[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.

                          ____________________