quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from connecticutmenconnecticut.mr. bd and proud to -- the presiding officer: the senator is in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: i apologize, mr. president. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i'm very proud to follow my colleague from new hampshire and thank her for her leadership in offering the military retirement restoration act, which i am very pleased to support, as an amendment to the unemployment insurance extension bill. for all the reasons that i've stated and others have expressed even more powerfully than i, this bill makes sense.

we must extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. and the merits of this bill are absolutely indisputable and undeniable. this bill offers us a really critically important opportunity and we ought to seize it to correct and fix a deeffect in the budget a-- fix a defect in the budget agreement that was reached by the very, very excellent work of our colleague, senator ryan -- senator murray and congressman ryan and that was passed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan majority in this body. it was an agreement that advanced and enhanced economic certainty. it had many advantages but it also was far from perfect. its flaws included a cut in

military retiree benefits. these benefits were cut by provisions to that agreement that was approved by this body with many reservations and regrets, and now we ought to seize this opportunity to correct that defect, as this measure offers us through an amendment. and we can pay for it. it can be budget neutral if we simply close certain egregious corporate tax loophole, as senator shaheen has suggested. and i want to emphasize again what senator shaheen said so well. we can think of a lot of different ways to pay for the $6.5 billion that's necessary to correct these cuts in military retiree benefits. what is beyond question is the need to fix this flaw.

it's a flaw that not only diminishes in monetary terms the benefits these retirees need and deserve, it also dishonors the service and sacrifice that they have made. what better opportunity than now, as we deal with the extension of unemployment benefits in a measure that deserves overwhelming support, just as the budget agreement received, now to correct this flaw. there's been a lot of misinformation and confusion about exactly what the murray-ryan agreement did to military retirement benefits. and there is a need to address in the longer term the system that provides for retiree benefits. to make it serve better the interests of our retirees, our veterans, our patriots who have

given so much to our nation. but right now, in these next few days, beyond any kind of question or doubt is the need to correct this defect and to follow through on the understanding that many of us had, including myself, that, in fact, we would correct this defect. i supported the budget agreement with the understanding, as chairman levin of michigan made clear, that the senate would work this year as soon as possible to stop the 1% reduction in the cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees until the age of 62 that would take effect in december of 2015. now, 2015 and december of that year is a long way off. there may be other opportunities to correct this flaw, the

reduction in retiree benefits, but let's do it now. let us not delay in restoring the benefits that these retirees need and deserve. so i urge my colleagues to join in this effort of paying for this change by making sure that companies managed and controlled here in the united states can't avoid united states taxes simply by claiming foreign status. many of us have long advocated closing this loophole. it seems to me a reasonable approach, far better than taking away the child tax credit for poor migrant families. but ultimately the pay-for iss issue, the offset question should be resolved -- and i believe it will be -- if not in this act then in the omnibus appropriations bill that we will address next and then make sure

that we keep faith. we must assure that we will keep faith with these retirees who have given and served so much. as senator shaheen has said, most americans would agree that this kind of tax avoidance is unfair and we ought to close this tax loophole rather than reducing military retiree benefits. what all americans would agree is that we should keep faith and leave no veteran behind, making sure that this amendment is voted on and approved and given legal force and effect so that we correct and fix the flaw in the budget agreement that has really disallowed and dishonored the obligation that we owe these retirees. i thank the presiding officer and i yield the floor.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: there will be no roll call votes tonight. mr. president, i think, as most people know -- at least i'll reiterate it -- i oppose paying for any short-term extension of unemployment benefits. the current level of long-term unemployment is an economic emergency, without any question. and this would be very unpair to the people who are -- very unfair to the people who are in desperately need of help, to say we're happy to give you this money but we're going to take something else out of the economy to do it. we're not going to do that. i think that would be wrong. having said that, mr. president, there are a number of senators who are having productive conversations about possible offsets, one of which is on the floor -- one of whom so the floor today, my friend, the senator from ohio. and he's been -- he's someone

that understands finances. he was head of the office of management and budget so whenever we have him working on numbers, it's always -- we're always dealing with someone who knows what they're talking about. i don't always agree with his conclusions but certainly he's a person who we all look to for guidance in this area. as i said a few hours ago here, mr. president, the republicans feel this should be paid for. let's find out how they feel it should be paid for. again, we on this side don't want a short-term extension. if it's going to be paid for, figure out a year's worth of pay-for and that would be much better than this nickel-and-diming. if we try to do it for three months paid for, i would almost bet that it won't get done. and so we should -- if we're going to have pay-fors, let's try to figure out a way to do it for a year. so we should let the conversations go on overnight.

i've spoken to a number of republican senators and, of course, i want exert every bit of influence, help, pressure, whatever word we want to use to try to get this done for a number of reasons, not the least of which one of the cosponsors of this is the junior senator from nevada. this is a -- this is an example of bipartisanship and how it should work. we have one of the most liberal members of the senate and one of the most conservative members of the senate working -- who have introduced this legislation and that's what we're working on now. so i repeat, i hope the conversations continue overnight and we'll see where we are in the morning. i do have a few other things here, mr. president. we'll be as fast as possible. i ask consent that the commerce committee be discharged from further work on h.r. 667. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: h.r. 667, an act to redesignate the dryden flight research as the neem a. armstrong flight research -- neil a. armstrong flight research center and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, debt is discharged. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1171. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1171, a bill to amend the controlled substances act to allow a veterinarian to transport and dispense controlled substances and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the following staff of the finance committee be allowed on the senate floor -- mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the finance committee be allowed on the senate floor for the remainder of this session -- harrison covall, carolyn froman, maureen downs. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10: a.m. tomorrow morning. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved for the day and the time for the leaders be reserved for later in the day. following that, the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 12:00 noon, with the time equally divided between

the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority the final 30 minutes. at 12:00 noon, all postcloture time be considered expired. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so tomorrow we hope to make progress on the unemployment insurance extension. senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of my friend, the senator from ohio, senator portman. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. portman: thank you, mr. president. and let me just say that i applaud the majority leader for his work on this neil armstrong flight research center. this is something that diane feinstein's been very involved with and jay rockefeller supported. and it's an appropriate way to pay tribute to neil armstrong, who was a constituent of mine and a dear friend. i spoke to his family about th

this. they believe that it is an appropriate way to pay tribute to him as well. he was a true hero, not just because of what he did as the first man to walk on the moon, but also the way he led his life subsequently. he was a humble hero to me and to so many others, and i'm delighted that through the action we just heard on the floor here a moment ago, with the majority leader, we have now passed that legislation. it will go to the president for his signature and the dryden flight center in california will now be renamed the neil a. armstrong flight research center at the dryden aeronautical test range. so that's -- that's good news tonight. the senate got something done. i also want to comment on what the president of the senate said earlier with regard to the retirement provisions in the budget as it relates to our veterans. the military retirement issue was one that i had great concerns about and when i voted

for the budget, it was my understanding that that would be resolved. the gentleman from connecticut has a proposal that he's supporting tonight from our colleague from new hampshire. i'm supporting a proposal as well from another colleague from new hampshire and how we pay for this i know is the subject of some debate. but we need to resolve this. i think it's unfair for a couple reasons. one is i think it singles out our military at a time when there are so many other ways in which we need to address our overspending in this country and i think it is not just for us to simply single out military retirees. i believe that that is not consistent with the promise that we have made them. and i believe that it is changing the rules in midstream in effect. second, there's a commission looking at this. and the commission is looking at it in a comprehensive way, retirement, benefits, health care. that commission is both comprehensive and transparent,

