[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 7-15]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF JANET L. YELLEN TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 
                     OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Janet L. Yellen, of California, 
to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                            Gun Legislation

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I hope we will confirm Janet Yellen 
later today.
  I come to the floor for a few minutes to do what I have done most 
weeks since the failure of this Senate to pass commonsense gun 
legislation in the spring of 2013, to talk about the number of 
Americans who have lost their lives due to gun violence. That number 
stands today at 12,041. Over 12,000 people have died at the hands of 
gun violence since December 14, which of course is the day in which 20 
6-year-olds and 7-year-olds and 6 teachers and professionals who were 
protecting them lost their lives in Newtown, CT.
  This is probably the last time we will have the chance to display 
this particular number because the Web site which has been totalling 
this is going to stop doing so. It is probably a good thing in this 
respect: Once that 1 became a crooked number, we weren't going to have 
room on this poster any longer; and at some point in the middle of next 
year, the 1 would click up to a 2 and we would be over 20,000 people 
killed due to guns. Frankly, this doesn't even count the suicides. This 
is just the people who have died as a result of gun homicides, and the 
number just goes up and up at a rate which is hard to comprehend.
  So I wish to speak for a few minutes about a few of the 
representative victims we have seen across the country in the last 
year, which make up just a small subset of the 12,000 people, and I 
hope maybe one of these days it will inspire this place to action.
  I was at the swearing in of the new mayor of New Haven on New Year's 
Day. Toni Harp is the first female mayor of New Haven, the 50th mayor 
of New Haven, and she will inherit a city being absolutely ravaged by 
gun violence--20 gun homicides in the last year and 67 shootings. Each 
one of them hurts, but the last one was particularly devastating.
  Javier Martinez died on December 28, 2013. Javier attended a local 
high school focused on learning about and protecting the environment, 
Common Ground High School. He was described as one of the most 
outstanding participants in the 20-year history of a program put on 
through the school whereby kids spent part of their summer on Block 
Island, a little island in between Connecticut and Rhode Island, where 
they work to eliminate invasive species and spread the environmental 
gospel to visitors to that small island.
  He was beloved by his family and by his friends. He was thinking of 
becoming an arborist or environmental scientist. His community--in 
particular, his pretty, sleepy neighborhood in which this shooting 
happened--has been absolutely torn apart through the loss of Javier--
Bebo, as he was called by his grandparents.
  He is one of 20 people in New Haven, CT, who were lost. Twelve of the 
20 were under 30 years old. Eleven of them were men; 17 of them were 
African American. That is the story in New Haven. It is young African 
American males who are dying almost every week as part of the 12,041.
  Just a couple of months earlier, John Allen Read died in Texas due to 
a gunshot wound. What makes John Allen Reed exceptional is that he was 
5 years old. He is one of dozens of accidental gun deaths happening all 
across this country.
  He and his 6-month-old sibling were in the care of a regular baby 
sitter, but a baby sitter who feared for her safety so she carried a 
gun with her. But she left the gun on a table and fell asleep. The 5-
year-old got the gun. When she woke up to try to find the kids, she 
found John dead with a fatal gunshot wound.
  We heard the stories all throughout 2013. I don't know whether 
statistically there were more in 2013 than in previous years. But 
because we don't require much if any training before buying a gun, we 
have young baby sitters leaving guns unattended with these absolutely 
devastating results.
  How about 4 months before that in Seattle, where Molly Conley, a 15-
year-old, a great goalie on her high school team, a straight-A student, 
was killed while she was walking back with friends after celebrating 
her recent birthday at a sleepover. Detectives believe a shooter opened 
fire on Molly Conley and her group of friends.
  Her nickname was ``4.0'' because she was such a good student. ``She 
always smiled. She gave people smiles, and she was joyful and kind. She 
had a generous spirit,'' said Molly's mother.
  Molly, John, and Javier are just three of the voices of victims we 
need to start talking about on the floor, because if the statistics 
don't seem to be moving people to action, maybe the stories will.
  As I hope we will this year, let's be realistic about what we can and 
can't do. I have come here every week to talk about the stories of the 
people who have died at the hands of guns. I understand there is no law 
that is going to completely eradicate gun violence, and I understand 
that there is no one solution at hand which will have a radical 
transformation overnight.
  I believe this is about gun laws. But I also understand it is about 
better mental health treatment. I also understand it is about a culture 
of violence. I also understand it is about a sense of hopelessness felt 
by a lot of kids in poor neighborhoods which leads them to violence as 
a way of solving common, everyday disputes.
  So I am ready on the floor of the Senate to have a real, sober, 
dispassionate argument about what we can do together this year to try 
to make sure this number in 2014 is just a little bit lower than it was 
in 2013.
  With that in mind, I will leave us with this one last story, and that 
is the story of Zina Daniel.
  Zina Daniel took out a restraining order on her husband after years 
of violence and abuse. Police were reportedly

[[Page 8]]

called to this home dozens of times. Her husband was upset about that 
restraining order, and knowing that he couldn't get a gun at a retailer 
because he wouldn't pass a background check, he went online to 
Armslist. Within hours he found a seller who would supply to him a .40 
caliber Glock handgun, which he picked up in a McDonald's parking lot 
for $500 cash. The next day, he went into Zina's workplace, and he 
murdered her and two other women. He injured four others.
  Zina's brother said this:

       I'm a gun owner, a hunter and a member of the National 
     Rifle Association. I believe in the Second Amendment, but I 
     also believe in sensible gun laws. I've seen how devastating 
     gun violence can be. And I know that Radcliffe never should 
     have been able to buy a gun online without a background 
     check. A background check would have saved my sister's life.

