[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S203-S209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 1845 is considered expired.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1845) to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. This is similar to ``Groundhog Day'' because this is a
picture we have already seen in the very lucid speech given by my
friend from New Hampshire.
She should have gone back through the Congressional Record. We have
been through this before.
We are not going to hurt American children, and that is what it does.
We have been through this. This is something we have tried to use in
the past to pay for things that are very unfair to American children.
The other issue is there have been some efforts made, and good-faith
efforts made by the Senator from Ohio, to stop double dipping--people
who are on disability and are drawing unemployment insurance. We agree
with him. We can take care of that, but it does not save $5.4 or $5.6
billion.
The disability community at this point is outraged that anyone will
even suggest this. We can stop the double dipping. We are happy to join
with them in doing that, but that savings is a little over $1 billion.
We are pleased, and that is part of the proposal we will all have in a
little bit.
I received a phone call from a person who has done more for helping
people who are disabled than any person in the history of this body,
the senior Senator from the State of Iowa. He had been previously
engaged and he heard about this. Those of us who know Tom Harkin know
what he does to protect the disabled. I know my friend from Ohio has
good intentions, but the disability community will never allow this to
happen, and they are right.
My friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, as some of us know, has
had casts on one leg and now the other leg. He has had some surgery on
his ankles. He has had to replace the Achilles tendons in both of his
legs. A cast broke, I think it was on his left leg--maybe it was his
right leg. I don't remember.
I talked to him this morning and he had to go to the emergency room
to get his cast replaced. I am waiting to hear from him. I have
explained this proposal in some detail to him and his staff, but he
hasn't had an opportunity to speak to his staff since he had to rush to
the emergency room--at least that is my understanding--so I am waiting
until he gets back.
The proposal Senator Reed has come up with extends unemployment
insurance through mid-November. The package does what the Republicans
wanted. It is entirely paid for. There are structural changes which
they have been demanding, and we have done that. It has reforms that
reduce slightly the number of weeks an unemployed person can remain on
the unemployment insurance, while all along preserving extending the
weeks of high-unemployment States.
The legislation proposed by Senator Jack Reed tightens the rules for
unemployment insurance. It would include a proposal, much like that
advocated by the Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman, that would prevent
people from collecting both unemployment insurance and disability
insurance at the same time. That is clear.
Much of this offset is simply an extension of the Murray-Ryan
agreement we all voted for--or a lot of us voted for earlier. This
provision would extend the sequester on mandatory programs for another
year. If Republicans have a complaint about this, don't call and
complain to Jack Reed. Call Paul Ryan. This is his. This is his idea--
maybe not on this specific issue, but this is his proposal, his idea.
We believe if it is good enough to help other proposals propounded by
my Republican friends in the House, it is good enough to help the
unemployed.
In this proposal, there has been a desire to address the concerns of
the Republicans and Democrats. Is it perfect? Of course not, but Jack
Reed has done a remarkably good job, and we believe this is a sound and
balanced proposal.
I would also say this takes care of it for the good part of this
year. I wish we could have done it until the first of the year. We
can't find enough money. I have been waiting here for more than 24
hours for a reasonable proposal by my Republican friends to pay for
this. We don't have one yet.
We are not going to strip the rights of people who have health
insurance, and we are certainly not going to go after little boys and
girls in America who have the child tax credit. There comes a time when
we have to move forward.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
Mr. PORTMAN. Is there objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, objection was heard.
The clerk will continue to call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I first of all appreciate everyone's
cooperation here--patience more than cooperation. We are doing our
best. I have already said what we are trying to do here, and I will
repeat just a part of it.
We have a proposal that is paid for. It is a pay-for that we have
used and it is something I think is totally valid. The original idea
came from Paul Ryan, but we have used it on another occasion. This has
nothing to change that original proposal except to extend it for 1
year. The proposal of my friend from Ohio--an issue he has alerted us
to--we think we have taken care of in this amendment. I think it is a
fine proposal, but the breadth of what he is trying to do is really
unfair and we can't do that. So we are doing our utmost.
