Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 331.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 332.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 14, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1845, the unemployment insurance extension legislation, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees--and that would be controlled time--with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes; further, that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to S. 1845 be 11 a.m., Tuesday; that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; and finally, that the time from 2:15 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders.

Mr. President, there could be two rollcall votes tomorrow at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business with the time until noon divided equally. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, and the majority will control the second 30 minutes.

At noon, all post-cloture time on the motion to proceed to S. 1845, the unemployment insurance extension, will expire and the Senate will begin consideration of the bill. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

Another day has passed and we still have a vast majority of Republicans standing in the way of the extension of unemployment benefits.

Some Republican Senators are having conversations about possible offsets for a full-year extension. I have said a number of times I think we would be ill-advised to have another short-term extension. If we are going to have an extension that they are talking about paying for, let's do it for 1 year. We don't need to come back and worry about this in 3 more months.

Let's see how they wish to pay for this. We have heard proposals. The proposals are, one, to stop people having health care. The other is to go after children, the earned-income tax credit for American boys and girls. It doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.

Then we have a number of proposals suggested by another Senator late last night that, if we look at it, it is not worth $5 billion. It is worth much less than that. To do what has been suggested by one Republican Senator would be to devastate the disabled, and that wouldn't be appropriate.

I would be interested if there are other proposals. As I have indicated on a number of occasions, I continue to say offsetting the cost of emergency unemployment benefits is not something I agree with.

President Bush extended emergency unemployment insurance five times. Not one of these five times was there a whimper from my Republican colleagues or certainly Democratic Senators that it should be paid for. It wasn't right to offset the cost when President Bush was President, and it is not right to offset the cost now that President Obama is in the White House.

We have cut the deficit in half since President Obama took office, and overall debt reduction has been even more transparent, almost $3 trillion. While we must keep up our good work, we have more to do. We must solve the Nation's job crisis if we ever hope to solve fiscal problems.

Today's long-term unemployment rate is more than double what it was at any time Congress let emergency job assistance expire. Since many Republican Senators are insisting that the cost be offset, I am pleased to talk, as we all are on this side of the aisle, about a long-term emergency extension of unemployment benefits. I repeat, I am waiting to hear from my Republican colleagues about how to pay for this extension.

It has been a week since families already hanging by a thread were kicked off of unemployment insurance benefits. Think about this. People who have been out of work for month after

month learned at the beginning of this year they wouldn't get $300 a week.

Remember, this is not charity. First, they have to lose their job, through no fault of their own. Then they have to go out every week, look for a job, and have to list where they have gone.

For every job that is available in America today, there are three people looking for that job. I was stunned when I had my news briefing this morning when one Republican Senator said: There are so many jobs that are unfilled in America today. Let these people go get those jobs. Try that one on for size.

For many the benefits were the only thing preventing them from descending into poverty or even becoming homeless. Hundreds of thousands of children, as a result of these benefits, have been stopped from going into the rolls of the poor.

These families can't wait any longer for relief. I am optimistic my Republican colleagues will help us find a way out of this, and put people first and partisanship second.

Tuesday, House Republican leaders were forced to send a message to their Members reminding them these people are out of work, be compassionate. Then, of course, the memo came to the Senate.

Can one imagine having to remind Senators about having compassion for people who have been long-term unemployed?

Yesterday afternoon the Republican leader spoke in this Chamber for a long time, 45 minutes. Not once during this discussion were the words ``jobs,'' ``the economy'' or ``unemployment'' mentioned--not once.

Middle-class Americans are hurting. We know the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being squeezed.

During the last 30 years, the middle class has lost 10 percent of the earnings they had in the previous 30 years, whereas the top 1 percent during that same 30-year period had their income and wealth triple.

These people who are struggling out there are working two jobs. Some are even trying to do it with three jobs, and some of it is part-time, just in an effort to get by. The rest have watched their wages shrink at the same time, as I have indicated, as the richest of the rich are doing much, much better.

What beleaguered Americans need is not a memo on basic decency, as Republicans got on Tuesday, or a bitter diatribe about the rules of the Senate; they need solutions. For 1.3 million Americans today and 5 million Americans over the course of this year, extending emergency unemployment benefits is a solution.

Raising the minimum wage so a mother or father working two jobs can afford the rent and an electric bill in the same month is a solution. Investing in job creation and education so the workers of today can compete for the jobs of tomorrow is a solution. Whenever my Republican colleagues are prepared to stop complaining and start working with Democrats to create solutions, we will be here waiting.

Before my friend, the Republican leader, makes his remarks, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.; finally, that the previous order with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 1845 be modified so all postcloture time on the motion to proceed be considered to be expired at 2:15 p.m., rather than the earlier time I mentioned.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate be in a period of morning business until 3 p.m. today, and that I be recognized at 3 p.m., with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

This is similar to ``Groundhog Day'' because this is a picture we have already seen in the very lucid speech given by my friend from New Hampshire.

She should have gone back through the Congressional Record. We have been through this before.

We are not going to hurt American children, and that is what it does. We have been through this. This is something we have tried to use in the past to pay for things that are very unfair to American children.

The other issue is there have been some efforts made, and good-faith efforts made by the Senator from Ohio, to stop double dipping--people who are on disability and are drawing unemployment insurance. We agree with him. We can take care of that, but it does not save $5.4 or $5.6 billion.

The disability community at this point is outraged that anyone will even suggest this. We can stop the double dipping. We are happy to join with them in doing that, but that savings is a little over $1 billion. We are pleased, and that is part of the proposal we will all have in a little bit.

I received a phone call from a person who has done more for helping people who are disabled than any person in the history of this body, the senior Senator from the State of Iowa. He had been previously engaged and he heard about this. Those of us who know Tom Harkin know what he does to protect the disabled. I know my friend from Ohio has good intentions, but the disability community will never allow this to happen, and they are right.

My friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, as some of us know, has had casts on one leg and now the other leg. He has had some surgery on his ankles. He has had to replace the Achilles tendons in both of his legs. A cast broke, I think it was on his left leg--maybe it was his right leg. I don't remember.

I talked to him this morning and he had to go to the emergency room to get his cast replaced. I am waiting to hear from him. I have explained this proposal in some detail to him and his staff, but he hasn't had an opportunity to speak to his staff since he had to rush to the emergency room--at least that is my understanding--so I am waiting until he gets back.

The proposal Senator Reed has come up with extends unemployment insurance through mid-November. The package does what the Republicans wanted. It is entirely paid for. There are structural changes which they have been demanding, and we have done that. It has reforms that reduce slightly the number of weeks an unemployed person can remain on the unemployment insurance, while all along preserving extending the weeks of high-unemployment States.

The legislation proposed by Senator Jack Reed tightens the rules for unemployment insurance. It would include a proposal, much like that advocated by the Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman, that would prevent people from collecting both unemployment insurance and disability insurance at the same time. That is clear.

Much of this offset is simply an extension of the Murray-Ryan agreement we all voted for--or a lot of us voted for earlier. This provision would extend the sequester on mandatory programs for another year. If Republicans have a complaint about this, don't call and complain to Jack Reed. Call Paul Ryan. This is his. This is his idea-- maybe not on this specific issue, but this is his proposal, his idea.

We believe if it is good enough to help other proposals propounded by my Republican friends in the House, it is good enough to help the unemployed.

In this proposal, there has been a desire to address the concerns of the Republicans and Democrats. Is it perfect? Of course not, but Jack Reed has done a remarkably good job, and we believe this is a sound and balanced proposal.

I would also say this takes care of it for the good part of this year. I wish we could have done it until the first of the year. We can't find enough money. I have been waiting here for more than 24 hours for a reasonable proposal by my Republican friends to pay for this. We don't have one yet.

We are not going to strip the rights of people who have health insurance, and we are certainly not going to go after little boys and girls in America who have the child tax credit. There comes a time when we have to move forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

I object.

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

Madam President, I first of all appreciate everyone's cooperation here--patience more than cooperation. We are doing our best. I have already said what we are trying to do here, and I will repeat just a part of it.

We have a proposal that is paid for. It is a pay-for that we have used and it is something I think is totally valid. The original idea came from Paul Ryan, but we have used it on another occasion. This has nothing to change that original proposal except to extend it for 1 year. The proposal of my friend from Ohio--an issue he has alerted us to--we think we have taken care of in this amendment. I think it is a fine proposal, but the breadth of what he is trying to do is really unfair and we can't do that. So we are doing our utmost.

We have structural changes in this. It is paid for--a pay-for for almost to

the first of the year, as much money as we are able to find. But we have done everything the Republicans have wanted: It is paid for, there are structural changes, and we have taken care of the double dipping of those in the disability community on unemployment.

Amendment No. 2631

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island I have an amendment at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment, Madam President.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I have a cloture motion on the Reed of Rhode Island amendment.

Madam President, I have a motion to commit on S. 1845 and it has instructions.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays, Madam President.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

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

It is the same time and time again. Things are never quite right. They want to offer amendments. We have been waiting here since Monday for pay-fors. The only pay-for we have heard realistically to take care of this is something everyone knows we disagree with--to take away health care benefits from the American people.

The proposal by my friend from Ohio is not a good proposal. It hurts people who are disabled, and that is the fact. We have stopped dual payments. That is what our amendment does.

This is something we have been going through--the American people have been going through now for years.

My friend worked with the senior Senator from New Hampshire on energy efficiency. Now, if that wasn't quite a show. I had conversations on numerous occasions: Yeah, we have it all taken care of. Republicans are trying to move forward on this.

It went on for weeks and weeks. We never got anything done.

So we are where we are. Democrats don't need a memo to tell them to have a good conscience about people who are disabled, to be compassionate about people who are unemployed. We don't need a memo. We know that people who are long-term unemployed are desperate for help. We are compassionate. We don't need a memo to tell us that.

The American people want to know where we stand. Are we going to extend unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for a long time? That is the issue before this body. And we have bent over backward, through Jack Reed, to come up with a proposal to pay for this, to get rid of this issue for this year. We have structural changes in this amendment. We have a pay-for which came from Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate this last election cycle. He is chairman of the Budget Committee. So I think we have done a yeoman's job through Jack Reed, we need to move on, and that is what we are going to do.

If there is a proposal my friend has--and we know his expertise, but the problem with his expertise is it is never quite right. It is almost but not quite right.

So the time is now to fish or cut bait. And they can make all the motions they want to try to complain about ``We didn't offer enough amendments. We need to be more like the Senate used to be.'' Well, I know what the Senate used to be because I was a used-to-be Senator, and it doesn't work the way it used to not because of anything we do wrong but because of the obstruction of President Obama's agenda. Every day it is more obstruction.

Of course.

No. And that is why Jack Reed's proposal stops it.

Is there a question in all of this?

Is what right?

No, it is not right, because what the amendment of the Senator from Ohio does is hurt people who are disabled. Part of Jack Reed's amendment stops people from drawing both benefits at the same time.

I would be happy to.

I don't know the exact number, but there are always a lot of proposed amendments around. What I would say is this: Rather than continually denigrating our economy, our President, and, frankly, I believe, our country, I think we should have some more constructive things around here.

For example, we had today a conversation for 1\1/2\ hours with Chairman Bernanke. He is going to be there until the first of next month. It was a very good discussion. He talked about the vibrancy of this economy now. He said, as we have been saying here, it is not as good as it should be, but with a little bit of help, it would be on fire. Now, why isn't it on fire? Because of the obstruction over here.

As the Presiding Officer knows, the new Fed chair, Chairman Yellen, has also said unemployment benefits are a great impetus in helping the economy. For every $1 put into the economy in unemployment benefits, we get $1.50 back.

This bill recognizes that these benefits don't go on forever. That is why we make structural changes. We would be happy anytime to sit down and have a good discussion with the senior Senator from Texas and anyone else to talk about things we can do.

We have had a lot of programs that deal with job retraining. In 1998 when we did that, it wasn't a bad deal. Here it is all these many years later, and of course we need to sit down and talk about ways to improve retraining. This whole country needs that. That is also something Chairman Bernanke said today.

So I repeat, let's start being constructive around here, and instead of talking about how terrible things are, let's talk about how things are improving. We have had 8 million new jobs since Obama has been President. We have a lot of good things that have happened. Has it been perfect? Not even close to perfect.

Of course.

On what?

This is Thursday. We have been waiting since Monday to get a proposal from the minority, the Republicans, as to what they believe would be a good way to pay for this.

Nothing, other than whack ObamaCare. So the answer is that we are where we are now. We have tried a number of different ways on many different pieces of legislation to say, OK, let's just do germane amendments. No. How about relevant amendments? No. How about having a specific number of amendments and giving the minority more than the majority? No, can't do that either. We want unlimited amendments on everything. As a result of that, we have continued obstruction which has taken place in this body for 5 years. It is time we get back to legislating the way we used to.

The answer to the Senator's question is no.

Would my friend yield for a question?

Does the Senator also understand that in the President's budget, he calls for revenue, does he not?

And my friend would also acknowledge that when Presidents submit these budgets, don't they propose a budget rather than nitpicking different pieces of the budget one at a time?

Yes.

If he will just withhold--and he can offer his amendment--I do want to say this. We get nowhere with dueling amendments. We have learned that in the past. Dueling amendments don't do the trick.

The issue is pronounced, it is here before us, and we went a step further. In the past we haven't paid for this. Five times, President Bush signed bills extending unemployment benefits not paid for.

Again, we have done a good job reducing the debt. We have a lot more we can do, but we have reduced it almost $3 trillion already. The issue now before us is are we going to extend benefits for people who have been unemployed for a long time. That is the question. We bent over backward to try to come up with a compromise, a bipartisan piece of legislation. I repeat, it is paid for with a Paul Ryan pay-for. There are structural changes. It is a pretty good deal. I am very disappointed we are at a point now where we have been for 5 years. Nothing is ever quite good enough. They always want more amendments. They always want more amendments.

But the issue is before us. Is this body going to vote to extend unemployment benefits paid for with Paul Ryan's pay-for and with structural changes or are they going to turn their back on people who are desperate?

Sure.

My friend, the Senator from Indiana, is of those Senators who used to be here when the good old times were here. We didn't have ``gotcha'' amendments. Every amendment offered, with rare exception, is a ``gotcha'' amendment. That is not what we do here.

I have been waiting since Monday to get pay-fors as to how we can extend unemployment benefits for people. They come up with stuff that doesn't even pay for 3 months' worth of extensions. Amendments are important, but I think we have to go back to the time when Senator Coats was here the first time and start working together to get things done in this body.

I was there, just like my friend. Things were different then, they certainly were, because we did not have hundreds of filibusters that would take place. Filibuster was something that was used rarely. In those days would you ever filibuster the Secretary of Defense or all the other Cabinet officers? Of course you would not. That is why action had to be taken.

But what my Republican friends have to realize is that filibuster is not a right, it is a privilege. It has been abused. My friend can lecture me, and I am happy to listen to his many lectures, but I was here. I know how things used to work and what has gone on in the last 5 years would never have taken place in those days.

Yes.

No, he was only delayed while we had two wars going on in this country.

Mr. President, in response to the question of my friend, in fact what has happened--and we find this with the judges--they stall for weeks, months, and sometimes years. When the vote comes it is pretty good, but in the meantime they have done significant damage to this institution and our country by stalling and making it so the President of the United States has a very difficult time doing his job because he doesn't have his people there when he needs them.

Mr. President, of course that is a question that is a great big softball--of course not. We need debate. We need good, strong debate about nominations and everything else. But what we don't need is hours and days and weeks and months of obstruction. That is what we have here.

My friend, the Republican leader, is picturing to everyone within the sound of his voice something that doesn't exist. There has been obstruction that has been carried to an extent that no one ever dreamed would happen in this great Republic.

That is what the objection is. The objection is to obstruction. Was it only a debate when my Republican colleagues decided the DC Circuit-- some say the most important court in this country, even, some say, more important than the Supreme Court--when they decided there were vacant seats there and for 5 years held up filling those seats? Is that a debate? No. It is obstruction.

If we turn to the dictionary and look up ``obstruction,'' they would point right over here.

Mr. President, during the time we have been a country, and I don't know exactly long it has been, more than 230 years--I can't come up with it this second--there have been 23 district court nominees filibustered. Twenty of them have been during the 5 years of the Obama administration, and that example is throughout the government.

The American people know what is taking place in this body. They can try to paint over a picture that things are just fine, all we are doing is wanting a

little bit of debate. There has been stalling, obstruction that is untoward and never considered. I just can't imagine how my Republican colleagues can justify what they have done. But they do. I accept that.

But we have an issue before this body. Again, they are trying to divert attention and go to how many amendments, what are the rules. The issue before this body is whether the long-term unemployed get an extension of their benefits. As we speak, there are people all over this country who are desperate to be able to get $300 a week to be able to survive for another week, hoping they will find a job. The sad part about that--my friends say we need to do something about making sure these people fill these vacant jobs. There are lots of places people find work. For every job opening there are three people unemployed trying to find a job.

I have answered the question to the best of my ability.

Mr. President, my friend from Indiana had a consent request? Oh, I wanted my friend from Indiana to know I was not trying to object to something he has a right to do.

I now move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the nomination of Robert Leon Wilkins to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the Wilkins nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that the next votes be 10 minutes in duration.

This will be the last vote today. The next vote will be Monday, January 13, 2014, at 5:30 p.m.

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

Mr. President, today has been an eventful day on the unemployment compensation front. We began the day working with Republican colleagues to put together what we thought was an amendment they would join us in pushing forward. But surprisingly and disappointingly to me, those whom we worked with were unable to join on the amendment.

I am disappointed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is we gave the Republicans what they wanted. It is entirely paid for. The amendment made structural reforms in the unemployment compensation bill, which is something they said they wanted. The amendment includes a proposal, much like that advocated by Senator Portman, that would prevent people from collecting both unemployment insurance and disability insurance at the same time.

Our amendment includes an offset that is Paul Ryan's offset. It was the same thing we used in the Murray-Ryan budget agreement this body supported a few weeks ago.

So it is totally paid for with something Paul Ryan suggested and we adopted a short period of time ago. It makes structural reforms they said they wanted--maybe not all of them, but it made structural reforms. It is hard to understand why they cannot take yes for an answer. Maybe it is because they do not want the legislation passed. It is possible.

But I have not given up. I have discussions with a number of Republican colleagues this evening. They said they are going to try to come up with something else. I certainly hope that is the case. We need to understand that there are 1.4 million Americans hurting. It is hard for me to comprehend why something that meets the outlines of what we understood they wanted is not good enough.

Maybe they do not like it because it does not give them an opportunity to--I withdraw that. I think we have had enough talk here today. I am not going to add to that. All I wish to close the Senate with tonight is it is very unfortunate for a lot of people who are truly hurting.

It is paid for with something that is certainly standard around here. We won't be able to use that anymore. States won't be able to use the same money anymore, but it doesn't affect the budget in any way. It doesn't raise the deficit one penny. It sounds as if it is a very good deal to help 1.4 million people.

Explain to somebody who is on long-term unemployment in the State of Colorado, State of Illinois, State of anyplace, and they will say they didn't vote for this because they didn't get to offer unlimited amendments, even though there was a proposal that wouldn't run up the deficit one penny. It was all paid for. It is hard for me to comprehend that. We could explain it to someone, but it is their job to explain it, not mine. My explanation is that it is something the American people want, need, and should have.

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