  I don't know what we will be able to get done this year. I don't know 
if there are 60 votes in the Senate for the kind of expansion of 
background checks that many of us, including Zina's brother, would like 
to see. But let's not let the whole year go by without at least some 
attempt among Senators of good will on both sides of the aisle, so that 
when this number does come back up at the end of 2014, it is just a 
little bit lower.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                       Unemployment Compensation

  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss an issue that 
has been in the forefront of the minds of many Americans ringing in the 
new year; that is, extending benefits for the unemployed--something 
that is important, of course, for a lot of Americans.
  Before I begin, I wish to thank my colleague, my friend from Rhode 
Island, Senator Jack Reed, for his hard work and effort on this behalf 
as we and our staffs worked together to get this proposal moved forward 
for today's vote.
  I hope that my friends and colleagues in the Senate enjoyed their 
holidays and that everyone returned refreshed and ready to tackle some 
of the tough issues we have here in 2014.
  Unfortunately, while Congress was in recess, approximately 17,000 
Nevadans greeted the new year not with optimistic expectations of a 
fresh start but with the anxiety of how they are going to feed their 
families and perhaps even pay their utility bills. When Congress left 
Washington, DC, in December, a lot of important matters were left 
undone and expired. As a result, millions of Americans were left with 
no idea whether their unemployment benefits were going to be fixed 
retroactively--something that has become, of course, all too common for 
this Congress to do.
  Helping those in need should not be a partisan issue. Providing a 
limited social safety net is one of the responsibilities of the Federal 
Government. Unfortunately, instead of planning ahead and figuring out 
the best way to do that, we are now forced to decide whether to 
reinstate these benefits after they have expired.
  We should provide some relief to the millions of Americans who were 
left hanging when Congress went home in December and temporarily extend 
unemployment benefits for the next 3 months. It is the right thing to 
do. That short period will help these families whose benefits expired 
abruptly while Congress works out a long-term solution that provides 
Americans with some certainty and is fiscally responsible.
  I understand my colleagues' concerns about the cost and their desire 
to pay for this extension. I too want to see our Federal debt brought 
under control. I think my voting record is proof of that concern.
  I too believe Congress should be more focused on passing laws that 
actually help create jobs. Growing our economy should be the primary 
focus and concern of this body. As a Senator of the State that leads 
the Nation in unemployment, believe me, I understand the importance of 
refocusing on jobs. I would rather be down here today discussing 
innovative ways to create jobs instead of the need to extend 
unemployment benefits yet again. But because of this administration and 
even some of the choices of this body, unfortunately, our economy is 
not growing quickly enough and many Americans are still hurting, 
including a lot of Nevadans.
  My State is struggling. I have repeated often on this floor that 
Nevada consistently tops the chart in unemployment, bankruptcies, and 
foreclosures. The statistics are surely revealing. But more startling 
is the obvious increase in impoverished Nevadans whom I meet when I go 
home. I would like to share an example.
  Every Thanksgiving one or two of my children join me in serving 
Thanksgiving dinner to folks in Reno who are in need and cannot cook a 
Thanksgiving meal for themselves. This year my daughter Emmy, who is in 
her freshman year in college, joined me in this experience. Every year 
that dinner sees more and more attendees. Every year the number of 
individuals and families who need help increases. This year the venue 
was absolutely packed. When my daughter and I arrived, the line outside 
the venue was four blocks long. It is such an obvious example of how so 
many Nevadans are unable to provide for their basic needs, and this 
cannot be ignored.
  I know many economists point to a national unemployment rate that is 
improving, but at home we do not feel it. The unemployment rate in 
Nevada has consistently far exceeded the national average. In fact, the 
Silver State has led the Nation for the past 3 years in unemployment. 
The result is, of course, that people in Nevada are really hurting.
  It is difficult to stand here in the Nation's Capital--an area that 
has largely felt little negative impact of the recession--and describe 
just how tough times are for so many of my constituents. At these 
Thanksgiving dinners, I hear about the choices individuals are forced 
to make--whether to buy gas for their car or pay for heat in the frigid 
northern Nevada winters or buy school supplies for their children or 
perhaps save for the future.
  These are hard-working individuals who rely on these benefits. They 
are trying to find jobs. They want to provide for their children. But 
for these benefits to simply vanish without giving families the time to 
plan or figure out alternatives to help them get by is just not right.
  I too understand the concerns about the cost of these benefits. I 
would prefer to see them paid for in a manner that does not burden our 
Nation with more debt. I have previously introduced legislation that 
would do just that, legislation that would extend unemployment benefits 
while still paying for them. At the time I introduced my legislation as 
an alternative to a more costly bill because I think it is important to 
bring down our Nation's debt.
  I am ready to work with my colleagues to introduce similar 
legislation again this year, but in the meantime I propose that we pass 
this short-term extension now. That would allow Congress the 
opportunity to spend the next 3 months debating how to pay for these 
benefits in the future or perhaps how much longer they should be 
extended. Those are important questions worthy of more debate. But in 
the meantime, Congress simply must provide some temporary relief for 
those who are unemployed.
  Paying for these benefits would be the best approach. Congress could 
have taken the harder road to figure out the way to do that before 
departing for the holiday break and leaving millions of Americans 
hanging, but it did not. So let's pass this short-term extension and 
focus on a more fiscally responsible solution for the longer term.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                             Global Warming

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think we are going to have a lot of 
discussions on the floor concerning a

[[Page 9]]

number of things that happened in the last couple of weeks, not the 
least of which is what is going on in Antarctica right now, and the 
fact that some people had to be lifted out of there.
  It is kind of interesting, and I don't want anyone to misunderstand 
me and think that I am reviving a lot of the previous interest 
concerning the issue of global warming for any reason other than the 
fact that right now, after it has been determined, without any doubt, 
that the House and Senate would never pass anything like cap and trade, 
the President is attempting to do through regulation what he could not 
do through legislation. What I am concerned about is the expense, and 
in a minute I will talk about the cost of these issues.
  We have a real serious problem in this country. People are concerned 
about the spending and about what is happening with our military. They 
are concerned about a lot of issues, but the cost of the overregulation 
that has taken place in our society is overlooked quite often.
  If you ask anyone associated with the farm bureau or anyone in the 
agricultural community what their major problem is, they will tell you 
it is the overregulation by the Environmental Protection Agency that is 
really making it difficult for them to survive. It is the same thing 
with manufacturers, producers, and others. When we look at the crown 
jewel of all regulations, it is cap and trade. Cap and trade would 
constitute the largest tax increase in the history of this country.
  I think it is kind of interesting that what is happening right now up 
in the Antarctic is something that has been happening for quite a long 
period of time. While there has been a concerted effort of people who 
believe that global warming is taking place and that we are all going 
to die, and all of that, at the same time the evidence out there is 
almost laughable.
  In January of 2004, when Al Gore held a global warming rally in New 
York City, I remember that it was one of the coldest days in New York 
City in its history. In March of 2007, a Capitol Hill media briefing on 
the Senate climate bill was canceled due to a snowstorm. In April of 
2007, global warming rallies were greeted by unseasonable snow, and as 
a result several of them were canceled. In October of 2007, Gore's 
global warming speech at Harvard University coincided with temperatures 
that nearly broke a 125-year temperature record. In October of 2007, 
the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming 
during London's first October snowfall since 1932.
  In December 2008, Al Gore spoke to an audience in Milan, Italy--by 
the way, I attended that meeting--about global warming, and outside it 
was snowing, which is a rare event for that area. Snow and freezing 
rain also struck Rome, Naples, Palermo, and Sicily.
  A lot of people are not aware that among those who were responsible 
for the whole global warming movement was the United Nations. It was an 
effort--I will not go into it now unless it becomes appropriate and I 
have more time to talk about it. But the United Nations has one big 
party every year--usually in December--and it is what we call the 
global warming party. It is where all the countries come to attend, and 
they have all-you-can-eat and all-you-can-drink. It is the biggest 
party of the year.
  I can remember going to one of these annual parties when there was 
someone from Benin, which is a Sub-Saharan African country. I went up 
to this person and said: You can't tell me you believe all this stuff. 
The whole idea was to have the 192 countries that go to this party 
every year believe global warming is taking place, and we are all going 
to have to stop doing things to try to preclude it from happening, and 
that would destroy our economies. His response was: Oh, no, but this is 
the biggest party of the year.
  That took place, as I said, in Milan, Italy in 2008. I always 
remember that one because they had my picture on telephone poles saying 
``Wanted.'' I saved several of those and brought them back to the 
United States so I could distribute it to the people who were enjoying 
it quite a bit. Anyway, the meeting in Milan was about global warming. 
Yet there were records set on snowfall and freezing rain.
  In March of 2009, Nancy Pelosi--at that time she was the Speaker of 
the House--had a big global warming rally that was supposed to be the 
largest one that had ever taken place in this country, and it was 
snowed out.
  In February of 2010, the Senate EPW, Environment and Public Works 
Committee--at that time I was the ranking member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee--had a hearing entitled ``The Global Warming 
Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States,'' and it was 
canceled due to a major snowstorm. This goes on and on.
  One thing that is not on the list, which should be on this list, is 
what happened in Copenhagen in 2009, and that was the annual party of 
the United Nations. I remember it so well because people were trying to 
go over there and say that the United States of America was going to 
pass cap and trade, and that we would encourage all of them to do it. I 
am going from memory now, but I am quite sure that Secretary of State 
Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John Kerry were all 
there. At that time, John Kerry was a Member of the Senate. All of them 
assured these people--these 191 countries--that we were going to pass 
cap and trade.
  I went all the way over and all the way back to spend 3 hours on the 
ground--and I have to say it was probably the most enjoyable 3 hours I 
ever spent--to tell them that under no circumstance was the United 
States going to pass the largest tax increase in history based on 
trying to stop--something they were calling at that time--global 
warming. The 191 countries which attended that meeting had one thing in 
common, and that was that they all hated me.
  Nonetheless, I was telling them the truth, and they tried to pass it 
again and again. There probably aren't 35 votes in the Senate right now 
that would vote for a cap-and-trade bill which would constitute the 
largest tax increase in the history of this country.
  All of that had taken place over a long period of time, and now we 
are up to 2013 and 2014. In November, President Obama issued an 
executive order on climate change stating ``excessively high 
temperatures'' are ``already'' harming natural resources, economies, 
and public health nationwide.
  I guess if you say something long enough, sooner or later people are 
going to believe it because they assume if the President says it, it 
must be true.
  On January 6, AccuWeather issued a warning that a ``blast of arctic 
air will deliver some of the coldest weather in 20 years'' to the 
midsection of the United States.
  Meteorologist Ryan Maue of Florida said about the historic cold 
outbreak: ``If you're under 40 [years old], you've not seen this stuff 
before.''
  The National Weather Service reported that the temperature at 
Chicago's O'Hare International Airport hit 16 degrees below zero on 
January 6, breaking the negative 14-degree record in 1884. This makes 
Chicago colder than the South Pole where it was 11 degrees below zero. 
The average temperature in the United States on January 6 was 12.8 
degrees.
  I say all of this because this is kind of a predicate to what is 
happening now. On November 27, the research expedition to gauge the 
effect of climate change on Antarctica began. This was in the news 
today.
  On December 24, the day before Christmas, a Russian ship carrying 
climate scientists, journalists, tourists, and crew members for the 
expedition became trapped in deep ice up to 10-feet thick. An 
Australian icebreaker was sent to rescue the ship, but on December 30 
efforts were suspended due to bad weather.
  On January 2, a Chinese icebreaker--and here come the Chinese now--
called the Xue Long, sent a helicopter that airlifted 52 passengers 
from the Russian ship to safety to the Australian icebreaker. The 
Chinese vessel is now also stuck in ice along with the Russian vessel. 
There are 22 Russian crew

[[Page 10]]

members who are still on board the Russian ship, and an unreported 
number of crew members remain on the Chinese ship.
  On January 5, the U.S. Coast Guard was called to assist the ships 
which were stuck in the Antarctic.
  That is what is happening today. Let's go back and relive a little 
bit of history when I was under a lot of criticism because I was 
opposed to assertions by Al Gore which the New York Times said might 
arguably be the first environmental billionaire.
  In December 2008, Gore said, ``The entire North Polarized cap will 
disappear in five years.'' It is 5 years later, and it hasn't 
disappeared yet. In fact, we have been reading about it.
  On December 13, the BBC reported that the Arctic ice cap coverage is 
``close to 50% more than in the corresponding period of 2012,'' which 
means it has increased by 50 percent over this period of time. That 
means it is increasing by 50 percent over this period of time. This is 
the same icecap Al Gore said was going to disappear 5 years ago.
  President Obama, in May of this last year: ``The climate is warming 
faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.''
  To contrast with The Economist, they said: ``Over the past 15 years, 
air temperatures on the Earth's surface have been flat. . . . ''
  Gina McCarthy, recently sworn in as the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, said: ``Extreme weather events are 
proof enough for me to show why action is necessary.''
  We are talking about action on CO2.
  According to preliminary reports, 2013 turned out to be one of the 
least extreme weather years on record, which is right after she made 
that statement. But the one I enjoyed so much was--I have a lot of 
respect for Gina's predecessor, Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson came in as 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I remember 
her very well because I asked her the question--keep in mind she was 
appointed by President Obama. Her job is to make people think global 
warming is taking place and all of these extreme things are going to 
happen. I asked her the question: In the event that we did the action--
at that time, there were two or three cap-and-trade bills offered in 
the House and in the Senate. So I said: Let's assume one of these bills 
passes. Would this reduce CO2 worldwide? Her reaction was: 
No, because this is just in the United States. This is not where the 
problem is.
  So by their own admission, even if we were to sustain the economic 
disaster we would have to have in the event we passed one of these 
bills, it would not impact or reduce the levels of CO2.
  The other recent study--15 year pause--from Nature magazine, said:

       For this period, [1998-2012], the observed trend of 
     [temperatures] is . . . not significantly different from zero 
     [and] suggests a temporary `hiatus' in global warming.

  This is a publication that was kind of leading the charge at one 
time.
  So we see these things that are happening and we see that even 
though, time and time again, just the reverse is true, that we are 
going through this thing--I always have to go from memory when I go 
back. I remember the earlier years of this, some 12 years ago when they 
were looking at the Kyoto treaty. We remember the Kyoto treaty, I say 
to the Presiding Officer, which was an agreement we would sign on to--
an international treaty, the Kyoto treaty--and we would agree to reduce 
all the CO2 in this country and all of that. Of course, that 
didn't happen, but the cost was discussed at that time. I remember back 
when Republicans were in the majority, I chaired the committee called 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and some 12 years ago, 
about the time of Kyoto, I believed it was true--everybody said global 
warming was coming and we were all going to die. So I assumed it was 
true until I started exploring a little bit and hearing quietly from 
some of the scientists who said: Look. The whole thing is rigged and 
the science is not the same as the United Nations would have us 
believe. So one by one they started coming forth. I stood at this 
podium for about a 3-year period and started naming all of the 
scientists who said the U.N. scientists, the IPCC, were not being 
honest and that they had their own agenda they were trying to support. 
At that time, a group of several universities--MIT was one of them, the 
Wharton School--a lot of their scientists said what the cost would be 
if we were to pass global warming legislation that had been proposed. 
It would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.
  Now, $300 billion to $400 billion a year, yes, that would constitute 
the largest tax increase. I took this to my State of Oklahoma. I did my 
calculation as I always do. I get the number of people who file Federal 
tax returns and have them pay taxes and it would be about $3,000 a year 
per family. Yet, by their own admission, as Lisa Jackson said, it would 
not reduce overall temperatures, even if one believes that is a 
problem, which I don't.
  Anyway, the cost--Charles River came along with a very similar cost--
$350 billion a year. So with all of those costs, we wanted to look at 
it and see if, in fact, the science was there, and we determined it was 
not.
  If we look at the regulations at the EPA right now--the National 
Association of Manufacturers has a cumulative impact study, not 
including ozone or the greenhouse gases, of $630 billion annually and 
some 9 million jobs lost. As per the regulations for ozone, 77 counties 
would be out of attainment in my State of Oklahoma and 7 million jobs 
lost. That is all of our counties. That means we would have job losses 
in all of those. Utility MACT, that cost is $100 billion, and that has 
already been implemented. That affected all the coal States in a major 
way. The Boiler MACT cost would be $63 billion. I mentioned the BLM. 
The hydraulic fracking regulations would cost about $100,000 per well. 
That is an increase everyone else would have to pay in terms of 
producing right now. Greenhouse gas costs would be between $300 billion 
and $400 billion, as I mentioned before.
  If we just take these regulations--the list is a lot longer than 
that, but this is a huge issue. This is the major problem we are having 
with the economy right now. Nobody seems to understand it. No one seems 
to care. I think that a time to bring this up as an issue is right now 
because of what is happening, what has been publicized recently, so it 
is our intention to continue to do that.
  This has been a relentless 4\1/2\-, 5-year war the President has on 
fossil fuels. It is not just coal, but it is coal, oil, gas, and other 
fossil fuels. The sad part of this is we could be completely 
independent from all other countries--certainly from the Middle East--
from any other country in terms of supplying our own energy in this 
country. All we would have to do is do the same thing--allow drilling 
exploration on Federal public lands as we are doing throughout the 
country. Right now, we have had a 40-percent surge, increase, in 
exploration and in production in this country, and at the same time we 
have had a 40-percent increase overall. That is on State land and on 
private land. We have had a reduction on Federal land. So we have an 
exclusion to the problem there, and I think one of the things we can do 
to help people understand is to let them know that what they have been 
listening to--what the EPA has been telling our people, what our kids 
are learning in school on global warming--people are now realizing this 
is something that is not factual.
  We are so inundated right now with problems. We have problems in 
Afghanistan. We have problems with our foreign policy in the Middle 
East. We are all concerned about the problems around the world. The 
area people aren't talking about is the cost of overregulation in 
America that is doing probably as much damage as all the rest of the 
problems are doing at this time.
  So I only wish to submit for the Record that some things are 
happening today that I think the American people need to look at. I 
think those statements made, which I will come to the floor and talk 
about later on, from 10 years ago are now becoming a reality.

[[Page 11]]

  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Unemployment Compensation

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there is no doubt our employment 
situation in America is not good. Unemployment remains consistently 
high long after the administration has told us the recession is over. 
The growth that has been projected year after year has not been at the 
level the experts had projected. CBO has missed the growth levels. The 
Federal Reserve has missed the growth levels. We have come in below 
that consistently. Growth is not where we need it to be; there is no 
doubt about it. So we have a serious unemployment situation.
  Perhaps the most grim concept we need to be well aware of is that 
workforce participation; that is, the percentage of Americans in the 
working age group who are actually working is lower today than at any 
time since the 1970s. That is a stunning statistic. Not since women 
entered the workforce in large numbers have we seen such low workforce 
participation numbers.
  I believe, first and foremost, that an unemployment extension bill is 
treating the symptoms of the problem. It is an aspirin for a fever, but 
the fever has been raging for weeks now. Something is causing it, and 
we need to deal with the cause of it rather than continuing to treat 
the symptoms. I think that is so important for us to remember.
  Also, this Nation is struggling economically for a number of reasons.
  One of them clearly is the size of our debt. Our debt is so large--
$17-plus trillion--now that it is causing uncertainty in the economic 
markets. We have to get our spending under control. We have to do that. 
Every time we have a desire to do something good, we cannot continue to 
borrow the money to pay for it.
  The unemployment bill that is before us today makes no attempt 
whatsoever to find spending reductions in other areas of this 
monstrosity of a government but borrows every penny of it. They say it 
is $6 billion. Well, it is $6 billion for 90 days--3 months. It is $26 
billion over the full year. That is a huge sum of money.
  We just had a big dispute over cutting retirement pay that our 
military people have earned, and it was a dispute over $4 billion. That 
was over 10 years--$4 billion over 10 years. This is $6 billion over 3 
months. So this is a lot of money, and effort should have been made to 
try to find offsetting reductions in wasteful spending that occur 
throughout here before we go again to treat a symptom of a disease.
  But the tragedy is--the tragedy is--that the policies of this 
administration are driving this poor growth record. It just is. First 
and foremost, the proposals have been to tax, tax, tax--tax more. 
Taxing the private sector will not create growth, no matter whom you 
tax. It will not be a growth-producing idea to tax the economy. Experts 
tell us that. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that.
  So this is what we have been seeing every year. The budget that 
passed out of this Senate, the budget that was proposed by the 
President of the United States--the budget that passed the Senate with 
I think virtually every single Democratic Senator voting for it and all 
Republicans opposing it would have increased taxes $1 trillion and 
increased spending $1 trillion. The taxes were not used to reduce our 
deficit, as the balanced approach seems to suggest. ``We have a 
balanced approach to reduce our deficits. We are going to tax some and 
cut spending some.'' Oh, no, they did not cut spending at all. Their 
10-year budget plan called for raising taxes $1 trillion and raising 
spending $1 trillion. Tax and spend--that is what it was. It was on the 
floor of the Senate. There is no dispute about that. No one argues 
about it. But we have agreed to a certain level of spending here to try 
to bring our economy under control--the Budget Control Act--and we have 
acknowledged on both sides of the aisle, as have independent experts, 
that we need to reduce spending and we need to contain the growth of 
spending and we need to reduce the deficits that are adding to the 
weakness of our economy and the uncertainty in our economy and creating 
risks in our economy.
  So this bill borrows every penny of it--just a total violation of 
promised fiscal responsibility. It just is. I wish it were not so. I 
wish we could just do this and it would not cost anything. But it will 
cost, and it will hamper growth in our country.
  There are other problems. We need more American energy. Energy 
produced in America creates jobs in America. It creates wealth in 
America. It keeps us from exporting large amounts--billions and 
billions of dollars--to Venezuela and the Middle East and other places 
around the globe. We could be producing that energy here, creating jobs 
here, keeping that wealth at home, strengthening our economy, and 
creating growth. That is what we should be doing.
  The administration has blocked American energy. They have dragged 
their feet in every shape, form, and fashion, whether it is moratoriums 
in the gulf or blocking in Alaska, blocking the pipeline for our 
neighbors in Canada, or blocking production on public lands. This is 
not the way to create an economy.
  We need a tax system that is not always going up but is more growth-
oriented, simpler, more focused on creating growth. We need to 
eliminate every unnecessary regulation that burdens the American 
competitive marketplace and makes us less competitive globally instead 
of adding to them, and we have never seen anything like the plethora of 
new regulations being issued day after day, week after week, month 
after month, many of them challengeable constitutionally as being 
beyond the power of bureaucrats to issue because Congress did not pass 
the law to justify it. It is driving up the cost of energy, and it is 
driving up the cost of production in widgets in America, making us less 
able to compete with foreign competitors.
  We need to stand up for American workers and American manufacturing 
on the world stage. It is time to tell our trading partners: We are 
willing to trade with you, big boy, but you have to play by the rules. 
This idea that you can violate the rules and we are still going to 
treat you as a great trading partner has to be over. We need to stand 
up for the American worker on the world stage. It has to be done.
  Finally, at a time of high unemployment, should we not ask ourselves 
why the President of the United States and virtually every Democrat and 
a number of Republicans voted to double the number of workers who were 
coming to America under this comprehensive immigration bill? We admit a 
million a year legally. We believe in immigration, we support 
immigration, but at some point you are bringing in workers to take jobs 
from unemployed Americans. So now we are here trying to extend 
unemployment benefits to help unemployed Americans. Is there no common 
sense in this body? How can this possibly be? But that is the deal.
  I know Senator Reid and Senator Leahy were on the floor earlier 
today, and they said we have to pass this comprehensive immigration 
bill. It would not end the illegality. It would reduce it only by about 
40 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but it would 
double the number of guest workers coming in. Guest workers, by 
definition, are people coming to take jobs.
  Why are wages down? One reason is--Professor Borjas at Harvard, who 
has studied this extensively; the Federal Reserve in Atlanta, which has 
examined this extensively; the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which 
has examined it--what do they find? They find that for middle- and 
lower income workers, their wages are significantly

