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

exponentially in ways we can't envision. think of the notion there are 40 million people that don't have full access to the american promise, what would our country look like if they did? it would be a phenomenal -- it's a huge untapped potential we have that we're not accessing. .. . . which programs would fit neatly in this package, how the money

would be transferred and how you would deliver these benefits and there has to be some level of accountability in the states to ensure these programs are delivering on what the money is being given for so that's what we are working on developing now is those details of what it would look like. via not large the way with that is you would take your existing funding or your levels of funding you have then transferring them into his engel agency who would then fund innovative programs at the state level meant to address what's going on in each of those states individually and you would do it in a revenue-neutral way. the first endeavor here is not to save money although we believe that will save money especially in the long-term because you will turn more recipients and to taxpayers. you will get more people out of poverty into becoming productive members of the economy. you will see benefits and not just her reduction of expenditures but they will become vibrant taxpayers and all the things that provide not just them a better life but everyone a better life.

>> secondly, the current debate here one of the issues as food stamps and the proposal is to cut back on food stamps. >> at the end of the day the program and again i wouldn't envision that would be one of the programs the livered to the state level but i would say to these programs have utility and in the past i have said that before. there is a state place with a safety net. it's hard to go to school with skills that you are not eating. but these programs serve utility but they are an incomplete one. they are dealing with the symptom of poverty which is hunger but they don't help you deal with this causes which is a lack of skill attainment are some of the other impediments that in the way so certainly any time we can find ways to go after inefficiencies or even worse fraud and things of that nature we should examine that but if we were to transfer these programs at the state level and allow them the flexibility to design design it in a way to deliver food assistance to

individuals through creative and innovative programs that meet the real demand and an individual localities i think that debate with the necessary. >> ladies and shoeman we are out of the time. i would like to thank all of you for coming today and for doing your part in our shared movement for brothers and sisters in need. please join me in thanking senator marco rubio. [applause] senate minority leader mitch mcconnell spoke wednesday about the state of senate in front of about 35 of his gop colleagues. no democrats aside from the

presiding officer were in the chamber during his remarks. this is 40 minutes. >> mr. president over the past several years those of us who are fortunate enough to serve here having gauged in many fierce debates. some have been forced upon us by external events including a syrian financial crisis while others were brought about by an unapologetically liberal president who promised dramatic change and who's 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 the 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 has also been at the heart of so many of the fights we have had around here over the past few years. now these conflicts haven't stemmed from 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 partisanship is not some recent innovation here, invention. american politics has always been more or less divided between two ideological camps. today that is reflected in the two major parties but is actually always been there. one side are those who proudly placed their trust in government and its agents to guide our

institutions and direct our lives. on the other are those of us who put our trust in 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 camp. people are generally confident in their local governments but lacks confidence in washington. and yet despite, despite the political and ideological divides which have always existed in our country, we have almost always manage to work out

our differences not by the humiliating the other side into submission but through simple give and take. it is the secret of our success. the same virtues that make any friendship or marriage or family or business work are the ones that have always made this country work. and the place where it happens, the place where all the national conflicts and controversies that arise in this big diverse wonderful country of ours have always been resolved, always been resolved right here in this chamber, right here.

and i realize it may not be immediately obvious why that is the case but the fact is every serious student of this institution from de tocqueville to our late colleague robert byrd has seen the senate as uniquely important to america's stability and to its flourishing in their view, this made all the difference and here is why. because whether it was the fierce early battles that set the shape and scope of the federal government or those that surrounded industrialization, or those that preceded and followed the nation rendering civil war or those surrounding the great wars of the 20 century or the expansion or franchisor decades long cold war on the war on terror we have always, always found a way forward.

sometimes haltingly but always steadily. 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's appropriate to step back from all the policy debates that have occupy this over the past few years and focus on another debate we have been having around here and the debate we have been having around here is the state of this institution. what have we become? it's not a debate that ever caught fire with the public or with the press but it's a debate that should be of grave importance to all of us because on some level, on some level,

every single one of us has 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 that says changing the rules requires the assent of two -- senators duly elected and sworn, none of the should be happy with the trajectory the senate was on even before that day, even before november or the condition that we find the senate in 225 years after it was created. i don't think anybody is comfortable with where we are. i know i'm not and i will bet even though there was nobody over here at the moment, i'll

