quorum call:

ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the

floor today to talk about an amendment that i will seek to offer on the pending bill, amendment number 2603. we all sympathize with those who are struggling to find work in a difficult economy, and i want to see people get back to work. certainly a short-term extension for those who are relying on unemployment insurance, if it's paid for, will allow a transition for those who are out of work to do what we need to do most in this chamber, and to give them an opportunity to get a good-paying job. the focus in this chamber most of all needs to be on enacting pro-growth policies that will encourage both small and large businesses to thrive and grow in our economy and to create jobs.

i have voted today to begin debate on the legislation to provide a temporary extension of unemployment insurance. and i voted to begin this debate because i believe that both sides of the aisle can find a way to grant this temporary extension to those who are struggling to find work in this difficult economy while making sure that we don't add to the $17 trillion of debt that also threatens our country and our economy. and i continue to believe that any temporary extension in long-term unemployment benefits should be paid for in a responsible manner. so i have introduced an amendment, ayotte amendment 2603. i think it's an amendment that makes a ton of sense and let me tell you what this amendment does. this amendment pays for the

three-month extension of unemployment insurance, it fixes the unfair cut to military cost of living that was just enacted in the budget that i voted against because i felt that this was unfair to those who have served in our military and were singled out for cuts to their retirement benefits, unlike anyone else, including, by the way, those who were retired because they had a medical retirement. in other words, those that many of us, i know that the president has visited walter reed as have i, those who have lost arms, legs, they receive a medical retirement, and their cost of living was cut under this budget as well. so my ameny would pay for this temporary

unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work, to give them a transition, to get them back to work, but it would also pay for it to fix and reverse this unfair cut in military retirement benefits to their cost-of-living increase, those who, by the way, have served, many have served multiple tours for our country and have sacrificed a tremendous amount because they moved around, because they have served both, many of them in iraq and afghanistan on behalf of our country. and it would also, in addition to that, give $7 billion to reducing our deficit. and the way i pay for this is to close, to fix an egregious problem in our tax code. it's a problem that was

identified by the treasury i.g.. it is, frankly, egregious. this is a problem in our tax code that has allowed illegal immigrants, has allowed people who are claiming a tax credit, a refundable tax credit for children who shouldn't be entitled to it. many of these children don't even live in the united states of america or may not even exist. why? because when this refundable tax credit, someone claims it, they don't have to put a social security number for the child. this is based on a treasury i.g. report that identified this problem. and this amendment, this simple fix that would require a social security number with anyone who is claiming the additional child

tax credit on their tax return is estimated to save $20 billion over the next ten years. so paying for fixing the retirement cuts of the cost-of-living increase that went to those who have sacrificed so much for our country, paying for a temporary unemployment insurance extension for those who are trying to find work, reducing our deficit by $7 billion over ten years, all three of those things done by fixing an egregious problem in our tax code. the audit of the treasury i.g. in 2011 reported that individuals who are not authorized to work in the united states of america receive $4.2 billion by claiming this additional child tax credit. the audit found that the payment

of federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to reside in the united states without authorization, which contradicts federal law and policy to remove such incentives. the audit was based upon an analysis of tax returns filed by persons with individual taxpayer identification numbers which are issued to individuals who are required to have a taxpayer i.d. number for tax purposes but are not eligible for a social security number because they are not authorized to work in the united states of america. again, this saves $20 billion over the next ten years. and let me just tell you how egregious this is. here's some of the reports about this problem in our tax code. it's fraud. this is fraud that we're going to fix. this is good government. we should fix this now regardless. this $20 billion is money that should not be going out the door

over ten years. here's some examples from indiana. in fact, i just saw walk in the chamber one of my colleagues from indiana, senator coats. an indiana local television station found that an undocumented worker who was interviewed at his home in southern indiana by a reporter admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who don't even live there. those four workers claimed 20 children that live in one residence, and as a result the i.r.s. sent the illegal immigrants' tax refunds totaling over $29,000. the local station has found that many undocumented workers are claiming tax credits for children who live in mexico. many children that don't even live in this country are claiming tax credits. they're being used by those

committing fraud on the i.r.s. to claim for tax credits even though they don't even live in the united states of america. an indiana tax prepareer who acted as a whistle-blower to an indiana news station said "we've seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces or nephews, on these tax forms. the more you put on there the more you get back. the whistle-blower had thousands of examples. another example from the whistle-blower we got over a $10,000 refund for nine nieces and nephews he said. pointing would the words niece and nephew listed on the tax form nine times. we're getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return. there's seven nieces and nephews, he said, pointing to another set of documents. i can bring out stacks and stacks. it's just so easy, it's ridiculous. in north carolina investigators uncovered more than 1,000 tax