We have structural changes in this. It is paid for--a pay-for for
almost to
[[Page S204]]
the first of the year, as much money as we are able to find. But we
have done everything the Republicans have wanted: It is paid for, there
are structural changes, and we have taken care of the double dipping of
those in the disability community on unemployment.
Amendment No. 2631
Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island
I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Reed of Rhode
Island, proposes an amendment numbered 2631.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment, Madam
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Amendment No. 2632 to Amendment No. 2631
Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 2632 to amendment No. 2631.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
This Act shall become effective 1 day after enactment.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion on the Reed of Rhode Island
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to
a close debate on amendment No. 2631 to S. 1845, a bill to provide for
the extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Jack Reed (RI), Martin Heinrich, Richard
Blumenthal, Michael F. Bennet, Richard J. Durbin, Patty
Murray, Max Baucus, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Amy
Klobuchar, Thomas R. Carper, Edward J. Markey,
Benjamain L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Charles E.
Schumer, Patrick J. Leahy.
Motion to Commit With Amendment No. 2633
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a motion to commit on S. 1845 and
it has instructions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the bill
to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report back
forthwith with an amendment numbered 2633.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Amendment No. 2634
Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 2634 to the instructions of the motion to commit S.
1845.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Amendment No. 2635 to Amendment No. 2634
Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 2635 to amendment No. 2634.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``4 days'' and insert ``5 days''.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1845, a bill to
provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits,
and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren,
Richard J. Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Edward J.
Markey, Tammy Baldwin, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher A.
Coons, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty Murray, Mark R.
Warner, Mazie K. Hirono, Christopher Murphy, Tom
Harkin, Sherrod Brown.
Mr. REID. Madam President, 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. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I tried to be recognized before the majority leader
decided to fill the tree, which means taking away the opportunity for
amendments to be offered--although there will be an attempt in a moment
to offer some. I am disappointed in that, because I think we were very
close to reaching an agreement which would have enabled us to move
forward with allowing Senators on both sides of the aisle to offer some
of their ideas on the unemployment insurance extension.
Recall. This is an important debate we are having for the American
people. It is about whether we go beyond the roughly 26 weeks in
unemployment insurance to having an emergency extension again. On this
side of the aisle, there were a few of us who, in fact, crossed over to
vote with the entire Democratic majority to say let's have that debate.
We thought we were doing so in good faith in that there would actually
be a debate on two issues. One is whether it should be paid for and how
it should be paid for, which I will address in a second, but second is
how we should reform the unemployment insurance program and do other
appropriate policies to get at the underlying problem, which is a
record level, a record number of Americans who are long-term
unemployed.
Clearly what we are doing isn't working, and we believe this is an
opportunity for us to help improve the program to actually address the
real problem. The President of the United States wants us to do that.
He called me on Monday and told me he had hoped we would be able to
address this issue by voting for the motion to proceed to begin the
debate so that over the next few months, while we had a short-term
extension of this program, there could be even more detailed
discussions about how to improve the legislation and how to add other
elements to it--specifically, on how to give people who are long-term
unemployed the skills they need to access the jobs that are available.
Unfortunately, we are not going to have that opportunity now, it
appears, to have the debate over how to pay for it, what the pay-fors
ought to be, and, again, how to improve the program.
But let me say this is unfortunate, because we had 60 votes to
proceed. That includes certainly three of us who are here on the floor
today, and all three of us are willing to move forward with this with a
reasonable provision to pay for this over the 3 months, and again,
during that period to come up with a better and improved unemployment
insurance program. We were not
[[Page S205]]
part of the discussion as to the pay-for that the majority leader has
just put forward.
I appreciate his good faith in wanting to include one of the
proposals I had in my amendment. I honestly do appreciate that. I will
say the offset he has put in, which I have just learned about because I
didn't have an opportunity to see until now, has an important
difference--a difference between what was just offered in the new
Democratic proposal and what is in my proposal. My proposal, which I
have come to the floor to talk about three times now, has been
previously proposed by the House. It says that if you get unemployment
insurance or you get trade adjustment assistance, then you also do not
receive Social Security disability insurance in that same month.
Why? Because these programs are mutually exclusive. If you are on
Social Security disability--SSDI--that means you are not working, by
definition. If you are working and lose your job, you are then
continuing to look for work and you get TAA. If you have lost your job
and you are continuing to look for work, which is required, you get
unemployment insurance.
This is why this same general program is laid out in the President's
budget, and in fact it is something I believe the administration
supports in others.
The proposal the Democrats included says that if you receive
unemployment insurance in the month you receive Social Security, then
your SSDI is reduced by the amount of unemployment insurance received.
Why does that matter? It is not the same. And it matters because the
proposal the majority leader has proposed it saves a lot less money.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, my proposal would save
about $5.4 billion; theirs, as I understand it from the distinguished
majority leader today, will save about $1 billion.
So again, I appreciate his wanting to include it, and I think it is
in the same spirit as the amendment I offered, but honestly we haven't
had the chance to talk about this. I tried today to sit down with the
Democratic sponsor of the underlying legislation, the other Senator
Reed, who in good faith said he wanted to talk about it, but we haven't
been able to schedule that. So we have not had the discussion. So we
are just learning today what is again the sort of take-it-or-leave-it
proposal that is in the majority leader's proposal in filling the tree.
There is a possibility, I think procedurally--and the majority has
expressed some interest in looking at this--in taking that agreement
and altering it somewhat over the next couple of days, because the
cloture would not ripen, as I understand it, until Monday afternoon,
but that still doesn't give all of our other colleagues a chance to
offer their good ideas, and there are a bunch of them out there.
The Senator from New Hampshire offered hers day before yesterday, and
she talked about it today on the floor, where she wants to take away
some of the existing missed payments that are in the child tax credit.
I would think all of us would want to do that--to preserve child tax
credits for those who are truly eligible. For those who are not
eligible, obviously, they shouldn't have access to it. It seems like a
sensible amendment to me. I am a cosponsor of that amendment.
Senator Coats raised his ideas today, and I think he has some good
ideas that ought to be debated.
So my hope is we would be able to go back to where we were prior to
filling the tree and to say let's have a discussion. It can be limited.
I think there are a very limited number of amendments.
I see the distinguished Republican whip on the floor, and he
indicated to me today there are something under 20 amendments offered
by the Republican side. I don't know how many of those have actually
been filed, but it seems to me we could have had a good debate on that
and still should.
So my hope is that we can come up with a solution here. I do think it
is going to require us providing some opportunity for other people to
be engaged, and specifically those who want to get to a solution, which
is a lot of people on this side of the aisle and that side of the
aisle--both sides of the aisle. Let's sit down and talk. We are adults.
We have been elected by millions of people to represent them, and it is
our responsibility, indeed our commitment to them, we would sit down
across the aisle and work these things out, as you would in any other
relationship--in your marriage, in your business, with your neighbors.
We had some discussion about this yesterday, that for some reason in
the Senate it seems we are unable to have even the most basic level of
discussion and debate. So I am open to that. I had hoped to do it
today. I put my ideas out there; parts of them have been accepted, and
I appreciate that, but, frankly, not the way we had laid it out in my
own amendment. I do believe, if we have the opportunity, if we were to
back up and to actually solve this problem, meaning to provide what the
President says he wants, which is a 3-month extension of long-term
unemployment, we can sit down, roll up our sleeves as Republicans and
Democrats, and come up with a better way to address what is a crisis in
this country, which is more long-term unemployed people than ever in
the history of our country.
Those people are hurting, and clearly the current system isn't
working. So to just extend it is not the answer. The answer is to allow
the Senate to do its job; that is, to reform these programs so they
work for the people we represent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. It is the same time and time again. Things are never quite
right. They want to offer amendments. We have been waiting here since
Monday for pay-fors. The only pay-for we have heard realistically to
take care of this is something everyone knows we disagree with--to take
away health care benefits from the American people.
The proposal by my friend from Ohio is not a good proposal. It hurts
people who are disabled, and that is the fact. We have stopped dual
payments. That is what our amendment does.
This is something we have been going through--the American people
have been going through now for years.
My friend worked with the senior Senator from New Hampshire on energy
efficiency. Now, if that wasn't quite a show. I had conversations on
numerous occasions: Yeah, we have it all taken care of. Republicans are
trying to move forward on this.
It went on for weeks and weeks. We never got anything done.
So we are where we are. Democrats don't need a memo to tell them to
have a good conscience about people who are disabled, to be
compassionate about people who are unemployed. We don't need a memo. We
know that people who are long-term unemployed are desperate for help.
We are compassionate. We don't need a memo to tell us that.
The American people want to know where we stand. Are we going to
extend unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for a
long time? That is the issue before this body. And we have bent over
backward, through Jack Reed, to come up with a proposal to pay for
this, to get rid of this issue for this year. We have structural
changes in this amendment. We have a pay-for which came from Paul Ryan,
the Republican Vice Presidential candidate this last election cycle. He
is chairman of the Budget Committee. So I think we have done a yeoman's
job through Jack Reed, we need to move on, and that is what we are
going to do.
If there is a proposal my friend has--and we know his expertise, but
the problem with his expertise is it is never quite right. It is almost
but not quite right.
So the time is now to fish or cut bait. And they can make all the
motions they want to try to complain about ``We didn't offer enough
amendments. We need to be more like the Senate used to be.'' Well, I
know what the Senate used to be because I was a used-to-be Senator, and
it doesn't work the way it used to not because of anything we do wrong
but because of the obstruction of President Obama's agenda. Every day
it is more obstruction.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask the distinguished majority leader
whether it is the position of his caucus and his position personally
that people ought to be able to collect unemployment compensation and
disability benefits simultaneously?
[[Page S206]]
Mr. REID. No. And that is why Jack Reed's proposal stops it.
Mr. CORNYN. I would further ask the majority leader, it is my
understanding that the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Ohio
would discontinue the simultaneous collection of disability and
unemployment benefits. But the majority leader objects to that
amendment and instead is blocking that amendment and other amendments
by the Republican side of the aisle by one which changes the effective
date of the bill 1 day. In other words, it is purely a blocker
amendment, has zero substance whatsoever, and does nothing to improve
the underlying bill.
Mr. REID. Is there a question in all of this?
Mr. CORNYN. Isn't that right?
Mr. REID. Is what right?
Mr. CORNYN. What I just said.
Mr. REID. No, it is not right, because what the amendment of the
Senator from Ohio does is hurt people who are disabled. Part of Jack
Reed's amendment stops people from drawing both benefits at the same
time.
Mr. CORNYN. I would ask the distinguished majority leader one more
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I would be happy to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Is the majority leader aware there are 24 Republican
amendments on file, almost all of which deal with the underlying bill
in an attempt to either improve workforce education and training,
provide other reforms to the unemployment compensation system, or
otherwise help the economy recover so that people won't have to depend
on unemployment insurance and they can get a job? Is the majority
leader aware that there are those amendments and those ideas on this
side of the aisle?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I don't know the exact number, but there are always a lot
of proposed amendments around. What I would say is this: Rather than
continually denigrating our economy, our President, and, frankly, I
believe, our country, I think we should have some more constructive
things around here.
For example, we had today a conversation for 1\1/2\ hours with
Chairman Bernanke. He is going to be there until the first of next
month. It was a very good discussion. He talked about the vibrancy of
this economy now. He said, as we have been saying here, it is not as
good as it should be, but with a little bit of help, it would be on
fire. Now, why isn't it on fire? Because of the obstruction over here.
As the Presiding Officer knows, the new Fed chair, Chairman Yellen,
has also said unemployment benefits are a great impetus in helping the
economy. For every $1 put into the economy in unemployment benefits, we
get $1.50 back.
This bill recognizes that these benefits don't go on forever. That is
why we make structural changes. We would be happy anytime to sit down
and have a good discussion with the senior Senator from Texas and
anyone else to talk about things we can do.
We have had a lot of programs that deal with job retraining. In 1998
when we did that, it wasn't a bad deal. Here it is all these many years
later, and of course we need to sit down and talk about ways to improve
retraining. This whole country needs that. That is also something
Chairman Bernanke said today.