it's expected to report later this year so this certainly was not in my view appropriate to be in the budget. it's about $6 billion, we certainly should be able to to find the pay-for in a budget of well over $3 trillion so i commend those who are working on this, i have cosponsored a particular approach senator ayotte from new hampshire is proposing that is an antifraud provision for the child tax credit. i would think all of waste, fraud, and abuse want to make sure this child tax credit is properly administered and those ineligible for it should not access it. we should make sure there is not fraud and abuse in our government and that is one example. i would hope we could find a way to deal with that issue. finally, mr. president, the majority leader talked a little about the legislation that's currently before this body and that's to extend unemployment insurance. and i want to talk for a moment about where we are on that bill

and say i was encouraged by the words of the majority leader that he sounds like he is interested in looking at various ways that we could pay for it. he indicated he is not in support of paying for it but he indicated he'd be willing to listen to some of our ideas. let me say a couple things about it. one, this is the emergency unemployment insurance on top of the roughly 26 weeks that is currently provided by states like my state of ohio so it's additional so-called emergency unemployment insurance on top of that. the unemployment insurance ended at year end and the question is, do we extend it or not, how do we extend it, how do we teal with the fact that it adds to the deficit. i voted to proceed to this along with a handful of other republicans because i believe that we ought to have a debate over, one, whether it should be paid for or not and i think it should be and i won't able to support it unless it is paid for, and two, how we can over the three-month period which is

what the extension is, just a three-month period how we can improve the unemployment insurance program so it really works to get people employed. the problem now as we know is we have the highest number of people who are long-term unemployed we've ever had in this country. it's at historic rates and it's a very troubling, sad situation where you have people over 27 weeks at historic levels. so we are not doing what we should be doing to connect those people who are unemployed to the jobs that are out there. clearly. by definition with so many people long-term unemployed. let's improve this system. let's provide people with the job skills that they need, the tools they need to access the jobs available. in this my own state of ohio we have about 100,000 jobs that are open right now we are told. many are in advanced manufacturing and sectors where there is a retirement for schools that those who are

unemployed do not have. long-term unemployment insurance isn't providing them with that training and those skills opportunities. so i think we ought to be able as a body to come up with reforms working with the administration, the president has indicated his interest in doing that, that's why the three-month extension. but i certainly think we should pay for the three-month extension. the argument that was made tonight that it's an emergency, well, you know, same democrats saying that are saying the economy is improving. in any case it violates the budget we just passed. we just passed a budget not a few weeks ago. was quite contentious on the floor and the budget provided for the first time in four years a budget for the house and senate to work against so we can start the appropriations process again. i supported that. it had no tax increases, had net deficit reduction in it, barely, but some, it didn't do everything but it set those budget levels so we now have caps we can work against so we can begin the appropriations process which involves oversight

that has not been done appropriately for four years now, involves prioritizing spending that has not been done, frankly, the agencies and departments have been on their own with these so-called continuing resolutions because there hasn't been the constitutional requirement that the congress appropriate every dime, that's our duty, our constitutional duty, the power of the purse. that simply hasn't happened here. i think the budget is important. by setting those caps, we made statements to the american people we're going to stick to these budget caps, both on the discretionary side on the smaller part of the budget that we appropriate every year and also on the mandatory side. those caps are violated by unemployment insurance being extended without paying for it. and so subject to a point of order on the floor of the house or the senate. and frankly, i think if that point of order were raised, which i think it would be because we don't want to break these caps, i think it would be very tough to get the 60 votes.

so i understand that the majority leader disagrees with me on this, and i respect his opinion, but i do think that because it violates the budget and because we have historic levels of debt and we have a deficit this year which is scheduled, forecasted to be over $600 billion, that, you know, we ought to deal with this in a responsible way fiscally and find the money to pay for the extension. it's about $6 billion. it's about the same as dealing with the military retirement issue. again, certainly, we can find $6 billion in a budget of well over $3 trillion, and in fact a number of us have come up with specific proposals, and i have introduced a couple of amendments on this today. i spoke about one of these amendments earlier today, but i'd like to go into a little more detail because there were some comments made on the floor earlier that republicans are only offering two alternatives. one is a one-year delay on obamacare, which i support, but is opposed by the other side, and second is the proposal on the child tax credit that i talked about earlier that focuses on the current missed

payments on the child tax credit. now, again, i think that's a good pay-for. i support that. i'm actually on the amendment which provides for that, that also has enough funds in it to deal with the military retirement issue we talked about, so it could extend the unemployment insurance program for three months plus deal with the military retirement program and have a little left over for deficit reduction. but i want to make it clear to those on the other side of the aisle who said that's all republicans have, that we do have alternatives. i specifically have introduced, filed amendments that i hope will be made in order that say let's look at the president's own budget and pull out some pay-fors that are within the budget and let's use those, which certainly should be bipartisan. specifically, i have two provisions that are in my amendment to pay for the extension. one is to remove a current loophole that's in the system that allows double dipping,

double dipping between social security disability and unemployment insurance. that's in the president's budget. it's in there because it doesn't make sense to have folks who are on social security disability, which is designed for people who are unable to work to also be drawing unemployment insurance, which is for workers, for people who are out of work and looking for a job. that's a requirement. so clearly, those two programs are mutually exclusive, which is why the president's budget includes this prohibition on what's called concurrent receipts, in other words, getting both your ssdi and your unemployment insurance. i add to that trade adjustment assistance, another program where you get as a worker -- this is if you lose your job due to trade and some external factors and you can go through a retraining program, but you're a worker by definition. the same theory applies to both, the same principle applies. so that combination pays for

most of the extension of unemployment insurance. i see my colleague from maine is on the floor this evening. he along with one of his democrat colleagues and one of his republican colleagues, has made a similar proposal in legislation and also filed an amendment along those lines to say let's clean up this issue, let's be sure we don't have double dipping, that we do establish clearly that if you're qualified as a nonworker in one case, you can't qualify as a worker in another case. so i do think that is a responsible way to pay for this that would not run afoul of anything that the majority leader said he was concerned about, although again i don't have concerns that he does about the child tax credit issue because i think it's a question of missed payments, but i just want to make clear we do have this proposal out there. on top of that, to be sure that there is additional pay-for to pay for the entire amount of the extension of unemployment insurance, we also add an

unemployment insurance integrity program straight out of the president's budget. this is to ensure through the labor department that there are not improper payments on these existing unemployment insurance program. this will enable us to save money in the long run and help get people into jobs which i think should be everybody's priority. so these are both proposals that are in the process here, they have been filed. we're hoping that they will be made pending tomorrow and that we can have a debate on these and other amendments. i believe there are several other amendments, including the one from the -- my colleague from maine that will say okay, we'll extend the unemployment insurance program for three months to come up with a better unemployment insurance program, to improve it so it does connect people to the jobs that are out there, provides the kinds of skills training that is needed, gives people the tools to be able to access those jobs, but we're going to pay for it at a time of historic debts and these

large deficits, at that time when it violates the budget agreement otherwise that we just passed. so i'm hopeful that we can make progress on this over the next couple of days and that we'll be in a position to move forward on dealing with unemployment insurance, improving that. i also filed another amendment that relates to this because part of what we ought to do, in my view, during this three months is to tie worker retraining more to unemployment insurance, and senator bennet from colorado and i have something called the career act that we have introduced over the last few years, and this career act helps to improve the federal worker retraining program, which i believe should be part of this. specifically, we have a couple provisions in that legislation that i have introduced as an amendment here to be able to help in terms of the unemployment insurance issue. we want to create an environment where fewer people need unemployment in the first place, and that's why the amendment that i have got would reform local one-stop centers for worker retraining, it would help connect the unemployed with

retraining services by requiring them to give priority consideration to training services that provide workers with in-demand, industry-recognized credentials. we're finding in ohio and other states that those credentials are what are really needed to get a job often, and that's not being prioritized now in our federal worker retraining program. by the way, the federal government spends about $15 billion a year on these federal retraining programs, so we need to be sure that money's well spent. and again, by definition, it's not working as it should. we have got so many people who are not able to find jobs because of this skills gap. 100,000 jobs in ohio are open right now. about 400,000 people are out of work. and somehow we can't connect those folks with the jobs, partly because they don't have the skills. our proposal also includes an innovative approach that's endorsed by the president in his 2014 budget that gives states the flexibility to spend some of that work force reinvestment funds, on job training that use

the pay for success model. what does that mean? well, the pay for success model allows providers who right now are getting funding through this program to be reimbursed only if they generate results. it seems pretty basic that you should be looking at outcomes, but that's not in the system now, so really it's sort of a pay-for success, a pay-for performance program, and it will ensure that these programs are accountable and actually produce measurable results for workers. not only will this save money but it also, again, will help get americans back to work one job at a time. these seem to me to be really responsible proposals that again i hope we'll take up here in the senate and be able to move forward with something that pays for this unemployment insurance extension but also begins the process of improving unemployment insurance so that it works better for that historic number of long-term unemployed. finally, this is a great opportunity for us to do things that actually help grow this economy, because ultimately that's the problem, isn't it?

unemployment insurance is taking dollars from one pocket and giving it to someone else. that's needed sometimes. during high unemployment, as we have now, and long-term unemployment being high, something is needed in terms of unemployment insurance. i think most of us agree with that. but ultimately, that's not the solution. the solution is to create more economic growth and therefore more jobs and have fewer people who need to rely on unemployment insurance. i'm hopeful we can also have discussions about some of those issues. we're not going to reform the tax code here in the next couple of days, but we ought to talk about issues like that that will really give the economy a shot in the arm. one thing i have introduced along those lines is an amendment to strengthen what's called the unfunded mandates reform act. this is to help with the regulations out there that are unfortunately causing more and more burdens to job creators and making it harder to create a job. we know that the costs of regulations is going up. in 2012, the last year for which we have numbers, the obama

administration's regulations costs in 2012 alone was equal to the costs in the first term of the bush administration and the clinton administration combined, so more and more regulations, more and more costs, about 4,000 regulations a year, we have got to be sure that we have a process in place to pare down the regulations and make sure that they are based on a real analysis of the costs and the benefits. i was an author of the unfunded mandates reform act of 1995 back when i was on the house side, and this particular amendment we have offered today improves that bill. originally, that was an effort to prevent congress and the federal regulators from blindly imposing economic burdens on the private sector without going through these costs and benefits. i think most people would acknowledge it's been a success, but with today's regulatory environment, we need to upgrade it, we need to modernize it. this amendment would require agencies to assess the effect of new regulations on job creation, which is not in the current bill, the current act, so it would add that requirement.

let's look at how does this affect creating jobs? that seems again like a commonsense idea. and require those agencies to consider alternatives to the kind of regulations being proposed that might lessen that effect on jobs. it would also broaden the scope of the unfunded mandates act to include rules by independent agencies. right now independent agencies are not covered by the cost/benefit analysis because by definition they're independent from the office of management and budget and from the analysis that's done, some independent agencies do analysis, some don't. and they use different rules. so this would require all agencies whether you're an executive branch agency or an independent agency to live under these same rules of cost cost/bt analysis. the president has proposed this himself not in legislative form but through executive action. we need to codify what the president talks about. frankly, he can't do it by executive action because by definition these are independent agencies independent of the white house. our idea here is to bring them

into this same cost/benefit analysis to make sure they are adopting the least burdensome rules possible so that we aren't affecting our economy in negative ways and get people back to work. final, we do require agencies to look at what the benefits are even after the cost-benefit analysis is done to determine what is the least burdensome way to achieve the same objective. so if you have a new rule being put in place, you would be required to assay on, how do you get from point a to point b in the least burdensome way to job traders. that to me makes a lot of sense too. with so many americans out of work, mr. president, and so many who are looking for a job, who are underemployed, i think it's time for us to look at everything -- regulatory reform would certainly be one. health care costs is another and what's happening with obamacare, tax reform, looking at our trade policy, be sure we can expand exports. there's lots of things to do but i think on this regulatory front, this is one again where we have a lot of bipartisan

consensus and we might be able to move forward with something. so i know we're debating the extension of unemployment benefits today. not all these other issues, but they're all part of it. we've got to make sure that we are creating an environment for success, that we are creating the opportunity for job creators to invest, to take a risk, to begin to get the money off the sidelines in this economy and put it to work. and that will require us to make some changes here in washington in temples the way we approach these issues to free up the private sector to do what they do best, which is to create more jobs and opportunity. again, i was very pleased to hear the senate majority leader express a willingness to include good amendments, reasonable amendments, offsets to the costs of this legislation. i do hope that he will work with us to ensure that we can move forward on this in a way that does take on some of these issues of -- of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government and the kind of things we're talking about of being sure there's not double-dipping, being sure there's not concurrent seats with

disability -- receipts with disability plus unemployment insurance and t.a.a., but rather to ensure that if we're working, you're getting the benefits that you're eligible for. if you're not working, you can get those benefits but not both. these are just sensible provisions and, again, reflective of what's in the president's own budget. if we can do that and pay for this for three months and then go to work as republicans and democrats and independents ali alike, because there's an independent on the floor tonight, to resolve not just whether we extend unemployment or not but this deeper issue of how do you have the unemployment program work to get people into jobs that are available out there. again, record levels of long-term unemployment means we've got a real problem. it's not working. and then second, how do we grow this underlying economy, how do we get the jobs back through economic growth and through creating more opportunity for everyone, to get middle-class wages back up and benefits back up, to enable every american to have a shot, a shot at that american dream?

by giving people the equal opportunity that they deserve. mr. president, thank you for staying late tonight, your indulgence, and i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. call.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, over the past several years, those of us who are fortunate enough to serve here have engaged in many fierce debates. some have been forced upon us by external events, including a searing financial crisis, while others were brought about by an unapol jetally liberal president who promised dramatic change and who has worked very hard to follow through on that pledge. in some cases, even in the face of legal obstacles and widespread public opposition. so change has indeed come. despite the daily drumbeat of headlines about gridlock and dysfunction in washington, the truth is an activist president

and a democratic controlled senate have managed to check off an awful lot of items on their wish list one way or another. and yet just as important as what they did, my colleagues, is how they did it. because that's also been at the heart of so many of the fights we've had around here over the past few years. now, these conflicts haven't stemmed have personal grievances or contempt as some would have it. they are, instead, the inevitable consequence of an administration that was in such a hurry, such a hurry, to impose its agenda that it

neglected to persuade the public of its wisdom and then cast aside one of the greatest tools, one of the greatest tools we have in this country for guaranteeing a durable and stable legislative consensus, and that tool is the united states senate. remember -- i think we all know partnership is not some recent innovation here, invention. american politics has always american politics has always >> more less divided between two the laws of gaps. today that is reflected in the two major parties, but in fact they have always been there. on one side are those who probably placed their trust and governments and its agents to guide our institutions and direct our lives.

on the other are those of us to put our trust and the wisdom and the creativity of private citizens working voluntarily with each other and through more local, mediating institutions guided by their own sense of what is right, what is fair, and what is good. now, recent polling suggests, by the way, that most americans fall squarely into the latter pack. people are generally competent in their local government but lack confidence in washington. and yet despite, despite the political end is the logical device which have always existed in our country, we have almost always managed to work out our differences, not by humiliate the other side into submission,

but through simple give-and-take it is the secret of our success. december choose the making the toward marriage or business work other ones that have always made this country worked. and the place where it happens, the place where all of the national complex and controversies that arise in big -- in this big, diverse, wonderful country of ours have always been resolved, always been resolved right here in this chamber. now i realize this may not be immediately obvious that is the

case, but the fact is, every serious student of this institution has seen this senate as uniquely important to americans stability and to its flourishing. in their view it has made all the difference, and here's why. whether it was the fierce early battles over the shape and scope of the federal government or those that surrounded and disposition or those that preceded and followed the nation civil war or the great wars of the 20th century or the expansion of franchise or decades-long cold war or the war on terror, we have always, always found a way forward. sometimes haltingly, but always

to italy. and the senate is the tool that has enabled us to find our footing almost every time. i mention this because, as we begin a new year i think it is appropriate to step back from all of the policy debates that have occupied as of the past few years and ferguson of debate we have been having wrong here, a debate that we have been having over the state of this institution. what have we become? it is not a debate that ever caught fire with the public will with the press, but it is a debate there should be of grave importance of los because on some level, on some level every single one of los press to be at

least a little bit uneasy about what happened here last november but even if you are completely at peace about what happened in november, even if you think it was perfectly fine to violate the all important rule passes changing the rules requires the assent of two-thirds of senators duly elected and sworn, none of us should be happy with the trajectory this said was on even before that day, even before november. or the condition that we find this an it n225 years after it was created. i don't think anyone is comfortable with where we are. i know i am not, and i bet even though there is no one here at the moment, i bet almost none of them are either. so i would like to share a few

thoughts on what i think we have lost over the last seven years and what i think can be done about it together. no, together obviously requires the involvement, you would think , of some people on the other side of the aisle. and even though they are not here to listen, they have been invited. so let me state at the outset, it is not my intention to point the finger of blame anybody. some of that is inevitable. i do not presume to have all the answers either the men and certainly not here to claim that we are without fault. but i am certain of one thing. i absolutely certain of one thing, the senate can be better than it is.

many of us around here have seen a better senate then we have no, no matter who was in the majority. this institution can be better than it is. and i just cannot believe that on some level everyone in this chamber, including the folks on the other side, does not agree. it just cannot be the case that we are content with the theatrics and the messaging wars that golan here day after day. it just cannot be the case that senators who grew up reading about the great statesman and made there name and their mark here over the years are now suddenly content to just stand in front of a giant poster board making some poultice of point of the month day after day after day.

and then run back to our respective corners to congratulate each other and how right we are. that is cannot believe we are all happy with that on either side. do not misunderstand me. there is a time for making a political point. even scoring a few points. i know that as well as anybody. it cannot be the only thing we do. surely we did something other than a score of political points against each other. it cheapens the service we have sworn to provide to our constituents. it cheapens the senate. which is a lot bigger than any of us. so hopefully we can all agree that we have a problem here. i realize both sides have their own favorite account of what caused it. we have are talking points, they have the talking points.

with great repetition the -- the guys over there think republicans abuse the rules come and we think they do. but as i said, my goal was not to make converts on that front. my purpose is to suggest that the senate can do better that has been and that we must become if we are to remain as a great nation. i think the crucial first up of any vision that gets us there is to recognize that a vigorous debate about our differences is not some sickness to be lamented fierce debate is not a problem.

when did that become a problem? is actually a sign of strength to have vigorous debates. the fights we have around here are pointless. they're not zero plus. every single debate is about something important. we neglect the means we have always used to resolve our differences. that is the real threat to this country. not more debate. when did that become a problem? and the best mechanism we have for working poor differences and arriving at the burro consensus is the added states senate. an executive order can't do it. the fiat of a nine person court cannot do it.

the only institution that can make stable and enduring loss is the one we have in which all 50 states are represented equally and where every single senator has a say in the laws that we pass. this is what the senate was designed for, it is with the senate is supposed to be about, and almost, almost always has been. just take a look as some of the most far reaching legislation of the past century. look at the vote tallies. medicare and medicaid were both approve with the support of about half the members of the minority. the voting rights act of 1965 passed with the votes of 30 out of the 32 members of the

republican minority. all but two republican senators. there were not many of them. that was the year after the debacle. only two senators voted against the social security act, and only eight voted against the americans with disabilities act. now, none of this happened, by the way, none of it happened by throwing these bills together in the back room and dropping them on the floor with a stopwatch running. it happened through a laborious process of legislating. persuasion, coalition building. it took time, and it took patients, and hard work, and it guaranteed that every one of these laws had stability, stability. now, compare that, compare that, if you will, to the attitude behind obamacare.

the bill was worth supporting israel. it decided to do it on their own. passage of a party-line vote and now we're seeing results. the chaos this law has visited on our country is not just tragic but entirely predictable, entirely predictable. and that will always be the case if you approach legislation without regard to the views of the other side. without some meaningful by an the guarantee a food fight. you guarantee instability and you guarantee strife. it may very well be a case that of obamacare the will of the country was not to pass the bill at all. that's what i would have clued -- concluded if republicans

conducted a single vote for legislation of that magnitude i would have thought maybe this is not such a good idea. they did not want to hear it, and the results were clear. it is a mess. an absolute mess. without a moderating institution like the senate today's majority passes something and to large majority repeals it. today's in europe rose something tomorrows majority opposes. we see that all the time, but when the senate is allowed to work the way it is designed to aid results.

that is the whole point. we have lost our sense for the value of that. and none of us should be at peace with that because if america is to face up to the challenges that we face and the decades ahead, she will leave the senate, the founders, and their wisdom and tended, not a hollow shell of the senate that we have today, not the hollow shell of the said that we have today. first, one of the traditional hallmarks of the senate is a vigorous committee process. it is also one of the main things we have lost. there was a time not that long ago when chairman and ranking members said meggett to five major influence and used their positions to develop national policy on everything from foreign policy to nuclear arms. these men went enriched the

entire center their focus and their expertise. just as importantly, they provided an important counterweight to a executive-branch. the writer will more check on the white house. the president thought something was a good idea, he better make sure you read by the committee chairman who had been studying it for the past two decades. and if the chairman disagreed, well, there would have a serious debate. a better product. of priorities, not simply waiting on the white house to do it for us. and the place to start that process is in the committee's with few exceptions, very few exceptions. it is a big loss to the institution. most importantly, it is a big loss for the american people who

expect this to lead. here is something else we have gained from a robust committee process of the years. the committees have actually served as a school of bipartisanship, and if you think about it, it just makes sense. by that time a bill goes through committee, you would expect it to come out in a form that was a generally, broadly acceptable form to both sides. nobody gets everything, but more often than not everybody got something. and the product was stable because there was by end and a sense of ownership on both sides. on the rare occasions when that has happened recently, we have seen them work. the committee process today in

the united states senate is a shadow of what used to be. thereby marginalizing, reducing the influence that every single member of the senate on both sides of the aisle has. major legislation is now routinely drafted not in committee but in the majority leader's conference room and then dropped on the floor with little or no opportunity for members to participate in the amendment process virtually guaranteeing a fight. now, there is lot of empty talk around here about the corrosive influence of partisanship. well, if you really want to do something about it, you should support a more robust committee process. that is the best way to end the permanent shirts against skins

contest the senate has become. it go through committee, and if republicans are fortunate enough , republicans are fortunate enough to gain a majority next year that will be done. second, bills should come to the floor and be thoroughly debated. we have an example of that going on right now. and that includes a robust amendment process. in my view there is far too much paranoia about the other side around here. what are we afraid of? both sides have taken liberties and abuse privileges, but the answer is not to provoke even more. the answer is to let folks debate. this is the senate. let folks debate.

let the senate worked its will. that means bringing bills to the floor. that means having a free, open amendment process, that's legislating. that is what we used to do here. that is exactly the way this place operated just a few years ago. a senior senator from illinois, the democratic assistant majority leader likes to say, if you don't want to the fight fires don't become a fireman and if you don't want to account tough votes, don't come to the senate. agassi has not said that lately. when we used to be in the majority, i remember telling people, look, the good news, we are in the majority. the bad news is coming in order to get the bill across the floor you have to pass a lot of votes. we did it.

people groaned, complained. the sun still came up the next day, and everyone felt like they were a part of the process. well, senator durbin was right about that when he said it. i think it is time to allow senators on both sides to more fully participate in the legislative process. that means having a more open amendment process around here. as i said, obviously, from time to time you have to cast votes he would rather not cast. but we are all grown ups. i mean, we can take that. it is rarely ever a vote you cast around here that is fatal. .. and the irony of it all is that kind of process makes the place a lot less contentious. in fact, it's a lot less contentious when you vote on tough issues than when you don

don't. because when you're not allowed to do that, everybody is angry about being denied the opportunity to do what you were sent here to do, which is to represent the people that elected you and to offer ideas that you think are worth considering. we had a meeting we just came out of. senator cornyn was pointing out there were 13 amendments that people on this side of the aisle would like to offer on this bi bill. all of them related to the subject and important to each senator who seriously felt there was a better way to improve the bill that's on the floor right now. but, alas, i expect that opportunity will not be allowed because one person who's allowed to get priority recognition can prevent us from getting any amendments or, even worse still, pick our amendments for us.

to decide which of our amendments are okay and which aren't. i remember the late ted stevens telling the story about when he first got here. senator mansfield was still the majority leader and he tried to offer an amendment, senator and the member of the majority who was managing the bill prevented it, in effect. and senator mans feld came over to senator stevens, took his amendment, went back to his desk and sent it to the floor for him. sent to the floor for him. that was the senate not too long ago. if someone isn't allowed to gate vote on something they believe in, of course, they're going to

retaliate. of course, they're going to retaliate. but if they get a vote every once awhile, they don't feel the need to. voting on amendments is good for the senate and it's good for the country. our constituents should have a greater voice in the process. since july of last year, there have been four republican roll call votes. in the whole second half of 2013, members on this side of the aisle have gotten four roll call votes. stunning. that's today's senate. so let me say this, if

republicans are fortunate enough to be in the majority next year, amendments will be allowed. senators will be respected. not will not make an attempt to bring controversy out of an institution that expects, demands, approves of, great debates about the problems confronting the country. now, a common refrain from democrats is republicans have been too quick to block bills from ever coming to the floor. if -- what they fail to mention, of course, is that often we have done this either because we have been shut out of the drafting process. altogether it has nothing to do with writing the bill in the first place, or made clear there won't be any amendments. which is in all likelihood the

situation we're in this very day. in other words, we already newt legislation was shaping up to a purely partisan exercise which people we represent wouldn't have any meaningful impact at all. does it lead to a better product? of course not. all it leads to is more ak ak monoany. look, i get if republicans had just wouldn't white house and the house and had a 60-vote majority in the senate. we'd be tempted to empty our outbox too. but you can't spend two years emptying your outbox and then complain about the backlash. if you want fewer fights, give the other side a say.

that brings me to one of the biggest things we have lost around here, as i see it. the big problem my colleagues, has never been the rules. never been the rules. senators from both hearts have, in the past, revered and defended the rules during our nation's darkest hours. the real problem, the real problem, is the attitude that views the senate as an assembly line for one partisan legislative agenda. rather than as a place to build consensus to solve national problems. we become too focused on making a point instead of making a difference. making a point instead of making good, stable law. we've gotten too comfortable with viewing everything we do through here the prism of the next election instead of the prism of duty.

and everyone suffers as a result. as i see it, a major turning point came during the final years of the bush administration. when the democratic majority held vote after vote on bills they knew wouldn't pass. look, i'm not saying republicans have never staged a show boat when we were in the majority. i'm not saying i don't even enjoy a good messaging vote from time to time. but you have to wonder if that's all you're doing why you're here. it's become entirely too routine. it diminishes the senate. i don't care which party you're in. you came here to legislate. to make a difference for your constituents, yet over the past several years the senate seems more like a campaign studio than a serious legislative body. both sides have said and done

things over the past few years we probably wish we hant. but we can, we can improve the ways we do wiz. we can be more constructive. we can work through our differences, we can do things that need to be done but there will have to be major changes if we're going get there. the committee process must be restored. we need to have an open amendment process. and finally, let me suggest, we need to learn how to put in a decent weeks' work around here. a decent weeks' work. most americans don't work three days a week. they would be astonished to find out that is about it around here. how about the power of the clock to force consensus?

the only way 100 senators will be truly ever to have their say -- the only way to work through our tensions and dispute is if we're here more. not too long ago, a number of you remember this, on thursday night was the main event around here. remember that? thursday night was the main event. and there's a huge incentive to finish on thursday night if you want to leave on friday. and so it's amazing how even the most eager beaver among us with a list of amendments that were good for the country. maybe 120 -- 10 or 1 around noon on thursday. it would be down to two or one on midnight on thursday. it was amazing how consent would be reached when fatigue set in. tall took was for the leader --

the majority leader, who was in charge of the agenda to say, look, you know, this is important. there's bipartisan support for this. it came out of committee. we want to have an open amendment process. we want to finish this week. we can finish on thursday afternoon or thursday night. or friday morning. we almost never get worn around here. whatever happened to the fatigue factor to bring things to a close? amendments voluntarily go away. but important ones still -- and everybody feels like they have a chance to be involved in the process. no matter which side of the aisle they're on. and this is particularly effective obviously on bills that come out of committee with bipartisan support. there's an interest actually in passing it. we don't do that anymore. almost never.

all those occasions we work late sometimes well not -- not morning. i know, it sounds dwaint to people who haven't been around here very long, but it actually worked. there's nothing wrong with staying up little later and getting to a conclusion. i can remember the majority leader himself when he was walking around late at night on thursday with his whip card making sure he enough votes to do whatever he wanted to do. when you finish one of those debates, where you ended up voting for the bill or against the bill, you didn't have the feeling that unless you choose to go away with your amendment you had been denied the opportunity to participate. and to be a part of the process. and actually make a difference for your constituents.

that's how you reach consensus by working and talking and cooperating through give and take. that's the way everyone's patience is worn down. now just the majority leader's patience everyone can agree on a result even if they don't vote for it in the end. using a clock to force consensus is the greatest proof of that and if republicans are in the majority next year we'll use the clock. everybody gets an opportunity but we'll use the clock, we'll work harder, and get results. restoring the committee process allowing the senators to speak true an open amendment process extending the workweek are just a few things the senate could and should do differently. none of it would guarantee an end to partisan rancor. there's nothing wrong with

partisan debate. it's good for the country. none of it would cause us to change our principle or views about what is right and wrong with our country. partisanship sit not the problem. the real problem is in a growing lack of confidence in the senate's ability to mediate the tensions and despites we have always had around here. there are many reasons some have lost that confidence. and ultimately both parties have to assume some of the blame, but we can't be content to leave it at that. for the good of the country, we need to work together to restore this institution. america's strength and resilience is always depended on our ability to adapt to the various challenges of our day. sometimes that's meant changing the riewlts when both parties think it's warranted. and when the majority leader decided a few weeks back to

divide bipartisan opposition, it was bipartisan opposition to what happened in november by changing the rules that govern this place with a simple majority. he wrote something. our response can't be to sit back and accept the demise of the senate. the body survived mistakes in excesses before. even after some of the worst period, it found a way to spring back. the starkest differences and aid lodge cat disputes are hashed out by consensus and mutual respect. it's in period of the greater polarization the value of the senate is most clearly seen. so let me wrap it up this way, you know, we're all familiar with the lyndon johnson reign

around here. robert carow has given us that story in great detail, and some look at lbj's well-known heavy handedness as a kind of mastery. that's the way some look at it. personally, i believe a leader that replaced him was a better fit for this place. evidently so did johnson's colleagues who elected mansfield upon johnson's departure with. they were excited lbj was gone. in fact carow reports he tried to come to the first launch -- lunch after he became vice president and going act as a de facto majority leader, even though he was now vice president. that was, shall i say,

unenthusiastically received. he was almost literally thrown out of the lunch never to return. and mansfield was, as i said, enthusiastically choose ton replace him. now, the chronicles of lbj's life and legacy usually leave out what i just told you, but by the time he left the senate, as i indicated his colleagues had enough of him up to here. they made -- the moment they had a chance to be delivered from his iron-fisted rule, they took it. be their support, mike mansfield would spend the next 16 years restoring a senate to a place of greater cooperation and freedom, and as we look at what the senate could be, not what it is now, but what it could be,

mansfield's period gives us a clue. there are many well-known stories about mansfield fairness and ebbing anymorety as leader. but they all seem to come down to one thing. it was unbending belief that every single senator was equal. that was mansfield's operating motive. every single senator was equal. he acted that way on a daily basis, conducted himself on the way on a daily basis. the every bending belief that every senator should be treated as equal. so look, both sides will have to work to get us back to where we should be. it's not going happen overnight. we haven't had much practice lately. in fact, we're completely out of

practice of doing what i suggested in the first steps to get us back to normal. it's a goal i truly believe we can all agree on and agree to strive toward together. it takes no rules change. this is a major problem. we need to act differently. with each other, respect the committee process, have an open amendment process, work a little harder, none of that requires a rules change. because restoring this institution is the only way we'll ever solve the challenges we face that's the lesson of history and the lesson of experience. we would all be wise to heed it. mr. president, i yield the

floor. the deadline is approaching for c-span student cam video competition. open to middle and high school students. in a speech with the 50th anniversary of lyndon's declaration on war of poverty. marco rubio said the problem with income equality isn't the difference in income but those making less money don't have enough opportunity to move up to higher-paying jobs. this is 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you to hosting this. thank you for you being here today. i'm honored and privileged to be

the opportunity to do this. on this important day, you know, my mother was one of seven girls whose parents often went hungry at night so the children wouldn't have to. my father had it even tougher. he lost his mother when he was 9 years old and had leave school and go to work at the local restaurant. he was about the same age as my oldest son is now. my parents, like most people that ever lived, were raised in a country where they felt trapped by the circumstance of their birth. but just 90 miles away there was this country where through hard work and perseverance anyone could get ahead response they came there. they came here. they came here with virtually nothing. for the first years in america were difficult. they worked long hours, little pay. nay kept on. over time their lives improved. they never became rich. they never became famous. and yet my parents lived the

american dream. because like for most people, happiness was not about becoming wealthy. it was about finding work that paid a livable wage. it was about a happy family life. being able to retire with security. and being able to give their kids the chance to do anything they wanted. my parents' story is two everyday people who were give the chance to work their way to a better life. it's a common story here in america. it's a defining national characteristic rooted in the principle at the core of our nation's birth. that every single human being has a god given right to live freely and pursue happiness. and this conviction has proven to be far more than just the line in our founding document. it's become the defining value of us as a nation and as a people. it is set america apart and attracted people here from every corner of the earth.

the visionary, the ambitious, the people who refuse to accept the stagnant way of the old world. they came here. they brought their idea and dreams and finally free from the restraint of the old world they helped build the most prosperous nation in human history. now, we are still a country where through hard work and perseverance you can earn a better life. the vast majority of americans today live lives much better than their parents. and yet we are rightfully troubled. many of our people are still caught in what seems to be a pervasive, and unending football struggle. it bothers, because as a people we are united by the belief that every american deserves the equal opportunity achieve success. 50 years ago today lyndon john southern sought to address the plight of poverty by waging the war against it. on that day i he stood before a

joint session of congress and vowed it will not be a short or easy struggle no single weapon or strategy will suffice. we shall not rest until the war is won. his very next sentence served as small window to the big government visions in war and to the future failings. he said of the war on poverty, the rimpest nation on earth can afford win it. with those words he foreshadowed the belief that held by liberals to this day. that government spending is the essential answer to healing the wounds of poverty. today the debate on poverty is primarily focus order the growing income gap between rich and poor. from 19 79 to 2007 the income for the highest earning american grew by more than it did for anyone else. from 1980 to 2005 over 80% of the total increase in income wept to the top 1% of americans. these are startling figures and

deserve our attention. if we focus on that alone it doesn't give us a complete figure or the full view of the problem that is before us. yes, the cash year at the fast food chain makes less money than the ceo of the company. but the problem we face is not simply the differences in the gap between pay between them, but rather the too many of those cashiers are stuck in the same job for years on end unable to find one that pays better. and it is that lack of mobility, not just the income inequality that we should be focused on. now for most americans, the primaries a per ration is to achieve a better life. for some that means becoming wealthy, and there's nothing wrong with that. for most they want to live a happy and fulfilling life. like my parents. to learn a livable wage, a good job, to have the time to spend

with family and dot things they enjoy. to be able to retire and leave their kids better off than themselves. the good news is even in the midst of our recent economic struggles, most americans have been able do that. for example, close to 50% of the people in the bottom fifth of the income scale in 1996, had climbed to a higher income bracket less than ten years later. many americans have children that have gone on to earn even more. 84 percent of americans have higher incomes than their parents when they were same age. the current generation's are making more and doing better than the ones that came before us. the problem for some americans this kind of monlt isn't happening. for example, 70% of children born in to poverty will never make it to the middle class. the uncomfortable truth is there are now a number of other

countries with as much or more opportunity than ours. in fact, more people in canada go on to surpass the income of their parents than in the united states. now america is still the land of opportunity for most but it is not a land of opportunity for all. we're to remain an exception nam nation, we must close this gap in opportunity. so why are so many poor americans trapped at the bottom? why are so many working harder than ever only find their dreams slipping further away. why do so many suffer from the growing and nagging sense of insecurity knowing they're one bad break away from losing everything they worked so hard for. there are a number of reasons. for one, there are modern day economy has wiped out many of the low-skilled jobs that provided with the middle class.

those that haven't been outsourced are replaced by technology or paying wages that continue keep pace with the increase and cost of living. even some of the middle-skilled jobs white and blue collar jobs have also been lost to shipping overseas. now until a least a few decades ago, our economy proved sufficiently dynamic and innovative to replace old jobs with new ones. that hasn't been happening in recent years. social factors play a major role in denying equal opportunity. the truth that the greatest tool to lift people and children and family from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. it suspect a -- it isn't a government program. it's called marriage. 50 years ago when the war on poverty was launched 93% of children born in the united

states were born to married parents. by 2010 the number plummeted to 60%. it shouldn't surprise us that 71% of poor families are families families with -- poor families with children are families not headed by a married couple. now the decline of marriage and the increase in the percentage of children born out of wedlock is being driven by a complex societal. 2011 report by the pugh research center that found that 66 percent of adults with a college degree are married. jobs that have been repolice stationed, the jobs that are replaced the low and middle skilled jobs of the past pay more.

we simply have too many people who have never acquired the education needed to attain the skills. here is what is worse children from lower income families are the least likely to get this kind of advanced education. the result is this vicious cycle of intergenerational poverty. these economic, social, cultural, and educational causes of opportunity inequality they are complex. they're overlapping and interrelated. they will not be solved by continuing the same washington idea. five decades and trillions of dollars after president johnson first announced the war on poverty, the results of the big government approach are in. here is what they are: 4 million americans out of work for six months or more, a staggering 49

million americans living below the poverty line. over twice that number over 100 million people who get some sort of reform food aid from the federal government. meanwhile our labor participation force is at 35-year low and children raised in the bottom 20% of the national income have a 42% chance of being stuck there for life. our current president and liberal allies what they propose to address this. their proposal is spend more on the failed program and increase the minimum wage to $10.10. really? this is their solution to what the president called the defining issue of our time. raising the money mum wage poll well. but it's not the american dream. our current government programs, at best, offer only partial solution. they help people deal with poverty but they do not help

people emerge from poverty. the only solution that will achieve meaningful and lasting results is provide those stuck in low-paying jobs with the real towbt move up to better paying jobs. and to do this we have to focus on policies that help our economy create those jobs, and policies that help people overcome the obstacles between them and those jobs. the war on poverty accomplish neither of these two things. but we can achieve these two goals. first, because we have the single greatest engine of upward mobility in human history at our disposal. the american free enterprise. real preenterprise, by the way, isn't well accumulating in the hands of the few and leaving everybody behind to live off the crumbs. and real those with the power to

influence government wins a the the expense of everybody else. real free enterprise is about a broad and youing economy that creates opportunity for everyone to get ahead. it creates the opportunity to become wealthy and good and stable middle class jobs like the ones my parents have. instead of fostering -- our federal government has a major impediment to the enterprise and inagree knewty of our people. burdensome, regulation and unsustainable national debt are suffocating our economy's ability to create enough steady and good paying jobs. that's why poverty and inequality have gotten worse under the current administration. instead we need policies that make our country the easiest and best place in the world to create good paying jobs. this means removing the uncertainty create bid dangerous and growing national debt. it mean enacting simple and

affordable tax code reform that incentivize investment. question also to address the complex and interrelated societal, culture, and education impediment that are holding so many people back. a child born in to a poor and broken family living in dangerous and violent neighborhood and forced to attend a dysfunctional school that child is in all likelihood not going have the same opportunity to succeed as a child growing up in a stable home, in a safe neighborhood, and attending the good school. an unwed mother with a poor education and abandoned by the father of her children is going to days significant changes to a better life.

poverty found in rural areas have some characteristic that are different from the poverty you find urban areas of inner-cities. these are complex problems, and our current collection of overlapping government programs ignore and sometimes even exacerbate them. instead of continuing to poor money to our existing program, we need reform them from innovative and highlight targeted solutions. here is the problem, that's not something the federal government is capable of delivering. washington is too bureaucratic and resist end tow changes. it's with one size fits all approach to policy. it's not conducive to solving a problem as diverse and complex as this. therefore, what i'm proposing today is the most fundament change to how the federal government fights poverty and encourages upward mobility since president johnson first concede the war on poverty 50 years ago today.

i'm proposing we turn over washington's antipoverty programs and the trillions spent on them to the states. our antipoverty program should be replaced with a revenue neutral flex fund which will streamline the most of our existing federal antipoverty funding to a single agency. enacted policy that promoted work rather than dependence. and the years that followed this lead to a decline in poverty rates and welfare expenses. despite the success, washington continues to rule over the world of antipoverty policy making.

rigid nationwide programs and forcing america state legislature to watch on the sidelines. as someone who served nine years in the state house. two as speaker i know how frustrating that is. it's wrong for washington to tell tallahassee what programs are right for the people of florida. it's particularly wrong to say what is right for tallahassee is the same thing that is right for topeka, sacramento, detroit, and manhattan and every other town, city, and state in the country. a nation as large and diverse as the united states request a problem as large and diverse as this one should have many state level policy options that are just as large and diverse. and already we see evidence that when states can manage the resources necessary to experiment with such programs, the result is dynamic and transformative results. for example, while washington

debates how and whether the fund the existing unemployment insurance programs, sphiets are finding innovative approaches to get people to good paying jobs. in utah, in order continue receiving unemployment benefits, the long-term unemployed are required to take online training courses that focus on skills need for modern professions with topickings expanding from résume building to career direction to interview skills. they tracked the progress of the participates. here is what they found. before the courses the professional preparedness was at the equivalent of a d plus. but upon completion of the training, their preparedness had climbed to a b plus. and remarkably what began as a requirement quickly turned to a sought after tool. 36% of participates in the program found the course so helpful they voluntarily completed more training than what was required. it also helped them find a job

faster, by the way. amoct test group it was reduced by 7 percent. the program has been taken wide in utah. and the 7% reduction in the duration of benefits is expected to save $16 annually. a similar program was ademented in mississippi. they increased the preparedness by 31%. another in kentucky found that workers spend 2.2 weeks less when required to take training courses. these are the kinds of innovations we're looking to unleash. not just with unemployment insurance, but throughout the entire web of government assistance programs. i know from my time if states were give the flexibility they

would design and pursue innovative and effective ways to help those trapped in poverty. as we have seen, they can put in place programs that give those currently stuck in low wage jobs access to job training systems. they can put in place relocation vouchers that help the long-term unemployed move to areas of more jobs. by allowing -- allowing the states greater control doesn't mean washingtons gets to wash the hands of the problem. there will stimbe a role for the federal government to play. for example, we should pursue reform that encourage and reward work. that's why i'm dwonning legislation to replace the earned income tax yet a federal wage enhancement for qualifying low wage jobs. this would allow an unemployed

individual to take a job that paid $18,000 on a year. which is not enough to make end meet. then they receive a federal enhancement to make it more enticing to collect unemployment insurance. -- it's a better way of supporting low-income workers than simply raising the money mum wage. it's going highly targeted to avoid fraud or abuse. and the amount depends on a range of factors. but we know by promoting work dependence this reform will increase work force participation especially in struggling communities. that. in turn would numerous social, economic, and cultural benefits

to areas hard hit by the great recession and our recent economic challenge. ultimately; however, any reform effort will be incomplete if it fails to facility the ultimate wage enhancement. skills training for those low wage jobs. many people in these jobs they don't have the time or the money to pursue a traditional education. question help them. by bolstering and reinvigorating our nation's existing job training system. while our work force delivery system must be driven by states the federal government can help address the short age and many skilled labor jobs by creating more pathway toward obtaining their certification credential and encouraging alternative to the accredited college degree. unlike our current programs, targeted reform such as these address the cause not just the

consequence. as a result they will help move us. closer to a day when wide spread poverty is a memory i. and equality survived striebl more people than ever before. this erosion of equal opportunity is among the greatest -- as a nation. to help more people than ever achieve the american dream. the millions currently trapped in poverty and despair are a tremendous, untapped resource for america. just think what it would mean for our country, for america to gain the full use of the talents and abilities of all. they would go on new innovations to intiewf our lives and help build the next great american company. they would be doctors in our hospital, scientists our labs, customers for our businesses and partners in our investment. leader in our government and pastors in our churches.

we are a great countries piet the fact we have marge how much greater we would be if they were not. i haven't tbhn washington long, but i've been here long enough to know that everything gets analyzed in politic. but up toward mobility and equal tint is not and should not be a part of an issue. it's our unifying american principle. it's been a focus in my public service going back to my days in the state representative. for me the issue is deeply personal. i'm a generation removed from poverty. where would i be today if there

had never been an america? what kind of lives or futures of my children have if this was not a land of opportunity? what if my father would have been stuck working as a bar boy his whole life instead of making it to head bartender. what kind of life would i have now? in all likelihood, i, too would be on the outside looking in. frustrated because my parents had no power or privilege. i was unable to achieve my full potential. our status is a lafned equal opportunity. it has made us a rich and powerful nation. but it is also transformed lives. given people, like me, a chance to grow up knowing that new dream was too big and no goal was out of our reach. some of my earliest memories of my parents and grandfather instilling in me i can achieve

whatever kind of life i want. even though they had humble beginning for themselves. now there are those trying to access the same opportunities. working in the very building there are struggling parents trying to give their children what my parents gave me. within walking distance of the very place there are children growing up like i can d with dreams just like mine. and whether or not they get the chance to improve their lives, will determine whether we remain a special country. or become just like everybody else. for 50 years now we have tried big government. and yet too many people remained trapped. now we must try a new way. one that addresses the things that are keeping so many people from the better life they want. for the idea that everyone deserves a chance. that's still binds us together adds a people. despite our many challenge and

differences this is still who we want to be. that's why i know like those who came before us, we're going solve this problem. because in the end, i believe we will do what americans have always done. whatever it takes to keep america special. thank you for the chance to address you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] we have time for a few questions and answers. please stand and introduce yourself. i would like that take prerogative to ask the first question myself. senator, you have been working, not just at the -- [inaudible] on the policy. i know, you have been doing a lot in communities in your native florida in miami. what are you doing in communities to bring these or to vet these ideas for people who are on the ground experiencing

poverty. what is your experience? >> first of all, let me go back to when i first began to deal with the issues in 2004 and 2005 when i was in florida legislature and assuming on the path to be the speaker of the house. the challenged us to gather idea from everyday people what would you do if you were in our position. the number one answer was resign. but -- all kidding aside, we learned about the needs that were out there that existed. they were all around us. from that you have better understanding of the diversity of the causes that are keeping people from a better life. and what try to do and continue to try to do is remain engaged in the community by coming base to face with the challenges. some are issues interacting with on a personal level. some of you may have heard me talk about this. because i was proud of what we achieved this year pitches a coach on two of my son's

football teams. you see the background of many the kids. these are challenging circumstances. these are children many of whom being raised by grandmothers because they have never met their father and their mother is busy working two job or might have a drug problem, might be in jail. they are dangerous neighborhoods. the schools may or may not be functioning well. they struggle to succeed. some of them will. some face significant obstacles to a better life. and every year that goes by is the year you can't get back. unless we address those things that are happening. unless something dramatic happens now you start to understand what intergenerational poverty is caused by. we need to address that. we have the issue of people that cannot help themselves and the safety net have to be there for those circumstance. we have many poor seniors in their 80s. and frankly cannot be expected

to go back and find a job to support themselves. you have people that disabled and have addictions they need to break. the issue is complex. you go to rural areas in the homestead area and so you people dealing with poverty but the causes and the characteristic of it look different from what you may find in inner-city urban area. one of the frustrations you off hear we have no flexibility. we are forced to provide service within the constraint of government mandate and requirement that do not allow us to tailor our programs to the individual needs that we're trying to serve. the extraordinary amount of paperwork involved every year in accessing these programs.

that we want 0 in our country and expect from our nation. [inaudible] thank you very much, senator. [inaudible] my question is what will -- [inaudible] >> we certainly have a biblical obligation to take care of those less fortunate. our country, whether people want to acknowledge it or not was founded on spiritual. the idea every human being was created equal by god ebb dowed with certain rights was founded on a spiritual principle. one of the right is ab equal opportunity to pursue happiness

as you individually define it. it plays a role in that regard. i think that the spiritual component of this places a greater role on me as person in tempt private philanthropy dedicating time and blessing. i think it plays a rom for government. in term of spiritual obligation, it shouldn't influence what we do in government but particularly influence what we do in our private lives as women. just because the government has a program to help people who are struggling doesn't mean that outside of that has individuals particularly those of us more fortunate do not have that the same obligation to also look for ways to serve and i think service to others and charity is a term often use is a key deponent living your faith. >> right here. yes, sir. [inaudible] you point out about marriage and

young children. have a mother and father in the household. we know what -- [inaudible] what about policy that increase the amount of young people who recognize the difference before they groupon and -- [inaudible] intestified separate them. with policies can be put in place to help empower people who -- [inaudible] somebody who is assigned crack cocaine. he's assigned. so -- [inaudible] they cook food. wash cars. how can we empower those people to be businessmen and women and help them grow?

>> an your second point. when i talked about the issue. we often deal with the issue of a burden in our country. we have 45 -- 50 million people in america that are struggling. what a burden. human beingshuman beings are assets. it question unleash their god given potential to help our country. it would enrich us. i have no doubt that stuck today where with a lack of opportunity is the next brilliant scientist or innovator or someone improve our lives and potentially change the direction of our country. they may be denied that opportunity. you asked about marriage and it's a complex issue. i think government can can play role. much of the role has to individuals from in the civil society. i think government can play a role. is number one don't punish marriage. we have safety net programs that discourage marriage because medicaid is one example. you can lose medicate coverage if you get married.

suddenly the joint income goes up and you are disqualified. the other issue is i think government is valuable platform to talk about this and create awareness about the importance of marriage plays in the lives of children and the well being of family. the impact mearng has is largely societal but a practical impact. a married couple probably means so you two paychecks. unmarried probably means you only have one and hence the struggle. it's tough to get ahead with one paycheck these days. there are instances where both of my parents were working when i was growing up. they had to. if my mom or dad had to do it alone, our life would have been different. the reason why i think it's important push the programs down to the state and local level is because it's there where the kind of intergovernmental policies they can have a role -- i think -- design a program that

joshings just as well in washington, d.c., as to peek can, kansas. i think we're fooling ourselves. even if we wanted to, i'm not sure we're capable. that innovation here. the federal government is not structured for that kind of thinking. by producing the funds we have now. >> thank you. let freedom ring. on several occasions in your remarking, [inaudible] grow an economy. it isn't it the difference private sector creates jobs and government program creates jobs. and private sector does so and creation which is another term, really, for [inaudible]

are created. government programs programs are largely transferred they may alleviate the short term concern, but they need to be sustained by continued footballing. they don't sustain themselves the way wealthy creation does. wouldn't you want in the promotion of the solutions to encourage people to focus on growth not just jobs but economic growth. if you can do that, then you can have sustainable jobs. that requires an understanding and appreciation for the role of the profit in job creation rather than income destruction. -- distribution.

you have to coboth. >> they have an impact on it. you bring an important point up. i think it's fonder remind ourself how the jobs are created. t not a complicated form. they decide to risk it. start a new business or grow an existing one. and the idea works. why did my dad have a job of a bartender. someone had access to open a job and americans took a vacation. they are interrelated. that's what we need to do.

naibt the idea if you're a big corporation you may not like the complicated government rules and regulation. if you want to to deal with them. you can hire some people in the room to help you navigate that. if you're someone trying to start the spare business out of your home you cannot afford hire ago counting firm to navigate it. it never happens. hence you see where governmental action becomes an immedment too. the uncertainty it created. because people see the and realize it's going eventually lead to hassive increases to taxes and disruptive changes in government and discourages them about making long-term investment in the future. if you're not making long-term investment you're not creating jobs and opportunity for others. doing that is critically

important. alone it's not enough. we have to take the second step. it's great the economy creates the job. we have the people that don't have the skill to the job. the jobs today require a higher level of education than ever before. if you are a 35-year-old single mom trying to raise your kids and working full-time you can't quit your job and leave your kids blind and go college for four years. we have to find out a way to deliver skill and technical capability to the person. so they can improve their lives not by minimum wage but getting a job or degree that allows them to get a job that face three, four, five times what they were making before. and that's a second impediment. we have to do both of them. we can't do just one and not the other. [inaudible] fast forward a year from now, the proposal to your

[inaudible] by washington standards. a year from now, how do we measure the success in term of the legislation partnership you formed, and the community -- how do we assess. >> start working on implementing things of this nature. but i think the first phase in this endeavor is convince people that the approach -- i think the first step is to convince people with are not dealing with the right problem. we're not dealing with the right problem. even as earl as tomorrow the president will give another speech on inequality. he focused on inequality of income. which is an issue. the bigger issue is inequality of opportunity. as i said in my speech. of course, the cashier makes less than the ceo. the fundamental problem is if the person stuck in that low-paying job for the rest of their lives or give the opportunity to earn more money and get better pay. and a lot of people are not.

there are impediments to them doing it. one of the primary impediment. they don't have the skill to allow them to access the better paying job and the other is the economy may not be producing enough. we have to convince people with are not treating the causes of poverty. we're only treating the pain caused by impoverty. it's a vailed thing but it's complete. -- incomplete. you're not going to cure it. that's what i can hope convince people. it's a critical issue. if we can do that and create coalitions that extend partisan lines i think that will be important in restarting the conversation. i honestly believe that not only a critical issue to keep america special, it thash provides tremendous opportunity to grow