[[Page 12]]

adversely impacted by this unprecedented flow of immigrant labor into 
America.
  I do not have anything against people who want to come to America and 
work. They are good people. They want to have a job. I understand that. 
But any nation has to ask itself: What is the right amount? How many 
people can you absorb without causing millions of Americans to lose 
their jobs? And we now have to come to the floor of the Senate to ask 
what we can do to help them in this period of pain they are going 
through.
  So I just want to say a couple things. We can do something now for 
the unemployed, but we need to be paying for it. We need to be staying 
within the spending limits we have agreed to. We do not need to pass 
any more laws that increases the amount of money we borrow. We borrow 
enough. For heaven's sake, we borrow too much right now, and it 
threatens our financial future, as expert after expert has told us. 
They have told us we are running a high risk, and nothing could be 
worse--nothing could be worse--for working Americans than that we have 
some other new financial crisis to spring up in the months or years to 
come because we were irresponsible today. Wouldn't that be a disaster? 
It certainly would.
  So I will urge our colleagues to begin to focus on the underlying 
disease here; that is, the policies of an administration that has 
produced the slowest postrecession recovery maybe the Nation has ever 
had, except for the Great Depression, because it is tax more, regulate 
more, borrow more. That is all it is, and it will not work systemically 
to put us on the right path.
  I know this is a tough challenge for us, but I am convinced that if 
this Congress puts its mind to it, there are more than a few places we 
can find waste, fraud, and abuse to help pay for and to assist those 
who have been unemployed for a long time. I believe we can absolutely 
do better than we are today about that, and I hope we will do so. It is 
not right to just say the only people who care about American workers 
and care about those who are unemployed are those of us who are willing 
to forget our budget limitations, to forget our financial 
responsibilities, and just borrow more and spend more, and somehow this 
is going to fix the problem we are facing. It will not. It will not fix 
the problem. In fact, it is creating the very disease that is causing 
workers to be suffering today.
  Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. 
I will repeat again, we are seeing very tough times for the American 
worker. Particularly, the lower income workers are having a difficult 
time, and there are many causes for that. But just taxing more, 
spending more, and borrowing more is one of the big causes of the 
problems we have today, and we are not going to fix that problem by 
even more of the same policies that got us into the situation we are in 
today.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask permission to speak for about 10 
minutes on the Yellen nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, over the past 5 years the Federal 
Reserve has pursued unconventional and unprecedented monetary policy. 
As Vice chair of the Fed, Janet Yellen has been a strong proponent of 
these policies. As chair, she is likely to continue these same easy-
money policies with the same, if not more, vigor as her predecessor.
  I have deep concerns about the long-term effects of pursuing these 
policies. Historical evidence suggests that failing to rein in easy-
money policies on a timely basis risks fueling an economic bubble or 
even hyperinflation.
  It is true that one of the lessons learned from the Great Depression 
was that an overly tight monetary policy in a recession risks economic 
debilitating deflation. Thus, understandably, when the recession hit in 
2008 the Fed sought to avoid the mistakes of the past by lowering 
interest rates to encourage investment. However, this expansionary 
monetary policy cannot continue into perpetuity without causing real 
and lasting damage to our economy.
  Just as we should not repeat the mistakes of the Great Depression, we 
need to be careful not to repeat the mistakes that fueled our recent 
recession. Let us not forget that our current economic stagnation began 
with the bursting of the housing bubble in late 2007--a housing bubble 
fueled by rampant speculation that was driven, in part by historically 
low interest rates maintained by the Fed between 2001 and 2004.
  Yet once again we see the Fed embarking on a policy of sustained 
historically low interest rates. The Fed has now maintained the Federal 
funds rate essentially at zero for over 5 years. What may be the future 
consequences of this policy? What new bubble will arise? At this point, 
I do not think anyone can answer these questions definitively. But no 
one can deny that the risks are real and could be devastating.
  The Fed, though, has not just sought to maintain record-low interest 
rates. With its traditional monetary tool tapped out, the Fed has 
turned to a less conventional and more aggressive program in an attempt 
to jump-start our economy and lower unemployment.
  The Fed is now engaged in an open-ended policy it has termed 
quantitative easing. Essentially, this is a fancy way to say the Fed is 
flooding the economy with trillions of dollars through large purchases 
of mortgage-backed securities and longer-term Treasury securities. As a 
result of this program, the Fed has seen its balance sheet more than 
quadruple from around $800 billion to nearly $4 trillion. Vice Chairman 
Yellen has not presented a plan to Congress on how the Fed plans to 
deal with this issue.
  While I welcome the news from the Fed's December meeting that they 
intend to reduce the monthly purchases, I fear they may already be in 
too deep. It remains unclear how the Fed will be able to go about 
unwinding its nearly $4 trillion balance sheet without spooking 
investors.
  The stock market has become addicted to the Fed's easy-money 
policies. This has led one notable investment advisor to question 
whether the Fed will ever be able to end the quantitative easing 
program.
  While the stock market has become addicted to easy money, the benefit 
to Main Street has been questionable at best. Unemployment remains 
high, bank lending remains tight, and savers discouraged.
  While the benefits to Main Street remain unnoticeable, they most 
certainly will feel the pain should the Fed carry on their easy-money 
policy for too long.
  For an example of what Main Street could be in store for one need 
look no further than the late 1970s and early 1980s. The easy-money 
policies of the 1970s intended to spur employment resulted in 
stagflation, a period of hyperinflation and high unemployment. During 
this period unemployment topped 10 percent while inflation exceeded 14 
percent.
  The experience of the late 1970s and early 1980s made it clear that 
once you let the inflation genie out of the bottle it is very difficult 
to stamp it out. After suffering years of stagflation, Americans were 
then subject to the pain of unprecedented interest rates as high as 20 
percent just to get hyperinflation back under control.
  Statements by Ms. Yellen indicate she would be open to inflation 
exceeding the Fed target of 2 percent as a means to achieve full 
employment. While achieving full employment may be a noble goal, the 
Fed has a dismal record at being able to produce sustainable job 
creation through expansionary monetary policy.
  While inflation may aid employment in the very short term, our 
experience with stagflation in the 1970's shows this tradeoff falls 
apart quickly as people's expectations change. Sustainable job growth 
comes not from inflation, but price stability that promotes long-run 
economic growth. We need a chairman focused on a strong dollar and low 
inflation.
  My concerns about the Fed's easy-money policies and inflation led me 
to

