Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for adopting a moment ago an important amendment to this underlying bill. It is an amendment to provide for evidence-based training in efforts that promote early language development and literacy development. This is really important for kids to get them ready for kindergarten, and, again, I appreciate the fact that on a voice vote that was adopted earlier this afternoon.

Madam President, I now rise to urge the Senate to support a child safety amendment I have submitted to the child development block grant bill. I thank Senator Alexander, Senator Burr, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Harkin for all their help on this amendment. I appreciate their working with us.

I like the underlying legislation. It is a good bill because it goes a long way to ensuring that our Federal dollars are spent in a way that does keep our children in safe learning environments and care facilities. I believe my amendment makes a good bill even better.

Currently, this legislation prohibits individuals who have been convicted of a felony from working in a childcare facility that is funded through these Federal block grants. That is a good start, but by limiting the prohibition only to felonies, we are leaving other people out. We are leaving a pool of individuals who have been convicted of crimes against children eligible for employment in a setting where they could prey on vulnerable kids.

So the amendment simply expands to ensure that we are covering those people. It ensures the health and safety of children by clarifying that adults who are convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes against children--child abuse, child endangerment, sexual assault--or of a misdemeanor involving child pornography are also identified in criminal background checks and are not permitted to work in a childcare facility that receives support through these child care development block grants.

Let me give a couple examples of crimes that under the bill as currently drafted would not prevent an individual from working in a childcare facility funded by the legislation.

In my home State of Ohio, we just had a terrible example. An Ohio daycare worker was accused of sprinkling drugs on snacks to get children to sleep. She was fined $250 and then had her charges reduced to a misdemeanor count of child endangerment after a plea agreement. So she did not get charged with a felony in the end because she pled it down to a misdemeanor. But certainly you do not want someone like this working in one of these facilities.

There are lots of other examples.

A Utah women pled guilty to two class A misdemeanors recently for child abuse. These charges were reduced from five second-degree felonies for intentionally inflicting serious physical injury on a child. She had been arrested for physically and emotionally abusing her daughter. According to the police report, she hit her daughter with a closed fist and choked her. But she pled, again, guilty to two misdemeanors because of the plea agreement.

These are just a couple cases. There are many more, and these are just ones that have been decided in the last few months.

Under the legislation as currently written, these individuals would be eligible to work in a childcare facility that receives Federal funds.

This amendment is very simple. It only seeks to protect children and to bar individuals who would commit crimes against the most vulnerable among us from receiving these Federal tax dollars. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.

Again, I thank the authors of the underlying bill for working closely with us on this amendment to improve legislation that is already a good and is doing a lot to protect our kids.

I yield back my time.

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

The Constitution grants to the President the power to nominate individuals to head the various Federal agencies and departments, but it falls to us in the Senate to ensure those nominees are worthy of the honor and are ready for such responsibility. I don't make it a practice of opposing nominees. In fact, I generally give the President discretion there. I have voted to give him wide latitude in filling the executive branch with individuals of his choice when I believe they are qualified. I have voted along with the minority Republicans who endorsed and confirmed a number of the President's nominees. But when it comes to a nominee who lacks the essential qualifications to fill one of these high offices, those of us charged with providing advice and consent cannot remain silent. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases.

It takes more than a law degree from a prestigious school and an impressive resume to head an agency to support the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. Most importantly, I think it takes judgment which cannot be measured by test scores or diplomas. It can only be measured over time through someone's actions.

If we look at Mr. Adegbile's record, it is obvious to me and so many of us in the Senate and around the country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, who have not opposed an executive branch nomination, by the way, in 17 years, who are taking a strong stand against this confirmation.

First, as some of his colleagues and my colleagues on the Senate floor have noted, Mr. Adegbile has a history of taking positions on some of our fundamental constitutional rights that I think are out of step with the views of the American people, the judgments of our judiciary, and our Nation's history.

In the case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, Mr. Adegbile argued that religious institutions do not have the right to hire or fire individuals responsible for conveying a church's teachings, a view that, were it to become law, would severely undermine religious liberty. Mr. Adegbile was so out of step with the Constitution on that issue that his view was rejected by the Supreme Court 9-0, which in today's typical 5-4 split in the Supreme Court is quite an accomplishment.

Mr. Adegbile's view on the First Amendment is troubling. So too are his views of the Second Amendment. He has repeatedly asserted that the Second Amendment does not ``protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms.'' If Mr. Adegbile had his way, millions of Americans would lose one of their most cherished rights, just like that. Whenever a piece of gun control legislation comes to the floor of this Chamber, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and, in fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--assure us they will always respect a fundamental right to bear arms. It is unfortunate that despite the words of the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, Mr. Adegbile cannot give us those same assurances.

There is the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal is a murderer. In 1981 he gunned down a police officer named Daniel Faulkner on a Philadelphia street. In an act of unmatched brutality, Mumia Abu-Jamal stood over Officer Faulkner as he lay dying and shot him in the face. A mountain of evidence from eyewitness accounts, forensics, to his own words makes it clear beyond any doubt that Abu-Jamal killed Officer Faulkner on that day in December 1981.

Still, Abu-Jamal deserved his day in court as would any other American accused of a crime. He got his day in court. He deserved competent counsel, and he got that too. He deserved an opportunity to appeal, and he got it. In fact, after the matter turned from a criminal matter to an issue of justice and to a political cause, he received some of the best counsel in the country and they filed appeal after appeal, all of which were rejected.

But that didn't stop Mr. Adegbile from claiming that Abu-Jamal was a victim of racism and a corrupt judicial system. For Mr. Adegbile, Abu- Jamal's case was apparently an opportunity to focus more on a political agenda than the case at hand. Abu-Jamal's guilt or innocence was not really the concern.

Debo Adegbile is free to make any arguments he sees fit about the First and Second Amendments. He is free to turn the murder of a police officer into a cause to advance a political agenda. When he does so, I think it says something about his judgment and it says something about his fitness to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice and police forces around our country should be working together to ensure that minority rights are respected and that civil rights abuses are punished. In my view, this nominee would only make that work more difficult. As the Fraternal Order of Police wrote in a letter to President Obama, if Mr. Adegbile is confirmed it will serve to ``exacerbate growing division and distrust'' between the Civil Rights Division--which is charged with securing our most basic freedoms--and the men and women of law enforcement who defend those freedoms by putting their lives on the line every day.

I think we can and should do better with a nominee who can work with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement around the country in ensuring that our most basic freedoms are secured through the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

For these reasons I oppose the nomination of Mr. Adegbile to this position, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the service and the memory of two Ohio firefighters, Private Stephen A. Machcinski and Private James Dickman of the Toledo Fire Department. Like so many of the men and women who serve as first responders in our country, these two men knew that every day, they were putting their lives on the line to keep their community--their friends and neighbors--safe. When things were at their worst, they were at their best. When others needed help, they were there to give it. When others ran out, they ran in.

Tragically, Private Machcinski and Private Dickman gave their lives in the line of duty, doing the job they loved, the one they were trained and prepared to do, while fighting an apartment complex fire in Toledo, OH, on January 26, 2014. But although they are gone, we will not forget them. Today, we honor their sacrifice and remember these fallen heroes who put themselves in harm's way for the good of their family, their friends, their neighbors, and the entire Toledo community.

Mr. President, for their commitment to saving lives, protecting the public, and willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, I would like to recognize Private Stephen A. Machcinski and Private James Dickman. We will continue to keep these two men and their families in our thoughts and prayers.

Madam President, I rise today to congratulate Ashland University for addressing the challenging issue of skyrocketing tuition. After serious consideration, Ashland has dramatically reduced its tuition for the 2014-2015 school year by 37 percent. Ashland hopes this important step will improve access to higher education at affordable prices while keeping the university financially competitive.

Ashland University, which is located in Ashland, OH, has a proud history of providing quality education since its founding in 1878. The university offers undergraduate, masters, and doctorate degrees and has been nationally recognized and ranked in the ``Top 200 National Universities'' by U.S. News & World Report for the last 2 years.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate Ashland University for addressing the affordability and accessibility of higher education.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Cleveland native Myron Belkind, who was named president of the National Press Club on January 25, 2014. Mr. Belkind grew up in Lyndhurst, OH, where he began his career in journalism writing as a student and then for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Cleveland Press.

During Mr. Belkind's 42-year career with the Associated Press, he covered many world leaders and headed up Associated Press bureaus in Kuala Lumpur, New Delhi, London, and Tokyo. He served as president of several foreign press associations and as a journalism instructor at the George Washington University in Washington, DC. He has received the Distinguished Alumni Awards from the Ohio State University School of Communications and Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

As a foreign correspondent in the 1970s, Belkind covered major international news stories and was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the breaking news that Prime Minister Gandhi's government had declared a state of emergency on June 26, 1975, suspending civil liberties, arresting thousands of political opponents, and imposing restrictions on the national and international press.

He is the first National Press Club president with an extensive international background in foreign correspondence. In his new role, he has vowed to continue his work promoting worldwide freedom of the press and will

continue to strive for professional development and excellence in journalism.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Myron Belkind, a fellow Buckeye, as he begins this new chapter in his distinguished career.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Sister City programs in Ohio. The Sister Cities International program was created by President Eisenhower in 1956 with the intent of fostering peace and prosperity through cultural exchanges that promote appreciation through mutual experience and understanding.

Through the years, relationships have been formed and strengthened through ``citizen diplomacy'' and person-to-person exchanges between U.S. and international cities. These educational, informational, and cultural exchanges have not only created important diplomatic, economic and trade relationships, but they have also formed lasting personal bonds between individuals and cities.

The Sister City programs have positively impacted many cities throughout the United States, but today I would like to specifically recognize the 2014 U.S.-China Sister City Award recipients in my home State of Ohio. The State of Ohio was one of four recipients in the country for the Longest Relationship Award for its relationship that began in 1979 with the Hubei Province. Cincinnati was one of four programs in our Nation to be recognized as a Best Overall U.S.-China Sister City program in 2014. This strong relationship between Cincinnati and its Chinese Sister City Liuzhou in the Guangxi Province has existed since 1988. I was honored to be one of the original board members of this special Sister City relationship. In addition, the Columbus Sister City program was one of only three U.S.-China Sister City programs in the country to win a Sustainable Development Award. The relationship between Columbus and its Chinese Sister City, Hefei in the Anhui Province also began in 1988.

The U.S.-China Sister City programs in Ohio have been successful in forming relationships that mutually benefit the partnering communities by building global cooperation at the municipal level, promoting cultural understanding, and encouraging economic development. Some of the cultural exchanges made possible through these programs in Ohio include educational student and teacher exchanges, home stays, summer language camp exchanges, art exchanges, and science and medical exchanges.

The participants in these programs have demonstrated a commitment to enrich their communities culturally and economically, and I am inspired by the achievements that have been made in Ohio. I would like to congratulate the Ohio Sister City programs on being 2014 U.S.-China Sister City award recipients.

Madam President, I yield back my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Is there objection?

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

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

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I tried to be recognized before the majority leader decided to fill the tree, which means taking away the opportunity for amendments to be offered--although there will be an attempt in a moment to offer some. I am disappointed in that, because I think we were very close to reaching an agreement which would have enabled us to move forward with allowing Senators on both sides of the aisle to offer some of their ideas on the unemployment insurance extension.

Recall. This is an important debate we are having for the American people. It is about whether we go beyond the roughly 26 weeks in unemployment insurance to having an emergency extension again. On this side of the aisle, there were a few of us who, in fact, crossed over to vote with the entire Democratic majority to say let's have that debate. We thought we were doing so in good faith in that there would actually be a debate on two issues. One is whether it should be paid for and how it should be paid for, which I will address in a second, but second is how we should reform the unemployment insurance program and do other appropriate policies to get at the underlying problem, which is a record level, a record number of Americans who are long-term unemployed.

Clearly what we are doing isn't working, and we believe this is an opportunity for us to help improve the program to actually address the real problem. The President of the United States wants us to do that. He called me on Monday and told me he had hoped we would be able to address this issue by voting for the motion to proceed to begin the debate so that over the next few months, while we had a short-term extension of this program, there could be even more detailed discussions about how to improve the legislation and how to add other elements to it--specifically, on how to give people who are long-term unemployed the skills they need to access the jobs that are available. Unfortunately, we are not going to have that opportunity now, it appears, to have the debate over how to pay for it, what the pay-fors ought to be, and, again, how to improve the program.

But let me say this is unfortunate, because we had 60 votes to proceed. That includes certainly three of us who are here on the floor today, and all three of us are willing to move forward with this with a reasonable provision to pay for this over the 3 months, and again, during that period to come up with a better and improved unemployment insurance program. We were not

part of the discussion as to the pay-for that the majority leader has just put forward.

I appreciate his good faith in wanting to include one of the proposals I had in my amendment. I honestly do appreciate that. I will say the offset he has put in, which I have just learned about because I didn't have an opportunity to see until now, has an important difference--a difference between what was just offered in the new Democratic proposal and what is in my proposal. My proposal, which I have come to the floor to talk about three times now, has been previously proposed by the House. It says that if you get unemployment insurance or you get trade adjustment assistance, then you also do not receive Social Security disability insurance in that same month.

Why? Because these programs are mutually exclusive. If you are on Social Security disability--SSDI--that means you are not working, by definition. If you are working and lose your job, you are then continuing to look for work and you get TAA. If you have lost your job and you are continuing to look for work, which is required, you get unemployment insurance.

This is why this same general program is laid out in the President's budget, and in fact it is something I believe the administration supports in others.

The proposal the Democrats included says that if you receive unemployment insurance in the month you receive Social Security, then your SSDI is reduced by the amount of unemployment insurance received.

Why does that matter? It is not the same. And it matters because the proposal the majority leader has proposed it saves a lot less money. According to the Congressional Budget Office, my proposal would save about $5.4 billion; theirs, as I understand it from the distinguished majority leader today, will save about $1 billion.

So again, I appreciate his wanting to include it, and I think it is in the same spirit as the amendment I offered, but honestly we haven't had the chance to talk about this. I tried today to sit down with the Democratic sponsor of the underlying legislation, the other Senator Reed, who in good faith said he wanted to talk about it, but we haven't been able to schedule that. So we have not had the discussion. So we are just learning today what is again the sort of take-it-or-leave-it proposal that is in the majority leader's proposal in filling the tree.

There is a possibility, I think procedurally--and the majority has expressed some interest in looking at this--in taking that agreement and altering it somewhat over the next couple of days, because the cloture would not ripen, as I understand it, until Monday afternoon, but that still doesn't give all of our other colleagues a chance to offer their good ideas, and there are a bunch of them out there.

The Senator from New Hampshire offered hers day before yesterday, and she talked about it today on the floor, where she wants to take away some of the existing missed payments that are in the child tax credit. I would think all of us would want to do that--to preserve child tax credits for those who are truly eligible. For those who are not eligible, obviously, they shouldn't have access to it. It seems like a sensible amendment to me. I am a cosponsor of that amendment.

Senator Coats raised his ideas today, and I think he has some good ideas that ought to be debated.

So my hope is we would be able to go back to where we were prior to filling the tree and to say let's have a discussion. It can be limited. I think there are a very limited number of amendments.

I see the distinguished Republican whip on the floor, and he indicated to me today there are something under 20 amendments offered by the Republican side. I don't know how many of those have actually been filed, but it seems to me we could have had a good debate on that and still should.

So my hope is that we can come up with a solution here. I do think it is going to require us providing some opportunity for other people to be engaged, and specifically those who want to get to a solution, which is a lot of people on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle--both sides of the aisle. Let's sit down and talk. We are adults. We have been elected by millions of people to represent them, and it is our responsibility, indeed our commitment to them, we would sit down across the aisle and work these things out, as you would in any other relationship--in your marriage, in your business, with your neighbors.

We had some discussion about this yesterday, that for some reason in the Senate it seems we are unable to have even the most basic level of discussion and debate. So I am open to that. I had hoped to do it today. I put my ideas out there; parts of them have been accepted, and I appreciate that, but, frankly, not the way we had laid it out in my own amendment. I do believe, if we have the opportunity, if we were to back up and to actually solve this problem, meaning to provide what the President says he wants, which is a 3-month extension of long-term unemployment, we can sit down, roll up our sleeves as Republicans and Democrats, and come up with a better way to address what is a crisis in this country, which is more long-term unemployed people than ever in the history of our country.

Those people are hurting, and clearly the current system isn't working. So to just extend it is not the answer. The answer is to allow the Senate to do its job; that is, to reform these programs so they work for the people we represent.

Madam President, I wish to make two corrections quickly and then yield to my colleague from Indiana.

One is that the proposal I did offer had nothing to do with ObamaCare, as I thought the majority leader understood, and others do not, including the amendment from the Senator from New Hampshire. So we do have a number of amendments and a number of good ideas. We had a debate.

Second, it is in the President's budget. So if it is such a terrible proposal, I am surprised the President would have proposed it.

Of course.

Yes, he does. He calls for major tax increases.

The Senator is correct. After having put together a budget myself, I would say you have to stand by all those policies. And I think if we were to call on the Office of Management and Budget or the Treasury Department, they would tell you they stand by these proposals. So, yes, it is a package, but they put them in because they think they are good policy.

So my point is that we have some good ideas not related to ObamaCare, since that seems to be an objection by the majority leader, and I hope we can work something out. I do think there is an opportunity for us to do so. But I don't think we can do it unless there is a little bit of give-and-take and some discussion, at least, which we have not been able to have yet.

With that, I yield for my friend from Indiana.

Mr. President, I am happy to be on the floor to hear the news from Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus that they have reached an agreement on trade promotion authority. I wish to congratulate them on that, working with Chairman Camp on the House side.

This is incredibly important. These two Senators have worked closely together, as Republican and Democrat, over the last few months with the administration to put in place the opportunity for American workers, American farmers, and American service providers to be able to sell their goods and their services on a level playing field by opening more markets for U.S. products. I congratulate them. It is sad to me that for the past 5 or 6 years we haven't had trade promotion authority, and without their strong efforts we still wouldn't have it today.

It has been noted that this administration, the Obama administration, is the first one since FDR not to have asked for even the ability to open these markets through what is called trade promotion authority and its predecessors until last March. So until last spring they hadn't even asked for it. They did ask for it, and thanks to the hard work of these two Senators and Congressman Camp, we are now going to have that opportunity. This gives our workers, our farmers, and our service providers the ability to access these markets Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch spoke about.

It is critical to economic growth. If we look at the growth in the last two or three recoveries, much of it was because of expanding exports. We all believe the current level of economic growth is disappointing. It is anemic growth. We are looking at long-term unemployment being at historic levels, as we have spoken about on the floor all week. One solution, clearly, is for the United States to do more exporting, and we can't do that without trade promotion authority.

I speak as a former U.S. Trade Representative who had the honor of traveling the world representing our great country. I will tell my colleagues, when we got down to the negotiating across the table with another country in terms of how to knock down both tariff and nontariff barriers to trade, if they didn't know there was an ability with an up- or-down vote to get that trade agreement done in the U.S. Congress with something like trade promotion authority, they would not have put their last and best offer on the table. That is a reality.

Our system is different from most systems in countries around the world. We have to have trade promotion authority--that has been our experience--in order to get these trade agreements done to help knock down barriers to the people in the United States who make the best products in the world, who provide the best services in the world and are just looking for a fair shake and a level playing field.

So these two Senators, by doing this today, have opened up the possibility now for us to have trade agreements that give us the opportunity to grow our economy and create, as they both said, good- paying jobs and good benefits, and I congratulate them for that.

I am happy to yield to my colleague and ranking member from Utah.

I am glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Montana. I will say just based on his question that we are going to miss his wisdom and his experience on the trade issue. He takes some political risks sometimes, I know, as he did in coming up with an agreement on trade promotion authority, because there are many on both sides of the aisle--especially his side of the aisle--who take a different view of this issue. He has been willing to help to educate them as to why this is in the interests of Montana farmers and ranchers and workers.

Senator Hatch spoke earlier about the impact of trade on the people he represents.

My colleague is absolutely right. The trade promotion authority enables us to take that step toward things such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, called TPP--a lot of alphabet soup here with TPA to TPP. That is important, as the Senator just said, because this is the fastest growing region of the world--these are the Pacific countries, countries in South American but also in Asia; it is where the majority of the global GDP is now; and it is an area where, frankly, because of China's strong interest in trade, other countries in the region are looking to the United States to provide not only a market but also to help them with regard to their own markets; therefore, more U.S. exports, more of that, as my colleague said. The best technology in the world is in the United States, the best products in the world that are made here--to be able to export to those countries. So they want to have this relationship with us.

As a future Ambassador to China, I will stipulate that I think the Senator from Montana understands this issue very well. But what this Trans-Pacific Partnership does is two things.

No. 1, it expands trade in an area of the world that again is the fastest growing part of our globe and a place where the tariffs and nontariff barriers are higher, relatively speaking, than they are here. In other words, by lowering barriers we get a relative advantage.

This agreement also, I hope, will deal with the currency issue, as my colleagues have negotiated in this trade promotion authority, which I support. This is pioneering work they have done in this area. We have to ensure that currency levels are appropriate, that there are not unfair trade advantages being given by countries that depreciate their currency by interfering in it.

So I believe it is about trade, and that is very important for our workers and our farmers and our service providers, but, second, it does have this geopolitical element where those countries in the Asia Pacific area are allies of ours and are looking to us to develop a stronger relationship on the commercial side but also on the intergovernmental side to be able to ensure that the U.S. role continues in that area.

I think this TPA that these Senators have negotiated today that they are announcing is incredibly important because it is the first step toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements we can complete, as we just have recently under the old TPA, with South Korea, with Panama, with Colombia--countries where we are seeing expansion of exports as well as a stronger relationship with key countries in the region.

Reclaiming my time, the Senator is absolutely right. The alternative is not to pass a trade promotion authority and to have continue to happen what has frankly been going on over the last 6 or 7 years, which is these other countries around the world are actively negotiating agreements, as the Senator from Montana says, using their own standards but also opening markets for their workers, their farmers, and their service providers, and cutting us out of market share.

So what has happened is the European Union, the Chinese, the Canadians, and others have been actively pursuing agreements while we have been on the sidelines because we have not had trade promotion authority. So not only does this give us an opportunity, with this possible agreement with the European Union--which would be an agreement not like a free trade agreement but would be a partnership on investment, on standards, on being sure there is a harmonization that is more like the beneficial metrics that we use in this country that can help both in our economy and, as the Senator says, globally--none of this can happen without us being able to say we are going to have the possibility of taking trade agreements to the Congress for an up- or-down vote--a fair vote. Every one of these agreements will have to be voted on separately because in these other countries they will not put that last, best offer on the table until they know that. They are not going to be nickeled and dimed and amended to death as they get to the Congress. That is just reality.

We have to get off the sidelines. We have to get reengaged. We have to help our economy, our workers to get their fair share, to get their market share. Right now we are losing that market share, as literally over 100 trade agreements have been negotiated while we have been sitting on the sidelines without having trade promotion authority on both bilateral and regional agreements.

So the Senator is absolutely correct. This is a great opportunity for us to, frankly, take this anemic economy and give it a little shot in the arm. It is part of an overall effort we ought to be doing to provide the kind of economic opportunity we all want for the people we represent.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I am happy to be on the floor to hear the news from Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus that they have reached an agreement on trade promotion authority. I wish to congratulate them on that, working with Chairman Camp on the House side.

This is incredibly important. These two Senators have worked closely together, as Republican and Democrat, over the last few months with the administration to put in place the opportunity for American workers, American farmers, and American service providers to be able to sell their goods and their services on a level playing field by opening more markets for U.S. products. I congratulate them. It is sad to me that for the past 5 or 6 years we haven't had trade promotion authority, and without their strong efforts we still wouldn't have it today.

It has been noted that this administration, the Obama administration, is the first one since FDR not to have asked for even the ability to open these markets through what is called trade promotion authority and its predecessors until last March. So until last spring they hadn't even asked for it. They did ask for it, and thanks to the hard work of these two Senators and Congressman Camp, we are now going to have that opportunity. This gives our workers, our farmers, and our service providers the ability to access these markets Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch spoke about.

It is critical to economic growth. If we look at the growth in the last two or three recoveries, much of it was because of expanding exports. We all believe the current level of economic growth is disappointing. It is anemic growth. We are looking at long-term unemployment being at historic levels, as we have spoken about on the floor all week. One solution, clearly, is for the United States to do more exporting, and we can't do that without trade promotion authority.

I speak as a former U.S. Trade Representative who had the honor of traveling the world representing our great country. I will tell my colleagues, when we got down to the negotiating across the table with another country in terms of how to knock down both tariff and nontariff barriers to trade, if they didn't know there was an ability with an up- or-down vote to get that trade agreement done in the U.S. Congress with something like trade promotion authority, they would not have put their last and best offer on the table. That is a reality.

Our system is different from most systems in countries around the world. We have to have trade promotion authority--that has been our experience--in order to get these trade agreements done to help knock down barriers to the people in the United States who make the best products in the world, who provide the best services in the world and are just looking for a fair shake and a level playing field.

So these two Senators, by doing this today, have opened up the possibility now for us to have trade agreements that give us the opportunity to grow our economy and create, as they both said, good- paying jobs and good benefits, and I congratulate them for that.

I am happy to yield to my colleague and ranking member from Utah.

I am glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Montana. I will say just based on his question that we are going to miss his wisdom and his experience on the trade issue. He takes some political risks sometimes, I know, as he did in coming up with an agreement on trade promotion authority, because there are many on both sides of the aisle--especially his side of the aisle--who take a different view of this issue. He has been willing to help to educate them as to why this is in the interests of Montana farmers and ranchers and workers.

Senator Hatch spoke earlier about the impact of trade on the people he represents.

My colleague is absolutely right. The trade promotion authority enables us to take that step toward things such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, called TPP--a lot of alphabet soup here with TPA to TPP. That is important, as the Senator just said, because this is the fastest growing region of the world--these are the Pacific countries, countries in South American but also in Asia; it is where the majority of the global GDP is now; and it is an area where, frankly, because of China's strong interest in trade, other countries in the region are looking to the United States to provide not only a market but also to help them with regard to their own markets; therefore, more U.S. exports, more of that, as my colleague said. The best technology in the world is in the United States, the best products in the world that are made here--to be able to export to those countries. So they want to have this relationship with us.

As a future Ambassador to China, I will stipulate that I think the Senator from Montana understands this issue very well. But what this Trans-Pacific Partnership does is two things.

No. 1, it expands trade in an area of the world that again is the fastest growing part of our globe and a place where the tariffs and nontariff barriers are higher, relatively speaking, than they are here. In other words, by lowering barriers we get a relative advantage.

This agreement also, I hope, will deal with the currency issue, as my colleagues have negotiated in this trade promotion authority, which I support. This is pioneering work they have done in this area. We have to ensure that currency levels are appropriate, that there are not unfair trade advantages being given by countries that depreciate their currency by interfering in it.

So I believe it is about trade, and that is very important for our workers and our farmers and our service providers, but, second, it does have this geopolitical element where those countries in the Asia Pacific area are allies of ours and are looking to us to develop a stronger relationship on the commercial side but also on the intergovernmental side to be able to ensure that the U.S. role continues in that area.

I think this TPA that these Senators have negotiated today that they are announcing is incredibly important because it is the first step toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements we can complete, as we just have recently under the old TPA, with South Korea, with Panama, with Colombia--countries where we are seeing expansion of exports as well as a stronger relationship with key countries in the region.

Reclaiming my time, the Senator is absolutely right. The alternative is not to pass a trade promotion authority and to have continue to happen what has frankly been going on over the last 6 or 7 years, which is these other countries around the world are actively negotiating agreements, as the Senator from Montana says, using their own standards but also opening markets for their workers, their farmers, and their service providers, and cutting us out of market share.

So what has happened is the European Union, the Chinese, the Canadians, and others have been actively pursuing agreements while we have been on the sidelines because we have not had trade promotion authority. So not only does this give us an opportunity, with this possible agreement with the European Union--which would be an agreement not like a free trade agreement but would be a partnership on investment, on standards, on being sure there is a harmonization that is more like the beneficial metrics that we use in this country that can help both in our economy and, as the Senator says, globally--none of this can happen without us being able to say we are going to have the possibility of taking trade agreements to the Congress for an up- or-down vote--a fair vote. Every one of these agreements will have to be voted on separately because in these other countries they will not put that last, best offer on the table until they know that. They are not going to be nickeled and dimed and amended to death as they get to the Congress. That is just reality.

We have to get off the sidelines. We have to get reengaged. We have to help our economy, our workers to get their fair share, to get their market share. Right now we are losing that market share, as literally over 100 trade agreements have been negotiated while we have been sitting on the sidelines without having trade promotion authority on both bilateral and regional agreements.

So the Senator is absolutely correct. This is a great opportunity for us to, frankly, take this anemic economy and give it a little shot in the arm. It is part of an overall effort we ought to be doing to provide the kind of economic opportunity we all want for the people we represent.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I applaud the majority leader for his work on the Neil Armstrong Flight Research Center. This is something Dianne Feinstein has been very involved with and Jay Rockefeller supported, and it is an appropriate way to pay tribute to Neil Armstrong, who was a constituent of mine and a dear friend. I spoke to his family about this. They believe it is an appropriate way to pay tribute to him as well.

He was a true hero, not just because of what he did as the first man to walk on the moon, but also the way he led his life subsequently. He was a humble hero to me and to so many others. I am delighted that through the action we just heard on the floor here a moment ago with the majority leader, we have now passed legislation which will go to the President for his signature. The Dryden Flight Research Center in California will now be renamed the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center at the Dryden Aeronautical Test Range. So that is good news tonight. The Senate got something done.

The Budget

I also wish to comment on what the Presiding Officer said earlier with regard to the retirement provisions in the budget as it relates to our veterans. The military retirement issue is one I had great concerns about, and when I voted for the budget, it was my understanding that would be resolved. The Senator from Connecticut has a proposal he is supporting tonight from our colleague from New Hampshire. I am supporting a proposal as well from another colleague from New Hampshire, and how we pay for this is the subject of some debate, but we need to resolve this.

I think it is unfair for a couple of reasons; one is it singles out our military at a time when there are so many other ways in which we need to address our overspending in this country. I think it is not just for us to simply single out military retirees. I believe that is not consistent with the promises we made to them, and I believe it is in effect changing the rules midstream.

Second, there is a commission looking at this. The commission is looking at, in a comprehensive way, retirement, benefits, health care. That commission is both comprehensive and transparent and expected to report later this year.

So in my view, this certainly was not appropriate to be in the budget. It is about $6 billion. We certainly should be able to find a pay-for in a budget of over $3 trillion. Again, I commend those who are working on this.

I have cosponsored a particular approach which Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire is proposing that is an antifraud provision for the child tax credit. I know there is some difference on that, but I think all of us want to be sure the child tax credit is being properly administered, and those who do not qualify for it or are ineligible for it should not access it.

At a time of record debt and deficits, we have to be sure there is not fraud, abuse, and waste in our government, and that is one example. So I hope we can find a way to come together on that and deal with that issue.

Unemployment Insurance

Finally, the majority leader talked a little about the legislation currently before this body to extend unemployment insurance. I wish to talk for a moment about where we are on that bill and say I was encouraged by the words of the majority leader. It sounds as if he is interested in looking at various ways we could pay for it. He indicated he is not in support of paying for it but would be willing to listen to some of our ideas. Let me say a couple things about it.

One, this is the emergency unemployment insurance on top of the roughly 26 weeks currently provided by States such as my State of Ohio. So it is additional emergency unemployment insurance on top of that.

The unemployment insurance ended at year-end, and the question is: Do we extend it? How do we extend it? How do we deal with the fact it adds to the deficit?

I voted, along with a handful of other Republicans, to proceed to this because I believe we ought to have a debate about, one, whether it should be paid for or not. I think it should be, and I won't be able to support it unless it is paid for; two, over the 3-month period--which the extension is, just a 3-month period--how can we improve the unemployment insurance program so it really works to get people employed?

As we know, the problem now is we have the highest number of people who are long-term unemployed we have ever had in this country. It is a historic rate, and it is a very troubling, sad situation, where people are over 27 weeks at historic levels. So we are not doing what we should be doing to connect those people who are unemployed to the jobs out there, clearly, by definition with so many people long-term unemployed. Let's improve this system. Let's provide people with the job skills and the tools they need to access the jobs available.

In my own State of Ohio, we are told we have about 100,000 jobs, many in advanced manufacturing, bioscience, and information technology, sectors of our economy where there is requirement for skills those who are unemployed do not have. Long-term unemployment insurance isn't providing them with the training and skills opportunities.

I think we ought to be able as a body to come up with reforms, working with the administration. The President has indicated his interest in doing that. That is the reason for the 3-month extension. But I certainly think we should pay for the 3-month extension.

The argument was made tonight that it is an emergency. The same Democrats who are saying that are saying the economy is improving. In any case, it violates the budget which was passed. We passed a budget just a few weeks ago. It was quite contentious here on the floor. The budget provided, for the first time in 4 years, a budget for the House and for the Senate to work against so we can start the appropriations process again. I supported that. It had no tax increases. It actually had net deficit reduction in it--barely but some. It didn't do everything, but it set those budget levels so we now have caps we can work against so we can begin the appropriations process, which involves oversight, which has not been done appropriately for 4 years now. It also involves prioritizing spending which has not been done.

Frankly, the agencies and departments of the Federal Government have been kind of on their own with these so-called continuing resolutions because there hasn't been the constitutional requirement that Congress appropriate. That is our constitutional duty, the power of the purse, which simply hasn't happened.

I think the budget is important. But by setting those caps, we made a statement to the American people: We are going to stick to these budget caps,

both on the discretionary side--which is the smaller part of the budget we appropriate every year--and also on the mandatory side. Those caps are violated by unemployment insurance being extended without paying for it subject to a point of order on the floor of the House and the Senate. Frankly, I think if that point of order were raised--which I hope it would be, because we don't want to break these caps--I think it would be very tough to get the 60 votes.

I understand the majority leader disagrees with me, and I respect his opinion. But I do think that, because it violates the budget and because we have historic levels of debt and we have a deficit this year which is forecast to be over $600 billion, we ought to deal with this in a fiscally responsible way and find the money to pay for the extension. It is about $6 billion, about the same as dealing with the military retirement issue.

Again, certainly we can find $6 billion in a budget of well over $3 trillion. In fact, a number of us have come up with specific proposals, and I have introduced a couple of amendments on this today.

I spoke about one of these amendments earlier today, but I would like to go into a little more detail because there were some comments made on the floor earlier that Republicans are only offering two alternatives. One is a one-year delay in ObamaCare--which I support but is opposed by the other side--and the second is the proposal on the child tax credit, which I talked about earlier and which focuses on current mispayments of the child tax credit. Again, I think that is a good pay-for. I support that. I am actually on the amendment which provides for that, but it also has enough funds in it to deal with the military retirement issue we talked about. So it could extend the unemployment insurance program for 3 months, plus deal with the military retirement program and have a little left over for deficit reduction.

But I want to make it clear to those on the other side of the aisle who said that is all Republicans have that we do have alternatives. I specifically filed amendments which I hope will be made in order that say: Let's look at the President's own budget and pull out some pay- fors which are within the budget, and let's use those. This certainly should be bipartisan.

Specifically, I have two provisions in my amendment to pay for the extension. One is to remove a current loophole in the system which allows double-dipping between Social Security disability and unemployment insurance. That is in the President's budget. It is in there because it doesn't make sense to have folks who are on Social Security disability which is designed for people who are unable to work, to also be drawing unemployment insurance which is for people who are out of work and looking for a job. That is a requirement.

Clearly those two programs are mutually exclusive, which is why the President's budget includes this prohibition on what is called concurrent receipts--in other words, getting both SSDI and unemployment insurance.

I add to that Trade Adjustment Assistance, another program where, as a worker, if you lose your job due to trade and some external factors, you can go through a retraining program. But you are a worker by definition. The same principle applies to both. That combination pays for most of the extension of unemployment insurance.

I see my colleague from Maine is on the floor this evening. He, along with one of his Democratic colleagues and one of his Republican colleagues, has made a similar proposal in legislation and also filed an amendment along those lines to say: Let's clean up this issue. Let's be sure we do not have double dipping, that we do establish clearly that if you are qualified as a nonworker in one case, you cannot qualify as a worker in another case. I do think that is a responsible way to pay for this that would not run afoul of anything the majority leader said he was concerned about, although, again, I do not have the concerns he does about the child tax credit issue. I think it is a question of missed payments. But I want to make clear we do have this proposal out there.

On top of that, to be sure there is additional pay-for to pay for the entire amount of the extension of unemployment insurance, we also add an unemployment insurance integrity program, straight out of the President's budget. This is to ensure through the Labor Department that there are not improper payments on the existing unemployment insurance program. This will enable us to save money in the long run and help get people into jobs, which I think should be everybody's priority.

These are both proposals that are in the process here, that had been filed. We are hoping that they will be pending tomorrow and that we can have a debate on these and other amendments. I believe there are several other amendments, including the one from my colleague from Maine, that will say: OK, we will extend the unemployment insurance program for 3 months to come up with a better unemployment insurance program, to improve it so it does connect people to the jobs that are out there and provide the kinds of skills training that is needed and gives people the tools to be able to access those jobs. But we are going to pay for it at a time of historic debts and these large deficits and at a time when it violates the budget agreement otherwise that we just passed.

I am hopeful that we can make progress on this over the next couple of days and that we will be in a position to move forward on dealing with unemployment insurance improving that.

I also filed another amendment that relates to this because part of what we ought to do, in my view, during this month is tie worker retraining with unemployment insurance. Senator Bennet and I have something we called the Career Act that we introduced over the last few years, and this Career Act helps to improve the federal worker retraining program, which I believe should be part of this. Specifically, we have a couple of provisions in that legislation that I have introduced as an amendment here to be able to help in terms of the unemployment insurance issue. We need to create an environment where people don't need unemployment in the first place. This amendment will reform local one-stop centers for worker retraining that help connect the unemployed with retraining services by requiring them to give priority consideration to training services that provide workers with in-demand industry-recognized credentials. We are finding in Ohio and other States that those credentials are what are really needed to get a job often, and that is not being prioritized now in our Federal worker retraining program.

By the way, the Federal Government spends about $15 billion a year on these programs, so we need to make sure that money is well spent, and again, by definition, it is not working as it should. We have so many who are not able to find jobs because of this skills gap. There are 100,000 jobs open in Ohio right now and about 400,000 people are out of work, and somehow we cannot connect those folks with the jobs, partly because they do not have the skills.

Our proposal also includes an innovative approach, endorsed by the President in his 2014 budget, that gives States the flexibility to spend some of the WIA--Workforce Investment Act--funds on job training programs that use the pay-for-success model. What does that mean? The pay-for-success model allows providers who right now are getting funding through this program to be reimbursed only if they generate results, which seems pretty basic. You should be looking at outcomes, but that is not in the system now, so it really is a pay-for-success or pay-for-performance program. It will ensure that these programs are accountable and that they actually produce measurable results for workers. Not only will this save money, but it will also help get Americans back to work one job at a time.

These seems to me to be really responsible proposals that I hope we will take up in the Senate and be able to move forward with something that pays for this unemployment insurance extension but also begins the process of improving unemployment insurance so that it works better for that historic number of long-term unemployed.

Finally, this is a great opportunity for us to do what actually helps grow this economy because ultimately that is the problem, isn't it? Unemployment insurance is taking a dollar from one pocket and giving it to someone else. That is needed sometimes. During high unemployment, as we have now, and

long-term unemployment being high, something is needed in terms of unemployment insurance. I think most of us agree with that. But ultimately that is not the solution. The solution is to create more economic growth and therefore more jobs so people will not need to rely on unemployment insurance.

I am hopeful we can also have discussions about some of those issues. We are not going to reform the Tax Code here in the next couple of days, but we ought to talk about issues like that that give the economy a shot in the arm.

One thing I have introduced along those lines is an amendment to strengthen what is called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is to help with the regulations out there that are unfortunately causing more and more burdens to job creators, making it harder to create jobs.

We know the cost of regulations is going up. In 2012--the last year for which we have numbers--the Obama administration regulations cost in 2012 alone was equal to the costs in the first term of the Bush administration and the Clinton administration combined--more and more regulations, more and more costs, about 4,000 regulations a year. We have to be sure we have a process in place to pare down the regulations and make sure they are based on a real analysis of the cost and the benefits.

I was an author of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 back when I was on the House side, and this particular amendment offered today improves that bill. Originally, that was an effort to prevent Congress and the Federal regulators from blindly imposing economic burdens on the private sector without going through these costs and benefits. I think most people would acknowledge that it has been a success, but with today's regulatory environment, we need to upgrade and modernize it.

This amendment would require agencies to assess the effect of new regulations on job creation, which is not in the current act, so it would add this requirement. Let's look at how this affects creating jobs. That seems like a commonsense idea. And require those agencies to consider alternatives to the kinds of regulations being proposed that might lessen that effect on jobs.

It would also broaden the scope of the unfunded mandates act to include rules issued by independent agencies. Right now, independent agencies are not covered by the cost-benefit analysis because, by definition, they are independent from the Office of Management and Budget and from the analysis that is done. Some independent agencies do an analysis; some do not. They use different rules. This would require all agencies, whether it is an executive branch agency or an independent agency, to live under these same rules of cost-benefit analysis. That makes a lot of sense.

The President has proposed this himself, not in legislative form but executive action. We need to codify what the President talks about. Frankly, he cannot do it by executive agency because, again, these are independent agencies, independent of the White House, so our idea is to bring them into the same cost-benefit analysis to make sure they are adopting the least burdensome rules possible so they are not affecting our economy in negative ways and we get people back to work.

Finally, we did require agencies to look at what the options are, even after the cost-benefit analysis is done, to determine the least burdensome way to achieve the same objective. If you have the same rule being put in place, you would be required to say how you get from point A to point B in the least burdensome way. With so many Americans out of work and so many who are looking for jobs who are underemployed, I think it is time for us to look at everything. Regulatory reform would certainly be one, health care costs is another, tax reform, and looking at our trade policy so we can be sure to expand exports. There are lots of things to do, but I think on this regulatory front, this is one area where we have a lot of bipartisan census and we might be able to move forward.

I know we are debating the extension of unemployment benefits today, and not all these other issues, but they are all part of it. We have to make sure we are creating an environment for success, that we are creating the opportunity for job creators to invest, take a risk, and to begin to take the money off the sidelines in this economy so they can put it to work. That will require us to make some changes here in Washington in terms of the way we approach these issues to free up the private sector so they can do what they do best, which is to create more jobs and opportunity.

Again, I was very pleased to hear the Senate majority leader express a willingness to include reasonable amendments and offsets to the cost of this legislation. I do hope he will work with us to ensure we can move forward in a way that does take on some of these issues of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. We want to make sure there is no double dipping, and make sure there are not concurrent receipts with disability plus unemployment insurance, and TAA. We want to ensure that if you are working, you are getting the benefits you are eligible for, and if you are not working, you can get those benefits but not both. These are just sensible provisions and, again, reflective of what is in the President's own budget.

If we can do that and pay for this for 3 months, we can then go to work as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--because there is an Independent on the floor tonight--to resolve not just whether we extend unemployment but this deeper issue of how to have the unemployment program work to get people into jobs that are available out there. Again, record levels of long-term unemployment mean we have a real problem. It is not working.

Second, how do we grow this underlying economy? How do we get the jobs back through economic growth and through creating more opportunity for everyone? How do we get middle-class wages and benefits back up so we can enable every American to have a shot at the American dream by giving people the equal opportunity they deserve?

I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence and staying late tonight, and I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell or his designee be recognized from 2 o'clock to 2:45 this afternoon.

Madam President, I rise today to address the question that is currently before the body; that is, whether we should extend the emergency unemployment insurance for millions of Americans who are still unable to find work. This is in addition to the 26 weeks that is provided in most States--some a little more, some a little less--and the question is whether we extend this again, as we have done several times since the great recession. The question is, should we extend it and, if so, how should we extend it? Should we pay for it? Should there be some training or other requirements attached to it so it works better?

It is a good debate to have. I came on the floor yesterday to say let's have a full debate on this issue. It is one of great importance to folks who are unemployed. It is also important to our Nation as a whole that we deal with this issue, to encourage economic growth, to get people back to work. I was encouraged yesterday that the Senate majority would permit appropriate amendments to this legislation. That is one reason I voted to proceed, of course with the understanding that we would have the opportunity to talk about this issue, and debate it, and offer amendments. One ought to be how we pay for it.

Second, we ought to be able to deal with the underlying problem. Unemployment insurance is more of a bandaid, and we need to be sure we are dealing with the underlying problem of a weak economy and the lack of jobs and the lack of a connection between the skills that are needed and the jobs that are available. Let's really get at this problem in a serious way.

I will be frank. I heard from a lot of people in the last 24 hours-- after the vote on the motion to proceed--that they were surprised that I voted to proceed and that other Republicans did as well because they thought Republicans would all vote against it. In fact, I saw some press reports this morning indicating that some of the Democratic leadership would have been happier had that motion failed last night because then they could say: Well, we are blaming Republicans for being obstructionist.

I do not think my colleagues who voted the other way were being obstructionist. I think their concern was that they were not going to have the opportunity to debate this issue and to offer amendments that are sensible, that are relevant to the issue at hand--like how we pay for it, how we improve unemployment insurance so it works better for those who are unemployed.

But anyway, for my part, I took my colleagues at their word when they said they were serious about actually improving unemployment insurance and taking serious steps to deal with the lack of growth and economic opportunity in our economy today. So in good faith I voted on this motion to proceed yesterday, hoping again that we would be willing here in this body to have real debate, which is what the Senate is supposed to be about, have a debate over the long-term fiscally sound way forward on unemployment. I have come to the floor today in an effort to be sure that people understand there are alternatives out there, offer a specific idea to pay for the insurance, one that deals with fraud and abuse, one that is out of the President's budget actually, one that should be bipartisan.

I have heard earlier today, some have come to the floor on their side of the aisle and said: We should not pay for this extension. We should just go further into debt and deficit. My question would be: If we can pay for it, why would we not? Why would we want to take the country further into deficit this year, bust the budget caps that we just established in the budget agreement? I was one of nine Republicans who voted for that budget agreement. It was not perfect, but it set up a process going forward where we can get back to our constitutional duties here in the Senate of actually appropriating, meaning the oversight necessary of the Federal departments and agencies. There has been none over the last 4 years when we have not had a budget. Then prioritizing spending. That is what we are supposed to be doing. That is our constitutional responsibility.

It also did not raise taxes. It also does have a little bit of deficit reduction--not as much as it should have; it was not perfect, but it enabled us to move forward. So I voted for that budget. Now we are talking about, right after that, putting forward an unemployment emergency extension that is not paid for, that will bust those very caps. I am told a budget point of order is going to lie against this because of it.

That is not the way we should go. Let's pay for it. The debt and deficit are affecting our economy today. It is like a wet blanket over the economy. You cannot have trillion-dollar deficits year in and year out. This year it is $680 billion. People are saying, well, that is great.

Are you kidding? That is the fifth highest deficit in the history of our country. It all adds up to a $17 trillion debt--unprecedented. I believe that is understated given all the liabilities we have as a government. But the point is, we have never had debts of this level. They are historic levels. It is not only the wrong thing to do for our economy today and to help getting people back to work, but it is also clearly unfair to do to future generations. We have some young people on the floor this afternoon. It is even immoral that we are leaving this to them. So let's pay for this.

I was glad to hear Senator Reid say yesterday of our efforts to fund this legislation, ``If they come with something serious, I'll talk to them.'' Well, I have something serious--I think other Members will as well--something that reflects, in my case, reforms proposed in the President's own budget, ideas that should be bipartisan.

My amendment would close a loophole that opens the system to double dipping. What do I mean by that? It is called concurrent receipts, where somebody is getting one Federal program, and then another Federal program they should not be eligible for if they have got the first one, specifically, people who are both on Social Security disability insurance, meaning they cannot work, SSDI, and also receiving funds from unemployment insurance, which means you are looking for a job or you are working. We also add trade adjustment assistance. That is exactly the same theory.

We should not allow double dipping. In fact, we should stop this abuse. This is in the President's budget. This reform makes sense. Social Security disability was designed to help people who are unable to work because of a serious medical condition. As we all know, the law requires those on unemployment insurance to actively seek out job opportunities. So the two do not work together. Let's stop the double dipping. These two programs are mutually exclusive. Those who cannot work should be on disability. Those who can work should be on unemployment insurance if they are eligible. By passing this simple amendment, we can close this loophole and save $5.4 billion, almost enough to pay for the entire 3-month extension that we are talking about on the table here today, which is about $6.2, $6.3 billion.

In addition, I will be adding another provision to my amendments that

takes the unemployment insurance program integrity provisions directly out of the President's budget. These are programs again in the President's budget to ensure that the unemployment insurance program is working properly, again taking out the fraud and the abuse in it. The President's budget instructs the Department of Labor to implement it. My amendment does too. By implementing the President's own plan to reduce these improper payments and speed reemployment, we save even more money in the long run. This pays for, again, this unemployment extension over 3 months.

I hope we can pass my amendment, pay for this extension, and show that this legislation is not just about politics--what we are talking about here on the floor is not just about politics, it is about actually helping people who are unemployed to get back to work. I hope when my Democratic colleagues say they are ready to take real action on getting our economy moving again, to help Americans who are suffering, they mean it.

By the way, the fact that we are having this debate, the fact that so many Americans are in need of long-term unemployment insurance in and of itself shows that something is not working. In fact, as we have talked about on this floor before, we are now at historic levels in terms of long-term unemployment, people who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks.

The approach taken by the administration and many of my colleagues here and in the other body to bring down unemployment and get this economy moving does not seem to have worked, by their own standards. Recall that we had a stimulus package. It was said that unemployment would be far lower than it is today. So by their own standards, it has not worked. If it had, we would not be debating this today. We would not be talking about the need for an extension on an emergency basis of unemployment insurance.

We cannot spend our way to prosperity. That is what we tried to do, in my view, in the stimulus package. That is one reason it has not worked. We certainly tried that over the last 5 years. If you look at what the government has done, we spent trillions of dollars we did not have, we have burdened the next generation with previously unimaginable debt levels that we talked about earlier. We have now run 5 years of historic deficits--5 years, trillion-dollar deficits the first 4 years.

Before this administration we had never had a trillion-dollar deficit. Last year's deficit, again, $680 billion, the fifth largest in history, is certainly no cause for celebration, particularly when the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we are going to go back to trillion-dollar deficits within 10 years. So we obviously have a huge problem in terms of our debt and deficit.

What do we have to show for all of this spending that we did? Seventy-one months after the recession began, the economy has still not recovered the jobs we lost in that recession. This has never happened in the history of our country. We have never had a recovery this weak. We are down 1.3 million jobs. By comparison, we were up 10.4 million jobs at this point after the 1981-1982 recession. That recession was also deep. In fact, it was deeper if you measure it by the number of people who were unemployed.

Ronald Reagan came in, and frankly he took progrowth policies and put them in place and helped to create millions of jobs. By this time we were up 10.4 million jobs after that recession. We were up 9.8 million jobs after the 1990 recession at this point. We were up 4.8 million jobs after the 2001 recession. Remember that? The recovery was called the jobless recovery. Again, we have not even gained back the jobs at all yet after this recession. We were up 4.8 million jobs at this point after the 2001 recession.

Making matters even worse, 1 out of every 3 unemployed persons has been out of work for 27 weeks or longer. As I said, this rate of long- term unemployment is at levels we have not seen. You would think we would have learned a lesson here in Washington. You would think Washington would want to do something differently. Yet I heard the President and the majority leader just yesterday present an unemployment extension as if it were some kind of economic panacea, a silver bullet justifying their failure to pay for this extension with all of the growth they say it will generate.

Well, the Senate majority leader said yesterday, ``For every dollar we spend on unemployment benefits, it gets $1.50 back to us just like that.'' Just like that? Think about this. If unemployment benefits create so much growth, why would we just do a 3-month extension? Why not a 3-year extension? Why would there be any limit? Money may not grow on trees, but apparently in the eyes of some it grows from government programs.

That is not how the economy works. I know there are economists out there you can cite for just about anything. But the President's own economic advisors have written that unemployment benefits slow down the search for jobs. But we do not need to get into a battle of experts here. History has proven that just spending more money, even on unemployment benefits, is not the solution. It is not the long-term, serious solution to the problems we face as a country.

This extension, if it passes, will be the 11th time we have extended unemployment benefits in the last 5 years. These extensions have cost more than $200 billion. No economic boom has resulted from this spending, just as it did not result, as I said earlier, from the trillion dollars in stimulus money.

If spending were the answer, we would not be standing here today having this debate. We would be celebrating full employment. Our economy would not be better off if we had higher unemployment and we were paying out more in unemployment benefits. That is kind of the logical extension of what has been argued on the other side as to why we cannot pay for this. I cannot imagine anyone actually believes this.

Yet for too long we have treated government spending as if it does create wealth. If I take $1 from the Presiding Officer, take $1 from one person and give that dollar to someone else, that other person may be better off, but I did not add a dollar to the economy. Government programs have to come from somewhere. So that dollar is being taken from somewhere and given to somebody else. Somehow the notion is that is going to add to the economy.

Again, the logical extension is: Let's just continue to provide more and more government spending; everything will be great. That is not how it works. Dividing the pie up differently does not create more pie. It creates real, concrete progrowth policies to do that, policies that mean we are paying out less in unemployment benefits because more people have the skills they need to get good jobs. That is what we ought to be talking about.

Yes, I am willing to extend unemployment insurance and pay for it. But during that period, let's come up with a better unemployment insurance program that actually connects people to the jobs that are out there. Because there are a lot of jobs that require skills that are not being filled. Our employment system ought to, both for the long term and even for the short term, focus on that. How do you create better skills so that people have the opportunity, have the tools to be able to access those jobs?

Policies that allow more companies and small businesses to produce quality products they can sell here and around the world, creating better jobs and profits, would help. Implementing these kinds of policies is not as easy as extending unemployment benefits for a few months or raising the minimum wage. We will not be able to ram these kinds of policies through in a week on a party-line vote with no debate and no amendments. But there is a real solution to the chronic unemployment we are seeing in our States, and that is the only way to encourage the kind of income mobility that will close the income gap, not by tearing people down but by bringing people up. Progrowth economic policies obviously need to be part of the solution here. If we extend unemployment insurance, we should do so because people are hurting as a result of the failed policies in Washington. But we should not kid ourselves into believing that this extension alone will somehow solve these economic problems. Again, it certainly will not pay for itself. As I said earlier, you cannot take a dollar away from one person and give it to someone else and create more purchasing power. You are redistributing that across the economy.

It does not have to be that way. We can pass these pay-for amendments. I have my own amendments, as I said. Others have also proposed their amendments. I know Senator Ayotte has an amendment I am supporting that, again, gets at fraud and abuse in government programs and says: Let's pay for the unemployment benefits.

She also, by the way, pays for veterans' benefits that were cut during the budget agreement we just passed. I also support that. She has a little left over for actual deficit reduction.

Senator Coburn is going to have a proposal out here. I think Senator Hatch will have one. Senator McConnell will have one. My understanding is that Senator Coburn has one that is also out of the President's budget.

There are plenty of ideas here as to how to pay for this extension, short term, while we look at better ways to have the unemployment insurance system work, to connect people who are unemployed to the jobs that are out there, by giving them the skills they need. That is where the hard work begins.

We have got to get this country moving again. We have got to do things to actually increase economic growth and give people the skills they need to access the jobs that are out there. We need to pass bills such as the CAREER Act, bipartisan legislation I have introduced with Senator Mike Bennet from Colorado.

In Ohio, we have about 400,000 people unemployed. We are told there are about 100,000 jobs right now open in Ohio. A lot of these jobs are high-tech jobs. Some are in advanced manufacturing, some are in bioscience, some in information technology. We need to be sure that the people who are unemployed get the skills they need to be able to take advantage of those jobs, those opportunities.

We can also start by working on tax reform. Everybody seems to talk about it. Let's do it. Corporate tax reform alone would result in a lot more revenue coming into the Federal Government by repatriating profits. It would help expand opportunities, not for the boardroom, for the people who work in those companies.

People who have looked at this at the Congressional Budget Office, the economic experts, have said: If we did corporate business tax reform, over 70 percent of the benefit goes right to the workers: higher pay, higher benefits. It is time to ensure that we have a growing economy, we are growing that pie, not just carving it up.

Let's streamline the regulations in this country. Currently the United States ranks 34th in the world in the time it takes to get a government green light to actually build something. Think about that. This is a key World Bank measure for ease of doing business. We want America to be at the top of that list, not halfway down that list. Unless we do that, we are not going to see the kind of investment we want in this country. How many jobs are lost every year because people cannot get a permit, that a good idea cannot be built? These are jobs that are there if we change the policies here in Washington, DC.

Congress continues to pat itself on the back for scoring political points rather than taking on these challenges that face our country. I can tell you who is not patting us on the back: It is the American people. They are not happy. They are not pleased with our progress. There is good reason. They are actually seeing their take-home pay go down as the deficit goes up, in, as the President talked about, a better economy.

Fifty years ago the United States declared a war on poverty. Yet poverty is still a major problem. The goal was noble, but the tools we used were not up to the challenge.

Since the recession began, 9 million more Americans have fallen into poverty and the median household income is down more than 8 percent. Poverty rates have actually increased during this administration with the policies we have.

It is time for a change. For decades we have exported to the nations around the world these principles that have allowed us to enjoy so much prosperity and success. We have said: Follow the American way; the free enterprise system works. We have preached to them this gospel, as well as our belief that by removing the shackles of government interference from the market--whether in the form of overregulation, overspending, or overtaxing--everyone can prosper.

As U.S. Trade Representative I had the opportunity to travel all around the world representing our great country. It was a great honor to tell people the benefits of liberalizing trade, knocking down barriers to increase economic growth and opportunity. It works. Entrepreneurs and job creators have lifted more people out of poverty around the world over the past few decades than any government program ever could because the free enterprise system does work. We need to get back to that.

Let's do something we can be proud of in this Chamber today. Let's empower the American people instead of the American Government. Let's not kick the can of spending down the road any longer. Let's take some votes. Not all of them are going to be easy votes, and they shouldn't be. After all, that is what we are elected to do--take tough votes. These votes we take today, though, can make a real difference in people's lives.

Let's start today. Let's pay for this legislation. Let's use these pay-fors we just talked about that are bipartisan, that are sensible, that can be supported on both sides of the aisle and in both bodies. Let's ensure that we put in place the progrowth policies so that we aren't just giving people a little more unemployment insurance for a few more months but giving them the opportunity to get a job and the dignity and self-respect that come with that.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, pay for this legislation, put politics aside, and get to work for the American people.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a moment?

I was just walking through the Chamber and I had the opportunity to visit with some of my colleagues in the back, and I heard what my colleague from Texas was saying, and I just want to add a couple things, if I could. One is to say he is absolutely right in terms of the underlying problem here, which is a weak economy, and really a historically weak economy. Never coming out of a recession have we had a recovery this weak.

The Senator made that point well--that typically we go into a recession in sort of a V formation. We go in and then come back out with a relatively strong recovery from a relatively deep recession. That certainly happened in 1981, where at this point in Ronald Reagan's recovery we had created over 8 million new jobs. Unfortunately, we are not creating the new jobs that we created in these other recoveries. As a result, we do have these problems with folks who are both unemployed and long-term unemployed.

I think it is important to note that we now have historic levels of long-term unemployment, people who have been out of work for more than a half year, more than 26 weeks--the highest levels ever. So something is not working. It is different this time. I think what is not working is that some of our basic structural institutions--such as our tax system, our regulatory system, the regulations that have come from ObamaCare, and so on--are adding more and more burdens to the economy.

The historic debt and deficits the Senator talked about are also adding to our economic woes. It is hurting the economy today, and it is certainly unfair, I would say even immoral to put that burden on future generations. Some of the young people who are here today are going to get left holding the bag for the $17 trillion national debt we now have--$145,000 for every family in Texas or Ohio.

So the Senator makes the right points. We have to get this economy moving. There are some very specific policy proposals the Senator has outlined that we ought to turn to. The President has talked about tax reform, he has talked about regulatory relief,

but he has not delivered. If we do not get at those issues, we are not going to ultimately solve the problem.

But here we find ourselves within a few hours of having voted to proceed on a debate on whether we do extend unemployment insurance for people for the next 3 months beyond the normal unemployment insurance that would be out there. Most States provide about 6 months of unemployment insurance, about 26 weeks; some States a little more, some States a little less. What we are talking about is how much do you add at the Federal level as emergency unemployment benefits? I did vote, along with some of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to proceed to this debate. As the Senator said earlier--I heard him-- perhaps that was not what the majority leader was hoping for because maybe he wanted more of a political issue. But I did so because I took to heart what was said on the other side of the aisle about the fact that we are going to now have a debate.

I think this debate breaks down into a couple things. One is, how do you deal with paying for this? Because, as we indicated, this economy is not going to grow until we deal with these historic levels of debt and deficit.

How ironic would it be if we were saying: We are going to help those who are unemployed by making it harder to get the economy moving--by not doing anything with regard to the debt and deficit, in fact, adding to it.

So what I am going to be filing is an amendment. It is a very simple amendment that says let's pay for this extension for 3 months. I just heard my colleague from Texas saying he would support that. Others, I hope, on both sides will support this. The specific idea that we have is let's take the proposal out of the President's budget that says if you are on Social Security disability and, therefore, not working, you, of course, should not be getting unemployment insurance. It is in the President's budget. I would also say trade adjustment assistance, of course, should not be available to you because you are not working by definition.

So it is basically tightening up some of the provisions in current law to make them work better. That provides the funding to be able to say: OK, let's go ahead and extend unemployment insurance, but only for a few months while we do sit down and work on these bigger problems that the Senator from Texas has taken a lead on and talked about today. I hope that is where we will end up, that we will actually pay for this rather than adding to the burden and making the economy even weaker by adding to our deficit.

Second, I think we need to have an honest discussion, even in the next couple of days here, as to how to make the unemployment system itself work better. Unemployment insurance, as has been noted, is not connecting people to jobs. That is the reason we have these historic levels of long-term unemployment.

The Senator mentioned the Pell grants, for instance, being available to people who are on unemployment insurance. That is incredibly important, but also having our worker retraining programs at the Federal level work better for those folks who are uninsured. I think we should engage in that topic now--not only on how do we pay for this, but how do we actually make the unemployment insurance system work for the people who are unemployed?

The Federal Government spends over $15 billion a year in worker retraining programs--47 programs spread over 9 different departments and agencies. Often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. The GAO, which looks at these issues--the General Accountability Office--has said there is duplication in most of these programs, and only a handful--four or five--are seeing the kind of performance measures you would want to have in a Federal program.

So there is a great opportunity here on a bipartisan basis for us to get those worker retraining programs working better and into the hands of the people who really need the retraining to match skills with jobs. In Ohio--and I am sure the same is true in Texas--we have a lot of jobs going wanting right now. We have about 100,000 jobs available. We have about 400,000 people out of work. How do you connect those? A big part of that is providing the skills to those workers to be able to access those jobs that are available that do require a higher skill--maybe it is advanced manufacturing, maybe it is biotechnology.

The Federal Government is not providing that help right now. Those worker retraining skills that are needed are not being provided. So I do think there is an opportunity here for us to pay for this, to be sure we are not adding to the debt and deficit, at a time when the economy is too weak already, and, second, to provide the skills workers need--Pell grants and so on--to actually give people some hope and give people some additional tools to be able to access this economy and these jobs that are available and get this economy moving again.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

I appreciate the Senator yielding. I would say that having listened to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak earlier today prior to the vote about what their intentions were, including one of the authors of the legislation, and one of the leaders in the Senate, it seems to me they are interested in a debate. They encouraged those from the Republican side to vote yes on the motion to proceed, with the understanding that there would be the opportunity then to at least discuss these issues

and to therefore offer amendments and to have what the Senate typically has had over the years, which is the opportunity for some give-and- take, and the opportunity to have voices heard, people representing both the States on the Democratic side and the Republican side of the aisle. So I am hopeful we will have that debate. That is my expectation.

I plan to file an amendment to pay for the unemployment insurance extension, and I know a lot of support will come from both sides of the aisle for that. I also hope to be able to offer other amendments that have to do with growing the economy in a more direct way. The Senator mentioned regulatory reform, for instance.

We have bipartisan proposals on this side of the aisle that are intended to take the unemployment situation and deal with it in a broader context of reducing the burdens on small businesses, for instance. When you try to get a permit, for instance, from the Federal Government right now, sometimes with an energy project, sometimes there are as many as 34 different permits you have to obtain. That is one reason we are not seeing investment in some of the energy projects we would like to see. It is a great potential for our economy right now. We can make the potential even greater and achieve it if we can do something on the regulatory reform side. So these are all issues that ought to be part of the broader discussion as to how to increase economic growth and therefore to increase jobs and opportunity for people who find themselves unemployed and are looking for those job skills and are looking for the jobs that are open.

I look forward to that debate over the next few days. That is certainly my expectation. I hope that Members on both sides would come down to the well and offer their amendments, have them voted up or down in the great tradition of the Senate.

I would like to thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for the opportunity to engage in this colloquy with her. As I understand it, the intent of the reserve fund under section 114(c) is to be available to adjust certain budgetary levels for deficit-neutral legislation that would replace sequestration. Do I have that correct?

I thank the chairman for her response. There is a concern that the reserve fund in section 114(c) could deprive the minority of an opportunity to require 60 votes for legislation that would modify the statutory limits on discretionary spending and pay for some or all of that cost with new revenue. Is that concern accurate?

I thank the Chairman for her answer. I understand that we were discussing a hypothetical example. I thank her for engaging with me in this colloquy.

Madam President, today I wish to honor ``Jungle'' Jack Hanna for his 35 years of service to the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. Jack is a world-renowned conservationist, author, television personality, lifelong adventurer, and champion of the Columbus Zoo.

In 1978, Jack Hanna joined a small zoo in Columbus, Ohio as the executive director. The challenges he faced as director were staggering. The zoo was outdated, the animals had little contact with the outside world, and the attendance was low. Jack worked to increase attendance by offering educational and entertainment programs at the zoo. Under his leadership, the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium became the world-class facility it is today. The Columbus Zoo is a state-of-the- art park with exceptional attractions such as Zoombezi Bay waterpark and Jungle Jack's Landing. The park has also expanded its reach outside of Columbus to include The Wilds near Cambridge, OH.

Jack's work as a conservationist has saved endangered animals and habitats around the globe. He helped found Partners in Conservation, and is an active supporter of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project, and the SeaWorld Busch Gardens Conservation Fund.

Jack was named director emeritus in 1992 of the Columbus Zoo but has continued to spur economic development and promote central Ohio since that time. Jack has made countless television appearances since 1983 on shows such as ``Good Morning America,'' the ``Late Show with David Letterman,'' FOX News programs, and CNN News programs. We still watch him today on his latest syndicated TV series, ``Jack Hanna's Into the Wild.''

I have had the opportunity to meet with Jack over the years and have witnessed his genuine love of animals and wildlife firsthand. He is a passionate advocate for conservation, and his skill for sharing the majesty of nature has opened the minds of millions of readers, viewers, and listeners.

The Columbus Zoo is an asset to central Ohio because of Jack Hanna's work and inspiration. I congratulate him on his service to our State.