republican dean heller of nevada. yesterday passed a key procedural hurdle. an amendment and votes are possible throughout the day. live senate coverage now here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious and changeless god, the creator of heavenly lights, your mercies sustain us. today, use our senators to accomplish your will, making

them faithful under trials and resolute when facing the difficult. lord, even in sorrowing seasons, motivate them to be transformed by your liberating grace. empower them to do the best that they are capable of, bringing a harvest of courage, compassion, and service. give them the wisdom to place their ultimate trust in you. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 8, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will resume the motion to proceed to the unemployment compensation legislation. we have no votes scheduled yet. when we are able to work something out in that regard we will notify all senate offices. mr. president, yesterday's vote

to advance a measure which is so vitally important to our country to extend a lifeline to americans who lost their jobs during this great recession is really a positive development. but we're a long way from restoring benefits to 1.3 million people who have been looking for work for months, some of them, mr. president, for years. a few republicans willing to even debate this measure or threaten a vote against a short term extension unless it's fully paid for. let me start by saying, mr. president, i'm opposed to offsetting the cost of emergency unemployment benefits. i repeat. emergency unemployment benefits. i don't understand why my republican colleagues can't read the script from the administration of their president, our president, president bush. five times during his time in office, the second president bush, we extended in this employment insurance benefits by

declaring an emergency, as we should now. we should realize today there is only one job available for every three people seeking a job. think about that. this legislation calls for a three-month extension. that's all. so let us extend this now and give those people their benefits and then work to see if we can come up with a long-term solution to this issue. i've heard that one of the leaders in the house, one of the republicans say we thaoed to do something -- we need to do something about opportunities for jobs. we agree. let's see what we can come up with. but let's extend the benefits for three months now. mr. president, through the darkest days of the recession, these unemployment benefits kept millions of americans from descending into poverty. i again urge my republican colleagues here in congress to

pass this three-month extension. it's what the american people want by a vast majority of all political stripes. we need to do this so we can negotiate a long-term solution to this issue. any lapse or delay in benefits means 1.3 million people are wondering whether they should go to borrow money again or to maybe see if they can, if you've got a way to buy baby formula or gas for their car to go to a job interview if they're fortunate for a car or bus ticket. if republicans are so interested in paying for this measure, they should propose a reasonable way to do so. and doesn't attack the affordable care act or punish american as these two proposals they presented yesterday do. go after american with the affordable care act. they should propose an offset

that might actually pass. instead they proposed a string of political amendments, each more doomed to failure than the last one they offered. they should also stop masking their reluctance to extend these benefits behind complaints about how many amendments they have been allowed to offer on this and other legislation. mr. president, everyone within the sound of my voice should understand that that is hollow. it's become a common refrain for the minority to blame their own frequent obstruction on me. two republican senators held up progress on virtually everything we tried to do last congress -- i mean the first term of this congress. they wouldn't let any other amendments come up unless they got a vote on their amendment. the fact remains, mr. president, that my republican colleagues

have complaints about my leadership style, they should also have complaints about senator frist, my predecessor; a fine man, republican leaderring. we still stay in touch as i do with the other republican leader, senator lott, who i worked with very closely. i hear no complaints about their leadership style when they were leading the senate. mr. president, during my time as leader, republicans have offered seven out of ten amendments on which the senate has voted. seven of the amendments we've voted on here have been republican amendments, a greater share than senator frist or senator lott offered. now during my leadership in the 111th congress, mr. president, minority amendments represented a greater share of amendment votes than during any single congress. think about that. so republicans should stop trying to justify their

opposition to help americans in need with false claims about what's going on now in this institution. start talking about facts rather than fiction. and there's a lot of fiction going on around here. republicans should, i repeat, stop trying to justify their opposition to helping americans in need with false claims about my leadership. but, mr. president, it's quite interesting to note that house republican leaders -- and i'm sure they sent a copy of it over here. house republican leaders have instructed colleagues in a written memo -- listen to this one -- show compassion for the unemployed. i say to everyone, mr. president, we don't need a memo for us to show compassion to the unemployed. they also say treat them as

individuals. oh yeah? that's not a bad idea. but it will be very difficult for senate republicans to seem sympathetic to the plight of the unemployed while still opposing a helping hand for 1.3 million job seekers. and it shouldn't take a memo to realize that unemployed americans, and particularly those who have been out of work for months, deserve our compassion. we don't need a memo for that, mr. president. a memo saying show compassion? no wonder republicans in congress are out of touch with republicans around the country. republicans around the country support extending unemployment benefits because they have compassion for those americans who are in trouble. being out of work is not only

financially devastating, it's heartbreaking. i got a letter recently from a single mother of two who's lived in nevada all her life. she's afraid she'll soon be homeless. a single mother. this is what she wrote -- quote -- "i have no desire to live off the system." close quote. she's speaking for virtually everyone that we're trying to help. this woman is the rule, not the exception. in order to qualify for unemployment, it's not easy. you have to be laid off through no fault of your own and you have to actively seek work. these unemployed aren't gaming the system. there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. for every job there's three people trying to get that job. and longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult it becomes to find work. this has not been made up. this is a fact.

the long-term unemployed are half as likely as their recently let-go competitors to be hired. but it just doesn't stop them from trying. and rather than encouraging these people who are desperate for help to keep looking, cutting off unemployment benefits actually encourages the long-term unemployed to drop out of the job market altogether. that does not help them and it doesn't help our communities, our states, our country. it hurts families, hurts communities and certainly hurts the economy.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday the majority leader rejected my offer for both sides to offer amendments to the unemployment insurance bill. the way things used to work around here, we had a bill called up and we had amendments. this is sadly typical of the way things are these days here in this institution. if the majority leader just accepted my offer, we could actually be debating and amending this bill instead of wasting time. and how does the majority leader expect to achieve consensus when one side doesn't have the chance to offer any input at all? that's the way the senate used to operate. look, if the majority leader wants this bill to pass the senate, then it's a pretty good likelihood he's going to have to find a way to pay for it. and i'll be offering one idea on that front. that is paying for a longer

extension by tkropgt mandate that forces -- dropping the mandate that forces americans to buy insurance they don't want. but if you don't like that idea, there are others. one is a bipartisan idea endorsed by the president that ensures individuals can't draw both social security benefits and unemployment benefits at the same time. senators coburn and portman both have versions of that. it's another offered by senator ayotte that would cut down on fraud in refundable tax credits. and there are plans for job creation that would be offered by senators paul, thune and inhofe. these plans take a different approach than the government-led one we see from our democratic friends. they rely on unlocking the potential of the private sector to actually increase employment. so why don't we have a vote on them here in the senate?

i'm sure there are many democratic ideas out there as well. but we won't get a chance to debate any of them as long as the majority leader keeps blocking us from offering amendments. this obstructionism by the democratic majority is against the traditions of this body and it needs to end. because if democrats truly want to get anything done this year, they're going to have to learn how to work with us. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1845, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to consideration of s. 845, a bill to provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits and for other purposes.

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. it has been 11 days since federal unemployment insurance expired for 1 .3 million americans, and every day more americans lose these benefits, as their 26 weeks of state benefits expire. and i hope my colleagues join senator heller and i to swiftly pass this three-month extension. many of my colleagues have talked about issues with respect to a longer-term pie piece of

legislation, the cost of it should we pay for it, are there changes necessary in the program to make it more effective and efficient. those are thoughtful and worthy considerations, but they should not deprive 1.3 million americans -- and growing each day -- basic benefits, modest benefits, about $300 a week, that allows them to just keep their families together, keep trying to search for a job. and i would point out that the only way you qualify for this benefit is, one, you had a job, you lost it through no fault of your own, and you constantly have to keep searching for work. that's one of the requirements. it's all about work, and in this economy, it's all about the fact that there are two or three job seekers for every job, and in some parts of the country -- in

rhode island, massachusetts, nevada, arizona, tennessee, states that have high unemployment -- it's not just thre3-1. in sa some cases, it's more. i talked about an article in "the washington post" that talked about a new dairy reopening in hagueer hagerstown, maryland. they thought there would be a large demand for the jobs. 1,01,600 applicants for 36 jobs. that's happening all across this country, and it reflects the need to extend these benefits immediately. we have serious issues to work out, but we understand -- or we should understand that to do it carefully and thoughtfully, it requires time, it requires the attention of the experts in the

relative committees. in fact, i can recall coming down here before these benefits expired asking unanimous consent to extend them for a year, and one of the responses -- one of the objections from my colleagues on the republican side was, well, we have to do this through the committee. twoaf dwe have to do this thougy and deliberately. well, we have an opportunity to help people who desperately need help and start that deliberative process. and i hope we do that. yesterday we took an important step afford. we procedurally moved afford to start consideration of the legislation, and i want to thank again senator heller and my colleagues -- all of my colleagues that joined in that vote. that's giving us the chance to finish the job, but i.t. going t-- but it's goingto give be a . i think we need to quickly pass the reed-heller legislation.

90 days, unfunded. but it will immediately put mona the economy. it will immediately help struggling americans who are looking for work. they have to in order to qualify for these funds, and it will help over all the economy. as the c.b.o. has projected, if we do not fund for the year unemployment insurance, we will lose 200,000 jobs. 200,000 jobs which would be created by this program will not be created. so you'll have a double whammy. you'll still have people unemployed accepting for work without any assistance, and some in fact will stop searching. they'll give you up. then you won't have money going into the economy generating further demand and further demand causing demand to hire

more. so we made a very important step afford yesterday. not just to bolster economic demand throughout the economy, that's going to lead to growth. i find it somewhat ironic when i hear my colleagues a talk about oh, we really have got to create jobs. i agree. but there have been so many proposals that have been presented both by the administration, by my colleagues that have not been given consideration. creating a national infrastructure bank, which we'll found through a quasi public mechanism -- bridge renovations, sewer lines, those kind of things; that's been languishing for months and months and months. so we should get on with those things, i agree. but the immediate crisis is helping these 1.3 million and growing number of americans.

there's another reason why i think it is particularly clit ca-- whyit is particularly crito talk about extending benefits. we should not end this program now. as this chart indicates, long-term unemployment is much higher today than it has ever been when we terminated these benefits. april 1959 when they ended the extended benefits, it was . 9% long-term unemployment. .9 in 1977, 1.3% in 1994, today, 2.6% long-term unemployment. we're in a new situation here. these could be structural market changes which are making it harder and harder for the -- some people to find employment, even after accepting

desperately. and that's exactly what this program is designed to do. it is a state program, the initial 26 weeks -- that covers people who lose their job and then relatively quickly -- relatively quickly -- can find other employment. this program is the one that's designed for those people, for many reasons, that have difficulty finding a job over many, many weeks and months -- and today we're at twice the level we've ever been when we've considered cutting off these benefits. actually, we've cut off these benefits. it was december 28. so, for that reason alone, this issue of extended benefits has to be addressed, first, i would argue, on an emergency basis, and then let's think long and hard about longer-term efforts

to address this problem. many have suggested job training, snisk incentives for education. but they can't be done in the context of dueling proposals on the floor. if we can quickly adopt the reed-heller bill, it will give these long-term unemployed, this record number of long-term unemployed that have been cut off from benefits, it'll give them help and give us time. now, we've heard from countless citizens all across the country, and they come from all walks of life, from every aspect of employment. yesterday senator klobuchar release add report from the joint economic committee, which was extremely well-done and which described in detail the recipients. there's no one age group. it spans the gamut. there's no one ethnic concentration. there are some geographic areas

that are doing quite well, but there are areas that are doing quite badly that are scattered across the country. rhode island and nevada are, unfortunately, leading the list of unemployment, and they are very similar to state states ust of miles apart, different economies entirely, but they're caught up in the same problem of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. and the people who are unemployed are not sitting around pass civil. they're -- passively. they're out looking every day. in rhode island i've met people who they've worked for 30 years. they are in their 50's, they were white-collar professionals, trying to take care of an elderly parent, they have responsibilities to children, and they desperately want to work. one constituent who wrote to me has been out of work since december of 2012.

he has applied to over 300 jobs, taken additional classes at a local community college in the hopes of become ago more traikiv-- becominga more attrac. another constituent had to move in with her sister because she couldn't pay the rent. this is not some academic exercise, some rhetorical ideological debate. this is about helping real people who want to work, and they can't find the jobs after desperately looking for them. a third constituent wrote me the following letter. "i never thought that i would be among the unemployed, but here i am after over 30 years of experience in my field in higher education administration. i used to make $60,000 a year and now my unemployment benefits run out in mid-march. i have been searching for a job not oil i only in my field but o doing anything possible using my

transferable skills. i have not received an invitation for any of the interviews at all. so to those who say that extending benefits causes people to stay unemployed longer, they are wrong. when you lose jur your job, you would do anything to gain employment and regaining their dignity. no one wants to exist on unemployment compensation. please keep up the fight for extended benefits. it be hait has been a lifeline " 30 years of experience, retraining -- already undertaking; searching relentlessly for a job. an important point here, too, is it is about the economics, but it's also about your dignity and your identity. i don't care who you are. a job helps define who you are. it gives you a sense of esteem and accomplishment.

whether you are mopping floors or directing the operations of a huge international corporation. and for my colleagues who suggest somehow, well, you know, yeah, if you're the c.e.o. of a company, that's real valuable work and that gives you self-esteem, they miss the point. a job well-done, if it's cleaning floors or merging companies, gives the kind of satisfaction and the kind of self-respect that is critical. so this is about money, yeah, but it's also about giving people the opportunity as americans to live out their full potential, contribute to their family, contribute to their country. now, there are 1.3 million americans and more each day who are facing this same dilemma, and that's why congress needs to create jobs today and help americans excit compete for thes of tomorrow. it means taking a multifaceted approach with things like

restoring moving by focusing on advanced technology, ensuring local businesses have access to capital, improving our schools and workforce training programs, and investing in our infrastructure. all of the things have to be done, but it's going to be very difficult to do them here in the context of this legislation. that's why, again, i urge, let's move this bill afford, let's help these people who are struggling and working very hard, and then let's put ourselves 0en a very fast track to deal with these issues -- manufacturing renaissance, job training. we have not reauthorized the workforce investment act since 1998. that's the basic sort of education program for those adults and for people looking to move into the workforce, and the world has changed a lot since 1998, and that's a result of

some, i think, indifference, and i would suggest, you know, in 1998 with a republican congress in the last two years of the clinton administration, from 2000 to 2006, we couldn't do those things. it is time to point out the situation. if we want to get these issues done, let's start moving. but let's not leave these unemployed americans behind indefinitely without hope. mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? mr. reed: i will be happy to. mr. durbin: i would like to direct a question to the senator from rhode island through the chair. there's been debate on the floor here, and we've heard it off the floor, about whether or not we should pay for unemployment benefits. historically, if i'm not mistaken, most of the decisions to extend unemployment insurance benefits have been considered emergency measures and not paid for. and now there's a suggestion

from many republicans that we need to cut spending in areas to compensate for these extension of unemployment benefits, which if i am nea not mistaken are ine area of $26 billion a year. one of the suggestions yesterday from the republican senate leader mitch mcconnell would address, is not surprisingly, the affordable care act, so-called obamacare, and would eliminate the basis for one of the basic protections in that law. what senator mcconnell proposed yesterday was to eliminate the responsibility of every individual who had health insurance that was put in the law so we could have a large pool of unshourd people and say -- uninsured people and say anyone with a preexisting condition you will not be disqualified from health insurance. so the senator from kentucky has given this approach with the republicans support.

if you agree to eliminate protection in health insurance for people with preexisting conditions, then we will allow to you give unemployment benefits. in other words, if you will eliminate this protection in health insurance for 300 million-plus americans, we will give you one year of unemployment benefits for 1.3 million americans. i might add for the record that there are 1.9 million individuals with preexisting conditions in the state of kentucky, the state of the senator who made this proposal. so i'd like to ask the senator from rhode island who has shown extraordinary leadership on this issue of unemployment benefits, first, when he addressed the issue of paying for these benefits, and, second, would he address the specific suggestion of the republican leader that the best way to pay for benefits for people is to reduce protectionness health insurance for over 300 million americans? mr. reed: i thank the senator from illinois. let me first address the issue

of paying for these benefits. the senator from illinois is correct. typically these benefits are considered emergency spending and they are not offset. in fact, the legislation that was passed in the wee hours of january 1, 2013, as i recall, had a year extension of unemployment benefits unpaid for. it received an overwhelming vote, i believe 89-6, a huge majority of republicans and democrats coming together. a year ago this issue was not even on the table. by the way, i would think it probably led to the creation of c.b.o.'s estimates going forward of roughly 200,000 jobs this year because it was enacted and it was an offset. it goes to a second point about sort of the bang for the buck. this is one of the best countercyclical programs we have because when you give these

benefits to individuals and you don't take other benefits, other funds out of the economy, it has a multiplier effect. some people estimate $1.50 for every dollar we put in in terms of economic activity. and it makes common sense. these funds go directly from the recipient not to their savings account or to build up. it goes right out to buying gasoline, keeping cell phone service. by the way, today, if you don't have a car and you don't have a cell phone, you can't find a job. you can't go to the interview. you can't get the call for the interview. you can't apply online for the job. it's not 1955 anymore where you can take the bus and hand your, the clip board across the barrier to the clerk with the information on it. you've got to have this electronic connection to be in the workforce as well as mobility. from the point of view of an economic national perspective,

one, yes, we typically have done these things as emergency spending. two, you get a big bang for the buck when you do it that way. and there's a strong argument that that's probably the most sensible approach. with respect to the pay-for that the republican leader suggests that i concur entirely with the senator from illinois in that, one, it's robbing peter to pay paul. i'm sure that not only these folks are struggling to find a job, but of the 1.3 million people who currently receive these benefits, i've got to assume a significant number, at least some of them have preexisting conditions. for the first time many of them are able to qualify for health care benefits. and to take this protection away for millions of americans -- you say 1.9 million just in kentucky alone -- it's a huge number across the country. it would be bad policy and it

would in fact for many families be a crushing blow. again, i don't think we have to rob peter to pay paul. from an economic standpoint, we have typically done this without offsets because we want to propel the economic stimulus and the demand creation that comes. but from a basic fairness point of view, we're going to go ahead and give benefits of $300 a week to people who need them; i want to do that. but we're going to pay for it by telling some families, no. guess what? you don't get insurance. or you have to pay $25,000 a year because your child has asthma. that's not fair. it's not good common sense and not good economics. so i concur. if i may resume, madam president, we talked about some of the big issues here and

paying for this bill. and this is all in the context of deficit reduction which we've made significant progress on. the simpson-bowles act suggested -- i should say report, not an act, that over ten years we cut $4 trillion from deficit. and we've achieved roughly about $2.7 trillion of that. most of that coming from cuts to programs. not revenue increases but cuts. so we've made a significant progress on deficit reduction. we have to do more but we have to do it sensibly and logically. and we have proposals that we've brought forward. and i must commend my colleague -- and this was on a bipartisan basis. we passed an immigration reform bill, for example, in this body and it's languishing in the house. but in that bill alone, we will -- and this has been scored by c.b.o. -- we will cut over

the ten-year period another $1 trillion in the deficit which will get us to that target, very close to that target. and yet it's languishing in the house. if we can pass that, then this issue of deficit which has dominated and been very important over the last several years is something that we can practically resolve. and by the way, as i suggested in my colloquy with senator durbin, if we pass this legislation, that will help too in terms of economic growth, et cetera. there's many things we can do. again, i go back to this point. these people are in a desperate situation. you know, my constituent who wrote me, 30 years of work, middle age, getting retraining, 300 applications, no interview,

looking for anything. and it's about not just dollars in a check, it's about dignity. it's about who you are. i think we ought to respond and we ought to respobd quickly. it doesn't foreclose as we look at a longer-term effort. it doesn't foreclose and shouldn't foreclose considering programmatic changes, considering if we would offset or not. if response to senator durbin i pointed out typically we don't offset this program but we have in certain times in the past. my preference would be frankly is to get this bill done and then look at this issue over the longer term without preconditions. so we have to, i think, be clear. we can move this, and we should move it. now again, this question of offsets seems to be the one

coming up more and more. it was reflected in the senator from illinois' comments. as we initiated this program under president bush in 2008 and the unemployment rate was roughly 5.5% -- much lower than it is today -- we did not ask for offsets every time. in fact, it was really the exception to the rule. and now again i think is not the time, particularly in this 90-day proposal that senator heller and i have, to do that. we have worked through some difficult kwraoeurbs, -- issues and i commend senator murray and congressman ryan for their work on the budget and i think we can work through this issue. i urge again that we thoughtfully and very conscientiously and drab -- and

collaboratively work together longer term but not ignore the crisis today, not leave 1.3 million and more americans dangling, uncertain, desperate, frustrated, losing not only their income but in many respects their identity and their dignity. we can do better than that for them. and then we have the time -- we have the time to work constructively, collaboratively, cooperatively to come up with principle proposals to extend these benefits further hopefully through the whole year. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president, thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here on the senate floor this morning, and in a sense i'm intruding upon the discussion about unemployment insurance extension, but i want to take just a few minutes to highlight

the life of a kansan who passed in late 2013. at the end of the year i learned of the death of a resident of parsons kansas in the southeast corner of our state, e. just aj. sunny -- e. just a moment sunny setmeyer, i want to highlight for a moment and pay my respects to him and his family. the community of parsons lost one of its greatest champions when sonny zettmeyer passed away. his humor made an incredible impact on that community. sonny moved to parsons, kansas, from grand view, missouri, with his parents in 1965, and along with a company that his family owned that made cabinets. the company was called grand view products. he originally agreed with his family to stay in parsons just

for a year to help get the business off the ground in its new location. but his commitment to his family, to his family's business, it just continued to grow and he never left. he went on to purchase the company from his parents when they retired in 1982, and he helped build it into an outstanding cabinet making business that it is today. under his leadership, grand view products grew from a local small business with 24 employees to a $50 million company with over 400 employees shipping cabinets from coast to coast. today the company is the largest employer in parsons and owns a facility in the neighboring community of cherryville. sonny's love of business is only rivaled by his love of community. he cared deeply about the health and well-being of his employees and their families. through the recession of 2008 he

fought hard to keep the company's doors open and to keep as many employees as possible at work. when grandville products regained footing, he worked to bring many of the employees back to work. and even when he received the devastating cancer diagnosis that would ultimately take his life a few weeks later, sonny's thoughts immediately went to the well-being of his employees and their families. his wife sophia relayed this story about just his final weeks. she says his number-one concern was the company and its employees. it wasn't just his employees. it was the families that he was responsible for. sonny was able to have a meeting with 216 employees. first he announced they all got a raise so they wouldn't be afraid for their futures. no raises had been given for five years because of the recession. she said he said we're making money now, so everybody can have a raise.

then he told them he was going to -- who was going to be running what department within the company. and then he told them how sick he was. but his concerns for others and selflessness extended well beyond just that business. he was passionate about grand view products being a locally owned company and he felt a calling to serve the community that it was in through his service. over the years sonny donated cabinets to community projects, churches and schools throughout the parsons community. he also encouraged his employees to be charitable in whatever capacity they were able to do. in fact, sonny was so dedicated to giving back to the local community that he would only buy girl scout cookies from the girl scouts in his home county of lebetten and montgomery county. his services are numerous. they include two terms as trust eof the community college, six years as republican county

chairman in lebbet county and many years as president of parsons community foundation. sonny was named parsons chamber of businessperson of the year and the kansas state employer of the year in 2003. he received the kansas manufacturers association appreciation award in 2007 and in 2008 he was chosen to receive the cardinal award by labette community college. since 1945 the zetmeir sponsored the fireworks at marvel park in parsons. i've always believed what we do in the nation's capital is important but the reality is that we change the w0r8d one person at a time. so much more is accomplished by a person like sonny. sonny zetmeir has lived the life, and by investing his time and talent and financial support into the community he lived, he made a difference every day.

his involvement in the community and selflessness serves as a role model for every american. sonny was married to his wife for 51 years and was a devoted father to their three daughters, and i would ask the senate today to join me in extending our sympathies to sonny's wife and their fannie ma family. he was loved by them and will be greatly missed. if one's value in life is determined by whether or not you made a difference while you were here on this earth, sonny's life was priceless. god bless him and let him be a role model for all of us. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts.

mr. markey: i seek recognize --k recognition to speak on the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: 1.3 million people already have not had a happy new year. that's because of when we tried to extend emergency unemployment insurance before the holidays, the republican leadership said "no," the temperatures may be dropping to new lows, but we shouldn't freeze unemployment benefits. when the economy was collapsing and a.i. g.i., the multinational insurance company needed funds, we found that money for a.i.g. but when the americans who are still recovering from the very recession caused by these institutions need more unemployment insurance, we just can't seem to find a way to get it done. these aren't just numbers. these people -- 1.3 million people across the country and 60,000 in my home state of massachusetts -- they now face

the harsh reality in 2014 that their country no longer has their backs. mr. president, one of these people is named vera volk from wynn, massachusetts, just north of boston. a 20-year employee in the biotech pharmaceutical industry laid off in may of 2013. her layoff was, in part, due to sequestration, cuts in federal funding of biotech last year. last month she lost her unemployment benefits when the emergency unemployment insurance program ended. vera has suffered a doubling injustice. first her job was eliminated through sceftion ansceftion andd the extension of her unemployment benefits. without the additional unemployment insurance, vera and her family new need help to obtain food and medical sthans.

assistance. in the future, vera's family faces the loss of their car and home. thousands of families are facing equally similar decisions. published reports say that unemployment insurance kept 2.5 million americans including 600,000 children out of poverty last year alone p. that is why i am a cosponsor of the emergency unemployment compensation extension act that senators reed and heller have introduced you to reinstate and continue federal support for emergency unemployment insurance program until the end of march. and under that legislation, vera volk would be eligible to receive up to 35 weeks of unemployment benefits. today there are approximately 11.3 million americans out of work and looking for a job. in mass marks the unemployment

rate is 7.3% and 275,000 are looking for work. in too many cities, lawrence, new bedford, all over massachusetts, there are cities with much higher unemployment rates and those unemployed workers in massachusetts and across this country, they're finding it extremely difficult to find a job in this market. according to the economic policy institute, for every one job opening, there are 3.1 unemployed workers. so two out of every three job seekers have no job that they can actually find. and yet we're going to pretend that there is a job for them to be able to find. there are many people who believe they're not working hard enough to find a job. well, let me tell you something. back in 2000, the unemployment rate in the united states of america went down to 3.8%, and

guess what happened? people who were unemployed took those jobs. when unemployment goes down to 3.8%, when the government and the private sector is doing their job, people come to work. in massachusetts in 2000, unemployment went down to 2.8%. people weren't hiding under their beds. people weren't pretending they couldn't work. when the job was there, people took it. this isn't ancient history. this is 2000. 3.8% unemployment. 2.8% unemployment for the state of massachusetts. people who are offered a job will take a job. the jobs are not there. it is not the fault of these families. it is not the fault of these job seekers. we should not be punishing them. we should not be punishing their families. because this capitalist system is not producing the jobs right now. we have to reach out with a

helping hand to these families, so they can make it through this difficult time where the system is failing them. and instead we're going to blame them for not finding jobs that do not exist. and it's a beautiful circular argument where you never have to help the people who are actually being victimized by the failure in the economy. er but the friewj ibut the trutt down 3.8% uncomoiment i unemplo, employers called these people back and said, we want to put you to work and the workers said, yes, we're ready to do it. and so here we are once again back in this cycle where too many people are pointing the finger at the worker when we know the worker will do the job. we have to just be honest about

this. the system -- this capitalist system, this interaction between the government and capitalism -- right now is not producing the jobs for these workers. we have to work on that. that's ours responsibility. we should be humble enough to say that it is the government, it is the private sector, not working together, smarter, not harder, in order to accomplish these goals for all those workers across our country. if we did that, i think that ultimately we would have the very interesting result, according to all economists, of actually injecting more funding into the economy, creating more jobs, not destroying an additional 200,000 or 300,000 this year because we didn't inject the funding that would be provided to these unemployed, that then would be spent on the economy and would keep it more on the upward tick that it is on right now, and instead, again be, paradoxically, we're going

to wind up with the republicans, if they're successful, in cutting off this funding for long-term unemployment and seeing unemployment actually continue to rise. instead of being logue lowered. -- instead of being lowered. we have to work together in a bipartisan fashion in order to make smart investments now that will create jobs, continue our country's economic recovery, lower unemployment, and i believe that our national strategy for job growth must continue to emphasize the areas where we excel as a nation -- that's education, health care, biotech, clean tech, it's technology in general and the investment into these areas that continue to give us the opportunity to be an engine for job growth in the world. but, while we chase this dawn of of a brighter economy, we must not leave behind millions of

americans and their families. so let's not punish those who are the victims and continue to be the victims of a wall street collapse because we, as a nation, have to understand and identify these innocent victims who still sit out there with their families. i hope that we can come together in a bipartisan basis to continue this program that is such a lifeline to the unemployed, their families, and our economy. and i yield the floo yield backf my time. i have three unanimous consent t requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: first of all, on the business before us today, we want to continue to remember that if you are ann unemployed,

if you do -- if you are unemployed, if you do lose jury job today or -- lose your job today or tomorrow or next week in every state you immediately qualify for six months of unemployment. in states that have high unemployment, you immediately qualify for 13 to 26 weeks of unemployment. if this congress and the administration spent the kind of effort and time on what it takes to create private-sector jobs or encouraging an environment where that happens, we'd be spending our time much more wisely than we are continuing to perpetuate a program that the majority would suggest shouldn't even be paid for and many would suggest is just not a program at all. now other things that ar that ae affecting our economy is why i came to the floor today. from constant talking about more taxes, to higher utility bills

to more regulation, to obviously this overwhelming discussion about health care. i noticed the majority leader this weekend said that roughly a third of all the people that have been added to the insured rolls because of the affordable care act were because of a bill i introduced in 2009 that would allow dependents or children to stay on their family policies longer. i was the only one, madam president, that introduced that bill in the house. i don't think it was introduced in the senate. i thought it was a good idea then. think it is a good idea now. apparently it's such a good idea that a third of all the people that have insurance that didn't have insurance before are just because of that bill. it was house resolution 3887. it's one, two, three and a half pages that could have passed by itself, not 2,700 pages. three and a half pages that

would have added a third of all the people the majority leader of the senate said have been added because of the affordable care act. no taxpayer money involved. three and a half pages that would havwouldn't have disruptey else's health insurance. there were other solutions out there that would have made a lot more sense. i am tired of hearing from the administration that nobody else had any other ideas. apparently my idea was one-third of all the people that have been added to insurance, according to the majority leader. so apparently i had a third of all the ideas and they were in three and a half legislative pages with no taxpayer cost. just as i suspect is the case with every senator, i'm getting letters, postings on our facebook page, contacts through all of the social media every day from missouriians who are saying this is just not working out like they thought it was going to work out. at ozark technical community

college in my hometown, the adjunct faculty there, as is the case in many community colleges, has taught an awful lot of the courses -- i think about 58% of the courses taught are taught by not full-time faculty members but part-time faculty members. the problem is, those faculty members are now more part-time than they were before. many of them were teaching 30 credit hours per year prior to this year, but largely because of the affordable care act, they're now teaching 24 credit hours. so they lost that percentage of of their work, that percentage of of their pay, that percentage of their ability to work with and be dedicated to students. according to the springfield up i--springfield newspaper, 50% of all the credit hours taught, many of whom were teaching 30

credit hours, now teaching 24 credit hours. there's only one reason that they're working 24 hours a week instead of 30, and that's because 30 is the point where benefits, according to the affordable care act, have to be offered at a level that is defined by the affordable care act, not defined by the community college. in fact, some of these -- some community colleges in america gave some benefits before for people who were part of the adjunct faculty, just not the benefits that the federal government appears to think are absolutely necessary. let me goh a few of the people who have reached out to our office in recent days. jeffrey at blues springs, missouri, is a small business owner who offers health care benefits to his employees. but what jeffrey says is -- quote -- "it feels like a bait and switch. get everyone to drop the coverage they liked and then stick it to them once

company-provided health care is no longer available." i'm asking people when i'm home as i was all, so much of the break we just had, what are you doing with your health care? and employer after employer who doesn't have 50 employees, who isn't impacted by this, is just saying i think the government is about to take this over. and before they get in, i'm getting out. 12 people at the dentist office, the 36 people at the radio station either losing their health care this january 1 or already know they're going to lose it next january 1. and the only reason is the so-called affordable care act. marcia at avos, missouri, has three children all under the age of five. her husband's employer has been informed because of obamacare they'll have to absorb more than $1 million in order to keep providing insurance for their employees.

the employer is still trying to do that, but the coverage isn't what it was. the deductibles higher than it was. and one of the messages is we may not be able to do this much longer. sabre at purdy, missouri, and her husband were notified they would lose their health care and dislose their health care on december 31 because of the health care act. she says "we live on less than $14,000. now we're at a point where we have to make a choice. food, medication, both of which i can no longer afford but we don't have health care any longer." theresa at joplin, missouri's husband lost his coverage on december 31. when she tried to sign up at healthcare.gov she was told they were ineligible because they were incarcerated. turns out neither of them have ever been arrested or incarcerated at all but they were ineligible because they

were incarcerated. i guess the greater point there is he lost his health care. she wouldn't have had to be on healthcare.gov and find out that much to her surprise the government believes she is incarcerated if her husband hadn't lost his health care at work. melanie from saint charles, missouri, is a single mother of three. her employers cut her hours because of obamacare. she is no longer able to work more than 28 hours a week and had to find two be additional part-time jobs to make up for the job she lost. here's what she says. she says, "i feel like the government is working against me and i'm the person they say they're trying to help," according to melanie at saint charles, missouri. jean in st. louis says her insurance was canceled because of the president's health care plan. the most similar plan she could find in the exchange, similar to the one she had before costs

$775 per month, more than double what she was paying before the affordable care act. she says why did we break a health care system that allowed people to find what they needed instead of just government making -- deciding what you need? jefferson city schools in the state capital in our state says that the health care plan will cost their school district $150,000. they're not having to pay insurance for substitute teachers that they didn't pay before. there are people, i'm sure, listening to this will think that's fine they're paying for substitute teachers. but many of those substitute teachers are no longer allowed to work 30 hours, and school districts all over america and others are, in district like pth one with it just cost

$150,000 more than it did. district officials in the article i read didn't go as far as to say the federal government is hurting more than it's helping but they did point out that $150,000 is about three teachers. three full-time teachers that they won't hire, that they might have been able to hire otherwise. barbara in novinger, missouri, says her husband and she no longer have health care. for the first time in 50 years my husband and i do not have health care. my hours have been reduced from 40 to 28 a week and they eliminated my insurance at work because they don't have to give it to me anymore. interestingly, employers for years provided health insurance because they thought it was the right thing to do and the competitive thing to do; take a different view of this when the government begins to tell you what you have to do. i think it's one of the most interesting applications of the health care law. when the government begins to

tell you what you have to do, then suddenly it's okay not to do anything except what you have to do. and how do you meet that criteria? how do you draw that line? you have people work less than 30 hours. you don't create new jobs. you outsource your work. let me give you three or four more examples as i finish up here with my time on the floor. sandra in springfield is upset that her health care plan will require them to have pediatric dentistry and maternity care. she says i'm upset that my health plan will require my husband and i to have pediatric dentistry and maternity care that we simply do not need. i don't know how many letters all of us have received like that. these benefits that are supposedly better insurance than you had, for a whole lot of people are benefits you don't need. suddenly you're paying for benefits you don't need, and people who don't have insurance

can get insurance once they get sick. how is that supposed to make any kind of economic sense or health care sense? mark in chesterfield, missouri, says his plan was canceled because his plan didn't meet the requirements of the president's health care plan. here's what he says. "my current plan will no longer be offered after december of 2014. this is a direct contradiction to president obama's promise that i can keep my plan if i liked it." some people lost their insurance on december 31 of last year. other people have already been told they're going to lose their insurance december 31 of next year. and here from west plains, somebody who works at the ozarks medical center, says we are a sole community provider with the closest hospital providing the same level of care to be over

100 miles away. the loss of the health care system that we've had will devastate the economics of this community and surrounding communities. what we're going to find here, madam president, is a system that is not designed to meet the needs of the people of the country. what we could have done is give them more choices to figure out what they needed to meet their needs instead of coming up with a system that just simply is going to leave so many people that had insurance two years ago without insurance two years from now. surely that wasn't the goal, but people had better wake up in this chamber and in washington, d.c. and figure out whether that was the goal or not, it's going to be the result if we don't do something about it. and the best thing to do about it would be start over now that we've learned all we've learned over the last four years and make the changes to the best health care system in the world that will make it even better

and work for more people. and i would yield the floor. i need to ask for a quorum here? i'll yield the floor. mr. cornyn: if the senator will withhold the request. madam president, i'd ask for recognition. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, despite the differences between the different sides of the aisle here on the underlying legislation, particularly on the refusal so far of the majority leader to actually pay for the $6 billion cost of the three-month extension of long-term unemployment benefits and adding that $6 billion to the $17.3 trillion national debt, despite those disagreements, i'm confident

that both parties would really like to find a way to deal with the problem of america's long-term unemployed. and people who don't necessarily want to collect unemployment benefits, they want a job. they want to work. they want to provide for their families. so even as we stand here and debate yet another extension of federal unemployment benefits, it's important that we keep the big picture in mind. and obviously what we're talking about, just to remind everybody, is the basic unemployment program provides a half year, 26 weeks, of unemployment benefits. but democrats want to extend that emergency measure, which was enacted after 2008, the fiscal crisis. perhaps it appears on a permanent basis after we've spent $250 billion since 2008, and to continue to recklessly

borrow money from our creditors like the chinese and others and leave it for our children to pay it back. how responsible is that? but the best way to help the unemployed and the best way to help americans and america is to increase economic growth and increase job creation. we've had a grand experiment known as the stimulus back in 2009. $1 trillion of borrowed money, grand projections were made if the federal government would just spend borrowed money rather than have the private sector do that, we would see unemployment rates plummet. and of course that has proven not to be the case. in fact, this slow economic recovery after great recession

of 2008, has been the slowest economic recovery that we've seen since the great depression back in the 1930's. but we can't adopt -- or congress can't adopt, the federal government can't adopt policies that hamper growth and discourage job creation and expect the economy to grow and jobs to be created. let me say that again. you can't adopt policies which actually discourage small businesses from starting a business or growing their business and creating skwrobts. you can't -- and creating jobs. you can't adopt policies that hurt them and expect jobs and economic growth to follow. what that means is that not withstanding the good intentions of those who embrace some of these policies, they're actually hurting the unemployed. no matter how many times they want top extend unemployment

benefits on a long-term basis. unfortunately, that's exactly what the obama administration has done time and time again. now let me just say, madam president, i'm confident president obama would like to help people who can't find work. i'm sure the president believes as well that obamacare will improve the health care system for 300 million-plus americans. the problem is we've seen this experiment in big government and government takeovers, whether it's with the health care system or through this $1 trillion stimulus package; they simply have not worked. so at some point good intentions have to give way to reality and the facts, especially when those good intentions are not translated into good results. let me give you one example.

recently i was in tyler, texas. that's over in northeast texas, near louisiana, at a restaurant doing a round table on the impact of the affordable care act, or obamacare, on employers like the owner of that small diner, who owned this restaurant. he told the tale of -- many tales but one in particular that stuck in my mind -- of a single mother who instead of 40-hour work was now relegated to a part-time job of 30 hours a week. and that's in order to avoid the penalties and the mandates of obamacare by her employer. so what this single mom has to do in order to compensate for her lost income is to find another part-time job. so she ends up instead of working 40 hours at one job, working 60 hours at two jobs just in order to make up for that lost income. here again, you know, if the

president and his allies think that we're going to make up for the lost wages that this single mom is making by having her work, we cut from 40 hours to 30 hours, i think they need to think again. that's how -- what i mean when i say the policies of this administration have actually hurt the very people they now they say want to help, by increasing long-term unemployment benefits. it is true that facts are stubborn things. and there's a mountain of evidence that if you pay people too generously that it actually discourages some people from actively seeking employment. in fact, several years ago president obama's own former chief white house economist said that -- quote -- "job search is

inversely related to the generosity of employment benefits." trantranslated means, if you pay people too much not to work, some people are going to be persuade not to look for work. and indeed i know there are perhaps many explanations for the slow economic recovery and the high rate of unemployment, which is up around 7% and the largest number of people who simply dropped out of the workforce in the last 30 years, known as the labor participation rate. there is a lot of reasons for where we find ourselves now. but adding benefits to people not to work is not -- and not dealing with the underlying problem of a slow economic growth and people being discouraged from creating new jobs or making full-time work part-time work. we need to be looking at the root causes of the problem.

and the problems or the policies of this administration time and time again. well, the majority leader and his allies want to extend benefits for three more months -- three more months. this is on top of the 26 weeks which are part of the basic unemployment compensation package. my question is, if you want to extend it for three months, where will we find ourselves three months from now? will we be met yet for another request for extension of long-term unemployment benefits that adds another $6 billion to the deficit? what about three months later? i hope i can be forgiven, madam president, in saying, this feels like a political exercise more than a sincere effort to deal with the underlying problem of joblessness in our country.

particularly after we're $17.3 trillion in debt, something the president seems to not care one bit about, which, as the federal reserve begins to wind down their bond buying program, we're going to see interest rates go up, and we're going to end up spending more and more tax dollars just to pay our creditors for the debt, while we ought to be focused on dealing with some of these root causes. let me get back to my point. some republicans have offered to find ways to pay for this three-month extension, and my impression is that if that were done, it would probably happen -- for three months. but we've also suggested long-term reforms that would make our system of unemployment insurance more effec effective. senator alockbo alexander, formr secretary of education, former

governor of tennessee, discussed yesterday at our conference lunch, yo he said, you know, wht we ought do is make pell grants -- i think they're in excess of $5,000 per person -- available so people can study job training in community colleges during that 26-weeks o weeks of unempl. they can learn new skills that will allow them to get jobs in another field. so there are a the although of good ideas out there -- so there are a lot of good ideas out there about how we can improve the unemployment system, if in fact the majority leader will just allow it. and he remains agnostic, i would say, whether or not he is even going to allow us to offer amendments to pay for the three-month extension or some of these good, solid ideas of dealing with the root problems rather than just to intreat the

symptom -- rather than just continue to treat the symptoms. i know many of our colleagues on the other aisle -- many of us share the same goals, yet the majority leader has made it clear that this week he's more interested in rhetoric and political gamesmanship than real reform. that's why i objected on monday night when 17 senators were missing. the majority leader waptsed to hav-- the majority leader wanteo have a vote on cloture that was doomed to fail. why? not because he was interested in a real solution, but because he want add gotcha moment. look, with 17 senators missing, the 60-vote threshold was not going to be achieved. what possible purpose could be served by having that vote then instead of moving it to tuesday

whereby which it was moved to. the only conclusion i could draw was that the majority leader was interested in a gotcha moment. but for the fatly fortunately, e reconsidered and moved it to use it day. so far, the majority leader i,sy other ideas than those cooked up in the majority leader's conference room behind closed doors. the any of my hand 11 republican amendments, many of them bipartisan. there's bipartisan support for them. for example, senator pawcialg the senator from kentucky -- for example, senator paul, the senator from kentucky, his

economic zone act. i think there were five -- he calls them by another name -- but basically the same sort of concept, looking at blighted areas and trying to provide incentives for job creation in those areas of high unemployment. so senator paul has got a bill that would deal with that. senator portman from ohio has a reform that would simultaneously prohibit -- prohibit simultaneous continuation of unemployment benefits. that's something we ought to be dealing with. senator moran of kansas has a bill he calls the start-up act 2.0, a jobs bill. the other senator i senator fro, senator coats, wants to offset the extension of unemployment insurance by delaying individual employer mandates for a year. the president has already done

that unilaterally for employer mandates. why not delay the individual mandate for a year and use that to offset this extension for three months of unemployment insurance? so there are plenty of ideas out there. i mentioned some of them. the senator from oklahoma, both of them, have amendments that would be good amendments to offer on this legislation. the senator from louisiana has one. the senator from new hampshire has one. so these are at least 11 ideas that if the majority leader would allow us to actually have a real debate, as opposed to a political exercise, we could come up, i believe, with a bipartisan consensus that would actually help deal with the underlying problem and not just treat the symptoms in a way that ignores those root causes. let me get back to cause number

one, i think, for the difficulties many small businesses are having today and many people who work for those small businesses, and that is obamacare. i realize some people would like us to believe that this is all about the web site and one the web site gets fixed, it's all going to be hunky-dory, regardless of the fact that more people have lost their current coverage by cancellation than have been signed up on the obamacare exchanges. well, the administration seems particularly proud of the fact that obamacare has added hundreds of thousands of americans to medicaid. the and as we all know, this is -- and as we all know, this is the safety net program designed to help low-income people. the problem is, medicaid itself is a fundamentally broken program that's failing our neediest citizens.

the problems with medicaid are a stark reminder that access to coverage does not mean the same thing -- excuse me, access to coverage is different from having access to care. and this is what i mean by that: in texas only about a third of doctors will see a new medicaid patient. you might ask, well, that doesn't make much sense. well, it does if you consider the fact that medicaid, this government program, pays doctors about 50 cents on the dollar of what a private insurance coverage would pay. and because it's -- it reimburses at such a low rate, some physicians have said, i can't continue to add new patients to my practice and be compensatincompensated 50 centse dlamplet that's what i mean there is a difference between access to coverage and access to care. so, medicaid is sorely in need

of reform. all across the country medicaid patients have been forced to endure the humiliating experience of walking in a a doctor's office and then getting turned away because the office doesn't accept medicaid, for the reason i mentioned. we've also seen lawsuit brought by providers and patients against their own state medicaid programs saying the reimbursement rates are so low, we can't actually see patients at that price. in texas, again, the 2012 survey conducted by the texas medical association, a large majority of texas physicians agreed that medicaid was broken and should not be used as a mechanism to reduce the uninsured. well, despite all that, there are those who say that obamaca obamacare's medicaid expansion

will help hospitals cope with excessive emergency room visits. again, the problem is, that flies in the face of the facts. in a recent study in oregon, medicaid recipients in oregon went to the emergency room 40% more frequently than people without health insurance. you might ask, why in the world would they go to the emergency room for routine care if they have medicaid coverage? well, because they can't find a doctor to see them. -- to see them at medicaid prices. again, creating the illusion of access but no real access to care but through the emergency room. well, madam president, there are much better ways to expand health coverage than simply pushing americans into a dysfunctional safety net program that is supposed to help the most vulnerable in our society but which does not. now, our side of the aisle made

that argument consistently four years ago but the president and his allies chose not to listen and decided to go it themselves on purely a party-line vote when obamacare was passed. maybe after voters render their verdict on become popcorn in november, we'll -- on obamacare in november, we'll have another chance to revisit this issue. rather than asking the states to expand their existing medicaid programs, the federal government should give each state greater flexibility to design a program that meets those states' needs. what works pes best in texas mat work swrlwork as well in new yod vicar have savment we ought to give the states a defined amount of medicaid funds with very few strings ar attached so they can create programs that provide quality care. one of the good things about that is the states would

actually be the laboratories of democracy that we've talked about from time to time, where we can actually learn from best practices and innovations and other states can then use that to improve access to quality health care at a more affordable price. but i would tell you, madam president, despite all our differences over obamacare, republicans and democrats alike both want to find a way to make health care more affordable and more accessible. unfortunately, obamacare has proven not to have worked out as the most ardent advocates have hoped. -- or promised. republicans believe the best way to achieve these goals is to make -- is to leave the choices in the hand o hands of patients. that is really the fundamental difference between obamacare and the alternatives. the president wants the government to choose your plan, to choose your doctor, and to

make those decisions for you. we think that it's better to leave those choices in the hands of patients in consultation with their own personal physician, a person that they've come to trust over the years, to help counsel them on what are wise health care choices for themselves and their families. we can also do that by increasing transparency, increase a real marketplace so people can shop like consumers do day in and day out. and we know that kind of transparency in terms of price and the competition when it comes to people providing a service improves the quality and lowers the cost. that's our -- that's what our market economy teaches us. and we know, i would hope by now, the answer is not to place more people into a broken government program that takes their choices away. well, madam president, as i said

earlier good intentions don't always produce good results, but i would hope that we would learn from our mistakes as individuals, as a congress and the result of the last five years includes some pretty miserable outcomes that i would hope would cause us to reconsider as we go forward together to try to address the problem of chronic joblessness in our society. as i said, the last five years have given us the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression, massive decline in labor workforce participation, the percentage of people actually looking for worked has declined to a 30-year law. it's given us growing income inequality, the thing the president says he cares the most about but he doesn't offer any proposals that deal with the

underlying cause, merely treating the symptoms by paying people extensive unemployment benefits. we've seen an explosion of job-killing regulations. i'm reminded -- i see the presiding officer that i think the city with the lowest unemployment rate in america is bismarck, north dakota if i'm nt mistaken. close behind that is midland, texas and the thing they have in common is unleashing the great job machine and particularly in the energy sector. what we need to do is look for ways it avoid some of the job killing regulation that is make it harder, not easier to produce jobs in places like north dakota and texas. we've also seen millions of canceled health care policies, millions of people with higher he premiums -- not lower premiums like the president offered and promised. we've seen an unprecedented

increase in our national debt and an incredible complacency when it comes to adding $6 billion more to our national debt for a three-month extension of long-term unemployment. and we've seen, not surprisingly, associated with all of this a huge erosion in the public trust of the federal government. that's why this side of the aisle has been pushing and will continue to push a new set of policies that addresses the biggest concerns of the american people and the biggest challenges facing the american dream. the only question, madam president, is this list of 11 bills that senators on this side of the aisle would like to offer on this underlying legislation, not just to treat the symptoms of unemployment but actually deal with the root causes, whether the majority leader is going to allow those

amendments to be taken up, debated and voted on and to allow the senate to work its will on a bipartisan basis. that remains to be seen. if he does not, and recent history doesn't give me a lot of optimism that he will, then i think it will become even more transparent that this is not an exercise in trying to help people who are out of work. this is an exercise in trying to politicize this in a way that distracts attention from the epic failure of obamacare and its wet blanket effect on the american economy and job creation. i guess hope springs eternal. you can't serve in this body and hope to make a difference in the lives of the american people without being an optimist by nature. but unfortunately in the case of the majority leader, there is

some doubt in my mind. he hope he proves me wrong. i hope he will open this up to an amendment process that will allow us to deal with the root causes and will not just be another exercise in got which -n gotcha washington politics. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: we work hard every day to give the opportunity to our loved ones to live healthy. good jobs allow us to put food on the table, educate our children and ultimately retire in dignity. and good jobs are of course critical for stronger communities and a vibrant economy. it all starts with a job. and without good jobs, nothing

else works. as i have said before, most americans think congress can do something, even if it's just not doing any harm, to help create jobs and strengthen our economy. unfortunately over the last year the partisan gridlock that has too often defined congress has been in full force. during the starkest example this have gridlock, the government shutdown, a poll found that americans cited congress as the single biggest threat to our economy. that should have been a wakeup call for all of us, a clear signal to collectively focus on working together to give our families the opportunity to compete and succeed in the american economy. opportunity means creating the conditions for businesses to expand and to hire more workers. it means an economic environment that encourages the private sector to invest and innovate in

an ever he changing global economy and it means providing american workers with the training they need to get the skims and education necessary to fill the jobs available today and to adapt to fill the jobs in the careers of the future. as we start a new year, i encourage us all to refocus our efforts and our intention on the responsibilities to the families that we represent. and to that end, i am focused on my opportunity agenda, a blueprint of commonsense policies designed to expand economic opportunities for hoosier workers and workers all across our country. for businesses, for their families, in four critical areas that we can help create more good jobs. number one, going all in on american energy. number two, providing american workers with the training necessary to fill the jobs

available today. number three, investing in our infrastructure. and number four, keeping our country competitive through export and innovation. why are these four areas important to families across our country? as the president knows, a strong domestic energy economy is at the foundation of our poepbgs -- potential for economic success. affordable reliable energy allows citizens to heat their homes and drive to work and school. affordable reliable energy ensures businesses can manufacture products efficiently, on time and can compete in our global economy. and affordable, reliable american energy ensures we are investing our money here at home rather than each year sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to buy energy that's already here in the united states. the production of affordable,

reliable american energy here at home creates jobs here at home. not overseas. our country is blessed with abundant energy resources. in fact, in my state of indiana, we produce coal, biofuels, wind and solar energy and natural gas. and we can do more. going all in on american economy also means establishing smart regulations that protect our environment while also allowing our economy to grow. my home state of indiana is a large producer of coal, as i know your home state of north dakota is. we are annually in the top ten of coal-producing states in the nation. the coal industry supports over 3,000 jobs in ten southwestern indiana counties and contributes over $750 million to our state's economy.

hoosiers count on affordable reliable energy from our home state coal. this is why regulations on carbon dioxide emissions should be realistic and not negatively impact our economy. if we don't address these standards in a commonsense way, the atpobl, reliable family that hoosier families and businesses depend on is in doubt. we should also continue full speed ahead on technology efforts that will make coal a cleaner and cleaner energy source for all of our energy needs in the years ahead. indiana is also a leader in biofuel production. for more than 600 hoosiers work at 13 ethanol plants and five biodiesel plants across our state. i've seen firsthand the good work being done at many of these plants. they use products grown here at home to produce fuel here at home, to power vehicles here at

home. with ethanol and other biofuels, we aren't again sending our hard-earned money overseas. we're putting our neighbors to work. we're putting their hard work into creating more energy and more opportunity in our communities and across our country. this industry is another example of american-made energy and american-made entrepreneurial leadership. second, it is very important we help our workforce hit the ground running by improving workforce development and training. the department of labor estimates there are 3.9 million job openings in the united states right now. despite a national unemployment rate of 7% and millions of americans looking for work. estimates by the manufacturing institute indicate there is as many as 600,000 job openings in our country that remain unfilled

because employers cannot find workers who have the necessary skills to do that job. you must make a better effort to close this skills gap. i often hear from hoosier business owners tpr-rbgs -- from educators and workers about the pressing need to close the skills gap and have people train in all these opportunities and skills. workers need to know the time they spend training is more likely to lead to employment and a good-paying job as employers are more likely to hire people they know have the training that's needed to be productive on day one. third, it's important we invest in infrastructure. inn sin called the crossroads -- indiana is called the crossroads of america. tphorbd to live -- in order to live up to our name we need the best roads, best rail, best waterways so we can continue to expand our logistic and other transportation industries. today 22% of our bridges are

instruct -- structurally deficient. 70% of indiana roads are in poor or mediocre condition. a good way to create jobs in indiana and across the country is to establish the right conditions for investment in our country's infrastructure. i have and will continue to support encouraging investment by requiring government agencies to work together to cut red tape to, set deadlines and to increase transparency. madam president, we should be building things in this country, and that means expediting transportation, energy and other infrastructure projects that strengthen our economy. finally, it is important we keep hoosier and all american businesses and industries competitive through the promotion of exports and innovation. we produce some of the best quality products in the world,

from automobiles to agricultural products, to medical devices. and we should continue to look for opportunities to sell these production to the rest of the world. manufacturing accounts for a big portion of indiana's exports and manufactured goods exports support nearly 23% of indiana's manufacturing jobs. that's much higher than the national average. small businesses account for near 17% of our exports. and we need to do more to promote the good work of these hoosier businesses. american businesses are competing in an increasingly challenging global economy, and we must promote a global economy that is built on responsible and fair trade policies. i'm a longtime supporter of cracking down on currency manipulation which results in an unfair playing field for

american manufacturers. the economic policy institute estimated that if we addressed global currency manipulation, we could reduce the u.s. goods trade deficit by up to $400 billion and create several million jobs right here at home, reducing our national unemployment rate. i support enhanced oversight currency exchange rates including new requirements that the commerce department investigate claims of undervalued foreign currency at the request of the united states industry. i also support using u.s. trade law to counter the economic harm to u.s. manufacturers caused by this currency manipulation and tools to address the impact of this misalignment of currency on u.s. industries. we all know good trade policies create good jobs, fuel economic growth, and benefit consumers both at home and abroad. yet we also must remember that

trade only works when everyone is playing by the same rules. that's why i testified before the u.s. international trade commission regarding the importance of maintaining existing anti-dumping and counterveiling duty orders against unfairly traded imports of hot-rolled steel. the steel industry supports over 150,000 jobs in indiana. these trade orders help maintain a level playing field for an already vulnerable domestic steel industry. given a level playing field, hoosier workers can compete with anyone in the world, which is why i was pleased the i.t.c. ruled that these trade orders would be maintained. it is also critically important that our intellectual property is also respected and is also enforced. we have a lot of work to do, but i am hopeful that congress can learn from last year's dysfunction and start this year

in a bipartisan way. senators from both parties can agree there's nothing more important to american families and american communities than good jobs. they want us to work for them and not worry about politics. i look afford to continuing these opportunities ran and ease efforts under my opportunity agenda. by working on commonsense, bipartisan ideas to go all in on american economy, to give workers the tools they need to hit the ground running, to invest in our infrastructure, and to keep homegrown businesses competitive through exports in innovation, we can help lower unemployment and build a stronger economy. madam president, i yield back. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, 50 years ago today in his first state of the union address, president lyndon johnson committed america 20 wha to whae

called a war on poverty. over the next several years america conducted the most ambitious, determined, and successful campaign in history to reduce poverty since the great depression. later today my friend, senator harkin, the chairman of the senate help committee, will speak in detail about the aplashets oaaccomplishments on n poverty. senator harkin has spent over four decades in congress working to make sure these antipoverty programs continue to work. we believe on our side of the aisle that we have to be dmaifle have to be careful in spending stps dollars. but we also believe in a safety net for those americans that need a helping hand. i once worked for a man who served in the senate, my inspiration to enter public life. and i am honored today to have his senate seat. his name was paul douglas of illinois. he once said, to be a liberal doesn't mean to be wasteful.

