[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S45-S65]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last month the President of the United 
States gave a speech on what has come to be known by the code words 
``income inequality,'' which means different things to different 
people. He also talked about a very important aspect of that, and that 
is upward income mobility. In other words, we want to make sure that 
somebody who goes to work in a restaurant bussing tables can work their 
way up the income and education ladder to where they can actually own 
their own restaurant and create jobs and opportunities for other 
people. The President called it ``the defining challenge of our time.''
  Well, the timing, coming as it has, one might be forgiven from 
wondering whether the President and his allies want to change the 
subject from ObamaCare. We know that the rollout of ObamaCare has been 
an unmitigated disaster, and, frankly, there is more to come. We can 
certainly understand why the President might want to change the 
subject. But while he is changing the subject, Republicans should 
embrace the challenge of discussing this: What are the policies that 
have resulted in income inequality and insufficient upward mobility 
when it comes to jobs in America?
  Of course, the President, you might predict, has talked about his 
proposed solutions, which are creating more government programs and 
more spending, including up to $6 billion of money that we have to 
borrow from China and our other creditors just to extend the 
unemployment insurance program by 3 months. My question is: What 
happens after that 3 months? I don't want to be rash, but I will make a 
prediction that the Democrats will say: We need another 3 months. After 
that, they will say: We need another 3 months. Before you know it, 
unemployment insurance has been extended beyond the half-year mark, 
which is the basic program, to another full year beyond that at a cost 
of $25 billion.
  Just to put all of this in context, the Federal Government spent $250 
billion for extended unemployment insurance benefits since 2008. Of 
course, the President did not mention some of the primary causes for 
income inequality and the loss of upward mobility because he is 
responsible for a lot of that, along with his allies. He failed to 
mention that under his administration America has suffered the longest 
period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, and he failed 
to mention his signature health care law. I mentioned that a moment 
ago. He is trying to pivot to another subject, but inevitably we find 
ourselves coming back to ObamaCare and its negative impact on job 
creation and the 40-hour workweek.
  We know that ObamaCare has done a number of things in the short 
period of time since it began the rollout, which was October 1st. 
Millions of people have lost their existing insurance coverage. In 
fact, more people have lost their insurance coverage than have

[[Page S46]]

signed up for ObamaCare or even Medicaid. Then there is the issue of 
skyrocketing insurance premiums. So I thought the idea was: How do we 
make health care more affordable? In fact, instead of making health 
care better and more affordable, it has become less affordable.
  We are not just talking about the insurance premiums, we are talking 
about deductibles. We have all heard the stories of people signing up 
on the ObamaCare exchanges only to find out: Yeah, they have health 
insurance, but you know what, the first $5,000 per person is the 
deductible, which effectively means--for all practical purposes--that 
person is self-insured. That is a deal breaker for many hard-working 
middle-class Americans.
  We know, of course, that even organized labor has complained about 
the fact that ObamaCare has turned full-time work into part-time work. 
Why is that? For employers who put their employees on a 30-hour 
workweek, they are not required, under the law, to pay for health care 
benefits. But if you have a full-time worker, you are required to pay 
for health care benefits. So what is happening is that many employers 
are cutting people back from 40 hours to 30 hours with a commensurate 
loss of income.
  Recently, I was in Tyler, TX, sitting around a table at a restaurant 
when one gentleman who owns a restaurant said that because of ObamaCare 
one of the single moms who works in his restaurant lost her 40-hour 
workweek job. He had to cut her down to 30 hours. So she had to get two 
30-hour jobs in order to get by. In other words, she now has to work 60 
hours instead of working 40 hours, and obviously she is worried about 
the lack of time she has with her children in addition to having lost 
her full-time job.
  The President has also failed to mention a number of other items 
which have contributed to income inequality and the loss of upward 
mobility, such as the medical device tax that is a feature of 
ObamaCare. In Texas we have a number of medical device companies that 
came to see me after the ObamaCare legislation passed.
  They said: We have a duty to our shareholders not to spend their 
money inefficiently, and so our only alternative is to expand our 
existing facility in Costa Rica rather than in Texas. So the jobs that 
would have been created in Texas effectively moved to Costa Rica 
because of the medical device tax. So much for job creation and 
reducing income inequality and enhancing upward mobility.
  The President also declined to talk about his refusal to approve the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. Of course, this is a pipeline that would start in 
Canada and end up in Port Arthur, TX, in an area we call the Golden 
Triangle. We happen to have a lot of refineries there that can refine 
that oil into gasoline, jet fuel, and other products for Americans 
consumers.
  The President promised the country he would make a decision by the 
end of 2013. I may have missed something during the holidays, but I 
don't recall the President making any announcement whatsoever on the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. Not only would it produce thousands of good well-
paying jobs, it would also produce a dependable supply of energy from a 
friendly country--the nation of Canada.
  What else did the President fail to mention in his income inequality 
and upward mobility speech? He failed to mention how the impact of his 
regulatory policies are piling hundreds of billions of dollars of 
additional costs on small businesses.
  For example, the small banks in Texas have told me that they have 
hired new people, but the people they hired are the people who help us 
comply with the Dodd-Frank regulations. This bill--just to remind 
everybody--was filed to address the abuses on Wall Street that led to 
the subprime loan crisis and collapse in 2008. As we now know, while 
Wall Street was the target of Dodd-Frank and these regulations, Main 
Street is the collateral damage. Yes, people are being hired but not 
for the purpose of loaning more money and helping small businesses 
start and grow their businesses but, rather, just to comply with new 
government regulations.
  What else did the President fail to mention in his discussion about 
the lack of jobs and upward mobility? He failed to mention his proposed 
greenhouse gas rules, which will kill jobs and drive up energy costs.
  He failed to mention that during the so-called Obama economic 
recovery--the President has now been President for 5 years. He can't 
blame this on George Bush anymore. But during the so-called Obama 
economic recovery, real median household income has fallen more than 
$2,500. At the same time that real household median income has fallen 
by $2,500, households are finding that their health care insurance 
costs have gone up by $2,500, for a net loss of $5,000 for most hard-
working American families.
  The President has failed to acknowledge--in his discussion of slow 
economic growth--high unemployment. He has failed to mention that the 
economic recovery following the 2008 recession has been the weakest 
U.S. recovery since World War II.
  Economists ordinarily say that after a recession there will be sort 
of a V-shaped recovery--once you hit the bottom, you come out of it 
very quickly and the economy grows fast. Under the Obama recovery, that 
has been flatlined to anemic growth, which is not fast enough or strong 
enough to hire more American workers.
  Indeed, we have the lowest percentage of Americans actually in the 
workforce in the last 30 years. What that means is that even though the 
unemployment rate is roughly 7 percent--that is on a national basis--
millions of people have simply dropped out of looking for a job because 
they see the prospects for finding work so dim.
  The President also failed to mention that his 2009 stimulus package--
at that time you may remember that Speaker Pelosi said: Our goal is to 
make timely, targeted, and temporary investments in government spending 
to help stimulate the economy and help bring down the unemployment 
rate.
  The President later joked and said--we found out it wasn't a funny 
joke--that ``shovel ready'' didn't actually mean it was shovel ready, 
which was absolutely true. He failed to add that his 2009 stimulus 
package added more than $1 trillion to the national debt, which now 
stands at $17.3 trillion. That is equivalent to more than $54,000 worth 
of debt for every man, woman, and child living in America today.
  I don't think anyone in their right mind believes we can continue 
down this same path of racking up more and more debt by borrowing more 
and more money without having some negative consequences at some point 
in the future. One thing we do know will occur is that the present 
generation that is racking up all of this debt will probably not be 
around to have to pay it back, but the next generation and beyond will.
  If the President wants to have an honest debate about income 
inequality, he needs to be honest about his own record, and he needs to 
talk about it in a holistic context.
  A few months ago, the New York Times reported that the trend of 
rising inequality ``appears to have accelerated during the Obama 
administration.'' Indeed, according to one measure of the income gap, 
inequality has increased about four times faster under President Obama 
than it did under President George W. Bush.
  Here is the reality: If we want to reduce income inequality, we need 
to boost economic growth. That is the debate we should be having and 
which this side of the aisle embraces--not how we can pay more 
government benefits to people who can't find work or artificially fix 
the price of wages. We need to figure a way to benefit the entire 
country by growing the economy.
  Largely--at least where I come from--people say there are three 
things that the Federal Government can do to help grow the economy: Get 
out of the way, get off our back, and get your hand out of our pocket. 
Those are three things the Federal Government could do which would help 
the economy grow, create more opportunity, and deal with this issue of 
income equality in an effective sort of way.
  So we need to boost economic growth. That is the debate we should be 
having--how do we create more jobs, or actually how do we allow the 
private sector to create more jobs? We tried having the government 
spend borrowed money to create more jobs, and that did not turn out so 
well. So now we need to figure a way to get out of the

[[Page S47]]

way so the private-sector economy can create the jobs that will put 
Americans back to work and deal with this issue of income inequality 
once and for all.
  As we saw last night, instead of trying to actually solve the 
problem, sometimes I am tempted to think that the majority leader and 
his allies really want a political issue rather than a solution to the 
problem, because we saw last night the majority leader was ready to 
have a vote with 17 Senators missing because of the storms around the 
country. We know people could not get back because of cold weather and 
storms and flight cancellations and the like, and I predict if we had 
had the vote last night, the cloture vote that we had today would have 
failed, and that would have fit very nicely into the majority leader's 
and the President's desire to change the subject from ObamaCare to 
Republicans blocking this unemployment compensation bill.
  It did not turn out that way because we had the vote here this 
morning. We embrace the opportunity to talk about our progrowth 
alternatives, which will actually make life better for the American 
people, not worse, as the policies of this administration have over the 
last 5 years.
  Basically, we know that the demand is this: to extend long-term 
unemployment benefits beyond the half year, which is the basic program, 
another 3 months, and to put the entire $6.5 billion tab on our 
national credit card. But I ask you, What is going to happen after 3 
months? Will the President and his allies be back asking for another 3 
months and another $6.5 billion in deficit spending that will be added 
to the debt? I think so. How about in 9 months? If we extend it for two 
3-month periods, we will be here for another one that will extend it to 
9 months and beyond, ad infinitum--$25 billion in added deficit and 
debt spending--unless we solve the root of the problem.
  Republicans would prefer that we offset any real extension with 
spending cuts that would make it revenue neutral. We would also like to 
reform the unemployment insurance program so it delivers better results 
to the unemployed.
  For example, if there is one thing that most people who are 
unemployed need it is the opportunity for job skills training. We ought 
to make sure things such as Pell grants are available for people during 
that 26-week period of time they are on unemployment, that they can go 
to a community college in their own town and learn new job skills, and 
so they do not have to be stuck in the same old position. They could 
learn new job skills, which will open a whole new world of opportunity 
for them when it comes to jobs.
  Before I conclude, I want to mention a few numbers that help put the 
Obama economy in perspective. According to the Joint Economic 
Committee, the economy grew during the first 4 years of the Reagan 
administration by 22.3 percent--22.3 percent. During the first 4 years 
of the Obama administration, it was about 9 percent--less than half. 
Why is that? Why is it that the economy grew during the first 4 years 
of the Reagan administration by 22 percent; in the first 4 years of the 
Obama administration by about 9.2 percent?
  As I pointed out, there are some good reasons why this recovery has 
been anemic and so slow and why so many people are still struggling to 
find work. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the Reagan 
recovery, we would have millions more private-sector jobs. Isn't that 
what we want? The recipients of unemployment insurance compensation do 
not want to receive a government check. What they want is the dignity 
and the self-confidence and the opportunity to provide for their family 
that comes with a good job. That is what is missing in this whole 
equation and this transparent political exercise to play gotcha at 
their expense.
  We know it was President Reagan's economic strategies, combined with 
permanent, broad-based tax cuts and sensible regulatory policies that 
helped grow the economy. By contrast, President Obama's strategy is to 
combine massive tax increases--including the payroll tax, a year ago 
January--with a regulatory bonanza. We do not have to speculate about 
what the impacts of President Obama's policies are. We are living with 
them today.
  So I would say to President Obama, if you really want to reduce 
income inequality and promote upward mobility, we want to have that 
conversation. Let's get back to the policies, though, that have worked 
so well in the past, not those which have failed us and the American 
people during the last 5 years. Let's put a stop to regulations that do 
not pass a cost-benefit test. Let's do what we need to expand domestic 
energy production and create jobs.
  Do you know where the two lowest unemployment rates in the country 
are? Bismarck, ND, and Midland, TX, and that is because of the shale 
energy renaissance that has created jobs. If you can pass a commercial 
driver's license test, you can get a job driving a truck with a high 
school degree in both of those places and earn between $75,000 and 
$100,000 a year; the lowest unemployment in the country but this 
administration's policies have made it harder and harder for those jobs 
to be created, along with the Keystone Pipeline and the jobs that would 
create.
  We need also to reform our Tax Code to encourage more investment. We 
need to reward earned success so that small businesses can be started, 
so existing small businesses can expand. All of the President's 
policies, including, of course, most notably, ObamaCare, have made that 
harder. We need to do what we can, as I said, to expand domestic energy 
production and create jobs. We need to reform unemployment insurance to 
get more people back into the workforce by making sure they have the 
job training they need to learn employable skills.
  Then, of course, the subject that will not go away--notwithstanding 
the President's most earnest desire--that is, we need to dismantle 
ObamaCare before it does any more harm to our health care system and 
our broader economy. We need to replace it with more affordable 
coverage that lets consumers keep the doctor they trust--a promise that 
ObamaCare made, but a promise that has been broken, as too many people 
already know.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I was just walking through the Chamber and I had the 
opportunity to visit with some of my colleagues in the back, and I 
heard what my colleague from Texas was saying, and I just want to add a 
couple things, if I could. One is to say he is absolutely right in 
terms of the underlying problem here, which is a weak economy, and 
really a historically weak economy. Never coming out of a recession 
have we had a recovery this weak.
  The Senator made that point well--that typically we go into a 
recession in sort of a V formation. We go in and then come back out 
with a relatively strong recovery from a relatively deep recession. 
That certainly happened in 1981, where at this point in Ronald Reagan's 
recovery we had created over 8 million new jobs. Unfortunately, we are 
not creating the new jobs that we created in these other recoveries. As 
a result, we do have these problems with folks who are both unemployed 
and long-term unemployed.
  I think it is important to note that we now have historic levels of 
long-term unemployment, people who have been out of work for more than 
a half year, more than 26 weeks--the highest levels ever. So something 
is not working. It is different this time. I think what is not working 
is that some of our basic structural institutions--such as our tax 
system, our regulatory system, the regulations that have come from 
ObamaCare, and so on--are adding more and more burdens to the economy.
  The historic debt and deficits the Senator talked about are also 
adding to our economic woes. It is hurting the economy today, and it is 
certainly unfair, I would say even immoral to put that burden on future 
generations. Some of the young people who are here today are going to 
get left holding the bag for the $17 trillion national debt we now 
have--$145,000 for every family in Texas or Ohio.
  So the Senator makes the right points. We have to get this economy 
moving. There are some very specific policy proposals the Senator has 
outlined that we ought to turn to. The President has talked about tax 
reform, he has talked about regulatory relief,

