[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2634-2652]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1845, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1845) to provide for the extension of certain 
     unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Reed) amendment No. 2714, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2715 (to amendment No. 2714), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2716, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2717 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 2716), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2718 (to amendment No. 2717), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 p.m. be 
equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees and that all quorum calls during that time also be equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, in a few hours this Chamber will have the 
opportunity to restore benefits for 1.7 million American job seekers 
and help reduce the national deficit by $1.2 billion. I believe my 
colleagues understand that this is a fiscally responsible way to help 
job seekers who are still struggling in the aftermath of the great 
recession.
  Unemployment insurance helps people to look for work while at the 
same time bolstering consumer demand and supporting the economy, which 
is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
renewing unemployment insurance for 1 year will save 200,000 jobs.
  This is an imperative. We must do it. On behalf of the families who 
are struggling, on behalf of our economy that

[[Page 2635]]

needs the support, this is something which must be done.
  Now the question is whether we can move this critical bill forward 
and send help to those who are struggling through no fault of their 
own. Everyone understands that to qualify for unemployment insurance, 
they have to be working and they have to lose their job through no 
fault of their own, and they have to continue to search for work.
  The reality in this market is that there are, in many cases, three 
applicants for every job. We have all heard the stories when we have 
gone home to our States.
  There is a software engineer who worked for 20 years who has put out 
300 resumes and who has followed people around to give them resumes. 
This individual was so persistent in trying to get a job in financial 
services that he would show up early in the morning and put his resume 
in the local newspaper for the head of the bank where he was 
interviewing. That eventually got him a callback, I am told, but not 
yet a job. It is very difficult.
  We can do what we have always done--help these struggling Americans 
and help our economy.
  At every point in this process, I believe we have responded to the 
issues raised by our colleagues to try to get this done. Instead of a 
full year of extended unemployment benefits--which I proposed, which we 
usually do--we compromised on a short-term extension just to get it 
done because since December 28 people have lost their benefits. They 
went off a cliff. Every week an estimated 70,000 more Americans lose 
their benefits. It is up to 1.7 million now, and it will be several 
million before this year has run out. So instead of a typical 1-year 
extension, we are asking for 3 months. Most of it or a large part of it 
is retroactive to make up to those people who lost their benefits 
beginning on December 28.
  I was joined--and I must thank him for his tremendous leadership--by 
Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. This is a bipartisan effort because this 
unemployment problem--particularly this long-term unemployment 
problem--knows no political dimension or geographic dimension or ethnic 
or gender dimension. It is an American problem, and Senator Heller and 
I are responding in a bipartisan way. We put what we thought was a 
pathway to provide immediate aid to these job seekers and to give us 
enough time to work through these complex issues many of my colleagues 
have raised, issues such as, can we make the program, overall, more 
effective? Can we incentivize individuals to seek employment more 
efficiently? Can we integrate training? All of those are important 
issues, but in the context of a 3-month emergency extension, the first 
thing to do is to get the relief to the people and then sit down and 
conscientiously and deliberately work on the details.
  When this concession on the short term extension wasn't enough to 
break the filibuster, Democrats put forth another proposal, again after 
consultation with our Republican colleagues. I thank Senator Heller, 
Senator Collins, Senator Portman, Senator Coats, and many others who 
consciously and conscientiously provided thoughts, provided input, et 
cetera. So this process was not ``my way or the highway.'' This was 
trying to find a bipartisan pathway, and we are still searching.
  Based on those comments, we proposed a fully paid-for extension of 
unemployment insurance. We started off with 11\1/2\ months fully paid 
for. We used the pay-for that would have been an extension of the 
mandatory savings agreed to in the bipartisan budget agreement, which 
had been endorsed by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. We also 
included in that proposal, the long-term proposal, a major policy 
change proposed by Senator Portman addressing overlapping unemployment 
and disability insurance payments. None of these were easy to accept on 
our side.
  The tradition has been unpaid-for unemployment extensions. Very few 
times have we paid for these benefits because they are considered 
emergency spending. This is an emergency. People are struggling out 
there. But we accepted the premise which our Republican colleagues 
suggested that this has to be paid for. Then we also accepted the 
premise that we couldn't pay for it with tax revenues. It would have to 
be paid for with something else. So we took a proposal that was 
embedded in the budget and we tried to use that together with a 
proposal that was first presented by Senator Portman. But we had a 
vote, a cloture vote, and none of our Republican colleagues supported 
it.
  Then we had a vote on the underlying measure, the short-term 
extension, the 3-month extension unpaid-for offered by Senator Heller 
and me--Senator Heller joined us on that vote, and I thank him for 
that--but we still did not have the significant number of Republican 
colleagues necessary not only to move this measure forward but also to 
do the right thing.
  We are here today and we have had another round of extensive 
discussions, consultations, and we are now about to pay for a 3-month 
extension of unemployment benefits. Some of it is retroactive, all of 
it is fully paid for. I will point out that it is February and this 
extension will go forward until March. We are reaching the point, 
ironically, where we might have more retroactive payments than 
prospective payments. That is why we have to move and we have to move 
today.
  It is not everything we wanted, certainly. As I said initially, we 
would have preferred a full year to give people certainty for the year. 
We would have, as we have done more times than not, declared it 
emergency spending. But in order to conscientiously and thoughtfully 
and cooperatively and collaboratively work with our colleagues, we have 
continually agreed to make concessions. I used to think that was the 
nature of political compromise, principled political compromise, and we 
have tried.
  Now we have a 3-month bill that is paid for by a technique called 
pension smoothing, which we have enacted on a bipartisan basis. In 
fact, the vote was 79 to 19 in the 2012 Transportation bill, MAP-21. So 
this is not a controversial pay-for. This is something we have embraced 
before. It is something that does not involve raising revenues, which 
is one of the benchmarks our colleagues laid down. So we have a short-
term, fully paid-for UI benefit which can go out immediately to people 
who are suffering and which is paid for by a noncontroversial 
mechanism.
  Essentially, it will do what I think we have been requested to do by 
our colleagues on the other side. Our request is simply, support us in 
this effort so that we can get this legislation accomplished.
  One of the interesting things about this pay-for is that not only is 
it in the Transportation bill--due to expire, and we will extend it--
but also it has been used on numerous occasions by colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to pay for a various assembly of different 
legislative proposals. So this is not a controversial mechanism. I 
don't think unemployment insurance is controversial. I think people 
hopefully recognize that it is necessary in this situation.
  We have also included a provision in this proposal that has been 
championed aggressively and thoughtfully by Senator Coburn that will 
bar individuals with income of over $1 million from receiving Federal 
unemployment insurance benefits. It has passed this Chamber by a vote 
of 100 to 0.
  The other factor which I would argue to my colleagues is that as we 
pay for this extension, we are also able to approve $1.2 billion over 
10 years to reduce the deficit.
  If my colleagues are looking for proposals that are fully paid for, 
reduce the deficit, and provide needed assistance to Americans who have 
worked, are looking for work, and desperately want a job, we need their 
vote this afternoon. I hope we can move forward on this bill and help 
unemployed Americans who are searching for work, help employers--this 
pension-smoothing mechanism helps employers--and also reduce the 
deficit. That is a very good trifecta, something I think we should 
support.
  The other point I want to make is that the notion that unemployment 
insurance, Federal long-term benefits, should be a political issue is 
in stark contrast to its history. Congress has renewed UI on a 
bipartisan basis in the

[[Page 2636]]

past on numerous occasions. We did it three times under President 
Ronald Reagan. We did it five times under President George W. Bush. 
That is the precedent to get it done today. That is a pretty good 
precedent on a bipartisan basis under two Republican Presidents.
  One of the questions that comes up is does the Republican 
leadership--not some of the Members whom we have collaborated with very 
closely--want this to pass or will they say: No, no, forget the 
substance, it is so compelling. Let's talk about process. This is about 
how many amendments we have. This is about whether we can reform and 
reauthorize an entire legislative program based on a 3-month 
extension--most of which is rapidly becoming more retroactive, than 
prospective, than going forward.
  I think the American people see through this. The substance is clear. 
This program has been repeatedly reauthorized to deal with long-term 
unemployment under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents on a 
bipartisan basis. It is fully paid for. It is paid for by a 
noncontroversial technique that does not include raising revenues. In 
fact, the pay-for is something the corporate world supports.
  There are others who might say we are disappointed because there is 
another major issue out there, and there is; that is, the COLA cuts for 
military retirees. This is an issue that has to be dealt with, and it 
will be dealt with. But, I wish to point out that COLA does not become 
effective--those reductions--until December of 2015. People receiving 
UI lost their benefits December of last year. They are already 
suffering. There is no more time for them, in terms of our fixing it, 
before it takes effect. We need to act today.
  Indeed, it has been estimated there are 20,000 veterans who have been 
denied long-term unemployment benefits because of our failure to extend 
this. So for those 20,000 veterans, I don't think it would be 
sufficient to tell them they are not going to get their unemployment 
insurance because we are worried about what is going to happen in 
December of 2015 to other veterans. If we want to help veterans right 
away, today, we can help 20,000 of them by voting for this provision 
going forward.
  Let us help both the unemployed and our veterans and not try to use 
one group against the other, for a legislative advantage in terms of 
any one particular measure. The emergency for unemployment insurance 
that encompasses at least 20,000 veterans is today, not a year or more 
from now.
  We can't turn our back on 1.7 million Americans, with that number 
growing each week. We have to help them. It has been 40 days since 
unemployment insurance benefits expired for millions of Americans. That 
is 40 days too long for those who were downsized with the recession and 
now find their unemployment insurance benefits being downsized again by 
Congress--downsized practically to zero.
  I also wish to remind my colleagues about some of the reforms we 
already accomplished in 2012, because many of my colleagues have some 
very good ideas and they have talked about, well, if we are going to 
deal with unemployment insurance, let us deal with it in a way we can 
also make some structural reforms. In 2012, I was part of the 
conference committee between the House and the Senate where legislation 
was formally considered in this body, in the other body, and brought to 
a conference in regular order and we had a very vigorous debate about 
the structure of unemployment compensation, and significant structural 
reforms were made to the program.
  This is not a situation where we have neglected to look at the 
unemployment compensation program for years and years and years. It was 
2 years ago we made these changes. We strengthened the job search 
requirement. We have indeed allowed States, if they choose to, to drug 
screen applicants, which is an extremely controversial provision. That 
was included because we were responding to particularly many Members of 
the House of Representatives who said this had to be something the 
States can do. Well, this is something the States can do. I don't think 
most States have taken up the option, but this is something they can 
do.
  Indeed, after the House passed this agreement, Representative Camp 
issued a statement noting--in his words--the historic reforms of the 
Federal unemployment programs are an important part of this agreement. 
These reforms will now help the unemployed get the training and 
resources they need to move from an unemployment check to a paycheck. 
The package overturns arcane 1960s-era regulations and allows States to 
drug screen and test those most at risk.
  I am always willing to listen to proposals to make changes, but we 
have to recognize we made significant changes to this program, in Mr. 
Camp's words--revising provisions that had been there since the 1960s, 
and that was about 2 years ago. So we have made these changes. But we 
are willing to work in good faith if additional changes are necessary. 
However, they shouldn't block a 3-month extension, much of it 
retroactive, that is pending before the Senate today.
  Let me make one other point. In the context of this debate, there has 
been the suggestion that unemployment insurance is in some way 
inappropriate, immoral. It encourages people to avoid work. It makes 
us, as Americans, lazy and dependent. That is not what I see when I go 
back home. What I see are people who say--even recognizing my efforts 
to try to get this bill passed--that is fine, but what I truly want is 
a job. I want to work. I want to work for many reasons. One, the $350 a 
week I get, that barely keeps my family whole. It is a little help for 
gasoline, a little help with the rent, but I can't live on that. I have 
to have a job.
  By the way, I think most Americans want to work because work defines 
us. Work gives us not just a place to go but gives meaning to all of 
us, just as family does. So this notion this is just this program that 
indulges those who don't want to work is profoundly wrong. Indeed, it 
is an insult to millions of Americans who desperately want a job.
  By definition, unemployment insurance is based on an individual's 
work history. This is not a program you qualify for by showing up. You 
have to be let go, basically. You have to be told: We can't keep you 
anymore. We are sorry. You are a good worker, but we can't keep you. 
You have to go. In fact, if you are not a good worker, if you are fired 
for cause, you don't get these benefits. And then they actively have to 
keep looking for work. As I said, in the 2012 legislative provisions, 
we gave the States more authority to make that active search much more 
active, much more real--not perfunctory but an active search.
  Because of the obstructions we have seen, most Americans now are just 
simply eligible for 26 weeks of assistance--the standard program 
administered by the States. But the Washington Post notes it takes an 
average job seeker about 32 weeks to get hired, and in some cases even 
longer because of high unemployment. In my State it is 9.1 percent. 
There are some States where it is remarkably low because of the 
particular economic conditions there. But as the Post points out, for 
the average worker, it is 32 weeks. Those 26 weeks will not cover their 
unemployment period as they desperately search for work.
  The other cruel fact is the longer one is unemployed, the harder it 
is to get a job. That is what we know from research. That is what we 
know from our own sense of the economy. So the notion that someone, 
such as a chemical engineer who has been out of work for 7 months, who 
has a great work record--the first time he or she has ever lost their 
job--should take the first thing available to him or her at the lowest 
cost, the lowest wage, No. 1, I think devalues their lifetime effort; 
and No. 2, it potentially denies us of their productivity. I would 
rather see a chemical engineer work at a job related to chemical 
engineering than stocking shelves because his productivity, his or her 
contribution to society, would be much greater doing the job they were 
trained for and they have the experience to do.
  Our Nation is at its best when everyone has the opportunity to put 
their

