mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. sessions: madam president, i wanted to share some remarks that senator ayotte had relevant to the amendment that she offered that would pay for the unemployment insurance extension and veteran pensions benefits and would just say it's an issue -- her pay-for is an issue that i have had some experience with, offering several years ago an amendment to fix it and was disappointed when the majority leader, senator reid, objected to that amendment.

senator ayotte's amendment would pay for the jobless benefits of unemployed americans, restore veterans' pensions by cutting off fraudulent tax payments to illegal aliens. this is a very simple concept and there's a clear abuse going on here that needs to be fixed and it should have been fixed a long time ago. the amendment contains offsets of $20 billion -- $20 billion -- from closing this loophole and ending this abuse of american tax dollars. remember the veterans' retirement benefit reductions in their retirement plan that was voted on recently in this body, part of the ryan-murray legislation, needed six -- they only saved $6 billion over 10

years by altering the retirement benefits of veterans. so this amendment, closing a loophole, would save $20 billion over 10. in 2011 -- this is when the matter first came to my attention -- the treasury inspector general for tax administration -- that is, the treasury department. each department has an inspector general. they are part of the that department of government. they are -- the inspectors general are part of the obama administration and they are part of the cabinet department of which they are inspector general. but they take pride in their independence and they are, by and large, a very valuable part of the american government. but i just would say, they're part of the treasury department, not totally independent, selected by the secretary of

treasury. so this treasury inspector general made this statement and report -- quote -- "millions of people are seeking this tax credit who we believe are not entitled to it. we have made recommendations to the internal revenue service as to how they could address this and they have not taken sufficient action, in our view, to solve the problem." a clear statement by the inspector general of the united states treasury department that there were problems with this policy and they could be fixed and that the internal revenue service was failing to take steps to fix the problem. one press report that highlighted the abuses that are occurring with this program

reported that an illegal alien admitted that his address used to file tax returns -- was used to file tax returns by four other illegal workers. all were in the country working illegally and they filed tax returns. did they file the tax returns to pay taxes? no. they filed tax returns to get a tax credit back from the government, a check from the government. they claimed 20 dependents living inside their residence and the internal revenue service sent the illegal tax filers $30,000, direct checks from the united states government. the united states department of treasury went to them. they filed a return. they said they had these children and they were given $30,000. according to the report, none of those dependents lived in the

united states or had even visited the united states. the illegal alien in the story justified the enormous tax fraud by saying -- quote -- "if the opportunity is there and they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?" well, this is an interesting development. let's go on a little further. as the inspector general himself said -- quote -- "the payment of federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside and work in the united states without authorization, which contradicts federal law and policy to remove such incentives." so the inspector general took the obvious position that it's the government's position that people who enter the country

illegally ought not to receive tax credit checks from uncle sam and that this policy either -- not only encouraged that, it encouraged more people to come to america to claim benefits, as this person who entered the country illegally said. if they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it? now, one of the things i've learned as i've traveled the world, a lot of people have an exaggerated opinion of the wealth and power of the united states and you meet good people in underdeveloped countries and they just say, why doesn't the united states do this, that and the other? as if we had unlimited power, unlimited money and unlimited ability to solve the problem that they face any given time. so a lot of people maybe when they come to the country don't realize that we are a nation of limited resources and we can't be wasting money, we can't be having people enter our country contrary to law, undocumented,

working, taking jobs that americans need to be taking and then sending them big checks, $30,000 for children that don't even exist or certainly have never been in the united states. how do they do it? they use an i-10, an individual tax i.d. number. they don't have social security numbers. they have a tax i.d. number. why? that is a -- was a tax number that the treasury department came up with to allow noncitizens who don't have sociaasocial security number toy taxes to uncle sam. that's what it was supposed to be used for. these clever individuals have figured out a way, they don't qualify for the social security number so they get an i-10 number and then they immediately start filing a tax return claiming benefits, tax credits

for children they may not even have, are not in the country and they're not entitled to. and it's billions of dollars, according to the best estimates we have. if this loophole that the treasury department themselves have identified would save $2 $20 billion. well, that's a lot of money over 10 years. in fact, they claim -- i don't know why it's not more -- they claim that in 2011, illegal aliens received a staggering $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits in 2010. so in 2010 they received illegally $4.2 billion under this program. can you imagine that? that's more than the budget of the state of alabama, the general fund budget of the state. and this was in 2010 and it's been growing substantially. it's probably more than that n

now. so the legislation that she proposes would fix this problem and it's time we fixed it. and i can't imagine why anyone would oppose it. the house has passed legislation already that would fix this and it died in the senate. senator reid refused to bring it up. he obstructed its passage. it should long since have been passed. so i pose the question to my colleagues: which would you rather do? would you cut the retirement benefits of men and women who've served this country for 20 years or more in the united states military, being deployed in harm's way, placing their lives at risk, even those who are disabled as a result of service of the united states military in combat zones? they have their retirement cut too. would you choose to cut their

pay to save $6 billion when you could cut out a totally unjustified claim of tax credits of $20 billion? is it political correctness run amok, on steroids that we're dealing with here? why can't we fix this? so i think this is something that -- it needs to be fixed, is past due to be fixed. senator ayotte is correct to raise it as a legitimate pay-for for unemployment compensation and veterans' retirements. i salute her for it. it's something i've pushed for and have offered a very similar amendment when the murray-ryan bill moved through the senate and i think it's something that we need to work on.

mr. sessions: look, we're not talking about as much as we should now. it's -- it's gone down a little bit, the talk, but our deficit situation is still very, very grim. we now have a current debt of $17 trillion. that's unprecedented in the history of the united states. it's doubled in recent years. it's the kind of deficits we've never seen before in -- and it's something we've got to address. mr. j.t. young in "the washington times," former member of the department of treasury, i believe, in the bush administration, former staffer on the budget committee, wrote though that what we're seeing in our budgeting is a tip of the iceberg. the interest payments we're making now, some $250 billion or so a year on the $17 trillion

that we owe, is a tip of the iceberg. because if interest rates return to their 40-year average, we're going to see a dramatic increase on interest payments on that debt. when we say we have $17 trilli $17 trillion, we're talking about money the united states government has borrowed, money that it is so it could spend. and that borrowed money comes from a source. much of the source of that money are foreign nations. the largest creditor is china. they loan us money and we pay them interest every year. right now interest rates are l low. unusually low, exceedingly low, according to historic averages. and most people expect that it's not going to stay low. the bond market is already slipping because people expect interest rates to go up, making their bonds less valuable. all the experts, virtually all,

expect that we will have a rising interest rate in the year to come. our congressional budget office that analyzes the debt of the united states and our whole fiscal policy -- taxing, spending and income and out-go -- has calculated that in 10 years from today under their budget plan, that with interest rates increasing and the increased deficits every year that we have that will add to the $17 trillion, in 10 years we will be paying interest each year of over $800 billion. mr. young refers to that as a third entitlement. actually, under these figures, it looks like that that interest payment will exceed social security's payments and medicare's payments and the defense department. not together but each.

this is a stunning danger that we face. so it's not mean-spirited to say that before we pass an unemployment compensation extension beyond our historic levels that we need to ask, will we just borrow all the money? or will we look around this government and find places to save money, such as a child tax credit going to people without social security number, illegally in the country? what should we do? so that's the challenge we face is to how to confront the rising debt, so every year, every month, virtually, some other issue rises before the senate, and it has a persuasive sound, and it's something we want to

do. sometimes it's things we need to do, really need to do. certainly americans are hurting today, there is no doubt about that, and a lot of reasons for it. we need to work to reverse those trends. middle america is not doing well financially. one reason is there is millions of people in the country illegally taking jobs, pulling down the wages and reducing the employment prospects of american citizens. there's no doubt about that. president obama, though, proposes and this senate voted by a sizable majority to double the amount of guest workers that come into america, while they come before the senate and say we have got to have another $7 billion in unemployment payments because we have got too much unemployment in america. how can that possibly rest resoe

logically with the american people? we should control immigration in america. we are a very generous nation of immigrants. we support immigration. we have a million people under current law enter our country every year illegally and we have -- legally and we have guest workers that come every year. i'm just saying that this bill that was before us that was voted out of this body would have not ended the illegality. 40% or so said the congressional budget office, that's the only amount of reduction we would have in illegality, but it would double the legal flow of guest workers to america. what a stunning number, at a time of high unemployment, low wages and the lowest workplace participation rate this country has seen since the 1970's. people are having a hard time finding work, so we have -- our colleagues, the majority, senate majority who voted for that bill

waltzing into the senate, demanding that we have extensions of unemployment insurance, demanding we raise the minimum wage. well, i would like to see the wage of americans go up. i'd like to see all of them make $15, $18, $25, $30 an hour. we need more of that kind of growth and prosperity in america. but i am not comfortable with the federal government setting wages and price controls in this country. it never worked effectively. so we should do things that make sense. we should create economic policies that create prosperity and we should not have large increases in labor into america when we have got huge numbers of people unemployed. that's just common sense. now, i want to share with our

colleagues some thoughts about where we are with regard to the unemployment insurance extension legislation that's now before us. since 2009, the senate has required by law that any extension of unemployment insurance benefits be paid for. that's in the current law of america, because we have agreed that we're borrowing money now, we need to reduce the amount of money we're borrowing, we're spending considerably more than we take in, we're going to have to raise the debt ceiling again next month, so we can borrow even more money, and so all of the money that they would spend on extending unemployment insurance, unless some savings are found elsewhere in the

government, will be borrowed, and the legislation that is before us now borrows every cent of it. every cent of the $7 billion will be borrowed. so we're $17 trillion in debt, much owed to foreign creditors. it does not seem wise to do this. this is the wrong thing, and we have agreed not to do it. this congress has paid for unemployment insurance extensions. this is unprecedented, extra, normal unemployment insurance extensions. the current amount is always out there, but because the unemployment rate has been high, we have extended it up to 99 weeks. we paid for this in 2009, we paid for it in 2011, and we paid for it in 2012 when our decision was made to go forward, so clearly the senate's policy

approach has been consistent in recent years to pay for this, and many remember our former colleague, jim bunning, that hall of fame baseball pitcher who stood right back here and objected to this one time before. i think it was in 2009, all alone and insisted it be paid for, and eventually he prevailed. and it caused quite a stir. he stopped the trains until there was an agreement to pay for this. according to a report yesterday in the national journal, some senators want to rush this bill through now and they will worry about paying for it later. they will promise about paying for that later. this spin now, pay later policy is how we have raised up $17 trillion in debt. it is smoke and mirrors. if you don't in this congress agree to pay for something before it's spent, it's not going to be paid for later.

we have got debts in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and we are certainly not going to go back and pay for more -- pay down money we spent the year before. we have got to deal with the year we're in. if we do that, it would be helpful. this is how we go broke. but what i want to say is fundamentally, the spending provided for with the extension of unemployment insurance violates the budget control act of 2011. it spends money above what we agreed to spend. it should not be done. we need to know, every one of us, by voting for this bill, you are voting to violate the promise you made to the american people in august of 2011 that we would limit the growth in spending. not cut spending but limit the growth in spending.

that we would raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion, and so that money could be borrowed more and these spent, but we would reduce over ten years the growth in spending enough to offset that increase. that was the bargain that was made. importantly, this legislation violates. it also violates the budget agreement that was passed into law, the murray-ryan bill that was signed by president obama just before christmas, just a few weeks ago. the ink is barely dry on that agreement, and my colleagues are now proposing to bust it completely. this has become too common. this is too much how we operate here. some of our members take umbrage at the fact that millions of americans are unhappy with us in washington. people complain about how we are

doing our job. they say tea party people are angry, and therefore they are evil people. well, why shouldn't they be angry with us? we have promised not to spend over a certain amount of money, and we have repeatedly voted to do that since 2011. we voted in december to contain spending and maintain spending levels, and we -- now we have in january since the year began the proposal to add $7 billion to the debt above what we agreed to spend. so i think the american people have a right to be hot with us. we need to vote some people out of here. and if we don't, if they don't change the spending habit, the country is going to be facing a fiscal catastrophe as independent observers have warned us for years. so the next month, the republican president -- i mean the president is going to ask republicans for our help in

passing a bill that raises the debt ceiling again. we have already hit the debt ceiling again, so he will be asking for us to raise it again because we need to borrow more money rather than cut spending. we are spending more money than comes in. we are spending that every year. he is not -- he wants to keep spending and not reduce spending, and so he is asking us to raise the debt ceiling to let him borrow even more than the $17 trillion we have. and they are going to threaten, cajole and try to scare americans with horror stories of imminent financial collapse if we don't raise the debt ceiling, and we know how that's coming, and hopefully we will reach an agreement that will raise the debt ceiling but get some real reforms in this government and bring down the rate of growth in spending in this country. but why -- how can we talk about promising to contain spending in

the future when we have got a bill before us right now that blatantly violates the budget act? and all we are doing is spending more money, borrowing more money and reaching the debt ceiling even faster than otherwise would be the case. this is the wrong direction for america. we need to be reducing our deficits, not voting to increase deficits. isn't that simple and plain? we need to be reducing deficits. we need to be working every day. the american people have told us to bring your spending under control, congress. wasteful washington spending is threatening america. so the federal government already taxes too much, it spends too much, it borrows too much, it regulates too much. it's time for us to live within our means, to balance our budget. and that includes finding offsets and spending savings to

pay for any extension of unemployment insurance or any other really proposal for new spending. and this congress has not been doing it. i would note that "the new york times" recently jonathan weisman wrote this -- quote -- "the drive to extend unemployment insurance has put both parties into an awkward political positions. mr. reid opened the second session of the 113th congress monday by declaring -- quote -- "the rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer, and the middle class are under siege." it was hardly an endorsement for an economy entering its sixth year under president obama's watch. and gene sperlg of the president's economic -- gene

percentling, the president's economic advisor, just say this -- quote -- "three people are looking for every one job open." close quote. so what do we do about this? what do we say about this? i would say, colleagues, that while hopefully we can help unemployed americans today with some sort of a -- benefits that are paid for in a financially sound manner, hopefully we will see wages rise and that we need to see wages rise, in my opinion, because i think the middle class is under siege. i think poor people are getting ham nerd this current economy, but i would just ask this question -- who has been setting the agenda economically for america for the last five years? hasn't president obama taxed more? hasn't he regulated more?