[[Page S48]]

but he has not delivered. If we do not get at those issues, we are not 
going to ultimately solve the problem.
  But here we find ourselves within a few hours of having voted to 
proceed on a debate on whether we do extend unemployment insurance for 
people for the next 3 months beyond the normal unemployment insurance 
that would be out there. Most States provide about 6 months of 
unemployment insurance, about 26 weeks; some States a little more, some 
States a little less. What we are talking about is how much do you add 
at the Federal level as emergency unemployment benefits? I did vote, 
along with some of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to 
proceed to this debate. As the Senator said earlier--I heard him--
perhaps that was not what the majority leader was hoping for because 
maybe he wanted more of a political issue. But I did so because I took 
to heart what was said on the other side of the aisle about the fact 
that we are going to now have a debate.
  I think this debate breaks down into a couple things. One is, how do 
you deal with paying for this? Because, as we indicated, this economy 
is not going to grow until we deal with these historic levels of debt 
and deficit.
  How ironic would it be if we were saying: We are going to help those 
who are unemployed by making it harder to get the economy moving--by 
not doing anything with regard to the debt and deficit, in fact, adding 
to it.
  So what I am going to be filing is an amendment. It is a very simple 
amendment that says let's pay for this extension for 3 months. I just 
heard my colleague from Texas saying he would support that. Others, I 
hope, on both sides will support this. The specific idea that we have 
is let's take the proposal out of the President's budget that says if 
you are on Social Security disability and, therefore, not working, you, 
of course, should not be getting unemployment insurance. It is in the 
President's budget. I would also say trade adjustment assistance, of 
course, should not be available to you because you are not working by 
definition.
  So it is basically tightening up some of the provisions in current 
law to make them work better. That provides the funding to be able to 
say: OK, let's go ahead and extend unemployment insurance, but only for 
a few months while we do sit down and work on these bigger problems 
that the Senator from Texas has taken a lead on and talked about today. 
I hope that is where we will end up, that we will actually pay for this 
rather than adding to the burden and making the economy even weaker by 
adding to our deficit.
  Second, I think we need to have an honest discussion, even in the 
next couple of days here, as to how to make the unemployment system 
itself work better. Unemployment insurance, as has been noted, is not 
connecting people to jobs. That is the reason we have these historic 
levels of long-term unemployment.
  The Senator mentioned the Pell grants, for instance, being available 
to people who are on unemployment insurance. That is incredibly 
important, but also having our worker retraining programs at the 
Federal level work better for those folks who are uninsured. I think we 
should engage in that topic now--not only on how do we pay for this, 
but how do we actually make the unemployment insurance system work for 
the people who are unemployed?
  The Federal Government spends over $15 billion a year in worker 
retraining programs--47 programs spread over 9 different departments 
and agencies. Often the right hand does not know what the left hand is 
doing. The GAO, which looks at these issues--the General Accountability 
Office--has said there is duplication in most of these programs, and 
only a handful--four or five--are seeing the kind of performance 
measures you would want to have in a Federal program.
  So there is a great opportunity here on a bipartisan basis for us to 
get those worker retraining programs working better and into the hands 
of the people who really need the retraining to match skills with jobs. 
In Ohio--and I am sure the same is true in Texas--we have a lot of jobs 
going wanting right now. We have about 100,000 jobs available. We have 
about 400,000 people out of work. How do you connect those? A big part 
of that is providing the skills to those workers to be able to access 
those jobs that are available that do require a higher skill--maybe it 
is advanced manufacturing, maybe it is biotechnology.
  The Federal Government is not providing that help right now. Those 
worker retraining skills that are needed are not being provided. So I 
do think there is an opportunity here for us to pay for this, to be 
sure we are not adding to the debt and deficit, at a time when the 
economy is too weak already, and, second, to provide the skills workers 
need--Pell grants and so on--to actually give people some hope and give 
people some additional tools to be able to access this economy and 
these jobs that are available and get this economy moving again.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. CORNYN. Before the distinguished Senator from Ohio leaves the 
floor, I did not know he was coming down, but I am delighted he did. 
Not only is he an expert and former Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, distinguished Member of the House, now the 
Senate, and a great new addition since 2010, he understands these 
issues, particularly the fiscal issues, better than most of us.
  But the Senator makes a very important point. I am worried, based on 
what the majority leader did last night, that they preferred to have a 
``gotcha'' moment, have the bill fail at the very outset, rather than 
have a fulsome debate and a realistic discussion about what the 
alternatives are to basically permanently paying people not to work, 
through virtually a permanent extension of unemployment.
  More than most people, the Senator from Ohio, when he came to this 
Chamber, said what we need is a jobs program. So he advocated among 
those in our Republican conference. He said: We need a positive program 
for how do we facilitate the economy, the private sector, creating 
those jobs. Of course, he described the amendment that he intends to 
offer on this bill, not only to pay for this 3-month extension, which 
would be a welcome measure, but also to reform the unemployment system 
so that people can learn skills that actually match them with the jobs 
that do exist.
  I would add, while the Senator is on the floor, that as he knows, 
there are a lot of other good ideas that will be offered this week by 
this side of the aisle, but it is entirely dependent upon the majority 
leader allowing that sort of fulsome debate and those ideas to come to 
the floor and be available for a vote, things such as the Forty Hours 
Is Full Time Act that Senator Collins has promoted, the medical device 
tax which I talked about, the repeal sponsored--the chief sponsor, 
Senator Hatch of Utah.
  Senator Barrasso from Wyoming has got one that would repeal the 
health insurance tax from ObamaCare, which is a direct passthrough to 
consumers. Senator Paul, Senator McConnell have their economic freedom 
zones idea to help blighted areas where unemployment is high, and to 
create a way for the private sector to be incentivized to come in and 
start jobs and to create opportunity.
  We have got regulatory reform bills and proposals. We have got the 
Keystone XL Pipeline idea. I know Senator Lee and Senator Rubio have 
both recently come up with some very visionary ideas about how do we 
fight the war on poverty in a realistic sort of way. But my point is 
that whether we are going to get into that debate and give a full and 
fair consideration of all of these ideas about how to solve this 
problem depends on the majority leader allowing amendments to be 
offered and voted on.
  I would ask the Senator from Ohio what his expectation is in that 
regard, and what the consequences would be if the majority leader 
decides to deny any amendments and basically shut down this process?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I would say that 
having listened to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
speak earlier today prior to the vote about what their intentions were, 
including one of the authors of the legislation, and one of the leaders 
in the Senate, it seems to me they are interested in a debate. They 
encouraged those from the Republican side to vote yes on the motion to 
proceed, with the understanding that there would be the opportunity 
then to at least discuss these issues

[[Page S49]]

and to therefore offer amendments and to have what the Senate typically 
has had over the years, which is the opportunity for some give-and-
take, and the opportunity to have voices heard, people representing 
both the States on the Democratic side and the Republican side of the 
aisle. So I am hopeful we will have that debate. That is my 
expectation.
  I plan to file an amendment to pay for the unemployment insurance 
extension, and I know a lot of support will come from both sides of the 
aisle for that. I also hope to be able to offer other amendments that 
have to do with growing the economy in a more direct way. The Senator 
mentioned regulatory reform, for instance.
  We have bipartisan proposals on this side of the aisle that are 
intended to take the unemployment situation and deal with it in a 
broader context of reducing the burdens on small businesses, for 
instance. When you try to get a permit, for instance, from the Federal 
Government right now, sometimes with an energy project, sometimes there 
are as many as 34 different permits you have to obtain. That is one 
reason we are not seeing investment in some of the energy projects we 
would like to see. It is a great potential for our economy right now. 
We can make the potential even greater and achieve it if we can do 
something on the regulatory reform side. So these are all issues that 
ought to be part of the broader discussion as to how to increase 
economic growth and therefore to increase jobs and opportunity for 
people who find themselves unemployed and are looking for those job 
skills and are looking for the jobs that are open.
  I look forward to that debate over the next few days. That is 
certainly my expectation. I hope that Members on both sides would come 
down to the well and offer their amendments, have them voted up or down 
in the great tradition of the Senate.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator for responding to that question.
  I would point out, in conclusion, that this bill extends unemployment 
benefits for 3 months at a cost of $6.5 billion, right now which is 
unpaid for. But if the amendment of the Senator from Ohio is adopted, 
there is the solution to that problem, along with reform of the job 
training components of our current unemployment compensation system.
  But if we are unable to have this broader debate, we will find 
ourselves right back here in 3 more months because none of the 
underlying problems, of which high unemployment and low growth are 
symptoms, will have been addressed. So what I hope--and I would love to 
be optimistic about the majority leader's willingness to allow those 
amendments and allow those votes and have that fulsome debate. If he 
does not, then we have had a 3-month patch and we will be right back 
here with the same problems confronting us, with the underlying 
symptoms of an anemic economy, with slow economic growth and high 
unemployment.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FISCHER. I rise today on behalf of over 37,000 unemployed 
Nebraskans and nearly 21 million Americans who are searching for work. 
The vast majority of these men and women are jobless through no fault 
of their own. They are the real-life casualties of failed Washington 
policies. They are our friends, our neighbors, and in many cases they 
are our family members. They are decent people, and they are desperate 
to regain the dignity of a full day of labor.
  We have had 5 years of economic fits and starts--glimmers of hope 
dashed by the harsh reality of persistent economic headwinds. But the 
weak job reports and the Pollyanna claims of recovery don't tell the 
full story. Our real unemployment rate or the total percentage of 
unemployed and underemployed workers tops 13 percent, significantly 
higher than the 7 percent reported by the Department of Labor in 
November. That is nearly 21 million people out of work. At the same 
time our labor force participation rate is at 63 percent, a near 35-
year low.
  The greatness of a nation cannot endure without work for its people. 
It is not only about putting food on the table. It is about the ability 
of families to buy a home, to save for their kids' college education, 
and to retire with a modest nest egg. It is about hard-working moms and 
dads in need of the simple assurance that their government isn't going 
to pass laws that intentionally make life harder for them.
  I am interested in promoting thoughtful economic policies that 
increase employment opportunities and make life a little bit easier for 
our people. But instead of a laser focus on job creation, politicians 
in Washington seem to pivot from issue to issue, frantically chasing 
the topic du jour. Jobless Americans aren't interested in who is to 
blame; they are interested in who is going to fix this mess and how.
  Congress has returned to Washington for a new year, a new chance to 
take on daunting challenges, such as joblessness in America. We have 
all been informed by the media and the so-called wise men of Washington 
that 2014 will be a year in which very little is accomplished. The 
pundits point to election-year politicking, and some Members are 
fretting about taking those very tough votes. There is no will for 
action, they say. There is no chance for any kind of compromise, they 
claim.
  The 21 million Americans without jobs are counting on us to do our 
job. They expect and they demand that we do better. Promoting policies 
to create jobs is not election-year rhetoric; it is the duty of the 
people's government.
  The best way to support the unemployed is not to just extend the 
benefits; we need to grow the economy, and we need to provide paychecks 
for families.
  Lately, there has been a lot of talk about income inequality or the 
need to bridge the gap between rich and poor. Some argue that deficit 
spending is the way to go, while others insist on increasing the 
minimum wage.
  Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, 
offers a different take on how to best conquer the income divide. In a 
July 31, 2013, opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, 
Brooks notes:

       Again and again, the president offers a higher minimum wage 
     as a solution. Yet as the overwhelming majority of economists 
     have argued for decades, the minimum wage actually harms the 
     poorest and most marginalized workers--those with the most 
     tenuous grip on their jobs.
       In January, a study from the National Bureau of Economic 
     Research surveyed the most recent studies and concluded: 
     ``The evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff 
     of higher wages for some, against job losses for others.''

  Brooks continues:

       The story for strivers and entrepreneurs is no better. 
     Scott Shane of Case Western Reserve University has shown that 
     business formation fell by 17.3% between 2007 and 2009. 
     Launching a business is never a walk in the park, especially 
     given the explosion of red tape at all levels of government.
       While it is still possible for the educated and 
     comfortable, government bureaucracy can crush 
     entrepreneurship entirely for those at the bottom of the 
     income scale.
       As a pro-poor rule of thumb, I suggest this: If you want to 
     start a landscaping business, all you should need is a lawn 
     mower, not an accountant and a lawyer to help you hack 
     through all the red tape before setting up shop.

  I think Brooks is right.
  Regulatory overreach is also holding back American business. 
Regulations can be helpful. They ensure the health and safety of 
Americans. However, overregulation places unnecessary burdens on small 
business owners, and it does stifle economic growth. A homebuilder in 
Nebraska once told me that he was fined $7,000 for leaning a ladder 
against a wall.
  There is solid legislation out there to address the rampant redtape. 
Here are a few examples.
  The Regulatory Responsibility for our Economy Act of 2013 is a bill 
that was introduced by Senator Pat Roberts that I am cosponsoring. It 
requires the executive branch to repeal duplicative and onerous rules 
currently hindering our Nation's job creators. It also requires Federal 
agencies to modify, streamline, or repeal significant regulatory 
actions that are unnecessary or overly burdensome. The legislation 
ensures that regulations put forth by the administration account for 
their economic impact on American businesses. It ensures stakeholder 
input and promotes innovation.

[[Page S50]]

  These simple commonsense policies are a good start toward relieving 
business owners of some of the unnecessary challenges they face in 
these already difficult economic times. I believe and I know many 
Nebraskans believe that executive agencies should be held accountable 
for the rules they put in place which directly affect our economic 
growth and our job creation.
  Another key way we can spur economic growth is through broad-based 
tax reform. Our current tax system is arcane and riddled with loopholes 
for special interests from the eighties. It is time that we simplify 
our Tax Code so that we can encourage progrowth behavior.
  Whenever I travel in my State and I meet with Nebraska's business 
owners, both large and small, I hear the same message over and over: We 
need more certainty. We need more certainty.
  They need more certainty in the Tax Code, they need more certainty in 
health care, and they need more certainty in the regulatory 
environment. A business cannot grow today if it cannot adequately 
predict its needs for tomorrow.
  This is especially true for small business owners, who are 
responsible for 64 percent of all net new private sector jobs. Jobs 
will come when these entrepreneurs have confidence that the bureaucrats 
are going to get off their backs. Jobs won't come from just another DC 
Government program.
  I believe we must shift the focus of economic growth from government-
driven regulation to private sector innovation. The great government-
controlled experiment has failed us yet again, so it is time for a 
change of course.
  There is no shortage of good ideas out there. My colleagues and I 
have introduced dozens of bills to directly address job creation by 
repealing specific regulations, preventing new burdensome mandates, and 
encouraging a fairer tax system. But so far we haven't had any form of 
meaningful debate. Why? Why can't we debate in this body in a 
meaningful way? I believe it is because we are restricted in this 
Senate by what we can actually vote on. It is a radical form of 
control, and we are tired of it. Rather than allowing an open amendment 
process, the majority leader has locked this place down. We hear 
constant calls to end obstruction, but if we are being honest, we would 
all acknowledge that the primary obstruction here is in the broken, 
nonexistent amendment process.
  My friend and colleague Senator Coburn recently noted in the Wall 
Street Journal:

       Mr. Reid had already used Senate rules to cut off debate 
     and prevent the minority from offering amendments 78 times--
     more than all other Senate majority leaders combined.

  Why?
  It appears designed to advance a partisan political agenda--show 
votes in an election year. In other words, let's airdrop bills on the 
floor and prevent any form of modification or improvement. That seems 
to be routine business around here these days, and it is shameful.
  It is my hope that in this new year all thoughtful ideas will get a 
vote. It is my hope that in this new year we will actually get a chance 
to amend bills. That is the only way we can actually pass legislation 
to improve the lives of the American people.
  I look forward to putting forth my own proposals to fulfill my duty 
to the people of Nebraska to get our friends and our neighbors back to 
work. Rather than focusing on issues that divide us, I hope my 
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will come together to support 
policies that promote opportunities for all.
  Show votes might make for good election-year politics, but make no 
mistake--they are bad policy. And unfortunately it is ``we the people'' 
who pay the steep price for politics over policy.
  I am excited for another year here in the Senate where I can 
represent my friends and neighbors, Nebraskans from back home, and I 
look forward to helping put Americans back to work in the year ahead. 
Our citizens send us here to do a job and they are counting on us, so 
let's not let them down.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Chair and I earlier today were 
part of a historic majority--a very bipartisan majority--that voted 60 
to 37 to extend unemployment insurance for millions of Americans across 
this country who are struggling to make ends meet, to keep their 
families together, to keep a roof over their heads--basic essentials 
not only to continue living but to continue searching for work. These 
Americans are not without a work ethic. In fact, they are devastated by 
being out of work for so long with such destructive results for their 
sense of self-worth and their family.
  This measure is limited in its scope and significance. It is only a 
procedural vote on a temporary measure for 3 months, and only a partial 
solution to the grave and pressing issue of putting Americans back to 
work, restoring employment for Americans who want to work and keep 
their families together, but it is profoundly important.
  I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Reed of Rhode Island and 
Heller of Nevada, as well as all of our colleagues who voted for it, 
and even many of my colleagues who may have voted against it but were 
torn and, hopefully, will vote for it on final passage. I urge all my 
colleagues to get this job done so we can send it to the House of 
Representatives and make sure it is approved there.
  What is significant about this measure is in fact it was bipartisan. 
It was overwhelming. It shows Congress is listening; that it is heeding 
the calls for action from those 4 million Americans, including over 
60,000 of them in my home State of Connecticut, who need this measure 
so they can continue seeking work, hopefully successfully.
  It is a temporary fix, but it is a measure with profound significance 
for those men and women who courageously are facing the searing facts 
of life during long-term joblessness. One of those individuals, in 
fact, from Connecticut, very courageously appeared with the President 
earlier today. Katherine Hackett of Moodus, CT, is the parent of two 
sons in the military, who herself is struggling to keep the heat on and 
put food on her table. She described her situation in introducing 
President Obama when he spoke about this problem earlier today. I am 
proud she is at the forefront of this fight, and I am proud to be 
fighting with her so that Americans have the benefit of unemployment 
insurance when they are unemployed for longer than the 26 weeks that is 
recognized under the statute.
  This story is one of numbers. We can't deny the statistics. The great 
recession may have ended for a lot of Americans, but it continues for 
the unemployed, the jobless, particularly long-term jobless. Those 
numbers have become almost mind-numbing, but they are very significant. 
According to a report recently released by the Joint Economic 
Committee, 3 years after the recession ending in 1991, long-term 
unemployment was at 1.3 percent. Three years after the recession ending 
in 2001, long-term unemployment was also at 1.3 percent. Today, long-
term unemployment is double those numbers, at 2.6 percent.
  Here we are, 4 years after the supposed end of the recession in 2009 
with double the percentage of long-term unemployed that we had in 
previous recessions. Our economy simply is not growing fast enough or 
creating enough jobs to end that persistently high rate of long-term 
unemployment. About 4 million Americans, more than one-third of 
unemployed Americans, have been looking for work for 6 months or more.
  In my home State of Connecticut, long-term unemployment has become 
even more prevalent among those who have lost their jobs. In fact, 43.6 
percent, or almost half of Connecticut's overall unemployed population, 
are long-term unemployed. That means over 60,000 people.
  But those numbers are less convincing and compelling than the human 
stories. I was proud and moved to sit with a number of my fellow 
Connecticut citizens--hard-working, dedicated people of all ages, some 
of whom have spent lifetimes working for a single employer only to find 
themselves rejected and released. Many of them told me they expected to 
find work right away, within a couple of weeks, and here they are--more 
than 6 months later, many of them--still struggling to find work and 
working to improve