[[Page 2637]]

talents, their skills, and their experience to work. We need to get our 
country back to full employment. We all know that is the answer. This 
is an emergency provision, a bridge, if you will, to a job. We have to 
do more not only to put people back to work but to make the wages they 
receive allow them to live not just paycheck to paycheck but to live 
with the sense they are building some security for themselves and their 
family.
  We have the resources to achieve this. We are paying for this 
provision. We are not putting it on the shoulders of the next 
generation. We are limiting it to a very short period of time so there 
is an opportunity to work and look at what we did in 2012 and see if we 
can do more. The question before us is, Does this Senate have the will 
to make it happen?
  Renewing unemployment insurance isn't the end of our efforts. Our 
efforts are to get more jobs out there so people don't need 
unemployment insurance; that it is not 32 weeks to get a new job but is 
several days, we hope. This is the building block we need to put in 
place to move forward.
  This process, this expiration, has caused Rhode Islanders in my home 
State great hardship. It is time to end that hardship. So I urge my 
colleagues to renew this program. This is one of those issues where it 
simply comes down, in my view, to this: This is the right thing to do. 
I honestly believe there are many more than 60 of my colleagues who 
fundamentally believe this is the right thing to do and the right way 
to do it. The question is, Will they vote that way in a few hours? I 
hope they do.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as 
if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Iran Sanctions

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I have been receiving a lot of phone calls 
and emails this week about the issue of Iran. Just last night, almost 
all of my colleagues on the Republican side and I, led by Senator Kirk, 
among others, sent a letter to the majority leader asking him to have a 
vote on additional sanctions on Iran. Of course, these sanctions would 
be conditioned on failure of the additional negotiations which the 
administration has announced will begin next week.
  I wish to take a moment to explain to people back home, who are--
rightfully so--writing and calling us about this issue, what is at 
stake and what is happening. So I will break it down to the most basic 
elements.
  Iran is a country which, as we all know, beginning in 1979 was 
overtaken by a radical Islamic revolution which took control of the 
country and has been a sworn enemy of the United States ever since. In 
fact, until very recently--and perhaps they still do--after Friday 
prayers, they used to end them with the chant ``Death to America.''
  It is one thing to say those things. It is another to actually do 
something about it. In fact, Iran has. They have been one of the most 
active sponsors of terrorism all over this planet but particularly in 
the Middle East.
  We know they are actively engaged in undermining our interests all 
over the world. They have been linked to terrorist attacks against 
dignitaries from other countries in other countries abroad. About 2 
years ago, a report emerged of the potential that they were trying to 
plot the assassination of a foreign ambassador here in Washington, DC.
  In addition, they participate in things such as cyber attacks against 
the country, they destabilize their neighbors, and they continue to 
develop their weapons capability.
  In addition to all that which I have just outlined, over the last few 
years Iran has begun to pursue a nuclear program. In order to have a 
nuclear weapon, you have to be able to process plutonium. This takes 
infrastructure, and while people know how to do that per se, it takes a 
lot of investment of time, energy, and expertise to actually build the 
facilities to enrich.
  You can enrich for peaceful purposes. If you want to have nuclear 
reactors to power your cities, this requires enrichment up to a certain 
level. But Iran has gone well beyond that.
  This is important for two reasons. The first is that there are plenty 
of countries in the world who have nuclear energy but don't enrich and 
don't reprocess. They import that material to use in their reactors. In 
fact, that is what most countries who have nuclear reactors do.
  But the second is that Iran's program has always had strong elements 
of secrecy. They have had all these secret facilities they hide from 
the world--and the world is rightfully concerned.
  The United Nations Security Council--which is lately usually a pretty 
useless body, but the United Nations Security Council came up with a 
resolution demanding that Iran stop the enrichment process. But they 
kept going. In fact, not so long ago they discovered more secret 
facilities where Iran was enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium.
  So the administration has made it a high priority, as has its 
predecessor, to stop that from happening, and they have made clear 
statements: We are not seeking to contain a nuclear Iran; we want to 
prevent it. That is the right approach. Now, here is the problem.
  We recently entered into these negotiations with Iran to get them to 
stop, to back away from this. If you want nuclear power, if you want 
nuclear energy, you can have it without the need to reprocess--like 
most countries do, like many of our allies do.
  The only reason why they even came to the table for those 
negotiations is because the United States, to be frank--despite the 
resistance of this administration, which each and every time sanctions 
and sanctions bills have come before the Congress have threatened to 
veto them and have blocked them and have been against them--despite all 
of that, these sanctions have been in place. They have been applied at 
a global level, and they have created a tremendous amount of pressure 
on the Iranian economy. As a result, they have come to the table to 
negotiate--not because the new president, Rouhani, is a reformer, as 
some like to call him, but because they have so much internal pressure 
and their economy is under so much duress that they are afraid of what 
their people may do about it in the long term.
  The administration is pretty optimistic about these negotiations 
which were reached: An interim agreement--a temporary agreement, as 
they call it. A joint plan of action is the right terminology.
  We had Secretary Sherman, who was in charge of those talks, here the 
other day before the Foreign Relations Committee. Her point is, we 
accomplished something. We got Iran to stop processing at a certain 
level and suspend it. That is her point. Now we are going to go into 
the second phase of negotiating a longer term solution, and we have to 
give diplomacy a chance.
  The problem is that something is lost in translation. Perhaps before 
the Internet we didn't catch these things, but now we can see these 
things happening in real-time.
  For some reason Iran does not have the same interpretation that the 
United States does of this joint plan of action.
  For example, the head of Iran's atomic energy organization on 
November 24 said as follows:

       Work at the Arak reactor will continue. . . . Research and 
     development will continue. All our exploration and extraction 
     activities will continue. There are no activities that won't 
     continue.

  Their foreign minister on November 27 said:

       Iran will pursue construction at the Arak heavy-water 
     reactor.

  This is the same one I was just talking about.

[[Page 2638]]

  Iran's top nuclear negotiator said--and this is really concerning:

       We can return again to 20-percent enrichment in less than 
     one day, and we can convert the nuclear material again. . . . 
     Therefore, the structure of our nuclear program is preserved 
     . . . we . . . will in no way, never, dismantle our 
     centrifuges.

  These are concerning statements. Their foreign minister said 
something else on CNN on January 22:

       We did not agree to dismantle anything. . . . The White 
     House version both underplays the concessions and overplays 
     Iran's commitments . . . we are not dismantling any 
     centrifuges, we're not dismantling any equipment, we're 
     simply not producing, not enriching over 5%.

  The problem is that maybe they are not enriching right now. Or, quite 
frankly, it would be tough to tell because they have always had secret 
capabilities we keep finding out about long after they have started. 
But more complicated is that they are keeping all the process and the 
equipment in place. If they wanted to--as they accurately said--they 
could return to enriching at whatever level they wanted in less than 1 
day.
  Now, we may ask ourselves: Why has Iran agreed to do these sorts of 
things? Here is what I said at the beginning and I know now to be true 
more than ever. Here is Iran's strategy. It is the same one employed by 
North Korea a few years ago:
  Let's get into a negotiation. Let's see how many of these sanctions 
we can get lifted off of our shoulders. But let's not agree to anything 
that is irreversible.
  Here is what they are gambling on. They are gambling that the world's 
attention will turn to something else; that the sanctions will erode 
and people will lose the discipline or the willingness to continue; 
that countries who are export driven want to sell things to Iran or get 
gasoline and petroleum products from them and will therefore agree to 
not continue with the sanctions.
  Then eventually one day, in 1, 2, 3, 4 years or whenever, they can 
decide to restart this stuff and suddenly announce: We want to be a 
nuclear weapons power after all.
  Do you know why I know--I don't think, I don't suspect--that Iran 
wants nuclear weapons? There are two reasons.
  The first is because they believe this is the ultimate insurance 
policy. If they have a nuclear weapon, people can't interfere with 
their internal politics because they are a nuclear power.
  The other reason why I know is because they are developing ballistic 
missiles. Ballistic missiles are rockets that travel at long distances, 
and they cost a lot of money to develop and a lot of time. The only 
reason why you develop that capability is to deliver a nuclear payload, 
to be able to deliver a nuclear weapon against somebody else far away.
  The administration's argument is this is all for domestic 
consumption. This is all political posturing. This is what the 
administration is saying in reaction to Iran's top diplomat, who once 
again yesterday dismissed the Obama administration's demands on its 
nuclear program.
  He said they have no value. The best part of this joint plan of 
action, he said, is that it is so clear that research and development 
has no constraint; we can continue research and development and 
increasing our capabilities; that all stays in place.
  What he is really saying is this. Once the world is distracted and 
America moves to another topic or some other crisis happens somewhere 
else in the world, then we will do what we want to do.
  That is what is happening here, and this is extremely dangerous for 
the future. Having a nuclear Iran is bad enough, but it isn't going to 
stop there. If Iran develops a nuclear capability and a nuclear weapon, 
every other country around them is going to want one as well. Saudi 
Arabia is going to want one. Potentially, Turkey is going to want one. 
Eventually, one day Egypt could want one. Could you imagine four or 
five nuclear weapons powers in the most unstable, dangerous region in 
the world? This is where we are headed.
  What about these countries who don't enrich right now? South Korea is 
an example. We ask them not to enrich. We tell them: You don't need to 
enrich. We provide this stuff. How are we going to argue to them not to 
enrich now? How are we going to tell Jordan and Saudi Arabia and other 
countries: You shouldn't enrich but we have agreed to allow Iran to 
keep enriching? So we are going to tell our friends and allies: You 
can't have this capability; you shouldn't have this capability; but we 
are going to tell an enemy of this country and of world peace that they 
can?
  This is why we want a vote on these sanctions. We don't have room for 
error here. We do not have the space to be wrong. We can't afford to be 
wrong.
  There is no guarantee sanctions will prevent Iran from going nuclear, 
but it will make it extremely painful. It will influence their cost 
benefit analysis.
  Failure to put these sanctions in place is already having an impact. 
Every day we see news reports of businessmen in Europe and around the 
world flooding to Iran on the idea sanctions might be eroding. How are 
we going to pull that back? We won't be able to.
  I don't completely dismiss the notions the administration is saying. 
It is ideal to reach a negotiated solution with Iran. But we have to be 
wise. We have to learn the lessons of history, and we have to 
understand human nature. Iran's regime wants a nuclear weapon because 
it gives them supremacy in the region and they believe it makes them 
immune to outside pressure and interference in their internal affairs. 
They are headed for a weapon, and they are using these negotiations to 
buy time.
  There are 59 Members of this Senate who have signed on to a sanctions 
bill and one Senator is preventing a vote on it, and that is wrong. We 
should have a vote on a matter of this importance. The use of 
procedural motions and the power of the majority leader to prevent a 
vote on something of this importance has extraordinary long-term 
implications on our national security.
  Let me just close by making one more point in this regard. I recently 
read statements that those of us who want more sanctions are banging 
the war drum. That is false. On the contrary. We believe that a failure 
to put sanctions in place increases the likelihood of an armed conflict 
with Iran. Are we prepared to allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons 
power?
  We are going into these negotiations with one arm tied behind our 
back. They are saying: Under no circumstances will we ever agree not to 
enrich, and we are saying we are open to that.
  I am saying this on the floor so that it is recorded and so people 
know where I stood on this before it happened. If Iran is allowed to 
maintain any sort of enrichment capability within our lifetime--in 
fact, I believe before the end of this decade, God forbid--Iran will 
have a nuclear weapon and one day we will wake up to the news that they 
have tested a device or proven the capability of having one. When that 
day comes, God help us all.
  I hope we can have a vote on the Senate floor on this issue. Let's 
have a debate on it. Let's have a frank and open discussion about it. 
Why are we preventing that from happening? Why is the majority leader 
preventing that from happening? It is inexcusable. It is unacceptable.
  I hope we will have a vote on it sooner rather than later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.