[[Page 13]]

vote against Chairman Bernanke for his second term at the Fed. Because 
it appears that Ms. Yellen will continue to pursue these misguided 
policies, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of her 
confirmation.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, Dr. Yellen's nomination is an opportunity 
to review the unprecedented actions of the Federal Reserve over the 
last several years.
  Five years ago, the Fed began using unconventional monetary policy 
tools, aggressively pursuing quantitative easing and holding interest 
rates near or at zero percent.
  The Fed now has a balance sheet of $4 trillion, a level roughly equal 
to one-quarter of annual U.S. economic output.
  The Fed has accumulated this balance sheet by buying Treasuries and 
mortgage-backed securities at a pace of up to $85 billion each month.
  I have been a long-time critic of the Fed's quantitative easing 
purchases.
  Several noted economists have called into question the benefits of 
these purchases, suggesting they may be outweighed by risks.
  These policies, specifically purchasing billions in long-term bonds, 
can distort pricing in markets and lead to excessive risk taking, 
creating ``bubble-like'' conditions according to experts like Larry 
Fink at BlackRock.
  Bill Gross of PIMCO stated that ``all asset prices, whether it be 
bonds, stocks, or alternative assets are basically mispriced, 
artificially elevated'' as a result of the Fed's actions.
  I am concerned that the markets have become exceedingly reliant on 
quantitative easing, circumventing pure economic fundamentals in favor 
of government-stimulated economy.
  Although a reduction in the pace of asset purchases will finally 
begin this month, in her nomination hearing Dr. Yellen would not commit 
to a firm deadline for cutting off purchases.
  Even after the Fed stops adding to its balance sheet, the question of 
unwinding the balance sheet remains.
  Chairman Bernanke and others have suggested that the Fed might 
maintain the size of the balance sheet for some time, rather than 
reducing it to a normal level.
  This would mean that the money created to purchase those assets would 
remain in place.
  The President of the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank has called this 
``tinder on the books of the banking system.''
  He describes a process where banks begin to rapidly lend out those 
reserves, creating an increase in deposit growth that would put 
inflationary pressure on the economy.
  All of this unconventional monetary policy has failed to produce the 
benefits that were promised.
  A noted economist recently observed that over the last 4 years, the 
share of adults who are working has not increased and ``GDP has fallen 
further behind potential as we would have defined it in the fall of 
2009.''
  All that is to say that despite unprecedented amounts of monetary 
intervention, the economy has barely responded.
  I voted against a second term for Chairman Bernanke due to my 
concerns with the Fed's unconventional monetary policy.
  I voted against Dr. Yellen in 2010 for the position of Vice Chair for 
similar reasons.
  Since joining the Board as Vice Chair, Dr. Yellen continues to 
promote the policies that led me to vote against her initially.
  My position remains unchanged, and I will not vote in support of her 
nomination.
  In addition to unprecedented monetary policy, the next Fed Chair will 
finalize several key financial regulatory reform rules.
  These rules must balance the financial stability with the inherent 
need for markets to take on and accurately price risk.
  They must be done without putting the U.S. markets at an undue 
competitive disadvantage or harming consumers with unintended 
consequences.
  The Chair of the Federal Reserve must understand how different rules 
interact with each other, what impact they have on the affected 
entities and the economy at large.
  For example, a number of community banks were surprised by certain 
provisions in the recently adopted Volcker rule pertaining to their 
ownership of certain securitized products, including trust-preferred 
securities.
  Notwithstanding assurances by regulators that the final Volcker rule 
would not disrupt their business model, community banks may now 
potentially have to divest hundreds of millions of dollars in assets to 
comply with the rule.
  I am concerned that the rush to finalize the Volcker rule before 
year's end--for purely political reasons--was a cause of this 
carelessness by regulators with respect to community banks.
  It remains to be seen what other unintended consequences will result 
from the Volcker rule's adoption.
  Just as some worried that we did not have enough regulations on the 
books to prevent the economic crisis, some of us worry that the post-
crisis response will result in a regulatory regime that stifles growth 
and job creation.
  The Chair of the Federal Reserve must understand the need for that 
balance and how to carefully manage competing demands without harming 
the economy.
  I appreciate Dr. Yellen's comments about the need to monitor the 
risks to financial stability that current monetary policy creates.
  I also share her stated concerns about the need to avoid ``one-size-
fits-all'' regulations on different kinds of financial institutions, 
especially ensuring that community banks are subject to ``less 
onerous'' supervision and regulation.
  However, given my concerns about the Fed's monetary policy and Dr. 
Yellen's support of quantitative easing and excessively low interest 
rates, I will not vote in favor of her nomination.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Madam President, for those who do not remember or those 
who do not choose to remember, 5 years ago our economy was at the brink 
of collapse after being rocked by a financial crisis because of 
incompetence, Wall Street greed, overreach in the financial sector, and 
more. Washington had let the financial system run wild through 
deregulation. Banks had overloaded on toxic mortgage securities that 
they used massive amounts of leverage to purchase. In many cases these 
Wall Street banks were so large, so complex, so opaque, so 
overleveraged, they were too big to fail.
  Increasingly, these banks are too big to manage and too big to 
regulate. I remember that time well. I was in Zanesville, OH, when I 
first got a call to discuss what we needed to do from Chairman Bernanke 
and President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Paulson. Five years 
since the collapse of the markets, 3 years after the passage of the 
Wall Street reform law, we still cannot say that the Dodd-Frank 
legislation ended this problem.
  In July of last year, Chairman Bernanke said:

       I wouldn't be saying the truth if I said that the problem 
     is gone. It is not gone.