[[Page S51]]

their skills so they can match the job opportunities that may exist.
  Rosa Dicker, who has been out of work for almost a year, is a former 
health insurance project manager who also has experience with health 
care reform implementation in Massachusetts, our neighboring State. 
Rosa has sent out 500 job applications in the past year. I almost 
misstated that figure. I thought it was 50. It is 500 job applications 
in the past year. And she has been granted how many interviews? She has 
interviewed three times.
  Nyrsa Cruz, an experienced social worker with a master's degree, has 
also been unemployed since early 2013. Despite hours and hours she has 
devoted to countless job applications, she has been unable to find 
work.
  Michael Kubica, unemployed after years of experience in the insurance 
and publishing industries, went back to school to pursue an MBA. Yet 
despite his educational experience, despite his degrees, despite his 
dedication, he has been unable to secure more than temporary holiday 
season work.
  Anyone who suggests the long-term unemployed are somehow content or 
have decided to stay out of work or have abandoned the search ought to 
talk to people in their own communities--people such as Rosa, Nyrsa, or 
Michael, who have struggled and worked to find suitable jobs. They are 
driven, passionate, and absolutely dedicated.
  One woman I met, Erin London, described it this way:

       My whole family is impacted. My son asks, ``Am I going to 
     be able to go to college?'' I don't know how to answer. I 
     don't want him to know I am scared.

  Imagine yourself as a parent thinking--and we have all thought it--I 
don't want him or her to know I am scared.
  Another Connecticut woman, Alicia Nesbitt, was proud to be working 
and to have worked continuously since the age of 16, until she was 
unemployed. Now she depends on food stamps and heating assistance.

  These stories are powerful and compelling, even more so than the 
numbers and statistics, shocking as they are. I hope we will heed those 
human stories when we come back tomorrow and the next day to vote on 
this bill.
  In the long term we need measures such as targeted tax credits and 
skills training so people can be matched with jobs and so they can 
prepare for the jobs of the future. Pathways Back to Work is a bill I 
have introduced that supports creation of new jobs as well as training 
for the ones that exist. I have introduced it with my colleagues 
Senators Murphy and Gillibrand, and I think it would do a great deal to 
address the fundamental underlying challenges that are keeping 
unemployed people from reconnecting with the world of work. But these 
measures are for next week or the week after. Right now, the urgency of 
this week is passing a measure that is fundamentally important to keep 
people moving forward, searching for work, and to keep our economy 
moving forward.
  Those folks who receive unemployment insurance use it to buy clothes 
or food or a car that drives the economy, provides for the kinds of 
consumer demand we need to enable our economy to continue moving 
forward. So we are helping these folks avoid the precipice of poverty 
and homelessness, which makes their job search even more difficult, but 
we are also helping our economy. All of us who want job creation and 
economic progress want it to be our Nation's priority and success.
  I am proud to stand and join Senators Reed and Heller, and thank also 
our majority leader Senator Reid for their leadership, because our most 
urgent task is to move our economy forward, provide these unemployment 
benefits as soon as possible, and then look toward more permanent 
measures--skills training, the Pathways Back to Work Act, veterans 
programs that will enable all Americans to enjoy more equally the 
benefits of the greatest nation in the history of the world.
  The challenge of our growing inequality is also our growing inequity. 
This measure is a start--a temporary, limited start--in the right 
direction toward making America fulfill its great promise for the 
future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, and as I do 
so, Washington has an incredible opportunity for a new beginning--a 
beginning that would begin by listening to the American people and what 
the American people want, and not just what Washington and the 
Democrats in this body think is best for all the American people.
  According to a new Associated Press poll, most Americans say health 
care reform is the top issue they want the government to work on this 
year--the top issue they want government to work on this year. Fifty-
two percent of people have said that is what they are asking us to work 
on.
  People have seen--and I heard about this all around Wyoming over the 
Christmas holiday--the complete failure of the health care law's big 
rollout last year. They saw President Obama and they saw Washington 
Democrats break one promise after another. As a matter of fact, one of 
the President's promises was designated ``the lie of the year.'' The 
American people have lost faith this administration can ever get health 
care reform right.
  It wasn't just a bad Web site. The President said: Well, the Web site 
was bad. He said: The health care law is more than a Web site.
  In spite of what the Obama administration has said, it wasn't all 
fixed last year because the Web site is just the tip of the iceberg. 
And huge Web site failures? Absolutely. I heard it everywhere I went 
around Wyoming, and I actually even heard it brought up when I was in 
Afghanistan visiting the troops on New Year's Day.
  So it is not just the Web site, with the higher premiums, canceled 
coverage, can't keep your doctor, fraud and identity theft, higher 
copays and higher deductibles; the Web site continues to be just the 
tip of the iceberg.
  Beyond all of those things we have been talking about coming down the 
line and hitting the American people, we have also seen even more 
problems surface already this year.
  Here is a headline from the Wall Street Journal, January 3: 
``Consumers Hit Snags as Health Law Kicks In.'' The snags? We can 
imagine what they are. People have been going to the doctor, going to 
the pharmacy looking for help, and even though they signed up for 
insurance in the new exchange, it turns out they can't be found. They 
are not in the system.
  So Web site failures? Absolutely. Insurance companies aren't sure who 
is signed up with them. People aren't sure if they are covered. Doctors 
aren't sure who is covered.
  Doctors, as a result of their training, their compassion, their care 
for human beings, are trying their best to help their patients. They 
have been fighting a losing battle against the exchanges and all of the 
problems with the new Washington-mandated health insurance. One Chicago 
doctor tried for 2 hours to verify the new insurance for a patient who 
was scheduled for surgery. The office manager finally gave up. The 
doctor went ahead with the surgery without what should have been a 
routine approval from the insurance company.
  Here is another problem some people are going to have to deal with 
this year. The Associated Press ran an article headlined ``Adding a 
baby to health plan is not easy.'' Every day, babies are born and need 
to be included in the family's health plan. For common life changes 
such as having a baby, you would normally just call your insurance 
company and they would take care of it from there. Not under this law. 
If you have to buy your insurance through one of the new health care 
exchanges, it is not that simple. According to the article, ``the 
HealthCare.gov website can't handle new baby updates, along with a list 
of other life changes including marriage and divorce, a death in the 
family, a new job or a change in income, even moving to a different 
community.'' Yet the Obama administration and the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services says the Web site is fixed. It can't handle a baby 
being born, marriage, divorce, moving, change in income. It can't 
handle any of those things, and they claim it is fixed.
  Here is another problem that has turned up. Washington Democrats said 
the law would lead to fewer people visiting emergency rooms--I heard it 
right here on this floor: fewer people getting their care in emergency

[[Page S52]]

rooms--and that would reduce expenses. The reality is very different. 
The New York Times, Friday morning, January 3: ``Emergency Visits Seen 
Increasing With Health Law. Doubt Cast on Savings.'' But Democrats on 
this floor said that emergency visits would decrease and that it would 
save money. That is not what the New York Times says. They said, 
``Oregon Medicaid Test at Hospitals Found Rise of 40 Percent.'' The 
Wall Street Journal, in the same issue, talks about how the Medicaid 
expansion drives up emergency room visits. The Washington Post said, 
``Study: Expanding Medicaid Doesn't Reduce ER trips. It increases 
them.''
  Democrats don't want to talk about all these problems. They don't 
want to talk about all of the reform bills which Republicans passed in 
the House last year but which never got a vote in the Senate in spite 
of our efforts to try to get votes on those bills. Democrats hope 
people believe what they are saying, accept their claims that the Web 
site is working fine and that all the law's problems have been fixed. 
The American people see through this. They know that what has been done 
to them by this administration is not right.
  It is time for Washington Democrats to play it straight with the 
American people and to make a new beginning on health care reform. I am 
not talking about more fake fixes like the one we saw right before 
Christmas. That was the Obama administration quietly announcing that 
people whose insurance had been canceled because of the law could apply 
for a hardship exemption to avoid the individual mandate.
  Well, the newer numbers have come out. There are now more than 5 
million health insurance cancellations in 35 States. And we don't even 
know how many were canceled in Texas, Ohio, Virginia, South Carolina, 
Missouri, and Wisconsin. We don't know those numbers yet. So we know 
that a minimum of 5 million people have received cancellation notices 
and the anxiety that comes with that, as well as the anger. When people 
tried to replace the plans they lost, many found that their premiums 
would skyrocket and their deductibles would be higher than ever.
  I find it interesting that Democrats I have talked to said: Well, 
January 1 has come, so the numbers aren't going to go up anymore. That 
is just not true. I was just in my office and got off the phone with a 
friend in Douglas, WY. He is a pharmacist and provides health insurance 
for employees. He has fewer than 50 employees, so it is not mandatory 
under the law that he do so, but he does it anyway and he has done it 
for years. But Gary is in a situation where he has now received a 
letter of cancellation of his own insurance policy, and it was dated 
January 1. This is not something from last year; this is something 
dated January 1, 2014. It is a letter from the Madison National Life 
Insurance Company to Gary Shatto at Shatto's Frontier Drug in Douglas, 
WY.
  ``Important Notice.'' Can you imagine getting this letter and opening 
it? ``Important Notice'' in bold print. ``This Affects Your Insurance 
Contract Rights. Please Read Carefully.'' That would get your 
attention.

       This notice is to inform your company that Madison National 
     Life Insurance Company . . . will be exiting the employer 
     small group major medical insurance market in Wyoming 
     effective June 30, 2014 at midnight.

  Exiting June 30, 2014, at midnight.
  So what this tells us is these numbers are going to go up because, at 
3,000, the numbers in Wyoming are such that we know more people are 
going to get cancellation notices. And this isn't just for Gary; this 
is for everybody who works there.
  They ``will be exiting the employer small group major medical 
insurance market in Wyoming effective June 30, 2014 at midnight. This 
decision was prompted by the increased regulation since the federal 
government's passage of its recent federal health care reform, commonly 
referred to as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(``PPACA'').
  ``The increased regulation will make it difficult for Madison 
National to continue to operate and compete meaningfully in Wyoming's 
small group major medical market. As such, your referenced insurance 
coverage will terminate at midnight on June 30, 2014.''
  This is what people are going to continue to deal with, letters like 
this continuing to go out, a new round of letters going out January 1.
  The President of the United States needs to be honest with the 
American people about the significant damage his health care law is 
doing to families all across the country. And as the employer mandate--
which the President has delayed for a year--kicks in this year, we are 
going to see more and more letters like this and more and more people 
dumped, losing their insurance, in spite of the President's claim that 
``if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage.'' No wonder 
the folks who look into these things have labeled it the ``lie of the 
year.''
  The White House continues to try to do this little bandaid approach. 
Now they say they are going to let some Americans buy catastrophic 
coverage. That is an idea I proposed to the President at the White 
House health care roundtable back in February of 2010. After 25 years 
of practicing medicine, I know that for some people catastrophic 
coverage is the right option. For many people it is, and it encourages 
patients to be smart consumers of medical services. But at our meeting 
4 years ago President Obama said that these plans were suitable only 
for the wealthy, that they weren't good ideas. He said that letting 
people be smarter consumers wouldn't help. Now he has changed his mind.
  Don't expect him to admit that Republicans were right all along. The 
President said: Well, the Republicans have no ideas. If they have some 
ideas, they can bring them to him. There were a number of different 
bills and proposals by Republicans. The President seems to want to 
ignore that just as much as he wants to ignore the problems and the 
misery his health care law has caused for so many people all around the 
country.
  Instead of trying to patch this terrible health care law together 
with chicken wire and duct tape, it is time for Democrats in Washington 
to admit that this entire law is failing the American people because it 
absolutely hurts so many American families. Then we can move on to 
talking about real reforms to give people access to quality, affordable 
health care. That is the year's top priority of the American people, 
and it needs to be our top priority in the Senate.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. That would be S. 
1845. This is legislation that will continue to be a critical safety 
net for workers who have fallen on tough times through no fault of 
their own. Just a few short hours ago, as you know, the Senate sent a 
strong message by voting to move forward on this vital legislation to 
restore unemployment insurance for the more than 1 million Americans 
whose benefits expired on December 28.
  I wish to thank Senator Jack Reed and Senator Heller for their 
bipartisan leadership on this issue. This is a very important step in 
providing economic security for the millions of Americans who lost 
their unemployment benefits at the end of the year or who will lose 
them this year if Congress does not act.
  By helping people to stay on their feet after an unexpected job loss, 
unemployment insurance has kept millions of Americans out of poverty. 
Rather than removing the safety net these people rely on, we should be 
focused on policies that help the long-term unemployed get back to 
work, including the help that will allow them to pay their rent and 
fill their gas tanks while they are searching for jobs.
  Yesterday I released the Joint Economic Committee report making the 
economic case for extending the Federal support for our unemployment 
insurance, designed to keep long-term unemployed Americans above water 
as they search for work. Approximately 1.3 million workers, as we know, 
lost their unemployment benefits on December 28. Barring Congressional 
action, benefits will expire for an additional 3.6 million over the 
next year. In