returns linked to eight addresses in north carolina last may with refunds worth more than $5 million. investigators tied at least 17 tax returns totaling more than $62,000 in refunds to a charlotte, north carolina apartment one woman leased. at another apartment nearby investigators discovered 153 returns valued at over $700,000 in returns, claiming fraudulently this tax credit because they did not have to list a social security number. another address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth $1.1 million in refunds. at another charlotte apartment complex, investigators traced 398 returns to two apartments totaling more than $1.9 million in additional child tax credits

with no guarantee that the children even existed or lived in the united states of america. another north carolina woman owned a tax preparation business. a search of that business in her home turned up more returns, dozens of uncashed u.s. treasury checks, a fedex box containing dozens of foreign birth certificates and a notary public stamp and signature stamp listing her as a notary. that fraud case by the i.r.s. totaled over $5 million in fraud. in tennessee, a search warrant prepared by the i.r.s. claims that a phur -- murfreesboro worker encouraged workers to lie on their children who live in mexico as their depends. the i.r.s. said the tax preparer

filed 600 tax returns over the last three years and although his clients only paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to claim more than $17 million in return, and because of this tax credit and the fact that they did not have to put social security numbers for the children that they were claiming a refund for. the refunds left the united states on the hook for $14 million. so here's the question in this chamber. the question is should we affix egregious fraud in our tax code where we have people that aren't entitled to work in the country are claiming tax refunds for children, some of which have not been determined to exist, some of which don't even live in our

country? should we fix that in our tax code? isn't that good government? and if we fix it, we can use the pay for, the $20 billion that the joint tax committee has estimated to save over the next ten years to do the following. to help for three months give a temporary extension to those americans who are struggling for work right now. to fix the unfair cut to our military retirees, including those who have gotten a medical retirement, those who have, are wounded warriors who have been injured, many of them serving in afghanistan and iraq. and return $7 billion to the treasury. so here's the choice. only in washington would this be the choice. we can fix the egregious problem with the tax code where there's all kinds of fraud and save

billions of dollars. we can fix it for those who have sacrificed the most, the unfair cuts to their cost-of-living increase, those who have served our country admirably and our wounded warriors and return money to the deficit. or what? we can be denied a vote. i hope that i will get a vote on this. it's pretty outrageous if i'm not granted a vote on this tax fraud that needs to be fixed on behalf of the taxpayers in this country. and that if i can't get a vote to take that $20 billion and to help struggling workers and to fix the unfair cuts to those who have sacrificed the most and taken the bullets for this country and also help fix our deficit, only in washington would that be a tough choice for anyone. how do you vote against doing

that? i really hope, mr. president, that the majority leader will allow a vote on this commonsense amendment that will allow us to help struggling workers without adding to the $17 trillion in debt, will allow us to say to our men and women who have sacrificed the most that we aren't going to continue to target you with these unfair cuts to your cost of living when no one else has sacrificed under this budget agreement like that, and particularly our wounded warriors. and to say to the american public we're going to fix fraud in our tax code and also take some money and apply it to the deficit. mr. president, it makes so much sense that only in washington would i even be asking the question on the senate floor, will i get a vote on this commonsense amendment that allows us to do important things for the nation and fix this

egregious fraud in our tax code, putting taxpayer dollars to uses that they should be put to. i thank you, mr. president, and with the hope that i'll get a vote on this commonsense amendment and that my colleagues will support this. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i'd like to discuss today's vote as others have come down here. first of all, it's important to understand that this was a vote to start debate, or whether to start debate. and i was one of those who joined several of my colleagues saying, yes, this ought to be debated. it was not a vote to pass or not pass the legislation. that will come. but the frustration that so many of us have had over this past year in particular of not being

able to participate in the process of legislating boiled over at the end of the year. ended with a change in the rules in the way the senate has operated for more than 200 years. and stuffed the desires of the minority to be able to participate in certain areas regarding nominations. now there's some talk about doing the same for legislation. that frustration has led to many of us to try to rethink how can we get back to what's called regular order, the way the senate has always operated in the past, the way it operated when i came here in my first tranche in the senate. i started in the house of representatives back in 1980. i was part of a minority for

four straight terms. there, majority rules. and if you're in the minority, you don't have a whole lot of authority. maybe at that time we held the white house under ronald reagan, and he had the ability to go above a congress which did not support him but went to the american people, and through their efforts many changed their minds in the majority party and supported the policies of president reagan. when i came to the senate in 1989, i was asked, what's the difference between the house and the senate? you're in the minority in the senate. you were in the minority in the house. i said, the ditches i difference going from legislative heaven, from a place lot lower than that in the house, because any senator -- majority or minority -- had the opportunity to offer an amendment, to offer an

alternative, to offer a substitute, to participate in the effort to pass better legislation. any senator had that, and anybody in the minority had that, and the majority leader -- then senator george mitchell, the democrat leader -- honored that, and it was honored thiewt- throughout my time in the united states senate. i was then gone for several years and came back. i thought i came back to that same process, toll fin only to , no, the whole process has been changed. you don't have the rights that you once had. you don't have the opportunities you had. i came here to represent the people of indiana and their wishes and yet now i'm in a position where i don't even have an opportunity to offer an amendment, an alternative or a substitute say, look, this mabe ma-- this may be a legitimate issue. i can't support what is being

handed to us, take it or leave it. it deserves debate, it deserves alternatives, it deserves to give us an opportunity to try to convince our colleagues that a majority of us can work together to pass legislation. and that's the kind of legislation that works as opposed to some of the legislation that we're dealing with now that has been enacted simply by one-party rule. i think looking back on the affordable care act -- the so-called obamacare act -- those who supported it wish now that it did have bipartisan support, that it was worked out, that some of the alternatives that were presented by republicans were debated and perhaps supported. maybe we'd be in a different position now. so it's not right to characterize a vote on a procedural motion to say, let's go afford and open this up for debate. the opportunity to have amendments. and that's why i voted for it.

unemployment insurance is a legitimate issue -- policy issue to debate. i can't support the proposal that was brought before us, but i can support going afford to discuss that proposal, to look at the alternatives, to offer my own amendments, and to see if our thoughts, our ideas prevail. and i'm hoping that's what will happen. now, that's up to the majority leader, senator reid. 2013 did not offer us very many -- in fact, very few opportunities to do that. we needed up on a really sour note in 2013. it was good we had that break, and we're back here -- this is the second day of the new session of congress. i hope that members both sides of the aisle reflected over this period of time on how we can return the senate to its

original intent, how we can get back to so-called regular order, so that we could have legitimate debate on the floor. we could go back and forth with our colleagues. i think if we amend this, it would be a better bill. you don't think that bill really is the one that ought to address this problem, but here's a substitute. let's debate it and then let's have a vote. and some of us will win, some of us will lose. but every one of us will have the opportunity to have their voice heard, their amendment voted on, their alternative evaluated, and perhaps work in a bipartisan way to come up with something constructive. and so that was the purpose for leaving most of my party and voting for the motion to proceed, to go forward. and here we are. now we have a chance to debate it. senator ayotte was on the floor speaking before me, senator po

portman, suggestin suggesting wn debate this. we haven't come to grips with the deficit. the future consequences for our economy, children, grandchildren, future generations is something we're all going to be ashamed of if we don't try to impose some discipline. how do we do that? we start -- well, we tried many efforts going all the way back to simpson-bowles and all the major effort efforts and were uo get the president's support for any of those, even though he commissioned the simpson-bowles group, which is bipartisan. we have not been able to tbet that larg -- been able to get tt large effort in place that will put us on the path to fiscal health. when we have new programs, an extension of programs like this is, come before us, we can say, let's, one, reform it so that we

really achieve what we want to acheervetion andachieve, and, ns make sure we don't add more taxpayer dollars to our deficit and debt. let's offset it with something. for those who say, we can't caught penny more, for goodness sakes ... the organizations -- the federal organizations, office of management and budget, congressional research service, on and on -- general accounting office and others have proposed numerous ways of -- billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars of savings for programs that are deemed wasteful, fraudulent. senator ayotte just mentioned specific examples, some in my state, of abuse of the system, and there has been abuse -- there are concerns about abuse of the unemployment insurance, people seeing this not as a help to getting a job and getting

comeback into the workforce -- getting back into the workforce but see this yet as another entitlement benefit that they can receive without putting the effort in to get meaningful employment. now, we have a responsibility to bring afford measures that i think give people a connection between the unemployment and their ability to get employed. and that has been suggested by senator portman and others here, senator cornyn also talked about that. and so whether it is an offset in order to pay for this so that we don't go further in debt and use taxpayer money foreclosure ssess spending when -- for excess spending when we know over here there's waste and fraud and abuse in programs that have been deemed dysfunctional, unnecessary, the federal government should have never been involved in this process in the first place. why not take those programs that have been recommended to us by

nonpartisan agencies of the federal government? senator coburn has spent his career down here pointing out the excessive, outrageous, egregious waste that's gone on and misuse of taxpayer dollars. that's not how to run a government. my state has had to face up to this, and think faced up to it, and we made ther toug the tough. there is an interest group on everything we spend money on, but we separated the necessary, the efficient, the effective from the unnecessary, uneffect - uneffective. and we now have been rated as the most taxpayer-consciou cons- conscious-friendly state in the nation per capit. per capita income tax in indiana

