 
difficult for her to look for work.
  While Traci was receiving unemployment benefits, they were barely 
enough to cover the care her daughter required. Traci told me that she 
now can't afford food and has lost over 50 pounds. She even asked that 
I send her a video of the speech I am making right here as she won't be 
able to tune in today because she had to get rid of her television in 
the process of finding savings. Like so many others, Traci is searching 
high and low for that one break, and she told me, ``I just need time 
for someone to give me a chance.''
  For Traci, unemployment benefits are not the solution. A job is what 
she wants. But they provide her with some critical support while she 
takes care of her family and tries to find that work.
  Those are just a few of the stories I have heard, but there are a lot 
like them. Millions of people across America, including an almost 
additional 28,000 in my State, stand to lose the benefits they count on 
if Congress doesn't act soon. These workers are not looking for a 
handout. They do not want to be a burden. But they need support while 
they work to get back on their feet and back on the job.
  In this struggling economy, renewing these benefits is truly crucial. 
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that renewing 
unemployment benefits is one of the most effective policy tools we have 
to boost the economy and get money in the pockets of consumers. So I am 
really hopeful the Senate will act quickly, without political games, 
because failure to do so wouldn't just be devastating for the families 
who count on this, it would also hurt many small businesses and 
communities to have the billions of dollars pulled away from consumers 
who spend it every month on food and rent and clothing.
  Last month's budget deal provided us with a glimmer of bipartisan 
hope coming into this new year. However, we have to continue working 
together to focus on improving the economy for middle-class Americans. 
We cannot afford to allow this lifeline to be cut off.
  The stories I shared today, like so many others, are heartbreaking, 
but they also show the fierce determination exhibited by so many who 
are out of work in the struggle to get back on their feet. They are the 
stories of people who are applying for work far below their own 
qualifications, going back to school to earn the skills needed to 
change careers or waking up every day to scour for jobs in their 
communities that all too often lack opportunity. I believe it is 
Congress that needs to match their determination and grit. We took an 
important first step today, and I know unemployed workers I have heard 
from are watching. Today's vote is a glimmer of hope for them. We can't 
let it fade. We need to move on and pass this extension quickly, and 
the House needs to follow suit.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in postcloture on the motion to 
proceed to S. 1845.


                          Farm Bill Conference

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I congratulate Senator Reid, who I know 
worked extraordinarily hard to get the votes for this.
  I read something someone wrote in the press, saying they are afraid 
that Senator Reid didn't talk about these issues enough yesterday on 
the floor. I would point out that you can either talk or do. I thought 
he spoke quite well, but he basically spent the time lining up the 
votes and won. A lot of people talk about what they want to do. Senator 
Reid usually gets it accomplished. As one who has served here longer 
than anybody else in this body, I would rather see people get things 
done, and he did.
  Speaking of things to get done in this new year, the farm bill 
remains as one of the Nation's top legislative priorities. Yet it has 
languished in Congress's in-box. As the Senate begins this new session, 
it is a relief--at last--to be able to say that there are new glimmers 
of hope that Congress is nearing the point of being able to complete 
work on a farm bill.
  We passed this farm bill twice in the Senate. I compliment the chair 
of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow. She brought together 
Democrats and Republicans, many of us who served at one time or another 
as either chair or ranking member or both on that committee, and said: 
Why don't we just do it the old-fashioned way? Instead of just talking 
about it, why don't we actually sit down, write it, and bring something 
to the floor that can pass? We did, and it passed twice. While over in 
the House, the bill languished for quite some time before they decided 
to move forward.
  Chairwoman Stabenow and Chairman Lucas from the House worked 
throughout the holiday break. My own staff, Adrienne Wojciechowski and 
Rebekah Weber, have worked very hard with them to produce a bipartisan, 
comprehensive bill that addresses the needs of farmers, families, 
communities, and taxpayers.
  A farm bill is a dynamic element of our agriculture economy, and of 
our overall national economy. A farm bill touches every family, in ways 
large and small. It has now been more than 460 days since the last farm 
bill expired. That is well over a year ago. Since then, American 
farmers have

[[Page S45]]

struggled to make long-term planting decisions, and more than 20 
programs--such as those affecting organic certification cost-sharing, 
beginning farmers, relief from livestock disasters, renewable energy, 
and rural small businesses--all have been stranded without funding. 
Rural small businesses are a major part of my State and the Presiding 
Officer's State. But every State has some rural area that is extremely 
important.
  This farm bill limbo is part of a string of artificial made-by-
Congress dilemmas. Farm bill limbo hurts not only farmers, but their 
communities, and our economy. It hampers efforts to help those who are 
struggling the most in our communities, with food security for their 
families. It holds us back from making greater gains toward energy 
security.
  Last month, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives 
proposed a short farm bill extension. Short extensions are nothing new 
here on Capitol Hill. Most of us know them by the term ``kicking the 
can down the road.'' They patch things over from one crisis to the 
next. But just as a temporary extension to fund government offers 
neither certainty nor meaningful change, a short extension of the farm 
bill would not provide farmers the certainty they need to plan, or 
funding for stranded programs. Farming is a business, and saddling 
farmers with this needless uncertainty makes their difficult work even 
more difficult. Even worse, the proposed House extension would prolong 
direct payment subsidies for another year, senselessly costing 
taxpayers untold millions of dollars. At this point, the only 
acceptable path forward is to deliver a full, five-year, comprehensive 
farm bill by the end of January. Moving forward on the farm bill not 
only will avoid the so-called ``dairy cliff,'' but it also will help 
families put food on the table, improve conservation efforts, support 
regional farming, and put an end to wasteful subsidies.
  This farm bill marks the seventh time that I have served as a member 
of a Farm Bill Conference Committee. I know how difficult it is to 
bring complex, five-year bills to the floor and ultimately to final 
passage after a conference. I don't in any way diminish the difficulty 
in that. I know; I have been there, and I have done that.
  While there have been many significant changes in agricultural policy 
since the 1981 farm bill, which I had the privilege to write, one thing 
has remained the same: No farm bill is easy, and no farm bill is 
perfect. But to finalize a farm bill, the Senate and House must work 
together to reach bipartisan agreement. It means, whether you are a 
Republican or Democrat, forget the symbolism and start dealing with the 
substance. Stop rhetoric and go to reality.
  The conference committee is making steady progress, and Chairwoman 
Stabenow and Chairman Lucas deserve credit, and our appreciation, for 
working closely together to bridge the wide differences between our two 
bills. The cuts it includes will not go unnoticed, as we have already 
seen spending reductions from the sequester, followed by the end of the 
Recovery Act nutrition benefits. We can talk here on the floor. We are 
all going to collect our paycheck every month. But we sometimes forget 
these cuts and policy changes affect real people in real ways. So we 
have to continue to do the best we can.
  Speaking as a Vermonter, I would note that every farm bill is 
important to Vermont, just as every farm bill is important to every 
State represented in this body. Farm bills make real differences in our 
quality of life, and the fact that Congress every 5 years or so would 
renew and pass a farm bill was once something Americans could take for 
granted. This is the first time we have not been able to do so.
  The delays have been unfortunate, and they have been needless. But I 
am increasingly hopeful that this recent dark chapter is coming to a 
close. Farmers and families around the Nation are looking to us to pass 
forward-looking, fiscally responsible, and regionally sensitive food 
and farm policy--and the two have to be together, both the food and the 
farm policy. Farmers have to be able to plan, but families have to 
know, when their children go to school, they are going to be fed. Every 
teacher will tell you that a hungry child doesn't learn. If children 
aren't learning, what are we doing for the next generation? That is our 
responsibility.
  Now is the time, without further delay, to enact a farm bill that 
will strengthen the Nation and support the economy. I know we are up to 
this challenge. We have done it twice already in this body, forging a 
bipartisan coalition. I am hoping the other body, notwithstanding some 
of the Republicans who tried to block it, will come forward and speak, 
not just for a small part of one political party, but speak for all 
Americans.
  Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that all the time during the 
recess count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1845.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________