[[Page S53]]

my home State of Minnesota, roughly 8,500 people lost benefits at the 
end of last year and about 65,000 Minnesotans will lose benefits by the 
end of December of 2014.
  These are people who may have had a plant close in their town. Maybe 
their position was eliminated and no one is hiring. Either way, these 
are people who have been paying into the system for their working lives 
and we need to see them through to their next job.
  This is especially important at a time of stubbornly high long-term 
unemployment. For most Americans, State-funded unemployment insurance 
lasts 26 weeks. Yet the average unemployment spell lasts 10 weeks 
longer. In 2008, as our country went into the worst downturn since the 
Great Depression, Congress authorized Federal support for extended 
unemployment benefits for those who were out of work for more than 26 
weeks. For people struggling to find work during those dark days, the 
extension was a lifeline. For the millions of Americans still searching 
for work as our economy recovers, it is a critical safety net.
  Our economy, as we know, has come a long way since the downturn 
began, with the national unemployment rate now lower than it has been 
in 5 years. In my home State of Minnesota we are doing even better. The 
unemployment rate is more than two points below the national average. 
We are proud of that for our businesses. We are proud of that for our 
workers.
  But there is a problem that remains. While the overall workforce is 
growing stronger every day, we are still facing significant challenges 
with long-term unemployment. At 2.6 percent, that is people long-term 
unemployed more than 6 months, it is more than twice what it was when 
Congress last allowed Federal unemployment insurance to expire after 
the recessions of 1990-1991 and 2001. In fact, in our report we have a 
graph that shows that literally this unemployment rate we are facing 
now for the long-term unemployed is twice what it has been in any other 
year when we faced a decision in Congress and decided in fact to 
terminate those benefits.
  Literally, that long-term unemployment rate is now twice what it was 
in those other years. That is why there is so much concern about 
stopping the benefits at this point.
  In Minnesota, our long-term unemployment rate is 1.4 percent, much 
better than it is in many States in the country, but too many Minnesota 
communities are still hurting, with unemployment rates reaching as high 
as 9.5 percent in Clearwater County in Minnesota.
  Given the numbers, Federal support for unemployment insurance is more 
important than ever for the long-term unemployed. Extending this 
critical safety net is fair. American families, struggling against 
long-term unemployment, are working hard to find a job, to put food on 
the table, to pay their bills. They are not exactly the ones who have 
seen the upturn from the stock market that many people have seen in the 
last years. They are not the ones who have seen their stocks rise. They 
don't have stocks. They are just trying to put food on the table for 
their families. They are not faceless, nameless charity cases. They are 
our neighbors, they are our family members, and they are our friends. 
In fact, nearly one out of every five Americans has either received or 
is living with someone who has received Federal unemployment benefits 
since 2008. That is 69 million people. Almost 24 million long-term 
unemployed workers have directly benefited and another 45 million 
Americans, including nearly 17 million children, are living with 
someone who is receiving unemployment insurance.
  These benefits help carry families through long unemployment spells, 
pay the mortgage, rent, utilities. While the average unemployment 
insurance benefit of $300 per week only replaces about one-third of an 
individual's average weekly wage, unemployment insurance benefits have 
kept 11 million Americans out of poverty; 2.5 million in 2012 alone. 
That is 2.5 million Americans kept out of poverty because of this 
program.
  In 13 States, over 40 percent of those who are unemployed have been 
out of work for more than 26 weeks and have exhausted their State-
funded benefits. Nationally nearly 38 percent of unemployed workers are 
long-term unemployed. These are the workers, the 4.9 million Americans 
who will lose their unemployment insurance if we fail to pass this 
bill. These benefits help them to keep looking for work, support their 
children and families, and contribute to the economy.
  The longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult it is for that 
person to find a job. Skills atrophy and professional networks dry up. 
But you can't go on a job interview if you cannot even fill up your car 
with gas, so we also need to make sure the long-term unemployed are not 
left high and dry after State-funded unemployment benefits run out.
  Addressing long-term unemployment is a problem that calls for an all-
of-the-above solution. We need to do more to support American workers.
  This is the right thing to do. We also know it is better for the 
economy. The CBO has found that each dollar of unemployment insurance 
increases the GDP by as much as $1.90, and extending the Federal 
unemployment benefits through 2014 would boost GDP by a .2 percentage 
point and increase employment by 200,000 jobs. Failing to extend 
Federal unemployment benefits will cost the economy 240,000 jobs, 
according to the Council of Economic Advisors. Those are the numbers 
with which we are dealing.
  We also know if we look at the suggestions of the debt commission--
something that I think is a very important body of work and has some 
very good ideas in it--their idea is trying to get about $4 trillion in 
debt reduction. We are something above $2.6 trillion of the way there 
with more to do, but the point is there are ways to get there. One of 
my favorite ways is to pass the immigration bill. CBO has found that in 
the second 10 years that will actually save $700 billion on the debt by 
making people pay taxes, by bringing them out of the shadows so they 
pay fines. That is what we are dealing with.
  If we want to look at ways to reduce our debt, I don't think we 
should be doing it on the backs of the most vulnerable, those kids, 
those people who are long-term unemployed who still have not been able 
to find a job. In many States it is still a very difficult economy. 
Especially for the long-term unemployed, this is the right thing to do. 
We shouldn't leave these Americans in the lurch. We need to restore 
this critical safety net and focus on getting Americans back to work.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an 
amendment I will seek to offer on the pending bill, amendment No. 2603.
  We all sympathize with those who are struggling to find work in a 
difficult economy, and I want to see people get back to work. Certainly 
a short-term extension for those who are relying on unemployment 
insurance--if it is paid for--will allow a transition for those who are 
out of work. What we need to do most in this Chamber is to give them an 
opportunity to get a good-paying job. The focus in this Chamber, most 
of all, needs to be on enacting progrowth policy that will encourage 
both small and large businesses to thrive and grow in our economy and 
create jobs.
  I have voted today to begin debate on the legislation to provide a 
temporary extension of unemployment insurance. I voted to begin this 
debate because I believe both sides of the aisle can find a way to 
grant this temporary extension to those who are struggling to find work 
in this difficult economy while making sure we don't add to the $17 
trillion of debt that also threatens our country and our economy.
  I continue to believe that any temporary extension in a long-term 
unemployment benefit should be paid for in a responsible manner. So I 
have submitted an amendment, Ayotte amendment No. 2603. I think it is 
an amendment that makes a ton of sense.
  Let me tell you what this amendment does. This amendment pays for

[[Page S54]]

the 3-month extension of unemployment insurance. It fixes the unfair 
cut to the military cost of living that was just enacted in the budget 
I voted against. I felt this was unfair to those who have served in our 
military and were singled out for cuts to their retirement benefits, 
unlike anyone else, and it included, by the way, those who were retired 
because they had a medical retirement. In other words, those who many 
of us--I know the Presiding Officer has visited Walter Reed, as have I; 
those who have lost arms, legs--they have received a medical 
retirement, and their cost of living was cut under this budget as well.
  So my amendment not only would pay for this temporary unemployment 
insurance for those who are struggling to find work, to give them a 
transition to get them back to work, but it would also pay to fix and 
reverse this unfair cut in military retirement benefits--many who, by 
the way, have served multiple tours for our country and have sacrificed 
a tremendous amount because they moved around, because they served both 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, on behalf of our country.
  It would also give approximately $7 billion toward reducing our 
deficit.
  The way I pay for this is to fix an egregious problem in our Tax 
Code. It is a problem that was identified by the Treasury IG. It is, 
frankly, egregious. This is a problem in our Tax Code that has allowed 
illegal immigrants to claim a refundable tax credit for children who 
should not be entitled to it--children that do not even live in the 
United States of America or may not even exist. Why? Because when 
someone claims this refundable tax credit, they do not have to include 
a Social Security number on their return. A Treasury IG report 
identified this problem.
  This amendment--a simple fix that would require a Social Security 
number for anyone who is claiming the additional child tax credit on 
their tax return--is estimated to save approximately $20 billion over 
the next 10 years. So paying for reversing the cost-of-living increase 
for those who have sacrificed so much for our country, paying for a 
temporary unemployment insurance extension for those who are struggling 
to find work, and reducing our deficit by approximately $7 billion over 
10 years--all three of those things are done by fixing an egregious 
problem in our Tax Code.
  The audit of the Treasury IG in 2011 reported that individuals who 
are not authorized to work in the United States of America received 
$4.2 billion by claiming this additional child tax credit. The audit 
found that the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit 
appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, 
and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts 
Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.
  The audit was based upon an analysis of tax returns filed by persons 
with individual taxpayer identification numbers which are issued to 
individuals who are required to have a taxpayer ID number for tax 
purposes but are not eligible for a Social Security number because they 
are not authorized to work in the United States of America.
  Again, this saves approximately $20 billion over the next 10 years.
  Let me tell you how egregious this is. Here are some of the reports 
about this problem in our Tax Code. It is fraud. This is fraud we are 
going to fix here. This is good government. We should fix this now, 
regardless. This $20 billion is money that should not be going out the 
door over 10 years.
  Here are some examples from Indiana. In fact, I just saw walk into 
the Chamber one of my colleagues from Indiana, Senator Coats. In 
Indiana, a local television station found that an undocumented worker 
who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana by a reporter 
admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four 
other undocumented workers who do not even live there. Those four 
workers claimed 20 children who live in one residence, and, as a 
result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling over 
$29,000.
  The local station has found many undocumented workers are claiming 
tax credits for children who live in Mexico. Many children who do not 
even live in this country are being used by those committing fraud on 
the IRS to claim this tax credit.
  In Indiana, a tax preparer who acted as a whistleblower to an Indiana 
news station said: ``We've seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents--most 
times nieces and nephews--on these tax forms. The more you put on 
there, the more you get back.'' The whistleblower had thousands of 
examples.
  Another example from the whistleblower: ``We've got an over $10,000 
refund for nine nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to the words 
``niece'' and ``nephew'' listed on the tax form nine separate times. 
``We're getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return.'' ``There are 
seven nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to another set of 
documents. ``I can bring out stacks and stacks. It's just so easy, it's 
ridiculous.''
  In North Carolina, investigators uncovered more than 1,000 tax 
returns linked to eight addresses in that state last May, with refunds 
worth more than $5 million. Investigators tied at least 17 tax returns, 
totaling more than $62,000 in refunds, to a Charlotte, NC, apartment 
one woman leased. At another apartment nearby, investigators discovered 
153 returns, valued at over $700,000 in refunds.
  Another address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth 
$1.1 million in refunds.
  At another Charlotte apartment complex, investigators traced 398 
returns to two apartments, totaling more than $1.9 million in 
additional child tax credits, with no guarantee that the children even 
existed or lived in the United States of America.
  Another North Carolina woman owned a tax preparation business. A 
search of that business and her home turned up more returns, dozens of 
uncashed U.S. Treasury checks, a FedEx box containing dozens of foreign 
birth certificates, and a notary public stamp and signature stamp 
listing her as a notary. That fraud case by the IRS totaled over $5 
million.
  In Tennessee, a search warrant prepared by the IRS claims that a 
Murfreesboro, TN, tax company encouraged undocumented workers to lie on 
their tax returns by claiming children who live in Mexico as 
dependents. The IRS says that the Tennessee tax preparer has filed 
6,000 tax returns over the last 3 years and although his clients only 
paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to claim more than $17 
million in refunds. The refunds left the United States on the hook for 
$14 million.

  So here is the question in this Chamber. The question is, Should we 
fix egregious fraud in our Tax Code, where we have people, who are not 
entitled to work in this country, claiming tax refunds for children, 
some of whom have not been determined to exist, some of whom do not 
even live in our country? Should we fix that in our Tax Code? Isn't 
that good government?
  And if we fix it, we can use the pay-for, the $20 billion that the 
Joint Tax Committee has estimated to save over the next 10 years, to do 
the following: to provide for a 3 month temporary extension of 
unemployment insurance to those Americans who are struggling for work 
right now; to fix the unfair cut to our military retirees, including 
those who have gotten a medical retirement, those who are our wounded 
warriors who have been injured, many of them serving in Afghanistan and 
Iraq; and return $7 billion to the Treasury.
  So here is the choice. Only in Washington would this be the choice: 
We can fix the egregious problem with the Tax Code, where there is all 
kinds of fraud and save billions of dollars; we can fix it for those 
who have sacrificed the most--the unfair cuts to their cost-of-living 
increase--those who have served our country admirably, and our wounded 
warriors; and return money to reduce the deficit or what? We can be 
denied a vote. I hope I will get a vote on this amendment. It is pretty 
outrageous if I am not granted a vote on this amendment to prevent tax 
fraud that needs to be fixed on behalf of the taxpayers in this 
country.
  If I cannot get a vote to take that $20 billion to help struggling 
workers and to fix the unfair cuts to those who have sacrificed the 
most and taken the bullets for this country and also to help fix our 
deficit--only in Washington would that be a tough choice for anyone. 
How do you vote against doing that?
  I really hope the majority leader will allow a vote on this 
commonsense

[[Page S55]]

amendment that will allow us to help struggling workers without adding 
to the $17 trillion debt, that will allow us to say to our men and 
women who have sacrificed the most: We are not going to continue to 
target you with these unfair cuts to your cost of living, when no one 
else has sacrificed under this budget agreement like that--and 
particularly our wounded warriors--and to say to the American public: 
We are going to fix fraud in our Tax Code, and also take some money and 
apply it to the deficit.
  It makes so much sense that only in Washington would I even be asking 
the question on the Senate floor: Will I get a vote on this commonsense 
amendment that allows us to do important things for the Nation and 
fixes egregious fraud in our Tax Code, putting taxpayer dollars to uses 
that they should be put to.
  I end with the hope that I will get a vote on this commonsense 
amendment and that my colleagues will support this amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss today's vote, as 
others who have come down here.
  First of all, it is important to understand that this was a vote on 
whether to start debate. I was one of those who joined several of my 
colleagues saying: Yes, this ought to be debated. It was not a vote to 
pass or not pass the legislation. That will come.
  But the frustration that so many of us have had over this past year 
in particular of not being able to participate in the process of 
legislating boiled over at the end of the year and ended with a change 
in the rules in the way the Senate has operated for more than 200 years 
and stuffed the desires of the minority to be able to participate in 
certain areas regarding nominations. Now there is some talk about doing 
the same for legislation.
  That frustration has led many of us to try to rethink: How can we get 
back to what is called regular order--the way the Senate has always 
operated in the past, the way it operated when I came here in my first 
tranche in the Senate.
  I started in the House of Representatives back in 1980. I was part of 
a minority for four straight terms. There are majority rules. If one is 
in the minority, they do not have a whole lot of authority. Maybe at 
that time we held the White House under Ronald Reagan. He had the 
ability to go above a Congress which did not support him but went to 
the American people, and through their efforts many changed their minds 
in the majority party and supported the policies of President Reagan.
  When I came to the Senate in 1989, I was asked: What is the 
difference between the House and the Senate? You are in the minority in 
the Senate. You were in the minority in the House. I said: The 
difference is like going to legislative heaven from a place a lot lower 
than that in the House, because any Senator, majority or minority, had 
the opportunity to offer an amendment, to offer an alternative, to 
offer a statute, to participate in the effort to pass better 
legislation.
  Any Senator had that in the minority. The majority leader, then-
Senator George Mitchell, the Democratic leader, honored that. It was 
honored throughout my term in the Senate. I was then gone for 12 years 
and came back. I thought I was coming back to that same process, only 
to find that, no, the whole process has been changed.
  We do not have the rights we once had. We do not have the 
opportunities we had. I came here to represent the people of Indiana 
and their wishes. Yet now I am in a position where I do not even have a 
chance to offer an amendment. I do not have even have a chance to offer 
an alternative or a substitute saying: Look. This may be a legitimate 
issue. I cannot support what is being handed to us take it or leave it. 
It deserves debate. It deserves alternatives. It deserves to give us an 
opportunity to try to convince our colleagues that a majority of us can 
work together to pass legislation.
  That is the kind of legislation that works, as opposed to some of the 
legislation we are dealing with now that has been enacted simply by 
one-party rule. I think looking back on the Affordable Care Act, so-
called ObamaCare, those who supported it wish now that it did have 
bipartisan support, that it was worked out, that some of the 
alternatives that were presented by Republicans were debated and 
perhaps supported. Maybe we would be in a different position now.
  It is not right to characterize a vote on a procedural motion to say 
let's go forward and open this for debate, the opportunity to have 
amendments. That is why I voted for it. Unemployment insurance is a 
legitimate issue, policy issue to debate. I cannot support the proposal 
that was brought before us. But I can support going forward to discuss 
that proposal, to look at the alternative, to offer my own amendments 
and see if our thoughts, our ideas prevail.
  I am hoping that is what will happen. That is up to the majority 
leader Senator Reid. Mr. President, 2013 did not offer us very many--in 
fact, very few--opportunities to do that. We ended up on a very sour 
note in 2013. It was good we had that break and we are back, the second 
day of a new session of Congress. I hope Members on both sides of the 
aisle reflected over this period of time on how we can return the 
Senate to its original intent, how we can get back to so-called regular 
order, so we can have legitimate debate on the floor, we can go back 
and forth with our colleagues.
  I think if we amend this, it will be a better bill. We do not think 
that bill is the one that ought to address this problem, but here is a 
substitute. Let's debate it. Then let's have a vote. Some of us will 
win and some of us will lose. But every one of us will have the 
opportunity to have their voice heard, their amendment voted on, their 
alternative evaluated, and perhaps work in a bipartisan way to come up 
with something constructive.
  So that was the purpose for leaving most of my party and voting for 
the motion to proceed, to go forward. Here we are. Now we have a chance 
to debate it. Senator Ayotte was on the floor speaking before me, 
Senator Portman, Senator Cornyn, all proposing ways in which we can 
offset the cost.
  We all know we are adding to our debt and deficit on a daily basis. 
We have not come to grips with that. Yet the future consequences for 
this country, our economy, our children, our grandchildren, future 
generations is something we are all going to be ashamed of if we do not 
try to impose some discipline. How do we do that?
  We made many efforts going all the way back to Simpson-Bowles. All of 
the major efforts, we were unable get the President's support for any 
of those, even though he commissioned the Simpson-Bowles group, which 
was bipartisan. But nevertheless, we have not yet to this point been 
able to get that large effort in place that will put us on the path to 
fiscal health.
  But one thing we can do is when we have programs--new programs, an 
extension of programs such as this--come before us, we can say: Let's, 
one, reform this so we achieve what we want to achieve, and, No. 2, 
let's make sure we do not add more taxpayer dollars to our deficit 
spending and our debt. Let's offset it with something.
  For those who say we cannot cut a penny more, for goodness' sake, the 
organizations--the Federal organizations, the Office of Management and 
Budget, the Congressional Research Service, on and on, GAO and others, 
have proposed numerous ways of billions of dollars, hundreds of 
billions of dollars in savings for programs that are deemed wasteful 
and fraudulent.
  Senator Ayotte just mentioned specific examples, some in my State, of 
abuses of the system. There are concerns about abuse of the 
unemployment insurance, people seeing this not as a help to getting a 
job and getting back into the workforce but seeing this as yet another 
entitlement benefit they can receive without putting the effort in to 
get meaningful employment.
  We have the responsibility to bring forward measures that I think 
give people a connection between unemployment and their ability to get 
employed. That has been suggested by Senator Portman and others here. 
Senator Cornyn also talked about that. So whether it is an offset in 
order to pay for this so we do not go further in debt and use taxpayer 
money for excess

[[Page S56]]

spending, when we know over here is waste and fraud and abuse in 
programs that have been deemed dysfunctional, unnecessary, the Federal 
Government never should have been involved in this process in the first 
place, why not take those programs that have been recommended to us by 
nonpartisan agencies of the Federal Government?
  Senator Coburn has spent his career down here pointing out excessive, 
outrageous, egregious waste that has gone on and a misuse of taxpayer 
dollars. That is not how to run a government. My State has had to face 
this. They have faced up to it. We made the tough decisions. Of course, 
there have been interest groups supporting every possible item we spend 
money on. But we separated the necessary, the efficient, the effective 
from the unnecessary, ineffective.
  We now have been rated as the most taxpayer conscious friendly State 
in the Nation. Our per capita tax impact on Hoosiers in Indiana is the 
lowest of any State in the Nation. We have an efficient, effective 
government that has a AAA credit rating, that has been deemed business 
friendly, taxpayer friendly, residential friendly, family friendly. It 
is a good place to live because we are not wasting taxpayer dollars. 
People are tired of spending money on what does not work.
  I have gotten way off my intended statement. But I guess I am 
expressing my frustrations over the inability to participate in the 
process that can bring about better use of the taxpayers' dollars and 
more effective government. I think I speak for a lot of people on both 
sides of the aisle, that the way to do this is simply not to freeze out 
debate, not to freeze out amendments, not to freeze out the opportunity 
to offer alternatives. By moving through this motion to proceed, I am 
hoping this is a step forward to returning to a process in which we are 
able to do what I just suggested.
  This decision is going to be up to the majority leader. If he wants 
honest debate, if he wants the American people and all of us in this 
Chamber to know--to examine alternatives, if he wants to be 
conscientious about spending taxpayer dollars, allow us the opportunity 
to offer some offsets.
  Senator Ayotte had a specific and I think very compelling offset. If 
we took a fraction of the money that we would save, we can cover the 
cost of this extension, if that is where we think we should go. I think 
major reforms need to be made to this program, and we ought to be 
emphasizing getting people back to work rather than how to keep 
extending unemployment. But the two go somewhat hand in hand.
  There are people in Indiana and other places who have made every 
possible effort to get a job and have come up short. We need to be 
sensitive to the plight of those people, but we do not need to be 
sensitive to those who have taken advantage of this program and are 
abusing this program who simply say: I do not have to work because the 
government will send me a check; when I add up all of my benefits, I am 
doing as well as I could if I worked. That is not the kind of policy we 
ought to be advocating or enabling in the Senate.
  As I said, there are numerous alternatives or ways in which we can 
find a way to pay for this, if we can also put the reforms in place 
that mean we ought to go forward with this particular program. Let me 
suggest three. My colleagues have suggested others also, which I 
support. Any one of these could work. This program is scored at about a 
cost of six point something billion dollars.
  This is a program, a policy, which requires taxpayers, in order to 
claim refundable portions of the child tax credit, it would require 
them to provide a Social Security number. I mean, this is so 
elementary, it is unbelievable to discover that a government agency has 
said: This is not in place. In other words, if you want to qualify for 
a refundable child tax credit, you have to verify who you are by giving 
them your Social Security number, so they can check to see if this is 
legitimate or not legitimate.
  Senator Ayotte laid out a situation where people were claiming 10, 
15, 20 exemptions for children who did not even live in the United 
States, who were not even citizens. I was embarrassed that one of 
examples came from my State. But I think it is true of all States. But 
the savings to put a good bit of common sense into a program is scored 
not by Dan Coats, not by a Republican Senator but by a government 
agency. It is scored at $27 billion.
  So here is a program that wants to spend $6.6 billion. Republicans 
say: First of all, we have problems with the program. I may or may not 
support extending this. But if it does get extended, surely we do not 
want to dump more money, more future debt, onto our children and 
grandchildren. So let's take this $27 billion, or a fraction of that 
$27 billion, and pay for this.
  Let me offer another option: a delay for 1 year of the individual 
employer mandates under ObamaCare, the legislation I introduced in the 
Senate. If the President has delayed the mandates for businesses, 
should not he offer the same delay to families and individuals as a 
simple issue of fairness? What is the score--$30 billion.
  A third option: Prohibit those who are eligible for unemployment 
insurance from claiming Social Security disability benefits. Under the 
law, one must be able to work to qualify for unemployment benefits.
  Yet some people claiming unemployment benefits are also claiming 
Social Security disability benefits. We can't make some of this stuff 
up. Savings: roughly $6 billion, maybe more, that, if we want to 
support this bill, would be a pay-for. So whether it is a pay-for or 
whether it is the necessary policy changes to make the program more 
effective--including, and I would suggest, a number of efforts that 
have been proposed by my colleagues in terms of better connecting the 
unemployed with those who are seeking, with the employers.
  I can't tell you how many employers I have talked to in Indiana who 
have said: I have jobs.
  I have talked to others, but the bottom line is this. There are 
people out there who look at what I have to offer. It is not the 
greatest, but it is a job. It covers benefits, and it is a step forward 
for them.
  But they say: It doesn't match what I am getting from the government, 
so I think I will take a pass.
  This is not America and not the principles that made America the kind 
of country it is. We should not be enablers in that regard through 
legislation that we pass.
  I hope that we can have a full and open debate on this bill and move 
to policies that will grow and create jobs, and that we will adopt a 
practice of paying for new spending with offsets from known waste, 
fraud, and abuse that has been documented by government agencies.
  Can't we at least do that? Can't we at least agree, in the future 
interest of our country, both fiscally, domestically, on a number of 
issues, for all of the reasons that I have articulated or tried to 
articulate, this makes sense?
  Breaking with some of the past ways I have given my vote, I have said 
I am going to vote for the motion to proceed, and I going to challenge 
the majority leader to look at this and say let's run this place 
differently in 2014 than it was in 2013. Let's not be afraid of debate. 
Let's not be afraid of amendments. Let's let the yeas be yeas and the 
nays be nays. Let's give everybody an opportunity to state their case, 
to offer an alternative, and to be recognized. As a Member of the 
Senate, and the way this Senate was designed to be and traditionally 
for over 200 years it has been, let's move back to that.
  What happens next is now up to the majority leader. The ball is in 
his court.
  Had we not passed the motion to proceed with the support of 
Republican help, then we wouldn't have given the majority leader the 
need to make a decision.
  What kind of a Senate do we want in 2014? A Senate that is doing what 
the American people want us to do, representing the people of our State 
with their interests, representing our beliefs about how government 
should be run, how it should be funded, having an open and honest 
debate, not afraid to take votes, trying to construct good policy for 
the future of this country? We can't do that if this body is run by one 
person saying: My way or the highway. You are in the minority. Tough 
break.
  This is a chance for the majority leader. Let's give us the 
opportunity and return this back to the Senate it was once and always 
has been until lately. It is up to the majority leader.

[[Page S57]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. I am here today with some good news. This week the 
government will fix something that was broken. I know that some people 
wish to deny that is possible, but hear me out.
  Five years ago, during the 2008 financial crisis, we witnessed 
firsthand that the market for home mortgages was badly broken. The 
fundamental problem was that many lenders issued mortgages without any 
concern about whether the borrower would be able to repay those 
mortgages in the long run. Why would they do that? They did it because 
they could immediately sell the mortgage to another financial 
institution. If the borrower couldn't pay, that would turn out to be 
somebody else's problem.
  We all know what happened next. Millions of these dangerous mortgages 
were bundled together, sliced, diced, slapped with AAA ratings, and 
then sold to retirement funds, local governments, and investors all 
over the country. When borrowers couldn't make their monthly payments, 
those bundles of mortgages began collapsing, and the effects were felt 
in every corner of the economy.
  This Friday, that basic business model will change, thanks to the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new mortgage rules. When these 
rules go into effect, lenders will be able to issue a mortgage only 
after they determine that the borrower has the ability to repay it.
  Lenders will no longer be able to make loans they know will blow up 
and then feed those dangerous loans into the financial system. Because 
of the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer. Pension 
funds and other investors will be safer. Our whole economy will be 
safer--not completely safe, but with a new cop on the beat, it will be 
safer.
  The new rules will fix other problems as well. Before the crisis, 
some mortgage brokers who were supposed to be helping consumers find 
the best mortgage were actually taking money from lenders to steer 
those consumers into higher-cost loans. The CFPB's new rules will 
prohibit this sort of under-the-table dealing and protect consumers 
from being tricked by people they think they can trust.
  The rules will also address many of the mortgage servicing problems 
that emerged during the crisis. After mortgages were sold off, bundled, 
and cut up into pieces for various investors, too many borrowers were 
unable to track down clear information about their accounts. Some of 
the companies responsible for servicing their loans took days or even 
weeks to give them credit for their payments.
  When borrowers fell behind, these servicers often began foreclosure 
proceedings without giving people full information about the options 
they had to modify their loans. The consumer agency's new rules will 
help clean up the mortgage servicing industry so more families can keep 
up with their payments and stay in their homes.
  CFPB Director Rich Cordray and his hardworking and incredibly 
talented staff have worked for a long time to put these new rules 
together, and its rules will reshape the mortgage market for the 
better. They will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better 
chance to keep those homes. They will force mortgage lenders and 
servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer service, not 
by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help markets work 
better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy will crash 
again.
  Our work is not done. The march toward financial reform has been too 
slow, and the chances of another crisis, while dialed back in some 
areas, remain unacceptably high in others. Even today, the too-big-to-
fail banks that nearly crashed the global economy in 2008 are nearly 40 
percent bigger than they were back then.
  Yes, we have more work to do on dangerous banking practices, but this 
week marks an important milestone. Six years ago, I noted that it was 
impossible to buy a toaster with a one-in-five chance of bursting into 
flames and burning your house down, but it was possible to take out a 
mortgage that had the same one-in-five chance of putting a family out 
on the street.
  The point was that consumers had the Consumer Products Safety 
Commission to keep people safe from dangerous toasters, and they needed 
the same kind of agency to keep people safe from dangerous and 
deceptive financial products.
  In the years since, we have built that agency. It has already 
returned nearly $1 billion to consumers who were cheated, and it has 
helped tens of thousands of consumers resolve complaints against 
financial institutions. Now, this Friday, that agency will put in place 
some commonsense rules that will make a real difference for millions of 
families who own--or someday hope to own--their own home.
  The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show, once again, that 
government can fix problems. Sure, we have to work hard. We have to 
fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to 
stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those 
things, real change is possible in this country. We are seeing that up 
close this week.
  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. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          The Federal Reserve

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, last night here in the Senate we 
confirmed Janet Yellen to be the next Chairman of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. I firmly opposed her 
confirmation. In 2010 I also voted against Dr. Yellen's nomination to 
serve as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I want to explain.
  At that time I stated my deep concerns about Dr. Yellen's Keynesian 
bias toward inflation as a member of the Federal Open Market Committee 
and her poor record of bank regulation as president of the San 
Francisco Federal Reserve. Those concerns have not faded; rather, they 
are magnified in light of the importance of the position to which Dr. 
Yellen has now been confirmed, and that is the Chairman of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve.
  It is not just that the Chairman of the Fed is perhaps the most 
powerful individual in the global economy; it is that the institution 
itself is in utterly uncharted waters. I believe we need a Federal 
Reserve Chairman with the record and resolve to navigate our economy 
through this incredibly delicate situation. In my judgment, I thought 
Dr. Yellen was not that person.
  The Federal Reserve's balance sheet currently stands at $4 trillion.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
balance sheet as of January 1 of this year.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       8. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CONDITION OF ALL FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
                                              [Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Change since
                                                   Eliminations    Wednesday Jan -------------------------------
        Assets, liabilities, and capital               from           1, 2014      Wednesday Dec   Wednesday Jan
                                                   consolidation                     25, 2013         2, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets:
    Gold certificate account....................  ..............          11,037               0               0
    Special drawing rights certificate account..  ..............           5,200               0               0
    Coin........................................  ..............           1,955              -8            -148
    Securities, unamortized premiums and          ..............       3,952,587          -7,327      +1,113,092
     discounts, repurchase agreements, and loans
        Securities held outright (1)............  ..............       3,756,159          -6,835      +1,086,566
            U.S. Treasury securities............  ..............       2,208,775             -54        +542,657

[[Page S58]]

 
                Bills (2).......................  ..............               0               0               0
                Notes and bonds, nominal (2)....  ..............       2,103,871              -1        +523,399
                Notes and bonds, inflation-       ..............          91,379               0         +16,639
                 indexed (2)....................
                Inflation compensation (3)......  ..............          13,525             -53          +2,619
            Federal agency debt securities (2)..  ..............          57,221               0         -19,562
            Mortgage-backed securities (4)......  ..............       1,490,162          -6,781        +563,471
        Unamortized premiums on securities held   ..............         208,610            -492         +37,730
         outright (5)...........................
        Unamortized discounts on securities held  ..............         -12,352             +20         -10,788
         outright (5)...........................
        Repurchase agreements (6)...............  ..............               0               0               0
        Loans...................................  ..............             171             -21            -416
    Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC     ..............           1,541               0            +128
     (7)........................................
    Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC  ..............              63               0              +2
     (8)........................................
    Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III     ..............              22               0               0
     LLC (9)....................................
    Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC (10).....  ..............             109               0            -747
    Items in process of collection..............             (0)             165              +4             -22
    Bank premises...............................  ..............           2,289              -1             -42
    Central bank liquidity swaps (11)...........  ..............             272              -1          -8,617
    Foreign currency denominated assets (12)....  ..............          23,821             +35          -1,181
    Other assets (13)...........................  ..............          24,579          -1,637          +3,987
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total assets....................................             (0)       4,023,640          -8,935      +1,106,451
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table.
 
Liabilities:
    Federal Reserve notes, net of F.R. Bank       ..............       1,197,920          +2,719         +71,059
     holdings...................................
    Reverse repurchase agreements (14)..........  ..............         315,924        +164,667        +212,653
    Deposits....................................             (0)       2,445,620        -174,717        +822,821
        Term deposits held by depository          ..............               0               0               0
         institutions...........................
        Other deposits held by depository         ..............       2,249,070        -201,663        +740,398
         institutions...........................
        U.S. Treasury, General Account..........  ..............         162,399         +68,506         +77,941
        Foreign official........................  ..............           7,970             -10          +1,660
        Other...................................             (0)          26,181         -41,550          +2,822
    Deferred availability cash items............             (0)           1,127             -87             -66
    Other liabilities and accrued dividends (15)  ..............           8,035          -1,514            -311
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total liabilities...............................             (0)       3,968,627          -8,930      +1,106,158
Capital accounts:
    Capital paid in.............................  ..............          27,507              -2            +147
    Surplus.....................................  ..............          27,507              -2            +147
    Other capital accounts......................  ..............               0               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital...................................  ..............          55,014              -4            +294
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

  Mr. SHELBY. A recent Bloomberg analysis contains figures that help us 
put this staggering number--$4 trillion--into perspective.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that 
Bloomberg article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From Bloomberg, Dec. 17, 2013]

          Fed's $4 Trillion in Assets Draw Lawmakers' Scrutiny

                            (By Jeff Kearns)

       The Federal Reserve's balance sheet is poised to exceed $4 
     trillion, prompting warnings its record easing is inflating 
     asset-price bubbles and drawing renewed lawmaker scrutiny 
     just as Janet Yellen prepares to take charge.
       The Fed's assets rose to a record $3.99 trillion on Dec. 
     11, up from $2.82 trillion in September 2012, when it 
     embarked on a third round of bond buying. Policy makers meet 
     today and tomorrow to decide whether to start curtailing the 
     $85 billion monthly pace of purchases.
       Among Fed officials, ``there's discomfort in the sense that 
     the portfolio could grow almost without limit,'' former Fed 
     Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said last week during a panel 
     discussion in Washington. Kohn said there was ``discomfort in 
     the potential financial stability effects'' and added: 
     ``There's some legitimacy in those discomforts.''
       Fed Governor Jeremy Stein has said some credit markets, 
     such as corporate debt, show signs of excessive risk-taking, 
     while not posing a threat to financial stability. 
     Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House 
     committee that oversees the Fed, last week said he plans 
     ``the most rigorous examination and oversight of the Federal 
     Reserve in its history.''
       While any effort to rewrite the law establishing Fed powers 
     lacks support from Democrats who control the Senate, the 
     scrutiny is undesirable for central bankers who believe 
     ``independence is priceless,'' said Laura Rosner, a U.S. 
     economist at BNP Paribas SA in New York.


                              Not Welcome

                  The Fed Approaches a Taper on Tiptoe

       ``It's not a welcome development that a lot more time and 
     focus is spent on answering questions'' from Congress, said 
     Rosner, a former researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of 
     New York. Lawmakers may also use the size of the balance 
     sheet to ``draw attention to concerns they have about the 
     Fed's responsibilities and growing role in financial 
     regulation.''
       Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, whose second four-year term ends 
     next month, has quadrupled Fed assets since 2008 with bond 
     purchases intended to lower long-term borrowing costs and 
     reduce unemployment. Vice Chairman Yellen, who may win Senate 
     confirmation this week to replace Bernanke, has been a 
     supporter of the policy.
       The Fed has said it will keep buying bonds until the 
     outlook for the labor market has ``improved substantially.'' 
     Thirty-four percent of economists surveyed by Bloomberg Dec. 
     6 predicted the Fed will start reducing purchases this month, 
     while 26 percent forecast January and 40 percent said March.


                              Assets Held

       The Fed's balance sheet exceeds the gross domestic product 
     of Germany, the world's fourth-largest economy. It's enough 
     to cover all U.S. federal government spending for more than a 
     year. It could pay off all student and auto loans in the 
     country with $2 trillion to spare, Fed data show. The central 
     bank's assets are set to exceed the $4.1 trillion held by 
     BlackRock Inc. (BLK), the world's largest asset manager.
       The third round of quantitative easing probably will total 
     $1.54 trillion before it ends, bringing the balance sheet to 
     $4.3 6 trillion, according to economists in the survey.
       ``This is a stimulus of the first order. It's just 
     unprecedented,'' Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby 
     said in an interview last week. ``The Fed is an independent 
     body, but we can point out what they're doing.''
       Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Fed and a critic 
     of the Fed's bond buying, said in a Dec. 9 speech he expects 
     the Fed policy makers to discuss reducing purchases at this 
     week's meeting. Adding to the balance sheet ``increases the 
     risks'' associated with exiting stimulus, he said.


                              `Real Risk'

       Shelby, a five-term senator and past chairman of the 
     Banking Committee sees ``a real risk'' the balance sheet will 
     ignite inflation. So far, there's little sign that's 
     happening: a measure of prices watched by the Fed rose 0.7 
     percent in October from a year earlier, below the central 
     bank's 2 percent target and the least in four years.
       At 22 percent of the $16.9 trillion U.S. economy, the 
     balance sheet is surpassed by those of other major central 
     banks as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to 
     third-quarter data compiled by Haver Analytics in New York. 
     In the euro zone, the figure is 24 percent, and in Japan, 
     it's about 44 percent.
       That doesn't mollify Republican critics. When Yellen 
     started to make global comparisons at her Senate confirmation 
     hearing last month, Shelby interrupted her.
       ``I'm asking about the Federal Reserve of the United States 
     of America,'' he said.


                             Warning Signs

       Yellen is set to take over amid warnings that assets from 
     leveraged loans to farmland are showing signs of froth.
       The Fed and other U.S. banking regulators have said they 
     want to crack down on underwriting standards in the market 
     for high-risk, high-yield loans.

[[Page S59]]

       Non-bank lenders such as mutual funds, hedge funds and 
     pools of collateralized loan obligations, bought $630 billion 
     of the loans this year, surpassing the 2007 peak of $581.5 
     billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
       Sales of high-yield, high-risk bonds, rated below Baa3 by 
     Moody's Investors Service and lower than BBB- at Standard & 
     Poor's, soared to an annual record of $373.2 billion this 
     year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That compares with 
     $149.2 billion in 2006, the year before the start of the 
     credit crisis.
       The extra yield investors demand to hold speculative-grade 
     bonds rather than government debt reached 411 basis points, 
     or 4.11 percentage points, last week, the least since October 
     2007, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data. 
     Spreads ended the week at 412 basis points.


                              Record Loans

       Sales of institutional loans have also reached an annual 
     record, soaring 71 percent from 2012 to $627.1 billion, 
     according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
       Potential losses on the Fed's investments are also cause 
     for concern and ``something we will be watching,'' 
     Representative John Campbell, a California Republican who 
     leads the House Financial Services subcommittee on monetary 
     policy and trade, said in February.
       The Fed sent a record $88.4 billion to the Treasury in 2012 
     and $75.4 billion in 2011, up from $31.7 billion in 2008. 
     Most of the income was from interest on assets bought under 
     the quantitative easing program.
       The risk for the Fed is that rising interest rates reduce 
     the value of its bond holdings, potentially causing losses if 
     the central bank had to sell the securities back into the 
     open market.
       ``Losses are dangerous for the Fed from a political 
     perspective because they would be a risk to its 
     independence,'' said Roberto Perli, a partner at Cornerstone 
     Macro LP in Washington.


                            Deficit Spending

       Campbell and Hensarling also say the Fed's purchases of 
     government debt are encouraging deficit spending by allowing 
     the government to borrow cheaply. The yield on the 10-year 
     Treasury note has averaged 2.31 percent this year, compared 
     with a 6.61 percent mean over the past half century.
       ``The Fed's additional extraordinary purchases of Treasury 
     bonds have supported the Obama administration's trillion-
     dollar deficits,'' Hensarling said at a Dec. 12 hearing.
       Yellen says bond purchases have put Americans back to work. 
     Asset purchases helped the private sector add 7.8 million 
     workers since 2010 and boosted home prices and auto sales, 
     Yellen said in her confirmation hearing, adding that the 
     progress will let the central bank get back to more normal 
     monetary policy.


                              Jobless Rate

       The jobless rate has fallen to 7 percent from a 26-year 
     high of 10 percent in October 2009. Since then, the economy 
     has regained most of the jobs it lost during the 18-month 
     recession ended in June 2009.
       ``The balance sheet is growing because that's how the 
     Federal Reserve thinks it's going to accomplish the mandates 
     that Congress gave to it'' for full employment and price 
     stability, Kohn, now a senior fellow at the Brookings 
     Institution's Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy 
     in Washington, said in an interview last week.
       Still, policy makers haven't spurred the growth they 
     expected. Officials forecast 2013 growth of 2 percent to 2.3 
     percent in September, down from a 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent 
     estimate in March.
       ``QE turned out to be a safety net, a floor, a way to catch 
     the economy to keep it from crashing,'' said Steve Blitz, 
     chief economist at ITG Investment Research Inc. in New York. 
     ``A safety net to catch a falling economy is not the same 
     thing that can springboard the economy to a higher rate of 
     growth.''

  Mr. SHELBY. The article contains the following three comparisons that 
I found more than interesting. Four trillion dollars is equivalent to 
24 percent of the U.S. GDP. That is greater than the GDP of the world's 
fourth largest country--Germany. Think about it. Four trillion dollars 
is twice the amount of all student and auto debt in this country. Yes, 
$4 trillion far surpasses even the amount of money the Federal 
Government spends in an entire year.
  This brings me to my next point. Many hold the misconception in this 
country that China is the world's largest owner of U.S. debt. That is 
not true. In fact, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet shows the 
Federal Reserve itself is by far the largest holder of U.S. Treasury 
bonds. With $2.2 trillion in Treasury debt, the Fed holds nearly $900 
billion more than China does, if you can think in those terms. The Fed 
holds more in Treasury bonds than do China and most of the eurozone 
combined.
  The rate of acceleration with which the Federal Reserve is purchasing 
Treasuries should be alarming to all Americans. On the day of President 
Obama's first inauguration, the Federal Reserve held $475 billion in 
Treasuries. Today it holds $2.2 trillion in Treasuries. That represents 
a 363-percent increase in the past 5 years.
  It is no coincidence that President Obama has greatly accelerated our 
national debt over that same period of time. There is a connection. 
When he took office, the national debt stood at a large $10.6 trillion. 
That is a lot of money. Today it stands at $17.3 trillion--5 years 
later. I believe the Federal Reserve is aiding and abetting the failed 
policies and the reckless spending of the Obama administration.
  But the Fed's binge on Treasuries alone doesn't tell the full story 
of its exploding balance sheet. The Federal Reserve's portfolio is also 
loaded with nearly $1.5 trillion of mortgage-backed securities. I have 
long been concerned that this aggressive and extraordinary purchasing 
program is artificially propping up home prices, and this is especially 
pertinent since an overheated housing market greatly contributed to the 
financial crisis that caused this situation in the first place.
  Taken altogether, the Federal Reserve has added more than $3 trillion 
to its balance sheet since early 2008, just before the investment bank 
Bear Stearns failed and the Federal Reserve stepped in.
  I realize that sometimes it is easy to become lost in all of these 
huge figures I have been sharing. I brought a simple chart that 
illustrates the magnitude of the Federal Reserve's actions. It shows 
here the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet by decade, from 
its creation in 1913, 100 years ago, to present day. As we can see, it 
took 95 years for the Federal Reserve's balance sheet to reach $1 
trillion. But look at the incredible spike in just a few years since, 
in the red here. Here we are today, just 5 years later, at $4 trillion 
and growing.
  Let's call this what it is: a backdoor stimulus program through 
monetary policy. Very complicated, yes, but very important. It dwarfs 
even the fiscal stimulus package President Obama rammed through 
Congress during his first days in office about 5 years ago. President 
Obama's fiscal stimulus package totaled $787 billion--a lot of money--
and I have just described the Fed's monetary stimulus package as nearly 
four times larger and growing.
  This highly unconventional monetary policy poses huge risks to our 
economy--namely, inflation in the future and a devaluation of our 
currency. I realize that current inflation expectations are relatively 
low and anchored. However, again we are in completely uncharted 
territory. Should inflation expectations become unglued, prices could 
increase uncontrollably. There is simply no playbook that I am aware of 
on how to deal with such a situation successfully.
  Yes, I also understand that the Fed has recently announced it will 
modestly scale back its so-called quantitative easing program. The Fed 
will still purchase tens of billions of dollars of securities each 
month.
  Make no mistake--the Fed's balance sheet will continue to expand 
rapidly. How long will this continue? We don't know. How large will the 
Fed's balance sheet ultimately grow? We don't know. Will the Fed be 
able to contain inflation if it does begin to rise? Again, we don't 
know. And when will the Federal Reserve actually begin to unwind the 
balance sheet--which will be tricky? Again, we don't know. How exactly 
does the Federal Reserve plan to unwind the balance sheet? Again, we 
don't know, and I don't believe they know.
  I raise these points because I met with Dr. Yellen in my office and 
attended her confirmation hearing in the Banking Committee. I received 
no meaningful answers to any of those questions, only the usual 
platitudes that so often mark such meetings.
  If I may, I will now turn briefly to the subject of bank regulation, 
which is very important in this country--a primary and critical 
function of the Federal Reserve.
  I have been a member of the Banking Committee since I first came to 
the Senate in 1987. I served on the committee through many difficult 
times in the financial markets, including the savings and loan crisis 
and the 2008 financial crisis. In all of my experience, I have never 
seen a financial institution fail that was well managed, well 
capitalized, and well regulated. The

[[Page S60]]

fact is that so many financial institutions failed in 2008 and 2009 in 
no small part because the Federal Reserve failed spectacularly in its 
role as their regulator. I think that is a given.
  As President of the San Francisco Fed from 2004 to 2010, Dr. Yellen 
presided over a regional housing bubble and failed to restrain the 
excesses in the market. Yet, despite this record of failure, she now 
runs the most powerful bank regulatory institution in the world--the 
Federal Reserve. I guess failure begets promotion in President Obama's 
view. We have seen it time and again.
  This is all the more important considering that the Fed gained even 
greater power under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law despite the 
fact that the Federal Reserve's own failures contributed to the need 
for financial reform in the first place.
  In light of Dr. Yellen's weak touch as a bank regulator and her 
strong inclination to print more and more money, I firmly opposed her 
nomination. Only time will tell, but I believe a vote in the 
affirmative is one many of my colleagues will come to regret.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I presume we are in a quorum call. I 
ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Global Warming

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am back today for the 54th time to 
urge my colleagues to wake up to what carbon pollution is doing to the 
Earth's climate and oceans. We see the facts all around us, but can't 
seem to penetrate the politics of Congress.
  We, in this body, are willfully ignoring changes we have never seen 
before, changes that threaten our planet and its rich array of plant 
and animal life, our homes, farms, and factories, and our very health 
and well being.
  Carbon-driven climate change can be seen in warming surface 
temperatures and shifting seasons, but perhaps nowhere is carbon 
pollution doing more harm than in our oceans. The year 2013 brought 
ample new evidence of these changes in our oceans.
  People often talk about climate change as if it were a theory. Here 
is what we know. We know that the oceans are warming. That is not a 
theory; that is a measurement. It is done with thermometers. It is not 
complicated. Sea level, we know, is rising; that is another 
measurement. It is very simple. We could do it with a yardstick. Oceans 
are becoming more acidic. Every American with an aquarium measures 
acidity with litmus paper. Again, it is simple measurement and proven 
facts.
  If we put those proven facts into context, let's look at geologic 
context. According to an article published in 2012 in the journal 
Science, our current rate of carbon dioxide emissions--mainly from 
burning fossil fuels--is enough to cause the most severe changes to the 
chemistry of our oceans in 300 million years, and 300 million years ago 
is before the dinosaurs.
  We know the oceans are warming. The oceans have absorbed more than 90 
percent of the excess heat in the atmosphere between 1971 and 2010, 
according to a 2013 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change.
  Here is where the heat goes: 93.4 percent goes into the ocean. The 
rest we are seeing, 2.3 percent, goes into the atmosphere. Our oceans 
are really taking the brunt of the added heat.
  We also know that sea level is rising. We know this. It is driven not 
only by melting glaciers carrying water into the seas and raising their 
level, but also by ocean water expanding. As water warms, it expands. 
The principle of thermal expansion is known in every science class in 
this country.
  At the Newport tide gauge in Rhode Island, sea level is up almost 10 
inches since the 1930s. So that means that storms driving the sea 
against Rhode Island's coast have 10 more inches of sea to throw 
against our homes and infrastructure.
  Recent satellite measurements from the University of Colorado Sea 
Level Research Group show 3.2 millimeters of sea level rise per year 
from 1993 to 2013. Between 1901 and 2010, that rate was estimated at 
1.7 millimeters per year. So the rate of increase has nearly doubled, 
and that means sea level rise is very likely speeding up. That is all 
stuff we measure. That is not theory.
  The IPCC report also projects--conservatively, in my view--that sea 
level will likely rise one-half to one full meter by the year 2100 if 
we do nothing to dial back carbon pollution. Obviously, the other 
estimates are for far more extreme sea level rise.
  We know the oceans are becoming more acidic. Oceans not only absorb 
90 percent of the heat that has come from climate change, they are 
absorbing about 30 percent of the carbon itself. The carbon itself goes 
to the surface of the ocean, and it is absorbed there. Roughly 600 
gigatons worth of carbon have been pumped into our oceans as a result. 
As all that carbon dissolves into the oceans, what happens? Ocean water 
becomes more acidic. It is a chemistry experiment you can duplicate in 
any simple lab. Indeed, if you do the measurement, we have gotten about 
26 percent more acidic--the seas have--since the Industrial Revolution. 
That was reported, again, last year by the International Programme on 
the State of the Ocean.
  The rate of change in ocean acidity--we can see it is speeding up--is 
already faster than at any time measured in the past 50 million years 
according to research published in the journal Nature Geoscience. Yet 
we sleep walk here in Congress, narcotized by polluter money.
  Ocean acidification and warming are fundamentally altering our 
undersea environment--what Pope Francis in his recent exhortation 
called the ``ocean wonder world.'' These changes, among other things, 
have made the world's coral reefs extremely vulnerable to decay and 
bleaching. Areas such as the Great Barrier Reef--one of the great 
global wonders of the world off the coast of Australia--has already 
experienced large-scale bleaching.
  As a boy, I used to scuba dive in the Andaman Sea. If you go back 
now--30 years later--it is heavily bleached. These are pictures that 
were taken in 2002 by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and 
they clearly show a once lush and vibrant reef now gone and barren.
  Worsening this bleaching would be particularly hard on countries 
whose people depend on the bounty of the reef for their protein, 
sustenance, and economy. Remember, the reefs are the ocean's nurseries, 
and they support food and economic stability as well as pretty tropical 
fish.
  New research also suggests that even the most remote depths of the 
ocean will suffer the consequences of climate change. A study published 
in the journal Global Change Biology looked at various climate models 
to predicate changes in food supply throughout the world's oceans. The 
models predict that the changes to our ocean could lead to a worldwide 
drop in sea floor dwelling life by the year 2100.
  The North Atlantic--off our shores in Massachusetts and in Rhode 
Island--may lose more than one-third of all deep-sea marine life. These 
drastic changes from our carbon pollution are daunting ones--
particularly for our ocean State of Rhode Island. Our way of life in 
Rhode Island, like the Presiding Officer's in Massachusetts, has always 
been closely tied to the sea. Yet here in Congress we ignore all of 
that and continue perilously sleepwalking through history.
  The Obama administration has at last put forward a Climate Action 
Plan, the cornerstone of which will be EPA regulations to limit 
greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing powerplants. Our 50 
worst powerplants--in terms of emission--put out more carbon pollution 
than the entire country of Canada and the entire country of Korea. So 
solving that problem is vitally important.
  The plan also directs executive branch agencies to take concrete 
steps to safeguard the American people and our interest in the world 
against the harmful effects of excessively high temperatures, melting 
ice, ocean acidification, and sea level rise.
  These are important steps, but they must ultimately be backed up by 
congressional action. EPA regulations and executive orders will never 
have the same economy-wide effect as a congressionally approved carbon 
fee, for instance.

