and athleen and laura. bradley asked me, and >> bradley asked me, do you ever get over the thrill of walking in this chamber? and the answer is, no, you never do. let me say this, we like bradley, the delegation. and i think you know how important that is. he has a wonderful wife. we're very excited about him being here.

he served as chancellor of our two-year college system. he can bring some insight to educational reform. he succeeds one of our closest friends, all of us on both sides, jo bonner. and although we miss jo, we welcome bradley. and that makes up for some of the loss of jo. and i think you're going to, you're going to get to where you know and appreciate this gentleman that has joined us today. thank you. prison -- [applause] at in this time i yield the flo. >> as a lawyer, former alabama state senator and as a former chancellor of alabama's two-year college system, bradley has a proven record as a principled

servant leader. i know bradley as a man of strong character who has dedicated his public life to strengthening his community and improving our state. i believe bradley will ably toll in the tradition of his predecessors in rowdily representing alabama's first congressional district. i look forward to working with you, bradley, especially on our shared constituents in clark county. recently, a local reporter asked the delegation to give bradley some advice. the best advice i coughed give you is to always put your constituents first. the oath you took today is a very sacred one. you join a body that has awe andsome responsibility, and that responsibility is neither republican, nor democrat. i look standard to working with you, and i know that given your record of hard work and your willingness to work across the aisle that you will be an amazing addition to the abdel gaition, and i welcome you --

alabama delegation, and i welcome you. [applause] z. >> thank you. mr. speaker, it is my great privilege to represent the good and hard working people of southwest alabama. to my family, my wife of 33 year ors, rebecca, my children, patrick, kathleen, laura and colin. i thank you for your love and your support. to the people of the first district of alabama, i promise that i will work hard every day to serve you and build be upon the trust that you have placed this me to represent you in our nation's capitol. to the members of this house, i'm ready to roll up my shirt sleeves and work with you as a problem solver, not a problem maker. as a workhorse, not a show horse. this is a great country, mr. speaker. but over the last several years, we have failed to live up to that greatness.

i come to this house ready to work together with each of you to find solutions that will make this country truly great again. i ask god's blessings and wisdom as i embark on this new endeavor in this house for the people of my district. thank you again, mr. speaker, for the opportunity to make these brief remarks. now it's time for me to get to work. i yield back. [applause] under clause 5d of rule 20, a chair announces today the house

that the gentleman from alabama, the whole number of the house is now 433. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> fifty years ago, president lyndon baines johnson declared a war on poverty, creating the office of economic opportunity. wednesday, senator tom harkin marked the anniversary with a speech on the senate floor. his remarks are 45 minutes. >> mr. president, 50 years ago today president lyndon johnson came before congress and spoke these bold words: this

administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in america. lyndon johnson, as we all know, was born and raised ahidst stark poverty in texas hill country, coming of age during the great depression. there hard personal ex-- from hard personal experience, he understood how poor school, empty stomachs and bad health make a mockery of america's promise of equal opportunity for all. when president johnson delivered that historic state of the union address, our nation was enjoying unprecedented postwar prosperity. we had become, in john kenneth galbraith's famous words, the affluent society. however, this the midst of this nation of prosperity, there was also, quote, the other america

as author michael harrington called it. fully one-fifth of our population trapped in poverty across ap haven cha, in urban ghettos, in large swaths of rural america. millions of american children were being raised in shacks and slums, going to bed hungry, attending grossly-substandard schools. worse, experts described this poverty as intractable. experts warned that despite the nation's overall prosperity, poverty was growing more widespread. because, as one study put it, the poor were, quote: not part of the economic structure. a then-report by the president's council of economic advisers asserted that, quote: future economic growth alone will provide relatively few escapes from poverty.

end quote. economic growth alone, they said, will not solve the issue of poverty. of course, i must add it's very much the same today, isn't it, mr. president? economic growth alone will provide few escapes from poverty for people today if 95% of income gains are going to the top 3%. 3%. and if the rewards of productivity gains go to the shareholders and not to the workers. so it was in this context that president johnson -- keep in mind, less than two months assuming, after he assumed the office after the terrible assassination of president kennedy -- it was in this context that he sum honed the nation so that the unconditional war on poverty could be waged. for lbj, this was both an economic challenge and a profound moral challenge.

it was about doing justice. in his seep to congress -- in his speech to congress, he said: very often a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom. the cause may lie deeper, in our failure to give our them citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities and a lack of education and training. and a lack of medical care and housing. and a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children. president johnson continued. our chief weapons will be better schools and better health and better homes and better training and better job opportunities to help her americans, especially young americans, to escape from squalor and misery and unemployment rolls where other citizens help to carry them.

mr. president, in the months that followed this state of the union address, president johnson proposed specific rams to attack -- programs to attack poverty and inequality, and he articulated his broader vision for what he called a great society. there's no better place to appreciate the boldness and publishment of -- accomplishment of this era than at the lyndon baines johnson library in austin, texas. my favorite part is a room -- i've been there several times -- commemorating the great society with plaques and pens, signing pens all along the wall listing, listing the incredible array of legislation that president johnson had passed into law. listen, listen to these. the great civil rights act, the voting rights act, job corps,

vista, upward bound, the food stamp program, legal services for the poor, the community action program, community health centers, head start, the elementary and secondary education act, the higher education act, medicare, medicaid, the national endowment for the arts and humanities, public broadcasting, the national mass transportation act, the cigarette labeling act, the clean air act, the wilderness act. mr. president, it takes your breath away. to think about all that was done. these great society programs have defined the modern united states of america as a compassionate, inclusive society, a genuine opportunity society where everyone can contribute their talents and abilities.

last month, on december the 4th in his landmark speech on inequality, president obama noted that these and other initiatives have helped to reduce the poverty rate by 40% since the 1960s, have helped reduce the poverty rate by 40%. since the 1960s. president obama said, quote: these endeavors didn't just make us a better country, they reaffirmed that we are a great country. however, mr. president, on this 50th anniversary of president johnson's great address to congress i must acknowledge that there are some who profoundly disagree with this assessment with the war on poverty and the great society. they insist it was a great failure. indeed, i have, i have heard this claim from many of my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle since i first came to congress in this 1975. -- in 1975. this supposed, quote, failure of the war on poverty, this failure of the great society has, indeed, become almost an article of faith and dogma among conservatives. it is truly the triumph of belief over reality. as president reagan said on may 9th, 1983, quote: the great expansion of government rams that took place under the aegis of the great society coincided with an end to economic roll for america's -- progress for america's poor people. ah. that's quite an assertion by president reagan. so, mr. president, allow me on this 50th anniversary to take a few minutes to point out many of the, quote, failures of the war on poverty. and the great society.

perhaps a good place to start is by pointing out the, quote, failure of medicare. at the bill signinger ceremony r the social security amendments act on july 30 beth of 1965, president johnson enrolled former president ally true had been as -- harry pruman as the first medicare beneficiary and represented him with the first medicare card. you know, these days we talk about life after 65 as the golden years. well, i'll tell you, life after 65 used to be the nightmare years with tens of millions of americans unable to afford even basic medical care. condemned to live out their senior years in the misery of untreated or poorly-treated illnesses. in 1959 the poverty rate among older americans was 35%. since the great society program

started, poverty rate among seniors has fallen by nearly two-thirds. what a failure. what a failure. and medicare is especially personal to me. i remember my father who was then in his late 70s had never had access to any regular health care in his life. my father only had a sixth grade educationment -- education. worked in coal mines most of his life. suffered from what they then called coal miner's lung. and he would get sick all the time. and if it weren't for the compassion and the generosity of the sisters of of mercy who would take care of him when he got sick and nurse him back to health, i don't know what would have happened to him. but i can remember coming home from the military on military leave late 1965, and my father

had his medicare card. and for the first time in his life, for the first time in his life -- and now he was approaching almost 80 years of age -- for the first time in his life, he could go see a doctor. he could go see a doctor without begging. without taking charity. it gave him the dignity and the security of knowing that he could see a doctor if he needed to. the great society also gave birth to community health centers, as long as i'm talking about health care. community health centers, to provide essential medical care to the poor. the first two community health centers were opened in 1964, one in boston, massachusetts, and one in rural mississippi. this model of providing basic health services to the uninsured

and underserved was an enormous success. listen to this. from that modest beginning of two in 1964, community health centers have expanded to include more than 1200 community health centers in more than 9,000 locations serving more than 3-- 33 million patients annually. you know, since brown v. board of education decision by the supreme court in the mid '50s, americans acknowledged that we had two school systems. one for the middle class and the well off, and a grossly inferior one for the poor. esea said that all children, regardless of their background

and their circumstances of birth, can learn. and the federal government will provide resources to help create equity, ec with i think -- equity among our schools. now, educating children of poverty will always be challenging. we still have large achievement gaps that still persist. but title i assistance to america's thesiest schools has made a -- neediest schools has made a dramatic difference for the good of millions of low this many children. if it's been such a great failure, i would ask think senator, any senator who wants to repeal title i and defund it, please step forward, speak up here on the senate floor. say that you want to do away with title i and defund it. i'll bet i don't get any takers. and what about the failure of the higher education act in

1965? many it was rare for young people from disadvantaged and low income backgrounds to to go to college. so president johnson and congress passed the higher education act, creating need-based grants and loans with reduced interest rates. today pell grants, created in a later version of the higher education act, help more than nine million low income students gain access to higher education. the higher education act has swung open the doors to college for countless americans creating new opportunities and access to the american dream. again with, i suppose some see this as another failure, another government handout that prevents people from standing on their own two feet. well, you can decide for yourself. if vastly expanding access to higher education constitutes a

failure. but before you do, talk to a lower income student striving, say, to become a doctor. the first in her family to go to college thanks to the trio program upward bound, thanks to pell grants, thanks to low interest college loans. ask her if she feels like she's an undeserving taker, unwilling to stand on her own two feet. in august of 1964, again, just a few months after decan claireing the war on poverty, lyndon johnson signed into law the food stamp act. prior to that act, hunger and malnutrition were shockingly widespread in america, especially in rural areas and in our urban ghettos.

four, to the we still -- now, today we still have millions of food insecure people in america, but thanks to the sup sr. supplemental food assistance program, abject hunger in america is rare. tens of millions of americans, more than half of them children, are insured a basic nutritional minimum. is this another failure? food stamps? well, apparently many members of this body think so. in june of 2012, 33 republican senators voted to block grant the food stamp program and slash the funding by over 300 billion dollars over the ten years. i ask senators who voted for those cuts, have you ever talked

to a first grader who was finally able to concentrate in class because she had a breakfast paid for by food stamps 1234 have you asked her whether she'd prefer to tough it out without a meal to start the day? mr. president, in 19 65 lyndon johnson's office of economic opportunity created 369 local legal services offices across the country providing legal assistance for low income americans. this later evolved into the legal services corporation. and as a proud former legal aid lawyer myself, i know firsthand what a difference this can make in so many circumstances. a struggling family facing foreclosure, a battered woman trying to leaf an abusive marriage -- leave an abusive marriage, a senior citizen victimized by a financial scam.

i know that without access to an attorney, the poor are often powerless against the in. >> -- the injustices that they suffer. as the dedicated work -- is the dedicated work of legal aid attorneys a failure? i vigorously disagree, and the american bar association vigorously disagrees, it strongly supports legal services. you know, every federal judge and supreme court justice in their oath of office, in tear oath of -- in their oath of office swears to, quote with, administer justice without respect to persons and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. well, it's legal services and legal services lawyers who help

to translate that ideal into a reality for poor seem in courtrooms -- people in courtrooms all over america. well, mr. president, our front line soldiers in the war on poverty are the dedicated professionals and volunteers in community action agencies, another great society program. these were funded by the central community be services block grant. in 2012 these locally-driven agencies served nearly 19 million low income americans including more than five million children, more than two million people with disabilities and two and a half million seniors. served by community action agencies. these agencies equip people with skills to return to work, they provide food be, clothing, other emergency assistance. they administer head start programs, other preschool programs and do a lot more. so i guess you can decide if the

community action program and community action agencies and the community services block grant has been failure. but before you do, drop this on a community action agency in your state. see for yourself the amazing work they do in relieving poverty and helping people to escape it. speak to members of a local community action agency board. you'll find that they are local business people, bank ors, lawyers as well as people who receive the services. they will tell you how these agencies do so much with so little, performing indispensable services in their communities. talk to them. well, mr. president, i could spend hours citing so many other great society initiatives, but let me mention just one more.

the civil rights act, 1964. prior to that act, trims faced -- african-americans faced open, legalized discrimination and selling redwaition. we had our own american version of apartheid. in many parts of our country including right here in washington, d.c., african-americans could not eat at the same lunch counter with whites, they could not use the same bathrooms, the same swimming pools, the same water town be tapes. they literally were consigned to the back of the bus. well, because of the civil rights act of 1964, those jim crow laws and practices were ended in the united states of america. it became illegal to discriminate based on race, color, gender or national only. well, i guess some apparently call that a failure. one of the great society's many, quote, failures. well, you can decide for yourself.

whether america is better off today, whether we're better as a society, stronger as a nation because we did away with segregation. you decide that. president reagan, in his state of the union address in 1988, listen to this, president reagan in his state of the union address in 1988 said that the great society, quote: declared war on poverty, or and poverty won, end quote. one of president reagan's catchy one-liners. but with all due respect to president reagan, it simply is not historically accurate. not even close. from the time president johnson took office in 1963 until 1970 as the full impact of the great society programs began to be felt, the number of more thans living below the poverty line

dropped 33.3% down to 12.6%. almost cut it this half. the poverty rate for african-americans fell from 55% in 1960 to 27% in 1968. the poverty rate among the elderly, as i said earlier, fell by over two-thirds. the great shame, the great shame is that this progress, this war on poverty of the great society was cut short. the war on poverty gave way to the war in vietnam. and then it gave way in retrenchment later on in later administrations which cared less about giving hand up, a hand up to the poor than about giving handouts to the rich. in the form of giant tax breaks

and other advantages. what was started as a percolate-up economy under the great society became a trickle-down economic society. under later administrations. so, mr. president, on this 50th anniversary of president johnson's great address to congress, let me state unequivocally and factually, historically factually the great society has been an historic success. however, i must note that 50 years later our nation confronts a new set of economic challenges, societal challenges, challenges that are every bit as dangerous to our democracy, every bit as daunting and intractable as those confronted by president johnson and the congresses of his time. our economy is still struggling

to recover from the great recession. the sluggish recovery has left us with chronic unemployment and a middle class in crisis. social mobility, the ability to work their way up the economic ladder is now lower in the united states than in europe. for the vast majority of american workers, incomes have been stagnant for decades. but the rich have grown fabulously richer. think about this. since the official end of the great recession in 2009, 95% of this many gains in the u.s. have gone to the wealthiest 3-- 3%. so, mr. president, unlike in president johnson's day, today it's not only the poor who are

at risk, our great middle class is endangered. millions of formerly middle class americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their savings, their hopes for a decent retirement. for too many of our citizens, the american dream has become hopelessly out of reach. this is the crisis, this is the challenge of our day. and are we rising to meet this challenge as previous generations of americans have done? no. i'm afraid we are not. here inside the washington bubble too many of our political leaders have persuaded themselves that the biggest issue of the day is the budget deficit, ignoring chronic unemployment and a struggling economy, this 313th congress and the previous congress have

pursued policies of relentless austerity. slashing budgets, defund thing research and investment, destroying jobs and even refusing to extend federal unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. 3.3 million of whom lost their last lifeline of support just three days after christmas. so i am disturbed, mr. president, by an apparent shift of attitude by many elected leaders toward the ordinary people, the ordinary people who do the hard today in and day out work that makes our country strong. i said it before, i say it again, we're seeing an attitude of harshness, harshness. you know, we used to agree that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you should be able to

earn enough to support your family, keep a roof over your head, put some money away for a rainy day, have a secure retirement. we used to agree that if you lose your job through no fault of your own especially at a time of chronic unemployment, you should have some support while you're looking for new work. we used to agree, on both sides to have aisle, that no child in this country should go to bed hungry at night. but in recent years these fundamental principles and values and agreements have come under attack in our liquidities course. in our public discourse. for instance, recently on a sunday talk show, the junior senator from kentucky said it would be, quote, a disservice, a disservice to the long-term jobless to extend federal unemployment insurance. i have his exact words right here. senator paul said this.

when you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them, causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy. and while it seems good, it actually does a disservice to the seem you're with trying to help -- to the people you're trying to help. when there's three people looking for every job, when in some areas, some states unemployment is even worse than that, you cut off their long-term unemployment? where are they going to get a job? maybe what the senator doesn't understand is that before you can even get unemployment benefits, you have to be actively looking for work. a disservice? i guess, i guess our new attitude is tough luck, you're on your own.

the you struggle -- if you struggle, even if you face insurmountable challenges, well, it's your own fault. tough luck, you're on your own. if you're a kid born into poverty or a single parent working for minimum wage struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table, tough luck, you're on your own. if you're a 55-year-old worker who has lost her job due to outsourcing or technological change, tough luck, you're on your own. if you're a person with a significant disability struggling to find work and independence and dignity, tough luck, you're on your own. mr. president, there's a harshness among too many in powerful positions toward those americans who have tough lives, who are ill educated or

marginally employed or who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. a harshness among too many people in powerful positions toward these americans. president johnson would rebuke this harshness and this callousness. as he said in remarks three months after his war on poverty speech, listen to what president johnson said. quote: god will judge his children not by their prayers and their pretensions, but by their mercy to the poor and their understanding of the weak. i tremble for our people if at the time of our greatest prosperity we turn our back on the moral obligations of our deepest faith. end quote.

president johnson. so today, 50 years later, mr. president, i remind my colleagues that we are still a nation of great prosperity. we are the wealthiest nation in the world. we are the wealthiest nation ever in the history of the world. our problem is that this prosperity and wealth is concentrated at the very top, the workers who have created it are not getting their fair share. so on this 50th anniversary of president johnson's war on poverty address can, i cannot agree with those who say that the budget deficit is our number one priority. i'm concerned about far more urgent and compelling deficits; the deficits of jobs and opportunity, the deficit of research and investment, the deficit of early education for all our children, the deficit,

the deficit of basic human understanding and empathy for those in the shadows of life. i'm also concerned about the deficit of imagination today in washington. i'm concerned by our failure to confront today's economic challenges with the boldness and the vision that earlier generations of americans summoned in times of national challenge. indeed, our republican friends reject the very possibility that the federal government can act to spur economic growth and create good middle class jobs. this is their ideological position, and they're sticking to it. but this flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary across our nation's history. we can go back to president lincoln who insisted that every

american has a, quote, right to rise. to that end, he created the land grant college system, provided for the transcontinental railroad, established the department of agriculture with the mission to help farmers raise their standard of living. president teddy roosevelt who fought for safe workplaces, the eight-hour workday, busting up the trusts who were strangling opportunity for ordinary americans. think of franklin delano roosevelt who put to work millions of un'em lowed americans -- employed americans including my father in the works project administration, building roads and bridges and dams and schools, many of which still exist today. franklin roosevelt, who created social security to end the scourge of poverty and and old age. think of president eisenhower who championed investment in our infrastructure beginning with the interstate highway system

which has expanded commerce and opportunity for nearly six decades now. and as we are doing today, let us pay tribute to one of our greatest presidents, lyndon baines johnson, and the enormous achievements of his war on poverty and the great society. now, mr. president, i have not come to the floor today just to look back fondly and nostalgically or to try to correct the record about the achievements of the great society. i'm here at the beginning of this legislative year to urge my colleagues to look with fresh eyes at the urgent chick and societal -- urgent economic and societal challenges confronting the american people today. we need to think more broadly and with more ambitious vision about how we in congress can come together to create a greater society, an america of

greater opportunity, greater economic mobility, greater fairness. we immediate to create -- we need to create what i call a new america. let us dare to imagine a new america for every child has access to quality early learning. let's dare to imagine public investments to create a truly 33st century infrastructure modernizing your bridges, ports and canals, building high-speed rail systems from maine to miami and seattle to san diego. a new infrastructure for a new america. let us dare to imagine retrofitting all of our buildings to headache them energy efficient, making wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables the main sources of our energy. e. >>, a renewable -- yes, a renewable energy basis for a new america.

let us dare to imagine doubling our investment in the national institutes of health, making possible a real war on cancer and alzheimer's and other devastating diseases. think of that. a cancer-free, alzheimer's-free new america. let us tear to imagine a true -- dare to imagining a true health care system where wellness and prevention and public health are the first priority, keeping people healthy in the first place in this new america. let us dare to imagine a new retirement system where every worker builds a private pension that can't be touched until they retire. and a stronger social security system, solvent, secure with increased benefits for the next 50 years. think of it. a secure retirement for every citizen. in this new america. these are the big challenges

that we in congress should be addressing. now, i know by no means there are no issues demanding our immediate attention, beginning with the these to extend federal insurance for the jobless, we'll be voting to proceed on that motion within the hour. as i said earlier, americans were cut off just a couple weeks ago, another 3.6 million americans will be cut off over the course of 2014. these benefits are not much, but they make a critical difference for those with no oh lifeline. -- no other lifeline. so this is an immediate concern and must be our most immediate priority in these initial days of this session. in addition, the senate will soon take up my bill to raise the min hum wage to -- minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and to link it to cost of living

increases. get this, since the minimum wage peaked this 1968 as part of the great society, it has lost one-third of its buying power. so if you were making the minimum wage if 1968 compared to what you're making today, you could buy one-third more than you can why today. over the decades the minimum wage has become a poverty wage. think about it. people go to work every day. they work hard. sometimes two jobs and they're still bro the poverty line. -- still below the poverty line. no person in america who puts in a full day's work ought to have an this many below the poverty line. now, these two are the immediate moral and economic issues that we need to address, and i say, yes, moral and economic issues. today we do confront huge economic challenges. as americans, we pride ourselves on our robust free market system

and some say that the unfettered free marketplace will solve all of our problems, just let it go. they glorify the ideas of ayn rand and of academic here to ritzes who -- theorists who say greed is good, extremes of inequality are necessary and poverty is deserved. which reminds me of the words of the philosopher bertrand russell nearly a century ago. he said, and i quote: the modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. end quote. and i remind my colleagues that it is precisely the unrestrained, often run-amok free marketplace that has created so many of the problems we face today.

financial and real estate bubbles and who suffered because of that? ordinary americans. chronic unemployment. who's suffering? ordinary american. stagnant wagings. who's suffering? ordinary americans. gaping income inequality. who's suffering? not the few at the top. disappearing pensions. who's suffering? ordinary working americans. on and on. like a busy highway system, our free marketplace only really works for all when all the players to way essential rules of the road, rules put in place by government to avoid crashes and bubbles, to rein this wasteful and dis-- in wasteful and dishonest money hinters and, yes, to provide for social and economic justice. and there are some things, big national undertakings, that the private sector simply is not

capable of doing. at critical junctures going back to the beginning of our republic, congresses and presidents have acted decisively to spur economic growth, foster innovation, help create jobs. and no be question -- no question, that's where we are falling short today. members of congress and elected officials across america can learn from the successes of the war on poverty and the great society. we need a new generation of leaders with lyndon johnson's passionate commitment to improving education. of expanding opportunity, fighting ip equality and discrimination. as i said, we need to come together to create a greater society, a new america. we need to act with boldness and vision. the war on poverty and the great society initiatives have defined the modern united states of

america as a compassionate, inclusive society, a genuine opportunity society where everyone can contribute their talents and abilities. we see the great society all around us today in this cleaner air and cleaner water. young people there poor backgrounds attending college. seniors and poor people who have access to decent medical care. people of color exercising their right to vote and to live in the neighborhood of their choice. we see the great society in head start programs, quality public schools, vocational education programs, college grants and loans, all those rungs on the ladder of opportunity that put the american dream in reach of every citizen, even those from humble, hard scrabble backgrounds like lyndon johnson himself. you might notice i said ladder of opportunity, i didn't say an escalator. i think a lot of times my

conservative friends always say, well, you just want to give everything to everybody. give everything, just give it away. give everybody a free ride. i always talk about the ladder of opportunity with rungs. i don't talk about an escalator. see, an escalator is a free ride. but with a ladder, you still have to exert be energy and initiative to get up. aha, but there's one thing necessary: the rungs have to be there on that ladder. many of them put their be government and society acting together, things like affordable childcare programs, early learning, quality public schools, pell grants, job training, on and on. they provide those rungs on that ladder. and sometimes people fall off the ladder through no fault of their own. today lose their job -- they lose their job, they become disabled, they contract a terrible illness.

in those cases it is the moral duty, the moral duty of government and society working collectively to provide a hand back up. things like, yes, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, job training, many others. and, you know, up until 1990 we looked around america, and we saw that there were some people that no matter how hard they tried could never climb that ladder of opportunity. .. disabilities. and so what we did in 1990 we passed the americans with disabilities act. again, we built a ramp of opportunity, a ramp. and, again, we didn't build a moving walkway.

that's a free ride. i've often pointed out, there is enot one nickel, one dime in the americans with disabilities act that goes a person with a disability. what we did is we broke down the barriers. we built the ramps, the accessible buses and trains, provided accessible workplaces, provided accessible workplaces, provided accessible workplace, widened doors, accessible baths. we go down the barriers -- we broke down the barriers so that people with disabilities could exert their own energy and initiative to get up that ramp. so, mr. president, like every great leader in our nation's history, lyndon baines johnson brought us a giant step closer to achieving our highest ideals as a people. he fought passionately for social and economic justice for all americans. he fought to put the american

dream within reach of every citizen, and he saw this as a moral imperative. and that's why i consider him one of our greatest presidents. this is the legacy we salute today. this is the lesson we should learn from as we move forward in this country, as we move from this 50th anniversary of president johnson's great address to congress. it is this spirit of ambitious public purpose that we should strive to emulate in the legislative year ahead, and the legislative years to come. mr. president, 50 years ago today, lyndon johnson spoke to our deepest moral underpinnings.

he didn't just couch it in terms of an economic solution. it was justice. it was making sure the american dream really was a life for all. we can't come in our time, become small minded. looking upon just what is good for today or what are the economics of things. we have to think about it in terms of what our commitment is for moral, economic, social justice for all americans. as i said, that was the lesson of president lyndon johnson. that's what we should take from this 50th anniversary moving ahead. mr. president, with that i yield

the floor. >> coming up this morning on c-span2, senator roberts and on the unemployment extension bill. that's followed by senate minority leader mitch mcconnell on the state of the senate. and then we're live at 10 a.m. eastern for more senate debate on the unemployment insurance extension bill. >> today, the senate foreign relations committee examines the conflict in south sudan. you can see the hearing with the state department and usaid officials live at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span3. and later, general frank grass, chief of the national guard bureau speaks about the financial challenges facing the guard. live coverage at 1 p.m. eastern also on c-span3. >> can any woman be adequately prepared for the duties of first lady? >> yes. [laughter] >> you're the wife of the governor or if you're the wife

of the vice president -- >> or if your mother-in-law is first lady edge of watched her before. >> yeah, i think again. and i think it's a golden opportunity to do something. i think lady bird was one who said, you know, opportunity to do something good. and if it by chance helps her husband, all the better. >> the world health organization estimates that more than 1.6 million people worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. many live in countries where the disease carries a stigma and shame. by sharing the lessons that we've learned, americans can empower more women to detect breast cancer early, which today is the closest thing we have to a cure. >> as you all know, chicago is truly a city of neighborhoods separated by parks and

boulevards. it's a city where walking just a few blocks can put you into an entirely different world of experiences. cut through a park and you go from english to spanish, black to white, puerto rican to polish. across a few streets and you go from historic homes and manicured lawns to abandoned buildings and dark street corners. so the opportunities available to a child growing up in one neighborhood in this city might be vastly different than a child growing up just five blocks away. and that difference can shape their lives and their life prospects from the moment they are born. >> monday, a original series first lady influence and image returns with the five most recent first ladies, from nancy reagan through michelle obama monday night at nine eastern live on c-span and c-span3. also on seek and read and

c-span.org your. >> the deadline is approaching for c-span studentcam video competition open to middle and high school students. answering the question, what's the most important issue congress should address this year? with a five to seven minute documentary that includes c-span programming. there's $100,000 in total prizes with the grand prize of $5000. and videos are due by china 20. get more info at studentcam.org. >> today, the senate will continue debating the extension of long-term unemployment benefits. coming up next remarks of senator rob portman of ohio on the need for amendments to the bill. his remarks are about 20 minut minutes. >> i rise today to address the question that is currently before the body here and that's when we should extend the emergency unemployment insurance for millions of americans were still unable to find work. this is in addition to the 26

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

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

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

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

let's pay for it. the debt and deficit is affecting our economy today. it's like a wet blanket over the economy. you can of trillion dollar deficit year in and year. this year 680 billion, people say that's great. are you getting? it's the fifth highest in the country. at all it's up to a trillion dollar debt unprecedented. i believe that's understated getting all the let those we have but the point is we have never had debts of this level. historic levels, and it is utterly the wrong thing to do for our economy today and help get people back to work, but it's also clearly unfair to do to future generations because young people on the floor tonight, this afternoon, and it's i think even immoral that we are leaving this to them. so let's pay for this. i was glad to hear senator reid said yesterday our effort, if they come with something serious i'll talk to them. well, i've got something serious. and i think other members well

as well. something that reflects in my case reforms proposed in the president's own budget, ideas that should be bipartisan. bipartisan. might and in it would close the loophole that opens the system to double dipping. and what they mean by that it's called concurrent receipt. somebody's getting one federal program that in another program, they should be eligible for if they have the first one. specifically, people who are both on social security is built insurance meaning they can't work, ssdi, and also receiving funds from unemployment insurance which range are looking for a job and you are working. we also add trade adjustment assistance, exactly the same theory. we shouldn't allow double dipping. in fact, we should stop this abuse. this is in the president's budget. this reform makes sense. social security is that was the title people who are unable to work because of a serious medical condition. as we although the law required of those on unemployment insurance to actively seek out job opportunities. so if the two don't work together, let's stop the double

dipping. these two programs are mutually exclusive. those who can't work should be on disability. those who can work should be on on a public insurance, if they are eligible. by passing this simple amendment we can close this will loophole and say $5.4 billion. almost enough to pay for the entire three much extension would talk about on the table here today. about six-point 3 billion. in addition i'll be adding another provision to my amendment, that takes the unemployment insurance program integrity provision directly out of the president's budget. so these are programs again in the president's budget to ensure that the unemployment insurance program is working properly, can taking out the fraud and abuse in it. the president's budget instructs the department of labor to implement it. by implement the presence own plan to reduce these improper claimants -- payments and speed were employment we save even more money in the long run. this pays for again this unappointed extension over three

months. i hope we can pass my amendment comment show this legislation is not just about politics. what we're talking here on afford it is not just about politics. it's about actually helping people who are unemployed to get back to work. i hope when my democratic colleagues say they're ready to take real action on getting our economy moving again to help americans are suffering, that they mean it. by the way the fact we're having this debate, the fact that so many americans are in need of long-term unemployment insurance, this in and of itself shows that something is not working. in fact, as was talked about on the floor before we are now at historic levels in terms of long-term unemployment, people living unemployed for more than 26 weeks. the approach taken by the administration and many of my colleagues here and on the other body, to bring down unemployment to get the economy moving really can't be seen to have worked, by the unstinted biggie recall we had extenders package and was at unemployment would be far lower

than it is today -- it just doesn't work. david headley wouldn't be debating this today. we wouldn't be talking about the need for an extension on an emergency basis of unemployment insurance. we can spend our way to prosperity and that's what we tried to do in my tried to do in my view in the stimulus package and that's one reason it hasn't worked. we survey try that over the last five years at if you like with the government has done we spend trillions of dollars we didn't have. we burden the next generation we previously unimaginable debt levels as we talked about earlier. we have run five years of historic deficit, five years. trillion dollar deficits the first four years. before this administration we never had a trillion dollar deficit. last year's deficit again, 680 billion, fifth largest in history, and certainly no cause for celebration. if and when cbo tells us will go back to trillion dollar deficits within 10 years.

so we have a huge problem in terms of our debt and deficit. want to have to show for office then we did. 71 months after the recession began the economy is still not recovered the jobs were lost in the recession but this has never happened in history of our country. we've never had a recovery this week. we are down 1.3 million jobs. by comparison we were up 10.4 million jobs at this point after the 1981-82 recession. that recession was also deep. in fact, it was deeper if you measure it by number of people who are unemployed. ronald reagan came in, frankly, he took both policies and put them in place and it helped to create millions of jobs. by this time we're up to 10.4 million jobs after that recession. we were up 9.8 million jobs after the 1990 recession at this point it were up 4.8 million jobs after the 2001 recession. recovery was called the jobless recovery. again, we haven't even gained back the jobs yet after this recession we're up for

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

that's just not how the economy works. i know there are economists you can say for just about anything but the president on economic advisers have written that unemployment benefits slow down the search for jobs. we don't need to get into a battle of experts. history has proven that just spending more money even on unemployment benefits is not the solution. it's not a long-term serious solution to the problems we face as a country. this extension is passes will be the 11th time with extended unemployment benefits in the last five years. these have cost more than $200 billion. the economic boom has resulted of the spinning -- spending. is spinning with the answer we wouldn't be standing here today having this debate but we be selling full employment. mr. president our economy would not be better off if we had higher and employment and we're paying out more in unemployment benefits, and that's kind of the logical extension of what has been argued on the other side as to why we can't pay for this. i can't imagine anyone who believes this yet for too long

with treated government spending as if it does create wealth. but if i gave 1 dollar from you, take 1 dollar from one person and give that dollar to somebody else, that other person may be better off but i didn't add a dollar to the economy. government programs had to come from somewhere. that dollar is being taken from someone and given to someone else in some of that notion that will add to the economy, again the logical extension is let's just continue to provide more and more government spending, everything will be great. that's not that it works. dividing the pie up differently doesn't create more pipe. it creates real concrete pro-growth policies to do that. policies that mean we're paying out less in unemployment benefits because more people have the skills they need to get good jobs. that's what we ought to be talking about the yes, i'm willing to extend unemployment insurance and pay for it. during that period let's come up with a better unemployment inches program that connects people to the jobs that are out there. a lot of jobs require skills that are not being filled and

their employment system off to both for long-term and even for the short-term focus on that. how do you create or skills to people have the opportunity have the tools to build access those jobs. policies that allow more companies to small business to produce quality of products that can sit here and around the world creating better jobs in the process would help. implementing these kind of policies are not as easy as extending unemployment benefits for a few months, raising the minimum wage. we won't be able to ram these kind of policies through in a week on a partyline vote, no debate, no amendments, but there's a resolution to the chronic unemployment we are seeing in our state. the only way to encourage the kind of income mobility that will close the income gap, not by tearing people down but by bringing people up, pro-growth economic policies obviously need to be part of the solution. if we extend unemployment insurance we should do so because people are hurting as a result of the failed policies of washington. we shouldn't get ourselves into believing this is an extension

will somehow solve this economic problem. and again it won't pay for itself. as i said earlier you can take 1 dollar away from one person to give someone else a great more purchasing power. you are redistricting that across the economy. it doesn't have to be that way. we can pass the state for amendments. i've got my own as i said and others have proposed their amendment but i know send a out as an amendment on supporting that he didn't get that fraud and abuse in the programs and say, let's pay for the unemployment benefits. she also by the what pays for veterans benefits that were cut during the budget agreement we just passed but i also support that. she has a left over for actual deficit reduction. senator coburn mother proposal. senator hatch, senator mcconnell will have on. my is getting his senator coburn has one that also is out of the president's budget so there are plenty of ideas as to how to pay for this extension short term, while we look at better ways to have the unemployment insurance system work to connect people who are unemployed to the jobs

that are out there by giving them the skills that they need. that's where the hard work begins. we got to get this country moving again. we got to do things that actually increased economic growth and give people the skills that they need to access the jobs that are out there. we need to pass bills like the career act. that's bipartisan legislation i've introduced with senator bennet from colorado. we have about 40,000 people in ohio unemployed. we are told about 100,000 jobs right now open in ohio. a lot of these jobs are high-tech jobs. summit in advanced manufacturing, some are in information technology. we need to be sure people who are unemployed get the skills they need to be able to take advantage of those jobs, those opportunities. we can also start working on tax reform. everybody in the chamber talks about it. let's do it. corporate tax reform alone would result in a lot more revenue coming in to the federal government by repatriating profits and would help expand opportunities not for the

boardroom but for people to work in those companies. people to look at this in the congressional budget office, the economic experts who said if we did corporate business tax reform, over 70% of the vinegar is right to the workers, higher pay, higher benefits. it's time to do these things to ensure that we have a growing economy, we are growing that high, not just carving it up. currently the united states ranks 34th in the world from the time it takes to get a government green light touch to build something. think about that. this is a key world bank measure for ease of doing business. we ought to be the top of that list, not halfway down that list. unless we do that will not see the kind of investment we want in this country. how many jobs are lost every year because people can't get a permit, that a good idea can't be built? these are jobs that are there if we change the policies here in washington, d.c. congress continues to bat itself on the back for scoring political points rather than taking on these challenges that face our country. i can tell you who is not having us on the back, it's the

american people. they are not happy. they are not pleased with the progress and there's good reason. they are seeing their take-home pay go down as the deficit goes up. and as the president talked about, a better economy. 50 years ago the united states declared a war on poverty. and yet poverty is still a major problem. the goal was noble but the tools we used were not up to the challenge. since the recession began, 9 million more americans have fallen into poverty. a median household income is down more than 8% of poverty rates have increased during this administration with the policies we've got. it's time for a change. for decades, -- we've exported -- we've said for the american way. the free enterprise system work. we have preached in this gospel as was her police by removing the shackles of government interference from the market whether in the form of overregulation, overspending or overtaxing tha but everyone can prosper. as u.s. trade rep i had the

opportunity travel all around the world representing our great country but it was a great honor to people the benefits of liberalizing trade, knocking and barriers, to increase economic growth and opportunity. and it works. entrepreneurs and job creators have lifted more people out of poverty around the world over the past few decades than any government from ever could because the free enterprise system does work. we need to get back to the. let's do something we can be proud of here in this chamber today. let's empower the american people instead of the american government. let's not kick the can are spending down the road any longer. let's take some votes. not all of them will be easy votes and they should be. after all, that's a we are elected to do, take tough votes. diesel today today though can make a real difference in peoples lives. let's start today. let's pay for this legislation. let's lose -- let's use these that are bipartisan, that are sensible, that can be supported on both sides of the aisle and both bodies. let's ensure that we put in

place programs and policies so we aren't just giving people a little more unemployment insurance for a few months, but giving an opportunity to get a job and the dignity and self-respect that comes with the. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, pay for this legislation. put politics aside and get to work for the american people. yield back my time, mr. president. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell spoke wednesday about the state of the senate in front of about 35 of his gop colleagues. no democrats aside from the presiding officer or 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 your 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 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 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, 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 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 your and that tool is united states senate.

remember, i think we all know, partisanship is not some reason innovation here. invention. american politics has always been more or less divided between two ideological camps. today, that's reflected in the two major parties, but it's actually always been there. on one side are those who proudly place 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 competent in -- confident in the local governments, but lacked confidence in washington. and yet despite, despite the political and ideological divide which have always existed in our country, we've almost always managed to work out our differences, not by 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. now, i realize it may not be immediately obvious why that's the case, but the fact is every serious student of this institution, from de tocqueville to our late colleague robert byrd come have seen the senate as uniquely as important to america's stability and to its flourishing. in their view, it's made all the difference, and here's why.

because whether it was the fears early battles over the shape and scope of the federal government, or those that surrounded industrialization, or those that preceded and followed a nation civil war, or those around the great wars of the 20th century or the expansion of the franchise, our decades long cold war or the war on terror, we have always, always found a way forward. sometime 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 occupied us over the past few years, and focus on another

debate we've been having around here, and the debate we've been having around here is over the state of this institution. what have we become? it's not a debate that ever caught fire with the public order with the press. but it's a debate that should be of great 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're 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 consent of two-thirds of senators duly elected and sworn,

none of us 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 comparable with where we are. i know i'm not. and all but even though there's nobody over here at the moment, i bet almost none of them are either. so i'd like to share a few thoughts on what i think we've lost over the last seven years, and what i think can be done about it together. now, together, obviously requires the involvement, you would think common 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's not my intention to point the finger of blame at anybody. though some of that is inevitable, i don't present have all the answers either, and uncertainty not here to claim that we are without fault. but i'm 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 a better senate than 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, the theatrics and the messaging wars that go on here day after day. it just can't be the case that senators who grew up reading about the great statesman who made their name and their mark here over the years are now suddenly content to just stand in front of a giant poster board making some poll tested point of the month, of the day after day after day. and then run back to our respective corners and congratulate each other on how right we are. i just complete we are all happy with that. on either side. don't misunderstand me. there's a time for making a political point, and even scoring a few points. i know that as well as anybody, but it can't be the only thing

we do here. i mean, 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 bigger than any of us. so hopefully we can all agree that we've got a problem here. now, i realize both sides have their own favorite account of what caused it. we've got our talking points, they've 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. look, i get that. 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 congress on that front. my purpose is is just that the senate can do better than it has done, and that we must be if we are to remain as a great nation. and i think the crucial first step of any vision that gets us there is to recognize that vigorous debate about our differences isn't some sickness to be lamented. vigorous debate is not a problem. when did that become a problem? is actually a sign of strength to have vigorous debates. you know, it's a common refrain among pundits of the fights we have around here are pointless. they are not at all pointless. everything a debate we have around here is about something important. what's unhealthy is when we

neglect the means that we've always used to resolve our differences. that's the real threat to this country, not more debate. when did that become a problem? and the best mechanism we have for working through our differences and arriving at a durable consensus is that in the senate. -- united states senate. an executive order can't do it. the fiat of a nine person court can't do it. a raucous and precarious 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 about half the members of the minority. the voting rights act of 1965 past with the votes 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 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 patience and hard work, and it guaranteed that everyone of these laws had stability. stability. now, compare that, compare that, if you will, to the attitude behind obamacare. when democrats couldn't convince any of us that the bill was worth supporting as written, they decided to do it on their own. and pass it on a partyline vote, and now we are seeing the results. the chaos this law isn't just deeply tragic, it was, my friends, entirely predictable. entirely predictable.

and that will always be the case if you approach legislatilegislati on without regard for the views of the other side. without some meaningful buy-in, you guarantee a food fight. you guarantee instability and you guarantee the strife. it may very well have been the case that on obama to the will of the country was not to pass a bill at all. that's what i would've concluded if republicans couldn't get a single democratic vote for legislation of that magnitude. i would've thought, well, maybe this isn't such a great idea. the democrats plowed forward anyway. they didn't want to hear it. and the results are clear. it's a mess. 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 and tomorrow's majority reveals a. today's majority opposes something, tomorrow's majority opposes it. we see that in the house all the time. but when the senate is allowed to work the way it was designed to come it arrives at result -- all along the political spectrum. that, my friends, is the whole point. we've 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 we face in the decades ahead, she will need the senate, the founders and their wisdom intended, not the hollowed 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've lost. there was a time not that long ago when chairmen and ranking members had major influence and used their positions to develop national policy on everything from foreign policy the nuclear arms. these men and women in which the entire senate through their focus and their expertise. just as importantly, they provide an important counterweight to the executive branch. they provide one more check on the white house. at the present thought something was a good idea he better make sure he ran it by the committee chairman who had been studying it for the past two decades.

and if the chairmen disagree, well then, they would have a serious debate and probably reached a better product as a result. the senate should be setting national priorities. not simply waiting on the white house to do it for them. and the place to start that process is in the committee. with few exceptions, that's gone. with very few exceptions that's gone. it's a big loss to the institution. but most important it's a big loss for the american people expect us to lead. here's something else to we've gained from a robust committee process over the years. committees have actually served as a school of bipartisanship. and if you think about it, it just makes sense. by the time a bill gets through

a committee, you would expect it to come out in a form that was generally broadly acceptable to both sides. nobody got everything, but more often than not everybody got something. and the product was stable. because it was buy-in and a sense of ownership on both sides, and on the rare occasions when that happened recently, we've seen at work. the committee process today in the united states senate is a shadow of what it used to be. thereby marginalizing, reducing the influence of every single member of the senate on both sides of the aisle. major legislation is now routinely drafted not in committee but in the majority leaders conference room and then dropped on the floor with little or no opportunity for members to

purchase the in the amendment process virtually guaranteeing a fight. now, there's 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 more robust committee process. that's the best way to end the permanent sort of shirt against skin contest the senate has become. bills should go through committee. and if republicans are fortunate enough, republicans are fortunate enough to gain the majority next year, that will be done. second, bills should come to the floor and be thoroughly debated.

we've got an example of that going on right now. and that includes a robust amendment process. in my view there's far too much paranoia about the other side around here. what are we afraid of? both sides have taken liberties and it is privileges, i'll admit that, but the answer isn't to provoke even more if the answer is to let folks debate. this is the senate. let's -- let folks debate. let the senate work its well. and that means bringing bills to the floor. it means having a free and open to amendment process. that's legislating. that's what we used to do here. that's exactly the way this place operated just a few years ago.

the senior senator from illinois, the democratic assistant majority leader likes to say, or at least used to say that if you don't want to fight fires, don't become a fireman. and if you don't want to cast tough votes, don't come to the senate. i guess he hasn't said that lately. when we used to be in the majority our member telling people, look, the good news is we're in the majority. the bad news is, the minority gets a bill across the bill, you've got to cast a lot of votes you don't want to take. and you know we did it in people groaned about it, complained about. the sun still came up the next day. and everybody felt like they were a part of the process get well, 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 to amendment process around here.

as i said obviously requires you to from time to time cast votes you would rather not cast. but we're all grown-ups. i mean, we can take that. there's rarely ever a vote you cast around your 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't. because we are 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.

had a meeting we just came out of, senator cornyn was pointed out there were 13 amendments that peopl people on this site t what like to offer on this bill. all of them relate 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 suspect that opportunity will not be allowed because one person is allowed to get proper recognition can prevent us from getting any minutes or even worse still, take our amendments for us. decide which of our amendment's are okay and which are not. i remember the late ted stevens telling the story about when he first time here and senator mansfield was still the majority there and he tried to offer an admin. senator stevens did, and a member of the majority who was

managing the bill prevented it in effect. and senator mansfield came over to senator stevens, took his amendment, went back to his desk and send it to the floor for him. 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're going to retaliate. of course they're 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, and the whole second half of 2013, members on this side of the aisle have gotten for 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. we will not make an attempt to wring controversy out of an institution that expects, demands, approves of great

debates about the problems confronting the country. now, common refrain from democrats is republicans have been too quick to block bills him ever coming from the floor. what they fail to mention of course is that often we've done this is because we've been shut out of the drafting process, in other words, had nothing to do with writing the bill in the first place, or has been made pretty clear that there will not be any amendments. which is in all likelihood the situation we're in this very day. in other words, we are renew 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 it leads to is a lot more acrimony. so look, you know, i gave 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 indeed our up box, too. -- empty our outbox. you can't spend two years in senior outbox and then complain about the backlash. if you want fewer fights, give the other side of say. that brings me to one of the biggest things we lost around her as i see it. the big problem my colleagues has never been the rules. never been the rules. senators from both parties have in the past revered and defended the rules during our nation's darkest hours. the real problem, the real

problem is an attitude that use the senate as an assembly line for one parties partisan legislative agenda. rather than as a place to build consensus to solve national problems. we have become part to focus on making a point instead of making a difference. making a point instead of making a good, stable law. we've gotten too comfortable with doing everything we do here through the prism of the next election instead of the prism of duty, and everyone suffers as a result. as i said, a major turning point came during the final years of the bush administration. when the democratic majority help -- held a vote after vote on bills then you wouldn't have. now 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 message and vote from time to time, but you've got to wonder if that's all you're doing, why you are here. it's become an entirely 215. and it diminishes -- entirely too routine. 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 so here's 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 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 things that need to be done, but they 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. most americans don't work three days a week. they would be astonished to find out that that's about it around here. how about the power of the clock to force consensus? the only way 100 senators will be truly able to have their say, the only way we would be able to work through our tensions and disputes is if we are here more. not too long ago, and a number of you will remember this, win thursday night was the main event around here.

remember that? thursday night was the main event. and there was a huge incentive to finish on thursday night to want to leave on friday. and so it's amazing how it worked. even the most eager beaver among us with a long list of amendments that was good for the country, maybe 10 or 12, around noon on thursday, it would be down to two or one by midnight on thursday. and it was amazing how consent would be reached when fatigue sets in. and all it took was for the leader, the majority leader who's in charge of the agenda to say, look, you know, this is important, there's bipartisan support, he came out of committee. we want to have an open and in the process but we want to finish this week, if we can finish on thursday afternoon or thursday night. or friday morning.

i mean, we almost never get worn out around here. what happened to the fatigue factor? to bring things to a close? amendments voluntarily go away. but important ones still felt on, and if one feels like they got a chance to be involved in process, no matter which side of the aisle they're on. and this is particularly effective august on bills that come out of committee with bipartisan support, so there's an interest actually in passing it. we almost never do that anymore. almost never. on those occasions we worked late, sometimes well into the morning. i know it sounds kind of quiet that people haven't been around here very long, but it actually worked. and there's nothing wrong with staying up a later and getting to a conclusion.

i can remember the majority leader himself when he was with, walking around late at night on thursdays with his whip card, making sure he had enough votes to do whatever he wanted to do. and when you finish one of those debates, whether you ended up voting for the bill or voting against the bill, you didn't have the feeling that unless you chose to go away, with your amendment, you have 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, not just the majority leader's patients. everyone can agree on a result, even if they don't vote for in the end, using the clock to force consensus is the greatest proof of that.

and if republicans are in the majority next year, we will use the clock. everybody gets an opportunity but we use the clock, work harder and get results. restoring the committee process allowing the senators to speak through 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 principles or our views about what's right and what's wrong with our country. partisanship itself is not the problem. the real problem is in a growing lack of confidence in us and its 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 is always dependent on our ability to adapt to the very challenges of our day. sometimes that's meant changing the rules when both parties think it's warranted. and when the majority leader decided a few weeks back to divide bipartisan opposition, bipartisan opposition to what happened in november, by changing the rules that govern his place with a simple majority, he broke something. he broke something. but our response can't be just to sit back and accept the demise of the senate.

this body has survived mistakes and excesses before, even after some of its worst period, it's found a way to spring back and to be the place were even the starkest differences and the fiercest ideological disputes are hashed out by consensus and mutual respect. indeed, it endured periods during its greatest polarization that the valley of the senate is most clearly seen. -- the value of the senate. so let me wrap it up this way. you know, we are all familiar with the lyndon johnson rain around here. robert caro has given us that story in great detail. and some look at lbj's well-known heavy-handed this as a kind of mastery. that's the way some look at it. personally, i've always believed the leader that replaced and was a better fit for this place.

and evidently so did johnson's colleagues, who elected mansfield -- overwhelming enthusiasm. they had had it up to here with lbj. they were excited that he was gone. in fact, cairo reports he tried to come to the first lunch after he became vice president is going to act as a sort of de facto majority leader. even though he was now vice president. that was, shall i say, an enthusiastically received, and is almost literally thrown out of the lunch never to return. and mansfield was, as i said, enthusiastically chosen to replace him. now, the chronicles of lbj's life and legacy usually laid out what i just told you. but by the time he left the

senate, as i indicated, his colleagues have had enough of him, right up to hear. they may have been do as well while he was here, but when they had a moment 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 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's fairness and equanimity as leader. but they all seem to come down to one thing, and that was his unthinking belief that every every single senator was equal. that was mansfield operating

mode. every single senator was equal. he acted that way on a daily basis, conducted himself on the way on a daily basis. the unthinking belief that every senator should be treated as equal. -- unbending belief. 's look, both sides will have to work 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 practice. at doing what i just suggested, the first steps to get us back to normal. but it's a goal that are to believe we can all agree on, and agreed -- and agreed to stride forward together, and it takes no rule change. this is a behavioral problem. doesn't require a rules change. 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 restoring this institution is the only way we will ever solve the challenges we face. that's the lesson of history, and the lesson of experience. and we would all be wise to heed it. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> the next session of the senate will begin in just a moment. lawmakers will start with a two-hour period and tilt about noon when senators may speak for up to 10 minutes each. a vote could take place as early as noon eastern to begin debate on thon a bill extending an oppt insurance benefits which expired in december. a simple majority is needed for

approval. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, creator of the universe, create hearts within our senators that will make them strong enough to know when they are weak. give them sufficient bravery to choose the more difficult right. lord, inspire them to be