  That is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
  At her nomination hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, 
Governor Yellen, then the Vice Chair--still the Vice Chair of the 
Federal Reserve--said that ending ``too Big to Fail'' is ``among the 
most important goals of the post-crisis period.''
  That is one of the many reasons I rise today to support and argue for 
Janet Yellen's confirmation as the Chair of the Federal Reserve. In 
today's complex financial system, it is more important than ever that 
we have strong regulators such as Governor Yellen who can recognize 
emerging threats to economic stability and who

[[Page 14]]

are not afraid to act when they find abuses that put American consumers 
and workers at risk.
  Throughout her distinguished career at the Fed of more than a decade, 
Governor Yellen has shown she understands how risky financial practices 
deep inside the largest Wall Street banks can have a terrible and 
terrifying impact on American families. She was, 8 or 9 years ago, 
among the first to recognize the housing bubble that wiped out 
trillions in wealth and led to the biggest recession since the Great 
Depression.
  In the years since the crash, Governor Yellen has been a voice on the 
need for strong, sensible regulation to protect American workers and 
small businesses instead of the too-big-to-fail banks. While there are 
many failures that led the economy to the brink of collapse, one of the 
biggest mistakes on the Federal level was not keeping the average 
American's financial interest in mind. There is far too much bias in 
this institution toward Wall Street instead of Main Street.
  Most people in my home State of Ohio, in the Presiding Officer's home 
State of Hawaii, are not millionaires. They are automakers in 
Lordstown, steelworkers in Cleveland, they are farmers in Darke County, 
they are hairdressers in Toledo, they are police officers in Columbus. 
They are the people who make the products we depend on every day.
  My State produces more than any but two States in the United States. 
They are the people who make these products, who teach our children, 
who protect our communities. They are the average hard-working 
Americans trying to create a better life for their children. And they, 
along with millions of other Americans, deserve better than the crisis 
that we allowed to happen.
  Over the years, Washington, the Fed in particular, has too often 
lacked an important connection to Americans whose lives are so affected 
by the decisions it makes. Few have been able to keep a perspective 
where they understand what is happening in middle America, among 
working-class Americans, among middle-class Americans.
  When President Lincoln was in office, he would go out and meet 
regularly with ordinary Americans either in the White House or outside 
the White House. While his staff implored him to stay in the White 
House and win the war and free the slaves and save the Union, President 
Lincoln said: I need to go out and get my public opinion bath.
  We have also seen the new pope, Francis I, exhort his parish priests 
to ``smell like the flock''--to get among them, to understand their 
lives as much as possible, to drink the water they drink, to be among 
them, to learn from them and to listen to them. We must know those whom 
we serve.
  In a speech last year before the AFL-CIO, Janet Yellen described the 
real-world implications of unemployment and noted that the unemployed 
are not just statistics. She took stock of the work ahead for the Fed, 
notably ensuring that Dodd-Frank is fully implemented in ending ``too 
big to fail.'' I think she will break out of the beltway bubble. I 
think she will get out in the country far more than any of her 
predecessors have done and consider the lives and work to understand 
the lives of those people affected by these Federal Central Bank 
decisions.
  As Chair of the Fed Subcommittee on Communications, she has played a 
strong role in monetary policy and its efforts to put people back to 
work, despite Congress's unwillingness--this body's unwillingness--to 
help. Whether it is extending unemployment benefits, which we should be 
doing today, whether it is raising the minimum wage, it means engaging 
in the lives and helping people in this country who may not be as 
privileged as those of us who have the opportunity to serve in the 
Senate.
  Janet Yellen is qualified to take the helm of the Fed and make 
history in becoming the first woman to run the Central Bank.
  In confirming Ms. Yellen, we can look forward to a new era of 
recovery and growth. I look forward to working with Janet Yellen and 
her staff.
  I urge my colleagues to confirm Janet Yellen to be Chair of the 
Federal Reserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Janet L. Yellen, of California, to be Chairman of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System?
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the ayes 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. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), 
the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. 
Durbin), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from North 
Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the 
Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. 
Hatch), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the 
Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 26, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 1 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Durbin
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     King
     Markey
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Thune
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
 Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, extreme weather throughout the 
Midwest created travel delays that prevented me from being in 
Washington today for the vote to confirm Janet Yellen as Chairwoman of 
the Federal Reserve. She is an excellent candidate, given her long 
history of service at the Fed and her vast amount of expertise, and had 
I been here, I would have cast an aye vote in support of her 
nomination, just as I did on the vote to invoke cloture on her 
nomination.

[[Page 15]]

  Dr. Yellen most currently serves as vice chair of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve. Over the span of the last nearly four 
decades, she has served as a member of the Board of Governors, the 
chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, and as the 
president and CEO of the 12th District Federal Reserve Bank in San 
Francisco. She's also spent a good part of her career in the academic 
world, currently as a professor at Berkeley's Haas School of Business.
  The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression sent our 
economy into a hole that it is still climbing out of today. The good 
news is that it is emerging from that dark place, thanks in part to the 
role of the Federal Reserve, led by current Chairman Ben Bernanke. 
Since the depths of the crisis, the Fed has taken on a more creative 
role in restoring our economy and stabilizing our financial system, 
using unconventional tools and setting specific goals for growth.
  What makes Dr. Yellen a particularly strong nominee is the attention 
she has paid to connecting the labor market to monetary policy. Much of 
her career has been devoted to these subjects. In October 2009, our 
unemployment rate reached 10 percent. Today, with the help of the Fed's 
actions, it stands at 7 percent. In my home State of Illinois, 
unemployment stood at 10.7 percent in 2009, and is down to 8.7 percent 
today. Though this is far from good enough, it shows real progress.
  Our next Fed chair should be able to take on the challenges our 
economy still faces--lowering the unemployment rate even further and 
meeting inflationary goals. The focus that Dr. Yellen brings to the 
labor market gives me confidence that she can help our Nation reach new 
highs when it comes to creating jobs and getting Americans back to 
work.
  The Wall Street Journal recently prepared an interesting analysis 
examining more than 700 predictions made by 14 Fed policymakers. That 
analysis found Dr. Yellen to be the most accurate of the 14. That did 
not surprise me. Dr. Yellen could not be more deserving of this 
nomination given her experience and precise economic judgment. She has 
the know-how to make the decisions that a Fed chair needs to make about 
how to move our economy further forward successfully and transparently.
  I support Dr. Yellen's nomination and look forward to working with 
her as she becomes our Nation's first Chairwoman of the Federal 
Reserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________