[[Page S61]]

  The sweeping changes taking place in our oceans make adapting to 
these changes particularly important along our coastlines. Warmer 
waters and higher seas load the dice for more damaging storms. Our 
coastal counties in this country harbor 39 percent of the country's 
population and account for 41 percent of our GDP.
  Let's look at our ports, for example. According to a 2009 National 
Ocean Economics Program report: ``Three-quarters of all United States 
trade passes through estuary ports.'' No wonder, then, that the 
American Association of Port Authorities is taking climate change 
seriously--working to reduce carbon pollution and stave off its 
effects, rather than waiting for Congress to awaken from our slumber.
  American ports are switching trucks and cranes from diesel to 
electric and installing onshore power supply to ships, thus reducing 
emissions from the port and from idling vessels. Likewise, the 
International Association of Ports and Harbors has launched the World 
Ports Climate Initiative to reduce the CO2 output from port-
related activities.
  In my State, the Rhode Island Climate Change Commission reported:

       Inundaton of the state's ports and railroads may reduce 
     interstate access, affecting economic viability and 
     potentially limiting imports and exports. Sea level rise may 
     also reduce navigational clearances for the State's bridges, 
     additionally limiting access.

  These changes will be particularly harmful for the Port of 
Providence, which today brings hundreds of millions of dollars to the 
region.
  We need strong Federal action to reduce the carbon emissions that are 
threatening our coastal communities. We must also take firm Federal 
action to adapt ourselves, and our States and our coastal communities, 
to the changes that we can no longer avoid because of what we have 
already pumped into the atmosphere and the harm we have already done.
  This is a real threat. It is embarrassing, and it is wrong for 
Congress and the Senate to continue to ignore it. Somebody who knew 
something about looming threats was Sir Winston Churchill. He gave this 
advice:

       One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger 
     and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double 
     the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without 
     flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.

  That is good advice. What's embarrassing and wrong is that not only 
are we failing to meet it promptly--and flinching--but that failure and 
that flinching is the result of special interest influence in this 
body.
  We face uncommon challenges and they demand uncommon resolve. America 
has not overcome past crises by pretending they did not exist; that 
state of play is preposterous for us to embark from. We actually have 
clear scientific understanding of the problem. The doubt is passed, the 
jury is in, and the verdict has been delivered. Yet we lack the will of 
leadership to forge a solution. Another great leader who knew something 
of leadership in times of crisis was President Lincoln. He understood 
that the greatest challenges require clear vision and brave thinking. 
When faced with a crisis, President Lincoln said:

       The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must 
     rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think 
     anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then 
     we shall save our country.

  It is past time to disenthrall ourselves of the corrupt thrall of 
polluting special interests. It is time, at last, to wake up and get to 
work on the job we have before us.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to share in some remarks 
Senator Ayotte had relative to the amendment she submitted that would 
pay for the unemployment insurance extension and veteran pensions 
benefits. I will just say her pay-for is an issue that I have had some 
experience with. I offered several years ago an amendment to fix the 
same problem, and I was disappointed when the majority leader, Senator 
Reid, objected to that amendment.
  Senator Ayotte's amendment would pay for the jobless benefits of 
unemployed Americans and restore veterans' pensions by cutting off 
fraudulent tax payments to illegal aliens. This is a very simple 
concept. There is a clear abuse going on here that needs to be fixed, 
and it should have been fixed a long time ago.
  The amendment contains an offset of $20 billion--$20 billion--by 
closing this loophole and ending this abuse of American tax dollars. 
Remember, the veterans' retirement benefit reductions in their 
retirement plans that were voted on recently in this body--part of the 
Ryan-Murray budget agreement--only saved $6 billion over 10 years by 
altering the retirement benefits of veterans. So this amendment--
closing the tax loophole--would save $20 billion over 10 years.
  In 2011--this is when the matter first came to my attention by the 
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Each Department has 
an inspector general. The inspectors general are part of the Obama 
administration, but they take pride in their independence, and they are 
by and large a very valuable part of the American Government.
  So this Treasury Inspector General made this statement in a report:

       Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we 
     believe, are not entitled to it. We have made recommendations 
     to the IRS as to how they could address this, and they have 
     not taken sufficient action in our view to solve the problem.

  A clear statement by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury 
Department that there were problems with this policy, and they could be 
fixed, and the Internal Revenue Service was failing to take steps to 
fix the problem.
  One press report that highlighted the abuses occurring within this 
program reported that an illegal alien admitted that his address was 
used to file tax returns by four other illegal workers. All were in the 
country working illegally, and they filed tax returns. Did they file 
the tax returns to pay taxes? No. They filed the tax returns to get a 
tax credit back from the government, a check from the government. They 
claimed 20 dependents living inside their residence, and the Internal 
Revenue Service sent the illegal tax filers $30,000--direct checks from 
the U.S. Government, from the U.S. Department of Treasury, went to 
them. They filed a return, they said they had all these children, and 
they were given $30,000.
  According to the report, none of those dependents lived in the United 
States or had even visited the United States. The illegal alien in the 
story justified the enormous tax fraud by saying: ``If the opportunity 
is there and they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?''
  Well, this is an interesting development. Let's go along a little 
further. As the Treasury Inspector General himself said: ``The payment 
of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an 
additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the 
United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and 
policy to remove such incentives.''
  So the inspector general took the obvious position that it is the 
government's position that people who enter the country illegally ought 
not to receive tax credit checks from Uncle Sam and that this policy 
not only encouraged that, it encouraged more people to come to America 
to claim benefits, as this person who entered the country illegally 
said: If they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?
  Now one of the things I have learned as I have traveled the world is, 
a lot of people have an exaggerated opinion of the wealth and power of 
the United States. You meet good people in underdeveloped countries, 
and they say: Why doesn't the United States do this, that, and the 
other--as if we had unlimited power, unlimited money, and unlimited 
ability to solve the problems they face at any given time.
  So a lot of people, maybe, when they come to the country do not 
realize we are a nation of limited resources and we cannot be wasting 
money, we cannot be having people enter our country contrary to the 
law, undocumented, working, taking jobs that Americans need, and then 
sending them big checks--$30,000 for children who do not even exist or 
certainly have never been in the United States.
  How do they do it? They use an ITIN, an individual tax identification 
number. They do not have Social Security numbers. They have a tax ID 
number. Why? That is a tax number that the Treasury Department came up 
with to

[[Page S62]]

allow noncitizens who do not have Social Security numbers to pay taxes 
to Uncle Sam. That is what it was supposed to be used for. These clever 
individuals have figured out a way--they do not qualify for a Social 
Security number, so they get an ITIN number, and then they immediately 
start filing a tax return, claiming benefits, tax credits for children 
they may not even have or are not in the country, and they are not 
entitled to it. It is billions of dollars. According to the best 
estimates we have, if this loophole were closed--that the Treasury 
Department themselves has identified--it would save $20 billion over 10 
years. Well, that is a lot of money.

  In fact, in 2011, they claimed--and I do not know why it is not 
more--that illegal aliens received a staggering $4.2 billion in 
refundable tax credits in 2010. So in 2010, they received illegally 
$4.2 billion under this program. Can you imagine that? That is more 
than the budget of the State of Alabama--the general fund budget of the 
State. This was in 2010, and it has been growing substantially. It is 
probably more than that now.
  So the legislation Senator Ayotte proposes would fix this problem, 
and it is time we fixed it. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose 
it. The House has passed legislation already that would fix this 
problem and it died in the Senate. Senator Reid refused to bring it up. 
He obstructed its passage. It should have long since been passed.
  So I pose a question to my colleagues: Which would you rather do? 
Would you cut the retirement benefits of men and women who served this 
country for 20 years or more in the U.S. military, being deployed in 
harm's way, placing their lives at risk--even those who are disabled as 
a result of service in the U.S. military in combat zones; they have 
their retirement cut too--would you choose to cut their pay to save $6 
billion, when you could cut out a totally unjustified claim of tax 
credits of $20 billion? Is it political correctness run amok that we 
are dealing with here? Why can't we fix this? So I think this is 
something that needs to be fixed. It is past due to be fixed.
  Senator Ayotte is correct to raise it as a legitimate pay-for for 
unemployment compensation and veterans' retirement, and I salute her 
for it. It is something I pushed for, and I offered a very similar 
amendment when the Murray-Ryan bill moved through the Senate. I think 
it is something we need to work on.
  We are not talking about as much as we should now the chatter has 
receded a little bit--but our deficit situation is still very grim. We 
now have a current debt of $17 trillion. That is unprecedented in the 
history of the United States. It has doubled in recent years. They are 
the kind of deficits we have never seen before, and it is something we 
have to address.
  Mr. J.T. Young, in the Washington Times, a former member of the 
Department of Treasury, I believe, in the Bush administration, and a 
former staffer on the Budget Committee, wrote that what we are seeing 
in our budgeting is a tip of the iceberg. The interest payments we are 
making now--some $250 billion a year on the $17 trillion we owe--is a 
tip of the iceberg. Because if interest rates return to their 40-year 
average, we are going to see a dramatic increase in interest payments 
on that debt.
  When we say we have $17 trillion, we are talking about money the U.S. 
Government has borrowed so it could spend. That borrowed money comes 
from a source. Much of the source of that money are foreign nations. 
The largest creditor is China. They loan us money, and we pay them 
interest every year.
  Right now interest rates are low, unusually low, exceedingly low 
according to historic averages, and most people expect they are not 
going to stay low. The bond market is already slipping because people 
expect interest rates to go up, making their bonds less valuable. All 
the experts--virtually all--expect we will have a rising interest rates 
in the year to come.
  Our Congressional Budget Office analyzes the debt of the United 
States and our whole fiscal policy--taxing and spending and income and 
outgo and has calculated that 10 years from today, under their baseline 
budget plan, with interest rates increasing, and the increased 
deficits--the deficits every year that we will have that will add to 
the $17 trillion--in 10 years we will be paying interest, each year, of 
over $800 billion.
  Mr. Young refers to that as a ``third entitlement.'' Actually, under 
these figures, it looks as though that interest payment will exceed 
Social Security's payment and Medicare's payment and the Defense 
Department. Not together, but each. This is a stunning danger that we 
face. So it is not mean-spirited to say that before we pass an 
unemployment compensation extension beyond our historic levels that we 
need to ask: Will we just borrow all the money, or will we look around 
this government and find places to save money such as the child tax 
credit going to people without Social Security numbers illegally in the 
country? What should we do?
  The challenge we face is how to confront the rising debt. Every year, 
every month , virtually, some other issue rises before the Senate. It 
sounds persuasive and it is something we want to do, sometimes it is 
something we really need to do. Certainly Americans are hurting today. 
There is no doubt about that. There are a lot of reasons for it. We 
need to work to reverse those trends. Middle America, poor America are 
not doing well financially.
  One reason is, there are millions of people in the country illegally 
taking jobs, pulling down wages and reducing the employment prospects 
of American citizens. There is no doubt about that. President Obama 
proposed, and this Senate voted by a sizable majority, to double the 
amount of guest workers who come into America. Meanwhile, they come 
before the Senate and say: We need another $7 billion in unemployment 
benefits because we have too much unemployment in America. How can that 
possibly resonate logically with the American people? We should control 
immigration in America. We are a very generous nation of immigrants. We 
support immigration. One million people enter our country every year 
legally. We have guest workers who come every year.
  The immigration bill that was before us, that was voted on by this 
body, would have not ended the illegality it would reduce it only by 40 
percent or so, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But it 
would have doubled the legal flow of guest workers to America. What a 
stunning number, at a time of high unemployment, low wages, and the 
lowest workplace participation rate this country has seen since the 
1970s.
  Americans are having a hard time finding work. So we have our 
colleagues, our Senate majority, who voted for that immigration bill, 
ranting to the Senate, demanding now that we extend unemployment 
insurance, demanding that we raise the minimum wage. Well, I would like 
to see the wages of Americans go up, all of them. I would like to see 
people make $15, $18, $25, $30 an hour. We need more of that kind of 
growth and prosperity in America. But I am not comfortable with the 
Federal Government setting wages and price controls in this country. It 
has never worked effectively.
  We should do things that make sense. We should create economic 
policies that create prosperity. We should not import large increases 
in labor in America when we have huge numbers of people here that are 
unemployed. That is just common sense.
  I want to share with our colleagues some thoughts about where we are 
with regard to the unemployment insurance extension legislation that is 
now before us. Since 2009, the Senate has required that any extension 
of unemployment insurance benefits be paid for because we agreed that 
we need to reduce the amount of money we are borrowing. We are spending 
considerably more than we take in. We are going to have to raise the 
debt ceiling again next month so we can borrow even more money. So all 
of the money my colleagues want to spend on extending unemployment 
insurance, unless some savings are found elsewhere in the government, 
will be borrowed. The legislation that is before us now borrows every 
cent of it. Every cent of the $7 billion that is proposed will be 
borrowed.
  We are $17 trillion in debt, much owed to foreign creditors. It does 
not seem wise to do this. This is the wrong thing. In the past, 
Congress has paid for unemployment insurance extensions. This is 
unprecedented, an

[[Page S63]]

extranormal unemployment insurance extension. The current amount is 
always out there, but because the unemployment rate has been high, we 
have extended it up to 99 weeks. We paid for this in 2009. We paid for 
it in 2011, and we paid for it in 2012.
  So clearly the Senate's policy approach has been consistent in recent 
years to pay for this. Many remember our former colleague, Jim Bunning, 
that Hall of Fame baseball pitcher, who stood right back here and 
objected to this one time before, I think it was in 2009, all alone and 
he insisted that it be paid for, and eventually he prevailed. It caused 
quite a stir. He stopped the train until there was an agreement to pay 
for this.
  According to a report yesterday in National Journal, some Senators 
want to rush this bill through now and will worry about paying for it 
later. They will promise to pay for it later. This ``spend now, pay 
later'' policy is how we racked up $17 trillion in debt. It is smoke 
and mirrors. If you do not in this Congress agree to pay for something 
before it is spent, it is not going to be paid for later. We have got 
debt in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year and we are 
certainly not going to go back and pay for more, pay down the money we 
spent the year before. We have got to deal with the year we are in. If 
we do that, it would be helpful. This is how we go broke.
  But what I want to say is, fundamentally, the spending provided for 
in this extension of unemployment insurance violates the spirit of the 
Budget Control Act of 2011. It spends money above what we agreed to 
spend. It should not be done. We need to know, every one of us, that by 
voting for this bill, you are voting to violate the promise you made to 
the American people in August of 2011 that we would limit the growth in 
spending, not cut spending, but limit the growth in spending, that we 
would raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion so that money could be 
borrowed and be spent, but we would reduce, over 10 years, the growth 
in spending enough to offset that increase. That was the bargain that 
was made.

