chair replacing ben bernanke who steps down at the end of the month and a vote on her confirmation scheduled for 5:30 p.m. she only needs a simple majority. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, our fortress, stronghold deliverer, shield and refuge we have entered a new year that promises opportunities and

challenge. inspire our lawmakers to seize this season of opportunity committing themselves to the fulfillment of your purposes even in the face of challenges. keep them in the center of your will, aligning them with your providential wisdom and guiding them with your words. lord shield them from discouragement as they persevere with integrity. finish the good work you have begun, for you are both alpha and omega. we pray in your sacred name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: reid: i welcome back the presiding officer and the entire staff and look forward to our continuing work together over the next two weeks and see what happens after that. mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will resume the motion to proceed to calendar number 265 which is the unemployment insurance extension. at 3:00, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of janet yellen to be the chairman of the board of governors of the federal

reserve system. this will be postcloture time so the time until 5:30 will be equally divided and controlled. there will be two roll call votes at 5:30, first on the yellen confirmation and second on the motion to proceed to to the unemployment insurance legislation. and, mr. president, there could be a series of oats after that dealing with other no, ma'am -- votes after that dealing with other nominations. we'll keep everyone advised. anne that kristen batell, a detailee on tim johnson's banking committee staff be printed privileges of the floor today during today's session. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i'm told h.r. 2019 is due for its second reading. the president pro tempore: the clerk will read the bill for a second time. the clerk: h.r. 2019, an act to eliminate taxpayer financing of political party conventions and reprogram savings to provide for a 10-year pediatric research

initiative through the common fund administered by the national institutes of health and for other purposes. mr. reid: i object to any further proceedings at this time time. the president pro tempore: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm optimistic cautiously optimistic that the new year will bring a renewed spirit of cooperation to this chamber. it is really very badly needed. last year the senate passed a number of momentous pieces of legislation, including comprehensive immigration reform reform, a budget agreement, and a bill to prevent workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. there's so, so, so much more that needs to be done. there's so much that's left undone. mr. president, there has been never-ending object construction during the entire five years that this man has been president of the united states, president

obama. but setting that aside for just a brief moment, today we'll address two pressing matters held over from last year the nomination of janet yellen to be head of the federal reserve and the extension of unemployment benefits for 1.3 million americans still struggling to find work. instead of celebrating the beginning of the new year on january 1st, more than a million americans including 20,000 veterans and about 20,000 neverrans were left -- nevadans were left wondering how they'd feed their families and make their mortgage payments while they continue to look for jobs. and, frankly most of these people aren't making mortgage payments, mr. president. they're renting. they're trying to make ends meet from month to month. today there's only one job opening for every three people searching. we have never had so many unemployed for such a long period of time. the long-term unemployment rate is twice as high as it was any

other time we've allowed emergency unemployment benefits to end. it would be catastrophic for men and women boys and girls for this to happen. what's more, failing to extend unemployment insurance won't just be a hardship for out-of-work americans, it will be a drag on our economy. allowing this important lifeline to lapse will cost 240,000 jobs. mr. president, these people who are drawing unemployment benefits just getting by, they have to buy groceries maybe at a 7-eleven sometimes they go to a regular store, they have to buy gas for their vehicles. they have to buy bus tickets to get them across town to look for a job. a multitude of oh things of -- of other things they need are going to be eliminated. that's going to cost almost a quarter of a million jobs. by contrast, helping americans while they search for full-time employment is one of the most

efficient ways to support economic growth. each dollar that we spend on unemployment insurance benefits increases gross domestic product by $1.50. according to leading economists, including mark zandi john mccain's chief economic advisor when he ran for president, they agree. for every $1 we spend it brings back $1.50 to our gross domestic product. and in 2012 alone 500,000 kids, children were kept out of poverty by unemployment benefits. that's one reason it's outrageous that congress allowed this program which helps tens of millions of american families with millions of children get by each year, to allow it to lapse in december is unconscionable. the today the senate has a chance to correct this terrible omission. just before christmas, my colleague from nevada, a republican, dean heller joined with the senior senator from rhode island jack reed a

democrat to propose an extension of unemployment insurance for 1.3 million americans who lost benefits this past week. i commend these two senators for their compassionate stance on this issue. the senate will vote on moving forward on this reed-heller bill this evening. i hope a few reasonable and empathetic republicans will join my colleague from nevada, senator heller, and help us advance this bill today. passing this measure is one of the best things we can do for our economy and it's cost-effective. and it's cost-effective in so many different ways but it's cost-effective to immediately address some of the worst consequences of growing income inequality in this nation. another way to raise millions of americans out of poverty is to increase the minimum wage to make it a living wage. people can work two jobs work so hard 80 hours a week -- some

are working over a hundred hours a week -- just to make ends meet. they work minimum-wage jobs. minimum-wage jobs are not a living-wage job. and you're seeing all over this country states change, mr. president. state of washington, there's one community that's raised it to $15 an hour. we just have to do more to help people who are willing to work. we want them to make a living wage. now, mr. president the reason that's so very, very important is that it will -- it's so important that it's believed that -- it's not believed. polling indicates this -- two-thirds of small businesses want the minimum wage to be increased. why? because it helps them grow their businesses. when a mother or a father

working two or three jobs still can't afford groceries and rent the same month it's a sign something's wrong in this country. last year, mr. president the top 1% -- you know, the real rich -- took home so much money that it broke a 1928 record percentage-wise. the last 30 years the income of the top 1% has increased by 300 300%, three times. but what's happened in that same 30 years to middle-income americans, to the middle class? their income has dropped by 10%. 300% minus minus 10%. that's not good. wages for middle-class families have actually fallen, as i've indicated, fallen by almost 10% while the cost of housing, food and gas has gone up. the rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer and the middle class they're under siege. this country can't afford to

allow the gap between the fabulously wealthy and those who are barely getting by to keep -- keep their incomes going up middle class going down and the poor getting poorer. that's why democrats will renew or efforts to address poverty and economic disparities this year. mr. president, i congratulate wealthy americans on their good fortune. i think that's tremendous we are a country of opportunity where people can make money. but we also believe it's time for the middle class to share in the success of our economic recovery. the presiding officer has spent a great deal on the senate floor trying to bring to the attention of the american people what is going on here in the republican-dominated congress. the presiding officer hasn't come to the floor and berated republicans about the fact that 90% of the american people believe that if you have mental

disabilities, severe mental problems or you're a criminal, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun without a background check. 90% of the american people agree with the presiding officer. members of congress who are republicans disagree. but it's the same on the other two issues i've talked about mr. president. minimum wage -- a vast majority of americans agree with this. democrats, independents, and even republicans. unemployment insurance -- the same. but here in congress they disagree with the american people as it relates to background checks. they disagree with the american people as it relates to minimum wage. they disagree with the american people as it relates to unemployment insurance extension. they mr. president cannot get off the tune they've been singing here for such a long time -- obamacare obamacare obamacare.

as we speak mr. president the american people are so much better off because of obamacare. if you have a disability, you cannot be denied insurance coverage, health care insurance. you can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26. if you're a senior, you get wellness checks, pap smears, mammogram. you could never -- many people could never afford that before. the doughnut hole of prescription drugs is being closed. you can't be terminated, your insurance can't be terminated because you got hurt and the bill's big. can't do that anymore. but they -- the republicans can't get off of trying to repeal obamacare. obamacare is here to stay, mr. president. as we speak, there are 9 million people who have insurance that didn't have it before.

we have about 2.5 million who have gotten insurance on the web. we've had -- including the 14 exchanges in the various states, including nevada. we have 3 million people who are on -- have insurance now because they're on their parents' insurance, can stay there until 26. there's 3 million americans have that because of obamacare. and there are about 3 million americans who now qualify that are so poor, for medicaid. that's 9 million people that didn't have insurance before. but what is the house of representatives doing the first thing? going to vote on something another obamacare. they voted to repeal it at least 45 times which didn't work. but now they just can't get enough of this mr. president. we have one senator from

wisconsin who's filing a lawsuit today. here's what -- here he's -- the senator filing the lawsuit is the senator from wisconsin and he's boasting about this lawsuit. "oh, it's a great deal." because what would it do? it would take away the insurance of the people here that are working in this body right here. all these people right here, all of them, it would take away their -- their insurance. plus all our staffs that are here take itway. here's what a republican, longtime republican, house member from which is whys to say about this -- from wisconsin had to say about this move. here's what he said, representative jim sensenbrenner, who i had the good fortune to serve with when i was in the house of representatives and the presiding officer also served with him. here's what he said: "senator johnson's lawsuit is an unfortunate political stunt. i am committed to real estate

peeling obamacare but the employer contribution he is attacking is nothing more than a standard benefit that most private -- all federal employees receive, including the president. success in the suit will mean that congress will lose some of its best staff and will be staffed primarily by recent college graduates who are still on their parents' insurance." sensenbrenner is a longtime house member and former chairman of the judiciary committee. he is expressing concerns that were -- that have been shared publicly and privately by many lawmakers and senior aides about the possible brain drain by taking away employer contributions. several senators have floated legislative proposals that would accomplish the same goal as the johnson lawsuit. sensenbrenner went on to say "senator johnson should spend his time legislating remember than litigating, as our country is facing big problems that must

be addressed by congress, not courts. all republicans want to repeal obamacare but this politically motivated lawsuit only takes public attention away from obamacare and focuses it on a trivial issue. for the notsenator johnsons lawsuit is trivial and will not achieve the result he is seeking." as i started my remarks today we have been able to get a few things done but we have been unable to get some important things done because the goal by the republicans in the congress -- not the republicans in the country but the republicans in the congress -- is do everything they can to may president obama look bad. remember my counterpart said his number-one goal the last congress was to do everything he could to defeat obama from being elected. well, he was elected

overwhelmingly. we need to get back to doing things working together, as we've always done -- until this effort has been made to disparage and damage in any way they can the president of the united states and in the borrows our country. -- and in the process our country. mr. leahy: mr. president i see the distinguished senator from rhode island on the floor rmt. i know he's supposed to speak. if i might take one moment while the distinguished leader is here. i wish to commend senator reid for asking for such cooperation. he has worked very, very hard to bring us together. i think of when we in a very complex and very extensive immigration bill. there were 300 amendments i think filed in the judiciary committee and after we went through the committee senator reid worked hard to get a time on the floor and then we passed it but with a bipartisan,

overwhelming -- overwellcoming bipartisan majority -- overwhelming bipartisan majority. mr. reid: through the chair to my friend, the president pro tempore of the senate, chairman of the judiciary committee -- we hear the republicans talking about, they want to do everything they can to reduce the debt. i ask this -- this is the question i ask my friend. twofold: the bible for how to reduce the debt was simpson-bowles. they set a goil of $4 trillion. we're almost to $3 trillion. we have cut the spending by almost $3 trillion. does my friend acknowledge that by passion the bill that was reported out of your judiciary committee, that it would reduce the debt by another $1 trillion? we would basically reach the goal of simpson-bowles if they would just pass immigration reform. mr. leahy: mr. president addressing the distinguished

majority leader through the chair, i would note that even grover norquist, who is sort of the guru of many in had the republican party testified before the judiciary committee that passing this bill, putting it into law would add nearly $1 trillion or more to the economy. we had all sorts of business leaders came in, said this would add to our economy. it was one of those rare cases where the afl-cio and the chamber of commerce came together because it would dramatically improve the economy, dramatically improve the wages of people, and would lower the deficit. it is a no-brainer. and that's why we came together in the senate. the leadership of the distinguished senior senator from nevada, others -- republicans and democrats we came together, we passed it.

they should take it up. if they want to make some changes, do soavment i'm so. i'm ready to go to conference at a moment's notice so we can get this bill passed and on the president's desk. we've done it with the violence against women act which they at first refused to take in the house and even the white house was backing off on some of the parts that we added to it here because they were are afraid it might not go through. but senator crapo and i stuck together on it, and a bipartisan group in the house stuck together. we passed it in the houser verbatim what we passed here. it went into law the violence against women. we added sexual trafficking a good bill. we can do it if people want to. but if you take a position that, oh we we can't do anything, we want to be naysayers, of course you don't do anything. here's the way you get the economy going here is the way to improve our nation.

and frankly i just wanted to say and compliment the distinguished majority leader for speaking on other things that we can do and i hope we do. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1845, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to consideration of calendar number 265 s. 1845 a bill to provide four the extension of certain unemployment benefited and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senators are permitted to speak for up to ten minutes eesm the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president i ask that dr. jeff fine and lawrence mehan, fell flows fell flows my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the dur ravings this congress. the presiding officer: woiks.

mr. reed: i stand to speak on the reed-heller bill which would extend unemployment insurance for three months. it is the right thing and the smart thing to do for ow commitment of unemployment insurance has been around since the 1930's. it has received historical support and i'm pleased that senator heller has joined me, so this is a bipartisan bill also. and it's something that we have to deal with today. it is a huge crisis. aces i said, 1.3 million americans have lost their benefits as of december 28, but we can expect through this next year approximately 3 million more to exhaust their state benefits typically 26 weeks and not have this federal long-term benefit available to thevmentvery many. this has awless received federal support on a long term basis.

it is something that impacts this entire country. it impacts people who work. you cannot get this program unless you have a job and through no fault of your own you've lost that job. and in this economy people who lose jobs are competing with many many others from for very few jobs. 1.3 million americans were pushed off an economic cliff just nine days ago. this vital lifeline was helping them cope. they were not left -- let go from their jobs because of something they did. it was because of no fault of of their own. and they're searching for work in an economy that has nearly three job seekers for ever one job oasmg i will us will traive of this a front-page story in "the washington post." in maryland they are opening up a new dairy operation. and what this story speaks to is

something that is happening across this country in so many places. when the good humor ice cream plant closed here two summers ago, more than 400 jobs and a stable punch-the-clock way of life melted away. i would add parenthetically that in connecticut in rhode island, across this country west coast east coast north and south, we have seen this happen manufacturing plants close move overseas shut down entirely *678.in plant sat vacant until a co-op of dairy farmers purchased it to process milk and ice cream though on a smaller level than unilever churned out every day. randy spaictded the plant's plant's

revival to trirk plenty of interest in its three dozen or so initial jobs. 36 jobs. what he did not expect, 1,600 applicants and counting. that's what this economy is about. skilled people losing jobs through plant closures. their whole way of liervetion many of them working for decades, suddenly seeing a possibly. but it is not one job for one applicant. it is 1,600 applicants for about 36 jobs. they're trying. they're trying awfully hard. but unless we pass this legislation this evening and beginning the process we're not trying. now, on the economic side of the ledger moving away from the human dynamic the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that failure to renew

unemployment insurance will cost the economy 200,000 jobs and sap .2% of economic growth by the end of the year. why? because these payments go to people who are really desperate. they need this extra cash. and it is about $300 week, maybe $350 a week. they need it to pay rent, to buy groceries to keep the boiler running in subzero temperatures, to keep their families together, as they look for work, and, by the way, in order to collect you have to keep looking for work. so this is not just a program that's fair to people who've worked hard. it is smart for ow our economy. this is one of the best fiscal tools we have available to ensure that we are creating demand creating additional jobs and as i indicate add if

we do not pass this, if these benefits lapse and go away, 200,000 jobs will be lost, at a time when u.a.e. i swear every member of this body would say one of the most important jobs is to create more jobs in america. we can do that but we have to start today on this procedural vietnam. -- on this procedural vote. our bill is designed to help families who have weathered through the toughest part of the great recession 2009, 2010, 2011 because they were laid off about a year asmg the maximum of unemployment benefits is 73 weeks now plus state benefits is 26. that's about 9 the. that's about 99. that's roughly two years. they got through the hardest part of this recession which suggests to me that these are good workers these are people that were strug ring and working when unemployment was much higher and now they need help.

i believe we have to keep them that help. now, we should be working together to create an expanded economy so the jobs are there so that when there's a new plant opening, it's not just 36 jobs and 1,600 applicants; it's a lot more jobs. in fact, you'd to see it the other way. you'd like to see 1,600 jobs and 1,600, 1,800 applicants. we have to do that. i've heard from my scheetion who said they can't do this because they need an offset. well, this is traditionally been emergency spending. it is emergency spending up until december 28 because we extended it last year on an emergency basis. probably creating on the order of 200,000 jobs, just as we'll lose 200,000 jobs if we don't extend it, helping our economy overawvment -- overall.

and we have to do this. we've tailored this, senator heller and i so it is just three months, so it provides the immediate assistance to unemployed workers, it is retroactive so we'll pick up those people who lost their benefits on december 28. but it also gives the senate the appropriate committees and the house the ability to think through this program in an orderly way to make changes if necessary to look for appropriate offsets if it is deemed that those offsets are necessary. but it will work in these three months to ensure that people have something to help them get by with while we do our job. now by my count colleagues that voted to move forward on these nonoffset emergency benefits more than ten times since 2008. ten times we have taken this unemployment insurance program and we've passed it on an

emergency basis without offsets. so this is not a new novel approach. in fact, what is somewhat new is actually providing offsets for this emergency spending. now i would hesitate to say that i would venture -- or i wouldn't hesitate to say that i would venture if we brought up a bill here that had huge tax cuts, particularly for the wealthiest corporations and individuals there would be very little discussion on the other side of the offset. but when we're talking of a program that helps working people, we have to have offsets? traditionally we haven't done it. but we can have that conversation. but in order to have it appropriately and help these people, we've got to move this legislation forward. give us the time to work constructively collaboratively thoughtfully on the program and also on possible offsets.

we shouldn't be filibustering this measure. we should be passing it and then working collegially cooperatively to improve the program if we can and if we deem it appropriate to pay for the program. i've heard some of my colleagues say we need offsets. very vague about what type of offsets. some suggestions about medicare, social security or discretionary spending. but i don't think americans our constituents would want to see those types of cuts. i think they're relieved that through the good work of senator murray and congressman ryan we have a budget for two years and we're doing appropriations bills and we're beginning to provide certainty and we're beginning to provide support for the economy. i do sense though, that my constituents know that there are many people out there that are struggling to find a job, that

want to work and need a little help just to get by. and that's what we would be doing if we pass these measures this afternoon. or began the process of passing them this afternoon. again, i think if we're going to seriously talk about offsets or programmatic changes or responding to different dynamics in the economy it's not done here on the floor on dueling amendments or dueling proposals. it's done through regular order in the committee, in the deliberation. i came here and offered a one-year extension that was not offset and my republican colleague objected and i completely understand the privilege of doing that and the right to do that. and one they argued was it should go through committee. well this three-month bill does both. it helps people immediately and it gives us the time to do our job. a few weeks ago i also came to the floor to address an argument

that had been percolating throughout this discussion that somehow this whole unemployment insurance program is just being abused that beneficiaries would rather collect than work. well the reality is that $300 a week $350 a week is not something i think people would give up a good job or allow themselves to be displaced from their job just to collect the benefit. i disagree with this argument. i believe the americans really want to work and they want to get back to work as quickly as they can. they want to do the work they have been trained for. they want to do the work that some of them spent decades investing not just their time but their whole self in this work. one of the interesting things about work is it not only a form of economic remuneration. it is a way we define o*us. you go and within a few minutes

of meeting any stranger i bet one question pops up, what do you do for a living? it is often difficult today for millions of americans to say i'm just looking desperately for a job, but millions are. i discussed earlier there is academic research out there that has been bandied about as suggesting no, this is a ruse and abuse. but the research actually supports the notion that individuals would rather work than collect unemployment insurance. unemployment insurance benefits, as i've indicated are a fraction of what an individual would earn in a job he had previously. and these are benefits that keep people whole while they're searching for work. there was a very eloquent editorial by charles blow in "the new york times" that addressed some of these issues, and i think his words are very thoughtful because it, i think

strikes the right tone. he wrote "whereas i'm sure some people would view any form of help i'm convinced this is the exclusive domain of the poor and put upon. businesses regularly take advantage of subsidiaries and tax loopholes whout blink an eye. but somehow when poor people or those who unexpectedly fall on hard times take advantage of benefits for which they are eligible it is an indictment of the morality and character of the poor as a whole. i don't think that's the case. i agree with him. these are people who want to work but they need some help. and we have given them help in the past, and we should continue to do this. this program has been a critical crucial safety net for families helping them avoid poverty, helping them get back on their feet, helping them get back into the workforce. and it's been with us since the

great depression. and it affects a whole spectrum of individuals. indeed, if you look at 2012 data, about 40% of the households that receive these benefits had income prior to job loss between $30,000 and $75,000. these are middle-income americans who would much rather be working and making close to what they made before they were laid off and collecting $300. so these benefits are not the exclusive province of the very poor. in fact, more and more they are middle-class middle-age people who never thought they would be on unemployment insurance. they need this. they are supporting elderly parents. they have children, they have mortgages. they had a professional career,

accountants, paralegals, bookkeepers, and they're not looking desperately for work. or they're people that used to work in dairy processing plants, 1,600 of them. or people who used to work in vice president for sales who are so desperate that i assume some of meese resumes if -- some of these resumes if we looked at would be qualified to do many things other than working at a plant but they're looking because they desperately need work. we look at this program. it is the people who need work. we're not doing them a favor by letting them have this benefit. i disagree. we have to, i think pass this measure. we have to do it because it' the right thing for these families. it's the right thing for our constituents. and it's the right thing for the economy. i think it would be foolish frankly, to take a program that

we are confident can create 200,000 jobs, can increase g.d.p. by .2%, that is one of the best forms of physical policy to stimulate demand and economic growth and say we're not going to do it. i think we say we have to do it. there's another aspect to this too. particularly appropriate to the issue of the long-term unemployment. we're seeing a remarkable number of long-term unemployed individuals in this recession. typically these benefits would never end if long-term unemployment was 1.3%. again, this program is a program that takes care of the long-term unemployed. the standard program the states run at 26 weeks, if you have a brief episode of unemployment, you lose a job and five weeks later you get a job you're in that first tranche of state benefits. these individuals are those who

have been, at least have been without work for 26 weeks. we have seen that number of long term employed double from the previous recessions from 1.3% unemployed to 2.6%. this program is more important now than any previous downturn we've had based upon looking at these numbers. again, another reason why we have to extend these benefits. so i urge my colleagues to support this procedural vote so that the full senate can consider the measure and move towards passage. we need to move swiftly to pass this bipartisan bill and provide some certainty some stability some support for families that are struggling in a very difficult market. the answer i would suggest to those who are considering voting against cloture this evening is, fine, you can come down and tell

the clerk "no". what are you going to tell the 1,600 people in hagerstown, maryland and across this country who are desperately looking fork -- looking for work and need some support? what are you going to tell them? no? i hope not. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. a senator: i would ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the

following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, federal reserve system, janet l. yellen of california, to be chairman of the board of governors. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you madam president. i hope that we will confirm janet yellen later today. i come to the floor for a few minutes to do as i have done most weeks since the failure of this senate to pass commonsense gun legislation in the spring of 2013 to talk about the number of americans who have lost their lives due to gun violence. that number stands today at 12,041. 12,000 people have died at the hands of gun violence since december 14, which, of course, is the day in which 206th

7-year-olds lost their lives in newtown connecticut and the professionals who were protecting them. this is probably the last time, madam president, that we will have the chance to display this particular number because the web site that has been totaling this is going to stop doing so. and it's probably a good thing in this respect. once that one became a crooked number we weren't going to have any room on this poster any longer. at some point in the middle of next year, the one two click up to a two. we would be over 20,000 people killed due to guns. frankly, madam president this doesn't even count the suicides. this is just the people who have died as a result of gun homicides. and the number just goes up and up and up at a rate that's hard to comprehend. and so i want to just talk for a few minutes about just a few of

the representative victims that we have seen across the country in the last year that make up just a small subset of the 12,000 people and the hope that many one of these days it will inspire this place to action. i was at the swearing in of the new haven on new year's day. tony harpe is the first female mayor of new haven the 50th mayor of new haven. she will inherit a city that is being absolutely ravaged by gun violence. 20 gun homicides in the last year 67 shootings and they all hurt each one of them hurt but the last one was particularly devastating. javier martinez died on december 28, 2013. javier attended a local high school that was focused on

learning about the environment and protecting the environment common ground high school, and he was described as one of the most outstanding participants in the 20-year history of a program that was put on through that school whereby kids spent part of their summer out in block island a little island between connecticut and rhode island whereby they worked to eliminate invasive appreciaties and spread the environmental gospel to visitors to that small island. he was beloved by his family and by his friends. he was thinking of becoming an arborist or environmental scientist. his community in particular his pretty sleepy neighborhood in which this shooting happened, has been absolutely torn apart through the loss of javier.

babo, he was called by his grandparents. but he's one of 20 people in new haven contessa, that -- new haven, connecticut that were lost. 17 of them were african-american. that's the story. it's young african-american males who are dying almost every week part of the 12,041. just a couple months earlier john allen reid died due to a gunshot wound in texas. now, what makes john allen reid exceptional is that he was 5 years old and he is one of dozens of accidental gun deaths that are happening all across this country. he and his 6 month old sibling

were in the care of a regular babysitter but a babysitter who feared for her safety and so she carried a gun with her but she left the gun on a table. she fell asleep. the 5-year-old got the gun. when she woke up to go try to find the kids, she found john dead with a fatal gunshot wound. we heard these stories all throughout 2013. i don't know statistically whether there were more in 2013 than in previous years but because we don't require much, if any training before you buy a gun, you have young babysitters leaving guns unattended with these absolutely devastateing results. or how about four months before that in seattle where molly connally a 15-year-old a great goalie on her high school team, a straight-a student was killed

while she was walking back with friends after celebrating her recent birthday at a sleepover. detectives believe the shooter opened fire on molly connally and her group of friends. her nickname was four point oh because she was such a perfect student. she had a generous spirit, said molly's mother. molly and john and javier are just three of the voices of victims that we need to start talking about here on the floor because the statistics don't seem to be moving people to action. maybe the stories will. and as i hope we will this year, let's be realistic about what we can do and what we can't do. i come down here every week to talk about the stories of people

who have died at the hands of guns but i understand that there is no law that is going to completely eradicate gun violence and i understand that there is no one solution at hand that is going to have a radical transformation overnight. i believe this is about gun laws but i also understand it is about better mental health treatment. i also understand that it's about a culture of violence. i also understand that it's a sense of hopelessness that a lot of kids feel in poor neighborhoods that lead them to violence as a way of solving common everyday disputes. and so i'm ready on the floor of the senate to have a real sober dispassionate argument about what we can do together this year to try to make sure that this number in 2014 is just a little bit lower than it was in

2013. and with that in mind, i will just leave you with this one last story and that's the story of zena daniel. zena daniel took out a restraining order on her husband after years of violence and abuse. police were reportedly called to this home dozens of times. well her husband was upset about that restraining order and knowing that he couldn't get a gun at a retailer because he wouldn't pass a background check, he went online to arms list and within hours he found a seller who would supply to him a 40-caliber glock handgun that he picked up at a mcdonald's parking lot for $500 cash. the next day he went into her workplace and he murdered her and two other women.

he injured four others. zena's brother said this. i'm a gun owner i'm a hunter, i'm a member of the n.r.a. i believe in the second amendment, but i'm also a believer in sensible gun laws. i have seen how devastating gun violence can be, and i know that her husband never should have been able to buy a gun online without a background check a background check would have saved my sister's life. i don't know what we will be able to get done this year. i don't know that there are 60 votes in the senate for the kind of expansion of background checks that many of us, including zena's brother would like to see but let's not let a whole year go by without at least some attempt between senators of goodwill on both sides of the aisle so that when this number does come back up at the end of 2014, it's just a little bit lower. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you madam president. i rise today to discuss an issue that has been in the forefront of many americans' minds ringing in the new year, and that is extending benefits for the unemployed. something that's important, of course for a lot of americans. before i begin i want to thank my colleague from rhode island, senator jack reed for his hard work and effort on this behalf as we work together, our staffs have worked together to get this proposal moved forward for today's vote. and i hope that my friends and colleagues here in the senate enjoyed their holidays and that everyone returned refreshed and ready to tackle some of the tough issues we have here in 2014. unfortunately, while congress was in recess approximately 17,000 nevadans greeted the new year not with the optimistic expectations of a fresh start

but with the anxiety about how they're going to feed their families or perhaps even pay the utility bills. when congress left washington, d.c. in december, a lot of important matters were left undone and expired. as a result, millions of americans were left with no idea whether or not their employment benefits were going to be fixed retroactively, something that has become, of course, all too common for this congress to do. hoping those -- helping those in need should not be a partisan issue. providing a limited social net is one of the responsibilities of the federal government. unfortunately, instead of planning ahead figuring out the best way to do that, we are now forced to decide whether or not to reinstate these benefits after they've expired. we should provide some relief 0 to the millions of americans left hanging when congress went home in december and temporarily extend unemployment benefits for

the next three months. it is the right thing to do. that short period will help these families whose benefits expired abruptly while congress works out a longer-term solution that provides americans with some certainty and is fiscally responsible. i understand my colleagues' concerns about the cost and their desires to pay for this extension. i, too want to see our federal debt brought under control and i think my voting record is proof of that concern. i, too believe that congress should be more focused on passing laws that actually help create jobs. growing our economy should be the primary focus and concern of this body. as a senator of the state that leads the nation in unemployment believe me, i understand the importance of refocusing on jobs. i'd rather be down here discussing today innovative ways of creating jobs instead of the

need to extend unemployment benefits yet again. but, madam president because of this administration and even some of the choices of this body unfortunately our economy is not growing quickly enough and many americans are still hurting including a loft nevadans. my state is struggling. i've repeated often on this floor that nevada consistently tops the chart in unemployment bankruptses -- bankrupties and foreclosures. the statistics are revealing. but more startling is the obvious increase in impoverished nevadans that i meet when i go home and i'd like to share an example, madam president. every thanksgiving, every thanksgiving one or two of my children join me in serving thanksgiving dinner to folks in reno who are in need and cannot cook a thanksgiving meal for themselves. this year my daughter emmy and in her freshman frahm year in

college joined me in this experience. every year that dinner sees more and more attendees. every year the number of individuals and families who need help increases. this year the venue was absolutely packed. when my daughter and i arrived the line was four blocks long outside that venue. it is such an obvious example of how so many nevadans are unable to provide for their basic needs and this cannot be ignored. i know many economists point to a national employment rate that's improving but at home, we don't feel it. the unemployment rate in nevada has consistently far exceeded the national average, in fact, the silver state has led the nation for the past three years in unemployment and the results are, of course, people in nevada are really hurting. it is difficult to stand here in the nation's capital an area that has largely felt little

negative impact of the recession and describe just how tough times are for so many of my constituents. at these thanksgiving dinners i hear about choices individuals are forced to make, whether to buy gas for h.r. car, pay for heat in the frigid northern nevada weather or to buy school supplies for their children or perhaps save for the future. these are hardworking individuals who rely on these benefits. they are trying to find a job. they want to provide for their children. but for these benefits to simply vanish without giving families the time to plan or figure out alternatives to help them get by to me is just not right. i, too understand the concerns about the cost of these benefits. i would prefer to see them paid for in a manner that does not burden our nation with more debt. i have previously introduced legislation that would do just that.

legislation that would extend unemployment benefits while still paying for them. at the time i introduced my legislation as an alternative to a more costly bill because i think it's important to bring our nation's debt down. i'm ready to work with my colleagues to introduce similar legislation again this year. but in the meantime, i propose that we pass this short extension now that would we would allow congress the opportunity to spend the next three process moss debating how to pay for these benefits in the future or perhaps how much longer they should be extended. those are important questions worthy of more debates. but in the meantime, congress simply must provide some temporary relief for those who are unemployed. paying for these benefits would be the best approach. congress could have taken the harder road to figure out a way to do that before departing for the holiday break and leaving

millions of americans hanging. but they didn't. so let's pass this short-term extension and focus on a more fiscally responsible solution for the longer term. madam president, thank you and i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president? i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you madam president. i -- i think we're going to have a lot of discussions on the floor concerning a number of things that have happened in the last couple of weeks not the least of which is what's going on in the antarctica right now the fact that some people had to be lifted out. it's kind of interesting. and i -- i don't want anyone to

misunderstand that i am reviving a lot of the previous interest in the global warming thing for any reason other than the fact that right now after it has been determined without any -- any doubt that the sentiment in the house and the senate would never pass anything like cap and trade but the problem is this president is now doing through regulation what he could not do through legislation and that is the -- that's the expense that i am concerned about. you know, we -- in a minute i want to talk about the cost of these things, but we have a real serious problem in this -- in this country. people are concerned about the spending they're concerned about what's happening to our military they're concerned about the -- a lot of the issues but it's overlooked quite on which, the cost of the overregulation that is taking place in our society.

-- if you ask any of the farm bureau any of the ag community out there what their major problem is, they'll tell you it's the overregulations by the environmental protection agency that's -- that's really making it difficult for them to survive survive. now, the same thing is true with manufacturers, with producers and others. but when you look at the -- at the crown jewel of all regulations, it is cap and trade trade. cap and trade would constitute the largest tax increase in the history of this country. and i think it's kind of interesting that what's happening right now up in the antarctica is something that really was -- was -- has been happening now for quite a long period of time. while it's -- there's been a concerted effort of people to believe that global warming is taking place and that we're all going to die and all of that, at the same time the evidence out there is just -- it's almost laughable. in january of 2004, i remember when al gore held a global warming rally in new york city.

it was one of the coldest days in new york city in its history. in march of 2007 a capitol hill media briefing on the senate climate bill was canceled due to a snowstorm. in april of 2007 a global warming rally was greeted by unseasonable snow. several of them were canceled. in october of 2007, gore's global warming speech at harvard university coincided with temperatures that nearly broke a 125-year temperature record. october of -- it wasn't just here. the -- in october of 2007, the british house of commons held a marathon debate on global warming during london's first october snowfall since 1922. december of 2008 al gore spoke to an audience in milan -- by the way, i was there during this thing -- in milan italy about gloamplet outside it is snowing -- global warming outside it is snowing a rare event in that area.

snow and freezing rain also strike rome, polermo naples and sicily. it's kind of interesting, a lot of people are not aware that the ones that were responsible for the whole global warming movement was the united nations and it was an effort -- which i won't go into now unless it becomes appropriate, at a time when there is more time to talk about it -- the -- the united nations has one big party every year. it's usually in december. and it's what we call the global warming party. it's where all the countries come in and it's -- it's -- you know they -- the -- all you can eat, all you can drink the biggest party of the year. i can remember going to one of these annual parties when there was someone from a sub-sahara african country. it was actual benine. someone was there and participating. and i went up and said, you can't tell me you believe in all this stuff? the whole idea was the 192 countries that go to this meeting every year are ones that make a commitment to -- to

believing that global warming is taking place and we're all going to have to start doing things that would destroy our economies to try to preclude it from happening. his response was, oh no, but this is the biggest party of the year and we were there. well, that happened in milan italy. that was 2008. i always remember that one because they had my picture on telephone poles saying "wanted." [laughter] i saved several of those brought them back to the united states and actually distributed them among people who were enjoying it quite a bit. anyway in milan at the time of the whole meeting there was about global warming and set records on the snow and freezing rain. and then -- then the big -- in march of 2009 nancy pelosi, at that time she was the speaker of the house she had a big global warming rally that was supposed to be the largest one at that time ever taken place in this country and it was snowed out.

february of 2010, the senate e.p.w., environment and public works at that time i was the ranking member of the environment and public works committee they -- they had a hearing entitled "the global warming impacts including public health in the united states." and it was canceled due to a major snowstorm. this goes on and on and on. and one thing that was not on the list that should be on this list of what happened in copenhagen 2009? yeah in 2009. that was the annual party of the united nations. and i remember it so well because people were trying to go over there and say the united states of america is going to pass cap and trade and we're going to -- we encourage all of you to do it. and i'm going from memory now but i -- i -- i'm quite sure that at that time, the secretary of state hillary clinton was -- had been there nancy pelosi had been there barack

obama had been there john kerry had been there. at that time, he was a member of the united states senate. all of them assuring these people that we -- these 191 countries that we were going to pass cap and trade. and i remember wanting to go over in a one-man two-scod, which i did -- i went all the way over and all the way back and i spent three hours on the ground. and i have to say madam president, it's probably the most enjoyable three hours i ever spent because i was able to tell them the truth -- under no circumstances were we in the united states going to pass the largest tax increase in the history based on trying to stop something they at that time were calling global warming. and the 191 people that attended there all had one thing in common and that is they all hated me. but nonetheless, i was telling them the truth and they tried to pass it again and again. it has never -- there are not probably 35 votes in the united states senate right now that would vote for a cap and trade

which would constitute the largest tax increase in the history of this country. so now all that was taking place over a long period of time. and then we see -- bring us up to 2013 and 2014. just in november, president obama issued an executive order on climate change stating -- and this is -- excessively high temperatures are already harming natural resources the economies and public health nationwide. i guess if you say something long enough, sooner or later people are going to believe it because they assume that if the president says it, it must be true. in january 6 accuweather issued a warning that a blast of arctic air would deliver some of the coldest weather in 20 years. to the midsection of the united states. meteorologist ryan maue of florida said about the historic cold outbreak -- quote -- "if you're under 40 years old

you've not seen this stuff before." the national weather service reported that chicago o'hare airport's temperatures hit 16 degrees below zero on january 6 bringing the negative 14-degree record set in 18854. and this makes chicago colder than the south pole, where it was 11 degrees below zero. the average temperature in the united states on january 6 was 12.8%. you know, i say all this because this is what is -- what is kind of a predicate to what's happening right now. on november 27, the research expedition to gauge the effect of climate change on the antarctica began. this is the one that's in the news today. on december 24 the day before christmas a russian ship carrying climate scientists, journalists, tourists and crew members for the expedition became trapped in deep ice up to 10 feet thick.

an australian icebreaker was sent to rescue the ship but on december 30, efforts were suspended due to bad weather. and then on january 2 a chinese icebreaker -- and there come the chinese in now -- called the zulong, sent out a helicopter that airlifted 52 passengers from the russian ship to safety in the australian -- to the australian icebreaker. the chinese vessel is now also stuck in ice along the russian vessel -- along with the russian vessel. 22 russian crew members are still onboard the russian ship and an unreported number of crew members remain on the chinese ship. january 5 the u.s. coast guard called -- was called to assist the ships that were stuck in the antdantarctic. now, that's what's happening today. that's going on right now. but let's go back and relive a little bit of the history when i was under a lot of criticism

because i was opposed to the assertions by -- by al gore that the "new york times" said might arguably be the world's first environmental billionaire. on december 2008 gore said -- quote -- "the entire north polar ice cap will disappear in five years." wait a minute, that was in 2008. so right now it's five years later and it hasn't disappeared yet. in fact, we've been reading about it. december 13 the bbc reports that the arctic ice cap coverage is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period of 2012. that means it's increasing by 50% over this period of time. this is the same ice cap that gore said was going to disappear five years ago. president obama in may of this -- of this last year -- quote -- "the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. to contrast with the economists,

they said over the past 15 years, air temperatures at the earth's surface have been flat. gina mccarthy, she was the one who was recently sworn in and is the director of the environmental protection agency she said, extreme weather events are proof enough to me to show why action is necessary. we're talking about action, that is passing the largest tass increase in the history of america -- tax increase in the history of america on co2. according to the preliminary reports 2013 turned out to be one of the least extreme weather years on record which is right after she made that statement. but the one i enjoyed so much -- and i have a lot of respect for gina's predecessor, it was lisa jackson. lisa jackson came in as director of the environmental protection agency and i remember her very well because i asked her the question -- now keep in mind, she was appointed by president obama. her job is to make people think that global warming's taking place and all these extreme

things are going to happen. i asked her the question that's -- i said, in the event that we did -- at that time there were two or three bills cap-and-trade bills that were offered in the house and in the senate and i said, now let's assume that one of these bills passes. would this reduce co2 worldwide? her reaction was no, because this is just in the united states. this is not where the problem is. and so by their own admission even if warp to sustain -- if we were to sustain the economic as doeser tear that we would have to -- disaster that we would have to have in the event that we passed one of these it would not impact or real estate duce the levels -- or reduce the levels of co2. another recent study 15-year paws in nature magazine said in this period from 1998 to 2012, the observed trend of temperature is not significantly different from zero and suggests a temporary hiatus in global

warming. this is a magazine, a publication that was kind of leading the charge at one time for it. so we've seen these things that are harp happening. and we see that even though time and time again just the reverse is true, we are going through this thing -- i always have to go through memory. i can remember in the earlier years of this, some 12 years ago when they were looking at the kyoto treaty. remember the kyoto treaty, i say to the presiding officer. that took place and was -- it was an agreement that we would sign onto a national -- international treaty, the kyoto treaty. and we would agree to reduce the co2 in this country and all of that. and of course that didn't havment but the cost was discussed at that time. i remember back when republicans were in the majority. the i chaired the committee called the environment and public works committee. some 12 years ago about the time of keogh toarks i believe it kyoto.

everybody said global warming was coming and we were all going to die. i believed it was true until i started exploring and hearing quietly from the scientists, look the whole thing is rigged and the science is not as the united nations would have you believe. one by one they started coming forth. i stood at this podium for about a three year-period and started naming all the sign tits that scientists and the ipcc were not being honest. they would their own agenda that they were trying to support. so at that time a group of several universities, m.i.t. was one of them, the wharton school, a lot of their scientists came up and they said, what the cost would be if we were to pass global warming legislation that had been proposed was between $300 billion and $400 billion a

year. yes, that would constitute the largest tax increase. i took this to my state of oklahoma. i did -- my calculation is as i always do i get the number of people who file federal tax returns and it would about $3,000 per year per family. yet by their own admission as lisa jackson said, it would not reduce overall temperature -- even if you believed that was the problem which i don't. charles rivers came along with very similar costs. it was $350 billion a year. so with awful those costs in there, we wanted to look at it and see if in fact the scientists -- the science was there. we determined it was not. if you look at the regulations of e.p.a. right now the national association of manufacturers has a cumulative impact study not including

ozone or greenhouse gases of $630 billion annually in some 9 -- ans and some million jobs lost. the regulations on ozone they'd all be out of attainment. we'd have job losses. utility mac that costs $100 billion. that's already been implemented. that affected all the coal states around in a major way. and the boil ermc bail ermc boil ermc was $360 billion. the bureau of -- the hydraulic fracturing regulations would cost about $100,000 per well. that's an increase are that everyone else would have to pay in terms of what -- for the -- for producing right now. the greenhouse gas costs would

be between $300 billion and $400 billion, as i mentioned before. if i just take these regulations, we could -- the slice a lot longer than that madam president. but these regulations, this is a huge thing. this is the problem. the major problem we're having with the economy right now. nobody seems to understand it. no one seems to care. the and i think that a time to bring this up as a an issue again is right now because of what has been happening. so it is our intention to continue to do that. you know, this has been a relentless 4 1/2 5-year war that the president has on phos ole fuels. it not just coal. it is coal, oil and other fossil fuels. the sad part is that we could be completely independent from all other countries -- snrirn the middle east, from i in any other country in terms of supplying

our own energy in this country. all we'd have to do is do the same thing to our -- and allow drilling exploration on federal public lands as we're doing throughout the country. right now we've had a 40% surge increase in these these -- in exploration, in production in this country. and at the same time we've had a 40% increase overall. that is on state land and on private land. we've had a reduction on federal land. so we have a solution to the problem there. and i think that one of the things that we can do to help people to understand is let them know that what they've been listening to, what the e.p.a. has been telling our people, what our kids are learning in school this whole thing on global warming, this is something that people are now realizing that this is something that was not factual. wcialtion youwell we're so inundated

with problems. we've problems in afghanistan we have problems with our foreign policy in the middle east. we're all concerned about mowing mogadishu. we're all concerned about the problems around the world. but the area that people aren't talking about is the cost of the overregulation in america that is doing probably as much damage as all the rest of the problems are doing at this time. so i only want to submit for the record that some things are happening today that i think the american people need to look at. and i think that those statements that we made, which i'll dominate floor and talk about later on -- which i'll come to the floor and talk about later on, are now becoming a reality. with that, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president i'd ask to be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president this is no doubt that our employment situation in america is not good. unemployment remains persistently high long after the administration has told us the recession is over. the growth that has been projected year after year has not been at the level that the experts have projected. c.b.o. has missed the growth levels the federal reserve has missed the growth levels. we've come in below that scointsly. growth -- consistently. growth is below where we need it to be. we have a serious unemployment situation. perhaps the most grim concept that we need to be well-aware of is that workforce participation participation-- that is the percentage of americans in the working-age group that are actually working

-- is lower today than at any time since the 1970's. that's a stunning statistic. not since women entered the workforce in large numbers have we seen such low workforce participation numbers. so i would say that, first and foremost an unemployment extension bill is treating the symptoms of the problem. it's an aspirin for a fever but the fever has been rage for weeks now. something is causing it, and we need to deal with the cause of it rather than continuing to treat the symptoms. so i think that's so important for us to remember. and also, this nation is struggling economically for a number of reasons. one of them clearly is the size of our debt. our debt is so large -- $17-plus trillion now -- that it is causing uncertainty in the economic markets and we've got

to get our spending under control. we have to do that. we cannot continue every time we have a desire to do something good to borrow the money to pay for it. so the unemployment bill that is before us today makes no attempt whatsoever to find spending reductions in other areas of this monstrosity of a government but borrows every penny of it. they say it's $6 billion. well it's $6 billion for 90 days, three months. it's $26 billion over the full year. that's a huge sum of money. we just had a big dispute over cutting retirement pay that our military people have earned, and it was a dispute over $4 billion, and that was over ten years. $4 billion over ten. this is $6 billion over three

months. so this is a lot of money and efforts should have been made to try to find offsetting reductions in wasteful spending that occurred throughout here before we go again to treat a symptom of a disease. but the tragedy is -- the tragedy is that the policies of this administration are driving this poor growth record. it just is. first and foremost, the proposals have been to tax tax tax. tax more. taxing the private sector will not create growth, no matter who you tax. it will not be a growth-producing idea to tax the economy. and experts tell us that. the congressional budget office tells us that. so this is what we've been seeing every year.

the budget that passed out of this senate, the budget that was proposed by the president of the united states -- the budget passed the senate with every single, i think virtually every single democratic senator voting for it and all republicans opposing it -- would have increased taxes $1 trillion and increase spending $1 trillion. the taxes weren't used to reduce our deficit as this balanced approach seems to suggest. we have a balanced approach to reduce our deficit. we're going to tax some and cut spending some. no they didn't cut spending at all. their plan, their ten-year budget plan called for raising taxes $1 trillion and raising spending $1 trillion. tax and spend that's what it is. it was on the floor of the senate. there is no dispute about that. no one argues about it. but we have agreed to a certain level of spending here to try to bring our economy under control. the budget control act and

we've acknowledged that on both sides of the aisle and independent experts that we need to reduce spending and we need to contain the growth of spending and we need to reduce the deficits that are adding to the weakness of our economy and uncertainty in our economy and creating risk in our economy. so this bill borrows every penny of it. just a total violation of promised fiscal responsibility. it just is. it just is. i wish it weren't so. i wish we could just do this and it wouldn't cost anything. but it will cost, and it will hamper growth in our country. and there are other problems here. we need more american energy. energy produced in america creates jobs in america. it creates wealth in america. it keeps us from exporting large

amounts, billions and billions of dollars to venezuela and the middle east and other places around the globe. and we could be producing that energy here, creating jobs here, keeping that wealth at home here strengthening our economy and creating growth. that's what we should be doing. the administration has blocked american energy. they have dragged their feet in every shape form and fashion whether it's moratoriums in the gulf and blocking in alaska, blocking the pipeline for our neighbors in canada and blocking production on public lands. this is not the way to create an economy. we need a tax system that's not always going up, but is more growth oriented, simpler more focused on creating growth. we need to eliminate every unnecessary regulation that burdens the american competitive marketplace and makes us less

competitive globally. and instead of adding to them. and we've never seen anything like the plethora of new regulations being issued day after day week after week, month after month many of them challengeable constitutionally as being beyond the power of bureaucrats to issue because congress didn't pass the law to justify it. and it's driving up the cost of energy. it's driving up the cost of production in widgets in america making us less able to compete with foreign competitors. and we need to stand up for american workers and american manufacturing on the world stage. it's time to tell our trading partners we're willing to trade with you big boy but you've got to play by the rules. this idea that you can violate the rules and we still are going to treat you as a great trading partner has got to be over. we need to stand up for the american worker on the world stage.

that just has got to be done. and finally at a time of high unemployment should we not ask ourselves why the president of the united states and virtually every democrat and a number of republicans voted to double the number of workers that would come into america under this comprehensive immigration bill? we admit a million a year legally, and we believe in immigration. we support immigration. but at some point you're bringing in workers to take jobs from unemployed americans so now we're here trying to extend unemployment to help unemployed americans. is there no common sense in this body? how can this possibly be? but that's the deal. i know senator reid and senator leahy were on the floor earlier today, and they said we've got to pass this comprehensive immigration bill. it would not end the illegality;

reduce it only by about 40% according to the congressional budget office. but it would double the number of guest workers coming in. guest workers by definition, are people coming to take jobs. -p and why are wages down? one reason is, professor voorhas who examined this extensively the u.s. commission on civil rights has examined it, and what do they find? they find that for middle- and lower-income workers their wages are significantly adversely impacted by this unprecedented flow of immigrant labor into america. and i don't have anything against the people who want to come to america and work. they're good people. they want to have a job. i understand that. but any nation has to ask itself

what is the right amount? how many people can you absorb without causing millions of americans to lose their job? and we now have to come to the floor of the senate to ask what we can do to help them in this period of pain that they're going through. so i just want to say a couple of things. we can do something now for the unemployed or we need to be paying for it. we need to be staying within the spending limits that we've agreed to. we do not need to pass any more laws that increases the amount of money we borrow. we borrow enough. for heaven's sakes we borrow too much right now and it threatens our financial future as expert after expert have told us. they've told us we are running a high risk, and nothing could be

worse -- nothing could be worse for working americans. and we have some other new financial crisis to spring up in the months or years to come because we were irresponsible today; wouldn't that be a disaster? wouldn't that be a disaster? it certainly -- it certainly would. so i will just urge our colleagues to begin to focus on the underlying disease here, and that is a policies of an administration that's produced the slowest postrecession-recovery maybe the nation has ever had except for the great depression, because it's taxed more, regulate more, borrow more. that's all it is. and it won't work systemically to put us on the right path.

so i know this is a tough challenge for us, but i'm convinced that if this congress puts its mind to it, there are more than a few places we can find waste fraud and abuse to help pay for to assist those who have been unemployed for a long time. i believe we can absolutely do better than we are today about that and i hope that we will do so. and it's not right to just say the only people who care about american workers and care about those who are unemployed are those of us who are willing to forget our budget limitations to get our -- forget our financial responsibilities and just borrow more and spend more. and somehow this is going to fix the problem that we are facing. it will not. it will not fix the problem. in fact, it's creating the very

disease that's causing workers to be suffering today. so madam president i appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. i'll repeat again, we are seeing very tough times for the american worker. particularly the lower-income workers are having a difficult time and there are many causes for it. but just taxing more, spending more and borrowing more is one of the big causes of the problems we have today and we're not going to fix that problem by even more of the same policies that got us into the situation we're in today. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask permission to speak for about ten minutes on the yellen nomination. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. grassley: over the past five years the federal reserve has pursued unconventional and unprecedented monetary policy. as vice chair of the federal reserve system, janet yellen has been a strong proponent of those policies. as chair she's likely to continue these same easy-money policies with the same, if not more vigor than the predecessor. i have deep concerns about the long-term effects of pursuing these policies. historical evidence suggests that failing to rein in easy-money policies on a timely basis risks fueling an economic bubble and even hyperinflation. it is true that one of the lessons learned from the great depression of the 1930's was that an overly tight monetary policy in a recession risks

economic debilitating deflation. thus understandably when the recession hit in 2008, the fed sought to avoid mistakes of the past by lowering interest rates encouraging investment. however, this expansionary monetary policy cannot continue into in perpetuity without causing real and lasting damage to our economy. just as we should not repeat the mistakes of the great depression we need to be careful not to repeat the mistakes that fueled our recent recession. let us not forget that our current economic stagnation began with a bursting of the housing bubble in late 2007, a housing bubble that was fueled by rampant speculation, that was driven in part by historically low interest rates maintained by the federal reserve between 2001

and 2004. yet, once again we see the fed embarking on a policy of sustained historically low interest rates. the fed has now maintained that federal funds rate essentially will be at zero over five years. what may be the future consequences of this policy? what new bubble will arise? at this point i don't think anyone can answer these questions definitively. but no one can deny that the risks are real and could be devastating. the fed though, has not just sought to maintain record-low interest rates. with its traditional monetary tool tapped out the fed then has turned to a less conventional and more aggressive program in an attempt to jump-start our economy and lower unemployment. the fed is now engaged in an

open-ended policy that it has termed quantative easing. essentially this is a fancy way of saying the fed is flooding the economy with trillions of dollars through large purchases of mortgage-based securities and, even worse longer-term treasure securities. as a result of this program the fed has seen its balance sheet more than quadruple from around $800 billion to now $4 trillion. vice chairman yellen has not presented a plan to congress on how the fed plans to deal with this issue. while i welcome the news from the fed's december meeting that that board intends to reduce its monthly purchases i fear that they are already way too deep into that purchase of treasury bonds.

it remains unclear how the fed will be able to go about unwinding its nearly $4 trillion balance sheet without spooking investors. the stock market has become addicted to the fed's easy money policies. this has led one notable investment advisor to question whether the fed will ever be able to end the quantitative easing program. while the stock market has become addicted to easy money the benefit to mainstream has been questionable at best. unemployment remains high. back lending remains tight. and savers are discouraged. while the benefits to main street remain unnoticeable, they most certainly will feel the pain should the fed carry on their easy money policy for too long. for an example of what main street could be in store for

one needs to only look no further than the late 1970's and the early 1980's. the easy money policies of the 1970's intended to spur employment resulted in stagflation, a period of hyperinflation as well as high unemployment. during this period unemployment topped out 10% while inflation exceeded 14%. the experience of the late 1970's and early 1980's made it clear that once you let the inflation genie out of the bottle it's very difficult to stamp it out. after suffering years of stagflation, americans were then subject to the real pain of unprecedented interest rates as high as 20% just to get hyperinflation back under control. statements by miss yellen

indicate that she would be open to inflation exceeding the fed target of 2% as a means of achieving full employment. while achieving full employment may be a noble goal, the fed has a dismal record of being able to produce sustainable job creation through expansionary monetary policy. while inflation may aid employment in the very short term, our experiences with stagflation in the 1970's shows this tradeoff fails -- falls apart quite quickly as people's expectations change. sustainable job growth comes not from inflation but price stability that promotes long-term economic growth and the encouragement of investment. we need a chairman focused on a strong dollar and low inflation. my concerns about the fed's easy

money policies and inflation led me to vote against chairman bernanke and his second term at the fed. because it appears that miss yellen will continue to pursue these misguided policies, i cannot in good conscience vote in favor of her confirmation. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. brown: thank you madam president. for those who don't remember or those who don't choose to remember five years ago our economy was at the brink of collapse after being rocked by a financial crisis because of incompetence, wall street greed overreach of the financial sector and more. washington has let the financial system run wild through deregulation. banks had overloaded on toxic mortgage securities that they used massive amounts of leverage to purchase. these banks -- in many cases these wall street banks were so large, so complex so opaque, so overleveraged, they were too big to fail. increasingly these banks are too big to manage and too big to regulate. i remember that time well. i was in zanesville, ohio, when i first got a call to have -- to discuss what we needed to do from chairman bernanke and president bush's secretary of the treasury paulson. five years since the collapse of the market, three years after

the passage of the wall street reform law we still can't say that dodd-frank, that legislation ended this problem. july of last year, chairman bernanke said i wouldn't be saying the truth if i said that the problem is gone. it's not gone. that's the chairman of the federal reserve. at her nomination hearing before the senate banking committee governor yellen, then the vice-chair now still the vice-chair of the federal reserve, said too big to fail is -- quote -- "among the most important goals -- ending too big to fail is -- quote -- among the most important goals in the post-crisis period." that's one of the many reasons i rise today to support and argue for janet yellen's confirmation as the chair of the federal reserve. today's complex financial system, it is more important than ever that we have strong regulators like governor yellen who can recognize emerging threats to economic stability and who isn't afraid to act when they find abuses that put american consumers and workers at risk. throughout her distinguished career at the fed more than a

decade governor yellen has shown she understands how risky financial practices deep inside the largest wall street banks can have a terrible and terrifying impact on american families. she was among seven or eight years ago -- eight or nine years ago was among the first to recognize the housing bubble that wiped out trillions in wealth and led to the biggest recession since the great depression. in the years since the crash governor yellen has been a voice on the need for strong, sensible regulations that protect american workers and small businesses instead of the too big to fail banks. while there are many failures that led to the economy -- that led the economy to the brink of collapse, one of the biggest mistakes on the federal level is not keeping the average american's financial interest in mind. there is far too much bias in this institution madam president, as you know, far too much bias towards wall street instead of main street. most people in my home state of

ohio in your home state of hawaii are not millionaires. they are automakers in loraine they are steelworkers in cleveland, they are farmers in dart county, hairdressers in toledo, police officers in columbus. they are the people who make the products we depend on every day. my state makes more -- produces more than any but two states in the united states. they are the people who make these products, that teach our children to protect our communities. they are the average hardworking americans trying to create a better life for their children, and they along with millions of other americans deserve better than the crisis that we allowed to happen. over the years washington, the fed in particular, has too often lacked an important connection to the americans whose lives are so affected by the decisions it makes. few have been able to keep a perspective where they understand what's happening in middle america among working class americans among poor americans, among middle class americans. president lincoln was in office -- when president lincoln was in office, he would go out

and meet regularly with ordinary americans, either in the white house or outside the white house, while his staff implored him to stay in the white house and win the war and free the slaves and save the union. president lincoln said i need to go out and get my public opinion bath. we have also seen the new pope francis i exhort his parish priests to smell like the flock to get among them, to understand their lives as much as possible, to drink the water they drink to be among them, to learn from them and to listen to them. we must know those whom we serve. in a speech last year before the afl-cio, janet yellen described the real-world implications of unemployment and noted that the unemployed are not just statistics. she took stock of the work ahead for the fed notably ensuring that dodd-frank is fully implemented in ending too big to fail. i think that she will break out of the beltway bubble. i think she will get out in the country far more than any of her predecessors have done and

consider the lives and work to understand the lives of those people affected by these federal central bank decisions. as chair of the fed subcommittee on communications, she has played a strong role in monetary policy its efforts to put people back to work despite congress' unwillingness this body's unwillingness to help. whether it's extending unemployment benefits which we should be doing today whether it's raising the minimum wage, it means engaging in the lives and helping people in this country that may not be as privileged as those of us that have the opportunity to serve in the senate. janet yellen is qualified to take the helm of the fed and make history becoming the first woman to run the central bank. in confirming her we can look forward to a new era of recovery and growth. i look forward to working with janet yellen and her staff. i urge my colleagues to confirm janet yellen to be chair of the federal reserve. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the question is on the yellen nomination. 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 in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the ayes are 56, the nays are 26. the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the is not will be in order. -- the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the next vote be 10 minutes in duration the mandatory quorum required under rule it 22 be waived, there be two minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the motion to proceed to sses s. 1845. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order the senate will resume legislative session. there will be two minutes equally divided prior to the cloture vote. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president on december 28, 1.3 million americans lost their extended unemployment benefits. they are the first wave of what will be more than 3 million other americans much these people have worked, qualified for unemployment insurance. they need help and we have to help them.

if we don't do that -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president if we don't do that not only will these families suffer, but our economy will suffer. c.b.o. has estimated that we will lose 200,000 jobs if we don't extend unemployment benefits and .2% of growth. so if you want to help working families people who qualified because they work, who have to look for work to be qualified and if you want to help our economy, then tull a vote for at least to let us go afford. give us three months to work on issues work on funding work on anything else. but don't leave these people without anything, throwing them off the cliff. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president this is a serious issue. but if this was anything other thank a political exercise, the majority leader would have rescheduled this vote when we did not have 17 members of the united states senate unable to be here and vote on this. so i have no doubt as to what the outcome is going to be on this cloture but it's purely a

scheduling matter, i believe and this ought to be postponed to a later time when we could have a real debate. we can also playbook for thousand pay nor this -- how to pay nor this extension of unemployment benefits and how to get the economy growing again so people can find jobs. that's what people want. they want to work. they don't want unemployment exefnlings they want jobs so they can provide for their families. because of the timing of this vote we know what the outcome it. it is transparent that this is a political exercise, not a reeferlts to try to fix -- not a real effort to try to fix the problem. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that the vote be rescheduled for 10:00 a.m. tomorrow? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president i ask that the quorum call be lifted.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you mr. president. i just wanted to enter into the record that unfortunately i was not here to vote for janet yellen to head the federal reserve system. had i been able to be here, i would have voted to support her in that position. unfortunately, my flight was delayed, and so i did not get back in time for the vote, but i wanted to make sure that in the record it shows that i support her as the new chairman of the fed. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i was on the same flight as senator shaheen and also missed the vote. i had been looking forward to have the opportunity to vote for janet yellen to be the chair of the federal reserve and i'm very disappointed i didn't get to formally vote for her but i want to make sure that the record reflects my strong support for her. and i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise today in opposition to the secrecy -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: i rise today in opposition to secrecy in opposition to the veil of

secrecy that closed the money changing that takes place in the temple of the federal reserve. while the money changes hands the money class gets richer and the middle class gets shortchanged. it is more than time to put the curtain -- to part the curtain that hides the trillions of dollars that change hands. there is a revolving door from wall street to the treasury to the fed and back again. we have former secretaries of treasury who go from government to wall street pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars. i've called repeatedly for transparencies at the federal reserve so americans can see what is done with their money supply. every time i call for transparency people from both sides have said transparency would undermine fed independence. the problem is, congress created the fed and congress was intended to have oversight over the fed and as thymetime has gone on we've lost that

oversight so independence has led to abuse. some say well, oh, the fed is already audited each year. the investigator general who is responsible for auditing the fed came to congress in 2009 and here's what she had to say during question and answer at a house committee. a congressman asked what are have you done to investigate the offbalance sheet transactions conducted by the federal reserve which according to bloomburg now teelt $9 trillion in eight months? she fumbled she peteed herself, looked silly and then she said, you know, i think it may be important at this point to -- yada, yada, yada. then this bombshell. we do not have the jurisdiction -- this is the auditor -- we do not have the jurisdiction to directly go out and odd at this time recognize bank -- reserve bank. so there is no odd it to the federal reserve. don't let anybody tell you there

is an audit. no meaningful audit exists and when the overseer of thed in was asked about $9 trillion the inspector had no clue what had been purchased with the money. is there a chance to the fed only has our best interests at heart? sure. but when trillions of dollars change hands wouldn't you want to know who got the money and did anyone enrich themselves in the process? $9 trillion is over half our entire national debt. this is money that ultimately becomes debt for all of us. it's become doled out in secret by our central bank. this is in a sense laundering money from the american people to bail out big banks and wall street. this month we learned that the fed's official balance sheet has reached an astounding $4 trillion. to put that in perspective the balance sheet of the fed is now larger than the fourth largest economy in the world germany.

transparency at the fed would not hurt the fed but a complete lack of transparency cons to hurt and cheat the rest of us. at the very least the american middle class deserves to know what goes on behind the curtain, what decisions are made and how they benefit wall street and the moneyed class. being secret and reckless with trillions of dollars is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems associated with the fed. the history of the federal reserve has also been the history of the devaluation of the dollar. there was a time when the dollar was as good as gold, when the people grew resless per -- restless were concerned the government was dedebating the currency, the people would exchange their paper for gold. convertibility was a check and balance against kings and queens and any form of government that chose to spend money that they did not have. when the government borrowed from the currency by diluting

its value the people had recourse to protect themselves. now the great american dollar that was once backed by gold is backed by promises. for many decades the dollar was said to be backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government. trust lingered from the historical evolution from barter to a medium that people valued such as gold or silver. that trust that -- the trust that still exists today lingers from the thousand-year history when currency had inherent value. and when paper substitutes were used they could always be exchanged for something of real value. after world war ii we instituted a partial gold standard that allowed foreign countries to exchange their paper for gold and exchange they did. during the 1960's as the u.s. inflated and borrowed to pay for the war on poverty and the war in vietnam foreign countries became skittish and turned in their dollars by the millions,

nearly half of the gold reserves were removed by foreign countries in the space after a few years. president nixon he closed the gold window in 1971 and that was that. the last link to gold was severed. but make no mistake the trust that remained in the dollar was derived from the historic trust engendered by convertibility of paper to gold. for decades the full faith and credit promise allowed the fed to continue to inflate and still the people remained relatively passive in their acceptive of a discretionary paper currency. but not without hiccups. debt threatens to dote get the better of us. something profound occurs in the as past few years beginning with the panic of 2008. the fed began to back the dollar with not just promises but perhaps really really bad promises. since early 2008 the fed has added nearly $3 trillion to its

asset sheet including among these assets are stuff that nobody else seems to want such as bad car loans and nonperforming mortgages. according to maulden's book "code red" the fed is leveraged at about 77-1. think about that. that is an insane amount of leverage for any bank. the fed has more leverage than the balance sheets of lehman brothers bear stearns freddie or fannie before those institutions essentially failed. jim rickers notes the fed is insolvent. it has wiped out its capital. of course, it carries them and does not mark them down to market but if they did they would be broke. the insolvency of the fed will become a major issue in the

years ahead and may necessities thes is tate the bailout by the taxpayers. the once-proud dollar once backed by gold and then the full faith and credit of the world's greatest country is now backed by used car loans and underwater mortgages. but those who trust in paper say hey look, for 50 years now we've had con -- no convertibility and amazing improcess. in productivity and wealth have occurred. perhaps but one might also argue we are living on the borrowed plumage of the past, that our current accept answer of a paper currency rests on the glory of our monetary past. no one can tell for sure what the future holds but i for one am concerned that the panic of 2008 may not have been an anomaly but a harbinger of something far worse. i'm concerned we've papered over the problems in a sea of new currency that quantitative easing has created an illusion

of safety and security but beneath the surface lurks a bigger and more malevolent future. don't take my word for it. listen to the economists who predicted the financial crisis in 2008. economist jim grant recently said from the united states to europe and asia the central banks are flooding markets and pushing deeper into unknown monetary policy territory and i fear it will not end well. or the author of "the black swan" who writes" someone made a mistake lending and someone made a mistake borrowing and it is a mistake to transform private problems into public debt. we are facing an environment with a huge amount of debt. the next mistake is to overprint which is the way out for them which is why i fear hyper inflation. or yale university housing expert robert shiller this financial crisis that we've been

going through the last five years has been one that seems to reveal the failure to understand price movement. not shying away from his concerns that the fed is simply inflating the housing bubble in america's largest cities, he argues housing prices are up 12% in the last year. this is a very rapid rise in prices and i believe it is accelerated some by fed policies. the housing market has its own momentum right now as people see it coming back. we're in the beginnings of another housing bubble. since we abandoned the sequester budget caps, any pretense of fiscal discipline is gone. politicians can attempt to object skew few skate the truth with promises of spending restraint in the outlying years but everybody knows the promise to cut in the out years is a pipe dream and that all that really counts is the first two years of the ryan-murray plan that will add over $60 billion in new spending.

what really causes china concern is not the new spending we're incurring but the total dead over ten years in the ryan-murray plan will be $7 trillion in new debt. china's response to our fiscal lack of discipline was to downgrade our debt. our $17 trillion debt is manageable only when the fed is buying it and only with low interest rates. china's global credit rating said on the downa grade the deal means only an escape from default for the time being but hasn't changed the fact that the growth of government borrowing has largely outpaced overall economic growth and fiscal revenues. these are facts and both sides republicans and democrats are ignoring the facts. china when they downgraded us said it and you cannot escape this fact, the growth of government borrowing has largely outpaced overall economic growth and fiscal revenues. it was sad when the chinese

government can see major economic problems for us that washington continues to ignore. at current interest rates we pay about $237 billion in interest payments. if interest rates rise by 1%, interest spending will increase by $1.2 trillion. if interest rates return to the norms of the 1980's, the taxpayer will be on the hook for an additional $6.17 trillion. if interest rates go to 10% katie bar the door, the panic will be poon us. most conservatives would be aghast if we talked about price controls. conservatives realize that price controls lead to a glutd glut if the price is too high and to bare shelves in the price is too low. the soviet union was brought low for that very reason. no one no matter how wise can determine the correct price of bread without a marketplace. any time a government tries to set prices, the consequences is

disastrous. but many leaders who are quite aware of the destructive nature of price controls nevertheless advocate for allowing the fed to set the price of money. for that is what interest rates are, simply the price of money. like any price though if the setting of interest rates if you set them lower than the market rate of interest it encourages more use of the money and more economic activity. but if the rates are kept below the market rate you interrupt the feedback loop that informs producers they are overproducing. the bubble expands until overproduction is reached such a point the correction is a catastrophe. that's what happened with the housing bubble. traits intaits too low for too long and the bubble grew and grew and grew and we're still suffering from and that and what are we doing now exactly the same thing. jim richards explains this phenomenon. policymakers rely on market prices to make decisions about

economic policy. what happens when the signals upon which policymakers rely are disport torted by prior manipulation? first you distort the price the price signal by market manipulation but then rely on the price to guide your policy going forward. this is the blind leading the blind, he says. politicians have been complacent in letting the fed manipulate interest rates for many reasons. politicians are reticent to get involved, they're worried of being blamed if the economy sours with monetary reforms. many politicians believe that the economy is better off with the fed than with the panics that occurred before the fed. perhaps the variations in the economy of late indicate just as much instability with the fed as before the fed. there is some truth to the fact big defendant and deficit financing require a central bank to pay the debt with inflated

dollars. john malden and jonathan tepper's new book highlights this very point. in 2011, the federal reserve financed about three quarters of the u.s. deficit. and in 2013, the fed will finance most of the deficit. we are on course to finance the entire u.s. debt in 2014. for anyone imagining a day without a fed they would have to propose a government that would balance its budgets annually without fiscal restraints you can't ever have monetary restraint. the opposite is where we are now. with fiscal irresponsibility, barring over -- borrowing over a million dollars a minute, you need a compliant mon tier policy and that's exactly what we have. but there are consequences 6 to massive debts and purchases by the fed. the consequences can be gradual or abrupt.

the gradual bankrupting of america is proceeding apace. we pay for it with new money created by the fed. the result is a gradual loss of the purchasing power. over the past 100 years the dollar has lost 96% of its value. a nation can survive this gradual loss, we have, but some would argue that the people hurt most are those leaves able to absorb rising prices, the poor and the elderly on fixed incomes. t -- the other possible outcome is an abrupt loss of confidence in the currency. the panic of 2008 approached mass fear that the system was unsound. reports that the emperor had no clothes were taken seriously as even the soundness of money market funds was questioned. our system of paper currency, now backed by the promises of politicians, a $17 trillion debt debt and used-car loans and bad

home mortgages is always one panic away from disillusion. when that day comes is un uncertain. can the fed continue the ledger domain. can the fed continue the illusion of wealth that comes with freshly inked money? time will tell. but i for one want to know what the fed is doing. are individuals enriching themselves at the expense of the public? does fed policy enrich one group of individuals at the expense of another? what assets is does the fed hold? what informs their decision-making process? i, for one want answers. i, for one want transparency. president yellen's -- president obama's choice of janet yellen as the new head of the federal reserve is concerning due to the policies miss yellen has promoted in his history at the fed. the federal reserve's answer to economic crisis has long been simply to print more money or what they call quantitative easing.

it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that printing money out of thin air is not sound long-term economic policy. but miss yellen has been a major cheerleader for it. "the washington post" neil irwin wrote that yellen has been not merely an engineer of quantitative easy and forward guidance but a consist voice within the central bank to go even further. quantitative easing's not enough. she wants more. will she go further? will the same policies continue unabated? those of us who think quantitative easing has gotten out of hand are now being asked to confirm a nominee who thinks that the fed has not done enough along these lines. the vote was overwhelming to confirm janet yellen but i think we will rue the day that we endorsed quantitative easing. i believe the federal reserve is structurally flawed. i believe we need to be able to prevent or restrict chairmen today or in the future from aiding and abetting the allies of banks and big government.

as monetary historian peter bernholtz wrote in his famous book "monetary regimes and inflation," we draw the conclusion that the creation of money to finance a public budget deficit has been the reason for hyperinflations. i see nothing in yellen's past forward at the need would indicate that her policies will be any different than what we see today. in fact, i see evidence that things may well guess worse. i've introduced a bipartisan bill called federal reserve transparency act known also as "audit the fed." the purpose of my bill is to eliminate current restrictions on g.a.o. audits along with mandating that the federal reserve credit facilities security purchases and quantitative easing activities become subject to congressional oversight. looking into what the federal reserve does with our money has significant support from both parties. many members of which have heard the same concerns back home in

their state district. audit the fed passed overwhelmingly in the house with 350 votes. every republican and a hundred democrats voted for it. the federal reserve is one of the most secretive institutions in our history. for decades the people in charge at the fed politicians and various experts have insisted that such secrecy was integral to its independence and effectiveness. but the results of complete secrecy have been fed policies that are questionable, at the least. this idea that the federal reserve is at the root of some of our economic problems is brand-new to many americans. precisely because we're not allowed to know what this powerful institution does behind closed doors despite the fact that it has a direct impact on our lives. i can see no reason why the american public should not be allowed to see behind the veil of secrecy at the fed. i will continue to do what i can to part that veil. i will continue to fight for full and persistent audit of the

fed. audit the fed passed the house overwhelmingly but we've been unable to get a vote in the senate. i will continue to fight for that vote. today although i was delayed by the weather i am here today to oppose janet yellen's nomination for two reasons. i believe that she will continue the gradual destruction of the dollar's value and because i believe the time is now for a full audit of the fed. thank you mr. president. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate no longer be in a quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent we proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that as if in executive session, the nomination of rea sun sue of colorado to be assistant secretary of fish and wildlife sent to the senate by the president be referred jointedly to the committee on energy and natural resources and the committee on environment and public works. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that as if in executive session, the nomination of aran n madonna kumar to be assistant secretary of commerce and director general of the united states and foreign commercial service, sent to the president be referred jointly to the cobanking, housing urban affairs and the committee on commerce. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date the time for the two leaders be

reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks the senate resume the motion to proceed to s. 1845 the unemployment insurance extension and the time until 10:30 be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. at that at 10:30 the motion proceed to vote on cloture on the bill. that the senate restress 12:30 to -- recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the first vote will be at 10:30 tomorrow morning of. if there's no further business to com

we want to make sure that innovation is a national strategy and american companies can keep introducing the greatest political products in the world. we dominate in so many areas. we have u.s. subsidiaries. it's a global phenomenon. at the u.s. is the world leader to keep it that way which requires good immigration policies, best and brightest come additional spectrum. it also requires rational patent policies to combat things, but you're not been sued everyone all the time.

>> our next cases this. as mothers were concerned, as first ladies were committed and

the citizens of the world we pledge to do all that's possible to stop this. >> however differently may appear, there is our more that unites us than divides us. and we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring a dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world. >> all of you are such a vital part of that very conversation. because in the coming years, all of you will be building the us is. you'll be making the discoveries drafting the laws and policies that will move our countries and our world forward for decades to come.

>> on the next "washington journal," the president, francis cannot talk about social conservatives, priorities and agenda this year congress, followed by lack of federal investment in green technology companies with daniel weiss of the center for american progress. >> earlier todaycommenced at those funny vote to advance legislation that would extend unemployment benefits for three months. before that cosponsored jack reid and dean heller came to the

floor to discuss the bill. they spoke for about 25 minutes. >> satire from a violin. >> mr. president, thank you very much. i would ask the fellas in my office be granted the privilege for the session of the 113 congress. >> mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of their read heller bill, which will extend unemployment for 1.3 million americans. for three months, very critical for three months because it is the right thing to do for these workers and is the smart thing to do for our economy. unemployment insurance has been around since the 1930s and its historically received bipartisan support. indeed, i am pleased this is a bipartisan bill also. it is something that we have to deal with today. it is a huge crisis.

1.3 million americans have lost the benefits as of december 28. we can expect who approximately 3 million more to exhaust their state benefits, typically 26 weeks and not have this long-term benefit available to them. this is always received support in a bipartisan basis because it is not a red state, blue state issue. it is something that impacts the entire issue. you cannot get this program unless you have a job and through no fault of your own, you've lost that job. in this economy, people lose jobs are competing with many many others for very few jobs. 1.3 million americans were pushed over an economic with just nine days ago. the lifeline is helping them cope. they were not last from their

jobs because it is through no fault of their own. they are searching for work in an economy that has nearly three jobseekers for every one job opening. a front-page story in the "washington post" today. in maryland they are opening up a new dairy operation and what is story speaks to his son team that is happening across this country in so many places. .. a stable punch-the-clock way of life melted away. i would add parenthetically that in connecticut in rhode island, across this country west coast east coast north and south, we have seen this happen manufacturing plants close move

overseas shut down entirely *678.in plant sat vacant until a co-op of dairy farmers purchased it to process milk and ice cream though on amaller go on a far more skill than the 60,000 cases the global food giant churned out every day. randy inman from the shenandoah family farms said he expected the plants revival to trigger plenty of interest in its three dozen or so initial jobs. 36 jobs. what he did not expect 1600 applicants and counting. that is what this economy is about, skilled people losing jobs through plant closures. the whole way of life many of them working for decades suddenly seeing a possibility.

but it's not one job for one applicant. it's 1600 applicants for about 36 jobs. they are trying. they are trying awfully hard. but unless we pass this legislation this evening in the process we are not trying. now, on the economic side of the ledger moving away from the human dynamic the nonpartisan commercial budget estimates failure to renew unemployment insurance will cost the economy 200,000 jobs and sap .2% of economic growth by the end of the year. why? because these payments go to people who are really desperate. they need this extra cash and it's about $300 a week, maybe $350 a week. they needed to pay rent to buy groceries to keep the boiler

running in subzero temperatures, to keep their families together as they look for work and by the way in order to collect you have to keep looking for work. so this is not just a program that is fair to people who have worked hard it's smart for our economy. this is one of the best fiscal tools we have available to ensure that we are creating demand creating additional jobs and as i indicated if we do not pass this, if these benefits lapse and go away 200,000 jobs will be lost at a time when i swear every member of this body would say one of the most important jobs is to create more jobs in america. well we can do that but we have to start today on this alone. our bill is designed to help families that have weathered through the toughest part of the recession 2008 2009, 2010

because they were laid off ,-com,-com ma many of them, about a year ago. the maximum unemployment benefits is 73 weeks now extended benefits plus state benefits. that's about roughly up to about two years so they got through some of the hardest part of the recession which suggests to me that these are good workers. these are people that were struggling and working when unemployment was much higher and now they need help. now i believe we have to get them that help. now, we should be working together to create an expanded economy so the jobs are there, so that when there's a new plant opening it's not just 36 jobs in 1600 applicants, it's a lot more jobs in fact you would like to see it the other way. you would like to see 1600 jobs and 1600, 1800 applicants but we

have to do that. now, i have heard from a lot of my colleagues who said they can do this because they need an offset. well this has traditionally been emergency spending. it's emergency spending up until december 28 because we extended it last year probably creating on the order of 200000 jobs just as we will lose 300000 jobs if we don't extend it helping our economy overall. and we have to do this. we have tailored the senator heller and i so it's just three months so it provides the immediate assistance to unemployed workers. if it's retroactive so it will pick up the people who lost their benefits on december 28 but it also gives the appropriate committees and the house the ability to think through this program in an orderly way to make changes if necessary, to look for appropriate offsets if it is

deemed that those offsets are necessary but it will work in these three months to ensure that people have something to help them get by with while we do our job. now, by my count colleague said voted to move forward on these nonoffset emergency benefits more than 10 times since 2008 10 times we have taken this unemployment insurance program and we have passed it on an emergency basis without offsets, so this is not a new novel approach. in fact what is somewhat new is actually providing offsets for this emergency spending. now, i would hesitate to say that i would venture, i wouldn't hesitate to say but i would venture up we brought up the bill here that had huge tax cuts particularly for the wealthiest corporations and individuals

they would be very little discussion on the other side of the offset. when we are talking about a program that helps working people we have to have offsets while traditionally we haven't done it that we can have that conversation. in order to have that approach really to help these people we have got to move this legislation forward. give us a time to work constructively and collaboratively and thoughtfully on the program and also on possible offsets. we shouldn't be filibustering this measure. we should be passing it and then working collegiately cooperatively to improve the program if we can and if we deem it appropriate to pay for the program. i have heard some of my colleagues say we need offsets. very vague about what type of offsets. some suggestions about medicare social security were discretionary spending but i

don't think americans constituents would want to see those types of cuts. i think they are relieved in fact that through the good work of senator murray and congressman ryan we have the budget for two years and we are doing appropriations bills and we are beginning to refight certainty and we are beginning to provide support for the economy. i do sense though that my constituents know that there are many people out there that are struggling to find a job that want to work. and they need a little help just to get why and that is what we would be doing if we passed these measures this afternoon. or begin the process of passing it this afternoon. again, i think if we are to seriously talk about offsets are programmatic changes are responding to different dynamics in the economy it's not done here on the floor on dueling amendmentamendment s are dueling

proposals. it's done to regular order in the committee, in the deliberation. i came here and offered a one-year extension that was not offset and my republicrepublic an colleagues rejected it and i completely understand the privilege of doing out that and the right to do that and one of the arguments was a should go through committee. while this three-month bill does both it helps people immediately and it gives us the time to do our jobs. now a few weeks ago i also came to the floor to address in the guard garden that has been percolating throughout this discussion that somehow the whole unemployment insurance program is just being abused that beneficiaries would rather collect the work. the reality is that $300 a week $350 a week is not something i think people would give up a good job or allow themselves to be displaced from that job just

because of the benefit. i disagree with this argument. i believe americans really want to work and i want to get back to work as quickly as they can. they want to do the work they have been trained for. they want to do the work that some of them spend decades investing not just their time but their whole self in this work. one of the interesting things about work is that it's not only a form of economic renumeration, it's the way we define ourselves. we go and within a few minutes of meeting any stranger of that one question pops up what do you do for a living? it's awfully difficult today for millions of americans do say i i'm just looking desperately for a job but millions are. as i discussed earlier there is academic research out there that has been bandied about suggesting no, as is an abuse that the research actually supports the notion that

individuals would rather work than collect unemployment insurance. unemployment insurance benefits as i have indicated are a fraction of what an individual would work in a job he had previously. and these are benefits that keep people whole while they are searching for work. there was a very eloquent editorial by charles -- in "the new york times" that address some of these issues and i think his words are very awful because i think it strikes the right tone. he wrote, whereas i'm sure that some people abuse any form of help, i am by no means convinced that this is the exclusive film film -- objective of the poor and put upon. somehow when some poor people or those who unexpectedly fall on hard times take advantage of benefits for which they are eligible if an indictment of

their morality and character of the poor as a whole? i don't think that's the case. i agree with mr. blow. these are people who want to work but they need some help and we have given them help in the past and we should continue to do this. this program has been a critical crucial safety net for families helping them avoid poverty and helping them get back on their feet and helping them get back into the workforce. and it's been with us since the great depression and it affects a whole spectrum of individuals. indeed, if you look at 2012 data about 40% of the households that receive these benefits had income prior to job loss between $30,000.75000. these are middle income americans who would much rather be working and making close to what they made before they were

laid off than then collecting $300 a month. so these benefits are not the exclusive province of the very poor. in fact more and more they are middle class middle-aged people who never thought they would be on unemployment insurance, who need this. they are supporting elderly parents. they have children. they have mortgages. they had a professional career ,-com,-com ma accountants, paralegals, bookkeepers and they are now looking desperately for work or there are people that used to work in dairy processing plants 1600 of them are people who used to work in vice presidents of sales who were so desperate and i assume some of these resumes if we looked at them they would be qualified to do many many things other than work in this plant but they are looking because they desperately need work. we hear this argument though

always the program doesn't work and people are undeserving and we are not even doing them a favor by letting them have this benefit. i disagree. we have to i think pass this measure. we have to do it because it's the right thing for these families. it's the right ring for our constituents in its the right thing for the time. i think would be frank -- foolish frankly to take a program that we are confident can create 200,000 jobs increase gdp by .2% that is one of the best forms of fiscal policy to stimulate demand and economic growth and say we are not going to do it. i think we have to do it. there's another aspect. particularly appropriate to the issue of long-term unemployment.

we are seeing a remarkable number of long-term unemployed individuals in this recession. typically these benefits would never offended if long-term unemployment were 1.3%. again this program is a program that takes care of the long-term unemployed. the stained -- standard state program of 26 weeks to give a brief episode of unemployment and you lose a job in five weeks later you get a job you were in the first tranche of state benefits. these are individuals who have been at least without work for 26 weeks. we have seen that number of long-term employed double from 1.3% of the unemployed to 2.6%. so this program is more important now than any other previous economic downturn that we have had aced upon looking at these numbers. and again another reason why we have to extend these benefits. so i urge my colleagues, support

this procedural vote so the full senate can consider the measure, move towards passage. we need to move through swiftly to pass this bipartisan bill and provide some certainty, some stability some support for families that are struggling in a very difficult market. the answer i would suggest to those who are considering voting against it this evening is fine, you can come down and tell the clerk know. what are you going to tell the 1600 people in hackers town maryland and across this country who are desperately looking for work and need some support? what are you going to tell them? no i hope not. without mr. president i we of the floor and note the absence of a quorum. >> madam president. >> the senator from nevada.

>> thank you madam president. i rise today to discuss an issue that has been on the forefront of many americans minds ringing in the new year and that is extending benefits for the unemployed. something that's important of course for a lot of americans. before i begin i want to thank my colleague and friend from rhode island senator jack reed for his hard work and effort on this as we work together and our staffs have worked together to get this proposal moved forward for today's vote. and i hope that my friends and colleagues here in the senate enjoy the holidays and that everyone returned refreshed and ready to tackle some of the issues we have here in 2014. unfortunately while congress was in recess approximately 17,000 greeted the new year not with the optimistic expectations of a fresh start but with the anxiety about how they are going to feed their families or perhaps even pay their utility bills. when congress left washington

d.c. in december, a lot of important matters were left undone and expired. as a result millions of americans were left with no idea whether or not there and planet benefits were going to be fixed retroactively something that has become of course all to common for this congress to do. helping those in need should not be a partisan issue. providing a limited social net is one of the responsibilities of the federal government. unfortunately dead of planning ahead and figuring out the best way to do that, we are now forced to decide whether or not to reinstate these benefits after they have expired. we should provide some relief to the millions of americans that were left hanging when congress went home in december and temporarily extend other employment benefits for the next three months. it is the right thing to do. that short period will help these families whose benefits expired abruptly while congress

works out a longer-term solution that provides americans with something that is fiscally responsible. and just in my colleagues desire to pay for this extension. i too want to see our federal debt brought under control and i think my voting record is proof of that concern. i too believe that congress should be more focused on passing laws that actually help create jobs. growing our economy should be the primary focus and concern of this body. as the center of the state that leads the nation in unemployment believe me, i understand the importance of refocusing on jobs. i would rather be down here discussing today innovative ways of creating jobs instead of the need to extend unemployment benefits yet again. at madam president ,-com,-com ma because of this administration and even some of the choices by this body and fortunately our

economy is not going -- growing quickly enough meaning americans are still hurting including a lot of vets. my state is struggling. i have repeated often on this floor consistently tops the chart in unemployment bankruptcies and foreclosures. the statistics are surely revealing but more startling is the obvious increase in impoverished nevadans that i meet when i go home and i would like to share an example madam president. every thanksgiving, everything's getting one or two of my children join me in serving a thanksgiving dinner to folks in reno who are in need and cannot cook a thanksgiving meal for themselves or this year my daughter and i her freshman year in college, joined me in this experience. every year, that dinner sees more and more attendees. every year the number of individuals and families who

need help increases. this year the venue was absolutely packed. when my daughter and i arrived the line was four blocks long outside that venue. they're such an obvious example of how so many nevadans are unable to provide for their basic needs and is cannot be ignored. i know that many in congress point to a national employment rate that is improving but at home we don't feel it. the unemployment rate in nevada is consistently far exceeding the national average. in fact the nation -- the state has led the nation for the past three years in unemployment and the result are of course people in nevada are really hurting. it is difficult to stand here in the nation's capital and area and describe just how tough times are for so many of my constituents.

at these thanksgiving dinners to hear about choices individuals are forced to make to buy gas for their car, to pay for heat in the frigid northern nevada whether or to buy school supplies for their children or perhaps save for the future. these are hard-working individuals who rely on these benefits. they are trying to find a job. they want to provide for their children but for these benefits to simply make vanish without giving families the time to plan or figure out alternatives to help them get by to me is just not right or did i too understand the concerns about the cost of these benefits. i would prefer to see them pay for in a manner that does not burden our nation with more debt i have previously introduced legislation that would do just that. legislation that would extend unemployment benefits while still paying for them. that they time i introduced my legislation as an alternative to a more costly bill because i

think it's important to bring our nation's debt down. i'm ready to work with my colleagues to introduce similar legislation at the end of this year. but in the meantime, i've proposed that we passed the short extension now. that we would allow congress the opportunity to spend the next three months debating how to pay for these benefits in the future or perhaps how much longer they should be extended. those are important questions worthy of more debate but in the meantime congress simply must provide some temporary relief for those who are unemployed. paying for these benefits would be the best approach. congress could have taken a harder road to figure out a way to do that before departing for the holiday break and leaving millions of americans hanging but they didn't. so let's pass the short short-term extension and focus on a more fiscally responsible solution for the longer-term.

madam president thank you and i yield the floor. >> we focus on issues you would expect in this industry. we are focused laser light on innovation wanted to make sure that innovation is a national strategy and american companies could keep introducing the greatest products in the world. we dominate in some areas and russia have a lot of multinatimultinati onals who use subsidiaries. it's a global phenomenon innovation but the u.s. is the world leader might want to keep

it that way. this requires great immigration policies the best and brightest and requires additional spectrum and also requires rational policies so you can invent things that you are not being sued all the time for not having these patents. it's been next we are going to take a look at the health care law and what's happening during the first few weeks of coverage. this is from "washington journal". it's about 35 minutes. >> well combat. our next guest is the lease. she covers health care. thanks for being with us. affordable care act coverage for enrollees. walk us through how that's going >> guest: we have had mixed results under the affordable care act so far. obviously the botched rollout didn't help. some are going to their doctor's office and they are fine using

their new coverage without issue. other people are encountering problems when they try to get a prescription filled or called her insurance company to get answers. i think it will take several months for all of this to shake out and for people to understand how their new plans work first and foremost and for all the different providers within the health care system to adjust to the affordable care act. there's a lot of shake up right now and nobody really expected to go perfectly smoothly in the first few weeks. >> host: what he is hearing from the administration in response to those mixed results? >> the administration is telling people to call their insurance companies because those are the people who are likely to have the best answers to impact many new people who have enrolled in obamacare plans are just learning about their plans for the first time in the last two weeks. they may have got a packet from their insurance company that contains information. health insurance is complicated so they're people who are having to go and follow up with these companies in these providers to make sure they understand what's going on. the administration also set up a toll-free number is a lot of

call agents to help people navigate their problems and they're going to open lines with caseworkers do people persist in issues. >> host: as i understand it there are guidelines looming. >> guest: january is interesting. in fact people don't have to pay for their cover to begin on january 1. some are using coverage that they saw them pay for and that deadline is january 10. we will be watching that. in fact many opponents of the portable care act believe we shouldn't be counting the 2.1 million people who are enrolling in private plans is currently enrolled because not many of them at have paid their first premiums yet. and of course down the line we have the march 31 deadline which ends the initial six-month enrollment period and that will be sort of the dropdead deadline for the obama administration. we'll be watching how many people enrolled in private plans and how many enrolled in expanded medicaid and who they were. how stable are these risk pools

will be the question going forward. >> host: we are talking health care with elise viebeck of the hill. for democrats the number is (202)585-3880 and republicans 202-58-53881 and for independents 20 independents (202)585-3882. the lease, talk us through what you are hearing from members of congress and republicans particularly who are obviously very focused on this law. >> guest: they're very focused on law and the house gop is preparing another obamacare related vote voting related to the security concerns that some have it healthcare.gov. there's a bill proposed that would require the administration to notify anyone whose personal data was compromised as a result of healthcare.gov security issues. we don't know but that is happened yet. in fact administration has -- rebutted allegatioallegatio ns that healthcare.gov is making peoples personal information

vulnerable but republicans are going to try to draw attention to that to undercut the law particularly as we start as we all know the election season the republicans are looking to make this law their main issue in order to regain seats particularly in the senate which they hope to gain control of. >> host: the use of new aca insurance would spike right around now. explain what that means. >> guest: people weren't able to use their new obamacare plans until january 1 at the very earliest. as we know people don't use health insurance from day one. you might not need to go to the doctor. you may not need to fill a prescription so what health care providers have told us that the health is they expect that bell curve where people are beginning to use the plan starting this week. obviously the holiday lag has gone away and people are back to work. people are back in a normal life so they will be calling their doctors and getting some of these needs met at the beginning of the year. >> host: our first call comes from willingboro new jersey,

henry is on the line for democrats. henry ,-com,-com ma are you with us? >> caller: yes i'm here. >> host: go ahead, you are on with elise viebeck of the hill. >> caller: good morning, how are you lex first-time caller. >> host: henry if you can turn down your tv we will be happy to chat with you. >> caller: let me say how happy i am to be a part of this obamacare. my wife and i both got laid off from our jobs. they downsize this. she had no insurance for a while and i didn't have any so covert cost us $800 apiece with cobra. we on october 5 we signed up and we call the aca to get information. i didn't have much rob him, okay? i wish people would go into the system and see how it works. i am living proof of how well

the obamacare works. my wife got sick a couple of days ago and we were praying that we wouldn't get sick before he got insurance. she went to the doctor. we don't have the card yet. they went into the computer and everything was in the computer. we called a cvs drugstore and picked medicine. it cost me $7 for the medicine. my wife and i are very happy with the health care and i wish everybody would look into it and give it a fair shake. the way these people are talking about it is unfair. thank you. >> guest: henry certainly has a success story. he and his wife are the kind of people the administration hope to help, people have lost their jobs and were paying for in extensive coverage on the individual market. it's possible that families receiving a tax credit. in a state of new jersey we have

seen people reporting positive experiences. i think it's important for viewers to remember that this law affects every american in a completely different way and one of the reasons the narrative has been so negative is any negative story is going to be a rebuttal presumption for the administration. they will immediately fight back and talk about it as if it's an attack on the law. obviously their many problems that they're people like henry who are having success. >> host: let's go to fairmont west virginia and georgia's on the line for tim ratz. >> caller: yes, good morning. god for c-span so we can get the news out of maybe get the truth out. i don't think this young lady is telling the real truth about obamacare because i don't think she belongs in it. do you along in obamacare? >> guest: obamacare? >> caller: do you have obamacare? >> guest: i have employer-based insurance but i know a lot about obamacare. you have a question? >> caller: you should come to virginia and see all the people

that can't get care and can even get an okay for treatment with the hospital or the doctor. not only that, you're not going to get the 7 million people plus to make this thing work. and then the emergency room is quadruplequadrupled already with people going to the emergency room using this because they can't get into obamacare. you put him into that medicare or whatever you call it thing. that's almost triple people going to the emergency room so where are you saving money? you are spending more money because of these people that didn't have insurance that didn't want to buy insurance and you people have given it to them for practically nothing. that is why they are happy for it. i have always had good insurance and i have paid for it out of my pocket. not only that i'm a veteran also uncovered by the va as far as that goes but this obamacare is going to self-destruct very the

republicans don't have to do one thing to get rid of it. it's going to self-destruct itself. mark my words within the next year. >> guest: obviously there have been many many problems with obamacare for people across the country. people's experience tends to be mixed based on who they are and how they receive insurance and let's take a look and so a look and so people in the state of west virginia where i believe the caller was from maybe having many problems and that doesn't surprise anyone in washington particularly opponents of the affordable care act. >> host: that 7 million number that the frustration was hoping for by marc, do you have any idea on how case they are to meet that benchmark? >> guest: by the end of december 2.1 million people signed up under obamacare is or the state exchanges so those are the marketplace is run by healthcare.gov another state-based web sites. certainly that was a major expansion based on what we saw in october november the troubled months at the beginning of the

enrollment period. i think that the administration still has a lot of catching up to do if they are going to reach that 7 million benchmark and in fact we know that because the white house has since pushed back and said 7 million wasn't really their goal and in fact we know in many cases it was their goal. they were really hoping for it. doesn't mean the marketplace can survive with fewer enrollees but it's going to be a major lift for them to get their benchmark met. >> host: is on the line for democrats. >> caller: good morning. i called to say that obviously there are a lot of problems with obamacare and she is right about that in everybody knew that was going to happen. health care is very complicated and you know unfortunately the insurance companies are ultimately still really in power. although there are steps with the existing conditions and things like that but we need single-payer. that is what we need and i'm so tired of the republicans who first of all can't step away --

that we had before and they just want to keep things the same. we have to move in some direction. we have to try something. i have a young son who was under two years old and had asthma which is very common and usually they outgrow it. it just kind of goes away but at your he was diagnosed with that under two years of age the insurance company sent me a letter saying they would no cover -- no longer cover anything having to do with his rat respiratory system. that's the kind of that's been going on out here. we have got to understand that the health of the human being should not be a basis for somebody to make a profit on. >> guest: that's interesting. for many liberals and progressive democrats the law did not go far enough because it maintained a very strong private insurance system.

we have to remember these marketplaces are all about connecting uninsured americans with private health insurance. it's not government-run. it's heavily regulated but remains in the hands of private insurers. as the caller said there many families out there today who are think of for the affordable care act because it and discrimination based on pre-existing conditions which as he said for his son could've been something as minor as they be asthma. for other people it could've been at me or sleep apnea so those are issues that many people believe people should not have been discriminated a stone and the affordable care act no longer let that happen. >> host: we have seen a course of the last few weeks and months delays in various portions of the law. do you expect to see more back? >> guest: yes, think there will be other delays in the coming months are hep c them before the end of march as the administration seeks to reach as many enrollees as possible. it's possible the entire six-month enrollment period could be delayed and that march 31 deadline could he

pushed back further. payment deadlines could be pushed back then i think we will see insurance companies will be receiving more money from the government in order to shore up the risk pools but they may not be as stable as the administration out since possible people will seek the individual mandate or perhaps field would have otherwise qualify for medicaid expansion in states where was out of the minute. >> host: you mention healthcare.gov a couple of times. how's it working now? >> guest: is working better now. there was a text search is what the ministers and called the to fix the web site. it was not working well on october 1 and in fact i remember being here at c-span2 talk about it. i had gone on that morning and it was clearly not working in the beginning which turned into a thunderstorm for the white house that lasted months. now it is working better and believe it is turned the corner. there's a former microsoft executive who is heading up healthcare.gov who is heading

the national economic council for the white house and i think that the administration is very focused on making sure that the web site works going forward because it was such a disaster starting october 1. >> host: frank is on our line for republicans. >> caller: hi, how are you? i was wondering, this is a tax to keep people the people have to pay to stay in the country now because now they don't -- it used to be you didn't have to buy insurance to stay in the country or get a fine or whatever but this is a tax. you have have to pay a checklist in this country or you will get fined. you don't have to have insurance in any other you know, you don't have to have insurance but now you are forced to buy it. and it's not affordable. i think they should start with the hospitals, the doctors and insurance companies. they charge too much. $45 for an aspirin if you go to the hospital. i went to the hospital for

toothache and they told me they couldn't help me. they were not equipped. they charged me $4700. they couldn't help me. >> guest: wow. the caller brings up an important point that plagues anyone participating in the american health care system reaches price inflation. if you go to the hospital your medications including something as simple as an aspirin is going to cost you more than if you got it at the local drugstore. hospitals are seeing charges of varying prices. in fact if you compare hospitals in your hometown or your place of residence a procedure may cost three or four times as much at one compared to three miles down the road. certainly there's a lot of support within the public to get more transparency about these prices so people can make choices that are better for them. often when we need to get health care needs met we are not thinking about the price in many evil which those numbers are out there in the public. >> host: cleveland ohio darlene is on our phone for

independence that create. >> caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions ,-com,-com ma very easy. the first question is, are we headed for universal health care and second of all why was the various state insurance departments not involved in the process prior to the affordable health care? my third question is do you know anything about ohio's magi. magi and also is there a possibility that our politicians can regulate the hospital billing practices and let us know how much we are charged for various services? thank you so much. >> guest: i will just run down the line with some of these questions. some people believe obamacare

represents a movement towards universal health care because as the previous caller noted everyone is required to carry insurance or pay a fine and the law creates a variety of streams of being able to get that covered so you might be a let's get to medicaid or private insurance perhaps with a tax credit so it depends on how you define universal health care but it attempts to achieve that in a variety of ways. the second question about insurance department they are heavily involved in regulating insurance and were before the passage of the affordable care act and now some of them are working heavily with the federal government to implement this law. others particularly in red states have not been as involved the magi issue in ohio is something i'm not aware of because the federal government maybe her insurer and ohio would be able to answer that question in the third about regulating billing practices, that's exactly the issue is talking about earlier. a public desires transparency when it comes to pricing of their medical care and the

obama's has sought to increase that by publishing reports and data mine for medicare and medicaid about those prices. >> host: elise viebeck with the hill and let's go to jay in wallingford connecticut are line for democrats. >> caller: yes i would like to mention that over three years ago i was involved in a car accident. i was just -- i went back to work in a reinsured afoot that i had injured in a car accident. it was severe. health care in 2012 put out almost $20,000 in health care between co-pays and paying insurance directly. we now put out not sure exactly the 17 or $18,000 traded on the limited income we have that was 60 or 70% of our income. we have taken out of savings and

we are to the point of taking out of our i.r.a. to supplement this. presently now i turn 65 and i'm on medicare. my wife is in the process of getting on obamacare. our cost of insurance has grown drastically. our savings is going to slow down if not stop. this could happen to anybody. life changes in approximately a few seconds and you never know it's going to happen tomorrow. i thank you for your time. >> guest: any american, any person can run into unexpected health crises as a result of daily life. that is why many people feel health insurance is so important. it helps prevent that kind of medical debt. even if you have health insurance sometimes you are overloaded with terribly onerous out-of-pocket costs. that should not be for everyone.

>> host: you recently wrote a post called the five top obamacare stories to watch. tell us about the things are watching now. >> guest: we are watching enrollment numbers carefully because they are going to project forward how successful the affordable player at markets are going to be in the future. we know the 2.1 million people signed up for health insurance plans to healthcare.gov our state-based exchanges through december and i assume the wants that number to be higher but think of march. we will be watching that but even more than the number itself what we really want to know is the age of the people signing up for these health care exchanges. the administration has not said that it won't publish that data but it hasn't put it up yet. what we want to know is whether the risk pools will be balanced. this is a concept of insurance that if you have enough people to subsidize the cost of sick or older patients you will have a will have a balance where people's premiums won't spike altogether. if you don't have that it's mostly sick people signing up for obamacare the administration

could be in trouble going forward because next year the preemies could be higher discouraging further in rome it. we will be watching it. there are many mitigation strategies with the to fix risk not in good shape so it's not as if all is lost if it's older or are people who enroll. we will watch it carefully because it's going to be a problem for the white house of that is the case. >> host: scarborough maine craig is on our line for democrats. >> caller: good morning. my question was do you suspect that now that everyone that is going to a hospital or doctor has insurance? and on the past people would go to the emergency room because that was their only outlet and it was expensive to go. that was her most expensive place for them to go. now that everybody has health insurance, instead of the hospital billing at $69 for a band i'd --

band-aid it's now 69 cents. that may be the wrong number but i think that got paid out to insurance companies. someone ate that much money. do you suspect that now all of that is going to drop and the other one is the immigrants that aren't here, undocumented people, they are going to end up in the emergency room. who pays that he'll? thank you. >> guest: these are great questions about emergency rooms and health care for people who are insured. as the caller pointed out emergency rooms are the most expensive medical venue by far perhaps barring certain surgical operations. the emergency room is very expensive and the caller is right. hospitals eight.uncompensuncompens ated care for people who are uninsured or ticket illegal income americans and underserved communities. there are billions and billions of dollars at hospitals effectively donated his charity in the form of care to the insured.

it's like that health care prices in some areas could go down as a result of the affordable care act insurance mandate and more people having insurance means more insurers are getting billed for these services and that could be better for everyone overall. i think it's mentioning question going forward. >> host: baltimore maryland. michael is on our line for independents map. >> caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i was wondering with the implementation of the affordable care act what are the impacts that will be implemented along with it and who primarily will be affected by them? thank you. >> guest: these are great questions from callers. the affordable care act is -- pays pays for sopa the variety of taxes primarily on the health care industry so taxes are on insurance companies, taxes on providers. very few normal americans will be seeing these taxes although there are a few that will hit people. many people point out that the

individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine estate tax in effect the supreme court upheld it as a tax. primarily the law pays for itself with a braided taxes on health insurance industry like medical device companies for example. >> host: what is happening with the birth control mandate? >> guest: the birth-control mandate has been the most controversial portion. what it does is require most employers to offer a range of birth control methods to female employees within their health insurance plans. for a secular employer that is no big deal and many cases many of them were already offering residential methods but for religiously affiliated organizations or for secular companies with religious honors this has become highly controversial because they there are certain religious faiths that preach against birth control particularly the morning after pill which some consider equal torah portion. the supreme court is going to take up this mandate.

recently the supreme court justice sonia sotomayor issued in the -- that made major news because that had not been done for this group. the argument is even under the accommodation proposed by the white house religious liberty was still being infringed so we are likely to see this in court rule one way or the other. nobody's quite sure how will come down but we will be watching closely. >> host: question from twitter this morning. explain why it is so expensive. >> guest: the affordable care act so expensive? oh boy, obviously it provides a variety of tax credits to americans. it expands medicaid. it pays for a major expansion of health care in the united states through taxes on health insurance industry. it is one of the largest reform laws we have seen in decades and that is one of the reasons it's so expensive. >> host: raleigh north

carolina our line for indepedents map. >> caller: yes, my question is the has said it's all based upon the generations to sign up and pay for the health care but if the healthier ones are allowed to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26 years old they are not going to be paying for it until after they get off of their parents insurance. how is the affordable could care act supposed to be paid for is my question. thank you. >> host: >> guest: only talk about younger healthier people signing up for not just talking about people in their teens or 20s. we are talking about people into their 30s who are perhaps not as sick or costly for insurers as people in their 50's and early 60's. i think that is part of the reason that even though people will be staying on their parents plans into their 20s under the affordable care act or many people in their 20s and 30s who remain uninsured and those

are the people the administration hopes will sign up for the new exchanges. >> host: gary is on the line for democrats. >> caller: yeah, i was wondering why you would actually if you had a doctor which is the one doing the service and then you have the insurance company which is the one handling the money and the paperwork and the government involved why do you need all of these people involved especially the insurance companies since it went up three to 5%. plus, the irs is going to collect the money for the insurance companies and handle it and it seems to me like this is a fallback so the federal reserve fails then they have another income of the people

the same as the income tax. it's a monopoly. thank you. >> guest: an interesting point. the affordable care act does regulate much of the health insurance industry. it was a lot negotiatenegotiated here in washington both in congress and within players of the health care industry who knew that as a result they would receive many more customers in exchange for being tax. >> host: the eventual -- potential -- of the healthcare.gov web site. you expect to see more votes in the near future? >> guest: absolutely. the house gop is set to vote this week on a measure related to the security of healthcare.gov requiring the to notify consumers if their data has been breached on the web site which we should note has not happened yet that we know of the administration is fighting back against those allegations very strongly that the security of healthcare.gov has been a major issue for republicans in congress particularly house

oversight committee chairman darrell asa issa who has been focused on the very closely. i think americans are concerned about their security the security of their data on line at any retailer including a place like health care that to which was so fraught to begin with is hard to believe that your data is not vulnerable in some way or another but with breaches at skype and barclays we can see more tax which will turn more questions on of. >> host: what about further the -- votes to repeal the health care law? >> guest: we can certainly see that before the election. i think the house republicans will be very interested in keeping as much focus as possible on the health care law. this is an issue that will take their candidates to victory in 2014 and certainly regain seats in the senate race on the argument that perhaps democrats overreach with this law. that is what republicans will be arguing and certainly we can expect many more votes on the issue.

>> host: dawn in chesterfield michigan is on our line for republicans. >> caller: yes, good morning elise, how are you doing? you mentioned taxes. i own a health insurance agency here in michigan. you said that there were no taxes on the rate of the affordable care act. this is the biggest tax hike on the middle class in this country's history. i will give an example. just for a family of four with a silver plan the average age for everybody about $118.84 a month just in taxes. so can you explain to me how you just said that there are no taxes in the price of obamacare? >> guest: the caller is mistaken. i did not say there were taxes and obamacare and i didn't say there were no taxes on individuals. there are taxes on individuals but primarily the laws paid for by taxes on health insurance industry. that is where the major funding

streams come from so certainly many people are going to see their out-of-pocket costs rise under the affordable care act and others will see them fall. but no there's no way to argue that there are no taxes in this law. >> host: cynthia in martinsburg west virginia summer line for democrats. >> caller: hello? >> guest: hi. >> caller: i was actually calling to comment on another callers come in from west virginia. i just want to say that i have a 23 ultimate wood into the hospital in the more populated area in west virginia. he was able to get in he signed up for obamacare is the hospital which he said was a very nice process and there weren't any problems. no matter what people say about obamacare there weren't any problems for my sign -- son to sign up free at. >> guest: many people are

having positive experiences in many people are signing up in their local communities hospitals and in their own offices or public agencies and having a fine time. depends on which state you live in and which insurance you are signing up for. it sounds like this woman's son had a good experience. >> host: another question from twitter mark writes for someone who did not get my income how do they decide the subsidy? >> guest: that's a very interesting question very complicated. seasonal workers and part-time workers and people like that are going to find it difficult frankly to navigate the issue of the subsidies rate i think what happens is the government will pay the full subsidy to the insurance company on your behalf if your current income makes you qualified for it. in the next tax year you will have to adjust and perhaps repay some of that subsidy it is going to be very complicated and that will be an issue next year when the first tax filing season

happens after obamacare is implemented. ..

>> we are here to find common ground so we can bring respect. >> in the coming years, all of you will be building the businesses. you will be making the discovery and drafting the laws that will move the country forward.

>> monday january 13th first ladies, influential returns on monday live on c-span. up next on the "the communicators" a conversation with the president and ceo gary shiprano. scombl >> and joining us this week is the president and ceo of the consumer and electronic association. who do you represent? >> we have 2,000