he went on to say, we must in fact be thrifty if we're to be really humane. i think we can balance both. we can help people who need a helping hand, but we can do it without wasting taxpayers' dollars. so what dp thi did this war on y of 50 years ago achieve? medicare, medicaid, the head start program, the elementary, secondary, and education act which was the first time our nation committed the federal government to helping local school districts; special education legislation, the higher education act which increased grants, loans, and work study opportunities. madam president, my story is a story that many can repeat. i went to college and law school borrowing money from the federal government. it was called the national defense education act. and i borrowed money to get through college and law school. otherwise, i couldn't have done it. the deal was that starting a year after grad way, you paid it

back over -- a year after graduation, you made it back over ten years at 3% interest. i like to think that that loan from the gorveghts which goveri paid back, was good investment. i hope that some people in illinois might think it was a good investment for the nation. but it is an indication when a helping hand from the government can make a difference, a profound difference, in a person's life. before the higher education act and the war on poverty, just over 9% of americans had college degrees. today almost a third of americans have at light a bachelor's degree -- at least a bachelor's degree. there's been no act of congress since president lincoln passed through the land grant college system that's done more for education to democrattize it. before the war on poverty, before the higher education act, before federal loans for students, take a look at the colleges and universities. it was the providence of those

who are well-off, it was the profencprovens of took care of s and daughters. it dingtsz include a lost folks like me, the son of an immigrant woman who grew up in east st. lou illinois. but i got mine chance and millions like me got their chance because of the war on poverty, because of the higher education act and because of the thoughtful programs of this federal government that give me and many others a helping hafnltdz so what else was in the war on poverty? the civil rights act of 1964, one of the most transformative laws in our history, the voting rights act of 1965, some view the most important civil rights legislation in our history, the fair housing act of 16. we exspangedded efforts to feed families who were hungry. we created the food stamp program now known as the snap program, an and we created the school breakfast program,

importan.how important is it? visit the school. meet the kids, talk to teachers about what a well-fed child is as a student compared to one who has stomach pains from lack of breakfast and lack of food. a few years ago there was an interesting exchange, not surprisingly, on the glenn beck show on fox. thithere was an actor on there o was really upset about the growing role of the federal government. this actor on glenn beck's fox news show said, "we are a capitalistic society. okay, i go into business and i don't make it i go bankrupt. they, the government, aren't g going to bail me out. i've been on food stamps and well fair. did anybody help me out in? no!" wait a minute. he was on food stamps and welfare. that came from the same government he was just maligning. this conservative actor said, "i have been on food stamps and welfare.

did anybody help me out? no!" that's an indication of how people get so far afield when they criticize the government without pausing to reflect. folks used to say us to during the course of this health care debate, you know, keep government out of my medicare. my medicare is important to me. do ledon't let government -- pee created medicare, people created government for the poor and disabled. they seem to think that these programs are just going to reward the lazy. we're right in the middle of a debate right now on unemployment benefits. the belief on the republican side of the aisle is if you give people enough money to put gas in their car and pay the rent, those lazy people will never go to work. i don't believe that. will there be people who will

cheat the system in of course. there are wealthy people cheating our tax system. the vast number of americans want to get back to work. the extension of unemployment benefits is the hug humane an rt thing to dovment it used to be the bipartisan thing to do. we can only get six republicans to step up to extend unemployment benefits in america. those benefits are now cut off at 27 weeks and the average person sought of work in our country 38 weeks. i have met them and talked to them. perhaps people on both sides of the aisle should. these folks want to get p being to work. they're desperate to get back to work. if you don't give them unemployment benefits, they can't put gas in the car and pay for their cell phone and in this day and age, as senator reed of rhode island has said on the floor, in this day and age, that's how you go to work and find a job. you need to have your cell phone in our car and get up and go. it isn't a process of taking a bus and filling an application

on a clipboard anymore. i say to my friends on the right, conservative circles, put down those rand books now. the coppingal budget office tells us that extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed will create 240,000 jobs in america. how is that possible? how can spending $26 billion on unemployment benefits create jobs any thawl thought these fos were out of work. do they put this money into the stock market, into their savings account? no. they spend it. they buy clothes for the kids, they pay the utility bills, they fill up their cars with gas, they put it right back into the economy because they're living literally day to day. 240,000 jobs will be create fundamental we extend unemployment benefits. for those who say we shoorntion

sadly -- for those who say we shouldn't, sadly, they are reducing the number of jobs available. helping to reduce poverty and create opportunity and america to going to help us all. it creates a stronger economy. i know paul ryan, he is my neighbor, become a congressman from the neighboring state of wisconsin. i like him. we served on the simpson-bowles commission together. he's thoughtful. we disagree on a lot of things but he is a thoughtful, conscientious person. when he calls america's social safety net a hammock, that creates dependency and perpetuates poverty, he's just plain wrong. opponents of government action conclude that the war on poverty failed is just as wrong as he is. the official poverty level looks only at cash income. it doesn't take into account noncash programs like the snap program. in a recent analysis by the center on budget priorities used

a broader measure, that measures looks not just at cash but noncash benefits. government benefits lifted 40 million americans out of poverty in 2011. i have these republican critics of the food stamp program who say this is just plain wrong, that so many people are drawing food starchlts you ought to go out and meet these people. who are these people? out of the 43 million, 44 million americans drawing food stamps, over half of them are children, dependent children, who are receiving enough money through the food stamp program for their parents to put food on the table. there's also a large portion of them elder and disabled. and a million who are veterans. those are the recipients. and many of those who qualify for food stamps are working.

they're not getting a very good paycheck. they're earning the current minimum wage, which is not enough to get by. food stamps give them a little extra help each month to keep food for their family. that's the reality of low-income, hardworking men's. hardworking -- hardworking americans, a relate that i this chamber is removed from many times. this chamber doesn't realize what people are up against. social security has had the largest impact on any program, but means-tested programs such as snap, the earned-income tax credit, the child tax credit lifted 20 million americans, including 8.5 million children, out of poverty. when the republicans in the house particularly want to cut back on these programs, they are going to push these hardworking, low-income families deeper into debt and further away from the basics that they need in life. the poverty rate in america is already too high. growing income inequality should be an embarrassment to all of us. lifting 40 million americans out

of poverty through the war on poverty programs and government assistance is an undeniable success. without the public social safety net, the poverty rate in america would be nearly twice what it is today. joe califano, secretary of health, education, and welfare under president johnson today this 15 years ago. if there is a price for the political scam of the 20th century, it should go to the conservatives for propagating its conventional wisdom that great society programs of the 160's were -- of the 160' 960's were failed. when l.b.j. took office until 1970 when his great society programs were felt, the portion of americans living below poverty dropped from 22.2% to 12.6%. the most dramatic declining over such a brief period in this country's history. califano said, "this reduction

in poverty didn't just happen. it was the result of an effort to revolutionize the role of government with a series of interventions that literally enriched the lisps of millions of americans." so critics say taws the job of churches and charities to help americans who have hit a rough patch. sister simone campbell, director of network, a catholic social justice organization proudly better known as the ring leader of the newness on the bus. the sister testified last summer at a house hearing chaired by congressman paul ryan of wisconsin. she said, the bread for world has calculated how much money religious institutions and charities would have to raise just to make up for food stamp cuts proposed by last year's house republican budget. listen to this, madam president. sister campbell said -- quote --