  More importantly, this legislation violates the budget agreement that 
was passed into law, the Murray-Ryan bill that was signed by President 
Obama just before Christmas--just a few weeks ago. The ink is barely 
dry on that agreement and my colleagues now are proposing to bust it 
completely. This has become too common. This is too much how we operate 
here. Some of our Members take umbrage at the fact that millions of 
Americans are unhappy with us in Washington. People complain about how 
we are doing our jobs. They say the Tea Party people are angry and 
therefore they are evil people. Well, why should they not be angry with 
us? We promised not to spend over a certain amount of money and we have 
repeatedly voted to do that since 2011.
  We voted in December to contain spending and maintain spending 
levels. Now, in January, as soon as the year began, we have a proposal 
to add $7 billion to the debt above what we agreed to spend. So I think 
the American people have a right to be hot with us. We need to vote 
some people out of here. If we do not change the spending habit, this 
country is going to be facing a fiscal catastrophe as independent 
observers have warned us for years.
  Next month, the President is going to ask Republicans for our help in 
passing a bill that raises the debt ceiling. We have already hit the 
debt ceiling again. So he will be asking for us to raise it again, 
because we need to borrow more money because we haven't cut spending. 
We are spending more money than comes in. We are spending that every 
year. The President wants to keep spending and not reduce spending. So 
he is asking us to raise the debt ceiling to let him borrow even more 
than the $17 trillion we have. They are going to threaten, cajole, and 
try to scare Americans with horror stories of imminent financial 
collapse if we do not agree to raise the debt ceiling. We know that is 
coming. Hopefully we will reach an agreement that will raise the debt 
ceiling but get some real reforms in this government and bring down the 
rate of growth in spending in this country.
  But how can we talk about promise to contain spending in the future 
when we have got a bill before us right now that blatantly violates the 
Budget Act? All we are doing is spending more money, borrowing more 
money, and raising the debt ceiling even faster than otherwise would be 
the case. This is the wrong direction for America. We need to be 
reducing our deficit, not voting to increase deficits. This is simple 
and plain. We need to be reducing deficits.
  We need to be working every day, as the American people have told us, 
to bring our spending under control. Wasteful Washington spending is 
threatening America. The Federal Government already taxes too much, 
spends too much, borrows too much, regulates too much. It is time for 
us to live within our means, to balance our budget. That includes 
finding offsets and spending savings to pay for any extension of 
unemployment insurance or really any other proposal for new spending.
  This Congress has not been doing that. I would note that in the New 
York Times recently, Jonathan Weisman wrote this:

       The drive to extend unemployment insurance has put both 
     parties into awkward political positions. Mr. Reid opened the 
     second session of the 113th Congress Monday by declaring: 
     `The rich keep getting richer. The poor keep getting poorer, 
     and the middle class are under siege.' It was hardly an 
     endorsement for an economy entering its sixth year under 
     President Obama's watch.

  Gene Sperling, the President's economic advisor, just said this 
recently. ``Three people are looking for every one job open.''
  So what are we to do about this? What do we say about this? I would 
say, colleagues, that while hopefully we can help unemployed Americans 
today with some sort of a benefit that we will pay for in a financially 
sound manner, hopefully we will see wages rise. We need to see wages 
rise, in my opinion, because I think the middle class is under siege. I 
think poor people are getting hammered in this current economy.
  But I will ask this question: Who has been setting the agenda 
economically for America for the last 5 years? Has not President Obama 
taxed more? Hasn't he regulated more? Has he not spent more? Hasn't he 
borrowed more? Hasn't ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, hammered 
American businesses and caused them to lay off workers and hire people 
part time rather than full time?
  Actually two-thirds of the people hired in 2013 were hired part time. 
This is not healthy. Things are not going well. The model that is 
planned that we are seeing overall is not working.
  How much longer will it take for people to recognize that? The 
promises were made. If we just send out more checks, if we pass more 
stimulus bills, if we spend more money, if we do all these things, 
somehow this will create growth and prosperity in America. But all this 
time, we have been increasing the debt dramatically, trillion-plus-
dollar deficits for 4 years. We have never seen anything like this in 
American history.
  The debt itself is a detriment and a depressant to economic growth in 
America. It causes fear and concern throughout the entire American 
populace and the world, unease about the future of the United States 
with these kinds of debts.
  The point I would make is let's do some things that fix the disease, 
and the disease is an excessive government domination of the economy 
that is suppressing growth and prosperity, suppressing wages, and 
government actions that create more unemployment and part-time 
employment than is necessary and should be happening. That is the 
problem we need to be addressing. The symptoms of that are being 
addressed when we deal with unemployment insurance or mandatory wage 
rates.
  I thank the Chair and my colleagues for the opportunity to share 
these thoughts. I really do believe Senator Ayotte's proposal to deal 
with the waste and fraudulent abuse of tax money through the improper 
use of the ITIN--the individual tax identification number--is very 
real. It is very effective, would save billions of dollars, and would 
help us pay for some of the things we would like to do. That is what we 
should be doing, not adding more debt to the people of America.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S64]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I come to the floor this evening to express my hope that 
the bipartisan effort that brought this 3-month bill to the floor can 
be sustained as we go forward so that we can swiftly help the 1.3 
million long-term unemployed workers who were cut off from these 
benefits on December 28. As many of my colleagues have discovered from 
going back to their home States, in many cases these folks are 
desperate. This benefit was the difference between things we take for 
granted--having a car to be able to get to a job, having a cell phone 
so they can get a message saying they have a job interview, paying for 
heat in the cold weather, putting groceries on the table. For many 
people, this is truly an emergency.
  That is why working with Senator Heller, whom I applaud for his 
vision, collaboration, and for his sense in terms of the difficulties 
of his constituents and, nationally, many people, and for his effort--
he did a superb job. What we sensed was we needed to provide relief 
immediately. Longer term, there are issues to address, and my 
colleagues have been on the floor discussing these issues, but 
immediately we have 1.3 million Americans, and every day many more who 
need help go off the rolls.
  I hope we can move very expeditiously and provide at least this 
short-term aid. Then, of course, we have very significant issues going 
forward for the entire-year extension, which I hope ultimately we can 
resolve.
  In addition to Senator Heller, I wish to thank all of my colleagues. 
Particularly, I thank Senators Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Ayotte, and 
Coats for their support, along with all of our Members of the 
Democratic caucus who came together.
  Now we have the challenge of providing this relief and then thinking 
creatively, constructively, and collaboratively about how we provide 
this relief at least through the full year. I hope we can extend the 
program for the next 90 days immediately and quickly, but that other 
issue is certainly before us.
  I understand also that my colleagues have raised issues about the 
structure of the program, about whether this spending--even the short-
term spending--should be offset. Again, I go back to the point that we 
have 1.3 million Americans--and growing each day--who are looking for 
immediate help, not thoughtful, careful, long-term deliberation. That 
was the logic behind moving to a 90-day extension, getting it done, and 
then going forward and dealing with inherently more difficult issues 
for a full-year program.
  We already understand that short-term lapse from the 28th until today 
has already had dramatic impacts on families. This is what I think my 
colleagues have heard, seen, and read about when they have gone home. 
Men and women who worked for decades, never thinking they would ever 
use their unemployment benefits, which they have earned since they 
started working, are now suddenly facing a weakened job market where 
there are nearly three people for every one job, where there are issues 
of skill training for the new jobs that are emerging. These are very 
difficult challenges.
  I think what finally led us to at least this point of moving forward 
was the perception that this program is not subject to some arcane 
abuse by people in the system; this is for working men and women who, 
through no fault of their own, lost their jobs, who are desperately 
looking for jobs, and they are our neighbors and our constituents--many 
of whom we thought and they thought would never be in this predicament. 
They have families, elderly parents, and young children. They have 
responsibilities.
  They have something else too, which I think we sometimes don't give 
enough credit for: They want to work. They have spent a life, many of 
them, working to a position of responsibility where they are using all 
of their talents. The idea that they are just going to give that up for 
the only available job, which might be working at a counter at a fast-
food restaurant--that is a challenge not only to your pocketbook, but 
that is a challenge to your person, to who you are--we have to 
recognize that also.
  These benefits are usually helpful to people in so many different 
capacities.
  As I said, we are trying to deal with a situation where people have 
been let go through no fault of their own. If someone quits, they don't 
qualify. If they are fired, they don't qualify. Many of these people 
are unemployed as a result of the new economy--information technology 
that makes their job something that can be done away with; mergers, 
acquisitions, and downsizing that caused the bottom line of a 
corporation to grow, but they are out of a job. We have to deal with 
it, and we have to deal with it as we have done so many times before by 
providing these long-term unemployment benefits.
  We also have to do it because it is good for our economy. The CBO 
estimates that if we do not renew UI for the full year 2014, we will 
lose 200,000 jobs because the weekly benefits, which are rather 
modest--$300 to $350 a week--go almost immediately from the recipient 
into the economy. It is the reason some grocery stores can keep two or 
three extra people on, because the demand is still there. It is the 
reason some service stations can keep the extra mechanic on, because 
the demand is still there. If we shut down that demand, we will have 
200,000 more people--ironically--who will qualify, at least initially, 
for State unemployment benefits.
  This is about our economy.
  I would like to draw our attention to the report our colleague 
Senator Amy Klobuchar did as the vice chair of the Joint Economic 
Committee. It was very thoughtfully done. It is not a surprise given 
that it was authored in large part by Senator Klobuchar. This report 
touches on these important issues and notes that ``unemployment 
insurance (UI) has kept more than 11 million people out of poverty 
since 2008--including 1.8 million adults and 620,000 children in 2012 
alone. People of all demographic and socio-economic backgrounds have 
been helped by unemployment insurance following a job loss.''
  This cuts across the whole spectrum. Again, how does someone get to 
qualify? They have to work. I would suspect that every one of my 
colleagues would say this country should be all about work, rewarding 
work, and if someone loses a job through no fault of their own, give 
them a chance to get back in the workforce.
  The reality of this economic downturn has been so pervasive that it 
has affected virtually every American. And so unemployment insurance 
has been a key part of the recovery. We all know that economists who 
have looked at this program suggest there is anywhere from a $1.50 to 
$1.60 benefit for every $1 we put in the economy. Economically, for the 
national economy as a whole, this is a very powerful tool to keep 
economic growth, expansion, and demand moving forward. That is exactly 
what we need to keep the economy growing.
  Indeed, one of the aspects of this recession and one of the aspects 
highlighted very insightfully by the report from the Joint Economic 
Committee is the long-term rate of unemployment. This might be a new 
structural phenomenon in our economy, but definitely something is 
happening out there.
  I will go back to when I was a kid. Someone is on the third shift 
because they are the junior person. The recession comes and guess who 
gets laid off. The third shift. The second shift, the middle people, 
and the first shift, the most senior people, typically weren't touched. 
The economy came back, and that third shift got rehired, but those 
workers with 10, 15 years' experience were pretty safe.
  Now that is not the case. Now we are seeing first, second, and third 
shift gone. Now we are seeing, well, this is a great opportunity, with 
interest rates at in some cases 1 percent--at least for the major 
financial institutions--to replace a lot of workers with a lot of 
machines. Let's do that. Let's get value. Let's downsize. Let's make 
sure we invest in capital. This is the phenomenon we are seeing, and it 
is causing some of this significant increase in long-term unemployment.
  In the JEC report, they note:

       The current long-term unemployment rate of 2.6 percent is 
     twice as high as it was when Congress allowed emergency 
     federal UI programs to expire after the 1990-91 and 2001 
     recessions.


[[Page S65]]


  Let me say that in my terms. Previously, we have never taken away 
these benefits when long-term unemployment has been so high, and these 
benefits are not directly responsible for long-term unemployment. The 
26 weeks of the State benefit programs is for people who lose work and 
find it relatively quickly. This program, the one we are debating 
today, is specifically designed for those people who are having a 
difficult time finding work over a long period of time.
  We are now at twice as high a level of unemployment as we were in 
previous recessions when we ended these benefits, which would suggest 
this is not the time to end these benefits.
  Let me continue from the JEC report:

       While employment prospects have improved for many jobless 
     Americans (the national unemployment rate is 7.0 percent--the 
     lowest rate in five years), finding work is challenging for 
     the long-term unemployed. More than one-third of unemployed 
     workers (roughly 4 million Americans) have been searching for 
     work for more than 26 weeks, when state-funded UI benefits 
     typically run out, and 2.8 million unemployed people have 
     been searching for work for more than one year.

  This is a phenomenon we have to deal with. This program we are 
discussing today is specifically designed for those long-term 
unemployed. So if there is one program that is responsive to one of the 
most salient aspects of this current recession, it is the long-term UI 
program because long-term unemployment seems to be the most difficult 
issue to resolve, even as our overall employment numbers continue to 
grow--not fast enough, but they are growing.
  I want to also dispel the belief of some of my colleagues that these 
benefits only flow to one or two distinct constituencies. That this is 
a targeted program that provides some benefits, but it doesn't apply 
across the board. That is not the case. This is about every American 
from virtually every type of education, income, and ethnic background.

  As the JEC report documents:

       The 23.9 million Americans who have directly benefited from 
     the EUC program since 2008 include people of all demographic 
     and socioeconomic backgrounds . . . [I]n 2012, more than 60 
     percent of the recipients were between the ages of 25 and 54.

  Let me stop. There is a stereotype out there that a lot of these 
folks are 18 year olds who had a job for a while but decided they would 
rather go skiing in Utah or snorkeling in the Caribbean, and what 
better way to do that than just essentially sort of perform so that 
when the layoffs come you get one--but so what, I am not going to look 
for work; I'm going to just go. Sixty percent of these people are 25 
years old to 54 years old. They are starting the prime or are in the 
prime of their work career. They have responsibility. They typically 
have families. They have, probably, if they are in their 50s, been 
working for 30 years.
  So this notion this is just a convenient time to take a vacation 
subsidized by the government is erroneous.
  Let me continue from the report:

       The remaining recipients were about evenly split between 
     those younger than 25 and those 55 and older.

  Again, the 55 and older--and this is very close to home--for these 
people it is a desperate struggle because they are caught right in the 
middle. They have a 75-year-old or 80-year-old mother or father; they 
have 30-year-old children and some younger who are going to school or 
they need the help. They have been working for 30-plus years. They have 
reached positions of responsibility in their firm and now, suddenly, 
for the first time--many is the case--they are without a job. That is 
not just economic, as I suggested. That also goes deeply to who they 
are, their value, and how they can help their family if they can't 
work. What is the effect on the family? How do they come home every day 
from looking for work without a job and not have it affect the family? 
This is the reality we are dealing with.
  That is why, frankly, I have been pleading to at least get this 
program restored for 90 days. That will give us the time--not on the 
backs of the unemployed--but give us the time to do the work for a 
longer extension.
  Now let me continue:

       More than half the recipients in 2012 were white, while 22 
     percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. The vast 
     majority (85 percent) lived in households with more than one 
     adult, and 43 percent lived in households with at least one 
     child.

  So these are not single transients who move around and are used to 
being unemployed and could work if they wanted to. These are people 
with real family responsibilities.

       People of all levels of education have received EUC 
     benefits. The majority of recipients in 2012 had earned a 
     high school diploma, and almost one-fifth held a 4-year 
     college degree.

  These are people that have skills. They have at least got the 
credentials, which, again, 20 or 30 years ago put you into the 
workplace and probably kept you there, if you were diligent.
  So I hope my colleagues take time to review this report. It is 
extremely useful. It shatters some stereotypes and reinforces the point 
this is about helping working Americans who need help.
  I think the facts are clearly on the side of continuing this program, 
and I think the reality is they need the help now. If we can get them 
that help, then we will have the time to deliberate the very serious 
questions that my colleagues have raised; and they have raised them 
constructively and raised them sincerely about the long-term approach 
of this program. But to continue to trade legislative ideas on the 
floor while millions of Americans either are losing their benefits or 
are seeing the end come within days, weeks or months is not the right 
response.
  So I urge my colleagues to move forward through these procedural 
hurdles. Let's get this bill done as Senator Heller and I have proposed 
it. Let's get it done, and then we have another huge challenge because 
we want, frankly, and I think the sentiment is across the board--if we 
are going to do this, let us at least continue it through the year 
2014.
  We are beginning to sense some positive economic shifts. We hope 
those materialize. We hope they come forward to the point where the 
unemployment rate, which has fallen--I heard the President today say 
when he took over we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. It was rocketing 
up into the stratosphere in some states, 12 percent, 14 percent. In 
Rhode Island it is still 9 percent. We have seen some progress--not 
enough in my State, in Nevada, and other States. But we have seen 
progress, and we hope that progress continues.
  Indeed, one of the other aspects of this program, if we pass these 
benefits--and the economists have pointed it out, particularly if we 
pass them on an emergency basis--it will add more fuel to our economy, 
not less. It will add more demand. It will, in fact, increase growth at 
a time when everyone is on the floor talking about the fact that we 
just have to grow more jobs. Of course we do. But this program is, in a 
way, the proverbial two-fer. You help people who need help, and you 
help the economy grow faster--200,000 jobs at least.
  So I really do think we should move forward as quickly as we can to 
get this Reed-Heller bill completed, and then we have a lot of careful, 
thoughtful, collaborative effort to engage in. Because if we want to go 
forward for a full year, which we do, we have other significant 
issues--not just the size of the program, but other issues as were 
brought up by my colleagues, and brought up very fairly, very 
constructively, and very thoughtfully.
  So Madam President, my message is: No. 1, I thank my colleagues for 
giving us the chance to seriously debate this bill, and I urge them to 
pass it quickly, and then we will set ourselves up for another serious, 
thoughtful and constructive debate. That is my wish.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________