hasn't he spent more? hasn't he borrowed more? hasn't obamacare, the affordable care act hammered american businesses and caused them to lay off workers and hire people part time rather than full time? actually, two-thirds of the people hired in 2013 were hired part time. this is not helping. things are not going well. and the model, this plan that we are seeing overall is not working. how much longer does it take for people to recognize that? i don't -- the promises were made if we just send out more checks, if we have more stimulus bills, if we spend more money, if we do all these things, somehow this will create growth and prosperity in america, but all this time we were increasing the debt dramatically.

trillion-dollar-plus deficits for four years. we've never seen anything like that, ever, in american history. and the debt itself is a detriment and a depressant to growth economically in america. it causes fear and concern throughout the entire american populace and the world uneasy about the future of the united states with these kind of debts. so the point i would say is let's do some things that fix the disease and the disease is an excessive government domination of the economy that's suppressing growth and prosperity, suppressing wages, and government actions that create more unemployment and part-time employment than is necessary and should be happening. that's the problem we need to be addressing, and the symptoms of that are being addressed when you deal with unemployment insurance or mandatory wage

rates. madam president, i thank the chair and my colleagues for the opportunity to share these thoughts. i really do believe senator ayotte's proposal to deal with the wasted, fraudulent abuse of tax money through the improper use of the i.t.n., individual tax identification number is very real, it's very effective, would save billions of dollars and help us pay for some of the things we'd like to do and that is what we should be doing, not adding more debt to the people of america. i would yield the floor. madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor -- the presiding officer: quorum call. mr. reed: excuse me. madam president, i would ask that the calling of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor this evening to express my hope that the bipartisan effort that brought us this three-month bill here to the floor can be sustained as we go forward so that we can swiftly help the 1.3 million long-term unemployed workers who are cut off from these benefits on december 28. as many of my colleagues have discovered going back to their home states they are in many cases desperate. this was the difference between things that we take for granted, having a car to be able to get to a job interview, having a cell phone so that you can get a message saying you

have a job interview. paying for heat in cold weather, putting groceries on the table. for many people, this is truly an emergency. that's why working with senator heller who i will applaud for his -- both vision and his collaboration and for his sense in terms of the difficulties of his constituents and nationally many people, for his effort, he did a superb job, but what we sense was we needed to provide relief immediately, longer term there are issues and my colleagues have been on the floor discussing those issues, but immediately we have 1.3 million americans and every day more go off the rolls, that need help. and i hope we can move very expeditiously provide at least short-term help and of course we have significant issues going forward for the entire year

benefits which i hope ultimately wierk resolve. along with senator heller i want to thank all my colleagues, particularly i want to thank senator collins and murkowski and portman and ayotte and coats for their support along with all of our members of the democratic caucus which came together. now we have the challenge of providing this relief and then thinking creatively, constructively and collaboratively how we provide this relief at least through the full year. i hope we can do the next 90 days immediately, quickly but that other issue certainly is before us. now, i understand also that my colleagues have raised issues about the structure of the program, about whether this spending -- even the short-term spending should be offset, but, again, i go back to the point of we've got 1.3 million americans and growing each day that are looking for immediate

help, not thoughtful, careful, long-term deliberation and, again, that was the logic behind moving to a 90-day period, get it done, then go forward and deal with inherently more difficult issues for a full-year program. we already understand that that short-term lapse from the 28th until today has already had dramatic impacts on families. this, again, this is what i think my colleagues have heard and seen and read about when they've gone home. men and women who have worked for decades, never thinking they'd ever use their unemployment benefits which they paid into since they started working, now suddenly faced with a job market where there are three people to -- for every one job, where there are issues of skill training for the new jobs that are emerging, these are very difficult challenges, and, again, i

think what finally led us to at least this point of moving forward was the perception that this program is not some arcane abuse by people of the system. this is for working men and women who through no fault of their own lost their jobs, who are desperately looking for jobs, who are our neighbors, our constituents, people, again, many whom we thought and they thought would never be in this predicament, who have families, senior parents, young children, who have responsibilities. and who have something else, too, which i think we sometimes don't give enough credit to. they want to work. but they've spent a life, many of them working to a position of responsibility where they're using all their talents and the idea that they're going to just give that up for the only

available job which might be working a counter at a fast food restaurant, that's a challenge not only to your pocketbook, that's a challenge to your person. to who you are. and we have to recognize that also. so these benefits are -- they're hugely helpful to people, in so many different capacities. and as i said, you know, we're trying to deal with a situation where people are let go through no fault of their own. if you quit, you don't qualify. if you're fired, you don't qualify. many of these people are the results of the new economy, information technology that makes their job something that can be done away with, mergers and acquisitions and downsizings that cause the bottom line of the corporation to grow but they're out of a job. and we have to deal with that and we have to deal with it as we've done so many times before

by providing these long-term unemployment benefits. and we also have to do it because it's good for our economy. the c.b.o. estimates that if we do not review u.i. this year for 2014, we will lose 200,000 jobs. because the weekly benefits which are rather modest, $300 to $350 a week, go almost immediately from the recipient into the economy. it's the reason why some grocery stores can keep two or three extra people on because the demand is still there. it's the reason that some service stations can keep the extra mechanic on because the demand is still there. we shut down that demand, we'll have 200,000 more people ironically, 200,000 people that will qualify at least initially for state unemployment benefits. so this is about our economy.

and i'd really like to draw my colleagues' attention to the report our colleague, amy klobuchar did, as the vice chair of the joint economic committee. very thoughtinglifully done, not a surprise given it was authored in large part by senator klobuchar. and this report touches on these important issues and notes that -- and i quote -- "unemployment insurance, u.i., has kept more than 11 million people out of poverty since 2008. including 1.8 million adults and 620,000 children in 2012 lien. people of all demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds have been helped by unemployment insurance following a job loss. this cuts across the whole spectrum. how do you get to qualify? you got to work. and i would suspect every one of my colleagues would say this country should be all about work. rewarding work and if you lose it through no fault of your own giving you chance to get back in

the work force. and the reality of this economic downturn it's been so pervasive that it's affected virtually every american. unemployment insurance has been a key part of the recovery. we all know that economists that have looked at this program will suggest that there's anywhere from $1.50 to $1.60 benefit for every dollar we put in the economy. economically from the national economy as a whole this is a very powerful tool to keep economic growth, expansion and demand moving forward. and that's exactly what we need to keep the economy growing. indeed, one of the aspects of this recession and one of the aspects highlighted very insightfully by the report from the joint economic committee is long-term rate of unemployment. this might be a new structural phenomenon in our economy, but