                              Health Care

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Congressional Budget Office 
reported--and it continues to be the buzz about town--the latest report 
known as the long-term outlook. Of course, we know from the news that 
its report on the Affordable Care Act is absolutely devastating.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will reduce 
full-time employment by 2 million workers in the year 2017 and 2.5 
million by the year 2024. The reason for that is pretty clear. With the 
employer mandate and the additional cost associated with ObamaCare, 
many employers will simply put people from full-time work

[[Page 2639]]

onto part-time work in order to avoid the employer mandate and those 
penalties and additional costs.
  We human beings are enormously sensitive to incentives--both positive 
and negative--and this is predictable, and it is tragic. The 
Congressional Budget Office says: The reduction will almost entirely be 
a reduction in labor force participation and in the number of hours 
worked.
  In other words, this was a piece of legislation that we were told 
would enormously benefit, not only individual Americans by getting them 
access to care, but the President said it would benefit the economy as 
a whole. The sad truth is it is hurting the economy and hurting the 
very people whom I presume the President wanted to help.
  I heard Representative Ryan on the news talk about this as a poverty 
trap. Of course, many of the folks who supported the Affordable Care 
Act--and I am thinking about organized labor--have petitioned the 
President and his allies and said: This is turning into a nightmare for 
us. This is one of the things they mentioned--people are being moved 
from full-time work to part-time work.
  I might just add, the answer is not to say: We are just going to 
order an increase of 40 percent in the minimum wage. In other words, 
you can see that moving people from 40 hours a week to 30 hours a 
week--perhaps there will be some people who say we will compensate for 
that. We will order businesses to pay at least $10.10 an hour, when 
simple common sense tells us that many of the people, again, whom we 
are trying to help, are the ones who will be hurt the most with high 
unemployment among minorities and teenagers.
  What is a small business going to do when the government orders them 
to pay $10.10 an hour without regard to the markets or economics? They 
are going to hire fewer people or perhaps go out of business. This sort 
of micromanagement and attempts to compensate for the effects of 
ObamaCare will make things worse, not better.
  Needless to say, if the advocates of the Affordable Care Act had 
understood back in 2009 and 2010 what the facts would turn out to be 
today, then ObamaCare never would have passed. Millions of Americans 
said they liked the coverage they already had.
  I think the poll numbers I have seen showed between 88 percent to 90 
percent of the people said: We like what we have. We would like it to 
be more affordable, but we like the coverage we have. If these people 
knew they were going to have their coverage canceled because it failed 
to meet the mandates of ObamaCare, ObamaCare never would have passed.
  The people who liked the coverage they had would still be paying 
lower premiums than they are being charged in the exchanges under 
ObamaCare, not to mention the huge deductibles. Families are now being 
asked to essentially self-insure up to $5,000 for their deductible. 
They can say you get the tax subsidy and you have better coverage 
beyond that, but you still have a $5,000 deductible, and those are the 
first dollars that come out of consumers' pockets. You might as well be 
self-insured but for catastrophic health care needs. Of course, there 
is a much cheaper way for people to buy that kind of coverage.
  We also know an untold number of Americans would have access to at 
least 40 hours of work, which is not the case, sadly. Under ObamaCare--
and we now know because of the projections of the Congressional Budget 
Office--things will continue to get worse.
  The President's health care law has become a genuine public policy 
disaster. By the way, even the Congressional Budget Office said at 
least 30 million people will still be uninsured even if ObamaCare was 
implemented exactly as advertised. So not even that addresses what I 
always thought was the main reason for ObamaCare; that is, to cover 
more people.
  ObamaCare is reducing full-time employment at a time when the 
percentage of people participating in job seeking--the workforce--is at 
a historic low. Many people have given up. They just quit looking, and 
they get dropped out of the unemployment statistic. So when the number 
comes down--and we actually think maybe we are doing better and maybe 
the economy is stronger. We found out, for example, in December alone 
that 345,000 people quit looking for jobs. They quit. They got worn 
out. They gave up because they have been looking for so long and the 
jobs just are not there.
  To be clear, the question in 2009 and 2010 was not whether we would 
expand health coverage but how we would do it. ObamaCare represented 
one option, and it is obviously the one our Democratic colleagues chose 
to adopt on a party-line vote. Despite what the President suggested, 
yet again, in his State of the Union Message, there are a lot of 
options out there, so it is not ObamaCare or nothing, which is what is 
so often mentioned.
  I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: We 
have to have ObamaCare because only then can we cover people with 
preexisting conditions. That is poppycock. It is not true. We can do it 
cheaper and more effectively by other alternatives.
  We hear people say: The only way young people can be covered up to 
age 26 is under their family's health care with ObamaCare. That is 
poppycock too. It is just not true. To suggest that you have to 
basically have the whole enchilada--you have to buy all of ObamaCare, 
which is trillions of dollars, along with all of its negative 
consequences--in order to address these health care concerns is false. 
It is not true.
  If I heard the President say this one time, I heard him say it 1,000 
times. He said: If critics of ObamaCare have a better idea, just bring 
it to me.
  I would like to respectfully suggest that the President has a tin ear 
when it comes to alternatives and he is not listening.
  One of the latest proposals came out of three of our best experts on 
the Republican side on the health care issue: Senator Orrin Hatch, the 
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Richard Burr, and 
Senator Dr. Tom Coburn. They released a comprehensive blueprint for 
what our alternative might look like.
  At some point there has to be a resolution because policies are being 
canceled. The costs for people with coverage are going up, and it is 
hurting the economy. It is turning full-time work into part-time work. 
At some point--I don't know when it is. Maybe it will be sometime after 
the November election. I am just guessing. At some point we will have 
to confront this reality and deal with it in order to protect our 
constituents, the people we are privileged to represent.
  The alternative to the government's takeover and the President's 
command and control--one-sixth of our economy--under ObamaCare is that 
the government gets to choose, and under our alternative you get to 
choose.
  I wish to highlight a few more of the findings in the Congressional 
Budget Office report. Last March the President told ABC News that ``for 
the next 10 years [America's national debt] is going to be in a 
sustainable place.'' I am afraid the President is falling in a trap 
because we are living in a surreal time when interest rates are so low 
because of what the Federal Reserve is doing that, yes, the interest we 
have to pay on our debt is not as much as it would be if it went back 
up to historical norms--4 or 5 percent.
  By the way, somebody is going to have to pay that back someday. These 
young people who are sitting here and listening will be the ones left 
holding the bag, as well as people such as my two daughters who are 
working in Austin, TX. Somebody is going to have to pay that money 
back.
  For the President to say our debt is sustainable for the next 10 
years ignores the fact that we have a moral obligation to deal with it 
today so as not to dampen the aspiration of these young people by 
saddling them with a bunch of debt they didn't charge up.
  The fact is our debt is highly contingent on three factors: the 
economic growth of our economy--how fast our economy is growing; 
inflation is the second one; and interest rates, which I alluded to.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, if America's real 
economic

[[Page 2640]]

growth rate were just one-tenth of a percentage lower than it projects 
currently each year over the next decade, our cumulative debt--the 
annual difference between what we collect in taxes and what the Federal 
Government spends over the next 10 years--would go up by $311 billion. 
That is with a ``b.''
  Likewise, if annual inflation was 1 percentage point above what the 
Congressional Budget Office projects, our cumulative deficit--in other 
words, the difference between what we bring in, in tax dollars and what 
the Federal Government spends projected over 10 years--would be $762 
billion higher. That is just inflation. Just minor changes in the 
growth rate or in inflation can have dramatic consequences in terms of 
the debt. Yes, you don't have to just pay the principle back, you have 
to pay the interest on that debt.
  As I said, interest rates are at historic lows because of the 
quantitative so-called easing that the Federal Reserve is doing--
churning out dollars. Of course it has been a boon to the stock market 
and the top 1 percent of our economy. Working people are finding their 
wages have been stagnant for the last 5 years. If interest rates were 
to rise 1 percentage point above the current Congressional Budget 
Office baseline each year, our cumulative deficits or our debt would go 
up $1.5 trillion--that is with a ``t'', not a ``b''--$1.5 trillion.
  So these numbers confirm that despite the short-term deficit 
reduction produced by the Budget Control Act--we have seen some bending 
of the spending curve under the Budget Control Act; and, of course, 
those caps have been lifted as a result of the budget negotiations 
between Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan--America is still 
dangerously vulnerable to a fiscal shock. We experienced one of those 
back in 2008, and we are still vulnerable to a fiscal shock, if things 
change in terms of growth, inflation, and interest rates. Any one of 
those could have a dramatic impact, making things much more difficult 
and much worse.
  To quote the Congressional Budget Office once again: Over the next 
decade, debt held by the public will be significantly greater relative 
to GDP than at any time since just after World War II.
  Coming out of a world war, we can understand why the debt was high, 
but debt held by the public will be significantly greater relative to 
the economy than at any time since that time, and we haven't had a 
comparable world war that would justify this huge runup of debt.
  They went on to say:

       With debt so large, Federal spending on interest payments 
     alone will increase substantially as interest rates rise to 
     more typical levels.

  I mentioned that.
  Going on, they say:

       Moreover, because Federal borrowing generally reduces 
     national savings, the capital stock and wages will be smaller 
     than if the debt was lower.

  That is what they call the ``crowding out effect.'' So if the Federal 
Government is borrowing all of this money, it makes it harder and more 
expensive for the private sector to do the borrowing they need, and 
there is a crowding-out effect and a depressing effect on economic 
growth.
  America's massive debt is already hurting our economy. It is 
exacerbating the already difficult situation that people are 
experiencing when they are looking for work and they can't find work, 
and the problem will get worse, not better, as time goes by because we 
have seen the difference inflation, growth, and interest rates can 
have, which can allow this to spiral out of control. That doesn't even 
address the other concerns many of us have about the unsustainability 
of Medicare and Social Security. These are sacred promises we made to 
our seniors; that those programs would be there for them once they 
reach a qualifying age, and they will not be, on the current track. 
These young people, I doubt any of them believe Social Security or 
Medicare will be there for them. We have a way to deal with that today 
if we will simply take advantage of that opportunity.
  I wish to note that every single Member of the Republican caucus has 
cosponsored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I hear it 
from Members of my own party who have said: You guys weren't all that 
great when you were in charge; you guys spent money we didn't have, and 
that is true. We were pikers by comparison, because back in 1997, the 
debt was $5.3 trillion--$5.3 trillion in 1997. That was the last time 
we had a vote in the Senate on a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, and we came within one vote of passing a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. But today the debt is $17 trillion-
plus--$17.2 trillion. The President says our debt is on a sustainable 
path. It is not true. It is whistling past the graveyard and it is 
endangering our prosperity and our opportunity, not only for the 
younger generation but for people today who want to find work and want 
to provide for their families and pursue their version of the American 
dream.
  We can't defy the laws of fiscal gravity forever, and we can't expect 
to keep piling up debt without damaging our economy.
  I expect next week Senator Sanders of Vermont will bring a bill to 
the floor ostensibly to help our veterans--something we all support--
but which is unpaid for and would add roughly $25 billion--at least $25 
billion--to the national debt. We just can't keep doing this day after 
day after day without enormous risk.
  I see my colleague from New Hampshire on the floor, so I will close 
with this thought: Here are the sad facts since President Obama took 
office in January of 2009--admittedly coming off of a fiscal crisis at 
a very bad place for our economy. This is his record over the last 5 
years: The number of long-term unemployed has increased by close to 1.2 
million people--increased--and the labor force participation rate I 
mentioned a moment ago has fallen by 2.9 percent. There are 2.9 percent 
fewer Americans actually looking for work today than there were in 
January of 2009.
  Here is another sad statistic: Since January 2009, the average amount 
of time the unemployed have been without a job has nearly doubled. 
People have doubled the time they have been out of work, looking for 
work, since January 2009, rising from 19.8 weeks to 37 weeks.
  The number of people on food stamps has increased by 48.3 percent, 
reaching 37.4 million people in October. In 2008, the total cost of the 
Food Stamp Program--something we all support as a safety net program 
for the most vulnerable--but we spent $37 billion in 2008, and now it 
has more than doubled to almost $80 billion. This is under President 
Obama's 5 years in office.
  The number of people receiving Social Security disability has 
increased from 7.4 million people to 8.9 million. Meanwhile, the total 
number of Social Security disability beneficiaries, including spouses 
and children of disabled workers receiving benefits, has increased from 
9.3 million to roughly 11 million.
  This is not the way it is supposed to be. I know everyone who is out 
of a job wants a job and the dignity and the self-respect that comes 
with it. Certainly we need to protect people who are at risk of falling 
through the safety net, but more than anything we need to give them the 
opportunity to get back to work and to provide for their family, put 
food on the table. We can't be content with the status quo, with huge 
amounts of money being spent on disability, huge amounts of money being 
spent on food stamps, and huge amounts of money being paid to people 
who can't even find a job.
  We have to get our economy growing again so these folks can lift 
themselves up and get back in the workforce and provide for their 
families and pursue their dreams.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor because later today 
the Senate will vote on a short-term extension of emergency 
unemployment benefits for thousands of citizens in

[[Page 2641]]

New Hampshire--hundreds of thousands; really over 1 million throughout 
the country--who are being hurt right now by our failure to act to 
extend unemployment benefits.
  I have heard from a number of New Hampshire constituents since the 
unemployment insurance extension expired back in December. They make 
the case much more eloquently than I can about why we need to extend 
these unemployment benefits. I will read some excerpts from some of 
those letters.
  One of my constituents is a 62-year-old woman from Windham, and she 
explained that despite her best efforts she will be one of the many 
long-term unemployed without any unemployment benefits if she doesn't 
find a job by March. She began working at age 8 delivering papers with 
her brother. She put herself through college and earned a master's 
degree with the help of her employer. She wrote:

       I am not too proud to do any honest job. I am losing my 
     house and can't afford to pay my mortgage any longer. There 
     are so many of us out there.

  Another woman from Windham wrote to me. She is 55 years old. She has 
held a job since she was 16. Last August, she was laid off in a merger. 
She has been actively seeking a job in her field, which is health care. 
She explained that her unemployment check has helped her pay for her 
essential living expenses. She and her sister take care of their 90-
year-old parents in their home, and this income is critical not just to 
her livelihood but to the care of her parents.
  Then we heard from a 58-year-old woman from Merrimack who learned she 
lost her job in May of 2013 and has had nine interviews but no offers. 
Without unemployment assistance, she will not be able to afford her car 
payment, her mortgage, food or utilities.
  A constituent wrote to me explaining that after 29 years as a 
teacher, that teaching job has been eliminated. She has been on 
unemployment since June. She has applied for nearly 100 jobs. Think 
about just getting up every day, trying to figure out where you can 
apply to just have a shot at getting back to work. Her savings are 
exhausted. She is on the verge of losing her house since her 
unemployment benefits--her only source of income--have expired. She 
wrote:

       This seems unfair to me. Having worked hard and been a 
     taxpayer into the system all my working life, I fail to see 
     how not extending benefits will be beneficial to me and the 
     1.3 million other Americans, especially in light of an 
     already fragile economy. Please do your best to remember 
     those of us who never planned to have to depend on 
     unemployment for this long, but who have fallen victims to 
     these times.

  Then I did a tele-townhall conference on Monday night. I heard from 
thousands of people across New Hampshire. One of the people I heard 
from was a woman named Kathy from Danbury. She told me she had worked 
since she was 14 and she is now out of a job. Her unemployment benefits 
have expired and she doesn't know what she is going to do.
  We need to think about Kathy and all of the people whom we are 
hearing from in our offices. We are supposed to represent the people 
who need help across this country. My constituents are exactly right. 
We are threatening the fragile economic recovery by failing to extend 
unemployment insurance.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the expiration of 
unemployment insurance is going to cost the economy an additional 
310,000 jobs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that each 
dollar we spend on extending unemployment insurance generates about 
$1.50 in economic growth. We learned this week that failing to act has 
already drained more $2.2 billion from the economy, including $1.8 
million from New Hampshire, not to mention all of the people whose 
personal stories are tragic because they want to work, they are out of 
a job through no fault of their own, and we need to provide them some 
assistance while they try and get back on their feet, so they do not 
lose their homes, so they do not lose their cars, so they can put food 
on their tables.
  I urge my colleagues to come together today. It is time for us to 
act, to support an extension of unemployment insurance. I certainly 
hope we are going to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Pennsylvania and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the ongoing debate on unemployment 
compensation shines a spotlight on the underlying problem; that is, 
extremely sluggish job growth in our still-lagging economy. Putting 
people to work is my number one goal.
  As American families continue to struggle to get the jobs they need 
at the wages they deserve, it is more important than ever for Members 
on both sides of the aisle to come together on legislation to promote 
economic growth and job creation. Today, I am pleased to join my good 
friend and colleague Mr. Casey to discuss our legislation to do exactly 
that: the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act, which we 
introduced last year. Our bipartisan legislation focuses on areas of 
consensus that both parties can embrace to rekindle opportunity by 
helping small employers start up or grow and create or add good-paying 
jobs.
  It is often said that small businesses are our Nation's job creators, 
and the data bear that out. According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, small businesses generated 65 percent of the net new jobs 
that were created between 1993 and 2009. Together, America's small 
businesses employ nearly half of our Nation's workers and generate half 
of our Nation's GDP.
  Even the smallest employers have a huge impact on our economy; 18 
percent of all private-sector employees work for businesses with fewer 
than 20 workers.
  Senator Casey and I recognize that employers cannot grow and add jobs 
unless they have the money to invest in building and expanding their 
businesses. That is why our bill focuses on making it easier for them 
to plan their capital investments and aims to reduce the burden and 
uncertainty of taxation, all in the name of creating jobs.
  Let me explain a few of the provisions of our bill.
  First, let me start by stating the obvious: Starting a new business 
that can hire workers costs money. Our bill eases the tax burden on new 
employers by permanently doubling the deduction for start-up expenses 
from $5,000 to $10,000.
  There are two other provisions in our bill that affect employers both 
large and small that we propose to extend: first, the so-called bonus 
depreciation, and second, the 15-year depreciation for improvements to 
restaurants and retail facilities. Unfortunately, these important 
provisions were allowed to expire at the end of last year, causing 
great uncertainty and thus discouraging investment and the creation of 
jobs.
  Just think about this: The law has reverted to a provision that says 
that a restaurant has to depreciate its renovations over 39 years. Can 
you imagine a restaurant waiting to renovate only once every 39 years 
because it is going to take that long to write off, to depreciate the 
cost? The 15-year depreciation schedule for improvements is far more 
realistic.
  Our bill also provides certainty for small employers who use section 
179 of the tax code. That is the small business expensing provision. 
Recent studies by the National Federation of Independent Business, 
NFIB, which has endorsed our bill, show that the constant changes in 
the tax code are among the top concerns of small business owners. 
Indeed, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania and I have both found in 
talking to smaller employers in our States that they are yearning for 
some certainty in tax policy. They simply cannot deal with a tax code 
where one year the deduction is at one level, and the very next year it 
is uncertain whether Congress is going to renew the provision or let it 
expire.

[[Page 2642]]

  The level of expensing allowed under section 179 has been 
unpredictable from year to year, and has changed four times in the past 
7 years. This uncertainty makes it difficult or even impossible for 
small employers to take full advantage of this tax incentive in their 
long-term investment planning. Our bill would fix this problem by 
making the maximum expensing allowable under this section permanent at 
$250,000 and indexing it for inflation. We also expand the ability of 
small employers to use simplified methods of accounting.
  Let me give a real-life example of what the small business expensing 
and the bonus depreciation provisions can mean. Last year I spoke with 
Rob Tod, the founder of Allagash Brewing Company, which is based in 
Portland, ME. Allagash makes some of the best craft beer in the 
country. In fact, Maine is known for its craft beers. Well, Rob's 
operation started out as a one-man show in 1995. In the 19 years since, 
it has grown into a firm that employs approximately 65 people and 
distributes craft beer throughout the United States.
  Rob noted to me that his company's ability to expand was fueled in 
part by bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing. New to the craft 
beer business, Rob had difficulty obtaining financing on favorable 
terms, but these cost recovery provisions allowed him to pay less in 
taxes in the years he acquired the equipment needed to expand his 
business. Those tax savings were then reinvested in his business, thus 
creating jobs.
  Just think about that. What a difference these provisions made to 
this company, which has gone from a one-man operation to employing 65 
people. This economic benefit is multiplied when you consider the 
effect of Allagash's investment on the equipment manufacturers, the 
transportation companies needed to haul new equipment to his brewery, 
the increased inventory, and the suppliers of the materials needed to 
brew additional beer.
  We are all too familiar with the litany of polls showing how little 
faith the American people have in their elected leaders and how much 
they want us to work together to solve our Nation's problems.
  I have been privileged to work with Senator Casey to do exactly that. 
The legislation that we have introduced is neither a Republican nor a 
Democratic proposal. It is, instead, a bipartisan plan to help spur 
America's economy, to assist our small employers, and, most of all, to 
create good-paying jobs. I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan 
bill. I would ask our leadership to bring this legislation to restore 
economic growth and job opportunity to the Senate floor for action as 
soon as possible.
  I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania for his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I first want to commend and salute the work 
that has been done already on this legislation by the senior Senator 
from Maine and for her leadership. Senator Collins appropriately 
focused on the issue of jobs and jobs creation.
  I know in our State at present we are finally below the half million 
unemployed number. We went many months where the unemployment rates 
went as high as 550,000 people. It went down, but it hovered around 
half a million people for far too many months. We are below that. Now 
we are at about 443,000. That is still a big number--below 7 percent 
but just by a little bit.
  So job creation has to be job one for me and for most of us if not 
all of us in the Senate. If that is the reality, that our No. 1 
obligation is job creation, we have to be able to show the people we 
represent that we are doing something about it. We cannot do much of 
anything unless we can get bipartisan cooperation. That is why I am so 
grateful Senator Collins has been willing to work with me on this 
legislation and to move it forward and to come together as a team to 
say to both of our leaders that we want to have legislative action on 
this bill this year.
  The reasons are pretty fundamental. If you have run a small business, 
you know what we are talking about. But even if you have not, even if 
you have not had that experience, you have encountered the challenges 
that small business owners face. In some cases it is not just 
challenges; it is real anxiety and worry that is compounded by 
uncertainty.
  There is uncertainty created by what does not happen in Washington or 
what does happen. When you shut the government down, that creates not 
just uncertainty but more than that. But there is also uncertainty when 
they do not see action here to bring the sides together. I am sure the 
Presiding Officer, who served as mayor of a big city, knows what it is 
like to talk to small business owners and to hear about their 
struggles, which have been especially acute in this very tough economy.
  One part of their struggle is that even if they can identify the 
problem and even maybe the solution to rectify the problem, they cannot 
hire a team of accountants or lawyers or tax professionals or 
consultants to help them. They often have to do these things on their 
own. Giving them some measure of certainty as it relates to tax policy 
would help enormously.
  So that is why we came together on the bill, the Small Business Tax 
Certainty and Growth Act. Senator Collins outlined some of the 
provisions. Let me just go through a couple of them by way of either 
reiteration or reemphasis.
  One she mentioned is the 15-year depreciation, what is sometimes 
referred to as the 15-year straight line depreciation schedule for 
restaurants. Why would we go back to the old policy which was that you 
had to get your increment--or piece of benefit I would call it--of 
depreciation in little slices over 39 years.
  Why not keep it at 15 years so that business owners know in each of 
those 15 years they are going to have a negative depreciation. It is a 
more realistic reflection of the useful economic life of the qualifying 
asset. It makes all the sense in the world to have that in place.
  Senator Collins also mentioned faster cost recovery that is reflected 
directly in a company's bottom line. It frees up cash that can be used 
to expand business operations and hire new workers. These tax 
provisions can actually allow folks to have the capacity to hire new 
workers. This is especially important in the restaurant industry which 
supports--get this number--535,000 jobs in Pennsylvania alone. That 
number is 13.5 million jobs nationwide in the restaurant industry.
  A study by the National Restaurant Association found that uncertainty 
about depreciation--the very thing we are talking about--and other tax 
provisions forced restaurants to forego improvement projects that would 
have produced around 200,000 jobs nationwide. So just one provision 
about one type of uncertainty could unleash substantial job creation.
  Secondly, the maximum allowable deduction, the so-called 179 
expensing. Again, why should a business that is already under 
tremendous pressure to meet a bottom line, to be able to deliver a 
product or a service, and has all of those pressures--why should that 
business not have the certainty to know that this year and next year 
and for as long as they are in business, they can depend upon, rely 
upon a deduction level that is set at $250,000 instead of fluctuating 
as that number has fluctuated.
  So making that deduction permanent is critically important. This 
section, this so-called section 179, allows taxpayers to fully deduct 
certain capital asset purchases in the year that they make the 
purchase. This type of extension provides an important incentive for 
businesses to make capital investments. We want them to make those 
investments. But we cannot just say to them: Go ahead and make that 
investment, and we hope we can help you in some uncertain way.
  We need to tell them that the rules of the road are going to be much 
more certain. That is the one provision that we believe should be made 
permanent.
  The deduction under this section 179 has changed three times in the 
past 6

[[Page 2643]]

years. This unpredictably makes it difficult for businesses to plan, 
for obvious reasons, and neutralizes much of the impact. It is not 
worth much if you are not sure it is going to be in place the next 
year. So by making it permanent and indexing it to inflation is a very 
important point.
  By indexing it, the bill provides the kind of certainty that 
businesses need to take full advantage so that they can hire more 
workers--just what we are hoping they will do and just what we hope we 
can help them do.
  A third provision, the so-called bonus depreciation, would help small 
businesses in much the same way as the expensing rules I just talked 
about. The bonus depreciation allows companies to expense half the 
cost. Imagine that--half the cost of qualifying assets that they buy 
and put into service in the same year. It provides an added incentive. 
Again, that word is important because we try to put Tax Code provisions 
in place that incentivize the kinds of actions that lead to job growth.
  Here are two studies I will cite quickly. In a 2013 report the U.S. 
Treasury Office of Tax Analysis concluded that this particular 
provision, the 50-percent bonus depreciation policy, increased small 
business investment by 31.2 percent between 2008 and 2009. Whether you 
count that as 2 or 3 years, it is a rather short time period. That 
provision alone, that bonus depreciation, increased small business 
investment by more than 31 percent.
  A separate report from the same department, the Treasury Department, 
said that this provision lowered the cost of capital by 44.1 percent. 
So no matter how you measure it, this bonus depreciation policy works. 
It creates jobs, and it will keep working if we put it in place and 
provide added incentive.
  Two more provisions on deductions for start-up expenses are very 
important. In the accounting rules--we have heard this for years--just 
by doubling that threshold level for one particular type of accounting 
and allowing firms to have more leeway with those accounting rules, 
they will have much more certainty and a much better policy.
  In 2010, another study by the Kauffman Foundation found that start-
ups and young firms were responsible for most of the job growth in our 
economy, creating 3 million jobs per year on average.
  So when you add up all of this, it is really about common sense. I do 
not say that in a theoretical way. We know these provisions work. We 
are certain of that. There is no dispute that each of those policies is 
directly responsible for substantial job growth. So that is the first 
thing we know. Second, we know they are supported across the board by 
both parties.
  Every Member of the Senate, even the newest Members, at one time or 
another has either voted for one of these provisions or supported it. 
So it makes sense in terms of the dynamic of how to get bipartisan 
legislation done here. We should put ourselves as best we can to stand, 
so-called, in the shoes of others. We should try to stand in the shoes 
of small business owners, try to understand what they are up against, 
and try to understand some of the pressures they face.
  One of the most difficult problems they face is something as simple 
as uncertainty. Putting these provisions in place would remove a 
substantial degree of uncertainty. If we can do that, they can unleash 
job creation the likes of which we probably have not seen in the last 
couple of years.
  I am grateful that Senator Collins was willing to work with me to 
move forward with this bipartisan legislation which will be an 
effective and a proven creator of jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for his remarks. I think it is obvious that both of us 
have reached out to employers in our States and asked them what would 
make a difference. What would allow you to create new jobs, preserve 
the ones you have, and pay your workers more?
  To a person, they identified provisions in the Tax Code, the 
uncertainty that occurs when they expire, the difficulty to plan and to 
hire new workers when you do not know what the Tax Code is going to be. 
That formed the basis for our bipartisan bill. We listened to what 
employers were telling us. I hope more of our colleagues will help us 
bring this bill to the Senate floor.
  Every day that I am talking to an employer in Maine, I am asked: Are 
the provisions that expired at the end of last year going to be 
renewed? Will they be retroactive? Can we count on them?
  They put their hiring plans on hold until we give them the certainty 
that they deserve. So, again, it has been a great honor to work with my 
colleague. I do urge our leaders to bring this important bill to the 
Senate floor.
  Madam President, I do have another statement that I would like to 
give seeing no one seeking the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Tribute to Russell Currier

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the world's best athletes have come 
together in Sochi, Russia, for the 22nd Winter Olympic Games. Among 
them is Russell Currier, from the small northern Maine town of 
Stockholm. It is in Aroostook County. It is very near Caribou where I 
grew up. I rise today to celebrate the determination, hard work, and 
community spirit that enables Russell Currier to represent our great 
country in the Olympic Games.
  Russell competes in the biathlon, the demanding and increasingly 
popular sport that combines cross-country skiing with sharpshooting. He 
secured his place on America's team by winning three out of four 
qualifying races in January at the U.S. biathlon Olympic trials.
  But Russell's snow-covered trail to Russia began long before that. 
Fourteen years ago, as a seventh grader, he joined the local Nordic 
skiing program. A former coach described him as a quiet youngster with 
no particular interest in the sport.
  That quickly changed. The next year, Russell won a county-wide middle 
school championship. The year after that, he won third place at the 
junior nationals. Caring coaches and encouraging teammates lit a fire 
in him that burns so brightly today.
  On Russell's personal profile on the U.S. Olympic Team Web site, he 
wrote that his favorite quote is, ``Less talking, more doing.'' He has 
embraced that motto with all of his strength, and his perseverance has 
turned his Olympic dream into a goal he has achieved.
  I have a particular rooting interest in Russell's success. He and his 
parents, Debbie and Chris, are graduates of Caribou High School, as am 
I. Debbie and I grew up spending summers at Madawaska Lake at camps 
that were very near each other, and we spent endless summers playing 
together. I have known this wonderful family for many years, and I am 
thrilled for them. While the world watches the Winter Olympics, the 
entire population of Aroostook County and indeed of all of Maine will 
be riveted to the biathlon competition.
  As the name suggests, the town of Stockholm, ME, was settled by 
Swedish immigrants. When the first 21 families came to Aroostook County 
in the 1870s, they brought with them an unsurpassed work ethic, a 
strong sense of community, and a love of skiing. In fact, the entire 
ski industry of Maine, both Nordic and alpine, can be traced to these 
hardy, outdoors-loving newcomers.
  Nearly a century and a half later, the work ethic and the love of 
skiing remains strong, and the sense of community is more powerful than 
ever. When Russell won his place on the U.S. team, friends and 
neighbors held a fundraiser, a spaghetti dinner at Caribou High School, 
serving up more than 300 spaghetti dinners so Russell's parents, Debbie 
and Chris, could make the long and expensive trip to Russia to cheer on 
their son.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article the

[[Page 2644]]

local newspaper, the Aroostook Republican, published on the community's 
support behind the Currier family.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From the Aroostook Republican]

                 Benefit Supper Sends Curriers to Sochi

                          (By Theron Larkins)

       Caribou.--By now, Russell Currier is a household name for 
     residents all over Aroostook County and Sunday night was a 
     time to congratulate and support his family, as many County 
     residents attended a benefit supper held at the Caribou High 
     School.
       The goal of the event was to raise enough money through 
     donations to send Russell's parents to Sochi, Russia, where 
     they will soon be able to watch their son compete for Olympic 
     gold. Thanks to hundreds, who came from all over Aroostook 
     County to attend the benefit, well over $6,000 was raised to 
     send Debbie and Chris Currier to the Sochi Winter Games.
       There were a number of students, 'teachers and community 
     members who volunteered at the event. Whether volunteers were 
     serving food, taking donations, or playing piano in the 
     background, the towns of greater Caribou were well 
     represented, as citizens came to show their support and 
     appreciation for the pride Russell has brought to the region.
       One Stockholm resident, who came out to show his support 
     was Russell's former coach and director of competitive 
     programs for Maine Winter Sports Center, Will Sweetser, 
     Sweetser coached Russell since junior high, but he certainly 
     recognized Russell's success was aided by much more than just 
     his coaches.
       ``They say it takes a community to raise an athlete, and I 
     think you can really see that in this room today,'' said 
     Sweetser.
       Currier, who is already training for the Winter Games, in 
     Italy, could not be in attendance at the supper, due to the 
     rigorous schedule typical of any Olympic athlete. However, 
     that didn't hinder the community's reminiscing. Friends and 
     family stayed well beyond the supper's two-hour allotted time 
     to eat and share their stories about a young Russell, as they 
     watched a slideshow of photos capturing the native son not 
     only on the slopes, but in a number of candid moments, as 
     well.
       ``A lot of people I've seen here tonight, throughout 
     Russell's entire career, have given pretty selflessly and 
     everyone is really excited to see him reach this point,'' 
     said Sweetser.
       As Sweetser pointed out, a large number came out to back 
     the Currier family during this hectic time. The last few 
     weeks have been overwhelming for all of us, as Debbie 
     Currier, told many attendees, but the community coming 
     together in such a way has undoubtedly helped cope with the 
     stress.
       ``It's wonderful, it really is,'' said Debbie. ``I see all 
     the faces who have come out to support us, a lot of the 
     parents who had children that grew up playing sports with 
     either my daughter or Russell, they've all just been so 
     supportive over the years. Since this whole thing started 
     we've been able to go to all the venues in different towns 
     and meet all the people who are part of the skiing community, 
     and it's really awesome that so many came,'' she added.
       When asked how special it would be for Russell to have his 
     parents able to attend such a major event, Debbie's reply may 
     not have been what would expect.
       ``Well, in the beginning he didn't really want us to come, 
     That's why, originally, we didn't have plans to go,'' she 
     said. ``But, I wanted to go so badly. I think he's kind of 
     worried. We are not travelers. We've never been to any of his 
     races outside of Maine and New Brunswick, so our very first 
     event to go to in Europe will he the Olympics, and it's in 
     Russia at a time when things are so unsettled.''
       The concern over the last few weeks in relation to 
     continuous terrorist threats, in Russia, may be worrisome for 
     many, but 10,000 Americans are still expected to make their 
     way to snowy Sochi for the event. A spate of suicide bombings 
     and jihadist threats during the last months have left 
     potential travelers wary of attending the Winter Games but 
     Russian and American security forces are vehemently working 
     to put minds at ease.
       Many precautions are being taken, not only by Vladimir 
     Putin's specially assigned task forces, but the U.S. will 
     also deploy two Navy ships to the Black Sea to evacuate 
     Americans should an incident occur.
       The concerns regarding safety at the upcoming Winter Games 
     is certainly something that neither Russell, nor his parents 
     are overlooking, but for the most part the Curriers have 
     faith in the joint effort, between the Russians and 
     Americans, to keep athletes and spectators safe. Security 
     within the Olympic circle remains extremely tight, yet 
     there's still concern pertaining to transit points and 
     scanning areas leading into the venue. If nothing else, the 
     terrorist threats have succeeded in creating an atmosphere of 
     paranoia that is tainting what has always been a jovial 
     celebration of sport and country.
       Andrew Kuchins of the Center for Strategic & International 
     Studies in Washington told journalists recently that Russian 
     authorities want to handle security alone, even though the 
     country ``has no experience with an event of this 
     magnitude.''
       Thousands of tickets have yet to be sold for numerous 
     events in Sochi and there is a growing concern that the 
     increase in security will disturb the very nature of the 
     Games. While no country has yet withdrawn from the Games, 
     many are taking extra precautions, including the U.S. Olympic 
     Committee, which will be providing its own set of protective 
     agents and has advised American athletes against wearing any 
     clothing that may identify them as part of the team.
       ``I think it worries him, but it worries us that he's there 
     too,'' said Debbie Currier.
       Despite the negative publicity and numerous threats 
     surrounding the Games there is a sense that authorities are 
     doing everything possible to keep the event a celebration 
     rather than a tragedy, and Debbie and the rest of the Currier 
     family are confident that everything will go according to 
     plan.
       The U.S. Biathlon Association sent out some information to 
     help guide us and they seem to think it's safe enough. They 
     believe that Russian and American authorities are doing 
     everything they can to keep us all safe.''
       The Curriers are planning to leave Caribou on Feb. 5th and 
     hope to be landing in Moscow sometime late the next day.

  Ms. COLLINS. Russell's dedication and his community spirit have a 
strong ally in this remarkable story, the Maine Winter Sports Center. 
The center was founded in 1999, with the purpose of rekindling 
Aroostook County's skiing heritage, spurring economic development in 
that rural region, bringing families together in wholesome recreation, 
and countering the sedentary lifestyle that leads to so many health 
problems among our greater population. The Center's world-class 
facilities in Fort Kent and Presque Isle, ME, have hosted national and 
international cross-country and biathlon competitions. For the 2006 and 
2010 Olympics, 13 Members of the U.S. biathlon team trained at the 
Maine Winter Sports Center, but Russell is the first homegrown Olympian 
to come up entirely through the center's program.
  Russell Currier demonstrates that growing up in a community that 
works hard and works together can be such a great advantage when 
combined with individual desire, determination, and skill. The success 
Russell has achieved in realizing his Olympic dream and the support 
along the way that he has received are truly inspiring.
  I am so proud of Russell and all who helped him achieve his dream. I 
wish him and his teammates all the best.
  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. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Eightieth Anniversary of the ``first tva city''

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate a special 
occasion for the Tennessee Valley Authority and the city of Tupelo, MS.
  Eighty years ago, on February 7, 1934, Tupelo, MS, became the first 
city to receive electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority. If you 
visit today, you will see the sign at the intersection of Gloster and 
Main Streets proclaiming Tupelo as the ``First T-V-A City.''
  Tupelo's connection to TVA power has had a tremendous impact, 
improving the quality of life and economic well-being for residents of 
Tupelo, the State of Mississippi, and across the South. The success 
helped Northeast Mississippi become a pioneer of rural electrification. 
As a resident of Tupelo myself, I am proud of the partnership 
Mississippi has built with TVA over the past eight decades.
  Anyone who has experienced a power outage can attest to our reliance 
on electricity today. It touches almost every aspect of our lives. But 
imagine a time when access to electricity was confined to major cities 
and densely populated areas. Luxuries such as the radio, the washing 
machine, and the refrigerator were known only to those who lived in 
cities because it was not profitable for energy companies to provide 
electricity to rural areas.
  In those days, the difference between life with electricity and life 
without it was so great that a large migration

[[Page 2645]]

was taking place from rural to urban areas. Already impoverished 
regions of the country were at risk of lagging even further behind.
  Like much of the rural South, Mississippi struggled with restricted 
access to electricity and the economic limitations it perpetuated. It 
became clear that improving rural life depended on access to 
electricity.
  By 1930 nearly 85 percent of homes in large urban areas had 
electrical service, but barely 10 percent of rural homes had the same 
access. In Mississippi, only 1.5 percent of farm homes had 
electricity--the lowest in the country.
  The creation of the TVA was a game changer. As America spiraled into 
a devastating depression, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin worked 
with Nebraska Senator George William Norris to improve and expand rural 
electrification. The result of their efforts was the TVA Act, passed by 
Congress on May 18, 1933. TVA began serving Mississippians in 1933 and 
powering Tupelo in 1934. The goal was simple: to improve the living and 
economic conditions of seven Southeastern States. By providing 
affordable electricity to rural communities, TVA was an important 
economic boost, delivering a needed commodity to one of the country's 
poorest regions.
  Tupelo's proximity to the Wilson Dam on the Tennessee River enabled 
it to become the first TVA city in 1934, allowing its residents to 
purchase electricity at some of the most affordable rates in the 
country. This completely revolutionized life for the citizens of Tupelo 
and even more Mississippians as TVA expanded.
  About 50 miles north of Tupelo, the town of Corinth, MS, was also at 
the forefront of rural electrification, proving that an electric power 
cooperative could work. In McPeters Furniture Store, ``The Corinth 
Experiment'' led to the creation of the Alcorn County Electric Power 
Association--the first electric power cooperative in the United States.
  In November of 1934 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to 
Northeast Mississippi, stopping in Corinth and Tupelo. We still talk 
about that visit today.
  The effort and dedication of the communities in Northeast Mississippi 
paid off. From 1930 to 1940 the number of farm homes in the State with 
electricity skyrocketed from 4,792 to 27,670. Today TVA provides 
reliable, clean, low-cost energy to more than 332,000 households in 
Mississippi.
  The TVA of 1934 is much different from the Tennessee Valley Authority 
of 2014. Eighty years ago hydroelectric dams provided TVA's power. 
Since then, TVA has developed coal, nuclear, natural gas, and renewable 
energy--all of the above serving approximately 9 million customers in 
seven States.
  I look forward to TVA's continued success, and I congratulate the 
many Mississippians who have contributed to the legacy of TVA over the 
past 80 years.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. 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. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
calling on the Senate to pass an extension of emergency unemployment 
insurance. I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that millions of 
hard-working Americans are now wondering how they will put food on 
their family's table and a roof over their heads because Washington has 
been unable to extend critical unemployment insurance.
  A few weeks ago we had a bipartisan vote to move forward with debate 
on the extension of what is called emergency unemployment compensation. 
I hope we can build on that vote and move forward as quickly as 
possible to restore this vital lifeline before more Americans who have 
worked hard and followed the rules their entire lives slip from middle 
class into poverty.
  The expiration of emergency unemployment insurance is an urgent 
problem for tens of thousands of Minnesotans and for millions of 
Americans. At the end of this past year, unemployment insurance expired 
for 1.3 million Americans, including 8,500 Minnesotans. If we don't 
renew that unemployment insurance over the next year, this lifeline 
will run out for another 3.6 million Americans, including 65,500 
Minnesotans. These are real people. These are fathers and mothers. They 
are people whose families and local communities are struggling.
  As I have traveled around Minnesota, I have had the chance to speak 
with many of the Minnesotans who are affected by the expiration of 
unemployment insurance. It is not the fault of these people or these 
workers who have lost their jobs.
  Very often, these workers were just unlucky enough to be working in 
the wrong sector of the economy at the wrong time. Sometimes they were 
from communities that lost a large employer.
  A few weeks ago I held a roundtable with unemployed workers who have 
been helped by unemployment insurance. These are long-term unemployed. 
There were also some workforce professionals who are helping these 
folks and others find jobs in today's recovering economy. The 
unemployed women I spoke with--Ann, Amy, and Robin--had been working 
and paying taxes for unemployment insurance for decades. One of them is 
in her forties, a mom with two kids, one a 3-year-old. The other two 
women are older workers, one in her fifties, the other in her early 
sixties. The one in her fifties was a meeting planner. When the 
recession hit, businesses cut costs by holding fewer meetings, and she 
couldn't find a job in her field but is trying to find a job in any 
field. These women had all been skilling up, getting the skills they 
could to try to get an office job and be more conversant in Excel or 
some computer program.
  All the Minnesotans I have spoken with have been working hard to find 
jobs, but they face a tough situation in our economy. In November the 
Labor Department reported that for every job opening there are almost 
three people seeking jobs. That doesn't mean you will get a job if you 
apply for three jobs. A few weeks ago a job counselor in Minnesota told 
me that there are often hundreds of applicants for every good job 
posting and that these jobs are often filled internally. I am glad 
businesses are hiring from within or promoting from within, but it is 
stories such as these that highlight why we need emergency 
unemployment--to help those workers who were working in a sector that 
has experienced a major downturn or live in a community where it is 
particularly hard to find a job and particularly if they are of a 
certain age.
  One of the women I met at the roundtable, Ann from Eden Prairie, had 
also written me. What she told me really illustrates the situation so 
many Minnesotans are facing. Ann wrote:

       I have been extremely active in my job search, but have 
     regrettably not found new employment. My Minnesota 
     Unemployment Insurance ran out last week and I applied for 
     Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation just this past 
     week . . . I ask you to please ask yourself what you would do 
     to provide for your family. I have a 9 year old daughter . . 
     . and a 3 year old son. I am the sole provider for my family 
     . . . I am not looking for a handout, nor do I believe that 
     staying on unemployment insurance is in my best interest. But 
     the $483 a week it provides will at least allow me to make my 
     mortgage payment.

  Ann is remarkably articulate. She volunteers at her son's school, 
partly because she wants to be involved in her son's life but also to 
network. One of the counselors there said: The hardest job there is is 
looking for a job.
  Minnesotans such as Ann and the millions of Americans around the 
country in the same situation have worked for decades. Every one of 
these women had worked and been paying into unemployment insurance for 
decades. They don't deserve to be punished or to lose their homes 
because they are unable to find a job within 26 weeks. Often, they need 
unemployment insurance so they can put gas in the car to

[[Page 2646]]

look for a job or so they can keep their phone.
  The economy is recovering, but things are still tough for many 
people. Now is not the time to cut off unemployment insurance. Not only 
is unemployment still above average, but the long-term unemployed--
workers who have been looking for work for at least 6 months--make up 
37 percent of today's unemployed. Congress has never allowed extended 
unemployment insurance to expire when the long-term unemployment rate 
is as high as it is today. Today the 2.5-percent long-term unemployment 
rate is nearly double the level it was when previous emergency benefits 
were allowed to expire, and the current unemployment rate of 6.7 
percent is 1.1 percentage points higher than when George W. Bush signed 
the current round of emergency unemployment compensation into law.
  We know the unemployment crisis is not over. It remains a significant 
issue for workers, especially older workers, who experience longer 
periods of unemployment than younger workers when they lose their jobs.
  Extending unemployment insurance also makes economic sense. In 2011 
the Congressional Budget Office stated that aid to the unemployed is 
among the policies with ``the largest effects on output and employment 
per dollar of budgetary costs.'' CBO estimates that extending benefits 
through 2014 would help expand the economy and contribute to the 
creation of an additional 200,000 jobs. The Council of Economic 
Advisers estimates that without a full-year extension, the economy will 
generate 240,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2014.
  Unemployment insurance has been shown to help people stay in the 
workforce, allowing them to contribute to our economic recovery rather 
than slip into poverty. The Census Bureau estimates that unemployment 
benefits have kept 2.5 million people who are trying to stay in the 
workforce out of poverty in 2012 alone and have kept 11 million 
unemployed workers out of poverty since 2008.
  Extending unemployment insurance for those who need it is far from 
the only thing we should be doing to help people get back to work. I 
have spoken many times about one of my highest priorities in this 
area--addressing the skills gap by supporting workforce training 
partnerships between businesses and community and technical colleges. 
There are other things we should be doing, such as rebuilding our 
infrastructure. But it would be a tremendous mistake to fail to renew 
the unemployment insurance that has lapsed.
  People such as Ann and Robin and all those I meet around the State of 
Minnesota, and the millions of others around the country, when they are 
looking really hard for work, are spending hours a day looking for 
work, almost 24 hours a day because they keep their phones on. They are 
thinking about it constantly. Let's not pull the rug out from under 
them now. They are trying to catch up in an economy that is recovering 
but still has a long way to go. We shouldn't be jeopardizing their 
families' economic security and we shouldn't be jeopardizing our 
Nation's economic recovery with a shortsighted decision like letting 
this critical safety net expire.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Tribute to Senator Max Baucus

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise to speak of my colleague, our 
friend Senator Baucus, who hopefully will be confirmed by the Senate to 
his new post in a few hours.
  I have, of course, known Senator Baucus since I came to the Senate, 
but even before, one of my first impressions of him was a picture of 
Senator Baucus in his white cowboy hat on his ranch in Montana. To me, 
a kid from New York City, he looked like the Marlboro Man. He was 
handsome and he was in the cowboy hat. So I said: Wow.
  When I met Senator Baucus, I found his heart, his brain, and his soul 
were every bit as good as the outside. He was a great leader of the 
Finance Committee. First, he had great intellect. Max Baucus would see 
an issue, understand the issue, and get to the heart of the issue 
quicker than almost anybody else. He understood the vagaries of 
legislation, and he knew how to try to get things done. He always 
worked in a bipartisan way. He reached out to Republicans, and many 
criticized him sometimes for doing it, but given the gridlock in this 
body, in retrospect, everybody would think: Wow, that is what we should 
be doing. And he tried and tried.
  Of course, his crowning legislative achievement was health care. I 
know there are some--particularly on the other side of the aisle--who 
criticize it, but I have no doubt that Max Baucus will be regarded as a 
giant in what he did in coming up with the health care reform bill. I 
have no doubt that as the kinks are worked out and as the effort moves 
forward, it will be regarded as one of the pieces of landmark 
legislation of this decade and this century, and it wouldn't have 
happened without Max Baucus.
  There are 37 million Americans who now have access to health 
insurance, a whole generation of young adults who will be insured 
through the age of 26, and protection of all Americans with preexisting 
conditions because of the diligence, the never-give-up attitude Senator 
Baucus had. On so many other things in the bill--getting after the 
private insurance companies; now community health centers are providing 
health care for the poorest among us in a better way--this is one of 
many issues on which Max Baucus took the lead.
  As I say, he was a premier legislator, worked long and hard, figured 
out what he thought the right thing to do was, tried to get colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle as well as on our side of the aisle to 
support it, and then got it done. The list of his accomplishments is 
long. He took the bull by the horns, never backing off.
  I know Senator Baucus will be an outstanding ambassador to China. It 
is one of the most important foreign policy positions our country has 
to offer, and having someone with Max Baucus's acute mind, great 
persistence, good heart, and good soul will mean a lot.
  Not only are we going to miss Max, we are going to very much miss his 
wife Mel. She is terrific. They met not too long ago, and I know how 
happy they make each other. I think it makes all of us feel happy as 
well.
  Max, you are truly the best of the ``Last Best Place,'' and we will 
all miss you.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I rise to talk about the impact of the 
Affordable Care Act on the workplace. A report by the Congressional 
Budget Office came out yesterday stating that the number of jobs 
affected by the Affordable Care Act was triple what they estimated in 
2009. At that time they estimated this would cost us up to 800,000 
jobs. Yesterday they said it would cost us up to 2.3 million jobs. I 
guess those who voted for it didn't have an impartial observer tell 
them that there would be substantial workplace costs. Now that same 
group, after looking at the application and how the law is going to 
affect people, says there will be three times as many jobs lost because 
of people moving from full-time work to part-time work.
  This is another strong indication that the Affordable Care Act has 
not been good for the workplace, and I think we are seeing more and 
more that the Affordable Care Act is not good for most people. I am 
sure that out there somewhere--just the law of

[[Page 2647]]

averages--there are people who benefit. I think there are other ways we 
could have reached out to those people and included them.
  I have some emails and letters that were addressed to my office that 
I will read into the Record. We verified all of the correspondence with 
the people involved. We wanted to make sure we could use their first 
names so I could talk about this, and I believe the people who wrote 
us--some stories are beyond belief--were well intentioned.
  John, from Farmington, MO, said he is one of the founding 
shareholders for his company and has been since 1975. They provided 
insurance for their employees and their families, but this year their 
insurance person came to them and said there will be a 50-percent 
increase when they renew their coverage later this year. In this small 
company, they are currently paying $12,000 a month and will be paying 
$18,000 a month. John says: We are a profitable business, but we are 
not so profitable that $6,000 a month doesn't make a big difference to 
us when our insurance premiums go up 50 percent.
  Lisa, in Baldwin, MO, said she is an insurance broker. She contacted 
us to talk about the examples many of her clients have had and the way 
they were affected by the health care bill. This is one of her letters:

       I have a family of five people--a husband, wife, and three 
     children--who were paying $437/month for a Health Savings 
     Account plan. Their rate for a comparable plan under ACA was 
     $805/month.

  So that $437 this family was paying--if they replace that, along with 
everything else they are doing in a given month--is now $805.
  She says:

       I have quoted plans for numerous people over the last few 
     months. All have lesser benefits than what they currently 
     have and are far more expensive.

  She doesn't say ``some,'' she says ``most.'' And this is coming from 
someone who does this for a living. She said that in every case she has 
quoted, there have been higher costs and fewer benefits.
  William, from Desloge, MO, said that his wife had a pacemaker 
installed 3 years ago. He goes on to say:

       Recently, she called to set up a follow-up checkup on the 
     pacemaker with her hospital. She was told that due to the 
     budget constraints placed on the hospital due to the 
     Affordable Care Act they no longer provide those services.

  According to William, instead of driving 10 miles for these services, 
they have to drive 60 miles one way. They have to drive 120 to 150 
miles to go to one of the places located in St. Louis when they used to 
drive just 10 miles. The reason the hospital gave is that the 
Affordable Care Act has created that.
  This is a letter from a broker:

       I have a client in her late 50s who makes $20,000 and 
     qualifies for the subsidy. Even with the subsidy, her premium 
     was around $300 a month for the lowest possible level in the 
     plan.

  I think that level is called the bronze plan. For the lowest level 
plan, her subsidy is $300 a month, and that was about 50 percent more 
than she had been paying for comparable coverage.
  Mark and Janet, from Platte City, MO, were informed in September 2013 
that as of January 1, 2014, their premiums would double. Here is what 
they say in their letter:

       While we do not think ObamaCare, as it now stands, is good 
     for this nation, at least it was an attempt to do something--

  These are people who were hopeful about this and were still not 
critical of people who were trying to do something--

     about out-of-control medical costs. It needs serious 
     revisions and parts of it should be repealed. People in their 
     60s do not need maternity coverage! And mental health/
     substance abuse coverage should not be mandatory either.

  That is the view of Mark and Janet.
  Mary Ann, in Scott City, MO, said she has had continuous health care 
coverage for 36 years without ever having a day without health 
insurance coverage. After being diagnosed with cancer, her insurance 
was canceled and she was forced to get insurance somewhere else. Why 
was her insurance canceled? She had been in the high-risk pool that the 
State runs.
  In 2009 I proposed other ways to do this and expand those high-risk 
pools. I think by the time the high-risk pool went out of existence on 
December 31, there were slightly more than 1,000 people still in it. I 
think we are eventually going to get 4,000 letters. What were they 
paying? They were paying 135 percent of the premium everybody else was 
paying. They had a high risk already, and they were generally able to 
go to the doctors they wanted. According to the letters we get, they 
are no longer able to go to the doctors they want. Doctors are 
important, but, frankly, doctors are even more important if you have 
been sick. If a doctor has been your doctor through an illness, that is 
something Mary Ann and others would like to have finished.
  Let me read one other:

       As of December 23rd, I was finally able to enroll. It's 
     costing me more and I'm getting less. Unbelievably, 
     healthcare.gov wouldn't allow me to enroll my healthy 18-
     year-old son. I thought he was the healthy young person they 
     needed in order to make this program work.

  That may have been a Web site problem. The Web site will be solved. 
The President said the Web site is working exactly the way it is 
supposed to, so maybe that has been solved.
  I don't think the appeals process is working yet. I am told there are 
a lot of people appealing information that somehow wrongly got into the 
Web site. They can't get that solved.
  Mary continues to say that the ACA has been a disaster for her and 
her family. She says: Shame on us for letting this happen. I want my 
old insurance back. I don't appreciate being mandated at the last 
minute to buy something that has inferior health coverage. It is 
administratively inept and costs more. Please resolve this disaster 
before it gets worse.
  Myron, from Hannibal, MO, says:

       My company told me last November to go to my wife's group 
     health insurance plan because they didn't know how ObamaCare 
     was going to work out.
       On advice from an insurance broker, my company got me off 
     their group policy. As a result, my health insurance premiums 
     went from $198 a month to $549 a month.

  Natalie, from Meadville, says:

       My health insurance costs for my family of four have 
     doubled and my benefits have decreased. I no longer have 
     office visit benefits and my deductible has gone from $3,500 
     to $10,000.

  She said that she raised her deductible to try to lower her insurance 
premiums.
  She goes on to say:

       At the end of 2014, when we are forced to sign up for an 
     Obamacare plan, we will probably cancel our insurance if it 
     is cheaper to pay the penalty.

  I can't tell you how many letters we have that say: My premium has 
gone up and my benefits have gone down. There has been a huge number of 
people who have contacted us about that.
  Pat from Kansas City is worried about her kids, her oldest daughter, 
and her family. Her premium went from $5,000 to $10,000 a year.
  Scott from Lee's Summit says his premium went up 27 percent for 
himself and his son. He was told it would have gone up 7 percent 
anyway, but 20 percent of that 27 percent--or actually more than 20 
percent--that 20 percent of the increase was because of the change in 
health care policies.
  I think the more we know, the more we know the kinds of things we 
could do to make the health care system work better. I would like to 
see us get back to doing that. Until we do, these letters are going to 
continue to come in, and we are going to continue to try to help these 
people find a better answer. But the government involvement here may 
mean there is not a better answer until the government figures out how 
to create a bigger marketplace and more choices and let people have the 
health care they think meets their family's needs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order of business right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the unemployment 
compensation bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the absolute 
necessity to pass this unemployment compensation bill. We should do it 
because it is the morally right thing to do, it is

[[Page 2648]]

the economically right thing to do. We have listened to our Republican 
friends, and even though they always said in the past: Do not worry 
about paying for it--they passed it almost five times under George Bush 
without paying for it--now all of a sudden they say: Pay for it. We do 
pay for it in this bill. So I do not know what it is they exactly want.
  They claim they are empathetic to people unemployed, the long-term 
unemployed, and we know that rate is very high--long-term 
unemployment--even though we have seen in the last, I guess, how many 
months, 8 million jobs--in about 46 months--but not everybody is 
fortunate to get those jobs. Clearly, we came out of the worst 
recession since the Great Depression, brought about by Wall Street. It 
happened under George W. Bush. We were bleeding jobs--bleeding jobs--
700,000, 800,000 jobs a month. It was frightening. The GDP was 
contracting.
  President Obama turned it around. I predict he will go down in 
history as one of the great Presidents because we were almost flat on 
our backs, and yet he acted. Luckily, we had a few Republicans who 
helped us pass that stimulus, which in my State made a huge difference 
and all over the country. It got us on our feet. We have made reforms 
that are very important.
  I also have to say, the ``Bad News Bears'' on the other side--every 
day, negative stories and negative stories and negative stories about 
ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. I daresay, they ignore the millions 
and millions and millions of Americans who for the first time are able 
to get affordable health insurance. It is private health insurance, not 
a government-run system, except for the Medicaid part, which we 
expanded. The exchanges are private insurance.
  They are able to afford it because the way we wrote the bill there 
are subsidies for the middle class on those exchanges, which is making 
it affordable for people. You should see the letters I get. I have read 
many of them and put them in the Record. People who had a preexisting 
condition, who never could get health care before, they write me they 
are thanking God--thanking God--that we passed that bill. Their kids, 
who were going to be thrown off their health care, are now on that 
health insurance until they are 26 years old. Being a woman is no 
longer an excuse to have your rates doubled and tripled. It is not a 
preexisting condition to be a woman anymore. If you have diabetes or 
you have had cancer, you still get your insurance. The insurance 
company cannot walk out on you just when you need it the most. Come on.
  I say to my Republican friends, step up to the plate. Yes, we have 
kinks in the system. We knew that when we said: If you love your 
insurance, you could keep it--I admit, I should have said: If it meets 
the basic standards because we do not want people having junk policies. 
But we fixed that. The President has stepped up to the plate and fixed 
that.
  So all they do is focus on the negative, while people are on their 
knees thanking God they have health care, many for the first time.
  I am kind of stunned at it, really. I really am. We are ready, 
willing, and able to fix whatever glitches there are, and the President 
has been totally honest about the disastrous rollout. We understand 
that. Despite that, we have millions and millions of people with new, 
affordable health care for the first time.
  Now we look at extending emergency Federal unemployment insurance for 
the long-term unemployed.
  We did not act in December. That was a moral outrage. We did not have 
the votes. The Republicans are filibustering. We need to get 60. So 1.7 
million Americans have lost their extended benefits since the end of 
December. In my home State, 276,000 people have lost their extended 
unemployment benefits. Think about it: 276,000 Californians. Some of 
our States have populations of 600,000, 700,000--276,000 people just in 
California.
  What does that mean? It means they are suffering. It means their 
families are suffering. It means they are faced with disaster. It also 
means they cannot go down to the corner store, they cannot go fill 
their car with gas. They have all these problems and it trickles down 
through the community and the community is hurting. That is why we know 
our bill is so important, because it not only helps the individual, it 
helps the communities.
  We know--we know--that GDP is, in fact, affected if we do not act. 
Last month my colleagues on the other side blocked a one-year extension 
of unemployment benefits, even after we offered to pay for it. We gave 
them votes on the amendments of their choice. We gave them everything 
they asked for. It is never enough. We had one Republican Senator, and 
I thank Mr. Heller, who voted for cloture last month.
  I just hope my colleagues will listen to the people and support this 
extension. I would like to, for my remaining time, read to you some of 
the letters I am getting and emails I am getting from real people--real 
people.
  This is Kristen from Chatsworth:

       I am writing you to please continue to help get an 
     extension on unemployment.
       After working over ten years in the clerical field, I was 
     let go and was on unemployment. I have been constantly 
     searching for jobs and after rejection after rejection I have 
     not given up. It is scary to hear that my claim will be up 
     after 26 weeks of unemployment. I do not know how I will make 
     ends meet if they do not extend unemployment.
       I know I am not alone on this subject and millions are as 
     scared as I am. I have never been on welfare or any 
     assistance even being a teenage mother.

  My friends on the other side are always talking about how if a 
teenager gets pregnant, she should have the child. Here is someone who 
did that. We should help this woman. We should help this woman.
  Here is another one, Jay from Albany:

       Please keep pushing for the unemployment extension. I am 
     one of those who were cut off in December. I'm 61, have 3 
     college degrees and am a Vietnam-era veteran.

  This is a man who is a Vietnam-era veteran. He has three college 
degrees. This is what he says:

       I am not a number or a lazy or stupid individual as some 
     Republicans would like you to believe. Those checks are our 
     only lifeline.
       With several lay-offs in the last twelve years, the Dot.com 
     crash, and the worst economy of my life, I have sadly had to 
     run through my life savings and 401Ks.

  Think about it, having to run through your life savings and your 
401(k). Think about it, a veteran who put his life on the line for his 
country. He is insulted that the Republicans are intimating that he is 
lazy or stupid--his words. This is what this man writes--and then I am 
going to yield my time so my friend from Montana can add his eloquence 
to this--this is what he writes:

       I have worked since I was 15 and fear I may be homeless 
     soon if I don't get those federal unemployment checks.

  Listen to what he says:

       I eat one meal a day . . . and I'm starting to feel quite 
     desperate. Please convince . . . your colleagues that this is 
     something we all paid into and desperately need now and not 
     in a month or two.
       We are not receiving welfare checks, but checks we worked 
     for and earned. I know you have always stood up for your 
     constituents and those in times of need. I pray--

  He writes:

       I pray you are successful along with your fellow senators 
     and representatives.

  This is Jay in Albany.
  Jay, there are a lot of us here who are not giving up on this. Your 
voice is heard.
  I have to close with this one thing because it is so important. 
Sylvia from Pasadena--this is how she talks about this:

       I want to be a normal person again and talk with friends 
     and family about my day at work and what I achieved for my 
     company or the recognition I received from my boss. I am not 
     a lazy woman; I want and need to be a normal woman with a 
     fair chance at finding a job.
       I want my government to be patient . . . and show some 
     compassion. Instead, I get Members of Congress calling me 
     names and making me feel ashamed for losing my job through no 
     fault of my own, and making me feel desperate because I don't 
     know how I will be paying my bills.

  Sylvia writes to me:

       Please don't give up on me Mrs. Boxer. I ask you to 
     continue to fight as I can still

[[Page 2649]]

     provide value to this great country. . . . I believe I'm 
     worthy of a little compassion and not name calling.

  These letters move me to tears, and I am not afraid to say it. I am 
not afraid to say it. Our friends wanted a short-term bill. That is 
what they have before them. Our friends wanted a pay-for. This is a 
pay-for they have agreed with. If they do not help us today--when I say 
``help us,'' I mean help those who have written to all of us with their 
stories--they are turning their backs on the backbone of this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I wish to very quickly thank the Senator 
from California for her remarks before I get into my prepared remarks.
  We have just come through the worst recession since the Great 
Depression of the 1930s. Unemployment is still at 7 percent. We need to 
get it lower. The bottom line is there are still some folks out there 
who need some help, and as the economy continues to improve--we are not 
where we need to be yet--we ought to give those folks the help they 
need to get back on their feet, to give them the hope they need to 
reenter the workforce and become valuable parts of our economy again.


                     Tribute to Senator Max Baucus

  Madam President, there is a beautiful small town in the farthest 
corner of northwest Montana. The town is called Libby, and it sits in 
the heart of the Kootenai Valley, surrounded by majestic snow-capped 
mountains. It is a beautiful place. But despite Libby's postcard-worthy 
views, the town has a troubled history.
  Starting in 1919, mining companies began pulling vermiculite from the 
mountains outside of town. Vermiculite was used to bake, to build soil 
in gardens, and to insulate buildings. It was not long before the 
families of Libby began to pay the price for keeping their fellow 
Americans warm.
  Mining vermiculite exposed Libby's miners and residents to asbestos 
dust. That asbestos got into their homes, their schools, and--
eventually--their lungs. Over the decades, hundreds of folks in Libby 
died from asbestos exposure, and thousands more continue to suffer 
today.
  When the W.R. Grace company bought the mines in 1963, the company 
denied that asbestos caused the illnesses plaguing the town's 
residents. Instead of sounding the alarm, they kept quiet while 
building corporate profits on the backs of Libby's suffering families 
and workers.
  Word about Libby's fate finally made it to national news in 1999. The 
plight of Libby's families caught the attention of one man in 
particular, Montana's senior Senator Max Baucus.
  Max soon began his crusade to get the EPA and the Department of 
Health and Human Services to take action. Despite Max bringing 
countless government officials to northwest Montana to see what 
asbestos had done to the men, women, and children of Libby, it took 10 
years for the government to declare this region a public health 
emergency, the first of its kind. Thanks to Max, Libby today is home to 
a state-of-the-art medical clinic that screens and treats residents for 
asbestosis.
  Thanks to Max, the Affordable Care Act extended Medicare coverage to 
everyone in the emergency zone. Thanks to Max, funds are flowing into 
Libby to remove asbestos from homes, schools, and playgrounds. Due to 
Max's hard work and the determination of the people of Libby, the town 
is slowly putting the sordid legacy of W.R. Grace in its rearview 
mirror. Max's hard work for the people of Libby is the Max Baucus that 
Montanans have come to know.
  But Max's work for the people of Montana started many years before he 
led the fight to help the people of Libby. In the early 1970s when Max 
started in public service, he traveled to Butte to meet a fellow by the 
name of Harp Cote. Harp knew the lay of the land in Butte, but he did 
not know Max. Max did not know Butte. Harp was instantly impressed with 
Max's willingness to work or, as Harp said it, Max's ``fire in the 
belly.'' Max asked Harp to introduce him to Butte's leaders and voters. 
Unlike other candidates, Max did not want Harp to lobby the folks of 
Butte on his behalf. Instead, Max went door to door himself to win 
their support.
  That kind of work ethic, where you put your own shoe leather into the 
fight, is the reason for Max's many achievements in Congress, 
achievements that include saving Social Security from privatization, 
leading the charge to modernize the Clean Air Act, passing six farm 
bills and three highway bills to strengthen Montana's and America's 
economy.
  Folks in Washington do not always recognize Max's hard work. In a 
town where too many people race for the nearest TV cameras, Max's 
preference for hard work does not always do him any favors. That is 
practically a mortal sin around here. But not for Max. Max has 
represented Montana in Congress since 1975.
  His long record of service proves that Montanans do not want a 
showman. They do not want someone who yells across the aisle. They want 
someone who will reach across that aisle and find a way to say yes even 
when saying no is easier to do. It is like the folks in Libby. Montana 
wants someone who will work hard for them, who will get results and 
fight to improve our quality of life. Montanans have a soul mate in Max 
Baucus.
  I first met Max in 1998 at an economic development meeting in Havre, 
MT. Max is famous for his economic development summits in Butte. So it 
was no surprise that we first crossed paths when Max was working to 
improve Montana's economy. At that point in his career Max's record was 
already impressive.
  In 1972, as Director of Montana's constitutional convention, Max 
helped pass one of the most progressive state constitutions to date, 
enshrining protections for clean air, for clean water, and for the 
right to a quality education into law. He then walked the entire length 
of our State to introduce himself to Montanans and win a seat in 
Congress, meeting more men and women along the way like Harp Cote.
  As Max gained experience in the Senate, he became Chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. Soon thereafter, well into his 
50s, Max hiked 820 miles, from one corner of our State to the other, to 
earn the support of Montanans during his 1996 reelection. So Max, in 
your new role as Ambassador, take my advice and do not try to walk from 
one end of China to the other.
  Max next rose to become Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As 
chairman, Max did not have the luxury of not getting the job done. The 
Finance Committee has been home to some of our Nation's hardest-working 
Senators and greatest examples of bipartisanship because failing to 
support critical programs like Social Security and Medicare is simply 
not an option.
  On the Finance Committee, you cannot sit back and throw stones. You 
have to roll up your sleeves, you have to find common ground, and you 
have to get the job done. That is what Max did. He passed legislation 
to reduce Americans' tax burdens, improve children's health, and, most 
recently, to reform our Nation's broken health care system.
  Max's penchant for hard work and thoughtful, independent-minded 
leadership stems from another great Montanan that he and I both admire, 
former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. Max met Mike as a 
teenager, and for many Montanans of today, myself included, Max 
connects us to Mike's legacy as a champion for the greater good, as the 
champion for putting service and sacrifice well before self, and a 
champion for Montana.
  Montana's leaders always put Montana first, and Max is no exception. 
Just as Montana has shaped Max, Max has shaped Montana. Max's 
dedication to our public lands is legendary. Montana is known as the 
Treasure State because of our incredible natural resources and 
unrivaled public spaces. From Yellowstone to Glacier, Montana is a 
place like no other. Throughout his career, Max has set out to preserve 
our treasured lands for future generations to enjoy. In 2008, the same 
year he won reelection and became the first person

[[Page 2650]]

to win all 56 counties in Montana, Max helped set aside 320,000 acres 
of prime hunting and fishing lands across our State.
  This land, which will forever be open to the public, is part of Max's 
brainchild called the Montana Legacy Project. Max's love of our 
outdoors extends to those who share his love. In March of 2000, he came 
to the Senate floor to remember a young Montanan, Sean-Michael Miles, 
who had tragically died in a car accident just over a year before.
  Max dedicated a scholarship in Sean's name. Max repeated Sean's 
words:

       I know this land may pay a price for being beautiful, as 
     change advances, carrying with it the prospect of loss. It is 
     a land I desperately love. It is a part of me. It hurts so 
     much to care so much. Yet as a westerner, I am invited to 
     breathe it all in deeply each day.

  Max, Sean would be proud of your hard work to preserve our treasured 
places. I pledge to carry on your efforts so Montanans can continue to 
cherish our special places and pass our traditions down to our kids and 
our grandkids.
  But it is not a stretch to say that I would not be here if it were 
not for Max Baucus. Max has brought world leaders to Butte for his 
economic development summit. He brought camera crews onto construction 
sites and small businesses as part of his famous Montana workdays. He 
operated forklifts in warehouses, made bread in Montana's bakeries, and 
dug ditches--all to get a better feel for hard-working Montanans each 
and every day.
  He fought for Montana farmers and ranchers who feed our Nation. But 
he also helped bring a dry-land farmer from Big Sandy, MT, to the 
Senate. Max, I cannot tell you how much you have meant to me as a 
friend, as a partner, as a mentor. I have lost track of how many 
meetings and rallies we have attended together across our State. But I 
do know that at each one you have had my back.
  So when I arrived in the Senate in 2007, it was because of you that a 
guy with seven fingers and a flat-top haircut quickly figured how to 
get from his office to the Senate floor. It is because of you that I 
had a model for working across the aisle to pass thoughtful, 
responsible legislation. It is because of you that I always know that I 
have a friend to turn to when I need advice; that is, because along 
with your tremendous staff, you have always put Montana first. You have 
built the Montana Democratic Party into a beacon of common sense, 
freedom, and opportunity in the West. Our party is stronger because of 
you and your dedication to our State.
  After retiring from the Senate in 1976, Mike Mansfield became the 
Ambassador to Japan. Now you are posed to continue following in Senator 
Mansfield's footsteps as Ambassador to China. I know that you will 
continue to serve Montana, even as you serve our Nation's interests 
overseas. I wish you the best. While you are gone, I will keep up your 
fight for Montana, particular the Montanans who need someone to fight 
for them. Montanans like Les Skramstad. Les was a long-time Libby 
resident. For years, he saw politicians come to Libby with a promise to 
help. That help never arrived.
  When Max came to Libby, Les told him he would be watching. Les passed 
away in 2007 before Libby began getting its help. But Max keeps Les's 
photo close because in Montana a promise to help is a promise to keep. 
That is the Montana way. That is the Max Baucus way.
  Max, it has been an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to call 
you friend. The Senate will be a lesser body without you. I wish you 
God's speed and good luck. This is an incredibly important job. I know 
you are more than up to that task. Thank you for your service to this 
Senate and to Montana and to this country.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I know we are shortly going to be voting on, among 
other issues, the nomination of Senator Max Baucus to be the next U.S. 
Ambassador to China. I would expect that he would have a unanimous, if 
not nearly unanimous, vote in the Senate.
  I said in the Foreign Relations Committee this week that clearly one 
of the biggest challenges and the biggest opportunities before U.S. 
foreign policy today is getting the relationship between the United 
States and China--in the context of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific--
right. I can think of few more able or qualified at this important 
moment in history than our friend and colleague, the Senator from 
Montana, to help provide advice and guidance to the President and to 
Congress about how to get that relationship right.
  He is an expert on trade issues. He understands what we face in the 
coming years as China's economy continues to grow. He is fully aware of 
the facts that we have had U.S. exports to China that have increased by 
almost $40 billion in the past 4 years alone, creating and sustaining 
millions of sustaining U.S. jobs in sectors across the board--
automobiles, power generation, machinery, aircraft, and other vital 
industrial sectors. His trade missions to China, since he has been the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, have given him the perspective he 
needs to deal with the realities of our policy options.
  From the hearing he clearly understands that through the rest of the 
21st century and beyond, much of the strategic, political, and economic 
future of the world is likely to be shaped by decisions made by 
Washington, Beijing, and the capitals of Asia over the next 4 to 5 
years. How we get that rebalance right is incredibly important, and the 
Ambassador to China is incredibly important in that regard.
  Finally, trade is not the only issue as it relates to China. Our 
collective security, having China pursue a rules-based system, is 
incredibly important, as well as what happens in the South China Sea--
all of the issues Senator Baucus addressed in his nomination hearing 
with great ability, insight, and a willingness to take them on.
  As the very final point, human rights is an incredibly important 
issue as it relates to China. I want to read briefly from the 
transcript where he was asked about the question of human rights. He 
described a moment as a Senator in which he raised the issue with then-
President Jiang Zemin.
  Senator Baucus said:

       He said [the President of China] I did not know what I was 
     are talking about, basically. But then I went to Tibet, went 
     to Lhasa and raised the same point there. And sure enough, 
     within about 2 or 3 weeks, this person was released. . . .
       Protection of human rights is the bedrock. It is the 
     underpinning of American and world society. . . . People look 
     to America, look to America to lead on so many issues, 
     including the protection of human rights, religious freedoms, 
     freedom of the press, all the rights that are enumerated in 
     the universal declaration. It is what most progress springs 
     from.
       And the answer is yes, Senator [Cardin]. You have my 
     commitment [on human rights].

  I think the totality of trade, currency manipulation, security, human 
rights, and the answers that he gave in his hearing, clearly show 
manifestly that he is very capable of being the next Ambassador.
  I urge a unanimous vote in the Senate, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. REED. First let me add my accolades to those of the chairman of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Senator Baucus. He is 
superbly prepared to be our next ambassador to China. He is a friend 
and colleague. The President chose wisely, and I anticipate his 
confirmation.
  In a few minutes we will have the opportunity to provide relief to 
1.74 million job seekers, to help local business, to get people back to 
work, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
thoughtfully engaged with us to find a path forward. Many of their 
ideas are incorporated into this principled compromise. It has

[[Page 2651]]

been 40 days since these Americans have had their unemployment 
insurance cut. Now is the time to act and help our economy grow.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of providing aid to 1.7 million 
Americans--growing each week by an estimated 70,000. This is the right 
thing to do. At this moment, this is the right way to do it, and the 
only question before the Senate is will we do the right thing for the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, it has been over a month since 
Congress allowed the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program to 
expire. That means that more than 1.5 million out-of-work Americans--
including more than 6,000 Rhode Islanders--have by now lost a critical 
lifeline. While Republicans obstruct here in Washington, families in 
Providence and Bristol and Westerly are scrambling to pay the mortgage 
or keep the heat on in the dead of winter. Over the coming months, 
thousands more Rhode Islanders will not be eligible to receive extended 
weeks of unemployment benefits as their regular unemployment benefits 
expire.
  Congress passed--and President Bush signed--the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation program in response to the epidemic of 
joblessness brought on by the great recession, just as we have done 
during previous economic crises. The program has been extended several 
times as our Nation continues to struggle under stubbornly high rates 
of unemployment. Yet Senate Republicans would not agree to extend this 
lifeline to families before the holidays, and just this week, they 
voted to prevent us from restoring the emergency assistance.
  Even with the worst of the recession behind us, too many Rhode 
Islanders are still unable to find work. The unemployment rate in my 
State--9.1 percent in December--remains well above the national 
average. The sheer depth and duration of this jobs crisis have plunged 
unprecedented numbers of Americans into long-term unemployment. The 
share of workers unemployed longer than 6 months is still greater than 
the previous record set in the early 1980s. Now is not the time to pull 
the plug on our fellow Americans.
  Nationwide, there are three unemployed workers for every available 
job opening. For some, the jobs just aren't there, and a strategy to 
make people desperate creates nothing but cruelty.
  My Republican colleagues who think this assistance doesn't make a 
real difference should talk to the 74 year-old woman from Westerly, RI, 
who contacted my office. She was laid off in July after 11 years with 
the same company and is still unable to find work. She has moved in 
with a neighbor to cut costs. She says emergency unemployment 
assistance helped her keep her head above water.
  Those who think extended unemployment discourages people from seeking 
work should talk to the forty-five-year-old husband and father from 
West Warwick, who finds himself unemployed for the first time in his 
life. Since losing his job 5 months ago, he has applied to nearly 100 
jobs with no success. With only his wife's wages coming in the door, 
his emergency unemployment helped this family to barely make ends meet.
  Unemployment benefits spent on rent, groceries, and other basics 
contribute directly to economic activity. In fact, the Congressional 
Budget Office has estimated that the country could lose 200,000 jobs if 
unemployment benefits aren't extended.
  My senior Senator Jack Reed has led the fight to maintain this basic 
support for Americans still struggling to get back to work. He has 
worked tirelessly across the aisle to find a thoughtful compromise. 
Rhode Islanders are grateful for his leadership and he has my full 
support in the effort to restore emergency unemployment assistance to 
American workers. The Senate must not turn its back on those struggling 
the longest to find work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reed (RI) 
     amendment No. 2714 to S. 1845, a bill to provide for the 
     extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other 
     purposes.
         Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Brian Schatz, Barbara Boxer, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Thomas R. Carper, Elizabeth Warren, Patty 
           Murray, Mark Begich, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Angus 
           S. King, Jr., Charles E. Schumer, Bill Nelson, 
           Christopher A. Coons.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2714 to S. 1845, a bill to provide for the extension of 
certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--40

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moran
     Roberts
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp).
  On this vote, the yeas are 58 and the nays are 40. Three-fifths of 
the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, 
the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture 
was not invoked on the Reed of Rhode Island amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is entered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, for the benefit of all Members, we are 
going to have another vote right now on the other cloture motion that 
has been scheduled. Then the Republican leader has said we can move 
forward on the Baucus nomination at that time.
  I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10 minutes in 
duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The assistant bill 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, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Barbara

[[Page 2652]]

           Boxer, Brian Schatz, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Thomas R. 
           Carper, Elizabeth Warren, Patty Murray, Mark Begich, 
           Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Angus S. King, Jr., 
           Charles E. Schumer, Bill Nelson, Christopher A. Coons.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
called has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
1845, a bill to provide for the extension of certain unemployment 
benefits, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moran
     Roberts
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
43. Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn having not voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to offer a motion to reconsider the previous vote by which cloture was 
not invoked on S. 1845.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. REID. I know everyone is in a hurry to leave, and I will be very 
brief. I wish to make sure I am clear where we stand. We are one 
Republican vote away from restoring unemployment insurance for 1.7 
million Americans, including 20,000 veterans who have lost their 
benefits during the last 5 weeks. We all support this on this side of 
the aisle.
  Right now there is one Republican vote standing between 1.7 million 
Americans and the lifeline they need to make ends meet. I ask my 
Republican colleagues to think about the woman from Nevada who is 57 
years old. She is couch-surfing. Younger people know a little bit about 
that term, but I hadn't heard the term before. She has because she has 
been forced to understand what it is--going around to friends' homes, 
apartments, and sleeping on their couches. She is 57 years old, worked 
from the time she was 18 years old. She lost her job and can't find a 
job. She is long-term unemployed. If she had just lost her job last 
week or a couple of months ago, she could go get unemployment, but she 
has been out of work for too long to be able to get it. She has sold 
everything she has except a clunker of a car, sold all of her personal 
things so she can buy gas in case she gets an interview.
  People are in the same position as she in every State. Our job is to 
do right by them. All we need is one more Republican vote, one more 
Republican to step up and do the right thing. We are going to bring 
this vote up again sometime. I have spoken to my colleague Senator 
Heller. I said: Dean, let's get this done. Tell me what is needed to 
get this done.

                          ____________________