is the lowest in the nation. and we have an effective, efficient government that has a aaa credit rating that has been deemed business friendly, taxpayer friendly, residentially friendly, family friendly. it is a good place to live because we're not wasting taxpayer dollars and people are tired of spending money on stuff that doesn't work. wcialtiowell, i've gotten way oy intended statement here. but i'm expressing my frustration over the ability to participate in a process here that can bring but better use of the taxpayer dollar and more effective government. and i think i speak for a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that the way to do this is simply not to freeze out debate, not to freeze out amendments, not to freeze out the opportunity to offer alternativesment by moving alternatives. by moving through this motion to

proceed, i'm hoping this is a step afford to returning to a process in which we're able to do what i just suggested. this decision is going to be up to the majority leader. if he wants honest debate, if you wants the american people to know -- and awfu and all of us s chamber to examine alternatives, if he wants to be conscious -- conscientious about spending taxpayer dollars, allow us the opportunity to offer some offsets. now, senator ayotte had a specific -- and i think very compelling -- offset. take a fraction of the money that that would save and you can cover the cost of this extension, if that's where you think we should go with this. i think major reforms need to be made to this program, and we ought to be emphasizing on how getting people back to work rather than keep extending unemployment. but the two go somewhat hand in

hand. there are people in indiana and other places that have made every possible effort to get a job and have come up short. we need to be sensitive to the plight of those people. but we don't need to be sensitive to those who have taken abuse -- taken advantage of this program and are abusing this program simply saying, i don't have to work because the government will send me a check. when i add up all my benefits, hey, i'm doing as well as i could if i worked. that is not the kind of policy we ought to be advocating or enabling here in the united states senate. as i said, there are numerous alternatives of ways in which we can find a way to pay for this, if we can also put the reforms in place that mean we ought to go afford with this particular program. let me suggest three.

let me suggest three that -- and my colleagues have suggested others also, which i support. any one of those i these could . this program is scored at a cost of about $6.-- something billion. a program -- a policy which would -- this would require taxpayers, in order to claim refundable portions of the child tax credit, it would require them to provide a social security number. i mean, this is so elementary, it's unbelievable to discover that a government agency has said, this is not in place. in other words, if you want to qualify for a refundable child tax credit, you have to verify who you are by giving them your

social security number so they can check to see if this is legitimate or not legitimate. senator ayotte just laid out situations where people were claiming 10, 15, 20 exemptions for children that didn't even live in the united states. they weren't even citizens. i was embarrassed that one of these examples came from my state, but i think it's true of all states. the savings here, to just put a good bit of common sense into a program, saves -- is scored not by dan coats, not by senator republican -- by a government agency it is scored at $27 billion. here was a program that wants to spend $6.6 billion. republicans say, you know, first of all we have problems with the program. i may or may not support extending this. but if it does get extended,

surely, we don't want to dump more money -- more future debt on our children and grandchildren. so let's take this $27 billion or fraction of that $27 billion and pay for this. let me offer another option. a delay for one year of the individual employer mandate under obamacare. it is legislation that i introduced higher in the senate. -- introduced higher in the here senate. shouldn't the president offer the same delay to families and individuals. it is a simple issue of fairness. what's the score? $30 million a third -- prohibit those who are eligible for unemployment insurance from claiming social security disability benefits. under the law, you must be able to work to qualify for unemployment benefits. yet some people claiming unemployment benefits are also claiming social security disability benefits.

you can't make some of this stuff up. savings: roughly $6 billion, maybe more. and that, if you want to support this bill, would be a pay-for. so whether it is a pay-for or whether it is necessary policy changes to make the program more effective, including -- and i would suggest, including a number of efforts that have been proposed by my colleagues in terms of better connecting the unemployed with those who are seeking -- with the employers. i can't tell you how many employers i've talked to in indiana that say i have jobs. and i've talked to others who -- but the bottom line is there are people out there who look at what i have to offer, it is not the greatest, but it is a job, it covers benefits, it is a step afford for them, but they say, well, it doesn't match what i'm getting from the government, so i think i'll take a pass.

this is not america and not the policies that made america -- not the principles that made america the kind of country it is. weerkd nowe should not be enabln that regard through legislation that we pass here. so i hope that we can have a full and open debate on this bill and move to policies that will grow and create jobs, will adopt a practice of paying for new spending with offsets from known waste, fraud, and abuse that has been documented by government agencies. can't we at least do that? can't we at least agree in the future interest of our country, both fiscally and domestically on a number of issues for all of the number of reasons that i have articulated or tried to articulate?