So I repeat, let's start being constructive around here, and instead
of talking about how terrible things are, let's talk about how things
are improving. We have had 8 million new jobs since Obama has been
President. We have a lot of good things that have happened. Has it been
perfect? Not even close to perfect.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Of course.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is it the majority leader's intent to allow votes on
any Republican amendments?
Mr. REID. On what?
Mr. McCONNELL. On the bill we were just discussing.
Mr. REID. This is Thursday. We have been waiting since Monday to get
a proposal from the minority, the Republicans, as to what they believe
would be a good way to pay for this.
Nothing, other than whack ObamaCare. So the answer is that we are
where we are now. We have tried a number of different ways on many
different pieces of legislation to say, OK, let's just do germane
amendments. No. How about relevant amendments? No. How about having a
specific number of amendments and giving the minority more than the
majority? No, can't do that either. We want unlimited amendments on
everything. As a result of that, we have continued obstruction which
has taken place in this body for 5 years. It is time we get back to
legislating the way we used to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is the answer to my question, I would say to the
majority leader, no?
Mr. REID. The answer to the Senator's question is no.
Mr. McCONNELL. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I wish to make two corrections quickly
and then yield to my colleague from Indiana.
One is that the proposal I did offer had nothing to do with
ObamaCare, as I thought the majority leader understood, and others do
not, including the amendment from the Senator from New Hampshire. So we
do have a number of amendments and a number of good ideas. We had a
debate.
Second, it is in the President's budget. So if it is such a terrible
proposal, I am surprised the President would have proposed it.
Mr. REID. Would my friend yield for a question?
Mr. PORTMAN. Of course.
Mr. REID. Does the Senator also understand that in the President's
budget, he calls for revenue, does he not?
Mr. PORTMAN. Yes, he does. He calls for major tax increases.
Mr. REID. And my friend would also acknowledge that when Presidents
submit these budgets, don't they propose a budget rather than
nitpicking different pieces of the budget one at a time?
Mr. PORTMAN. The Senator is correct. After having put together a
budget myself, I would say you have to stand by all those policies. And
I think if we were to call on the Office of Management and Budget or
the Treasury Department, they would tell you they stand by these
proposals. So, yes, it is a package, but they put them in because they
think they are good policy.
So my point is that we have some good ideas not related to ObamaCare,
since that seems to be an objection by the majority leader, and I hope
we can work something out. I do think there is an opportunity for us to
do so. But I don't think we can do it unless there is a little bit of
give-and-take and some discussion, at least, which we have not been
able to have yet.
With that, I yield for my friend from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I will be brief. I know my colleagues
probably have travel plans. But this is something we had earnestly
hoped that by six of us supporting the motion to proceed, we would have
the opportunity to offer an amendment, debate that amendment, and have
our colleagues vote on that amendment.
For the majority leader to simply say--and I quote him: I have looked
at these amendments that Republicans have offered, and none of them are
reasonable.
Isn't that something this body is supposed to achieve by something
called a vote? Do we have one person here who runs the place and says:
I will decide whether your amendment is not reasonable. And if I decide
your amendment is reasonable, along with all the other 23, then we
won't have any vote or debate or the ability to offer any amendment
whatsoever.
I thought the way we settle things here as to whether this body
thought something was reasonable or helpful or might correct some of
the inequities which have been talked about here was decided by a vote
of 100 Senators. But it has been decided by the decision of one Senator
who has the power to do what he is doing. But this just perpetuates.
The majority leader said he has been waiting since Monday for
Republicans to offer a pay-for. I was down here Tuesday offering four
options to pay for.
I know the majority leader doesn't sit in the office and come to the
floor
[[Page S207]]
when I come down to speak or turn on the television, but I think his
staff would have told him: Well, Coats has four pay-fors.
And I said: I am not asking for all four, Mr. Leader. You select the
one you think best fits the thoughts and ideas and values of your
caucus.
So I put four out. The majority leader said we are delaying time. We
have been waiting for nearly 2 days now for the majority leader to make
up his mind in terms of what he wanted to do.
The three of us who were listed as surprise votes for the motion to
proceed weren't even asked to be part of any negotiations. We were
trying to look for a solution to the problem, come together and have
something to offer to our colleagues to vote on, but we weren't even
asked to be part of that.
So here we are. I am representing the people of Indiana. Their voice
is shut down. I don't even have the ability to offer an amendment,
which my constituents sent me here to do. They didn't send me here just
to be told: Sit down and forget it; one person decides. So I am very
disappointed.
With that, in the interest of time I ask unanimous consent to call up
my amendment No. 2611.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. If he will just withhold--and he can offer his amendment--I
do want to say this. We get nowhere with dueling amendments. We have
learned that in the past. Dueling amendments don't do the trick.
The issue is pronounced, it is here before us, and we went a step
further. In the past we haven't paid for this. Five times, President
Bush signed bills extending unemployment benefits not paid for.
Again, we have done a good job reducing the debt. We have a lot more
we can do, but we have reduced it almost $3 trillion already. The issue
now before us is are we going to extend benefits for people who have
been unemployed for a long time. That is the question. We bent over
backward to try to come up with a compromise, a bipartisan piece of
legislation. I repeat, it is paid for with a Paul Ryan pay-for. There
are structural changes. It is a pretty good deal. I am very
disappointed we are at a point now where we have been for 5 years.
Nothing is ever quite good enough. They always want more amendments.
They always want more amendments.
But the issue is before us. Is this body going to vote to extend
unemployment benefits paid for with Paul Ryan's pay-for and with
structural changes or are they going to turn their back on people who
are desperate?
Mr. COATS. Madam President, may I ask the majority leader to yield
for just one question?
Mr. REID. Sure.
Mr. COATS. The majority leader just said this body gets nowhere by
offering amendments. Does he mean throughout this year it is worthless,
meaningless for Republicans to offer any amendments to any bill to try
to make improvements to the bills or to try to make their voice heard
or the voice of the people I represent, the people of Indiana, heard on
this floor?
Mr. REID. My friend, the Senator from Indiana, is of those Senators
who used to be here when the good old times were here. We didn't have
``gotcha'' amendments. Every amendment offered, with rare exception, is
a ``gotcha'' amendment. That is not what we do here.
I have been waiting since Monday to get pay-fors as to how we can
extend unemployment benefits for people. They come up with stuff that
doesn't even pay for 3 months' worth of extensions. Amendments are
important, but I think we have to go back to the time when Senator
Coats was here the first time and start working together to get things
done in this body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, this is 100 percent different from the
time I was here the first time. We were able to offer any amendment to
any bill at any time and the majority leader, both Republicans and
Democrats, allowed us to do that. This is the first time I have had the
experience of not being able to offer an amendment.
I think I heard the majority leader object, but I was not sure. Did
he object to my unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The objection was heard.
Mr. REID. I was there, just like my friend. Things were different
then, they certainly were, because we did not have hundreds of
filibusters that would take place. Filibuster was something that was
used rarely. In those days would you ever filibuster the Secretary of
Defense or all the other Cabinet officers? Of course you would not.
That is why action had to be taken.
But what my Republican friends have to realize is that filibuster is
not a right, it is a privilege. It has been abused. My friend can
lecture me, and I am happy to listen to his many lectures, but I was
here. I know how things used to work and what has gone on in the last 5
years would never have taken place in those days.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. He brings up the Secretary of Defense frequently. Was
the Secretary of Defense defeated or confirmed?
Mr. REID. No, he was only delayed while we had two wars going on in
this country.
Mr. McCONNELL. Has a member of the President's Cabinet ever been
defeated on a filibuster in the history of the Senate?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in response to the question of my friend, in
fact what has happened--and we find this with the judges--they stall
for weeks, months, and sometimes years. When the vote comes it is
pretty good, but in the meantime they have done significant damage to
this institution and our country by stalling and making it so the
President of the United States has a very difficult time doing his job
because he doesn't have his people there when he needs them.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask my friend, the majority leader, then is what he
finds offensive the fact that there are debates about these matters?
Since none of these members are being defeated, what is the issue? I am
having a hard time understanding it. Is it the fact that there is
controversy, that there is debate? Since none of them are being
defeated, is he also suggesting we have no controversy about anybody
sent by the President of the United States?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, of course that is a question that is a great
big softball--of course not. We need debate. We need good, strong
debate about nominations and everything else. But what we don't need is
hours and days and weeks and months of obstruction. That is what we
have here.
My friend, the Republican leader, is picturing to everyone within the
sound of his voice something that doesn't exist. There has been
obstruction that has been carried to an extent that no one ever dreamed
would happen in this great Republic.
That is what the objection is. The objection is to obstruction. Was
it only a debate when my Republican colleagues decided the DC Circuit--
some say the most important court in this country, even, some say, more
important than the Supreme Court--when they decided there were vacant
seats there and for 5 years held up filling those seats? Is that a
debate? No. It is obstruction.
If we turn to the dictionary and look up ``obstruction,'' they would
point right over here.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for another question?
Since he has conceded that no Cabinet members have been defeated
prior to the decision of the majority leader to break the rules of the
Senate to change the rules of the Senate, is it not the case that 215
of President Barack Obama's judges have been confirmed and only 2 have
been defeated?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the time we have been a country, and
I don't know exactly long it has been, more than 230 years--I can't
come up with it this second--there have been 23 district court nominees
filibustered. Twenty of them have been during the 5 years of the Obama
administration, and that example is throughout the government.
The American people know what is taking place in this body. They can
try to paint over a picture that things are just fine, all we are doing
is wanting a
[[Page S208]]
little bit of debate. There has been stalling, obstruction that is
untoward and never considered. I just can't imagine how my Republican
colleagues can justify what they have done. But they do. I accept that.
But we have an issue before this body. Again, they are trying to
divert attention and go to how many amendments, what are the rules. The
issue before this body is whether the long-term unemployed get an
extension of their benefits. As we speak, there are people all over
this country who are desperate to be able to get $300 a week to be able
to survive for another week, hoping they will find a job. The sad part
about that--my friends say we need to do something about making sure
these people fill these vacant jobs. There are lots of places people
find work. For every job opening there are three people unemployed
trying to find a job.
I have answered the question to the best of my ability.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Indiana had a consent
request? Oh, I wanted my friend from Indiana to know I was not trying
to object to something he has a right to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, let me just say I share in the comments of
my colleague from Indiana and my colleague from Ohio. The three of us
voted in good faith to debate this bill. I did so because I thought we
should try to debate this issue; that both sides, if they had an idea
about how to pay for this in a responsible way, we should bring it
forward. When I hear the majority leader say I have been waiting since
Monday, I filed an amendment on Tuesday. That amendment is
straightforward. That amendment is one that would fix fraud in our Tax
Code that came to light in 2011 in a Treasury IG report. What it would
simply require is those who seek the additional child tax credit to
file a Social Security number just like those who seek the earned-
income tax credit in this country.
Why is that? Because the investigations of this tax refund people
receive found they were claiming it for people who, No. 1, were
basically not authorized to work in this country but were claiming it
and, second, for children who may not even exist. Investigations found
that for children who do not even live in this country. So a
commonsense amendment that--by the way, would it pay for it? It would
pay for 3 months of unemployment insurance for American workers and for
this issue we have before this Chamber. It would pay for it to fix the
military retirement cuts to the COLAs--that also impacted our wounded
warriors--that were done in the most recent budget that were unfair,
that Members of both sides of the aisle have come together to say we
should fix and agree it is unfair.
What else would it do? It would reduce the deficit. What I hear from
the majority leader is: I hear that idea. We have heard that before.
You may have heard it before, but we have not been allowed a vote on
it.
Are they so afraid of having a vote on something such as this that
the people of New Hampshire whom I represent can't get a vote on,
trying to fix this abuse in our Tax Code, on trying to solve this issue
pending on the floor and to pay for it so we do not add to our $17
trillion in debt?
By the way, is it so unreasonable? I happened to sign a letter from a
Member of the Democratic conference who, after the Treasury IG report
was issued that I am citing, was equally as concerned as I am about
this abuse in the Tax Code, in fact, described it as improper payments
and said it seemed reasonable to presume that unauthorized workers were
not eligible for this tax credit and called on the Commissioner of the
IRS--this is a respected Member of the Democratic conference who
expressed concerns about it. That Member said: ``We need to stop these
unauthorized payments immediately.''
That was in 2011 and we cannot even get a vote on this? We can
reasonably disagree, but the only way we can express those
disagreements in this body, as my colleagues have said, is to be
allowed to vote and to be able to represent our States and to get votes
on amendments.
With that, I will ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No.
2603.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, talk about fiddling while Rome burns. If
you are one of the 1.3 million people in this country, 222,000 in my
State, whose house is burning down because they are going to lose the
safety net of $300 a week to feed their family, to take care of their
kids, to heat their homes, and my colleague talks about letters? I will
tell you about a letter I got from a woman who sets her thermostat at
55 degrees and she has a 2-year-old and a 1-year-old, and all they do
on that side is complain that their amendments, they are so important--
24 of them. They know they are all partisan.
We are trying to work on a bipartisan solution. Somebody explain to
me why the Republicans never objected to extending unemployment so many
times when George W. Bush was President. Not a one. It was fine.
So do we make economic policy by who is in the White House or by the
needs of our people?
This idea of going after children is one of the worst ideas I have
ever heard, and I am shocked. I am shocked. You are going to hurt
children. You are going to take food out of their mouths. It is
outrageous. If there are abuses, I say to my friend, put those people
in jail.
If there were one corrupt Senator--and there could be and there might
be and there was in the past--and every one of us got painted with that
brush, which is what the Senator did in her speech, is to taint every
poor child who happens to benefit from that credit. Let us not go down
that partisan route. Let us support our leader and let us work through
the weekend to come up with a plan. I think the majority leader has
one.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would say, first of all, I voted in good
faith, one of six Republicans, to debate this bill to solve this
problem. I cannot get a vote. If the Senator from California objects to
this amendment, then why don't we vote on it? This is nothing about
protecting children--unless the Senator is trying to protect children
who may not exist or trying to protect children who do not live in the
United States of America. This is about protecting abuse within the Tax
Code which, again--I have a letter from a Member of her caucus who
recognized this problem as well, based on a Treasury IG report done
during this administration. This amendment is about protecting the
American taxpayer, and the American taxpayer needs some protection in
this body when it comes to tax fraud.
Let me say that we need to be able to have votes on behalf of our
States and on behalf of the American people, and if we disagree, let's
vote them down. I don't see what the issue is unless they are worried
it is going to pass because it just makes too much sense.
I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct that no Senator is
permitted to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance bill
while the majority leader's motion to commit with instructions with
further amendments is pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Ms. AYOTTE. I have a further parliamentary inquiry. If a motion to
table the Reid motion to commit with a further amendment is successful,
would there still be Reid amendments pending that would prevent me from
offering my amendment or any of my colleagues from offering their
amendments which would pay for this and improve it and try to address
the problems we are supposed to be debating on this floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Ms. AYOTTE. I have an important amendment, and that amendment would
fix the abuse within the Tax Code that has been identified by a
Treasury IG report and subsequent investigations. My amendment would
pay for this 3-month unemployment extension for American workers--those
who are struggling to find work. It is an amendment that would fix the
unfair cuts to our military retirees and
[[Page S209]]
wounded warriors. I am concerned about the $17 trillion in debt and
what it will do to the future of our children and this country, and
this amendment would reduce the deficit as well.
I would ask for a vote on my amendment, amendment No. 2603, but in
order for the Senate to consider my important amendment and amendments
that my colleagues have talked about--and I hope amendments on the
other side that we should be voting on--I move to table the pending
Reid motion to commit with instructions, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Moran), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--54
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Casey
Coburn
Moran
Paul
The motion was rejected.
NOMINATION OF ROBERT LEON WILKINS TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote
by which cloture was not invoked on the nomination of Robert Leon
Wilkins to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey)
and the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) are necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--41
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--6
Boxer
Casey
Coburn
Inhofe
Moran
Paul
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________