it definitely something is happening out there. tip -- i'll go back to when i was a kid. you're on the third shift because you were the junior person. recession came, guess who got laid off, the third shift. second shift, middle people, first shift, most senior people, typically weren't touched. economy came back, that's third shift got rehired but those workers with 10, 15 years' experience they were pretty safe. now that's not the case. now we're seeing first, second, third shift gong gone. now we're seeing, well, this is a great opportunity with interest rates at in some cases 1% at least for the major institutions to replace a lot of workers with a lot of machines. let's do that. let's get value. let's downsize, let's make sure we invest in capital and then -- so these are the female

that we're seeing -- phenomenon that we're seeing and it's causing significant increase in long-term unemployment. in the j.c. report they note the current rate of 2.6% is twice as high as it was when congress allowed the program to expire after the 1990-1991 and 2001 recessions. let me say that in my terms. is that previously we have never taken away these benefits -- and these benefits are directly in response to long-term unemployment. the 26 weeks of the state benefit programs, you know, those are for people who lose work, find it relatively quickly. this program, the one we're debating today, is specifically designed for those people who are having a difficult time finding work over a long period of time. and we are now twice as high level of unemployment as we were

in previous recessions when we ended these benefits which would suggest this is not the time to end this benefit. let me continue from the j.c. report. while employment prospects have improved for many jobless americans the national unemployment rate-rate is 7%, the lowest in five years, finding work is challenging for the long-term unemployed. more than one-third of unemployed workers, roughly four million americans have been searching for work more than 26 weeks when state state funded benefits typically run out and 2.8 million have been searching for work more than one year. this is a phenomenon we have to deal with, this program that we are discussing today is specifically designed for those long-term unemployed. if there is one program that is responsive to one of the most salient aspects of this current recession, it's the long-term

u.i. program because long-term unemployment is -- seems to be the most difficult issue to resolve, even as our overall employment numbers continue to grow. not fast enough, but they're growing. and then i like to also dispel the belief some of my colleagues that these benefits just flow to one or two distinct constituencies. this is a targeted program that provides some benefits but it doesn't apply to across the board. this is about every american from virtually every type of educational, income and ethnic background. as the j.c. report documents, the 23 poz .9 americans who have directly benefit tread the e.u.c. program include people from all demographic and social security yoa -- socioeconomic backgrounds. let me stop. there's a stereotype out there that a lot of these folks are

18-year-olds who had a job for a while but decided they would rather go skiing in utah or snorkeling in the caribbean and what better way to do that than essentially sort of perform so that when the layoffs come you get one but so what, i'm not going to look for work. 60% of these people are 25 years old to 54 years old. they are in the prime of the work career. they have responsibilities. they typically have families. they have had, if you're in your 50's you've probably been working for 30 years. so this notion this is just a convenient time to take a vacation subsidized by the government is erroneous. let me continue from the report. the remaining recipients were about evenly split between those younger than 25 and those 55 and older and, again, for the 55 and older -- and this is very

close to home -- for these people it is a desperate struggle because they are caught right in the middle. they've got a 75-year-old or 80-year-old mother or father. they have 30-year-old children and some younger who are going to school or they need help. they've been working for 30 plus years. they've reached positions of responsibility in their firm and now suddenly for the first time many of the cases they are without a job and that's not just economic as i suggested, that also goes deeply to who they are, that are value, how can they help their family if they didn't work, what is the effect on the family, how do you come home every day from looking for work without a job and not have it affect your family. this is the reality we're dealing with and that's why frankly, i have been pleading to at least let's get this program restored for 90 days.

give us the time, not on the backs of the unemployed but give us the time to do the work for a longer extension. now let me continue. more than half the recipients in 2012 were white, as the report says, caucasians while 22% were black and 19% hispanic. the vast majority, 85% live in households with more than one adult and 43% live in households with at least one child. so these are not single, transyents who move around and -- transients who move around and could work if they wanted to. these are people with real family responsibilities. people of all levels of education have received these benefits. the majority of recipients in 2012 had earned a high school diploma and almost one fifth held a four-year college degree. these are people that have skills. they've at least got the credentials which, again, 20 or 30 years ago puts you into the workplace and probably kept you

there if you were diligent. i hope my colleagues take time to review this report. it is extremely useful. it shatters some stereotypes and reinforces the point that this is about helping working americans who need help. i think the facts are clearly on the side of continuing this program. and i think the reality is that they need the help me now. -- the help now. if we can get them that help we have the time to deliberate on very serious questions which my colleagues have raised and raised them constructively and raised them sincerely about the long-term approach to this program. but to continue to -- to trade sort of legislative ideas on the floor while millions of americans either are losing their benefits or seeing the end coming within days and weeks and

months is not the right response. so i urge my colleagues to move forward through these procedural hurdles. let's get this bill done as senator heller and i have proposed it. let's get it done and then we've got another huge challenge because we want, frankly, and i think it's the cents iment across the board, if we're going to do it, let's continue it through the year 2014. we're beginning to sense some economic positive shifts, we hope those materialize, we hope they come forward to the point where the unemployment rate, it's fallen, i heard the president today when he took over we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, it was rocketing up into the stratosphere, 12%, 14, in rhode island it's still 9% but we've seen some progress. not enough in my case, in my state and nevada and other states but we've seen progress. and we hope that progress continues. and indeed one of the other aspects of this program, if we

pass these benefits and the economists will point out particularly pass them on an emergency basis, it will add more fuel to our economy, not less. it will add more demand, it will, in fact, increase growth at the time where everyone is on the floor talking about, well, we just have to grow more jobs. of course it is. but this program, it's a way the pro teshial twofer -- proverbial twofer. 200,000 jobs at least. i really do think we should move forward as quickly as we can to get this reed-heller bill completed and then we have a lot of careful, thoughtful, collaborative effort to engage in because if we want to go forward for the full year, which we do, we have other significant issues. not just the size of the program

but other issues that are brought up by my colleagues, very fairly, very constructively and very thoughtfully. so, madam president, my message is one, i thank my colleagues for giving us the chance to seriously debate debate this bill and i urge them to pass it quickly and then we'll set ourselves up for another serious, thoughtful and constructive debate. that's my wish. with that, madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask that the calling of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that senate now proceed to calendar number 270, senate resolution 288. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 270, s. res. 288 supporting enhanced maritime security in the gulf of guinea and so forth. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent --. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 273, senate resolution 318.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 273, s. res. 318 expressing the sense of the senate regarding the critical need for political reform in bangladesh and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reed: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the committee reported title amendment be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 274, senate resolution 319. the presiding officer: the clerk:. the clerk: calendar number 274, s. res. 319 expressing support for the ukrainian people in light of the president's decision not to sign an association agreement with the european union. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the

measure. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to senate resolution 329 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 329 expressing support for the goals and ideals of the biennial u.s.a. science and engineering festival in washington, d.c. and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it

adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, january 8, 2014. that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume the motion to proceed to s. 1845, the unemployment insurance extension postcloture. and that all time during adjournment count postcloture on the motion to proceed to s. 1845. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

>> good morning, the united states senate just took a very important step forward in assisting 1.3 million americans who lost their extended unemployment benefits on december 28, and also the millions more that will lose it throughout the course of this year. there is still a great deal of work to be done, but we have literally changed this debate. just a few weeks ago, there were colleagues who were talking about unemployment insurance as a disservice to the american worker. today we're talking about the nature of the program. and also, the need to extend it, and now we're also talking about should it be paid for in the long-term, are there other changes that can be made? we made several changes in 2012. and so we're moving forward.

we have to collaborate. we have to be constructive, but today i think we've given a bit of hope to millions of americans who are struggling in a difficult economy to find jobs. who are struggling to provide substance to their family, to pay their heat bill, put some gas in the car, and keep looking for work. we also understand that this is just of providing sort of the immediate assistance people need. the longer term is to create the jobs, build the economy where this -- these programs are not as necessary as they are today. i certainly, you know, this was a work -- a great effort that was collaborative and i'm pleased to be with my colleagues today who played a critical role.

senator shaheen, senator browne, and senator schumer. without them this wouldn't have happened. >> thank you, senator reid. thank you for your leadership on this. you made this a bipartisanship vote. it was good news to see the 60 votes to move forward to the bill. it's good not just for the 19.3 million families who will benefit, but it's also doing to be good for the economy of the united states. the congressional budget and numerous economists including marc sandy indicated this is one of the best things we can do to help keep the money in the economy, keep it stimulated, it's a good way to spend public dollars to encourage private sector response. this is good for families, but it's also going to be good for our economy as we know the people who get unemployment insurance are going to spend the dollars, they're not going to put them in the bank.

and as senator reid said. how do we think about creating jobs, this is one of the challenges that we have. so making sure that people can still go out and look for work, but those dollars can be use to buy gasoline, pay for groceries, pay people's rent. it's important because it keeps a lot of other people working in the economy. so it's very good news now serious negotiations have to start as we think about how to get the bill passed. >> before i introduce senator brown, i have to personally thank senator dean heller of nevada. he stood up, responding to his constituents and to what he was seeing in his home state, but of course, the country. and he provided great leadership. he did it with thoughtful persistent advocate, and we're here today because, in large part, because of his efforts and all of my democratic colleagues

but also all my republican colleagues who stepped forward and said let's put the rhetoric aside for a moment, and try to help people and then do it in a constructive, collaborative way. with that, let me recognize senator brown. >> it's 8 degrees below zero in cleveland today. it seems like it's almost that cold here. i think the bipartisanship vote thanks to heller and reid it will help those people who have lost jobs to heat their homes, help them go to the grocery store and buy food, help them fix their car at the local -- with the -- local car mechanic so they can drive and look for work. it's all about social insurance. it's unemployment insurance. pay -- pay -- people pay in this and when they lost their jobs it's important to get the benefits. no one gets the beforts without

looking for jobs day after day after day. that's why this is so important. it's also important we have a strong bipartisan vote out of the senate. i think that means good news for a minimum wage increase down the road. sooner rather than later. the last time we did min numb wage it was 2007. strong bipartisan vote in both houses signed by president bush, signed bit president of the united states. we hoped to replicate that kind of effort in 2014. it's also good news on all the kinds of manufacturing job growth issues we are working on bipartisan. we came from a meeting earlier with a manufacturing caucus. a group of members of the senate from both parties who care about job creation and manufacturing. last point i would like to briefly make is senator shaheen mentioned how it's good for the economy. 100 years ago, this week, henry ford announced that he was going pay his workers $5 a day. that was the person building the

model t and sweeping the floor. what henry ford understand is when you put money in people's pockets with, they spend it and it grows the economy. maybe to buy a model t in his day, 100 years ago. today it means they spend the money locally in gauche i are -- gore i are -- grocery store. what it means for the 52,000 people in ohio that saw the unemployment expire at the end of last year and what it means to our economy as a whole. senator merkel. >> thank you. on december 28, 18,000 families in oregon got a lump of coal in their stocking when we failed to reauthorize the emergency unemployment program. and, of course, in the coming year we're going see another 58,000 oregon families affected. then we have the broader economy in oregon. and estimates are that action

would eliminate about 4,000 jobs. i can tell you that the citizens of oregon want to see us create jobs not destroy jobs. and so in this case, we have a win-win for the families themselves, a stronger foundation or a stronger bridge to the next job in areas of high unemployment and something that is helping the broader economy at the same time. this was a bipartisan program developed under president bush. today -- this morning we had a bipartisan vote to debate the bill, and now we have to make sure we have a bipartisan support to actually reauthorize this program and take those lumps of coal out of the stockings. this weekend, i was doing town halls in oregon. four of them were in rural areas, and there's higher unemployment in rural areas across america. the average unemployment in oregon is now about 7.3%.

but in three counties, it's almost 12%. and so the time it takes to get another job is much longer. that's true in high unemployment states and that's true across the country. so huge logic and huge impact on families. let's understand there's a fundamental viewpoint here when families are down, are they going get a helping hand in the bridge to the next job? or are they going to get kicked while they're down? i think the helping hand, the bipartisan helping hand is what we have to develop and get reauthorized with due speed. thank you. >> well, thank you. i want to thank my colleagues, senator reid and senator hell leer for their leadership and my colleagues shaheen, brown, and merkley for working on this issue.

today brought us a glimmer of home. it's good news in two way. first, it doesn't close the door on getting the bill passed. it allowed us to sit down and negotiate. i'll talk about that in a second. but the second is it, it shows that the big place -- plates the tech tonic plates in our politics is moving. the issues that dominated the first five years of the president's term over the deficit above all in obamacare are becoming less important than helping the average american family get by, as job growth isn't as robust as we would like it, and middle class incomes this decade have declined for the first time in american history. our republican colleagues realized that. that's why they didn't shut the door on things. because they saw, as this chart shows, the kind of unemployment that we face. much higher now, much higher, and had they -- if our colleagues -- okay. second point, we hope that this

is a good faith negotiation. the offer that senator mcconnell made to the senate is obviously a nonstarter. and i hope we -- we hope some of us fear that our republican colleagues, while they know the power of this issue, do not want to pass it and will put some obstacles in the way that will prevent the bill from passing. clearly the amend proposed by senator mcconnell is not going pass. and we don't want a mexican standoff where we put in our pay for and they put in their pay for. i can think of one that makes more sense and relative than senator mcconnell. take away the tax break for companies that ship jobs oversea naps would reduce unemployment and lower the cost of unemployment insurance. i would we have every democrat vote for that. i suppose it would be a nonstarter for the republican colleagues in the senate and house.

the fundamental question are they going through a game to show they really, really want a bill? but they just can't come to an agreement? there are two different -- versions or can we have serious negotiations and get something done? we hope it's the latter. we hope it's the latter. if our republican colleagues continue to play games with this, they'll show how far out of the main stream they are. as was mentioned, i think by senator merkley. the original programwork was passed by george bush, a conservative republican president when unemployment is now 5.6 percent. have republicans moved so far out of the main stream that they reject even that? even unemployment benefits for people who have worked 10, 20, 30 years at one job, lost their job, and then they're spending every day going online or knock on doors and trying to find a

job and they can't? certainly we didn't hear the theory of the hard right, or what rand paul said that unemployment benefits are a disservice to our workers. this idea that people don't want to work is fundamentally misleading the american characters. americans do want to work. they do want to work. there is satisfaction and job well done for ceos and for people who make sure the floors are really spotlessly cleaned late at night in a hospital. so we hope that the vote today indicates that our republican colleagues will negotiate in good faith, we're open to such negotiations. we believe it would be -- i believe, i think most of my colleagues believe it -- if we can't come to an agreement or even if we could. it stimulates the economy. but we want to get this bill passed. it's too important. too important for the average american family not to.

>> sir? >> reporter: are you -- the negotiations are going to be aimed at offsetting how we -- [inaudible] >> well, i would prefer to pass the 90 day extension so we can assure millions of americans they will get their benefits without disruption. my preference, frankly, and i think senator schumer said the same thing, is because we want to, also, grow jobs as well as take care of unemployed typically it's emergency spending which is not offset. last year, the beginning of the 2013, we passed what is overwhelm overwhelmingly republican support -- benefits not paid for this. notion of selectively saying, well, the key issues that must be paid for. it's not the case. most time wees have --

so i think we are going to negotiations saying, you know, our preference is clearly. we want to get it done quickly the 90 day extension. for a yearlong extension, if you have thoughtful ways to deal with it, senator schumer suggested one. there are many others. we have to have another bipartisan effort to get this measure finally passed. but from sort of the economic sense strictly from history the vast number of times we have done this. most recently in 2013 they weren't paid for. >> i want to say this pass. pass it. second best choice. finding a reasonable paid for

that can work on both sides of the aisle. i would caution people it's easier said than done. again, as i said, i'm worried we may be being somewhat walked in to a cul-de-sac by our colleagues who don't have an intention of doing that. i don't know the answer. but it's a possibility. worse choice, you have competing pay for that no one can pay for and we don't get it cone. -- done. it hurts our economy and workers. >> reporter: is it reasonable to pay for -- [inaudible] >> you know, senator schumer suggested some of these tax provisions that actually not only deprive the government of revenue but help deploy jobs overseas when we need jobs here. there are a whole list of tax

loopholes but other things we can consider. i don't want to foreclose the discussion. at this point particularly having secured very positive bipartisan vote, getting us on to the measure that we want to go forward in good faith and in a good spirit and not include/exclude et. cetera but simply say we're willing to listen. but as senator schumer cautioned, you know, we have to have something that makes sense to the economy, makes sense for the people. and something we can generally support. and i hope my republican colleagues approach the same way. anyone else? >> reporter: are you surprise bid some of those? >> it was in the balance at the very last moment. i was hopeful, but i guess being irish i'm always expecting the

worst. [laughter] so yeah, i was surprised. they might be more cultural than political. >> i would say that i think we were all surprised -- i'm not irish, i think we're all a bit surprised. i think that pope francis exsorted his -- i think members are hearing from constituents. a number of our colleagues did events during the holidays in the last two weeks, and they were out in public. they were hearing from people whose unemployment benefits expired. it was over 50,000 -- in my state, a large state but not the largest. it was thousand and everywhere in this country. i think that not only if that good news for the unemployment insurance though. i think that's good news for minimum wage. good news for manufacturing, for really focusing on jobs.

and i think more and more my colleagues are hearing that. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] we're going show you more about the bill to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. republican senators kelly ayotte -- of advancing the legislation. in hope of offer debate amendment to the bill before a vote on final passage. here is what they said on the senate floor. >> thank you, mr. president., mr. prmresident, i . cprome to e floor today to talk about an amendment that i will seek to b, offer we sympathize with those who are struggling to find work in a

difficult economy. 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 enacting pro-growth policy 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 struggling to find work in the difficult economy -- making sure we don't add to the $17 trillion of debt that also threatening our country and our economy. and i continue to believe that any temporary extension in the long-term unemployment benefits should be paid for in a responsible manner. i have introduced an amendment ayotte amendment 2603. i think it's an amendment that makes a ton of sense. let me tell you what this amendment does, this amendment pays for the three month extension 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

it 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 reid, as of have. those who have lost arms, legs, they receive a medical retirement and their cost of living was cut under the budget as well. so my amendment not only would pay for temporary unemployment insurance for those struggling to find work to give them a transition, to get them back to work. but it would also pay for to fix and reverse the 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 sacrificed a tremendous amount because they have moved around. because they have served both many of them in iraq and afghanistan on behalf of our country. it would also in addition to that, give 7 billion to reducing our deficit. the way fair this is to close -- fix an egregious problem in our tax code. it's a problem that was identified by the treasury 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 the children don't live in the united states of america or may not exist. why? because when the 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 ig 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 the 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 uninsurance -- unemployment insurance extension for those struggling to find work, reducing our deficit by $7 billion over 10 years. all three of those done by fixing an egregious problem in our tax coat. the audit of the treasury ig in 2011 reported that individuals not authorized to work in the united states of america received $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 the additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the united states without authorization, which contradicts federal law and follows remove such incentive. 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 id number for tax purposes, but are not eligible for social security numbers because they're not authorized to work in the united states of america. again, this saved $20 billion over the next 10 years. let me just tell you how egregious this is. here is some of the reports about this problem in our tax code. it's fraud. this is fraud we're going fix. it's 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 is some examples from indiana. in fact, i just saw walk in the chamber one of the colleagues senator coast. a local television station found ab undocumented worker interviewed at the home 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 irs sent the illegal immigrant tax refund totaling over $129,000. the local station found 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 irs to claim for tax credits even though they don't live in the united states of america. an indiana tax preparer who act as a whistle-blower said we see sometimes ten or twelve dependents. most time kneeses and nephews on

the tax reform. the more you put on there, the more you get back. the whistle-blower had thousand of examples. another example we had a over $10,000 refund for nine nieces and nephew pointed to 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, refunds worth more than $5 million. investigators tied at least 17 tax returns, totaling more than $62 ,000 in refunds to an 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 totaling 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 and her home turned up more returns dozen of uncashed

u.s. treasury checks, a fedex box containing dozen of foreign birth certificates, and a notary public stamp and signature stamp listing her as a notary. that fraud case, by the area rep, totaled over $5 million in fraud. in tennessee, a search warrant prepared by the irs claims that a refer row tennessee tax company encouraged undocumented workers to lie on their tax returns by claiming children who live in mexico as dependents. the irs said that the tennessee tax preparer filed 6,000 tax returns over the last three years. although his clients only pay $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to claim more than $17 million in returns. because of this tax credit, and the fact they did not have to

put social security numbers for the children they were claimanting a refund for. the refund left the united states on the hook for $14 million. here is the question in the chamber. the question is should we fix egregious fraud in our tax code where we have people that aren't entitled work in the country are claiming tax refund for children, some of which have been termed not to exist. some of which don't even live in our country. should we fix that in our tax code? isn't it good government? if we fix it, we use the pay for the $20 billion that the joint tax committee 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 are wounded warrior who have been injured. many of them serving in afghanistan and iraq, and return $7 billion to the treasury. here is 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 admirally and our wounded warriors and return money to the deficit. or what?

we can be denied a vote. i hopefully 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 taxpayer in it country. if i can't gate vote to take that $20 billion and help struggling workers and to fix the unfair cuts to those who have sacrificed the most and taken the bum let for this country, and also help fix our deficit. only in washington twhiewld 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 demon sense amendment that will allow us to help struggling workers without adding to the $17 trillion in cet.

allow us to say to our men and women who sacrificed the most that we aren't going continue to target you with the unfair cuts of cost of living where no one else has sacrificed like that. particularly the wounded warriors fop say to the american public we're going fix fraud in our tax code and take 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 common sense amendment that allows us to do important things for the nation and fixes egregious fraud in our tax code. putting taxpayer dollars to uses that they should be put to. i thank you, mr. president. i wednesday -- end with the hope i'll gate vote on the common sense amendment, and my colleagues will support

this. thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president. >> senator from indiana. >> mr. president, i would like to discuss today's vote as others have come down here. first of all, it's important 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. 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 all 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 about 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 lead to any of us to try to rethink how can we get back to what is called regular order? the way the senate has always operated in the past -- the way it operated when i came here in my first run 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. it you're in a minority, you don't have a whole lot of authority. maybe at that time we held the white house under ronald reagan and he 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, was asked what was the difference between the house and the senate. i said the difference is like going legislative heaven. from 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. senator george mitchell, the democrat leader honored that.

and it was honored throughout my term in the united states senate. i was then gone for 12 years and came back. i thought i was coming back to that same process. only to find that, no, the whole process has been changed. you don't have the rights you once had. you don't have the at any times you -- opportunities you had. i came here to represent the people of indiana at their wishes. and yet now i'm in a position where i don't have a chance to offer an amendment. don't have a chance to offer an a lot alternative or substitute saying it 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 alternative. it deserves to give us an opportunity to convince our colleagues that a majority of us can work together to pass legislation. that's 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 so called obamacare act. those supported it wish now that it did have bipartisan support. but it was worked out. so. alternatives presented by republicans were debated and perhaps supported. maybe we would be in a different position now. it's not right to characterize a vote in a procedural notion say let's go forward and open this up for debate. the opportunity to have it. and that's what i voted for. 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 forward to discuss that proposal, to

look at the alternative, offer my own amendment, and see if our thoughts and ideas prevail. and i'm hoping that is what will happen. that's up to the majority leader. 2013 didn't offer us very many or few opportunities to do that. we ended up on a sour note in 2013. it was good we had the break and we are back here the second day of the new session of congress. i hope that members on both sides of the aisle reflected over this period of time. hon we can return the senate to what the original intent. how we can get back to so-called regular order. so we can have legitimate debate on the floor. we can go back and forth with our colleagues. i think if we eamentd it it will be a better bill. you don't think the bill is the one that ought to address this problem, but here is the

substitute. that is debated and let's have a vote. every one of us will the opportunity to have their voice heard, the amendment voted on, the alternative evaluated, and perhaps work in a bipartisan way to come up with something constructive. if that was the purpose for leaving most of my party and voting on the motion to proceed to go forward. here we are. now we have a chance to debate it. senator ayotte was on the floor speaking before me. senator portman, all proposing ways in which we can offset the cost of the. we know we are adding to our debt and deficit on a daily basis. we haven't come grips with that. yet, the future consequences for this country, our economy, our children, our grandchildren, future generations is something that we're all going 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 bowls and the major effort and unable to get the president's support for any of those. even though he commissioned the group which is bipartisan. but nevertheless, we have, not to this point, able to get the large effort in place that will put us on the path to fiscal help. but one thing we can do, when we have programs, new pranls, extent of programs like this come before us, we can say, well,let, one, we're form it so we can achieve what we want to achieve. number two, let's make sure we both add more taxpayer dollars to our deficit spending and our debt. let offset it with something. for those who say we can't cut a penny more. for goodness sakes, the

organizations -- the federal organizations office of management budget, congressional research service on and on the general accounting officer and others have proposed e numerous ways of billions of dollars. hundreds of billions of for programs deemed wasteful, fraudulent, senator ayotte mentioned specific examples in my state of abuse of the system. there has been use -- there are concerns about the unemployment insurance. people see this not as a help to getting a job, and getting back in to the work force, but see it as yet another entitlement benefit they can receive without putting the effort in to get meaningful employment. now we have a responsibility to bring forward issues i think

give people a connection between the unemployment and the ability to get employed. it's been suggested by senator portman and others here. senator cornyn also talk abouted that. so whether to offset in order to pay for this so we don't go further in debt and use taxpayer money is waste, fraud, and abuse and programs that have been deemed dysfunctional, unnecessary, the federal government never should have been involved in the 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 spent his career down here pointing out the excessive, outrageous, egregious waste that has gone on and

misuse of taxpayer dollars. that's not how to run a government. my state has had to face up to this. they faced up to. we made the tough decisions, and there's an interest group supporting every possible thing you spend money on. but we set -- separated the necessary -- we have been rated as most tax -- conscious friendly state in the nation. per capita tax impact on "hosiers" in indiana is the lowest of any state in the nation. we have an efficient, effective government that has a triple a credit rating, that has been deemed a business-friendly, taxpayer-friendly, residentially-friendly, family-friendly. it's a good place to live. we're not wasting taxpayer dollars and people are tired of

spending money on stuff that doesn't work. well. i have gotten off my intended statement here. i guess i'm expresses my frustration over the inability to participate in a process here that can bring about better use of the taxpayer dollar and more effective government. i think i speak for a lot of people on both aids sides of the aisle. the way to do this is not to freeze out debate. not to freeze out amendments. not to freeze out the opportunity to offer alternatives. by moving through this motion to proceed, i'm hoping this is a step forward to returning to a process in which we're to be do what i just suggested. this decision is going to be up to the majority leader. if you want honest debate and the american people to know that all of us in the chamber to know

-- to exam alternatives, if he wants to be conscious in terms of conscientious about spending taxpayer dollars allow us to the opportunity to offer offset. senator ayotte has specific, i think very compelling offset. it's a fraction of money it would save and you can cover the cost of this extension, if that's where you think we should go. i think major reforms need to be made to this program. and we ought to be emphasizing how getting people back to work rather than how to keep extending unemployment. but the two go somewhat hand- in-hand for our people in indiana and everywhere. other places that have made every possible effort to get a job. and have come up short. be sensitive to the plight of those people. but we don't need to be

sensitive to those who have taken abuse and advantage of this program in 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 dpowld i worked. it's not the kind of policy we ought to be advocating or enabling here in the united states senate. as i said, there are numerous tallettives of ways in which we can find a way to pay for this if we can put the reform in place that mean we ought to go forward with this particular program. let me suggest three. that -- and my colleagues suggested others also, which i support. any one of these could work. the program has scored about cost of about 6.something

billion dollars. .. .. 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 tax credit, you have to verify 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 at 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 and not by senator republican, by government agency. it scored at $27 billion that here's 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 shirley we don't want to dump more money, more future debt on our children and grandchildren so let's take this $27 billion or a fraction of that $27 billion pay for it.

let me offer another option. the delay for individual employer mandates under obamacare is legislation that i introduced here in the senate. if the president has delayed the mandates for businesses shouldn't he be offered the same delay for families and individuals lex this is a simple issue of fairness. what is the score? $30 billion. 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 claim unemploymunemploym ent 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's a pay-for or

whether it's necessary policy changes to make the program more effect if, 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 employers. i can't say how many employers i have talked to in indiana who say i have jobs. i have talked to others but the bottom line is there are people out there who look at what i have to offer. it's not the greatest but it's a job. there are benefits. it's a step forward for them but they say well, it doesn't match what i'm getting from the government so i think it will take a pass. this is not america and not the policies that made -- not the principles that made america the kind of country that it is and we should not be enablers in that regard.

through legislation that we pass here. so i hope we can have a full and open debate on this bill and move to policies that will grow and create jobs, will adopt the 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 on the future interest of our country both fiscally, domestically on a number of issues from all the number of reasons i have articulated or tried to articulate? doesn't this make sense? so, breaking with i guess some of the past ways that i have given my vote, i said i'm going

to vote for the motion to proceed and i am going to challenge the majority leader to look at this and say, let's run this place differently in 2014 then it was run in 2013. let's not be afraid of debate. let's not he afraid of amendments. let's get the -- let's let the yeas he yeas and nays been aids. let's give everybody an opportunity to state their case and offer an alternative to be recognized as a member of the united states senate and the way the senate was designed to be an traditionally for over 200 years has been. let's move back to that. so what happens next? it's now up to the majority leader. the ball is in his court. had we not pass the motion to proceed to support the

republicans then we would not have given the majority leader they need to make a decision. so what kind of senate do we want in 2014? a senate that is 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, find a constructive policy for the future of this country. you can't do this if this body is run by one person saying my way or the highway. if you're in the minority, tough break. this is your chance mr. leader. let's give us the opportunity to turn this back to the senate that it once was and always has been until lately. mr. leader, it's a du.

with that i yield the floor. >> if i were to identify the singular most important

challenge to overcome, the notion that there is justice available to muslims. the truth is the reason why we are here today is because of this wahhabist inclination which i read somewhere that it's not only ahistorical but also anti-historical because it denies centuries of islamic theology and tradition and plurality. hundreds of years of diversity and subscribes to the idea that to be a muslim you have to follow its ethics from the second century and a very limited, short period of time time. and i think our journey has to be about refusing being told by clerics who speak for us that islam and its ideals is a seventh century reality. we are americans and muslims

need an islam of the 21st century. >> house republicans leaders plan on taking on a bill on the health care law and emma dumain from cq roll call joins us. would have house republicans have planned later this week lex be house later that putting two votes on the floor related to the health law. one of these bills would require the department of health and human services to notify individuals within two days if they have been subject to a security breach if their information is somehow been tapped into or stolen or

unlawfully accessed through the exchanges on line through healthcare.gov. another legislation to be voted on at the end of the week would require the administration to submit detailed weekly reports with the breakdown state-by-state of the enrollment and exchanges on healthcare.gov and all interactions with the web site. basically they are two bills targeting the web site, meant to shed light on the area's of the rollout of the affordable care act that aren't working as well as the administration a plan. >> host: in terms of the strategy on the aca how does it differ from their efforts during the first session of the 113th and a a lot of parts of the 112? what's different about it in 2013 for house republicans leaders? >> guest: i think even though their ultimate desire is to fully defund and dismantle the affordable care act, their new strategy appears to be chipping

away at many of its components and when they can't chip away, they undermine its credibility. these are absolutely bills to undermine their credibility. republicans are convinced that there are security issues, that there are vulnerabilities in the infrastructure and that the web site is sewed -- that individuals can't sign up for health care. the health care that they are entitled to under this law, if they could pass bills that would require notification of security breaches, if they can get the government every week to show how many people are enrolling, the expectation in the hopes for republicans is that numbers will come out of those reports so it would be less favorable for democrats and for the white house. that's the hope.

>> host: on another issue off the floor where do things stand on the gushy asians over overspending. the house and senate face that january 15 deadline so when are they going to get done with this omnibus spending bill? >> guest: the expectation is that they will appeal to finish it by january 15 when fiscal 2014 funding is set to expire in terms of renewing resolutions set before the holiday break. the senate is quickly moving through all of its portions of what they expect to be in omnibus, at package of all the 12 appropriations bills such as the ones that fund department of health and human resources. the senate is hoping to have something by the end of this week. in the house we have less of a sense right now where progress is but appropriators are continuing to meet. they met, they met you know virtually or in person

throughout the holiday break and have been speaking regularly with their staff and the members of the committee leadership. they you now seem optimistic that they can get this done even though we know very little so far about what the outstanding issues are and where they can tensions might still rest. >> host: you tweeted yesterday about unemployment insurance and the tweet was jobless benefits may stay on congress is cutting room floor. the senate moves forward with the insurance bill. if it passes is the house expected to take up that issue and what else might we see on the house agenda in just the early couple of weeks coming up? >> guest: unemployment insurance is still an unknown in the house. house republicans will insist that they're not going to take it up unless there's an offset. democrats say that it shouldn't be paid for. it doesn't need to be paid for. they don't have a plan right

now. they don't have a proposal for how to pay for it and seem inclined to accept anything republicans might suggest to make it more palatable to members to bring to the floor. democrats hope that republicans can be shamed to bring it to the floor as they were with the violence against women act and the will for superstorm sandy but it remained to be seen whether the so-called shaming effort will be successful in the house. other things we expect to see again, the omnibus. the clock is ticking on that one. we have to pass a five-year farm bill. the conferees in the house and senate are expected to meet on thursday having one of their only public meetings of a conference committee to vote on some of the outstanding issues there in preparation to reveal a formal finished farmville by they hope the long weekend

surrounding martin luther king jr.'s birthday later this month and that is just some of what we are going to see on some of the issues we are going to see fiercely debated on the floor in the weeks ahead. >> host: emma dumain is with cq roll call and you can follow some of her reporting at twitter under emma}domain. thank you. >> guest: thank you. army chief of staff general ray odr no opposes sending u.s. troops to iraq. speaking at the national press club, he added that the u.s. does need to