doesn't this make sense? so breaking with i guess some of the past ways i've given my vo vote, i've said i'm going to vote for the motion to proceed and i'm going to challenge the majority leader to look at this and say, let's run this place differently in 2014 than it was run in 2013. let's not be afraid of debate. let's not be afraid of amendments. let's let the yeas be yeas and the nays be nays. let's give everybody an opportunity to state their case or offer an alternative to be recognized as a member of the united states senate and the way this senate was designed to be and traditionally for over 200 years has been. let's move back to that. so what happens next is now up

to the majority leader. the ball's in his court. had we not passed the motion to proceed with the support of republican help then we wouldn't have given the majority leader the need to make a decision. so what kind of senate do we want in 2014? a senate that's doing what the american people want us to do, representing the people of our state with their interest, representing our beliefs about how government should be run, how it should be funded, having open and honest debate, not afraid to take votes, trying to construct good policy for the future of this country? we can't do that if this body is run by one person saying "my way or the highway." you're in the minority, tough break. this is your chance, mr. leader.

let's give us the opportunity. let's return this back to the senate that it once was and always has been until lately. mr. leader, it's up to you. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mrs. warren: mr. president, i'm here today with some good news. this week the government will fix something that was broken. i know that some people want to deny that that's possible but hear me out on this. five years ago during the 2008 financial crisis, we witnessed firsthand that the market for home mortgages was badly broken. the fundamental problem was that many lenders issued mortgages without any concern about whether the borrower would be able to repay those mortgages in the long run. now, why would they do that? they did it because they could immediately sell the mortgage to another financial institution. if the borrower couldn't pay,

that would turn out to be someone else's problem. and we all know what happened next. millions of these dangerous mortgages were bundled together, sliced, diced, slapped with triple-a ratings and sold to retirement funds and local governments and investors all over this country. when borrowers couldn't make their monthly payments, the bundles of mortgages began collapsing and the effects were felt in every corner of the economy. this friday, that basic business model will change thanks to the consumer financial protection bureau's new mortgage rules. when these rules go into effect, lenders will be able to issue a mortgage only after they determine that the borrower has the ability to repay it. lenders will no longer be able to make loans they know will blow up and then feed those dangerous loans into the financial system. because of the consumer agency's new rules, families will be

safer, pension funds and other investors will be safer, our whole economy will be safer. not completely safe but with a new cop on the beat, it will be safer. the new rules will fix other problems as well. before the crisis, some mortgage brokers who were supposed to be helping consumers find the best mortgage were actually taking money from lenders to steer those consumers into high-cost loans. the cfpb's new rules will prohibit this sort of under-the-table dealing and protect consumers from being tricked by people they think they can trust. the rules will also address many of the mortgage servicing problems that emerged during the crisis. after mortgages were sold off, bundled and cut into pieces for various investors, too many borrowers were unable to track down information about their accounts. some of the companies responsible for servicing their loans took days or even weeks to

give them credit for their payments. and when borrowers fell behind, these servicers often began foreclosure proceedings without giving people full information about the options they had to modify their loans. the consumer agency's new rules will help clean up the mortgage servicing industry so more families can keep up with their payments and stay in their homes. cfpb director rich cordray and his hardworking and incredibly talented staff have worked for a long time to put these new rules together, and the rules will reshape the mortgage market for the better. they will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better chance to keep those homes, and they will force mortgage lenders and servicers to compete by offering better rates and better customer service, not by tricking and trapping people. these rules will help markets work better and they will reduce

the risk that the economy will crash again. our work is not done. the march toward financial reform has been too slow and the chances of another crisis, while dialed back in some areas, remain unacceptably my others. even today the too-big-to-fail banks that nearly crashed the global economy in 2008 are nearly 40% bigger than they were back then. yes, we have more work to do on dangerous banking practices but this week marks an important milestone. six years ago i noted that it was impossible to buy a toaster with a 1-5 chance of bursting into flames and burning your house down, but it was possible to take out a mortgage that had the same 1-5 chance of putting a family out on the street. the point was that consumers had

the consumer product safety commission to keep people safe from dangerous toasters and they needed the same kind of agency to keep people safe from dangerous and deceptive financial products. in the years since, we've built that agency and it has already returned nearly a billion dollars to consumers who were cheated, and it's helped tens of thousands of consumers resolve complaints against financial institutions. and now this friday that agency will put in place some commonsense rules that will make a real difference for millions of families who own or who hope to own their own home. the consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show once again that government can fix proble problems. sure, we have to work hard, we have to fight against those who benefit from a broken system, and we have to stick with it even when the odds are against

us. but when we do those things, real change is possible in this country. we're seeing that up-close this week. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama.

mr. shelby: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: madam president, thank you. last night here in the senate, we confirmed janet yellen to be the next chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. i firmly opposed her confirmation. in 2010, i also voted against dr. yellen's nomination to serve as vice chairman of the federal reserve. i will explain. at that time i stated my deep concerns about dr. yellen's keynesian dais toward inflation as a member of the federal open market committee and her poor record of bank regulation as president of the san francisco federal reserve. those concerns have not faded. rather, they are magnified in light of the importance of the position to which dr. yellen has

now been confirmed. that is, the chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve. madam president, it's not just that the chairman of the fed is perhaps the most powerful individual in the global economy. it's that the institution itself is in utterly uncharted waters. i believe that we need a federal reserve chairman with the record and resolve to navigate our economy through this incredibly delicate situation. in my judgment, i thought dr. yellen was not that person. madam president, the federal reserve's balance sheet currently stands at $4 trillion, and i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a copy of the balance sheet as of january 1 of this year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: thank you, madam chair. a recent bloomberg analysis

contains figures that help us put this staggering number, $4 trillion, into perspective. i also ask unanimous consent to place that article in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: thank you, madam president. the article contains the following three comparisons that i found more than interesting. $4 trillion is equivalent to 24%, madam president, of the u.s. g.d.p. that's greater than the g.d.p. of the world's fourth largest country, germany. think about it. $4 trillion is twice the amount of all student and auto debt in this country. yes, $4 trillion far surpasses even the amount of money that the federal government spends in an entire year. madam president, this brings me to my next point.

many hold the misconception in this country that china is the world's largest owner of u.s. debt. that's not true. in fact, madam president, the federal reserve balance sheet shows that the federal reserve itself is by far the largest holder of u.s. treasury bonds, with $2.2 trillion in treasury debt, the fed holds nearly $900 billion more than china does, if you can think in those terms. madam president, the fed holds more in treasury bonds than do china and most of the euro zone combined. madam president, the rate of acceleration with which the federal reserve is purchasing treasuries should be alarming to all americans. on the day of president obama's first inauguration, the federal reserve held $475 billion in

treasuries. today it holds $2.2 trillion in treasuries. that represents a 363% increase in the past five years, and it's no coincidence that president obama has greatly accelerated our national debt over that same period of time. there is a connection here. when he took office, the national debt stood at a large $10.6 trillion. that's a lot of money. today it stands at $17.3 trillion, five years later. the federal reserve is aiding, i believe, and abetting the failed policies and the reckless spending of the obama administration. but the fed's binge on treasuries alone doesn't tell the full story of the exploding

balance sheet. the federal reserve's portfolio is also loaded with nearly $1.5 trillion of mortgage-backed securities. i have long been concerned that this aggressive and extraordinary purchasing program is artificially propping up home prices, and this is especially pertinent since an overheated housing market greatly contributed to the financial crisis that caused this situation in the first place. taken all together, madam president, the federal reserve has added more than $3 trillion to its balance sheet since early 2008, just before the investment bank bear stearns failed and the federal reserve stepped in. now, i realize that sometimes it's easy to become lost in all of these huge figures that i have been sharing. i have brought a simple chart that illustrates the magnitude of the federal reserve's

actions. it shows here the size of the federal reserve's balance sheet by decade from its creation in 1913, 100 years ago, to the present day. as you can see, it took 95 years for the federal reserve's balance sheet to reach $1 trillion. but look at the incredible spike in just the few years since, in the red here. here we are today just five years later at $4 trillion and growing. madam president, let's call this what it is, a back door stimulus program through monetary policy. very complicated, yes, but very important. it dwarfs even the fiscal stimulus package that president obama rammed through congress during his first days in office about five years ago. president obama's fiscal

stimulus package totaled $787 billion, a lot of money. and i have just described the fed's monetary stimulus package is nearly four times larger and growing. madam president, this highly unconventional monetary policy poses huge risks to our economy, namely inflation in the future, and the devaluation of our currency. i realize that current inflation expectations are relatively low, and hopefully again we're in completely uncharted territory. should inflation expectations become unglued, prices could increase uncontrollably. there is simply no playbook, that i'm aware of, on how to

deal with such a situation successfully. and yes, madam president, i also understand that the fed has recently announced that it will modestly scale back its so-called quantitative easing program. the fed will still purchase tens of billions of dollars of securities each month, but make no mistake, madam president, the fed's balance sheet will continue to expand rapidly. how long will this continue? we don't know. how large will the fed's balance sheet ultimately grow? we don't know. will the fed be able to contain inflation if it does begin to rise? again, we don't know. and when will the fed, federal reserve, actually begin to unwind the balance sheet which will be shrinking? again, we don't know. how exactly does the federal reserve plan to unwind the

balance sheet? again, madam president, we don't know and i don't believe they know. i raise these points because i met with dr. yellen in my office and attended her confirmation hearing in the banking committee. i received no meaningful answers to any of those questions. only the usual platitudes that so often mark such meetings. if i can, i will now turn briefly to the subject of bank regulations, which is very important in this country. a primary and critical function of the federal reserve. i have been a member of the banking committee since i first came to the senate in 1987. i have served on the committee through many difficult times in the financial markets, including the savings and loan crisis and the 2008 financial crisis. in all of my experience, madam president, i have never

seen a financial institution fail that was well managed, well capitalized and well regulated. the fact is, madam president, so many financial institutions failed in 2008 and 2009 in no small because the federal reserve failed spectacularly in its role as a regulator. i think that's a given. as president of the san francisco fed from 2004-2010, dr. yellen prescribed -- presided over a reasonable housing bubble and failed to restrain the excesses in the market. yet, despite this record of failure, she now runs the most powerful bank regulatory institution in the world, the federal reserve. failure, i guess, begets promotion in president obama's view. we've seen it time and again. this is all the more important,

considering that the fed gained even greater power under the dodd-frank financial regulation law, despite the fact that the federal reserve's own failures contributed to the need for financial reform in the first place. madam president, in light of dr. yellen's weak touch as a bank regulator and her strong inclination to print more and more money, i firmly opposed her nomination. only time will tell, but i believe that a vote in the affirmative is one that many of my colleagues will come to regret. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: if i may presume that we are in a quorum call and request that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. wouldmr. whitehouse: thank you y much. madam president, i'm back again today now for the 54th time to urge my colleagues to wake up to what carbon pollution is doing to earth's climate and oceans. facts that we see all around us but can't seem to penetrate the politics of congress. we in this body are willfully ignoring changes that we've never seen before, changes that threaten our planet and its rich array of plant and animal life, our homes, farps farms, and facs and our very health and well-being. carbon-driven climate change can be seen in warming surface temperatures and in shifting seasons, but perhaps nowhere is

carbon pollution doing more harm than in our oceans. the year 2013 brought ample new evidence of these changes in our oceans. here is what we know: people often talk about climate change as if it were a theory. here's what we know: we know that the oceans are warming. that's not a theory. that's a measurement. it's done with thermometers. it's not complicated. sea level, we know, is rising. that's another measurement, very simple. you can do it with a yardstick. oceans are becoming more acidic. every american with an aquarium measures acidity with litmus paper. again, simple measurement-proven facts. if we put those proven facts

into context, let's look at geologic context. according to an article published last year in the journal "science," our current rate of carbon dioxide emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, is enough to cause the most severe changes to the chem strife our oceans in -- chemistry of our oceans in 300 million years. madam president, 300 million years ago is before the dinosaurs, before the dinosaurs. we know the oceans are warming. the oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the excess heat in the atmosphere between 1971 and 2010, according to a 2013 report by the international panel on climate change. here's the -- here's where the heat goes. 93.4% into the ocean. the rest that we're seeing, 2.3%

goes into the atmosphere. so our owe san oceans are real g the brunt -- really taking the heat of the added heat. that is why we're seeing these peculiar weather changes. we also know that sea level is rising. we know this. it's driven not only by melting graismeltglaciers -- by meltinge sheers bus glaciers but also by ocean water expanding. the principle of thermal expansion is known in every science class in this country. manyty newport tide gauge in rhode island, sea level is up almost 10 inches since the 1930's. so that means that storms driving the sea against rhode island's coast have ten more inches of sea to throw against our homes and our infrastructure. recently, satellite measurements from the university of colorado

tiosea level research group so 3 millimeters of sea level rise from 1993 to 2013. go back to 2010 and that wraits estimated at 1.7 millimeters per year. so the rate of increase has nearly doubled and that means sea level rise is very likely speeding up. and that's all stuff we mairchl that'-- wemeasure. that's not they'r they're rism . sea level will likely rise one half to one full meter by the year 12100 if we do nothing to dial back carbon pollution. the other estimates are for far more extreme sea level rise.

we know that oceans are becoming more acidic. oceans not only absorb 90% of the heat, they're absorbing about 30% of the carbon itself. it goes to the sphras of the ocean and is -- is goes to the surface of the ocean and is absorbed there. as all that carbon dissolves into the oceans, what happens? ocean water becomes more acidic. it is a chemistry experiment u if you do the measurement, we've gotten about 26% more acidic, the seas have, since the industrial revolution. that was reported again last year by the international program on the state of oceans.

the rate of change in ocean acidity -- you can see it speeding up. the rate of change in ocean acidity is already faster than at any time measured in the past 50 million years, according to research published in the journal "nature geoscience." and yet we sleepwalk here in congress, narcotized by polluter money. ocean acidification and warming are undermining our underwater environment. when pope francis called the ocean wonder world. these changes, among other things, have made the world's s coral reefs u areas like the great barrier reef, one of the great global wonders of the world off the coast of

australia, they've already experienced large-scale bleaching. as a boy, i used to scuba dive in the andeman sea. these are pictures taken in 2002 by the great barrier reef marine park authority and they show clearly a once lush and vibrant reef, now gone baron. worsening this bleaching would be particularly hard on countries whose people depend for their protein, for their success sentence nance and economies on the bounty of the leaves. the reefs are the oceans' nurseries and they support food and economic stability as well as pretty tropical fish. new research also suggests that even the most remote depths of the ocean will suffer the consequences of climate change. a study published in the journal

"global change biology" looked at various climate models to predict changes in food supply. the models predict that the changes to our ocean could lead to a worldwide drop in sea-floor dwelling life by the year 2100. the north atlantic off our shores in massachusetts and in rhode island may lose more than a third of all dee deepsea marie life. these drastic changes from our carbon pollution are daunting ones, particularly for our ocean state of rhode island. our way of life in rhode island, like yours in mass marks has always been closely tied toed sea, yet here in congress we ignore all of that and continue perilously sleepwalking through history. the become obama administrationt least put afford a climate

action plan, the cornerstone of which will be e.p.a. regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. our 50 worst power plants put out more carbon pollution than the entire country of canada, the entire country of korea. so solving that problem is vitally important. the plan also directs executive branch agencies to take concrete steps to safeguard the american people and our interests in the world against the harmful effects of excessively high temperatures, melting ice, ocean acidification, and sea level rise. these are important steps, but they must ultimately be backed up by congressional action. e.p.a. regulations and executive orders will never have the same economywide effect as a congressionally approved carbon fee, for instance. the sweeping changes take flais our oceans -- taking place in

our owe shang oceans make this particularly important along our coastlines. higher seas load the dice for more damaging storms and our coastal counties in this country harbor 39% of the country's population and account for 41% of our g.d.p., look just at our ports, for example. according to a 2009 national ocean economic report, ail quote, "three-quarters of all united states trade passes through estuary ports." no wonder then that the american association of port authorities is taking climate change seriously, woggin working to ree carbon pollution and stave off its effects rather than waiting for congress to awaken from our slumber. american ports are switching trucks and cranes from diesel to

electric and installing onshore power fly supply to ships, thus reducing emissions from the port and from idling vessels. likewise, the international association of ports and harbors has launched the world port pors climate initiative to reduce crovmenreco2output. in my state, the rhode island climate change commission reported that "inundation of the state's ports and railroads may reduce interstate access effecting economic viability and limiting imports and exports. sea level rise may also reduce navigational clearances for the state's bridges, additional limiting access." these changes will be particularly harmful for the port of providence, which today brings hundreds of millions of dollars to the region. madam president, we need strong federal action to reduce the carbon emissions that are

threatening our coastal communities. we must also take firm federal action to adapt ourselves and our states and our coastal communities to the changes that we can no longer avoid because we've already pumped into the at most spheerks because o-- atmose harm we've already done. but this is a real threat and it is embarrassing and it is wrong for congress and the senate to continue to ignore it. somebody who knew something about looming threats was sir winston churchill. he he gave this advice: one ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. if you do that, you will double the danger. but if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. that's good advice, and what's embarrassing and wrong is not

only are we failing to meet it promptly and flinching, but that failure and that flinching are the result of special interest influence in this body. madam president, we face uncommon challenges, and they demand uncommon resolve. america has not overcome past crises by pretending they did not exist. that state of play is a preposterous one for us to embark from. we actual lay have clear scientific understanding of the problem, the doubt is past. the injury is in, the verdict -- the jury is in the verdict has been delivered. and yet we lack the will of leadership to forge a solution. another great leader who knew something of leadership in times of crisis was president lincoln. he understood that the greatest challenges require clear vision and brave thinking.

faced with a crisis, president lincoln said this: "the occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. as our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. we must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." madam president, it is time -- it is past time to disenthrall ourselves, to disenthrall ourselves of the corrupt thrall of polluting special interests. it is time, at last, to wake up and get to work on the job we have before us. i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor.