beyond what can be reasonably considered. >> host: on this issue of gay marriage, back at the end of december the "washington post" gave social conservatives their weekly worst week in washington award talking about what happened in utah but also some of the other actions around the country that the decision in utah, the story notes, came on the same to a federal judge in the liberal that same-sex marriage performed outside the state would be recognized shortly after new mexico's supreme court legalized such unions. edit notes for those keeping score, three states with huge was in favor of gay marriage in a few days not to mention the fact that hawaii and illinois legalized the unions last month. how would you respond to that award? >> guest: i think it is deserved. it was, it was, i believe it was

justice scalia pointed out in his dissent, based on the supreme court rulings in the prop eight case and in the dough my case, that it was likely that state courts would not be able -- doma case -- would not be able to regularly uphold marriage because the same arguments that there was no real rational basis for discriminating in the courts of you meant that each of the state supreme court's would have very little room to maneuver in finding a just basis for what the court in the federal decision looked at as being certainly solely prejudice against gay marriage. so the rash of decisions and the movement in the states has been

rapid, and it's been imposed from without. and i do think that when you're changing something whether it isn't an -- having it imposed by judges is a wrongheaded course of. >> host: to this question from twitter, giving social issue be decided on the local level? are you in favor of a central government rule top down control? >> guest: well, it depends on what you mean by social issue. if you're talking about the right to life, i think that that is a federal issue. you're talking about the ability of a person to be put into the committee, most basic of civil rights. and the 14th amendment makes it incumbent upon congress to pass laws to defend basic civil rights. and i think it would be a

federal issue. the marriage issue is traditionally been a state issue. but the problem is that because it's a contract that goes across state lines and is very difficult to have a decision within one state be quarantined there. and the rights of protecting of states' rights to have independent use of marriage is exactly what was the intention of doma. and there seemed to be a federal view that this is more, or the movement toward defining this is a basic civil right rather than as a state regulation of an institution or contract. >> host: here is ben's take on

it from all hell. the e-mail this morning. the government does have a role in promoting the public good but the gay marriage is usually about protecting the rights of the church against a government requiring marriage which is a religious sacrament to be performed on a same-sex couple which a given church believes the bible specifically warns against. he writes the first amendment is about protecting the church from the dictates of the government. urban is up next in west virginia on our line for democrats this morning. good morning. you are on with frank cannon. >> caller: good morning. how are the men doing there? very interesting conversation. i'm a very much well involved in my for your career insurance agency. i'm in favor close contact with all variety of folks and ideas. your previous comment was spot on as far as this subject, and there's a great misunderstanding

that separates believers and nonbelievers, and that calder, i believe, has it right. and as far as the constitution about this, it seems though to me that it should be, i realize we have a cross-section of states where people actually move. but i'm a firm believer that we have the constitution where the states do not surrender power to a central government. and i will wait for the comments. >> host: mr. cannon. >> guest: well, i believe in states' rights in the sense of the states regulating all issues that haven't been delegated specifically to the federal government. again, i would say that abortion is not an issue in which one state can allow another state.

i think it's a basic certain right. and i think that the federal government has a role in protecting civil rights under the 14th amendment. >> host: going back to the politics of this and how it plays out in 2014, what is the american principles project take on a job that speaker john boehner has done, and the republican leadership since they've taken control of the house? >> guest: well, there is a divided government so it's very difficult for them to enact an agenda separately. i think that they are done physically a very good job in pointing out the excesses of obamacare and trying to highlight the way in which basic freedoms are being usurped by the central government. my one recommendation to republicans across the board is

that when they make a case against government intrusion and the growth of government, they really need to connect it to the lives of working americans. that is, they often talk in terms of what burdens we are passing along to our children. the reality is that americans are suffering stagnant wages and increasing prices, and increasing prices come largely from government printing of money in order to feed an ever-increasing role for central government. and what that means is that working people are losing ground, facing a shrinking dollar because of the appetite of governed. government. i think it would serve them all to connect all of the arguments about sequester and debt --

raising the debt limit to the actual price that people are feeling in the cities around the country. >> host: who are the republicans that are going to be targeting in the primary season? is there anybody in leadership that you would support a primary candidate against? >> guest: again, we haven't made a decision in what races to get into. we are looking at what candidates are lining up in, in which states. and a lot of what we are going to do is help candidates who are willing to fight on a unified conservative message, these democratic and liberal opponents who are attacking them without somebody coming to the defense on issues outside of economic issues. for example, --

>> i think most everyone knows that in america today, and the rich are getting richer. the poor are getting poorer. the middle class is being squeezed. i don't begrudge rich america, the success they have had. that's a part of our system and i think that's good. we have to make sure that we don't try to grow our economy from the top down. we need to build from the middle out. haven't been doing that. that's why i'm pleased that six of my republican colleagues joined in moving forward. i have said, and i certainly congratulate senator heller in bringing fight people within. that's important for america. even as our economy continues to show signs of improvement, there's still only one job opening for every three people out of work. in nevada, not extending

unemployment benefits cut almost 20,000 people from the rolls. these nevadans, and more than a million americans, who have lost a way to survive is extremely difficult. this insurance is a lifeline for them. i don't think anyone would consider about $300 a week much of a lifeline, but that's the average. but it certainly i is $300 a wek better than nothing. these are long-term unemployed. my colleagues say they want to pay for this bill. this is new for them. all five times president bush signed extended unemployment benefits wasn't paid for. so i say to my republican colleagues, this is a three month extension. let's pass this bill so that our

fellow americans, more than a million of them, don't have to suffer and can keep -- and then we can then talk about the long-term plan. it's the right thing to do. people across the country are watching us. there's a vast majority of americans support extending these unemployment benefits. >> are you open to a loud -- [inaudible] >> the question is, am i open to allowing amendments on this. well, here's where we start. senator mcconnell says that he wants to pay for the extended benefits. remember, never done with president bush. he wants to pay for them by whacking obamacare. that's a nonstarter. so if they come with something

that's serious, i'll talk to them. right now everyone should understand, the low-hanging fruit is gone. we have scavengers every place we could go. i've talked to the white house an hour or so ago, talked to jack reed. we even know how desperate these 1.2 million americans are. but we have to be realistic, too. we know that republicans are not going to allow us to close these long, overdue tax loopholes so they come up with all this chicanery, like whacking obamacare more. >> senator reid -- [inaudible] >> the answer is we'll take a look at something that is serious. [inaudible] >> how is the conference going?

>> the farm bill is less than $20 billion. i understand that they have cut some of the savings we had before. senator stabenow thinks that sometime this week a conference could be completed. i hope that's the case. that's a place we could look for some money. [inaudible] >> we have a bipartisan bill that's been filed. we have -- their gathering cosponsors at this time. i haven't talked to secretary care for some time. i haven't talked in any detail to senator menendez. for a week or so. but we will wait and see what develops. as you know, it's an issue that is important, and the iranians have to understand that we're not going to let them have nuclear weapons.

[inaudible] on unemployment insurance. [inaudible] >> well, you have to talk to senator kirk. i don't know what he's talking about. that's enough. >> can you give us the update on the omnibus? >> i sure do. >> what is the update? >> she is cautiously optimistic. she believes we should be able to get this done. she reported to the caucus today and i will talk to her in more detail, but she said they made a lot of progress. there's been, i don't know how many subcommittees, i think seven or eight of them have been closed out, so we are waiting to see. [inaudible] >> she does not want anything to go by c.r.

and i don't either. >> are you open to a paid for unemployment provision? [inaudible] >> i personally am not in favor of a paid for unemployment insurance. it's an emergency and i'm not in favor of it. but if they have something, i will bring it to my caucus and we will take a look at it. [inaudible] >> i talked to dennis mcdonough today before i came to my caucus, the president's chief of staff, and he said they were run the traps on this. it's really hard to find anything, and as one of my senators mentioned at the caucus, it's really, doesn't make a lot of sense, take something out of the economy that's creating jobs to pay for unemployment compensation. everyone knows that for every

dollar we put into unemployment compensation, we get $1.50 back spanky said he's going to run the traps to see if it works? >> he's kind of thing like i think it certainly for these three months, this definitely should not be paid for. if they can come up with -- >> by codewords which -- "income inequality," which means different things to different people. but he also talked a very important aspect of that, and that is upward income mobility. in other words, went to make sure that somebody who goes to work in a restaurant busing tables can work their way up the income ladder and education ladder to where they can actually own their own restaurant and create more jobs and opportunity for other peop people. but the president called thes these -- the -- quote -- "the defining challenge of our time." well, coming -- the timing coming as it has, one might be

forgiven from wondering whether the president and his allies want to change the subject from obamacare. we know that the rollout of obamacare has been a unmitigated disaster and, frankly, there's more to come. and certainly the president, we can understand why he might want to change the subject, but while he is changing the subject, i think republicans should embrace the challenge of discussing, what are the policies that have resulted in income inequality and insufficient upward mobility when it comes to jobs in america. of course, the president, you might predict, has talked about his proposed solutions which are creating more government programs and more spending, including up to $6 billion of money that we have to borrow from china and our other creditors just to extend the unemployment insurance program by three months.

my question is: what happens after that three months? mr. cornyn: well, i'm -- i don't want to be rash but i'll make a prediction, that the democrats will say, well, we need another three months. after that, we need another three months. and before you know it, unemployment insurance has been extended beyond the one -- the half-year, which is the basic program, to another full year beyond that at a cost of $2 $25 billion. just to put every -- put all this in context, the pearl governmen -- thefederal governmt $250 billion for extended unemployment insurance benefits since 2008, but, of course, the president did not mention some of the primary causes for income inequality and the loss of upward mobility because a lot of those he is responsible for, along with his allies.

he failed to mention that america has suffered the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression under his administration. and he failed to mention his signature health care law -- i mentioned that a moment ago -- trying to pivot to another subject but we find ourselves inevitably coming back to obamacare and its negative impact on job creation and a 40-hour work week. so we know that obamacare has done a number of things in the short period of time since it began the rollout, which was october the 1st. millions of people have lost their existing insurance coverage. in fact, more people have lost their insurance coverage than have signed up for obamacare or even medicaid. and then there is the issue of skyrocketing insurance premiums. so i thought the idea was, how

do we make health care more affordable when, in fact, instead of making it better and more affordable, it's made it less affordable. and we're not just talking about the insurance premiums. we're talking about deductibles. we've all heard this -- these stories of people signing up on the obamacare exchanges only to find out, yeah, they've got health insurance but you know what? the first $5,000 per person is the deductible, which means you're effectively, for all practical purposes, self-insur self-insured. well, that's a deal breaker for many hardworking middle-class americansmenamericans. and then, of course, we know that even organized labor has complained about the fact that obamacare has turned full-time work into part-time work. why is that? well, for employers who put their employees on a 30-hour work week, they're not required under the law to pay for the health care benefits.

but if you have a full-time worker, you are. so what's happening is many employers are cutting people back to 30 hours from 40 hours with a commensurate loss of income. i was in tyler, texas, recently sitting around a table at a restaurant where one gentleman who owns a restaurant said one of the single moms who works in his restaurant, because of obamacare, she lost her 40-hour work week job, he had to cut her down to 30 hours, so she had to get two 30-hour jobs in order to get by. in other words, she now has to work 60 hours instead of working the 40 hours and, obviously, her -- she's worried about the lack of time she has with her children in addition to having lost her full-time job. but the president has also failed to mention a number of other items which have contributed to income inequality

and the loss of upward mobility. things like the medical device tax that is a feature of obamacare. now, in texas, we've got a number of medical device companies who came to see me after the obamacare legislation passed and they said, we have a duty to our shareholders not to spend their money inefficiently and so our own alternative is to expand our existing facility in costa rica rather than in texas. so the jobs that would have been created in texas move effectively to costa rica because of the medical device tax. so much for job creation and reducing income inequality and enhancing upward mobility. well, the president also refused -- also declined to talk about his refusal to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. and, of course, this is a pipeline that would start in

canada and end up in port arthur, texas, in an area we call the golden triangle, where we happen to have a lot of refineries that can refine that into gasoline, jet fuel and other products for american consumers. well, the president promised us, promised the country that he would make a decision by the end of 2013. well, i may have missed something during the holidays but i don't recall that the president made any announcement whatsoever on the keystone x.l. pipeline. and not only would it produce thousands of good, well-paying jobs, it would also produce a dependable supply of energy from a friendly country, the nation of canada. what else did the president fail to mention in his income inequality and upward mobility speech? well, he failed to mention the impact of his regulatory policies have piled hundreds of billions of dollars of

additional costs on american businesses. the small banks, for example, in texas tell me, they said, yeah, we've hired new people but the people we've hired are the ones that help us comply with the dodd-frank regulations. these were -- this was a bill, to remind everybody, that was filed to deal with the address -- the abuses on wall street that led to the subprime loan crisis and the collapse in 2008. but as we now know, that while wall street was the target of dodd-frank and these regulations, main street is the collateral damage. and, yes, people are being hired but not for the purpose of -- of loaning more money and helping small businesses start and grow their business but, rather, just to comply with new government regulations. well, what else did the president fail to mention in his discussion about lack of jobs

and upward mobility? well, he failed to mention his proposed greenhouse gas rules which will kill jobs and drive up energy costs. he failed to mention that during the so-called obama economic recovery, the president's now been president for five. he can't blame this on george bush anymore. but during the so-called obama economic recovery, real median household income has fallen more than $2,500. so at the same time that real household median income has fallen by $2,500, households are finding their health care insurance costs have gone up by $2,500 for a net loss of $5,000 for most hardworking american families. $5,000. and the president has failed to

acknowledge in his discussion of low economic growth, high unemployment, he's failed to mention that the economic recovery following the 2008 recession has been the weakest u.s. recovery since world war ii. economists ordinarily say that after a recession, there will be sort of a v-shaped recovery, where there will be -- once you hit the bottom, you begin to come out of it very quickly, the economy grows fast. well, under the obama recovery, that has been flat-lined to anemic growth which is not fast enough, is not strong enough to hire more american workers. and, indeed, we have the lowest percentage of americans actually in the work force since the great -- well, in the last 30 years. what that means is even though the unemployment rate is roughly 7% -- that's on a national basis -- that millions of people have simply dropped out of

looking for a job because they see the prospects for finding work so dim. well, the president also failed to mention that his 2009 stimulus package -- you remember speaker pelosi at the time said, well, our goal is to make timely, targeted and temporary investments in government spending to help stimulate the economy, help bring down the unemployment rate? the president later joked that he said we found out -- it wasn't a funny joke, but he later joc joked, and he said tht shovel-ready didn't actually mean it was shovel-ready, which is absolutely true. but he failed to mention his 2009 stimulus package added more than a trillion dollars to the national debt, which now stands at $17.3 trillion. equivalent to more than $5 4,000 of debt for every man, woman,

and child living in america today. i don't think anyone in their right mind believes we can continue down this same path of wracking up more and more debt by borrowing more and more money without having some negative consequences at some point in the future. the one that we know will occur is that the present generation that's racking up all this debt will probably not be around to have to pay it back. but the next generation and beyond will. well, if the president wants to have an honest debate about income inequality, he needs to be honest about his own record and he needs to talk about it in the holistic context. a few months ago "the new york times" reported that the trend of rising inequality -- quote -- "appears to have accelerated during the obama

administration." indeed, according to one measure of the income gap, inequality has increased about four times faster under president obama than it did under president george w. bush. here's the reality. if we want to reduce income inequality, we need to boost economic growth. that's the debate we should be having in which this side of the aisle embraces, not how can we pay more government benefits to people who can't find work or artificially fix the price of wages. we need to figure a way to benefit the entire country by growing the economy. and largely, at least where i come from, people say there's three things that the federal government can do to help grow the economy: get out of the way, get off our back, and get your hand out of our pocket.

mr. cornyn: those are three things the federal government could do which would help the economy grow and create more opportunity and to deal with this issue of income inequality in an effective sort of way. well, so we need to boost economic growth. that's the debate we should be having, about how do we create more jobs, or actually how do we allow the private sector to create more jobs. we tried having the government spend borrowed money to create more jobs and that didn't turn out so well, so now we need to figure out a way to get out of the way so the private-sector economy can create the jobs that will put americans back to work and deal with this issue of income inequality once and for all. well, as we saw last night, instead of trying to actually solve the problem, sometimes i am tempted to think that the majority leader and his allies really want a political issue rather than a solution to the problem, because we saw last

night the majority leader is ready to have a vote with 17 senators missing because of the storms around the country. we know that people couldn't get back because of the cold weather and storms and flight cancellations and the like, and i predict that if we had had the vote last night, that the cloture vote that we had today would have failed and that would have fit very nicely into the majority leader's and the president's desire to change the subject from obamacare to republicans blocking this unemployment compensation bill. well, it didn't turn out that way because we had the vote here this morning, and we embraced the opportunity to talk about our pro-growth alternatives, which will actually make life better for the american people, not worse, as the policies of this administration have over the last five years.

basically, we know that the demand is this -- to extend long-term unemployment benefits beyond the half year, which is the basic program, another three months and to put the entire $6.5 billion tab on our national credit card. but i ask you what's going to happen after three months? will the president and his allies be back asking for another three months and another $6.5 billion in deficit spending that will be added to the debt? i think so. how about in nine months? if we extend it for two or three-month extensions, we will be here for another one that will extend it to nine months and beyond ad infinitum, $25 billion on added deficits and debt spending, unless we solve the root of the problem.

republicans would prefer that we offset any real extension with spending cuts that would make it revenue neutral. we would also like to reform the unemployment insurance program so it delivers better results to the unemployed. for example, if there is one thing that most people who are unemployed need, it's the opportunity for job skills training. we ought to make sure that things like pell grants are available for people during that 26-week period of time that they are on unemployment, that they can go to a community college in their own town and learn new job skills so they don't have to be stuck in the same old position. they can learn new job skills which will open up a whole world of new opportunities for them when it comes to jobs. well, before i conclude, i just want to mention a few numbers that help put the obama economy

in perspective. according to the joint economic committee, the economy grew during the first four years of the reagan administration by 22.3%. 22.3%. during the first four years of the obama administration, it was about 9%, less than half. why is that? why is that that the economy grew during the first four years of the reagan administration by 22%, in the first four years of the obama administration about 9.2%? well, i think as i pointed out there are some good reasons why this recovery has been anemic and so slow and why so many people are still struggling to try to find work. if the obama recovery had been as strong as the reagan recovery, we would have millions more private sector jobs. isn't that what we want? we don't want people -- nor did

the recipients of the unemployment compensation want to receive a government check. what they want is the dignity and the self-confidence and the opportunity to provide for their family that comes with a good job, and that's what's missing in this whole equation and this political -- transparent political exercise to play gotcha at their expense. we know that it was president reagan's economic strategies combined with permanent broad-based tax cuts and sensible regulatory policies that helped grow the economy. by contrast, president obama's strategy has combined massive tax increases, including the payroll tax last january, a year ago january, with the regulatory bonanza, and we don't with haveo speculate about what the impact of president obama's policies are. we are living with it today.

so i would say to president obama if you really want to reduce income inequality and promote upward mobility, we want to have that conversation. let's get back to the policies, though, that have worked so well in the past, not those which have failed us and the american people during the last five years. let's put a stop to regulations that don't pass a cost-benefit test. let's do what we need to expand domestic energy production and create jobs. you know where the two lowest unemployment rates in the country are? bismarck, north dakota, and midland, texas, and that's because of the shale energy renaissance that has created jobs. if you can pass a commercial driving license test, you can get a job driving a truck with a high school degree in both of those places and earn between $75,000 and $100,000 a year.

lowest unemployment in the country, but this administration's policies have made it harder and harder for those jobs to be created, along with the keystone pipeline and the jobs that that would create. so we need to also reform our tax code to encourage more investment. we need to reward earned success so that small businesses can be started, so existing small businesses can expand and all of the president's policies, including, of course, most notably obamacare, have made that harder. we need to put a -- we need to do what we can, as i said, to expand domestic energy production and create jobs. and we need to reform unemployment insurance and get more people back into the work force by making sure that they have the job training that they need to -- to learn employable skills. and then of course the subject that will not go away,

notwithstanding the president's most earnest desire, and that is we need to dismantle obamacare before it does any more harm to our health care system and our broader economy. and we need to replace it with more affordable coverage that lets consumers keep the doctor they trust, a promise that obamacare made but a promise that has been broken as too many people already know. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield for a moment? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i was just walking through the chamber and i ended up hearing what my colleague from texas was saying. i wanted to say a couple of things, if i could. one is he is absolutely right in terms of the underlying problem here, which is a weak economy, an historically weak economy.

never coming out of a recession have we had a recovery this weak. you made that point well that typically we go into a recession with sort of a v formation, we go in and come back out with a relatively strong recovery, a relatively deep recession. that certainly happened in 1981, where at this point in ronald reagan's recovery we created over eight million new jobs. unfortunately we're not creating the new jobs that we created in these other recoveries. as a result, we do have this problem with folks who are both unemployed and long-term unemployed. and i think it's important to note that we now have historic levels of long-term unemployed. people have been out of work for more than a half year, more than 26 weeks. highest levels ever. and so something's not working. it's different this time. i think what's not working is that some of our basic structural institutions like our tax system, our dreg system, the regulations that have come with obamacare and so on are adding more and more burdens to the economy, and the historic debt and deficit that you talk about also is adding to our economic woes. it's hurting the economy today

and it's certainly unfair, i would say even immoral to put that burden on future generations. some of the young people who are here today are getting left holding the bag for the $17 trillion national debt we now have. $145,000 for every family in texas or ohio. so the gentleman makes the right points. we have got to get this economy moving, and there are some very specific policy proposals that you have outlined that we ought to turn to. the president has talked about tax reform, he has talked about regulatory relief, but he hasn't delivered. and if we don't get at those issues, we're not going to ultimately resolve the problem. but here we find ourselves within a few hours of having voted to proceed on a debate on whether we do extend unemployment insurance for people for the next three months beyond the normal unemployment that would be out there. most states provide about six months unemployment insurance, about 26 weeks. some states a little more, some states a little less. what we're talking about is how much do you add at the federal

level as emergency unemployment benefits. i did vote, along with some of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to proceed to this debate, and as the gentleman said earlier, i heard him, perhaps that wasn't what the majority leader was hoping for because maybe he wanted more of a political issue, but i did so because i took to heart what was said on the other side of the aisle about the fact that we're going to now have a debate. i think a debate breaks down to a couple of things. one is how do you deal with paying for this because as we indicated, this economy's not going to grow until we deal with these historic levels of debt and deficit. how ironic would it be if we were saying we're going to help those who are unemployed by making it harder to get the economy moving, by not doing anything with regard to the debt and deficit, in fact adding to it. so what i'm going to be filing as an amendment is a very simple amendment that says let's pay for this extension for six months, and i just heard my colleague from texas saying that he would support that. others, i hope, on both sides will support this. the specific idea that we have is let's take a proposal out of the president's budget that says

if you're on social security disability and therefore not working, you of course shouldn't be getting unemployment insurance. that's in the president's budget. i would also say trade adjustment assistance shouldn't be available to you because you're not working by definition. so it's basically tightening up some of the provisions in current law to make them work better. that provides the funding to be able to say okay, let's go ahead and extend unemployment insurance, but only for a few months while we do sit down and work on these bigger problems that the gentleman from texas has taken a lead on and talked about today. and i hope that's where we will end up, is that we will actually pay for this rather than adding to the burden and making the economy even weaker by adding to our deficit. second, i think we need to have an honest discussion, even in the next couple of days here, as to how to make the unemployment system itself work better. unemployment insurance, as has been noted, is not connecting people to jobs, and that's the reason we have these historic levels of long-term unemployed. you mentioned the pell grants,

for instance, being available to people who are on unemployment insurance. that's incredibly important, but also having our worker retraining programs at the federal level work better for those folks who are uninsured. i think we should engage in that topic now, not only on how do we pay for this but how do we make the unemployment insurance system work for the people who are unemployed? the federal government spends over $15 billion a year in the worker retraining programs, 47 programs spread over nine different departments and agencies. often the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. the g.a.o., which looks at these issues, the general accounting office, has said that there is duplication in these programs. only a handful, four or five, are finding the kind of performance measures you would want in these programs. a great fortunate for us to get those retraining programs working better into the hands of those people who need the retraining to match skills with jobs. in ohio, i'm sure the same is true with texas, we have a lot of jobs going wanting right now.

we have about 100,000 jobs available, we have about 400,000 people out of work. how do you connect those? a big part of that is providing the skills to those workers to be able to access those jobs that are available that do require a higher skill. maybe it's advanced manufacturing. maybe it's biotechnology. the federal government is not providing that help right now. those worker retraining skills that are needed are not being provided. so i do think there is an opportunity here for us to pay for this, to be sure we're not heading to the debt and deficit at a time when the economy is too weak already, and second to provide the skills workers need, pell grants and so on to actually give people some hope and give people some additional tools to be able to access this economy and these jobs that are available and get this economy moving again. and i thank the gentleman for allowing me to yield. mr. cornyn: before the distinguished senator from ohio leaves the floor -- i didn't know he was coming down but i'm delighted he did. not only is he an expert and a former director of the office of management and budget and a distinguished member of the house but now the senate, a

great new addition since 2010. he understands these issues, particularly the fiscal issues better than most of us, but he makes a very important point. i have worried based on what the majority leader did last night they preferred to have a gotcha moment, have bill fail at the outset rather than having a fulsome debate and a realistic discussion about what the alternatives are to basically permanently paying people not to work through a virtually a permit extension of unemployment. more than most people the senator from ohio when he came to this chamber said what we need is a jobs program so he advocated among those in our republican conference, he said we need a positive program for how do we -- how do we facilitate the economy, the private sector creating those jobs and, of course, he described the amendment he intends to offer on this bill not only to pay for this

three-month extension which would be a welcome measure, but also to reform the unemployment system so that people can learn skills that actually match them up with the jobs that do exist. but i would just add while the senator is on the floor, as he knows there's a lot of other really good ideas that will be offered this week by this side of the aisle but it's entirely dependent upon the majority leader allowing that sort of fulsome debate and those ideas to come to the floor and be available for a vote president. things like the 40-hour workweek act that senator collins has promoted. the medical device tax which i talked about, the repeal sponsored, chief sponsors, senator barrasso lass one that would repeal the tax from obamacare which is a direct pass-through to consumers.

senator paul, senator mcconnell have their economic freedom zones idea to help blighted areas where unemployment is high and to create a way for the private sector being incentivized to start jobs and create opportunity. we have regulatory reform bills and proposals, got the keystone xl pipeline idea, senator lee and senator rubio have recently come up with some very visionary ideas about how do we fight the war on poverty in a realistic sort of way. but my point is that whether we're going to get into that debate and give a full and fair consideration of all of these ideas about how to solve this problem really depend on the majority leader allowing amendments to be offered and voted on. and i would just ask the senator from ohio what his expectation is in that regard. and what the consequences would

be if the majority leader decides to deny any amendments and basically shut down this process. mr. portman: i appreciate the gentleman yielding and i would say having listened to so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak earlier prior to the vote 0 about what their intentions were including one of the authors of the legislation and one of the leaders in the senate, it seems to me that they are interested in a debate and they encouraged those of us, on the republican side to vote yes on the motion to proceed with that understanding there would be the opportunity then to at least discuss these issues and therefore offer amendments and to have what the senate typically has had over the years which is a opportunity for some give and take and the opportunity to have the voices heard of people representing both the states on the democrat side and the republican side of the aisle. so i'm hopeful we'll have that debate. that's my expectation. again, i plan to file an amendment to pay for the unemployment insurance

extension, which i know a lot of support will come from both sides of the aisle for that. i also hope to be able to offer other amendments that have to do with growing the economy in a more direct way. you mentioned regulatory reform for instance. we have bipartisan proposals on this side of the aisle that are intended to take the unemployment situation and deal with it in a broader context of reducing the burdens on small businesses, for instance. when you try to get a permit, for instance, in the federal government right now sometimes with an energy project, sometimes there are as many as 34 different permits have you to obtain. this is one reason we're not seeing investment in some of the energy projects we'd like to see. it's a great potential for the economy right now and we can make it -- the potential even greater and achieve it if we can do something on the regulatory reform side. these are all issues that ought to be part of the broader discussion here as as to how to increase economic growth and increase jobs and economic opportunity for people who find

themselves unemployed and are looking for the jobs skills and the jobs that are open. i look forward to that debate over the next few days and it's certainly my expectation and i would hope members on both sides would come down to the well and offer their amendments, have them voted on up or down in the great tradition of the united states senate. mr. cornyn: i thank the senator for responding to that question. i would just point out in conclusion, madam president, that this bill extends unemployment benefits for three months at a cost of $6.5 billion, right now which is unpaid for, but if the senator from ohio's amendments is adopted, there's a solution to that problem along with reform of the job training components of our current unemployment compensation system. but if we're unable to have this broader debate, we'll find ourselves right back here in three more months because none of the underlying problems of which high unemployment and low

growth are symptoms will have been addressed and so what i hope and i would love to be -- i would love to be optimistic about the majority leader's willingness to allow those amendments and allow those votes and have that fulsome debate. if he does not, we've had a three-month patch and we'll be right back here with the same problems confronting us, the underlying symptoms of an anemic economy, with slow economic growth and high unemployment. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: ask a quorum call: a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you. madam president, i rise today on behalf of over 37,000 unemployed nebraskans and the nearly 21 million americans who are searching for work. the mass majority of these men and women are jobless through no fault of their own. they are the real-life casualties of failed washington policies. they are our friends, our neighbors, and in many cases they are our family members. they are decent people and they are desperate to regain the dignity of a full day of labor. we've had five years of economic fits and starts, glimmers of hope dashed by the harsh reality of persistent economic headwinds. but the weak job reports anded pollan in a claims of --

pollyanna claims of recovery don't tell the full story. our real unemployment rate tops 13%, significantly higher than the 7% reported by the department of labor in november. that's nearly 21 million people out of work. at the same time our labor force participation rate is at 63%. that is a near 35-year low. the greatness of a nation cannot endure without work for its people. it's not just about putting food on the table. it's about the ability of families to buy a home, to save for their kids' college education, and to retire with a modest nest egg. it's about hardworking moms and dads in need of the simple assurance that their government isn't going to pass laws that intentionally make life harder

for them. i'm interested in promoting thoughtful economic policies that increase employment opportunities and make life just a little bit easier for our people. but instead of the laser focus on job creation, politicians in washington seem to pivot from issue to issue franticically chasing the topic du jour. jobless americans aren't interested in who is to blame. they're interested in who is going to fix this mess and how. and so the congress has returned to washington for a new year, a new chance to take on daunting challenges like joblessness in america. we've all been informed by the media that the so-called wise men of washington that in 2014, that's going to be a year where very little is accomplished. the pundits point to election

year politicking and some members are fretting about taking those very tough votes. there's no will for action, they say. there's no chance for any kind of compromise, they claim. well, the 21 million americans without a job are counting on us to do our job. they expect and they demand that we do better. promoting policies to create jobs is not election-year rhetoric. it is the duty of the people's government. the best way to support the unemployed is not just to extend the benefits. we need to grow the economy. we need to provide paychecks for families. lately there has been a lot talk about income inequality or the need to bridge the gap between

rich and poor. some argue that deficit spending is the way to go, while others insist on increasing the minimum wage. arthur brooks, the president of the american enterprise institute, offers a different take on how to best conquer the income divide. in a july 31, 2013, opinion piece published in the "wall street journal," brooks notes -- quote -- "again and again the president offers a higher minimum wage as a solution. yet, as the overwhelming majority of economists have argued for decades, the minimum wage actually harms the poorest and most marginalized workers, those with the most tenuous grip on their jobs. in january a study from the national bureau of economic research surveyed the most recent studies and concluded the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a trade-off

of higher wages for some against job losses for others. brooks continues, the story for strivers and entrepreneurs is no better. scott shane of case western reserve university has shown that business formation fell by 17.3% between 2007 and 2009. launching a business is never a walk in the park, especially given the explosion of red tape at all levels of government. while it is still possible for the educated and comfortable, government bureaucracy can crush entrepreneurship entirely for those at the bottom of the income scale. as a pro-poor rule of thumb, i suggest this, if you want to start a landscaping business, all you should need is a lawn mower, not an accountant and a lawyer to help you hack through

all the red tape before setting up shop." i think brooks is right. regulatory overreach is also holding back american business. regulations can be helpful. they ensure the health and the safety of americans. however, overregulation places unnecessary burdens on small business owners and it does stifle economic growth. a home builder in nebraska once told me that he was fined $7,000 for leaning a ladder up against a wall. there is solid legislation out there to address this rampant red tape. here is just a few examples. the regulatory responsibility for economy of 2013, this is a

bill that was introduced by senator pat roberts that i'm cosponsoring. it requires the executive branch to repeal duplicative and onerous rules currently hindering our nation's job creators. it also requires federal agencies to modify, to streamline or to repeal significant regulatory actions that are unnecessary or overly burdensome. the legislation ensures that regulations put forth by the administration account for their economic impact on american businesses. it ensures stakeholder input and promotes innovation. these simple, commonsense policies are a good start for it is relieving business owners of some of the unnecessary challenges they face in these already difficult economic

times. i believe, and i know many nebraskans believe, that executive agencies should be held accountable for the rules that they put in place which directly affect our economic growth and our job creation. another key way that we can spur economic growth is through broad-based tax reform. our current tax system is arcane, ridden with loopholes for special interests from the 1980's. it's time that we simplify our tax code so that we can encourage progrowth behavior. whenever i travel my state and i meet with nebraska's business owners both large and small, i hear the same message over and over. we need more certainty. we need more certainty.

they need more certainty in the tax code. they need more certainty in health care. and they need more certainty in the regulatory environment. a business cannot grow today if it cannot adequately predict its needs for tomorrow. this is especially true for small business owners who are responsible for 64% of all net new private-sector jobs. jobs will come when these entrepreneurs have confidence that the bureaucrats are going to get off their back. jobs won't come from just another d.c. government program. and so i believe that we must shift the focus of economic growth from government-driven

regulation to private-sector innovation. the great government controlled experiment has failed us again. and so it's time for a change of course. there is no shortage of new ideas out there. my colleagues and i introduced dozens of bills to directly influence job creation by repealing specific regulations, by preventing new burdensome mandates and encouraging a fair tax system. but so far we haven't had any form of meaningful debate. why? why can't we debate in this body in a meaningful way? i believe it's because we are restricted in this senate by

what we can actually vote on. it's a radical form of control, and i am tired of it. rather than allowing an open amendment process, the majority leader has locked this place down. we hear constant calls to end obstruction. but if we're being honest, we would all acknowledge that the primary obstruction here is in the broken nonexistent amendment process. as my friend and colleague, senator coburn, recently noted in the "wall street journal" -- quote -- "mr. reid had already used senate rules to cut off debate and prevent the minority from offering amendments 78 times more than all other senate majority leaders combined."

why? it appears designed to advance a partisan political agenda. show votes in an election year. in other words, let's airdrop bills on the floor and prevent any form of modification or improvement. that seems to be just routine business around here these days, and it is shameful. it's my hope that in this new year all thoughtful ideas will get a vote. it is my hope that in this new year we'll actually get a chance to amend bills. that's the only way that we can actually pass legislation to improve the lives of the american people. i look forward to putting forth my own proposals to fulfill my

duty to the people of nebraska to get our friends and our neighbors back to work rather than focusing on issues that divide us, i hope that my colleagues, republicans and democrats, will come together to support policies that promote opportunities for all. showboats might make for good election-year politics, but make no mistake, they are bad policy. and unfortunately, it is we the people who pay the steep price for politics over policy. i am excited for another year here in the united states senate where i can represent my friends and neighbors, nebraskans from back home. and i look forward to helping

put americans back to work in the year ahead. our citizens, mr. president, sent us here to do a job, and they're counting on us, so let's not let them down. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. you and i earlier today were part of an historic majority, a very bipartisan majority that voted 60-37 to extend unemployment insurance for millions of americans across this country. who are struggling to make ends meet, keep their families together, keep a roof over their head -- basic essentials, not only to continue living but to continue searching for work.

these americans are not without a work ethic. in fact, they are devastated by being out of work for so long with such destructive results for their sense of self-worth and their families. this measure is limited in its scope and significance. it is only a procedural vote on a temporary measure for three months, and only a partial solution to the grave and pressing issue of putting america back to work, restoring employment for americans who want to work and keep their families together. but it is profoundly important. and i want to thank my colleagues, senator reed of

rhode island and heller of nevada, as well as all of our colleagues who voted for it, and even many of my colleagues who may have voted against it but were torn -- and hopefully will vote for it on final passage, and i urge all of my colleagues to get this job done so that we can send it to the house of representatives and make sure that it is approved there. what is significant about this measure is, in fact, it was bipartisan. it was overwhelming. it shows congress is listening, that it is heeding the calls for action from those 1.3 million americans, including 5,700 of them in my own state of connecticut, who need this

measure so they can continue seeking work, hopefully successfully. it is a temporary fix, but it is a measure with profound significance for those men and women who courageously are facing the searing facts of life during long-term joblessness. one of them, in fact, very courageously was with the president earlier today -- katherine hackerly of connecticut, a parent of two sons in the military, who herself is struggling to keep the heat on and put food on her table. and she described her situation in introducing president obama when he spoke about this problem

earlier today. i am proud that she is at the forefront of this fight. and i am proud to be fighting with her so that americans have the benefit of unemployment insurance when they are employed for longer than the 26 weeks that is recognized under the statute. this story is one of numbers. we can't deny the statistics. the great recession may have ended for a lot of americans, but it continues for the unemployed, the jobless, particularly long-ter long-term. and those numbers have become almost mind-numbing. but they are very, very significant. according to a report recently released by the joint economic committee, three years after the recession ending in 19 91,

long-term unemployment was at 1.3%. three years after the recession ending in 2001, long-term unemployment was also at 1.3%. today long-term unemployment is double those numbers at 2.6%. here we are four years after the supposed end of the recession in 2009, double the number of long-term unemployed in previous recessions. our economy simply isn' is not growing fast enough or creating enough jobs to end that persistently high rate of long-term unemployment. about 4 million americans, more than a third of unemployed americans, have been looking for work for six months or more. in my home state of connecticut, long-term unemployment has become even more prevalent among

those who have lost their jobs. in fact, 43.6% -- or almost half -- of connecticut's overall unemployed population are long-term unemployed. by the end of this year, that number is likely to be 80,000 people. but those numbers really are less convincing and compelling than the human stories. and i was really proud and moved to sit with a number of my fellow connecticut citizens, hardworking, dedicated people of all ages -- some of them who have spent lifetimes working for a single employer -- only to find themselves rejected and released. many of them told me that snected to find work -- many of of them told me that they expected to find work right away, within a couple of weeks,

and here they are, more than six months later, many of them, still struggling to find work and working to improve their skills so that they can match the job opportunities that may exist. ross dicker, who has been out of work for almost a year, is a former health insurance project manager who has also experienced with health care reform implementation in massachusetts, our neighboring state. rosa has sent out 500 job applications in the past year. i almost misstated that figure. i thought it was 50. it's 500 job applications in te past year and been granted how many interviews? an interview three times. nirsa cruz, an experienced social worker with a mast ir's degree, who's also been employed since early 2013, and despite

hours and hours that sh she has devoted to job applications, she's been unable to find work. michael kubica, unemployed after years of experience in the insurance and publishing industries, went back to school to pursue an m.b.a. and yet, despite his educational experience, despite his degrees, despite his dedication, unable to secure temporary -- more than temporary holiday-season work. anyone who suggests that the long-term unemployed are somehow content or have decided to stay out of work or have abandoned the search ought to talk to people in their own community, people like rosa and nirsa, michael, who have struggled and

worked to find suitable jobs. they are driven, passionate, and absolutely dedicated. one woman i met, aaron london, described it this way. "my whole family," she said, "my whole family is impacted. my son ask, am i going to be able to go to college? i don't know how to answer. i don't want him to know i am scared." imagine yourself as a parent thinking -- and we've all thought it -- i don't want him -- or her -- to know i'm scared. another connecticut woman, alicia nesbitt, is proud to be working, and to have worked continue usually since the age of 16 -- continue usually since

the age of 16 until she was unemployed. now she depends on food stamps and heatings assistance. these stories are powerful and compelling. even more so than the numbers and statistics, shocking as they are. and i hope that we will heed those human stories when we come back, tomorrow and the next day, to vote on this bill. in the long term we need measures like tax reform and skill training so that people can be matched with jobs, so that we prepare for the jobs of the future, pathways back to work is a bill i've introduced that supports creation of new jobs, as well as training for the ones that exist. i've introduced it with my colleague, senator murphy, and senator gillibrand, and i think it would do a great deal to

address the fundamental underlying challenges that are keeping unemployed people from reconnecting with the world of work. but these measures are for next week or the week after. right now the urgency of this week is passing a measure that is fundamentally important to keep people moving afford, searching for work, and to keep our economy moving foreward. these people who receive unemployment insurance, use it to accept for jobs. it provides the kind of we need to enable our economy to keep moving afford. so we're helping these folks avoid the precipice of poverty

and homelessness, which makes their job search even more difficult. we're also helping our economy. and all of us who want job creation and economic progress and want it to be our nation's priority and success. i'm proud to stand here and join senators reed and heller and thank also our majority leader, senator reid, for their leadership, because our most urgent task is to move our economy forward, provide these unemployment benefits as soon as possible and then look toward more permanent measures -- skill training, pathways back to work, veterans' programs that will enable all americans to enjoy more equally the benefits of the greatest nation in the history of the world, to challenge our

growing i inequality is also our growing inequity. and this measure is a start, a temporary, limited start in the right direction toward making america fulfill its great promise for the future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from i would wievment. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today for a new beginning. the beginning would be by listening to the american people, what the american people want not just what washington and the democrats in this body think is best for all the american people. according to a new associated press poll, most americans say that health care reform is the top issue that they want the government to work on this year, the top issue that they want government to work on this year.

52% of people said that that is what they're asking us to work on. people have seen -- and i heard about this all around wyoming over the christmas holiday. people have seen the complete failure of the health care law's big rollout last year. they saw president obama, they saw washington democrats break one promise after another. as a matter of fact, one of the president's promises was designated "the lie of the year." the american people have lost faith that this administration can ever get health care reform right. it just -- it wasn't just a bad web site. the president said, well, the web site was bad. he says, the health care bill is more than a web site. well, in spite of what the obama administration has said, it wasn't all fixed last year because the web site is just the tip of the iceberg. and huge web sit failures,

absolutely. heard it everywhere i went around wyoming. actually heard it even brought up when i was in afghanistan visiting the troops on new year's day.y so it's not just the web site but there are higher premiums, canceled coverage, can't keep your doctor, fraud and identity theft, higher co-pays, higher deductibles. the web site continues to be just the tip of the iceberg. so beyond all of those things that we've been talking about coming down the line and hitting the american people, we've also seen even more problems surface already this year. here the headline from the "wall street journal" -- january 3 -- "consumers hit snags as health law kicks in." the snags? you can imagine what they are. people have been going to the doctor, going to the pharmacy looking for help and even though they signed up for insurance on

the new exchange, turns out they can't be found, they're not in the system. so web site failures? absolutely. the insurance companies aren't sure who's signed up with them. people aren't sure if they're covered. doctors aren't sure who's covered. now, doctors are trying, as a result of their training, their compassion, their care for human beings, they're trying their best to help their patients. they've been fighting a losing battle against the exchanges and all of the problems with the new washington mandated health insurance. one chicago doctor tried for two hours. what was he trying to do? trying to verify the new insurance for a patient who is scheduled for surgery. the office manager finally gave up. the doctor went ahead with the surgery without what should have been a routine approval from the insurance company. now, here's another problem some people are going to have to deal with this year. the associated press ran a story, an article headlined,

"adding a baby to health plan is not easy." adding a baby to a health plan is not easy? mr. president, it happens every day. babies are born. they need to be included in the family's health plan. now, for common life changes, line having a baby, you'd normally just call up your insurance company and they'd take care of it from there. not under this law. if you have to buy your insurance through one of the new health care exchanges, it is just not that simple. according to the article, the healthcare.gov web site can't handle new baby updates. can't handle them. along with a list of other life changes, including can't handle divorce, can't handle marriage, can't handle a death in the family, can't handle a new job, can't handle a change in income, can't handle moving to a different community. yet the obama administration and the secretary of health and human services says the web site is fixed. can't handle a baby being born?

can't handle a marriage, a divorce, moving, change in income? can't handle any of those things. and they claim it's fixed. here's another problem that's turned up. washington democrats said that the law would lead to fewer people visiting emergency rooms. i heard it right here on this floor. fewer people getting their care in emergency rooms and that would reduce expenses. well, the reality is very different. "new york times" put it friday morning, january 3, "emergency visits seen increasing" seen increasing -- "with health law. doubt cast on savings." the democrats on this floor said that the emergency visits would decrease and that it would save money. that's not what "the new york times" says. it says the oregon medicaid test at hospitals found a rise of 40%. "wall street journal" in the same issue talks about medicaid expansion drives up emergency room visits. "the washington post" said, study expanding medicaid doesn't

reduce e.r. trips, it increases them. well, democrats don't want to talk about all these problems. they don't want to talk about all of the reform bills that republicans passed in the house last year that, you know, never, ever got a vote in the senate despite our efforts to try to get votes on those bills. you know, democrats hope that people believe what they're saying, accept their claims that the web site is working fine and that all the law's problems have been fixed. mr. president, the american people see through this. they know that what has been done to them by this administration is not right. it's time for washington democrats to play it straight with the american people and to make a new beginning on health care reform. now, i'm not talking about more fake fixes like the one we saw right before christmas. you know what that service in that was the obama administration quietly announcing that people's whose insurance had been canceled

because of the law could apply for a hardship exemption to avoid the individual mandate. well, mr. president, newer numbers have come out. there are now more than 5 million health insurance cancellations in 35 states and we don't even know how many were canceled in texas, in ohio, in virginia and south carolina, missouri, wisconsin. we don't know those numbers yet so we know that a a minimum of 5 million people have received cancellation notices and the anxiety that comes with that as well as the anger. when -- when people tried to replace the plans that they lo lost, many found that their premiums would skyrocket and their deductibles were higher than ever. and i find it interesting, mr. president, that democrats i've talked to said well, you know, january 1st has come so, you know, the numbers aren't going to go up any more. well, i will tell you, mr. president, that's just not true. just in my office, got off the phone with -- with a friend in douglas, wyoming.

he's a pharmacist. he provides health insurance for his employees. he has fewer than 50 employees so it's not mandatory urn the ue law that he would do so but he does it anyway, and he's done it for years. but gary's in a situation where he's now gotten a letter of cancellation of his own insurance policy, and, mr. president, it was dated january 1st. this is not something from last year. this is something dated january 1st, 2014. it's a letter from the madison national life insurance company to gary shatto at shatto drugstore, frontier drug in douglas, wyoming. important notice -- can you imagine, mr. president, getting this letter, opening it up. "important notice," in bold print. this affects your insurance contracts. writes, "please read carefully." that would get your attention. "this notice is to inform your company that madison national life insurance company will be exiting the employer small group

major medical insurance market in wyoming effective june 30, 2014 at midnight." "exiting june 30, 2014 at midnight." so what that tells us is these numbers are going to go up because the numbers from wyoming at 300 -- at 3,000, the numbers in wyoming are such that we know more people are going to get cancellation notices. and this isn't just for gary. this is for everybody that works there. they're going to be exiting the small group major medical insurance market in wyoming effective june 30. the decision was prompted by the increased regulation since the federal government's passage of its recent federal health care reform, commonly referred to as the patient protection and affordable care act. the increased regulation will make it difficult for madison national to continue to operate and compete meaningfully in wyoming's small group major medical market. as such, your referenced insurance company will terminate

at midnight on june 30, 2014." that's what people are going to continue to deal with, letters like that continuing to go out, a new round of letters going out january 1st. i've got to tell you, mr. president, the president of the united states needs to be honest with the american people about the significant damage that his health care law is doing to families all across the country and as the employer mandate that the president has delayed for a year kicks in this year, we're going to see more and more letters like that and more and more people dumped, losing their insurance in spite of the president's claim "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage." no wonder the folks that look into these things have labeled it the lie of the year. well, the white house continues to try to do this little band-aid approach.

now they say they're going to let those americans -- some americans buy catastrophic coverage. well, you know, mr. president, that's an idea i proposed to the president at the white house health care roundtable back in february of 2010. after 25 years of practicing medicine, i know that for some people, catastrophic coverage is the right option. for many people it is. it encourages patients to be smart consumers of medical services. but at our meeting four years ago, president obama suggested that these plans were suitable only for the wealthy, that they really weren't good ideas. he said that letting people being smarter consumers wouldn't help. now he's changed his mind. don't expect him to admit that republicans were right all along. the president says, well, the republicans have no ideas. if they have some ideas, they can bring them to him. there are a number of different bills and proposals by republicans. the president seems to just want to ignore that just as much as he wants to ignore the problems and the misery that his health care law has caused for so many

people all around the country. so, mr. president, instead of trying to patch this terrible health care law together with chicken wire and duct tape, it's time for dmems washington to admit that entire law is failing the american people because it absolutely hurts so many american families. then we can move on to talking about real reforms that give people access to quality, affordable health care. that's the year's top priority of the american people and it needs to be our top priority in the united states senate. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today in support of the emergency unemployment compensation extension act. that would be s. 1845. this is legislation that will continue the critical safety net for workers who have fallen on tough times through no fault of

their own. just a few short hours ago, as you know, the united states senate sent a strong message by voting to move forward on this vital legislation to restore unemployment insurance for the more than one million americans whose benefits expired on december 28. i'd like to thank senator jack reed and senator heller for their bipartisan leadership on this issue. this is a very important step in providing economic security for the millions of americans who lost their unemployment benefits at the end of the year or who will lose them this year if congress does not act. by helping people to stay on their feet after an unexpected job loss, unemployment insurance has kept millions of americans out of poverty. rather than removing the safety net these people rely on, we should be focused on policies that help the long-term unemployed get back to work, including the help that will allow them to pay their rent and fill their gas tanks while they are searching for jobs.

yesterday, i released a joint economic committee report making the economic case for extending the federal support for unemployment insurance designed to keep long-term unemployed americans above water as they search for work. approximately 1.3 million workers, as we know, lost their unemployment benefits on december 28, and barring congressional action, benefits will expire for an additional 3.6 million over the next year. in my home state, roughly 8,500 people lost benefits at the end of last year and about 65,000 minnesotans will lose benefits by december, 2014. these are people who may have had a plant close down in their town, maybe their position was eliminated. no one is hiring. either way, these are people who have been paying into the system for their working lives, and we need to see them through for the next job. this is especially important at a time of stubbornly high

long-term unemployment. for most americans, state-funded unemployment insurance lasts 26 weeks, yet the average unemployment spell lasts more than ten weeks longer. in 2008, as our country went into the worst downturn since the great depression, congress authorized federal support for extended unemployment benefits for those who were out of work for more than 26 weeks. for people struggling to find work during these dark days, the extension was a lifeline, and for the millions of americans still searching for work as our economy recovers, it is a critical safety net. our economy, as we know, has come a long way since the downturn began. with the national unemployment rate now lower than it has been in five years. in my home state of minnesota, we're even doing better. the unemployment rate is more than two points below the national average. we're proud of that for our businesses. we're proud of that for our workers. but there is a problem that remains.

while the overall work force is growing stronger every day, we're still facing significant challenges with long-term unemployment. at 2.6%, that is people long-term unemployed more than six months, it is twice what it was when congress last allowed federal unemployment insurance to expire after the recessions of 1990-1991 and 2001. in fact, in our report we have a graph that shows that literally this unemployment rate that we're facing now for the long-term unemployed is twice what it's been in any other year when we faced a decision in congress and decided in fact to terminate those benefits. literally that long-term unemployment rate is now twice what it was in those other years, and that is why there is so much concern about stopping the benefits at this point. in minnesota, our long-term unemployment rate is 1.4%, much

better than it was in many states in the country. but too many minnesota communities are still hurting with unemployment rates reaching as high as the .5 -- 9.5% in clearwater county in minnesota. given the numbers, federal support for unemployment insurance is more important than ever for the long-term unemployed. extending this critical safety net is the fair thing to do. american families struggling against long-term unemployment are working hard to find a job, to put food on the table, to pay their bills. they are not exactly the ones that have seen the upturn from the stock market that many people have seen in the last years. they are not the ones that have seen their stocks rise. they don't have stocks. they are just trying to put food on the family -- food on the table for their families. they aren't faceless, nameless charity cases. they are our neighbors, they are family members and they are friends. in fact, nearly one out of every five americans has either received or is living with someone who has received federal

unemployment benefits since 2008. that's 69 million people. almost 24 million long-term unemployed workers have directly benefited and another 45 million americans, including nearly 17 million children, are living with someone who is receiving unemployment insurance. these benefits help carry families through long unemployment spells, pay the mortgage, rent, utilities. while the average unemployment insurance benefit of $300 per week only replaces about one-third of an individual's average weekly wage, federal unemployment insurance benefits have kept 11 million americans out of poverty. 2.5 million in 2012 alone. that's 2.5 million americans kept out of poverty because of this program. in 13 states, over 40% of those who are unemployed have been out of work for more than 26 weeks and have exhausted their state-funded benefits. nationally, nearly 38% of

unemployed workers are long-term unemployed. these are the workers, the 4.9 million americans who will lose their unemployment insurance if we fail to pass this bill. these benefits help them to keep looking for work, support their children and families and contribute to the economy. the longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult it is for that person to find a job. skills atrophy and professional networks dry up, but you can't go on a job interview if you can't even fill up your car with gas, so we also need to make sure that the long-term unemployed aren't left high and dry after state-funded unemployment benefits run out. addressing long-term unemployment is a problem which calls for an all or the above solution. we need to do more to support american workers. this is the right thing to do, mr. president. we also know that it's better for the economy. the c.b.o. has found that each dollar of unemployment insurance increases the g.d.p. by as much as $1.90, and that extending the

federal unemployment insurance benefits through 2014 would boost g.d.p. by .2 percentage points and increase employment by 200,000 jobs. failing to extend federal unemployment benefits will cost the economy 240,000 jobs, according to the council of economic advisors. those are the numbers we're dealing with. we also know if you look at the suggestions of the debt commission, something that i think was a very important body of work and had some very good ideas in it, this idea of trying to get to about $4 trillion in deficit reduction, we're somewhere above $2.6 trillion of the way there, with more to do, but the point here is there are ways to get there. one of my favorite ways is pass the immigration bill. c.b.o. has found that that will actually save $700 billion in ten years on the debt. $700 billion in ten years on the debt by making people pay taxes, by bringing them out of the shadows so they pay fines.

that's what we're dealing with. so if we want to look at the ways to reduce our debt, i don't think we should be doing it on the backs of the most vulnerable and those kids, those people who are long-term unemployed, who still haven't been able to find a job in what in many states is a very still difficult economy, especially for those long-term unemployed. this is the right thing to do. we shouldn't leave these americans in the lurch. we need to restore this critical safety net and focus on getting americans back to work, and i urge my colleagues to support the bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ms. klobuchar: i notice the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: