Floor Statements

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 297.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, the farm bill. The time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. At approximately 2:35 p.m. there will be a rollcall vote on the adoption of the farm bill conference report.

Visionary Remarks

While the President pro tempore is here, I want to make a brief comment.

The headlines over the last couple of days have been about the death--in my opinion--of one of the great actors of our time, Philip Seymour Hoffman. He obviously died from a drug overdose of heroin.

The reason I wanted to say a word while the President pro tempore is presiding is because the Governor of Vermont was very visionary in directing his State of the State remarks this year to the scourge of heroin addiction that is sweeping the Nation. It really is a scourge.

According to everything I have been able to learn, it is kind of unique. We have people who start off with some kind of prescription drug and then wind up with this stuff that has been prepared by purveyors of evil. They don't know what is in it. There are some who believe they use baby laxative or other ingredients that look like heroin. It is a terrible shame.

I will send the Governor a letter, but I want to make sure my good friend from Vermont personally tells the Governor what a--I can't find a better word--visionary he was in the remarks he gave a few weeks ago.

Mr. President, I had a meeting with a number of Senators this morning, and one of the topics of conversation was the Presiding Officer's first speech--the so-called maiden speech--he gave last night. It was stunningly good, substantive, and it came from the heart. That is what many Senators told me this morning, and I agree. As I told the Presiding Officer last night, I had to go to a quick meeting, so I watched most of it from my office. The Senator's speech was so important. The speech focused on dealing with people who are in need.

This good man, who is presiding over the Senate now, is a man of stature. He is extremely talented academically. He is a Stanford graduate and decided he would do public service. In the process of doing public service, he identified with the people who needed help.

He moved into a neighborhood that you would not think a mayor of the city would live in, but he did that because he wanted to feel the pulse of the people. It is obvious from the speech given last night that the Presiding Officer does understand the pulse of the people of his State.

We all admired him before he got here, and we admire him even more now.

Measure Placed On The Calendar--S. 1982

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk entitled S. 1982 due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time.

Mr. President, last night I had the good fortune to spend some time with the President, along with Michael Bennet and others. It was worth commenting on that meeting with the President about the address he gave a week ago to the Congress and to the Nation.

He addressed Congress and the Nation and described the challenges facing families in America. Wages are far too low, the cost of education is far too high, and there are simply far too few jobs.

Each of these challenges places another stumbling block in front of Americans striving to enter the middle class, as well as the middle class trying to do their best to hang on to their status as part of the middle class. The middle class is being squeezed. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being squeezed really hard.

Unless we open the doors of opportunity, every child in this Nation-- our grandchildren--will no longer be able to do what we expect our grandchildren to be able to accomplish. Every child in this Nation--our grandchildren--will have to work longer and harder than we did just to get by, let alone just to get ahead.

Yesterday I read a story with interest. It was a long, well- researched story in the New York Times. It was in the business section. That piece argued that the richest families and the most successful corporations in America should be just as worried about these trends-- the shrinking middle class--as the Presiding Officer and I are.

The article described the widespread failure of businesses that cater to the middle class. I repeat that: The widespread failure of businesses that cater to the middle class. Why? Because the middle class is going away.

While high-end retailers such as Barneys and Nordstrom flourish, mid- priced retailers such as JCPenney and Loehmann's stumble. Loehmann's actually filed bankruptcy. While posh restaurant chains such as Capital Grille prosper, more modest eateries such as Red Lobster are sinking.

The Times wrote:

As politicians and pundits in Washington continue to spar

over whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, in

corporate America there really is no debate at all. The post-

recession reality is that the customer base for businesses

that appeal to the middle class is shrinking as the top tier

pulls even farther away.

Industry analysis says businesses that sell luxury goods to the top 1 percent are booming. Over the past 30 years, the top 1 percent has had their wealth increase three times while during that same 30-year period of time the earning capacity of the middle class has been cut by 10 percent.

Sadly, businesses such as Family Dollar, which caters to the growing ranks of working families barely scraping by, are also thriving. Why? Nordstrom is a great place. I love Nordstrom. They have a great return policy. I am glad they are doing well. But Family Dollar is thriving because many people who were middle class are now poor.

Families are not going out for spaghetti and meatballs. They are not even going out for hamburgers like they used to. They are not buying their kids new jeans or backpacks. They pass them down from child to child.

I can remember--it has been over a year ago--when I went to this program in North Las Vegas, NV. There are a lot of poor people in North Las Vegas. They were giving away backpacks with some pencils and paper. It was before school started. Those backpacks were so--I don't want to denigrate the wonderful things that people did--cheap. The backpacks had names of businesses on them.

These children lined up with their parents for as far as you could see. They were desperate for a backpack. It was not a very good one, but they didn't have one. So they are not buying their kids backpacks like they used to. Purchases that once seemed to be modest treats have become unaffordable luxuries.

While the economy is growing in spite of this trend, economists worry that the growth is unsustainable. One economist told the Times:

It's going to be hard to maintain strong economic growth

with such a large proportion of the population falling

behind. We might be able to muddle along--but can we really

recover?

That is the question.

In other words, our fortunes are bound together. A shrinking middle class isn't just a problem for families in the middle; it is a problem for businesses, large and small. It is a problem that should worry the top 1 percent of wealthy Americans as much as it worries the 99 percent who are under that 1 percent. Can we really recover when so many of us are falling behind? It is a fair question and an extremely troubling question. Our entire economy is at risk unless we act now to protect and grow the middle class whose purchase power is the backbone of our economy.

How can we do that? We can create some jobs which we as a Congress have not done because every time we try, there is obstruction from the Republicans. But to achieve this goal of protecting and growing the middle class, President Obama called for commonsense investments in our future. He has called for investments in 21st century infrastructure-- those old-fashioned structures such as roads and bridges and dams--as well as the new, including renewable energy projects such as solar, wind, and geothermal, which would create lots and lots of jobs; then cutting-edge technology such as the new Tesla vehicle, an all-electric vehicle. I have spoken with Elon Musk who is talking about building another big factory someplace in the West.

Investment in universal preschool is so important. Other countries are doing it. Why don't we have it mandatory for every 4-year-old?

And affordable college. Seated next to me is the assistant leader. He identified a problem years ago which is that kids are being burdened with debt, trying to go to college. Frankly, a lot of the money these young men and women borrow goes to schools that don't produce anything.

Investments in medical research. My colleagues heard me cough. I, for the first time in my life, a couple of weeks ago got the flu. I never had the flu before. I wasn't very sympathetic with people who missed work because of the flu. I am now sympathetic. The flu is devastating. I was so sick. At my home in Searchlight, we didn't have a thermometer. By the time we had someone bring one over from Vegas, my fever was very high. I started the medication Tamiflu not as early as I should have, and it turned into bronchitis.

The reason I mention this--again, speaking about my friend, the senior Senator from Illinois--he went yesterday to NIH, the National Institutes of Health. I went there a couple of months ago. We should be embarrassed by what we have done as a Congress to NIH. We have cut them. And the reason I mention my flu is because when I went there, I learned they are so close to having a flu shot that covers all flu-- everything. They are so close. What do they need to go the extra mile? More money. The devastation of sequestration has hurt the National Institutes of Health significantly. Chairman Murray did some good work to help in the future, but money we have

lost because of sequestration is gone. We have not been fair to the National Institutes of Health. They are doing lifesaving work there, and other countries are trying to match what we have done with the National Institutes of Health. They can't; we are way ahead, but we will not remain ahead unless we put some money into the National Institutes of Health.

We need to help companies that build their products here in America. I go out of my way to buy New Balance shoes, running shoes. Why? They are made in America. The suit I am wearing, Hickey Freeman, is made in America, and I am proud of that.

The President also called on Congress to increase the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour--a huge step forward guaranteeing that no American working full time lives in poverty as they now do, as the Presiding Officer so well illustrated last night. This proposal of raising the minimum wage has been endorsed by seven Nobel Prize-winning economists. I don't know the political persuasion of these Nobel Prize- winning economists, but they are all persuaded that what we have done to the working poor is wrong and we have to do something about it. The proposal would raise millions of families out of poverty and give tens of millions of children a shot at graduating from college, securing high-paying jobs, and joining the middle class.

There is something else Congress should do to prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from descending into poverty: Extend unemployment benefits. In the month we have cut off these benefits because of obstruction by my Republican colleagues the country has lost more than $2 billion in purchasing; the State of Nevada $30 million. So we could do something now to prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from descending into poverty. A 57-year-old woman--I read a part of her letter yesterday--said: How do you think I feel going from friend to friend to sleep on their couch? Couch surfing we call it. She said: That only lasts so long. I am selling everything I have. I don't have a home. I am trying to sell everything I have so if I get an opportunity for a job interview, I can buy gas for my car.

