have better governance. we will have a more frugal government but a more sensible way of spending. it also gives us this top-line funding for 2014 and 2015 to the appropriations committee. it means that we can write an omnibus bill. what does an omnibus bill mean? we on the appropriations committee -- excuse me -- have 12 subcommittees. we would like to have brought these subcommittees up one by one and have had the house exercise their due diligence in looking at the bills to see what they want to add, subtract or change. we couldn't do it, so now we're going to, because we failed to have this budget agreement to give us the top line. what we will now be able to do is for 2014 be able to bring them all up at one time in a bill called the omnibus. and i hope it's a bus that

really moves. it will enable us to make smart choices about investments in america instead of government with auto pilot through a continuing funding resolution. this agreement saves america from lurch tpr-g -- from lurching from one continuing funding resolution to another. and it's a fair compromise. for 2014, it's $24 billion above the house proposed budget, but it's $45 billion below the senate proposed budget. our budget leadership met in the middle and really saw that that would be an adequate compromise. it is -- i would have preferred the 1058 level, but it's adequate. the bipartisan agreement also, as i said, prevents harm to the middle class. what i think america is looking for, though, is not only numbers of programs and so on. they want us to get our act together. they want to us really do our job and do it in a way that's

sensible and civil. and i believe that that's what was done in that budget committee. they want us to work together across the aisle and across the dome. this bipartisan agreement shows what can be done when we do meet in the middle to make progress for the middle class and for those people who are neither right or left, but want to take the middle of the road. now this compromise is not perfect, and compromises never are. for me, some of the pay-fors were not exactly what i was happy about. for example, it requires new federal employees to pay more for their retirement and working-age military retirees to receive smaller colas. i would have preferred an agreement that closed tax loopholes or canceled some of those out-of-date farm subsidies left over from the 1930's.

however, by avoiding sequester, we also will be able to avoid furloughs. if you talk to the civilian employees at defense and you talk to the federal employees in the domestic agencies, this whole idea of furloughs and sequesters, some of them have had a double furlough. like at the f.b.i., we were facing furloughs at the f.b.i.. we didn't have gas for the f.b.i. cars. that's just not right. we want to make sure we continue to fund our government and meet our responsibility. i cannot stress enough how important this bipartisan agreement is. if we continue the path that we were and if sequester was left in phraeurbgs it will cost -- left in place, it will cost our economy 800,000 jobs. in one year, 800,000 jobs.

maryland already lost $21,000 because of sequester. we have important federal agencies. we have over 250,000 contractors both in defense and civil age circumstance and the ripple effect through our state of its impact on institutions like johns hopkins and the university of maryland and on nature, flagship companies like lockheed martin were really significant. so by passing this, we have certainty that enables us to keep those jobs. the appropriations committee is ready to write a funding bill that will create jobs today and jobs tomorrow. jobs today and important investments in infrastructure, education, research and development in jobs tomorrow. let's take this bipartisan agreement, and we will produce a bill. we on the appropriations

committee will produce a bill that meets our national security needs, our compelling human needs and at the same time lay the groundwork for a more prosperous america. so i urge my colleagues to support this bill and get rid of gridlock and deadlock and make sure we have certainty and reliability in funding the government of the united states of america. mr. president, i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, in 12 days unemployment insurance will expire for 1.3 million americans. this will impact virtually every state. and over the course of the next year it will setback millions of

hardworking families, slow down job growth and retard our economic recovery. today i filed three amendments to the bipartisan budget agreement act. the amendments would extend u.i. for one month, three months or a year respectively. and while i believe the best policies extend unemployment insurance for one year in order to keep our economic recovery moving forward, i'm willing to work with my colleagues who objected to extending it for the full year to find a path forward. but we must, i think, we must provide at least a message to those people that they will not see their benefits eliminated on december 28. that we will in fact be working to make sure that this protection is in place for families all across this country. over the next several days i'll be coming to the floor seeking consent and urging my colleagues to extend unemployment

insurance. the expiration of unemployment insurance will be devastating to families across the entire nation who rely on this as really the last remaining source of support in many cases for the people who have worked hard for many years. and because of this economy have lost their jobs. this is a stressful time. my home state of rhode island has an unemployment rate of 9.2%. we have been struggling since 2008 and 2009. this is very difficult for people, and this difficulty will be particularly hard to bear as we celebrate the holidays, a time when people should be able to consider and count their blessings. they'll instead be looking ahead a few days afterwards to the loss of valuable, irreplaceable

income in many respects. and it's also a devastating blow to our local businesses and economy. this is not just doing the right thing for american families. this is doing the right and smart thing for the american economy. the congressional budget office estimates that if we fail to extend unemployment insurance, we will lose 200,000 jobs, at a time that our major priority should be getting as many jobs as we can. and we'll slow economic growth by about .2% g.d.p. so this is not only the right thing to do in terms of the families america, it's -- families of america, it's the smart and right thing to do for our economy. there is a compelling economic rationale to provide these extended unemployment insurance benefits. mark zandi, a noted economist, estimates that for every dollar that we put into the u.i. program, we get about $1.70 or

or $1.60 in return with economic activity, and it makes sense. people who are living without their source of income when they take this money, they go to the store, they put food on the table, they pay rent, they pay heat up in the northeast where the president pro tempore presides. they're not stashing it away. they're putting it right back in the economy with other money they have, in some cases, and as a result this is a wise economic policy as well as a humane and decent policy. now is not the time to let this program expire, for individuals or for the economy. we have to extend the u.i. immediately. december 28 is the day it stops. it's a cliff. people are off the program. and then throughout the year, as people exhaust their state benefits at 26 weeks, they fall off because there's no

unemployment insurance program. and this is an economy where we are just beginning to see some recovery. last month's numbers suggest that about a 200,000 -- suggest about a 200,000 job gain. that was good, but hid engine those statistics was increasing evidence that long-term unemployment is increasing. those people that haven't found jobs quickly are not finding jobs very well at all. that trend is continuing, and that is another reason why we need long-term benefits that are provided by the federal program. now, i'm going to do my best to try to bring people together to recognize that this is an issue that is about american workers. you don't get unemployment insurance unless you have worked. it is about american families because it's so necessary to support these families. and it's about states all across this country. rhode island has a 9.2%

unemployment record. nevada is the highest, with about 9.3%. but you can look at states in many parts of this country, not north, south, east, west, scattered across this country that have unemployment rates over 8% that need this program for their residents. and so i hope we can come together and work together and get this done, and i would urge again in the next few days that we all stop and think about our obligations, not only to the families of america but to keeping the momentum of economic growth moving forward, and i would particularly ask those colleagues who are representing states with unemployment rates that are above the average and the national average is roughly 7% to think very, very hard what they're going to tell many of their constituents on

december 28 when they have lost their benefits. with that, mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, i know we're going to be voting shortly. you know, i -- i think the narrative out of the white house is that this health care plan is starting to work. that's not what i'm hearing from back home. and i think many are questioning this. "the wall street journal" today published animals showing how the health care law will raise premium rates. we all are familiar with the president's promise that rates won't -- won't increase under the obamacare affordable care act. according to the "wall street journal," americans, particularly young, healthy adults, could see -- and i'm quoting here, could see insurance rates double or even triple as they look to buy individual coverage.

well, another group, ol v.r.e., wineman, pricewaterhouse miller have indicated that obamacare will increase premiums by up to 60%. so on and on, this drama goes with broken promises and the american people learning and discovering now that the promises that were made when this law was passed and all through the three and a half years leading up to where we are, assurances coming out of the president and the white house that don't worry, your premiums won't go up, period, you can keep the doctor that you have, period, it's not going to cost any more money, period, those promises have been broken and hoosiers are finding out about this every day. so regardless of the statements coming out that don't worry,

everything's going to be okay, sort of take it to the bank, trust us, that's not what is happening on the ground, and people are writing to me, they are calling to our office, they are tweeting, their emailing, they are doing everything they can to give us these horror stories and saying do i really have to do this? unfortunately, they do. edward from justington, indiana, said he has spent countless hours on healthcare.gov searching for a health care plan. he discovered that the plans offered on the obamacare exchange had expensive premiums that he hadn't anticipated. in order to afford the monthly premiums, he has to choose a plan for his family with unaffordable deductibles in order to keep his premiums at the level that he can afford to pay. so it's basically edward, don't get sick, don't have a medical

expense throughout your family every year and you will be okay, but if you do, what you didn't pay in premiums, you're going to have to pay in much, much higher deductibles. john from martinsville, indiana, was finally able to get on the healthcare.gov web site, he said, and he found the browns plan that was going to be at least $100 more per month. he doesn't qualify for a government subsidy, and he doesn't see any way this new law will be saving money for his family. john says the only thing he sees is that he now will be subsidizing the health care system even more than before the law was passed. duane from shipshewana, indiana, wrote in to tell me that not only is the small group health insurance plan his business currently offers not available any longer in 2014 -- starting in 2014, but in his 15 years of administering the business health plans, he said he has

never seen a rate increase this high. duane's health insurance plan for he and his business employees will increase 65% in this coming year. duane's small group health insurance is increasing 65%. and this is called the affordable health care act? well, let me give you one more broken promise. william from granger, indiana, wrote in to tell me that his wife who works as a part-time nurse will no longer be offered health care since she works part time. i assume kids at home or maybe the hospital has determined that they want to stay under that 40-hour workweek level, so they put her on part time. i'm not exactly sure what the case is. in any event, they discovered that they will now have premiums rise from $11,544 a year under

their current plan to to $19,076 per year, an increase of over $7,500. he goes on to say, and i quote -- "well, so much for the president's promise, if you like your plan, if you like your doctor, your costs will go down by $2,500. william's costs go up by $7,500. " look, this isn't just republicans in washington highlighting these health care costs. these are hoosiers from all backgrounds, republicans, democrats, from all walks of life, sharing their stories with me about how they are paying the price for the president's broken promises. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, anne w. patterson of virginia, a career member of the senior foreign service, to be ambassador.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired and the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if want, the vote is 78 yeas, 16 nays, the nomination is

confirmed. -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of jeh charles johnson of new jersey to be secretary of homeland security. signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: pursuant to rule 22, the chair now directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum. quorum call:

the presiding officer: a quorum is present. the majority leader.

a quorum is present. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of jeh charles johnson of new jersey to be secretary of homeland security, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote: vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not voted who want -- or who want to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 57. the nays are 37. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: can we have quiet. order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please clear the well. sro. mr. reid: i have one unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session. it has the approval of senator mcconnell and me. i ask request it be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the remaining votes this evening be ten minutes in duration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security,

jeh charles johnson of new jersey to be secretary of homeland security. the presiding officer: closure have been been invoked under the previous order all post cloture time is yielded back and the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 78, the nays are 16, and the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. a senator: could we have order, mr. president? mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate

resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 456. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 53, the

nays are 38. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president, i send a cloture motion -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security, alejandro nicholas mayorkas of the district of columbia to be deputy secretary. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm sorry, i couldn't hear you. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid qulon i woul: i would k to report a cloture motion. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of alejandro nicholas mayorkas of the district of columbia to be deputy secretary of homeland security. signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session.

mr. mcconnellmr. mcconnell: i ae yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a second? mr. reid: mr. president, i got ahead of myself. i ask we move to legislative session. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now move, mr. president, to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 459. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

vote:

vote: