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 -- "every church, synagogue, mosque

and house of worship in the united states -- every one of them -- would need to raise $50,000 each year for 10 years to make up for the cuts that the republicans wanted to make in the food stamp program in the house of representatives." that's just one cut that leave it proposed. so to say that the charity of america, which is legendary and well deserved in terms of its praise, to say that they can take care of this problem ignores the reality. denigrating and decimating antipoverty programs won't reduce poverty or create jobs or strengthen america's struggling and shrinking middle class. as president johnson said 50 years ago, "our time is necessarily short and our agenda is already long. so we ask friends on the other side of the aisle to work with us to help america. please start off by extending unemployment benefits for 1.3 million americans. for goodness sakes. at this time of year, when most

of this country is facing bone-chilling cold in wisconsin and illinois -- we just went through it this week. i have never seen conditions like this that i can ever remember. and to think that you might be part of an unemployed worker's family wondering if you'll be able to pay that utility bill, keep the kids warm, put some food on the table while you look for a job. and we pick this moment in time to cut unemployment benefits? for goodness sakes, we are a caring and compassionate nation. if we can't stand behind those who are struggling at this point in life, who are we? what are we? there's all kinds of excuses that can be made. but on the bottom line, it gets down to something very basic. john kasich is the governor of ohio. he and i came to know one another when we were both elected to the house of representatives some years ago. he's a republican. he was one of the few who won in 1982 and went on to become the governor of his state.

he had a moment of reflection the other day and i'm going to paraphrase it. but he said, i'd like to say to my republican friends, when you die and get to the pearly gates, st. peter is not going to ask you how much you invested in your life in making government smaller. you're going to be asked, what did you do to help the poor while you were on earth? and that, i think, is a legitimate question that governor kasich raised not just for republicans but for all of us. what have we done to help those people who are struggling to get by? those who really would be interested in a long-term debate about growing the economy but are more interested in putting food on the table today. that's what it's all about. the war on poverty successfully raised americans out of poverty. the government stepped in when there was no place else to turn and that's really the roll of government, to be there when there's no place else to turn. the american family, through its government, stood by those who were less fortunate. we've got to do the same today. and i'll close, madam president, by saying the proposal by

senator mcconnell that he made yesterday troubles me greatly. here's what he said. he said, "we will pay for the extension of unemployment benefits, $26 billion, but the way we'll pay for it, the republicans suggested, was to eliminate that section of the affordable care act which guarantees that you can't discriminate against people because of preexisting medical conditions. would -- what the situation was before this law passed was, of course, if you had a child with diabetes, if your wife was recovering from cancer, you might not be able to buy health insurance or if you did it would be too expensive. so we changed that and said you can't discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. senator mcconnell came to the floor yesterday and said we want to eliminate the personal responsibility section when it comes to the affordable care act, we want to eliminate the so-called individual mandate. and that's how we'll pay for one year's unemployment benefits. what senator mcconnell was

suggesting was reintroducing in to health this discrimination against people with preexisting conditions for 300 million americans as a way to pay for three months or a year of unemployment benefits. that's a terrible tradeoff. i know how much the other side hates and loathes the affordable care act. we used to have a senator from arkansas, dale bumpers, and to use a phrase he used often, they hate the affordable care act like the devil hates holy water. but the fact of the matter is, to turn on 300 million americans and to remove their protection under the affordable care act against discrimination based on preexistinpreexisting medical cs to pay for unemployment benefits? what a faustian bargain. is that the best the other side can come up with? it isn't. the best they can come up with is to stand by these people, the less fortunate people among us struggling to find work, and give them the basics in life,

give them the necessities they need to get by. i'm confident they'll find a job, they'll get back to work and they'll be taxpayers again someday. but let's stand by them, their spouses and their children in this time of need. that's what happened 50 years ago with president l.b.j.'s state of union address. that's what should happen today. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. as we begin a new year, the senate returns with many significant challenges before us. one such challenge is the security of our citizens' private information. just before christmas, news broke out that target, a popular retail store in nebraska and all across this nation, had experienced an enormous data breach involving nearly 4 40 million debit and credit account numbers.

that's nearly 1 in 10 americans who had their sensitive personal information put in jeopardy. between november 27 and december 15, scammers silently stole massive amounts of consumer information from target. the timing of this breach is significant not only because it happened during the peak of the holiday shopping season but also because this data is reportedly being sold in black markets around the world. on december 20, target announced the information involved in this incident included customer name, credit or debit card number and the card's expiration date and c.v.v. it was further determined on december 27 that encrypted p.i.n. information or encrypted personal identification numbers associated with that data was also stolen. this wasn't just an attack on target.

which has 14 stores in my home state of nebraska. it was a crime against millions of hardworking citizens. and let me be clear, it's also much more than just mere inconvenience for consumers. yes, such thefts complicate the daily routines of americans but it can also potentially damage their credit ratings and it's a incredible tax on people's time. it also leaves many feeling vulnerable, including, unfortunately, the most vulnerable among us, the elder elderly. as a member of the senate commerce committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, i urge the chairman and our ranking member to begin looking into this matter further. our nation's entire data security system is in desperate need of revamping and that's going to require congressional

action. what happened with that target breach is not an isolated incident. t.j.x. companies which owns national retail james t.j. maxx and marshalls, it was breached in 2007. sony and epsilon were also attacked in 2011. we learned on new year's eve that the popular social communication platform snapchat was also hacked, a breach of about 4.6 million usernames with their corresponding phone numbers. these are just the latest examples but we all know the problems run much, much deeper. identity theft has been the number-one consumer complaint at the federal trade commission for the last 13 years in a row. the average financial loss for each instance of identity theft

is $4,930 and it's been estimated that identity theft resulted in $24.7 billion loss for our country in 2012. given these realities, we need to dedicate more time and energy to solutions that substantially improve the safety of our on-line activities. while the target breach is important and deserves our attention, so, too, should the security risks posed by healthcare.gov as well as the federal and state insurance exchanges set up under obamaca obamacare. imperial yon, a major u.s. credit reporting bureau, recently released its 2014 data breach industry forecast which states -- quote -- "the health care industry by far will be the most susceptible to publicly disclosed and widely scrutinized

data breaches in 2014." as those who found out the hard way can tell you, healthcare.gov takes and holds a lot of sensitive information, including our social security numbers, names, and other information that can be transmitted. it's also been reported that hackers have attempted to break into the web site at least 16 different times. several experts say those numbers are very conservative estimates of the known attempts. health and human services contractors also identified security vulnerabilities which h.h.s. ignored before the site went public on october 1. the protections and breach notification standards for obamacare which people were forced into don't even meet the minimum standards put in place for the private sector. every nebraskan and every american has the right to know

if their private information has been compromised. fortunately, data security appears to be an area where republicans and democrats can come together and do something positive for the american people. we must take great care, however, not to make the problem worse. smart policy results from an open, collaborative process with input from businesses, consumers, and security experts. that's going to be the answer, not more red tape. we should seek to streamline our data security laws to provide clarity and consistency. so i look forward to working with my colleagues on the commerce committee to address these data breaches and to protect the integrity of nebraskans and americans' personal information. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, while the distinguished senator from nebraska is still on the floor, i found much to agree with her in her comments and i hope after we reintroduce the personal data privacy and security act that she may want to become a cosponsor of it. this would better protect americans from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. i mean, last year, according to verizon's report, there were more than 600 publicly disclosed data breaches all over the country. the recent breach at target involved debit and credit cards data of as many as 40 million customers. now, that's a reminder that developing a comprehensive national strategy to protect data privacy and cybersecurity remains one of the most challenging and important issues

facing our nation. we've -- in the personal data privacy and security act, this better protects americans. and i do thank senators franken and schumer and blumenthal for cosponsoring it. i first introduced this bill nine years ago. i thought we'd bring urgently needed data privacy reforms to the american people. at that time it was the threat to america was nowhere near as extensive as it is today, from everything from where you buy gasoline to shop. the judiciary committee has favorably reported this bill. republicans and democrats joined together numerous times. but it's languished on the senate calendar. and let me just point out some of the things we found on the dangers to americans' privacy and american prosperity and national security. according to the privacy rights

clearinghouse, more than 662 million records have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. not a dozen, 662 million recor records. as i mentioned before, verizon's 2013 data breach investigation, 600 publicly disclosed data breaches. these are just the ones that are publicly disclosed. now, the personal data privacy and security act requires companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs. the bill would also establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification and require notice to consumers when their sensitive personal information has been compromised. it would provide for tough criminal penalties for anyone

who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that data breaches occurred. that breach causes economic damage to consumers. this requirement to have to publicly disclose it is also going to make companies want to have far better security than many have now, and protecting the privacy rights is of critical importance to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. we hope that all senators will join with us. i would ask consent that a copy of the bill be included in the record at the completion of my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: now, madam president, let me speak, if i might, for a few minutes on a personal

matter. it's about a dear friend of mine, barry myer, and i wanted to recognize his remarkable career. he is retiring this month from warner brothers after 42 years with the company. we know that warner brothers is one of america's most legendary entertainment companies. it's a household name for families around the nation. i think of the times when i have walked through their grounds with barry meyer and tell about coming there as a young lawyer and just talking about the history of the company until he moved to the point where he was leading the company. and the pride and the sense of history that he showed is remarkable, it is gratifying to see somebody to takes such pride

in his work. now, we have all heard of warner brothers, but far fewer americans have heard about -- heard of the man behind the magic for the past 14 years. it is a testament to his leadership. as chairman and c.e.o. that he allowed the company and its properties to shine in the spotlight. he wanted that to be the spotlight, not a spotlight on himself. despite his quiet style, barry has stood at the forefront of pop culture during his tenure at warner brothers. think of movies like harry potter and "the big bank theory" and" the blindside," and "the dark knight" trilogy. they made people laugh or cry or simply marvel at the memorable production that is have sprung from his tenure at this company. now, i also note that as a live long "batman" fan, i have had

the opportunity to see two of barry's productions from the inside while they were filming, and i can speak firsthand to the culture he ffterred at warner brothers that allowed creativity to flourish, brought people together to work to bring their talents and their best talents to flourish. he first joined warner brothers in 1971, before i was in the senate, i might add, as director of business affairs for the television division. in 1999, he became chairman and c.e.o. his steady leadership of the company came at a time when the entertainment industry was beginning to face new challenges. they had the rise of the internet but they also had the tremendous challenge of online piracy. well, he -- he pushed the company to innovate, but he also became an important voice about

the impact online piracy has on our economy and on industries that are a vibrant part of comern -- american life. his counsel has been invaluable as we look in congress for solutions to address this. he has always been available to give advice and solid advice based on knowledge, not on emotion. warner brothers has been one of the world's most successful entertainment companies under barry's tenure, but he has also focused on humanitarian and charitable persons. as a member of the board of directors for human rights watch and the advisory board of the national museum of american history here at the smithsonian, but he was also recognized in 2006 with the american jewish committee's dorothy and cheryl coen human relations award for his humanitarian efforts. i also know that when he was

given this award, his request was when they are speaking at the award, don't praise him. praise things of importance to all americans. it is typical of the person. and among these efforts was joining him with his wife wendy to establish scholarships to the university of southern california, to support students who have been in foster care. now, barry and wendy have wonderful children and grandchildren. they have a loving family with them. if you go in their home, can you see this is a home someone lives in and children come and grandchildren come, and they have a place to play. they have that family. but what they have done is to

help those who have not had that advantage, who have been in foster care. my wife marcel and i have gotten to know barry and wendy. they have been with us, together with us in vermont, here in washington and out in california. and some people who might have the position he does would make sure everybody knows here they are, this important person. not so with either one of them. they are most down to earth, quiet, but when we get together, we pick up the conversation we had had months before, and you feel like you're a member of the family. so this remarkable couple are

going to be working in other endeavors. there has been some great articles about barry as he looks back on his career, of work he has done to make sure he hands the company to his successor in good hands. but as he begins this next chapter in his life, i wish barry all the best. i congratulate him on a remarkable career. warner brothers and the entertainment industry is not going to be quite the same without him, but he leaves behind a legacy, an example for the next generation to follow. i know the successor. i wish kevin the very best in following him. i would also ask unanimous consent that the december 29, 2013 article from "the rap"

which my daughter alicia showed me be included in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, madam president, i know i look forward to the next time marcel and i have an opportunity to be with barry and wendy, and while he may be retired, neither one of them are going to be sitting back doing nothing. i know them too well for that. with that, madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent the privileges of the floor be granted to julius ferlazi for the pend answery of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: madam president, 50 years ago today president lyndon johnson challenged a joint session of congress and the american people to begin a war on poverty. unfortunately, president johnson said many americans today live on the outskirts of hope. our task, he said, is to help replace their despair with opportunity.

since president johnson first issued that call, congress and our nation have taken important steps to build and sustain a circle of protection around the most vulnerable in our society. that protection isn't as complete or as strong as it can and should be, but through programs like unemployment insurance which we are considering this week in this congress we are more able to catch our neighbors when they fall and support them as they work to get back to their feet. earlier this week this senate began debate on whether to extend emergency unemployment insurance for the 3,600 delawarans and more than a million american job seekers whose benefits just expired. it is absolutely critical that we approve this extension. during this fragile but sustained economic recovery, unemployment insurance has been a critical life line, one that has prevented millions of unemployed americans have slipping further from falling into poverty.

in 2012 unemployment insurance kept 2.5 million americans including 600,000 children out of poverty. that means without federal action to extend unemployment insurance, the nation's poverty rate would have been double what it was. and these numbers are for 2012, not the height of the recession. so let's be clear about what we're debating when we discuss an unemployment insurance extension. these are long-term benefits for jobless americans who have been out of work through no fault of their own for more than 26 weeks. when i say through no fault of their own, i mean you can't get benefits if you're 2350eurd for cause --, fired for cause and if you receive benefits you must diligently search for another job. when we talk about the millions of long-term unemployed americans we're talking about folks who were laid off because of the recession, are fighting to get back on their feet and rely on those benefits to keep their families afloat, to keep a roof over their head, food on

the table, their families together, and sustain them as they continue looking for work. yet two weeks ago, funding for long-term emergency unemployment insurance benefits ran out. that meant $300 less in weekly income for the average job seeker and that meant $400 million left our economy in just the first week. in delaware, it pulled $870,000 out of our economy. that's money that otherwise would be spent in local grocery stores and our markets. now, one of the most vexing things i've heard in the debate over whether to continue these benefits is that they somehow incentivize people to not bother looking for jobs, to not be serious about their job search. that they instead lull able-bodied americans into lives of dependency and despondency. madam president, given the people i hear from, the people i meet with, the people i know in delaware that's not just absurd, it's forgive me, offensive.

and as president obama said yesterday, it sells the american people short. i've met a lot of people in my years of public service. i've heard from and spoken with delawarans up and down my state who are relying on unemployment benefits that they paid into when employed and every one of them would trade a job for relying on unemployment insurance in a heartbeat. let me share with you a few stories of delawarans who have contacted me and who have shared just show hard this has been for them. debbie from middletown, delaware wrote while she has been receiving unemployment benefits she has applied to 156 jobs. she has been interviewed three times. she is 56. she has worked diligently since she was a teenager, she's worked hard, paid her taxes, she's paid into this unemployment insurance system practically her whole life. and yet now when she needs it

most, we failed to continue to provide this life line of support. linda from newark wrote to me that on just $258 a week her family has barely been able to stay afloat. they're doing everything they can to keep up on their bills to stay current but even with unemployment insurance they've had to sell some of their family's treasured possessions and goods. she wrote to me, "this is no way for anyone to live. it's disheartening and it's difficult to stay motivated and to keep searching for work." and frankly, she said, "i'm thoroughly fed up with being categorized as someone who lives off the government by collecting unemployment benefits." i agree with her because, frankly, linda, you paid in to these benefits for years. this is what it's there for. john from frederica told me that he was laid off from the dover air force base in part because of the sequester and now depends on unemployment benefits while he continues diligently searching for another job. this is a man who is a navy veteran, was willing to make the

ultimate sacrifice for our country and yet right now because of the partisan gridlock in this congress, we're not there for him and his family. madam president, the millions of americans like debbie, linda and john in delaware face a really tough job market. nationally, for every available job, there are three job seeke seekers. and the longer someone remains unemployed, the harder it becomes for them to find work. the more their skills are out of date, the more difficult the search becomes and the more they need our support to sustain that job search. i've seen these effects up close and personally in delaware. in my three years as a senator, i've hosted 16 different job fairs to connect delawareans looking for work with employers looking to hire, and i've been honored to partner with senator carper and congressman carney in hosting these job fairs. in fact, we're hosting another one in our state capital, dover, in just a few weeks. when you listen to unemployed

delawareans and listen to them talk about their struggle, about how hard it is to make ends meet and to keep searching for a job, you get a sense of how important these benefits are for their survival, for their families. and you get a sense of how much more we can and should be doing to tackle and deal with long-term unemployment in america. as poverty of opportunity and hope afflicts too many of our communities and darkens the lives of too many of our neighbors, let us not suffer in this chamber from a poverty of imagination, determination and ambition. on this issue, which is so fundamental to who we are as a nation and to our service in this body, we cannot give in to complacency and apathy. fighting poverty is hard and adapting our economy to the realities of the new era is a challenge we've struggled with for more than a generation. if figuring out how to revitalize an economy whose growth is strong and equitable, one that's dynamic and creative and competitive but also has a

broad middle class, provides security for working families and leaves no one behind, an economy that invests in the dreams and aspirations of every child, building that economy is surely one of the most urgent and difficult challenges we here face. and doing so requires that we put aside our personal politics and come together in areas where until recently there's been a broad and bipartisan consensus. i now hear some of my republican colleagues talk on this floor about the war on poverty 50 years later as having been an abject failure. they make sweeping indictments on government action, putting small government ideology ahead of the shared national goal of fighting poverty. but this perspective misses the pointepoint. the original war on poverty was made up of a lot of programs, energic initiatives that worked at every level of government. some that failed but many others that through steady and determined bipartisan work and steady improvement and refinement over the years have become critical, central, widely

valued strands that hold together our social safety net. medicare, medicaid, head start, food stamps, unemployment insurance -- all of these programs are valued and hold american families together and sustain american job seekers. bipartisan leaders cross the decades have reaffirmed the importance and value of these programs time and time again. and these programs, let's remember, are about so much more than lifting people out of poverty, they're also about keeping people out of poverty in the first place. we need them to build and strengthen and sustain the american middle class, which is one of the greatest legacies of this nation. so as we search for ways to adapt our fight to new times and new challenges, we must remember there is no one way to win the war on poverty president johnson first declared 50 years ago. it's not a question of big or small government, federal or local action. as president johnson himself said, this will not be a short or easy struggle.

no single weapon or strategy will suffice. poverty, he said, is a national problem. but this attack to be effective must be organized at the state and local level. for the war on poverty, he said, will not be won in washington. it must be won in the field, in every private home, in every public office, from the courthouse to the white house. this wasn't an ideological call for a big, centralized government control. it was an all-hands-on-deck call, a moral call for our nation to meet a national challenge. and although we've made progress since he first addressed this congress in 1964, his call to combat poverty remains just as important today even as our challenges have evolved. we've come a long way since the depths of our own great recession just a few years ago. more than 8 million private-sector jobs have been created. there's been a more than three-point drop in the national unemployment rated. we have resurgent energy, housing and manufacturing sectors. although a few years have passed since our economy sunk to its

lowest lose, this -- lowest lows, this crisis remains for those americans and their families who are still struggling to find a job, keep a their family with a roof over their heads. though this week while we're debating extension of emergency unemployment insurance, we should note this is not only an obvious and necessary thing to do, it is the beginning of our real work of sustaining the war on poverty. i am proud to be engaged in bipartisan efforts to strengthen the middle class, to focus on jobs and skills and manufacturing. we have to find bipartisan solutions that engage the private and public sectors, federal and local governments in putting our people back to work. and while we do that, we cannot forget to continue to insist on a circle of protection around the most vulnerable in our society rather than allowing that valued circle to crumble. we have to remember that we're all in this together, that there for the grace of god go i, as we see those in our community, in our families who are struggling

in this recovery. we know that although today it may be our neighbors, tomorrow it may be us. president johnson called on us to focus on the best of america, the spirit that we hold each other up, the spirit that builds community through mutual sacrifice. and as we begin our work in this new year, to jump-start our economy and spread hope and opportunity, we must never forget that basic spirit which president johnson called forward and which has kept this country moving from generation to generation. thank you. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i rise today to speak on actually two topics. one on extending the unemployment benefit program that is so essential to the people of maryland and to other fellow americans, and also to comment on the national security

agency's surveillance programs, the need for reform of the program but the need to reject the mission of the agency and to cast a disparaging light on the men and women who work there. let me start first, though, talking about unemployment benefits. i come here today with great sense of urgency and passion over the fact that we need to extend these unemployment benefits that expired january 1. this is one of the coldest spells that we've had in decades in the northeast-midwest area. and i cannot -- i find it unfathomable when it is so cold that the big chill in washington is that we're not going to extend the unemployment benefi benefits, that extending a warm, helping hand to americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own and have been unemployed for more than six months. where are our national

priorities? if we can't help one another be a bridge to get to a job, then what is our government all about? we spend billions overseas -- and i support that -- we spend billions on tax breaks to send jobs overseas -- i don't support that -- and i want to make sure that for the men and women who don't have a job today but are looking for one every day, we help them out. senator coons, the gentleman from delaware, just spoke and said today it could be your neighbor; tomorrow could be you. well, i think we're going to be unemployed unless we don't start focusing on how to help the middle class. the middle class is shrinking and unemployment is stagnant. we've got to lower the unemployment rate. it's -- i want to make sure,,

though, that during this time when we look how to create jobs, we provide a social -- continue to provide a social insurance program that helps people when they're laid off through no fault of their own. my own home state of maryland is now right this very minute affected by 23,000 people. that's 23,000 families that have now lost a modest benefit which averages out to about $313 per week that enables people that while they're looking for work to be able to pay for their housing, pay for their food and pay for their heat. now, there are those who are implying that if we provide unemployment compensation or assistance, that we're going to encourage sloth, laziness,

laggardness, that they're going to kind of lounge around not looking for work. let me tell you the story about western maryland. and this isn't barb mikulski, this is reported in the "baltimore sun" and in "the washington post." we have a community called washington county. the unemployment rate is 7.3%. just a few years ago, we had a good humor plant. they made ice cream. now, i visited an ice cream plant. everybody's happy there and they were busy producing good humor that was sold all over this country. well, two years ago it closed. 400 good-paying jobs left hagerstown. that's the bad news. the good news is, a co-op dairy farmer came in, purchased it and is now producing milk and ice cream but in smaller amounts. guess what? they received 1,600 job

applicants for 36 openings. they had 36 openings and 1,600 people in a small rural county apply for those jobs. 44 people for every job available. now, hagerstown has a great sense of patriotism. they sent many men and women to fight and die in the two wars we have just fought. they have a great work ethic. they need to be able to have the opportunity for jobs. don't tell those people in hagerstown or in salisbury or in baltimore or throughout my state that they are too lazy. maybe we're lazy. maybe we don't get the job done. okay? one of the quickest ways to jump-start the economy, if we want to, is to be able to pay unemployment compensation. all the data shows that unemployment goes --

unemployment insurance adds about 1.6 -- $1.60 back into the economy. so, madam president, i'm going to create a sense of urgency, and i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, over a decade ago you had a man run for the president of the united states. he juan. his name was george w. bush. and he campaigned on something that i thought was so interesting. and maybe i look forward to actually hearing more about the way he was going. it was called compassionate conservative. we understand that people are conservative. we understand that people are fiscal conservative. but the message was we can be compassionate conservatives. so i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle remember the compassionate conservative ring of a decade ago and remember that man's father who

said we need to be points of light to light up america. so i'm going to say let's be a point of light here. let's add a beacon of hope to the uninsured -- i mean to the unemployed and be able to help them out. and don't be critical of them if they can't find work. let's look at us and how we can have a job strategy. let's have an infrastructure back that creates jobs in the construction industry. let's eliminate those tax breaks that send jobs overseas and bring the jobs back home. let's do the tax extenders that get people working again. let's put people back to work. pass the unemployment compensation. let's pass some job creation bills. let's get america working again, and the way we do it is we get to work and pass the unemployment compensation bill. now, madam president, i also want to comment on something else, which is the n.s.a., the

national security agency, which i am very familiar with as a member of the intelligence committee, and it's also in my state. i know the men and women who work there, and i know the mission that they provide, and i also know that a few months ago, a man by the name of edward snow den lit up the airwaves with his illegal barrage of revelations about the role of surveillance that the national security agency plays. mr. snowden provided a titillating, mesmerizeing inside view of the united states. whether he was a whistle-blower or traitor, i will leave that for other discussion. right now, the fact is that we know about n.s.a. surveillance and it's sparked a lot of debate. i think that's good. i think that's healthy. i come here to the floor today to, first of all, thank president obama for establishing a commission to look at this and

make recommendations. my view is we ought to review the recommendations of the presidential commission, we need to make reform where reform is necessary, but let's not reject the mission of the national security agency that has protected us for decades and decades, and let us not reject the men and women who work there every single day, standing sentry to protect ourselves against attack, whether it's a terrorist attack or whether it is a cybersecurity attack. yes, we need to protect the civil liberties of the united states of america, to honor our constitution. my principles were for reform, and as i looked at these programs and as a member of the intelligence committee has always been whatever we ask

n.s.a. to do, whenever we ask any member, any of the intelligence agencies should be. is it constitutional? is it legal? is it authorized? and if it meets, and is it necessary? remember the criteria, and i recommend that this be the grid of the prism we look at it. constitutional? absolutely. legal? a necessity. authorized. n.s.a. doesn't do it on its own. the authorization comes from the president and his intelligence apparatus. and then last but not at all least, is it necessary to protect people? now, i think we need to really work on this. president obama established this review commission. i think it's great and i think the congress should review it. i know appropriate hearings are already doing that.

at the same time, we should need to practice reform. i am absolutely on the side of reform. joining with my colleagues, i support reform of these programs. for years, i start the -- led the fight on the accountability of leadership. back in 2007, i wanted the head of the national security agency confirmed by the united states senate. i was stepped on by the congress. i was held back by the armed services committee. the turf wars out at the pentagon. don't meddle with our generals. well, i wasn't meddling with the general. i just think that the head of the national security agency should be there. so let's get off of turf wars and fight terrorist wars, but restore confidence in the national security agency and have its head confirmed by the

senate. i'm a great admirer of general alexander. the committee also recommends that the next head of n.s.a. be a civilian. i think we ought to look at that. i think we ought to examine that and see what is in the best interests of the mission of the agency and what we need to be able to do. but whoever is the head of the national security agency, be they civilian or military, i think they ought to be confirmed by the united states senate. i also joined across the aisle with my great colleague, senator coats of indiana to ask that the n.s.a. inspector general also be confirmed by the senate to make sure that we have a confirmable position so there is a bona fide whistle-blower route with a confirmable inspector general that makes sure n.s.a. is doing the right thing and whistle-blowers have an avenue to do it. i have also supported

transparency to make sure that those n.s.a. programs are -- are accountable and as transparent as they can be. that doesn't mean we reveal the secrets of the united states, but joining with senators wyden and udall and heinrich, i have introduced an amendment to make the secret fisa court opinions were publicly available under certain circumstances. i have also worked with senators king and warner and collins to bring greater transparency to the fisa court through an amicus curiae or friend of the court to assist in the interpretation of novel interpretations of the law. there are those who say in the president's report there should be kind of like a civil liberties of council, that red team going there. let's talk about it, let's debate it, let's make sure there is more than one opinion before the court on its legality. so i support these. now, let's go to the

constitutionality. one judge recently said the n.s.a. surveillance program, particularly under something called section 215, was shocking, and he said it wasn't constitutional. 36 other fisa court opinions by 15 judges said it was constitutional. now, madam president, i'm a social worker. i'm not a constitutional lawyer. you know who decides on what's constitutional? the supreme court of the united states. i think the congress ought to call for or the executive branch and the president for an expedited review of these programs. i would like to settle once and for all -- not -- settle once and for all the programs that have been laws passed by the congress in the area of surveillance, are they

constitutional? if they are, we know that. if they are not, that ends the program. we will follow the law and we will obey the constitution of the united states. so let's get to work here. let's go to work here. let's make sure that we're bringing about reform. i want to talk, though, about the mission of the agency. the national security agency is not a puzzle palace, and it's not some sneaky surveillance agency with people in tan raincoats and fed or as hiding behind doors, spying on people. and, in fact, remember what they think they do. they think what they do is constitutional, legal, authorized and necessary. we need the national security agency. this 215 program, there is only

one thing that they do. they are to protect us against counterterrorism. they are to protect us against counterespionage. they are there to protect us by the work that they do to make sure weapons of mass -- contained to be advocates for nonproliferation of weapons of mass construction through what they work with, cooperating with the central intelligence agency and the n.r.o. they also protect us in the area of cybersecurity. cybersecurity, as we all know, those 40 million people recently that had their credit cards stolen at target, well, we don't know if that was a job done in the united states of america. for all we know, it was organized cyber crime coming out offal bien yeah or another eastern european country with shoddy rules and regs. we don't know that. but we do know the f.b.i.'s

working on it, the n.s.a.'s working on it and others appropriately. n.s.a.'s job is to look at what is over there, but, you know, some of our biggest bank heists in organized cyber crime is coming from over there. did you know that one of the biggest thefts out of the medicare program was done on a cyber heist out of organized crime out of albania? can you believe that? but it was caught. working with the inspector general at c.m.s., the f.b.i. and what we did over there with n.s.a., we caught them, we got our money back and we're back on track. so they do a good job, and we're kind of losing sight on these concerns about surveillance. there is no doubt that we protect the civil liberties of

the united states of america. we do believe in the privacy. i'm not going to describe the program or go into it, but i will tell you what really bothers me. what really bothers me is that somehow or another through the media and even conversations in this body, that we are painting n.s.a. as if it were a bad, villainous, duplicitous, sir especially tissueious -- agency. that couldn't be further from the truth. somehow or another, the men and women who work there, every single day, standing sentry on behalf of the united states of america signals intelligence or somehow or another to feel that something's wrong. the morale at that agency is terrible. the morale at that agency is falling. the morale at that agency is not

in a healthy situation. now, we have got to do something about that by showing respect for the men and women who work there. most of them are civilians. they are some of the brightest people in the world. did you know that the n.s.a. is the largest employer of mat mathematicians in the world because the code breakers, the cryptologists, they break codes. who uses codes? it's not mother teresa. respect. let's have respect because they're at it. you know, while the rest of us were home for christmas enjoying turkey or home at thanksgiving, they were out there working. they were making sure that there wasn't another underware bomber. making sure there wasn't another -- when when our defenses appear to be lowest

with people traveling on airplanes, with people in a holiday spirit, how they were -- they're working right now to make sure that our olympic athletes are safe, working with appropriate international law enforcement. they're at it every single day. can't we give them respect while we sort out constitutionality and legality? let's sort it out but let's stop the finger pointing. i must tell you, madam president, i was taken back today when i got my congressional -- my national journal daily where it says obama invites n.s.a. top congressional critics to meet. i think it's always great when the president talks with the congress but he invited the critics of the program to the white house. i think that's good. i would have preferred though to read instead of inviting the critics, the phrase would have said reformers. put me in the reformer category. if there are abuses, i'm one of the first to criticize it.

i've been part of reform. i intend to be part of reform. but i don't intend to be part of rejecting the mission and i don't intend to be part of any effort that downgrades or downplays the contribution of the men who work there. so call the people reformers and i would hope that the white house and this congress would signal to the men and women at the national security agency that they are respected, that they are valued and as we pursue reform we will always do our duty, that what they do is constitutional, legal, authorized, and necessary, but don't blame them for the job we asked them to do. and, madam president, i think if we proceed with the spirit of reform rather than blame, we can really be able to accomplish a great deal here. so, madam president, this is a big day that's going on here.

let's pass unemployment compensation, let's do the reforms we need to, but -- and let's do the job we're supposed to. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the fact that 50 years ago today president lyndon johnson made his first state of the union address and he used that date, january 8, 1964, to chart a new agenda for the country and to declare that america would take on an unconditional war on poverty. with that directive congress worked on some of the most successful programs in the history of our country. medicare, head start, pell grants, expansions to social security. president johnson knew that the devastation of poverty went deeper than just the lack of a job or the lack of basic needs.

americans in poverty didn't even have a fair chance to make a better life for themselves and their families. now, since 1964 economists estimate that poverty rate has now fallen by 10% when accounting for social safety net programs, so we are moving in the right direction. but we have a lot more work to do to give everyone the fair chance they need to succeed in this country. madam president, for too many people today the war on poverty is a daily battle just to make ends meet. more than 46 million people in our country live in poverty. 46 million people. that's according to the census bureau. more than 20% -- that is, one in five -- of our kids in this country live in poverty. so to win this fight we need to strengthen the programs that support those in need. without question, one of the reasons that we have seen a

decline in poverty is because of the programs that provide a safety net for our most vulnerable americans. in 1964, congress created the food stamp program for those struggling just to feed their families. today it's known as the supplemental nutrition assistance program or better known as snap. in 2012 alone, the snap program lifted 4.9 million people out of poverty according to the center on budget and policy priorities. now, we've also worked to make sure preschoolers from low-income areas have the building blocks they need to start kindergarten ready to learn. since the mid 1960's, head start has provided early childhood learning and health services to more than 30 million children and their families. that's the kind of plog that -- progress that we have got to continue. those programs and many like them have provided economic security and opportunity to millions across the country and

yet even with the successes we've had in fighting hunger and in unemployment, there are those today in congress who want to slash the very assistance that gives so many americans today an opportunity, an opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families. madam president, we can't waver in the fight to give all americans a fair chance, a fair chance to get ahead. we've got to spanned understand the -- expand opportunities by investing in universal pre-k, ensure workers can earn enough to put food on the table by raising the minimum wage and we have to keep fighting and we've got to win the war on poverty. i know personally how vital these programs are. when i was just 15 years old, my dad -- he'd fought in the world war, he was a veteran -- he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. within a few years he couldn't work anymore.

my mom found a job, she stayed home to raise seven kids and the job she found wasn't enough to support seven kids and my dad, who had a growing stack of medical bills. and all of a sudden my family without any warning had fallen on hard times. this country at that time didn't turn its back on us. for several months my family relied on food stamps. it wasn't much but it helped us get by. with the help of a government program, a government program, my mom was fortunate to attend lake washington vocational technical school and got the training she needed to get a better job so she could support our family. my older brother, my twin sister and i were able to stay in college because of student loans and support from what we now call pell grants. all from this government. even through those hard times, none of us lost hope. we had a lot of hard work, we had help from our government and we were able to get to where we

are today. madam president, that's why i believe so strongly that here in congress today we've got to expand that hope that i had as a young girl to many, many more families in americans who are struggling today. 50 years ago, president johnson recognized poverty is a national program. it's a national problem. and that's why he made it a national priority. so i think we ought to rededicate ourselves today to that national priority. let's work together here to support the men and women across the country who hope for their chance at an american dream. let's not just commemorate this anniversary. let's begin to use an have a renewed energy to winning the war on poverty in our country once and for all. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to obviate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: madam president, 50 years ago today president johnson declared a war on poverty. he said, -- i quote -- "very often a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty but the symptom. the cause may lie deeper in our failure to give citizens a fair

chance to develop their own capacities, in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing" -- end quote. he proposed a broad range of new initiatives to address these deeper failures. medicare, head start, the elementary and secondary education act, the higher education act, housing and transportation programs. these initiatives have given millions of people more opportunities to succeed and help them get back on their feet when they stumble. president johnson called on congress to take up these proposals because he said many americans live on the outskirts of hope. our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity. end quote. that is still our task today. we've come a long way since 1964, but clearly the fight is not over, for years the american dream has been that if

you work hard and play by the rules, you will succeed. however, the divide between the very rich and the very poor the as wide as it has ever been. wages have stagnated and more and more middle-class families sister have struggled to get ahead and provide opportunities for their children. we have to carry on the work that began 50 years ago and update it for the needs of our modern economy. let's keep fieding to create new, good-paying jobs and sustainable american industries. let's make sure all americans have access to education and training needed to get those jobs and succeed. let's work to make sure that as our economy grows, so do middle-class incomes and the opportunity to climb into the middle class and beyond. i want to talk briefly about three ideas toward these goals. first, let's increase the minimum wage so workers earn more than poverty-level wages.

second, let's make education more accessible from pre-k through college so americans are well prepared for the jobs of the future. finally, let's strengthen the safety net programs that have kept so many out of poverty so work force can -- working families can get through the tough times and get back on their fe -- their feet. our economy has grown fourfold over the last 50 years but the poor middle class have not seen enough of the benefits of this growth. according to census data, the economy is producing 45% more per person than it was in 1987 but real median income has remained flat. workers earning minimum wage have fared even worse, because today's federal minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation would be $10.68 today, not $7.25.

that means the minimum wage has lost one-third of its buying power. it's no wonder our families are struggling. the minimum wage should be increased. raising the minimum wage is important for many americans but it is particularly important for women. most minimum-wage workers, over 64% of them, are women. today millions of women are trapped in minimum-wage jobs. the federal minimum wage of $7.25 yields only $15,000 per year for a full-time worker. if this woman is supporting a child or an elderly parent, as is often the case, their family income would be below the federal poverty line. their situation is even more dire in hawaii, where the cost of living is much higher. fighting poverty is a woman's issue. poverty hurts more women and children than men.

more than 58% of adults in poverty are women. more than 1-7 women, nearly 17.8 million, live in poverty. and more than 1-5 children, about 21.8%, are poor, almost twice the rate for adult men. the low minimum wage hurts not only workers and particularly women workers and children, it's unfair to taxpayers. that's because minimum-wage workers are often eligible for food assistance, housing vouchers and other safety net programs. this means we taxpayers are subsidizing companies that pay their workers poverty wages. if we want to reduce government spending and make sure -- and make more workers fully self-sufficient, raising the minimum wage is a good place to start. second, expanding access to education from birth to college and career training will build

new ladders out of poverty. when i came to this country as an 8-year-old immigrant, my mother enrolled me in hawaii public schools and that's where i learned english and developed a love of reading. when i graduated from high school, i attended the university of hawaii. the higher education act of 1965 helped me and millions of other students pay for college through work-study and low-interest federal student loans. today we need to strengthen our commitment to our next generation of scientists, architects, teachers and innovators. i know firsthand the power of a quality education and that's why for years i've been fighting for quality preschool in hawaii and nationwide. children in poverty come to kindergarten with half the vocabulary of their higher-income peers. if they start school already behind, how can we expect them to catch up?

president johnson helped pass the head start act. this law helped millions of poor children attend preschool while parents got the skills they needed to help their kids at home. since then, we've reformed and strengthened head start quality but still fewer than half of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds can get a head start seat. fewer than 1-20 eligible infants and toddlers can get a spot in early head start. the federal government can't do it all. state and local governments want to do their parts too. and that is why governors, educators and legislators across the country, both republicans and democrats, have expanded state preschools in 2013. let's support their efforts. this congress i worked with senators harkin, murray, casey and others to introduce the strong start for america's children act. this bill would create a federal-state partnership for

high-quality preschool. it includes elements from my pre-k act so states like hawaii that have farther to go can have more support as they build up their preschool system. the bill's supporters include parents, educators, business leaders and even police. they recognize that we can pay for quality preschool now or pay later for law enforcement when kids drop out of school and commit crimes. let's come together to get this done. while we need to focus on helping kids start kindergarten ready to succeed, we also need to improve access to higher education when they graduate from high school. with student debt skyrocketing, the pell grant is a bedrock investment in college access. in 1978, the pell grant helped pay for 75% of college costs at a four-year public university. today it pays for only a third.

this year i plan to introduce the pell grant protection act, a bill to strengthen and preserve the pell grant. there's also more we can do, like simplifying the federal student aid process, improving work-study and expanding access to adult basic education. i look forward to working on these and other efforts in the higher education act and work force investment act this year. third, let's strengthen our safety net programs, including social security, medicare and medicaid, unemployment insuran insurance, and the supplemental nutrition assistance program or snap. these programs provide real hope and real opportunity for people. i know this because i've lived it. my mother raised three children by herself. most of us have relied upon or known families who have relied upon food stamps or unemployment insurance. my mother's unemployment checks were a safety net for us, providing us with much-needed temporary help. they gave us breathing room and

put food on the table while she searched for work. i know the anxiety when the family breadwinner loses her job through no fault of her own. these safety net programs have helped keep millions of americans out of poverty. using the census supplemental poverty measure, the national poverty rate has gone down from 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012. without safety net programs, the poverty rate would have climbed to 29%. seniors would have been hurt especially badly. thus, it's alarming to see many of my republican colleagues calling to shred the safety net programs. they propose drastic cuts to snap, to medicare, medicaid, social security and a host of other vital supports. the basic idea of the safety net is to prevent people from

falling so far behind that they can't catch up. so instead of making cuts, we should strengthen these programs and, of course, focus on creating jobs. with the challenges facing our families today, the war on poverty continues. let's not give in to the naysayers seek to dismantle our safety net. let's not retreat in our efforts to help people climb out of poverty. let's fight even harder to provide an opportunity agenda, one that reaffirms the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. if we work together, i know we can get this done. madam president, i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: madam president, i see we're in quorum call so i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i would also ask unanimous consent, madam president, that senator mcconnell or his designee be recognized from 2:00 to 2:45 this afternoon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: madam president, i rise today to address the question that's currently before the body here and that's whether we should extend the emergency unemployment insurance for millions of americans who are still unable to find work.