We must extend unemployment benefits because 1.6 million people have been out of work for months. These benefits will ensure that more than 2.3 million children have nutritious meals and a safe place to sleep while their parents hunt for jobs. Renewing emergency unemployment insurance would prevent Americans who have worked hard to get ahead from losing their grip on the ladder of success. Restoring unemployment benefits is by no means enough to secure our shrinking middle class, but it certainly is a good first step.

recognition of the minority leader

Madam President, did we move to reconsider and lay on the table the previous vote?

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, would the Presiding Officer tell me the pending business.

The motion to proceed to Calendar No. 297 is the pending business; is that right?

I withdraw my motion to proceed.

Madam President, what is now pending before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask that the pending motion to commit be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment No. 2631.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, when we last dealt with unemployment insurance, I offered a unanimous consent request at that time that would have allowed up to 20 relevant amendments--20.

Mr. President, my friend, the Republican leader--he is again, through a lot of words, saying: We do not want this. We are not going to help you pass it. There is more than one way to filibuster a bill. Providing for an endless number of amendments is one of those ways to kill this bill.

Mr. President, what we are going to do here is offer a fully paid for 3-month extension of unemployment insurance. Simple as that. Simple as that. That is what the Republicans said they wanted, and we agreed to do it.

We will not agree to an unlimited number of amendments. I look forward to hearing from my Republican colleagues if they have a proposal that is different than this, which is, again, a different way of saying: We do not care about unemployment compensation as it is now focused, and we are not going to support it.

In the meantime, I object to an order providing amendments without limit and without any commitment to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment No. 2631.

On behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I have an amendment at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I have a cloture motion on the Reed of Rhode Island amendment and ask that it be reported.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit S. 1845, with instructions.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 298, S. 1963.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived for the cloture motions just filed and that Wednesday, February 5, 2014, count as an intervening day.

I want to take a moment to explain where we are. Over the last few months, we have been struggling to find a way to help some desperate people in our country. It is hard to find a way to convince our Republican colleagues that these people are in a desperate situation and to join with us in extending unemployment insurance benefits for 1.6 million of our fellow citizens.

Last month, we tried to pass a bipartisan bill that would simply extend those benefits on a short-term basis for 3 months. All but a few Republicans voted against proceeding to that measure. Republicans complained that we had not paid for the extension, so we offered them a paid-for 11-month extension. Every Republican voted against the cloture motion, every Republican, and all but one Republican voted against cloture on the bipartisan 3-month extension. So today we are trying yet again, offering an amendment that extends unemployment benefits for 3 months and pays for that extension, not a disputed, controversial extension and certainly not a controversial pay-for. Our alternative also includes something that Senator Coburn has been talking about for several months, an amendment to prevent millionaires from getting unemployment benefits, because it has happened. A person won a lottery and still got unemployment benefits.

Thursday, we are going to vote on cloture on that amendment, one that is paid for and would take care of this issue for lots of people. After that have we will vote on cloture on the bill, as amended. In the meantime, I am pleased to continue discussions with Senators about setting up votes on the relevant amendments.

The Republican leader's proposal is an absolute absurdity. I don't know why they just don't come out and say we are not going to do this, we are not going to extend unemployment benefits. But they have alternating amendments, and they want amendments related to--George Mitchell, who was the Democratic leader for a period of time that I served here, a wonderful human being, his statement was don't depend on the Republicans; they will break your heart every time, and that is what they are doing. They are breaking our hearts, and 1.6 million people, their hearts are broken.

The main proponent of this bill has been Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Jack Reed and I have a contest--I wish we didn't--and that is which State, Rhode Island or Nevada, has the highest unemployment number.

We care about this greatly, but others care about this. I am sure there are some Republicans who care about it, but why are they hung up on this foolishness that they can only do it if one time they have alternating amendments? They wouldn't take 20 amendments.

There are a handful of Republicans who tried very hard and worked in good faith with Senator Reed of Rhode Island. But the problem is they have no control over the tea-party-driven Republicans who make up most of this Republican caucus.

Mr. President, I move to Calendar No. 297, the veterans omnibus bill.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, we will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany the farm bill, H.R. 2642. The time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. At 5:30 p.m. there will be a cloture vote on the farm bill conference report.

As we have already announced, final passage will be tomorrow after our weekly caucuses.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 1977

Mr. President, I am told that S. 1977 is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with this legislation at this time.

Mr. President, tonight the Senate will vote to end debate on the farm bill conference report. I expect the Senate to conclude work on this measure, which will reduce the deficit and protect hungry families. This will happen, as I indicated, tomorrow afternoon.

Passing this legislation will support our Nation's farmers and ranchers and more than 16 million jobs in the farm industry. Ensuring that our farms remain the most productive in the world and protecting American agricultural jobs is vital for our economic recovery. I have been in the Senate and the House for a while, as has the chairman of the agriculture committee, the junior Senator from Michigan, so I have seen people handle legislation. The work done by Senator Stabenow has been remarkably good. It is exemplary for her to work to the point where we are now going to pass this important legislation. I look forward, as she does, to a strong bipartisan vote on cloture tonight and on the passage of the bill tomorrow.

Unemployment Insurance

As we continue to work toward final passage of the farm bill, a bipartisan group of Senators has been working behind the scenes to reach an agreement to restore emergency unemployment benefits to 1.6 million people. In the 3 weeks since the Republicans filibustered a bill to extend this important program, 220,000 more Americans lost their benefits. State economies across the country have suffered as unemployed people, who are already getting by on so little, had to find ways to survive on even less.

When unemployment benefits dry up, customers disappear from local stores and businesses suffer. More than $2.2 billion has been drained from State economies since the emergency unemployment insurance expired.

Nevada alone lost $29 million in economic activity just last month, and $28 million has drained from the economy in the Republican leader's home State of Kentucky since the emergency benefits expired on December 31. It is no wonder two-thirds of Americans--including 65 percent of Independents--believe we should extend unemployment assistance. Helping neighbors who have been hit hard is not only the compassionate thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do for our economy.

Economists say there is no way to stimulate the economy more than to give these people who don't have jobs some money because they are going to spend it.

Since Republicans filibustered a bill to restore benefits without adding a penny to the deficit--that legislation would not have added a penny to the deficit--the toll on local and national economies has been devastating, but the toll on unemployed Americans has been immeasurable.

For people who worked all of their lives and lost their job through no fault of their own, being unemployed is difficult enough, but worrying about how to pay the rent, put gas in the car, and buy groceries while they look for a new job can be demoralizing. For the long-term unemployed, some of those who have been struggling to find work for more than a year, $300 a week in unemployment benefits can be the difference between keeping a roof over their heads or becoming homeless, and this is no hyperbole.

A 57-year-old Nevada woman wrote to me last week to say that the loss of her unemployment check was the last straw. Now she is homeless and couch surfing. She is sleeping on the couches of friends kind enough to take her in.

This is what she wrote:

Can you imagine sleeping on friends' couches at my age? Can

you imagine having to sell everything you worked hard for

just to keep gas in the car in the event someone calls for an

interview?

She went on to say:

I have worked my whole life, since I was 16 years old, and

contributed to a system that is now failing me on a major

scale.

Millions of people--such as this unfortunate Nevada woman--who have worked hard all of their lives and contributed to their communities and played by the rules are on the verge of losing everything, just like her. It doesn't have to be this way.

I remain cautiously optimistic that Republicans will heed their constituents back home and help Democrats restore emergency benefits to Americans in need.

Congress can't solve every problem, but we can solve this problem. All we have to do is work together--Democrats and Republicans--to do what is right for our constituents, our country, and our economy.

I urge Republicans to join us to restore these crucial benefits.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No problem.

Mr. President, I am sure not many people care, but the reason I didn't go first today is that those of us who serve in office depend on other people to prepare materials for us so we can make a reasonably good presentation. Well, I came here today and looked at my stuff--it was yesterday's. So I figured I would be better off waiting until I got the right one--which reminds me of something I heard as a very young Lieutenant Governor. This story may be true; it didn't happen to me, but I have always remembered it. It has always made me aware of the great work my staff does.

A man is used to his staff preparing his remarks, flowery remarks, and always so very, very well. He has a long speech he has to deliver. He gets to page 5, and it says, ``OK, you SOB, you are on your own'' and the rest is blank. I remembered that today, and figured I had better wait until my office had the right speech.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 297,

Mr. President, following my remarks the time until 11:15 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled dealing with flood insurance. At 11:15 a.m. there will be up to four rollcall votes in relation to amendments to that bill.

Order of Procedure

Mr. President, following those votes the recess which was originally scheduled until 2 p.m.--and that will still be the case, except I ask unanimous consent that on the passage of S. 1926, as amended, the votes start at 1:50 p.m., with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Additionally, we expect to receive momentarily the conference report to accompany the farm bill today, and we will work on getting an agreement to move forward on this today.

Retirement of Joel Breitner

Mr. President, here in the Senate we work closely with so many people, but no one do we work more closely with than the court reporters. They are right here in our face every time we talk, taking down a verbatim transcript of what we say, and they work extremely hard.

We went through a period of time when we were working through all

these nominations, and they went for days without going home. They had a cot in their office, and they never missed a beat.

I always watch very closely the court reporters because my brother-- who is 22 months younger than I am--was a court reporter. He retired from doing that, but I watched him work so hard.

Court reporting is extremely difficult. It is very intense. In court we rarely have court reporters who take what we call a daily. They will have a couple of court reporters during a trial and they will transcribe their notes sometime later. But here in the Senate they transcribe their notes now--immediately.

The reason I mention that today is one of our reporters is going to retire. Joel Breitner has been here for three decades in the Senate. Prior to coming here, he was a court reporter. He has this designation now--as this young woman in front of me is reporting what I say--as an Official Reporter for the United States Senate.

Joel began working here in this body in 1987, after having been a court reporter already for 23 years. During his time in the reporters office, he has witnessed both innovation and a lot of history. He was one of the first reporters to use computer-aided transcription, which is a modern miracle--it really is--because the stenographic notes at the same time they type them, are already translating into English. That isn't the way it used to be.

I can remember my brother--and, of course, Joel, who was one of the first here in this body to use the computer-aided transcription and did what my brother did--you took down what people said with your machine, and then you would go back to your office, look over your notes, and transcribe them, and then either you would type them up or have someone do so. So it was a lot of work. It is still a lot of work, but it is a lot different than it used to be.

He is one of the first, if not the first, in this body to use this computer-aided transcription, and it really helped modernize the Office of Official Reporters.

He has reported historic events, countless numbers of them--President Clinton's first inaugural address, his impeachment. Over the years he has been a friend and resource to the Senate pages. Joel is a very nice, quiet person whom I will miss.

When we cross--I always see them--I say: ``Saddling up again''-- putting on the heavy equipment they wear during the time they are here. They work very, very hard, and they transcribe every word we say. There are times I wish they hadn't, but they did.

Mr. President, it is no surprise, with the affection that Joel has shown for the pages, that Jamie, one of his children, has been a Senate page.

So I thank him on behalf of the entire Senate for his years of service not only to Senators but everybody, for his years of service in the reporters office, and I congratulate him on a very distinguished career. I wish him the best in retirement. I know he will enjoy spending more time with his children and with Carol, his wife of almost three decades.

working together

Mr. President, I need to comment on part of what my Republican counterpart said. The President gave a good State of the Union Address to the country on Tuesday night. It was a dramatic speech, and he called upon us to work together. You would never know that from what the Republican leader said today.

He also said, as President of the United States, he has the power to do things when the Senate finds itself bogged down, as we have been with countless filibusters. During the years I have been leader of the Senate, there have been more than 470 filibusters conducted by the Republicans. Is it any wonder the President is going to do some things administratively because of the logjam we have here? Hopefully we can do better than we have done. I hope that is the case.

This country has been hurt by the constant obstruction we have had. I am surprised--but not too much--that my Republican colleague would say the President has to do something to help create jobs. One need only reflect on when President Obama took office. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month at that time. But because of his patience and wisdom and the fact that he had a Democratic Senate and Congress for the first 2 years of his Presidency, we were able to do some terrific things for the country.

Since then, as we know, the Republican leader has said his No. 1 goal was to defeat Obama for the reelection, and that is how the Republicans have legislated. Over the last 3 years, they have done everything they could to stop the country from moving forward. They actually did it during the first 2 years he was President, but they didn't have the power to do much then except obstruct, and we had enough votes to overcome their obstruction.

I don't know if my friend the Republican leader understands that in spite of his No. 1 goal to defeat the President that he was reelected overwhelmingly because the American people agreed with his view of the country.

I am not going to go into more detail about how I believe my Republican colleague is wrong on what has happened with bogging down the Senate, but I will comment on one aspect of his presentation: Because of the U.S. Supreme Court case called Citizens United, there has been some really untoward stuff going on in the political world. We have two brothers who are actually trying to buy the country. Last year the Koch brothers made billions of dollars. They are spending their billions of dollars by going into State legislatures, Governors races, and secretary of state races on a State level, and, of course, spending huge amounts of money around the country in an attempt to defeat Democrats both in the House and the Senate.

The Republican leader has long been an opponent of campaign finance reform. This has been part of his career. So it is no surprise that he opposes the administration's effort for greater disclosure. The abuse here is not the administration enforcing the law, but folks like the Koch brothers pretending to be social welfare organizations.

The Presiding Officer has dedicated much of his life to improving the social welfare of people from his State. These social welfare organizations are extremely helpful for people who have problems. The Koch brothers are not a social welfare organization. They are plainly acting as a political organization. They are spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on political activities. They have not contributed to anything that deals with social welfare. Folks who act as political organizations should have to disclose where the money comes from.

As the Presiding Officer knows, the Koch brothers hide all of their campaign efforts. They disguise themselves, with rare exception, as social welfare organizations. They have all these fancy names and go after people who are trying to improve the country.

We have an important piece of legislation we are going to pass today to improve the ability of our country to prosper. The bipartisan measure called the flood insurance bill will protect the Nation's recovering housing market and save consumers money.

I thank Senator Menendez, the chairman of the banking committee, and Chairman Landrieu, who is chairman of the small business committee. They have done a wonderful job--these two working together with Senator Isakson--with their leadership on this issue.

I look forward to a strong bipartisan vote on this measure this afternoon. I would note that the bipartisan agreement to vote on a reasonable number of relevant amendments and on final passage of the flood insurance measure is exactly the kind of agreement that Republicans have rejected on other legislative priorities.

For example, when Democrats offered to vote on 20 relevant amendments to a full offset extension of unemployment insurance a couple of weeks ago, the Republicans refused. Since then, 150,000 more Americans have lost emergency benefits that were helping them to stay above water while they look for work. In all, more than 1.6 million out-of-work Americans have lost benefits to help them put food on the table and gas in the tank so they can focus on their job search.

I hope in the coming week Democrats and Republicans will be able reach a bipartisan agreement to have an up-or-down vote on the extension of unemployment insurance as well. I hope it is not again bogged down with obstruction. I am confident that we have the

opportunity to do that, and we should do it. Millions of fellow Americans are counting on us to do this on an affirmative basis.

While we work toward an agreement to restore unemployment benefits, the Senate will also, as I mentioned earlier, consider the farm bill conference report. America's farms and ranches are the most productive in the world. They support 16 million private sector jobs. Smart farm policies will help American farmers thrive. That is an important part of our work to keep the economic recovery rolling. The farm bill will create jobs and cut taxpayer subsidies and save $23 billion which will be used to reduce the deficit.

I would also note that we have done an admirable job of reducing the debt. Do we need to do more? Of course we do. We have already reduced the debt during the Obama years by almost $3 trillion, and if we could get the Republicans in the House to agree on the bill we passed dealing with immigration reform, it would be another $1 trillion toward reducing the debt.

I would also note, as I indicated earlier, that when President Obama first took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. We have now created more than 8 million jobs. We need to do more and the farm bill will help that. The farm bill will create jobs and cut taxpayer subsidies and save $20 billion which will be used to reduce the debt and deficit. The bill includes important reforms to farm programs, and while this measure doesn't include as much funding for programs to reduce hunger as a number of us would like, it is a good compromise and it will protect needy families.

Senator Stabenow from Michigan has been the chairman of this committee. She has worked so hard for years to get this done. We have passed it twice here in the Senate. We have struggled to get something done in the House, and we were finally able to get this done under her leadership.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642.

I have a cloture motion that I ask be reported.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived; that the cloture vote occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, February 3; that if cloture is invoked, there be 20 minutes remaining postcloture at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, February 4, to be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report.

I ask unanimous consent that we resume consideration of S. 1926.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.