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 and be done about it together. now together obviously requires 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 and it's not my intention to point the finger of blame at anybody though some of that is inevitable. i don't presume to have all the answers either and i'm certainly not here to claim that we are without fault. but i am certain of one thing.

i'm absolutely certain of one thing. the senate can be better than it is. many of us around here have seen it better senate then we have now. no matter who was in the majority. this institution can be better than it is. and i just can't believe that on some level everyone in this chamber including the folks on the other side doesn't agree. it just can't be the case that we are content with the theatrics that go on here day after day. it just can't read the case that senators who grew up reading about the great statesman who made their name and their marquee or over the years have now suddenly content to stand in front of a giant poster board making some contested point of

the month, day and then run back to our corridors and congratulate each other. i can just believe we are all happy with that on either side. don't misunderstand me. there's a time for making a political point and to score a few points. i know that as well as anybody. they can't be the only thing we do here. surely we do something other than scoring 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 eager than any of us. so hopefully we can all agree that we have a problem here. and i realize both sides have their own favorite account of what caused it.

we have got our talking points. they have got their talking points. we all repeat them with great repetition and we all congratulate each other for being on the right side of the debate. the guys over there think republicans abuse the rules and we think they do. but as i said my goal here isn't to make converts on that front. my purpose is to suggest that the senate can do better than it has been and that we must be if we are to remain as a great nation. i think the crucial first step of any vision that gets us there is to recognize that vigorous debate about our differences is in some sickness to be lamented.

vigorous debate is not a problem when did that come a problem? it's actually a sign of strength to have vigorous debates. you know it's a common refrain among pundits that the fights we have around here are pointless. they are not at all pointless. every single debate we have around here is about something important. what is unhealthy is when we neglect the means that 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 for our differences underwriting at a durable consensus is the united states senate. an executive order can't do it.

the fiat of a nine person court can't do it. a raucous and gregarious partisan majority in the house can't do it. the only institution that can make stable and enduring laws 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 what the senate is supposed to be about and almost, almost always has been. just take a look at some of the most far-reaching legislation of the past century. look at the vote tallies. medicare and medicaid were both approved with the support of half of the members of the minority. the voting rights act of 1965

past with a vote of 30 out of the 32 members of the republican minority. all but two republican senators. there weren't many of them. that was the year after the goldwater debacle. only eight voted against the americans with disabilities act. now none of this happened by the way, none of that happened by throwing these bills together in the backroom 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 patience 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 is. when democrats couldn't -- the bill was were supporting his written they decided to do it on their own and pass it on a partyline vote and now we are seeing the result. the chaos this law has visited on our country is and just deeply tragic, it was my friends entirely predictable, entirely predictable. that will always be the case without some meaningful buy-ins you guarantee a food fight. you guarantee instability and you guarantee strife. it may very well up in that case that on obamacare is the will of the country was not to pass the bill at all. that is the aisle what i would

have concluded if republicans couldn't get a single democratic vote for legislation of that magnitude. i would have thought maybe this is in such great idea. the democrats plowed forward anyway and the results are clea. it's an absolute mess. the senate exists to prevent that kind of thing because without a moderating institution like the senate today's majority passes something in tomorrow's majority reveals it -- repeals it. today's majority opposes it, tomorrow's majority opposes it. we sat back in the house all the time. but when the senate is allowed to work the way it was designed to calm it arrives as a result

that is acceptable to people all along the political spectrum. that my friends 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 of america is to face up to the challenges we face in the decades ahead she will need the senate, the founders and their wisdom intended, not the hollow shell of the senate we have today. not the hollow shell of the senate 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 had major influence and use their positions to develop

national policy on everything from foreign-policy to nuclear arms. these men and women in which the entire senate through their focus and their expertise. just as importantly, they provided an important counterweight to the executive branch. they provided one more check on the white house. if a president thought something was a good idea he had better make sure he ran it by the committee chairman who had been studying it for the past two decades. and if the chairman disagreed, well then they would have a serious debate and probably reach a better product as a result. the senate should be setting national priorities. not simply waiting on the white house to do it for us. and the place to start that process is in the committees. with few exceptions, that's gone with very few exceptions that is gone.

it's a big loss to the institution but most importantly it's a big loss for the american people who expect us to lead. and here is something else. we have gained from a robust committee process over the years committees that actually served as a school of why partisanship and if you think about it just makes sense. by the time the bill gets through a committee, you would expect it to come out in a form that was generally and broadly acceptable to both sides. nobody got everything but more often than not everybody got something. and the product was stable because there was the committee

process today in united states senate is a shadow of what it used to be. it thereby is marginalizing and reducing every single member of the senate on both sides of the aisle. major legislation in committee and in the majority leader's conference room and dropped on the floor with little or no opportunity for members to participate in the amendment process virtually guaranteeing a fight. now there is a 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 row more robust committee process. that is the best way to end the

permanent sort of shirts against skins contest the senate has become. bill should 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 the thoroughly debated we have got 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 abused privileges, i will let that fact that the answer isn't to provoke even more.

the answer is to let folks debate. this is the senate. let folks debate. let the senate work its will and that means bringing bills to the floor. it means having a free and open amendment process. that is legislating. that is what we used to do here. that is exactly the way this place operated a few years ago. the senior senator from illinois the democratic assistant majority leader used to like to say if you don't want to fight fires don't become a fireman and if you don't want to cast doubt votes don't come to the senate. i guess he hasn't said that lately. when we used to be in the majority i remember telling people look, the good news is we are in the majority and the bad news is in order to get the bill across the floor you have to

pass a lot of votes you don't want to take and you know we did and people groaned about it, complained about it. the sun still came up the next day and everybody felt like they were part of the process. senator durbin was right about that when he said it and i think it's 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 it requires you from time to time to cast votes he would never -- rather not cast. but we are all grown-ups. i mean we can take that. there is rarely ever a vote that is 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 and when you 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 an senator cornyn was pointing out they were 13 amendments that people on the side of the aisle would like to offer on this 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. nonetheless i expect that opportunity will not be allowed because one person who is allowed to get prior recognition

can prevent us from getting any amendments or even worse picower amendments for us and 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 and senator mansfield was still the majority leader and he tried to offer an amendment, senator stevens did, and a member of the majority who is managing the bill prevented it in fact. senator mansfield came over to senator stevens, took his amendment, went back to his desk and senate to the floor for him. he sent it to the floor for him. that was the senate not too long ago.

if someone isn't allowed to get a vote on something they believe in, of course they are going to retaliate. of course they are going to retaliate but if they get a vote every once in a while 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. the whole second half of 2013 members on the side of the aisle got for roll call votes. stunning. that is 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. we will not make an attempt to bring controversy out of an institution that expects demandt debates about the problems confronting the country. now a common refrain from democrats is republicans have been too quick to block floors from ever coming to the floor. 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 that had nothing to do

with writing the bill in the first place or it's been made pretty clear there won't be any amendments, which is in all likelihood the situation we are in on this very day. in other words, we are to knew the legislation was shaping up to be a purely partisan exercise in which people we represent wouldn't have any meaningful input at all and why would we want to participate in that? is a good for our constituents? doesn't lead to a better product? of course not. all that leads to is a lot more acrimony. so look, i get it if republicans had just won the white house and the house and had a 60 vote majority in the senate we would be tempted to empty our out ox too. but you can't spend two years emptying your out walks and then complain about the backlash.

if you want fewer fights, give the other side of say and that brings me to one of the biggest things we have lost around here as i have seen it. the big problem my colleagues has never been the rules. it's never been the rules. senators from both hardees have in the past revered and offended the rules in our nation's darkest hours. the real problem, the real problem is an attitude that views the senate as an assembly line with one partisan legislative agenda. rather than as a place to build consensus to solve national problems. we have become far too focused on making a point instead of making a difference. making a point instead of making good, stable law. we have gotten too comfortable

with doing everything we do here of the prism instead of the duty and everyone suffers as a result. as i see it one of the major turning point came of the final years of the bush administration when the democratic majority held vote after vote on bills they knew wouldn't pass. now look, i'm not saying republicans have never staged showboat when we were in the majority and i'm not saying i don't enjoy a good messaging boat from time to time but you have got to wonder if that's all you are doing why you are here. it's become entirely too routine. and it diminishes the senate. i don't care which party you are 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 then a serious legislative lobby. both sides have said and done things over the past few years would probably wish we hadn't but we can, we can improve the way we do business. we can be more constructive. we can work through our differences. we can do thing that need to be done but there will have to be major changes if we are going to 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. you know 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 senators will be truly able to have their say, the only way we will be able to to work through our attentions and disputes is that we are here more. not too long ago and a number of you will remember this, when 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 before we leave on friday. and so it was amazing how it worked. even the most eager among us had a long list of amendments that were good for the country, maybe 10 or 12 around noon on thursday. we began by midnight in thursday

night was amazing how consensus could be reached. when fatigue set in and all it took was for the leader, the majority leader who was in charge of the agenda, to say look you know this is important. there is bipartisan support for this. he came out of committee. we wanted haven't open amendment process but we want to finish this week and we can finish on thursday afternoon or thursday night. or friday morning. we almost never get worn out around here. whatever happened to the fatigue factor to bring things to a close? amendments voluntarily go away. but important ones still go off and everybody feels like it got a chance to be involved in the process no matter which side of the aisle they are on. and this is particularly effective obviously on bills

that have come out of committee with bipartisan support so there's an interest actually and passing them. we almost never do that anymore. almost never. on those occasions were we work late sometimes and well into the morning. i know that sounds funny to people who haven't been around here for very long but it actually work. there is nothing wrong with staying up a little later and getting to a conclusion. i couldn't member the majority leader himself when he was the whip walking around late at night on thursdays with this with card making sure he had enough votes to do whatever he wanted to do. and when you have finished one of those debates with you ended up voting for the bill are voting against the bill he didn't have the feeling that unless you'd chose to go away

yet been denied the opportunity to participate in the process and actually make a difference for your constituents. that is how you reach consensus, by working and talking and cooperating through give-and-take. that is the way everyone's patience is worn down not just the majority leader's patience. everyone can agree on a result even if they don't vote for it in the end using the clock to force consensus is the greatest proof of that and if the republicans are in the majority next year we will use the clock. everybody gets an opportunity but we will use the clock and we will work harder and get results. restoring the committee process allowing the senators to speak through an open amendment process, extending the workweek of just a few things the senate

could and should do differently. none of that would guarantee an end to partisan rancor. there's nothing wrong with partisan debate. it's good for the country. none of that would cause us to change our principles or our views about what's right and what is wrong with our country. partisanship itself is not the problem. the real problem is in the growing lack of confidence in the senate's ability to mediate the tensions and disputes 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 has always depended on our ability to adapt to the various challenges of our day. sometimes that has meant

changing the rules on both parties think it's warranted. and when the majority leader decided a few weeks back to defy bipartisan opposition because bipartisan opposition to what happened in november by changing the rules that govern this place with a simple majority, he broke something. he broke something. but our response can't be to just sit back and accept the demise of the senate. this body has survived mistakes and excesses before and even after some of its worst period has found a way to spring back and to be the place were where even the starkest differences in the fiercest ideological disputes are hashed out by consensus and mutual respect. indeed it's during periods of its greatest polarization that the value of the senate is most clearly seen.

so let me wrap it up this way. you know we are all familiar with the lyndon johnson rain around here. robert carol has given us that story in great detail and some look at lbj's well-known heavy handedness with that kind of mastery. that is the way some look at it. personally i have always believed the leader that replaced him was a better fit for this place and evidently so did johnson's colleagues who elected mansfield upon johnson's departure with overwhelming enthusiasm. they had had it up to here with lbj. they were excited that he was gone. in fact carol reports that he tried to come to the first lunch after he became vice president and was going to act as the sort of de facto majority leader, even though he was now vice

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

what it is now but what it could the, mansfield's period gives us a clue. there are many well-known stories about mansfield's fairness and equanimity as leader. they all seem to come down to one thing and that was his unbending belief that every single senator was equal. that was mansfield operating mode. every single senator was equal. he acted that way on a daily basis and conducted himself that way on a daily basis. the unbending belief that every senator should be treated as equal. so look, both sides will have to work together to get us back to where we should be. it's not going to happen

overnight. we haven't had much practice lately. in fact we are completely out of tracked this at doing what i just suggested in the first steps to get us back to normal but it's a goal that i truly believe we can all agree on and agreed to strive toward together this is a behavioral problem. it doesn't require rules -- we just 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 for storing this institution is the only way we will ever solve the challenges we face. that is the lesson of history

and the lesson of experience and we would all be wise to heed it. mr. president i yield the floor. >> senate majority harry reid came to the floor later to respond to remarks by senator mcconnell. assist 20 minutes. >> mr. president the republican later and i don't agree on everything but we do agree on some things and there is one thing that no one can dispute that we agree on and that is our love of baseball. we both love these fall season. it gives us an opportunity when we go home after working here to turn on the tv and watch a few innings of a baseball game. for some people baseball is a real slow, boring opportunity to watch people moving slowly. senator mcconnell and i love it and we talk about baseball.

we love the nationals and he and i have a great affection for the national because of a las vegas athlete. the reason i mention that mr. president is today nevada's greatest baseball hero, in fact one of the greatest baseball heroes not of nevada but of all time was inducted into the baseball hall of fame. greg maddux is an extremely nice man, a man of humility. i have gone out to dinner with him and his loving wife a few times. i know his brother well who is also a professional baseball player and he would be the first to tell you when he was playing baseball and today about how average he was. i'm not a great athlete. but mr. president one of the best of all-time. he started his career with the

chicago cubs and went on to win 355 professional major-league baseball games in four consecutive cy young awards. now, today he received almost 98% of all the votes cast. the second-highest tally in the history of the hall of fame voting. so i congratulate this good man and the honor that he received so deservedly. i repeat, a man of humility, a man who has probably the greatest control in the history of race ball in being able to throw a ball to the spot he wanted. not a big man. that's an understatement, not a big man but he was precise and really could throw that baseball. and i have such fond memories of

greg maddux. the last election was kind of a hard election that i had so i called greg, called him on his cell phone and i said greg i want you to be our -- and he said i will do that. i said what you doing? he said i'm playing gulf. i said can you break 80? he said if you leave me alone i can break 70. mr. president we have great affection for him and his family and this is one thing that senator mcconnell and i have in common. mr. president this afternoon the republican leader came to the floor to complain about the minority's ability to offer amendments. on this occasion often amendments are on a three-month extension. the legislation is now before this party. but you know it's interesting, during the republican leader's remarks there wasn't a word

uttered about jobs, about unemployment compensation or the economy. not a word. so it's very clear what went on here today with my republican colleagues. remember the republican leader came here and a republican leader sat here with him. it's impossible for my republican colleagues to explain to the american people the callous opposition to the plight of 1.3 million americans, about 20,000 of them living in nevada. to various fine senators on a bipartisan basis have this legislation before this body. jack reed of rhode island who is tied with nevada for the highest unemployment in the country and the other senator is my friend republican senator from nevada,

the junior senator from dean heller. an important move they made on behalf of their states and the american people. republicans though mr. president don't want to talk about what was evidenced by what went on here this afternoon. they don't want to talk about solutions to falling wages and job shortages. mr. president in america today the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. and the middle class is being squeezed. during the last 30 years, the top 1% wealth and income has increased by triple numbers, triple. so what has happened to the middle class in that same 30 years? their wages have gone down 10%,

tripling to going down 10%. so they don't want to talk about this. and that is why they plan to vote against the extension of these emergency unemployment insurance benefits. the vast majority of them voted to not even let us get on and have a debate but if you stepped forward and said we should have a debate on this and that debate we are having. my republican colleagues are looking for distraction, a diversion, a phony process argument to steal attention away from the issues that mattered most to the middle class. this issue of unemployment insurance isn't some, wasn't developed by some political science professor from harvard or yale or stanford. it's something to help people who are in desperate shape.

so mr. president i repeat they are looking for a distraction, a process argument to steal attention away from their unconscionable stand on issues that matter most to the middle class. you have to give them credit. they are doing their best to divert attention away from this issue. this is opposition and its cold hearted. to extending unemployment benefits, it's a very tough decision to defend especially when republicans around america support what heller and read are trying to do. the democrats supported, independents but republicans in congress don't. and they have said so. republicans complained that the majority never allows the minority to offer amendments is mr. president falls. it's not true. it's another diversion. during my tenure as majority leader there have been volumes

of stuff written about the obstruction we had with my republican colleagues during the last five years with you obama administration. think of the obstruction that place when barack obama decided to run for re-election. that was interesting because the republican leader said his number one goal as a united states senator and the leader of the republicans is to make sure he wasn't reelected. he fell real short on that because he was elected overwhelmingly. during that period of time obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. after he was reelected it continued. during my tenure as majority leader the senate's has voted on minority amendments at a higher rate than it did during either of my republican predecessors. the largest number of amendments

probably in the history of the senate. let's just talk about republican leader frist, republican leader trent lott. both friends of mine and i'm still in touch with them all the time. they are people that i will always have higher and have great respect for. since i've been leader seven out of 10 amendments in which the senate has voted again mr. president republican amendments. under senator frist's leadership there weren't that many, i will tell you that. under senator lott's leadership only 54% of the amendments considered by the senate were offered by the minority. and during my leadership with the 111th congress minority members represent a greater share of all amendment votes than during any single tenure under senator frist or senator lott's tenure.

why? their own senators won't allow them. how many times has a presiding officer that has come to this floor and wanted to offer an amendment and there's an objection on the other side because they want to offer an amendment that has nothing to do with anything that we are debating on the floor at a given time. last year just a handful of republican senators held up any legislation. the best example was the legislation we try to do with energy efficiency. energy efficiency. we couldn't get it done because of republican obstruction. often a particular republican will prevent any senator from offering an amendment and less he gets a vote on what's he once voted on first. let's not revise history. let's talk about history as i know it and as the book's report how we should know it and what

the facts are in the congressional record. we know how my friend the republican leaders leadership there have been obstruction in the way of filibusters and you know mr. president filibusters are not something that was placed in the constitution. it was a privilege granted under the senate rules and that has been abused the time. there've structure and has continued to be impressive than it over the last five years. have a ball filibustered -- administer the country, that's 230 plus years, half of them have been waged against president obama's nominations. half of them. in five years compared to two

and 30 years. last year the republicans -- y. the way a former republican senator. they have been filibustered him. so i understand republicans don't want to talk about how we can create jobs and boost the economy. i understand republicans are struggling to explain and turning their backs on the 1.3 million americans. but i do wish they would start trying to justify their opposition with false claims of distortions of the check. i prefer not to pay for these emergencies, this emergency situation will be of long-term unemployment. this is an emergency and should be considered accordingly and should not be paid for in the normal course around here.

now, we believe -- the in the senate chambers with me now is someone to was on the bowles-simpson commission. the senior senator from the state of illinois. the assistant majority leader. he worked hard on that. but mr. president we haven't followed bowles-simpson as a bible but it's certainly been a guide that we have followed. and while we could've done better we have done pretty good. we are approaching having reduced the debt i3 chilean dollars right now as we speak. we could reduce another trillion dollars that we could get comprehensive immigration reform done. now the goal of bowles-simpson was $4 trillion so when i say this is something that hasn't been paid for ordinarily in the past, that's true but that doesn't take away from the fact that we all will continue to work on the side of the aisle reducing the debt.

but i do hear some of my republican colleagues want to pay for this. i disagree with them but that is what they want to do. so far all we have heard from republicans, take a big whack out of obamacare is. approaching 10 million people now who benefit from obamacare. .. those are their two pay-fors at this point. a little scary, i would think. so i'm waiting, we're waiting for republican suggestions how to pay for the full year extension of unemployment insurance. let's hear from them. how do they want to pay for it? they say they want to pay for it.