this is in addition to the 26 weeks that's provided in most states. some a little more, some a little less. and the question is whether we extend this again, as we have done several times since the great recession. the question is, should we extend it and, if so, how should we extend it? should we pay for it? should there be some training or other requirements attached to it so that it works better? it's a good debate to have. i came on the floor yesterday to say, let's have a full debate on this issue. it's one of great importance to folks who are unemployed. it's also important to our nation as a whole that we deal with this issue to encourage economic growth, to get people back to work. i encouraged yesterday the senate majority to permit appropriate amendments to this legislation. that's one reason i voted to proceed, of course, with the understanding that we would have the opportunity to talk about this issue and debate it and offer amendments. one i think ought to be how we pay for it. and, second, we ought to be able to deal with the underlying

problem. you know, unemployment insurance is more of a band-aid and we need to be sure that we're dealing with the underlying problem of a weak economy and -- and the lack of jobs and the lack of a connection between the skills that are needed and the jobs that are available. let's really get at this problem in a serious way. i'll be frank, i heard from a lot of people in the last 24 hours after the vote on the motion for proceed that they were surprised that i voted to proceed and that other republicans did as well because they thought republicans would all vote against it. and, in fact, i saw some press reports this morning indicating that some of the democratic leadership would have been happier had that motion failed last night, because then they could say, well, we're blaming the republicans for being obstructionists. i don't think my colleagues who voted the other way were be obstructionists. i think their concern was that they weren't going to have the opportunity to debate this issue and to offer amendments that are sensible, that are relevant to the issue at hand, like how we pay for it and how we improve unemployment insurance so it works better for those who are unemployed. but anyway, for my part, i took

my colleagues at their word when they said they're serious about actually improving unemployment insurance and taking serious steps to deal with the lack of growth and economic opportunity in our economy today. so in good faith, i voted on this motion to proceed yesterday hoping, again, that we would be willing here in this body to have real debate, which is what the senate is supposed to be about, have a debate over the long-term fiscally sound way forward own employment. so i' so i have come to the floor today and in an effort to be sure that people understand there are alternatives out there, offer a specific idea to pay for the unemployment insurance, one that deals with fraud, waste, and abuse, one that's out of the president's budget, actually, one that should be bipartisan. i have heard earlier today some have come to the floor on the other side of the aisle and said we shouldn't pay for this extension. we should just go further into debt and deficit. my question would be if we can

pay for it, why wouldn't we? why would we want to take the country further into deficit this year, bust the budget caps that we just established, just established in the budget agreement? and i was one of nine republicans who voted for that budget agreement. it wasn't perfect but it set up a process going forward where we could get back to our constitutional duties here in the united states senate of actually appropriating, meaning the oversight necessary on the federal departments and agencies has been nowhere for the last four years when we haven't had a budget and then prioritizing spending. that's what we are supposed to be doing. that's our constitutional responsibility. it also didn't raise taxes. it also does have a little deficit reduction, not as much as it should have. it wasn't perfect, but it enabled us to move forward. so i voted for that budget and now we're talking about right after that putting forward an unemployment emergency extension that is not paid for, that will bust those very caps. i'm told a budget point of order

is going to lie against this because of it. well, that's not the way we should go. let's pay for it. the debt and deficit is affecting our economy today. it's like a wet blanket over the economy. you can't have trillion-dollar deficits year in and year out. this year it's $680 billion. people say that's great. are you kidding? it's the fifth highest deficit in the history of our country. it all adds up to a $17 trillion debt, unprecedented. i believe that's understated, given all the liabilities we have as a government, but the point is we have never had debts of this level. they are historic levels, and it is not only the wrong thing to do for our economy today in helping to get people back to do but it's also clearly unfair to future generations. we have some young people on the floor tonight -- or this afternoon, and it's i think even immoral that we're leaving this to them. so let's pay for this. i was glad to hear senator reid say yesterday of our efforts to fund this legislation -- quote -- "if they come with something serious, i'll talk to them." end quote. well, i have got something

serious. and i think other members will as well. something that reflects in my case reforms proposed in the president's own budget, ideas that should be bipartisan. my amendment would close a loophole that opens the system to double dipping. and what do i mean by that? it's called concurrent receipts where somebody is getting one federal program and then another federal program they shouldn't be eligible for if they have got the first one. specifically, people who are both on social security disability insurance, meaning they can't work, ssdi, and also receiving funds from unemployment insurance, which means you're looking for a job or you're working. we also add trade adjustment assistance. it's exactly the same theory. we shouldn't allow double dipping. in fact, we should stop this abuse, this is in the president's budget, this reform makes sense. social security disability was designed to help people who are unable to work because of a serious medical condition. as we all know, the law requires those on unemployment insurance to actively seek out job opportunities.

so the two don't work together. let's stop the double dipping. these two programs are mutually exclusive. those who can't work should be on disability. those who can work should be on unemployment insurance if they're eligible. by passing this simple amendment, we can close this sploal and save $5.4 billion, almost enough to pay for the entire three-month extension that we're talking about on the table here today. it's about $6.2 billion, $6.3 billion. in addition, i will be adding another provision to my amendment that takes the unemployment insurance program integrity provisions directly out of the president's budget, so these are programs again in the president's budget to ensure that the unemployment insurance program is working properly, again taking out the fraud and the abuse in it. the president's budget instructs the department of labor to implement it. my amendment does, too. by implementing the president's own plan to reduce these improper payments and speed re-employment, we save even more money in the long run.

this pays for again this unemployment extension over three months. so i hope we can pass my amendment, pay for this extension and show that this legislation is not just about politics. what we're talking about here on the floor today is not just about politics. it's about actually helping people who are unemployed to get back to work. i hope when my democratic colleagues say they are ready to take real action on getting our economy moving again to help americans who are suffering again that they mean it. by the way, the fact that we're having this debate, the fact that so many americans are in need of long-term unemployment insurance, this in and of itself shows that something is not working. in fact, as we have talked about on this floor before, we are now at historic levels in terms of long-term unemployment. people who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. the approach taken by the administration and many of my colleagues here and in the other body to bring down unemployment and get the economy moving really can't seem to have worked, by their own standards.

you will recall we had a stimulus package and it said that unemployment would be far lower than it is today. by their own standards, it just hasn't worked. if it had, we wouldn't be debating this today. we wouldn't be talking about the need for an extension on an emergency basis of unemployment insurance. we can't spend our way to prosperity, and that's what we tried to do, in my view, in the stimulus package and that's one reason it hasn't worked. we have certainly tried that over the last five years. if you look at what the government has done, we have spent trillions of dollars we didn't have, we have burdened the next generation with previously unimaginable debt levels, as we talked about earlier. we have now run five years of historic deficits, five years. trillion-dollar deficits the first four years. before this administration, we had never had a trillion-dollar deficit. last year's deficit, again, $680 billion, fifth largest in history, is certainly no cause for celebration. particularly when the congressional budget office tells us that we're going to go back to trillion-dollar deficits within ten years.

so we obviously have a huge problem in terms of our debt and deficit, but what do we have to show for all this spending we did? 71 months after the recession began, the economy has still not recovered the jobs we lost in that recession. this has never happened in the history of our country. we have never had a recovery this weak. we're down 1.3 million jobs. by comparison, we are up 10.4 million jobs at this point after the 1981-1982 recession. that recession was also deep. in fact, it was deeper if you measure it by the number of people who are unemployed. ronald reagan came in and frankly he took pro-growth policies and put them in place and it helped to create millions of jobs. by this time we were up 10.4 million jobs after that recession. we were up 9.8 million jobs after the 1990 recession at this point. we were up 4.8 million jobs after the 2001 recession. remember that? the recovery was called the jobless recovery. again, we haven't even gained

back the jobs at all yet after this recession. we were up 4.8 million jobs at this point after the 2001 recession. making matters even worse, one out of every three unemployed persons have been out of work for 27 weeks or longer. as i said, this rate of long-term unemployment is at levels we haven't seen. you would think we would have learned a lesson here in washington. you would think that washington would want to do something differently. and yet, i heard the president and the majority leader just yesterday present an unemployment extension as if it were some kind of economic panacea, the silver bullet, justifying their failure to pay for this extension with all the growth they say it will generate. well, the senate majority leader said yesterday and i quote for every dollar we spend on unemployment benefits, it gets gets $1.50 back to us just like that. just like that? think about this. if unemployment benefits create so much growth, why would we just do a three-month extension? why not a three-year extension? why would there be any limit? money may not grow on trees, but

apparently in the eyes of some, it grows from government programs. that's just not how the economy works. i know there are economists out there you can cite for just about everything, but the president's own economic advisors have written that unemployment benefits slow down the search for jobs. we don't need to get into a battle of experts here. history has proven that just spending more money, even on unemployment benefits, is not the solution. it's not the long-term, serious solution to the problems we face as a country. this extension if it passes will be the 11th time we have extended unemployment benefits in the last five years. these extensions have cost more than $200 billion. no economic boom has resulted from this spending just as it didn't result as i said earlier from the trillion dollars in stimulus money. if spending were the answer, we wouldn't be standing here today having this debate. we would be celebrating full employment. mr. president, our economy would not be better off if we had higher unemployment and we're paying out more unemployment benefits, and that's kind of the logical extension of what has been argued on the other side as to why we can't pay for this.

i can't imagine anyone actually believes this, yet for too long we have treated government spending as if it does create wealth. but if i take one dollar from you, take one dollar from one person and give that dollar to somebody else, that other person may be better off, but i didn't add a dollar to the economy. government programs have to come from somewhere, so that dollar is being taken from somewhere, given to somebody else and somehow the notion is that's going to add to the economy. again, the logical extension is let's just continue to provide more and more government spending, everything will be great. that's not how it works. dividing the pie up different doesn't create more pie. it creates real, concrete, pro-growth policies to do that. policies that mean we're paying out less in unemployment benefits because more people have the skills they need to get good jobs. that's what we ought to be talking about. yes, i'm willing to extend unemployment insurance and pay for it, but during that period, let's come up with a better unemployment insurance program that actually connects people to the jobs that are out there because there are a lot of jobs

that require skills that are not being filled, and the unemployment system out of both for the long term and the short term focus on that. how do you create better skills so people have the opportunity, have the tools to be able to access those jobs? policies that allow more companies and small businesses to produce quality products they can sell here and around the world, creating better jobs in the process would represent. implementing these kind of policies are not as easy as extending unemployment benefits for a few months or raising the minimum wage. we won't be able to ram these kind of policies through in a week on a party-line vote with no debate and no real amendments, but they are a real solution to the chronic unemployment we are seeing in our states and they are the only way to encourage the kind of income mobility that will close the income gap, not by tearing people down but by bringing people up. pro-growth economic policies obviously need to be part of the solution here. if we extend unemployment insurance, we should do so because people are hurting as a result of the failed policies of washington, but we shouldn't kid

ourselves into believing that this extension alone will somehow solve these economic problems. and again, it certainly won't pay for itself. as i said earlier, you can't take a dollar away from one person, give it to someone else and create more purchasing power. you're redistributing that across the economy. it doesn't have to be that pay. we can pass these pay-for amendments. i have got my own amendments, as i said. others have also proposed their amendments. i know senator ayotte has an amendment that i am supporting that again gets at fraud and abuse in government programs and say let's pay for the unemployment benefits. she also by the way pays for veterans' benefits that were cut during the budget agreement that we just passed. i also support that, and she has a little left over for actual deficit reduction. senator coburn will have a proposal out here. senator hatch will have one. senator coburn also has one that's out of the president's budget. there are plenty of ideas of how to pay for this extension short term while we look at better ways to have the unemployment

insurance system work to connect people who are unemployed to the jobs that are out there by giving them the skills that they need. that's where the hard work begins. we have got to get this country moving again. we have got to do things to actually increase economic growth and give people the skills that they need to access to jobs that are out there. we need to pass bills like the career act. that's bipartisan legislation i have introduced with senator mike bennet from colorado. in ohio, we have got about 400,000 people unemployed and we're told there are about 100,000 jobs right now open in ohio. a lot of these jobs are high-tech jobs. some are in advanced manufacturing, some are in bioscience, some are in information technology. we need to be sure that the people who are unemployed get the skills they need to be able to take advantage of those jobs, those opportunities. we can also start by working on tax reform. everybody in this chamber talks about it. let's do it. corporate tax reform alone would result in a lot more revenue coming into the federal government by repatriating

profits and would help expand opportunities, not for the board room but for the people who work in those companies. people have looked at this at the congressional budget office, the economic experts who have said if we did corporate business tax reform, over 70% of the benefit goes right to the workers, higher pay, higher benefits. it's time to do these sorts of things to ensure that we have a growing economy, we are growing that pie, not just carving it up. let's streamline the way we do regulations in this country. currently the united states ranks 34th in the world for the time it takes a government green light to actually build something. think about that. this is a key world bank measure for ease of doing business. we want america to be on the top of that list, not halfway down that list. unless we do that, we're not going to see the kind of investment we want in this country. how many jobs are lost every year because people can't get a permit, that a good idea can't be built? these are jobs that are there if we change the policies here in washington, d.c. congress continues to pat itself on the back for scoring political points rather than taking on these challenges that face our country.

i can tell you who is not patting us on the back. it's the american people. they aren't happy. they aren't pleased with our progress, and there is good reason. they're actually seeing their take-home pay go down as the deficit goes up. and as the president talks about a better economy. 50 years ago, the united states declared a war on poverty, and yet poverty is still a major problem. the goal was noble but the tools we used were not up to the challenge. since the recession began, nine million more americans have fallen into poverty, and the median household income is down more than 8%. poverty rates have increased during this administration with the policies we've got. it's time for a change. for decades we've exported these principles that allowed us to enjoy so much prosperity and success. we've said following the american way, the free enterprise system works, we preach this gospel as well as our relief -- belief removing the shas