a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator fromally. mr. reed: mr. president, i first ask unanimous consent that time until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders and their designees and all quorum calls during that time also be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, in a few hours, this chamber will have the opportunity to restore benefits for 1.7 million american job seekers and help reduce the national deficit by $1.2 billion. i believe my colleagues understand that this is a fiscally responsible way to help job seekers who are still

struggling in the aftermath of the great recession. health -- both shrinking consumer demand and supporting the economy, which is why the nonpartisan congressional budget office has estimate thad renewing unemployment insurance for one year will save 200,000 jobs. this is an imperative. we must do this. on behalf of the families who are struggling, on behalf of our economy that needs the support. this is something that must be done. now the question is whether we can move this critical bill forward and send help to those who are struggling through no fault of their own. everyone understands that to qualify for unemployment insurance, you have to be working and you have to lose your job through no fault of your own and that you have to continue to search for work, and the reality in this market is that there are in many cases

three applicants for every job, and we have all heard the stories when we have gone home to our states. the software engineer who has worked for 20 years who has put out 300 resumes, who has followed people around to give them resumes. i heard a story of an individual who was so persistent to try to get a job in the financial services that he would show up early in the morning and put his resume in the local newspaper for the head of the bank he was interviewing with, and that eventually got him a callback, i'm told, but not yet a job. it's very difficult, and we can do what we have always done, is help these struggling americans and help our economy. at every point in this process, i believe we have responded to the issues raised by our colleagues to try to get this

done. instead of a full year of extended unemployment benefits, which i propose, which we typically do, we compromised on a short-term extension in order just to get it done, just to get it done because since december 28, people have lost their benefits. they went off a cliff. every week, 60,000 more americans lose their benefits. it's up to 1.7 million now. it will be several million before this year has run out. and so instead of a typical one-year extension, we're asking for three months. most of it now or a large part of it being retroactive to make up to those people who lost their benefits beginning on december 28. and i was joined, and i must thank him for his tremendous leadership, by senator dean heller of nevada. this is a bipartisan effort. this is a bipartisan effort because this unemployment, particularly a long-term unemployment problem knows no

political dimension or geographic dimension or ethnic or gender dimension. it is an american problem, and we're responding on a -- in a bipartisan way, senator heller and i. we put what we thought was a pathway to provide immediate aid to these job seekers and give us enough time to work through these complex issues that many of my colleagues have raised, issues about, well, can we make the program overall more effective, can we incentivize individuals to seek more employment more efficiently, can we integrate training? all of those are important issues, but in the context of a three-month emergency extension, the first thing to do is get the relief to the people and then to sit down conscientiously and deliberately and work on the details. when this concession wasn't enough to break a filibuster, democrats put forth another proposal, again, after consultation with our republican colleagues, and i thank senator

heller, senator collins, senator portman, senator coats, many others who consciously and conscientiously provided thoughts, provided input, et cetera. this was not a my way or the highway. this was trying to find a bipartisan pathway, and we're still searching. so based on those comments, we now propose a fully paid for extension of our unemployment insurance. then we started off with 11 and a half months fully paid for. we used a pay-for that would have been an extension of the mandatory savings agreed to in the bipartisan budget agreement, which had been endorsed by house budget chairman congressman paul ryan. and we also included in that proposal the long-term proposal a major policy change proposed by senator portman addressing overlapping unemployment and disability insurance payments. none of these changes are very easy for us to accept on our

side. the tradition or the routine has to be unpaid for unemployment extension. very few times have we paid for these because they are considered emergency spending. this is an emergency. people are struggling out there. but we accepted the premise that our republican colleagues suggested has to be paid for. then we accepted the premise also that we couldn't pay for it by tax revenues, that it would have to be paid for by something else. and so we took a proposal that was embedded in the budget and we tried to use that together with a proposal that was first presented by senator portman. but we had a vote on this, another cloture vote, and none of our republican colleagues supported it. well, then we had an underlying -- a vote on the underlying measure, again the

short-term extension, the three-month extension unpaid for by senator heller and i, and senator heller joined us on that vote, and i thank him for that, but still not the significant number of republican colleagues necessary, not only to move this measure forward but also to do the right thing. an we're here today, mr. president. we have had another round of extensive discussions and consultations, and we're now about to pay for a three-month extension of the unemployment benefits, some of it retroactive, which is fully paid for, and i will point out it is february. this extension will go forward until march. we are reaching the point ironically where we might have more retroactive payments than prospective payments. that's why, again, we have to move, and we have to move today.

it's not everything we wanted, certainly. i mean, we would have, -- as i said initially, we would have preferred a full year, give people certainty for the year. we would have, as we have done more times than not, declared emergency spending, but in order to conscientiously and thoughtfully and cooperatively and collaboratively work with our colleagues, we have continually sort of agreed to make concessions. that i used to think was the nature of political compromise, principled political compromise, and we've tried. so now we have a three-month bill that's paid for by a technique called pension smoothing, which we have enacted on a bipartisan basis. in fact, the vote was 79-19 in the 2012 transportation bill.

so this is not a controversial pay-for. it is something we have embraced before. it is something that does not involve revenues, which is one of the benchmarks that our colleagues laid down, so we have a short-term fully paid for u.i. benefit that can go out immediately to people who are suffering, that it's paid for by noncontroversial mechanisms. and essentially it will do what i think we have been requested to do by our colleagues on this side. now our request is to simply support us in this effort so that we can get this legislation accomplished. one of the interesting things about this pay-for is not only was it in the transportation bill, and it's due to expire and we'll extend it, but also it's been used on numerous occasions

by colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pay for a various assembly of different legislative proposals. so this is not a controversial mechanism. i don't think u.i. is controversial, and i think people hopefully recognize that it's necessary in this situation. we have also included a provision in this proposal that has been championed aggressively and thoughtfully by senator coburn that will bar individuals with income over $1 million from receiving federal unemployment insurance benefits. it's passed this house, i believe, this assembly, this chamber by a vote of 100-1 when it was brought up. that's my recollection, but i will defer to the record. thanked the other fact which i would argue to my colleagues is as we try to pay for this extension, we're also able to

approve $1.2 billion over ten years to reduce the deficit. so if my colleagues are looking for proposals that are fully paid for, reduce the deficit and provide needed assistance to americans who have work and are looking for work and desperately want a job, we need their vote this afternoon. so i hope we can move forward on this bill, help unemployed americans who are searching for work, help employers because this pension smoothing mechanism helps employers, and also reduce the deficit. that's a pretty good trifecta, something i think we should support. and the other point i want to make at this point is that the notion that unemployment insurance, federal long-term benefits should be a political issue is i think in stark

contrast to history. congress has renewed u.i. on a bipartisan basis in the past on numerous occasions. we did it three times under president ronald reagan. we did it five times under president george w. bush. so i think that's the precedent to get it done today. that's pretty good precedent. on a bipartisan basis, under two republican presidents. but one of the questions comes up, it really does the republican leadership, not some of the members who we have collaborated with very closely, but do they want this to pass or will they say oh, no, forget the substance, it's so compelling. let's talk about process. this is about how many amendments we have. this is about whether or not we can reform and reauthorize an entire legislative program based on a three-month extension, most of which is becoming rapidly

retroactive, not proactive going forward. i think the american people see through this. the substance is clear. this program has been repeatedly reauthorized to deal with long-term unemployment under republican presidents and democratic presidents, on a bipartisan basis. it is fully paid for. it is paid for by a noncontroversial technique that does not include revenues. in fact, the pay-for is something that the corporate world supports. there are others who might say, well, we're disappointed because there's another major issue out there and there is, that's the cola for military retirees. this issue of the cola has to be dealt with, it will be dealt with, but i just -- i want to point out that cola does not become effective, those reductions until december of 2015. people receiving i. lost their benefits december of -- u.i.

lost their benefits december of last year. they're already suffering. there is no more time in terms of we can fix it before it takes effect. we need to act today. and indeed, it's been estimated that this $20,000 -- 20,000 veterans who have been 0 long-term unemployment benefits because of our failure to extend them. for those 20,000 veterans i don't think it would be sufficient to say you're not going to get your unemployment insurance because we're worried what is going to happen in 2015 to some other veterans. if you want to help veterans today, you can help 20,000 of them by voting for this provision going forward. let's help our unemployed and our veterans, and not use one group against the other for a legislative advantage in terms of any one particular measure. the emergency for unemployment

insurance that encompasses at least 20,000 veterans is today, not a year or more from now. we can't turn our back on the 1.7 million americans and it's growing each week. we've got to help them. it's been 40 days since unemployment insurance benefits expired, mr. president, for millions of americans. that's 40 days too long for those who are downsized due to the recession and find their u.i. benefits downsized again by congress, downsized to practically zero. but i i'd also like to remind my colleagues about some of the reforms that we've already accomplished in 2012 because many of my colleagues have been very good ideas and they've talked about, well, if we're going to deal with unemployment insurance, let's deal with it in a way that we can also make some structural reforms. in 2012 i was part of the conference committee between the house and the senate where legislation was formally considered, in this body, in

the other body, brought to a conference in regular order and we had a very vigorous debate about the structure of unemployment compensation and significant structural reforms were made to the program. so this is not a situation where we have neglected to look at the unemployment compensation for years and years. it's two years ago we made the changes. we strengthened the job search requirement. we have allowed states to drug screen applicants which is an extremely controversial provision but that was included because we were responding to many members of the house of representatives who said this has to be something the states can do. well, this is something the states can do. i don't think most states have taken up the option but this is something they can do. indeed, after the house passed this agreement, chairman camp

issued a statement noting, his words, the historic reforms to federal unemployment programs are wan important part of this agreement. these reforms will now help the unemployed get the training and resources they need to move from an unemployment check to a paycheck. the package overturns arcane 1960's regulations and allows states to drug test those most at risk. so i'm always willing to listen to proposed changes but we have to recognize we made significant changes to this program, in mr. camp's words, sort of readvising provisions that had been there since the 1960's and that was -- that was about two years ago. so we have made these changes. but we're willing to work in good faith if additional changes are necessary, but they shouldn't block a three-month extension, much of it

retroactive that is pending before the senate today. let me say -- one other point is that in the context of this debate there's been the suggestion that u.i. is in some way an inappropriate -- you know, immoral, it encourages people to avoid work. it makes us as americans lazy and dependent. that's not what i see when i go back home. what i see is people who say -- even recognizing my efforts to try to get this bill passed say that's fine, but what i really want is a job. i want to work. i want to work for many reasons. one, the $350 a week i get, that barely, barely keeps me -- my family whole. it's a little help for gasoline, a little help with the rent but i can't live on that. i have to have a job.

and, by the way, i think most americans want to work because work defines us. work gives us not just a place to go but gives us a meaning to our lives, just as family does. so this notion that this is just this program that indludges those who don't want to work is profoundly wrong and indeed, it's an insult to millions of americans that desperately want a job. by definition, u.i. is based on their work history. this is not a program you qualify for by showing up. you got to be fired, basically. you got to be told we can't keep you anymore, we're sorry, you're a good worker, but we can't keep you. you got to go. in fact, if you're not a good worker, if you're fired for cause, you don't get these benefits. and then they actively have to keep looking for work. and as i said in the 2012

provisions, legislative provisions, we gave the states more authority to make that active search much more active, much more real, not perfunctory but an active search. now, because of the obstructions we've seen most americans now are simply eligible for 26 weeks of assistance, the standard program administered by the states. but "the washington post" notes that it takes an average job seeker about 32 weeks to get hired and in some cases even longer because of high unemployment. in my state it's 9%. now, there are some states where it's remarkably low because of the particular economic conditions there. but as the post points out, for the average worker it's 32 weeks. well, those 26 weeks will not cover their unemployment period as they desperately search for work. and the other cruel fact is the

longer you're unemployed, the harder it is to get a job. that's what we know from research,s that's what we know from just our own sense of the economy. so the notion that someone like a chemical engineer who has been out of work for seven months hoe has a great record, the first time he or she has ever lost their job, should take the first thing available to him or her at the lowest cost, the lowest wage, one, i think it's devalues their lifetime effort, and two, it potentially denies us of their productivity. i'd rather see a chemical engineer worpg work in a job related to chemical engineering than stocking shelves because his productivity and contribution or her contribution to society will be much detroit graitder doing the job they were trained for and they have the experience to do. our nation is at its best when

everyone has the opportunity to put their talent, their skills, their experience to work. we need to get our country back to full employment. we all know that's the answer, that this is an emergency provision, a bridge, if you will, to a job. and we have to do more. not only to put people back to work, but to make the wages they receive, allow them to live not just paycheck to paycheck but allow them to live with the sense that they are building up some security for themselves and their family. we have the resources to achieve this. we are paying for this provision. we are not putting it on the shoulders of the next generation. we are limiting it to a very short period of time so that there is an opportunity to work and look at what we did in 2012 and see if we can do more. the question before us is, does

this senate have the will to make it happen? renewing u.i. isn't the end of our efforts. our efforts are to get the work out there so that people don't need it. that it's not 32 weeks to get a new job, it's several days. we hope. but this is the building block we need to put in place to move forward. this is a process -- this expiration has cost rhode island, my home state, great hardship. it's time to end that hardship. so i urge my benefits -- my colleagues, rather, to renew this provision. this is one of those issues where it simply comes down in my view to this -- this is the right thing to do. i honestly believe that there are many more than 60 of my

colleagues that fundamentally believe this is the right thing to do, and the right way to do it. the question is, will they vote that way in a few hours? i hope they do. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be risch yaitd. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: and i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. i've been getting a lot of phone calls and e-mails this week about this issue of iran. just last night a -- my colleagues -- almost all of my colleagues on the republican side and i sent a letter along -- led by senator kirk, among others, to the majority leader asking him to have a vote on additional sanctions on iran. these sanctions, of course, would be conditioned on failure of the additional negotiations that the administration has announced that will begin next week. i wanted to take a moment to explain to people back home who are writing, rightfully so, and calling us about this issue about exactly what's at stake here. now, and -- so let me break it down to the most basic elements of what's happening. iran is a country that, as we

all know, beginning in 1979, was overtaken by a radical islamic revolution, took control of the country. has been a sworn enemy of the united states ever since. in fact, until very recently and perhaps they still do, after friday prayers, they used to end them with a chant, "death to america." now, one thing is to say those things, another thing is to actually do something about it. and, in fact, iran has. they have been one of the world's most active sponsors of terrorism all over this planet but particularly in the middle east. we know, for example, that they are actively engaged in undermining our interests all over the world. they have been linked to terrorist attacks against dignitaries from other countries in other countries abroad. in fact, not so long ago, about two years ago, the report emerged that there was the potential they were trying to plot the assassination of a foreign ambassador here in washington, d.c. in addition, they participate in things like cyber attacks against the country, they've destabilized their neighbors, and they continue to develop

their weapons capability. in addition to all of that that i've just outlined, over the last few years, iran has begun to purr sigh > -- pursue a nuclr problem. in order to have a nuclear weapon, you have to be able to enrich and process plutonium. that takes infla fracture. and while people -- that takes infrastructure. and while people know that, it takes a lot of time, energy and expertise to actually build the facilities to enrich. now, you can enrich for peaceful purposes if you want to have nuclear reactors to power your cities. that requires enrichment up to a certain level. but iran has gone well beyond that. that's important for two reasons. the first is because there are plenty of countries in the world who have nuclear energy but don't enrich and don't reproce reprocess. they import that material to use in their reactors. in fact, that's what most countries that have nuclear reactors do. but the second is that iran's program has always been strong elements of secrecy. they've had all these secret

facilities that they hide from the world. and the world is rightfully concerned. and so the united nations security council, for example, which is usually lately a pretty useless body, but the united nations security council actually came up with a resolution demanding that iran stop the enrichment process. but they kept going. and, in fact, until very recently, not so long ago, they discovered more secret facilities where iran was enrisk uranium and pliew tone -- enriching you'r uranium and reprocessing plutonium. so the administration has made it a process to stop that from happening. and they've made clear statements that we're not seeking to contain a nuclear iran, we want to prevent it. that's right approach. here's the problem. we recently entered in these negotiations with iran to get them to stop doing these things, to back away from them f. you want nuclear power, if you want nuclear energy, you can have it without the need to reprocess, like most countries do, like manufacture our allies do. -- like many of our allies do. and the only reason why they

even came to the table for those negotiations is because the united states, to be frank, despite the resistance of this administration, which each and every time sanctions and sanctions bills have come before the congress, have threatened to veto it and have blocked it and been against them. despite all of that, these sanctions are in place, they've been applied at a global level, they've created a tremendous amount of pressure on the iranian economy and as a result they've come to the table to negotiate not because the new president is a reformer, as some like to call him, but because they have so much internal pressure and their economy is under so much duress that they are afraid of what their people may do about it in the long term. the administration is pretty optimistic, i should say, about these negotiations that were wretched, an interim agreement or a temporary agreement, as they call it, a joint plan of action is the right terminology. we had secretary sherman here who was in charge of those talks the other day before the foreign relations committee and her point is, we accomplished something, we got iran to stop

processing at a certain level and suspend it. that's her point. and now we're going to go into the second phase of negotiating a longer-term solution and we have to give diplomacy a chance. the problem is, something's lost in translation and perhaps before the internet, we didn't catch these things but now we can see these things happening in realtime. for some reason, iran does not have the same interpretation that the united states does of this joint plan of action. for example, the head of iran's atomic energy organization on november 24, he said as follows -- quote -- "work on the iraq arak react certificate going to continue. research and development will continue. all our exploration and extraction activities will continue. there are no activities that won't continue. continue." the forch minister on november 27 said, "iran will pursue construction at the heavy water reactor," the same one i was just talking about. iran's top nuclear negotiator

said this, and this is really concerning, "we can return again to the 20% enrichment in less than one day and we request convert the nuclear material again. therefore, the structure of our nuclear program is preserved. we will in no way, never, dismantle our centrifuges." these are concerning statements. their foreign minister said something else on cnn on january 22. here's what he said. "we did not agree to dismantle anything. the white house version both underplays the concessions and overplays iran's commitments. we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we're not dismantling any equipment, we're simply not producing, not enriching over 5%." here's the problem with this. the problem with this is that maybe they're not enriching right now. quite frankly, it would be tough to tell because they've always had secret capabilities that we keep finding about long after they've started. but more complicated is they're keeping all the process, the

equipment in place. if they wanted to, as they accurately said, they can return to enriching at whatever level they want in less than one day. now, you may ask yourself, why has iran agreed to do these sorts of things? here's what i said at the beginning and i no now to be true more than ever, here was iran's strategy. it is the same one employed by north korea a few years ago. let's get into a negotiation. let's see how many of these concessions -- how many of these sanctions we can get liflt liftf of our shoulders, but let's not agree to anything that's irreversible. and here's what they're gambling on. they're gambling that the world's attention will turn to something else, that the sanctions will erode and people will lose the discipline or the willingness to continue, that countries that are export driven want to sell things to iran or get, you know, gas, gasoline from them and petroleum products from them and, therefore, will agree tonight continue with the sanctions. and then eventually one day in two, three, four years or whenever, they can decide to

restart this stuff. and suddenly announce, you know what? we want to be a nuclear weapons power after all. you know why i know -- i don't think, i don't suspect, i know -- that iran wants a nuclear weapon? there are two reasons. the first is because they believe this is the ultimate insurance policy. if they have a nuclear weapon, people can't interfere with their internal politics because they're a nuclear power. and the other reason why i know is because they're developing ballistic missiles. ballistic missiles are rockets that travel long distances and they cost a lot of money to develop and a lot of time. and the only reason why you develop that capability is to deliver a nuclear payload, to be able to deliver a nuclear weapon against somebody else far away. now, the administration's argument is, well, this is all for domestic consumption, this is -- this is all political posturing. that's what the administration is saying. in fact, by the way, yesterday that was in reaction to iran's

top diplomat who once again yesterday dismissed the obama administration's demands on their nuclear program. he said they have no value. the best part of this joint plan of action, he said, is that it is so clear that research and development has no constraint. what he's saying is we can continue research and development and increasing our payments capabilities, that all stays in place. what he's really saying is, once the world is distracted and america moves to another tom i can or another -- topic or another crisis happens somewhere else in the world, then we'll do what we want to do. that's what's happening here. and this is extremely dangerous for the future. because having a nuclear iran is bad enough bi but it isn't goino stop there. if iran develops a nuclear capability and a nuclear weapon, every other country around them is going to want one as well. saudi arabia's going to want one, potentially turkey's going to want one. eventually one dayy jint could s going to want one? can you imagine four or five

nuclear problems in the most unstable dangerous place in the world? that's where we're headed. what about those countries that don't enrich, south korea is an example. and we provide it. how are we going to argue don't enrich now? how are you going to tell jordan and saudi arabia and other countries, you shouldn't enrich but we have allowed iran to continue enriching. so we're going to tell our friends and allies you shouldn't have this capability but we're going to tell an enemy of world peace that they can. and that's why we want a vote on these sanctions. we don't have room for error here. we do not have the space to be wrong on this. we can't afford to be wrong on this. now, there's no guarantee that sanctions will prevent iran from going nuclear but i can tell you, it will make it extremely painful, it will influence their cost-benefit analysis. and failure to put these sanctions in place are already having an impact.

every day we see news reports of businessmen in europe and around the world flooding to iran on the idea that the sanctions might be eroding. how are you going to pull that back? you won't be able to. i don't completely dismiss the notions that the administration is saying. it is ideal to reach a negotiated solution with iran, but we have to be wise, we have to learn the lessons of history, and we have to understand human nature. this administration in iran, this regime, they want a nuclear weapon buse i because it gives m supremacy in the region and it makes them, they believe, immune to outside pressure. they are headed for a weapon, they are using that's negotiations to buy time. there are 59 members of the senate that have signed onto a sanctions bill, and one person -- one senator -- is preventing a vote on it. and that is wrong. in a matter of this importance,

we should have a vote on this, and the use of procedural motions and the power of the majority leader to prevent a vote on something of this importance has long-term implications on our national security of extraordinary proportions. and let me just close by making one more point with regards to this. i recently read statements that those of us who want more sanctions are banging the war drum. that is false. on the contrary, we believe that a failure to put in place sanctions increases the likelihood of an armed conflict with iran. are we prepared to allow iran to become a nuclear power, a nuclear weapons power? we're going into these negotiations with one arm tied behind our back. they're going in saying, under no circumstances will we ever agree not to enrich and we're saying, we'retope that. -- we're open to that. i promise you -- and that's why i'm saying this on the floor so that it's recorded and so that

people know where i stood on this before it happens -- if iran is allowed to maintain any kind of enrichment capability in our lifetime, i believe before the end of this decade, god forbid, and when that day cornlings i hope that we can have a vote on the senate floor on this issue. let's have a debate on this. let's have a frank and open discussion on it. why are we preventing that from happening? why is the majority leader preventing that from happening? it is inexcusable, it is unacceptable. so i hope we'll have a vote on it sooner rather than later. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it was widely reported yesterday and continues to be the buzz about town, the latest congressional budget office report known as its long-term outlook. and, of course, we know from the news that it's report on the affordability -- its report on the affordable care act is devastating. obamacare will reduce full-time employment by 2 million workers in the year 2017 and 2.5 million by the year 2024. the reason for that is pretty clear, that if you -- with the employer mandate and additional costs associated with obamacare, many employers will simply put people from full-time work onto

part-time work in order to avoid the employer mandate and those penalties and additional costs. we human beings are enormously sensitive to incentives, both positive and negative, and this is pretty predictable, but its tragic. the reduction will be almost entirely, the congressional budget office say, a reduction in labor force participation and in the number of hours worked. in other words, this was a piece of legislation that we were told would enormously benefit not only individual americans by getting them access to care but the president said it would benefit the economy as a whole. and what we're learning as the sad truth is that it is hurting the economy and hurting the very people that i presume the president wanted to help. i heard representative ryan on the news talk about this as a

poverty trap. and, of course, many of the folks who supported the affordable care act -- and i'm thinking now about organized labor -- have petitioned the president and his allies and said, this is turning into a nightmare for us, and this is wufnts thingone of the things n, because people are -- they mentioned, because people are being moved from full-time work onto part-time work. it's no answer to say that we're going to order an increase of 40% of the minimum wage. in other words, you can see that moving people from 40 hours a week to 30 hours a week, perhaps there might be in the minds of some people, well, we'll compensate for that. we'll order businesses to pay at least $10.10 an hour when simple common sense tells us that when people of the people you're traig ttrying to help are goinge

hurt. high unemployment among minorities and teenagers. what's the small business going to do when government orders this emto pay $10.10 an hour? they're going to hire fewer people or perhaps go out of business. so this sort of micromanagement and attempts to compensate for the effects of obamacare i think will make things worse, not better. needless to say, if the advocates of the affordable care act had understood back in 2009-2010 what the facts would turn out to be today, then obamacare woul never would have passed. millions of americans said that they liked the coverage they already h had. i think 98% said we like what we have. but we liked the coverage we had. if these people are known that they would have their coverage

canceled because it failed to meet the mandates of obamacare, obamacare never would have passed. and those people who liked the coverage they had would still be paying lower premiums than they are now being charged in the exchanges under obamacare, not to mention the huge deductibles. i mean, families are now being asked to essentially self-snirie up to half -- yo up to $5 nor tr deductible. you get the -- up to $5,000 for their deductible. you get the subsidy and better coverage beyond that, but you've still got $5,000 deductible. and those are the first dollars that come out of consumers' pockets. so you might as well be self-insured, but for catastrophic health care needs. and of course there's a lot cheaper way for people to buy that kind of coverage. so we also know that untold number of americans would still

have access to at least 40 hours of work, which is not the case, sadly, currently under obamacare and we know now with the projections of the congressional budget office that things will continue to get worse. so the president's health care law has become a genuine public policy disaster. and, by the way, mr. president, you know, even the congressional budget office said at least 30 million people will be uninsured even if obamacare was implemented exactly as advertised. so not even that addresses what i always thought was the main reason for obamacare and that's to give people more coverage, cover more people. well -- so, obamacare will be be reducing -- or is reducing full-time employment at a time when the percentage of people participating in job seeking,

the workforce, is sa at an histc low. many people have given up. they've just quit looking, and they get dropped out of the unemployment statistic. so when we think maybe we're doing better, well, we find out, for example, in december alone that 345,000 people quit looking for jobs. they quit. they got worn out. they gave up because they have been looking for so long and the jobs just aren't there. so just to be clear, the question in 2009 and 2010 was not whether we would expand health coverage but how we would do it. obamacare represented one option. and it's obviously the one that our democratic colleagues dhows adopt -- colleagues chose to adopt on a party-line vote.

i would say that despite what the president suggested in his state of the union message, there are a lot of options out there, so it is not obamacare or nothing, which is what is so often mentioned. i hear so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, well, we've got to have obamacare because only then can we cover people with preexisting conditions. that's poppycock, it's not true. we can do it cheaper and more effectively by other alternatives, and we hear people say, well, the only way that young people can be covered up to age 26 was with obamacare, under their families' health care. that's popty cock, too. it's -- that's poppycock, too. it's just not true. and to suggest that you've got to have basically the whole enchilada, you have to buy all of obamacare in order to address these health care concerns is

not true. the president said, well, if critics of obamacare have a better idea, just bring them to me. well, i would like to respectfully suggest that the president that is just a tin ear when it comes to alternatives, and he just is not listening. now, one of the latest proposals came out of three of our best experts on the republican side on the health care issue -- senator orrin hatch, senator richard burr, and dr. -- senator dr. tom cobun, and man coburn, y released a tentative of what it might look like. there's got to be a resolution of this. because policies are being canceled. the costs for people with coverage are going up and it is hurting the economy. it is turning full-time work into part-time work. at some point -- i don' i don'tw

what iwhen it is -- we're goingo have to confront this reality and deal with it mured to -- in order to protect ou constituentf people we're here to represent. so an alternative to what the president's command and control over one-sifnlg our economy, under obamacare the government gets to choose. under our alternative, you get to choose. i want to highlight just a few more of the findingsing of th fe findings of the congressional budget office report. for the next ten years america's debt is going to be in a sustainable place. i am frayed what the president i am afraid the president is falling in a trap here because we're living in a surreal time when interest rates are so low because of what the

federal reserve is doing that, yes, the interest we have to pay on our debt is not as much as it would be if it went back to historical norms, 4% or, 5%. the sustainability of our national debt is highly contingent, and, by the way, mr. president, syste somebody ig to have to pay that back someday. and these young people sitting here listening, they're going to be the ones left holding the back, people like my two daughters who are working in austin, texas. somebody is going to have to neigh money back. for the president to say our debt is sustainable for the next ten years ignores the fact that we have a moral obligation to deal with it today, no the to make these -- not to make these young people -- to dampen their aspirations, their potential by saddling them with debt. but the fact is that our debt is highly contingent on three factors.

economic growth of of our economy, how fast our economy is growing; insnraition th inflatid one and interest rates which i have alluded to. but according to the congress allege budget offic-- but accort office, if america's growth was just .1% lower, our cumulative debt, the annual difference between twha we collect in taxes and what the government 13e7bdzs over the next ten years would go up by $3 11 billion. that's with a b. likewise, if annual inflation was 1 percentage point above what the congressional budget office projects, our cumulative deficits -- our debt, the difference between what we tbli in tax dollars and what the federal government spends

projected over ten years -- it would be $762 billion higher. so that's if just inflation -- you can see with minor changes in the growth rate for inflation can have dramatic consequences in debt of debt. andes, -- and, yes, you don't just have to pay the principal back. you've got to pay the interest on that debt. as i said, while interest rates are at historic lows because of the quantative easing, so-called, that the federal reserve is doing, churning out dollars, of course it's been a boom to the stock market and the top 1% of our economy. but working people, they're finding their wages have been stagnant for the last five years. but if interest rates were to rise one percentage point above the current congressional budget office baseline each year, our

cumulative deficits or our debt would go up $1.5 trillion. that's with a "t," not a "b." these numbers confirm despite the short-term deficit reduction produced by the budget control act, we have seen some bending of the spending curve under the budget control act. those caps have been lifted as a result of the budget negotiations between senator murray and congressman ryan. america is still dangerously vulnerable to a fiscal shock. we experienced one of those back in 2008, and we are still vulnerable to a fiscal shock. if things change in terms of growth, inflation and interest rates. any one of those could have a dramatic impact, making things much, much more difficult; much,

much worse. well, to quote the congressional budget office once again, "over the next decade debt held by the public will be significantly greater relative to the gross domestic product, or the economy, than at any time since just after world war ii. coming out of a world war, you can understand why the debt was high. but debt held by the public will be significantly greater relative to the economy than at any time since that time. and we haven't had a comparable world war that would justify this huge run-up in debt. they went ton say that with debt so large, federal spending on interest payments alone will increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. i mentioned that. going on, they say moreover, because federal borrowing generally reduces national savings, the capital stock and

wages will be smaller than if the debt was lower. that's what they call the crowding out effect. if the federal government is borrowing all this money it makes it harder for the private sector to do the borrowing they need and there is a crowding out effect and a depressing effect on economic growth. so america's massive debt is already hurting our economy. it's exacerbating the already difficult situation that people are experiencing when they're looking for work and they can't find work. and the problem will get worse, not better, as time goes by, because one of seen the difference that inflation, that growth and that interest rates can have, which can allow this to spiral out of control. and that doesn't even address the other concerns that many of us have about the unsustainability of medicare and social security. these are sacred promises we

made to our seniors, that it would be there for them if they were put -- once they reach a qualifying age. and they won't be on the current track. these young people, i doubt any of them believe that social security or medicare will be there for them. and we have a way to deal with that today if we'll simply take advantage of that opportunity. i'd like to note that every single member of the republican caucus has cosponsored a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i hear it from members of my own party that say you guys weren't all that great when you were in charge. you guys spent money we didn't have. that's true. we were pikers by comparison because back in 1997, the debt was $5.3 trillion. $5.3 trillion in 1997. that was the last time we had a vote in the senate on a balanced budget amendment to the

constitution, and we came within one vote of passing a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. but today the debt is $17 trillion-plus; $17.2 trillion. and the president says our debt is on a sustainable path. it is not true. it is whistling past the graveyard and it is endangering our prosperity and our opportunity not only just for the younger generation but for people today who want to find work and want to provide for their families and pursue their version of the american dream. we can't define laws of fiscal gravity forever and we can't expect to keep piling up debt without damaging our economy. i expect next week senator sanders from vermont will bring a bill to the floor ostensibly to help our veterans, something we all support, but which is unpaid for and would add roughly

$25 billion, at least $25 billion to the national debt. we can't keep doing this day after day after day without enormous risk. mr. president, i see my colleague from new hampshire on the floor, so i'll close with this thought. here's the sad facts since president obama took office on january -- in january 2009, admittedly coming off a fiscal crisis at a very bad place for our economy. but this is his record over the last five years. the number of long-term unemployed has increased by close to 1.2 million people. increased. and the labor force participation rate that i mentioned a moment ago has fallen by 2.9%. 2.9% fewer americans actually looking for work today than were in january of 2009. here's another sad statistic.

since january 2009, the average amount of time the unemployed have been without a job has nearly doubled. people have doubled the time they have been out of work, looking for work since january 2009. rise tpr-g 19.-- rising from 19.8 weeks to 37 weeks. the number of people on food stamps has increased by 48.3%, reaching 47.4 million people in october. in 2008, the total cost of the food stamp program, something we all support as a safety net program for the most vulnerable, we spent $37 billion in 2008. and now it's more than doubled to almost $80 billion. this is under president obama's five years in office. and the number of people

receiving social security disability has increased from 7.4 million people to 8.9 million. meanwhile, the total number of social security disability beneficiaries, including spouses and children of disabled workers receiving benefits, has increased from 9.3 million to roughly 11 million. this is not the way it's supposed to be. i know that everyone who is out of a job wants a job, and the dignity and the self-respect that comes with it. and certainly we need to protect people who have fallen, who are at risk of falling through the safety net. but more than anything, we need to give them the opportunity to get back to work and to provide for their family, put food on the table. and we can't be content with the status quo. with huge amounts of money being

spent on disability, huge amounts of money being spent on food stamps and huge amounts of money being paid to people who can't even find a job. we've got to get our economy growing again so that these folks can lift themselves up and get back in the workforce and provide for their families and to pursue their dreams. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. so i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i came to the floor, mr. president, because later today the senate will vote on a short-term extension of emergency unemployment benefits. for thousands of citizens in new hampshire, hundreds of thousands

, really over a million throughout the country who are being hurt right now by our failure to act to extend unemployment benefits. i've heard from a number of new hampshire constituents since the unemployment insurance extension expired back in december, and they make the case much more eloquently than i can about why we really need to extend these unemployment benefits. i want to just read some excerpts from some of those letters. one of my constituents is 62-year-old from windham, new hampshire, explained that despite her best efforts, she will be one of the many long-term unemployment without any unemployment benefits if she doesn't find a job by march. she began working at age eight, delivering papers with her brother, put herself through college, earned a master's degree with the help of her

employer. and she wrote -- quote -- "i'm not too proud to do any honest job. i'm losing my house and can't afford to pay my mortgage any longer. there are so many of us out there." another woman from windham wrote to me -- she's 55 years old. she's held a job since she was 16. and last august she was laid off in a merger. she's been actively seeking a job in her field, which is health care. she explained that her unemployment check has helped her pay for her essential living expenses. she and her sister take care of their 90-year-old parents in their home, and this income is critical not just to her livelihood, but to the care of her parents. and then we've heard from a 58-year-old woman from merrimac who wrote she lost her job ph may of -- may of 2013 and had

nine interviews but no offers. without unemployment assistance she won't be able to afford her car payment, her mortgage, food or utilities. a constituent from the north country wrote to me explaining that after 29 years as a teacher, that teaching job has been eliminated. she's been on unemployment since june. she's applied for nearly 100 jobs. think about just getting up every day trying to figure out where you can apply to just have a shot at getting back to work. her savings are exhausted. she's on the verge of losing her house since her unemployment benefits, her only source of income, have expired. and she wrote -- i quote -- "this seems unfair to me, having worked hard and been a taxpayer into the system all my working life. i fail to see how not extending benefits will be beneficial to me and the 1.3 million other

americans, especially in light of an already fragile economy. please do your best to remember those of us who never plan to have to depend on unemployment for this long but who have fallen victims to these times." and then i did a teletown hall conference on monday night, heard from thousands of people across new hampshire. one of the people i heard from was a woman named kathy from danbury. she told me that she had worked since she was 14, and she's now out of a job. her unemployment benefits have expired, and she doesn't know what she's going to do. you know, we need to think about kathy and all of the people who we're hearing from in our offices. we're supposed to represent the

people who need help across this country. my constituents are exactly right, we are threatening the fragile economic recovery by failing to extend unemployment insurance. the economic policy institute statements that the expireation of unemployment insurance will cost the economy an additional 300,000 jobs. the congressional budget office estimates each dollar we spend on extending unemployment insurance generates about $1.50 in economic growth. we learned this week that failing to act has already drained more than $2.2 billion from the economy, including $1.8 million from new hampshire. not to mention all of the people whose personal stories are tragic because they want to work, they're out of a job through no fault of their own, and we need to provide them some

assistance while they try and get back on their feet so they don't lose their home, so they don't lose their car, so they can put food on the table. i urge my colleagues to come together today. it is time for us to act to support an extension of unemployment insurance. i certainly hope we are going to do that. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. -- maine, excuse me. sorry about that. forgive a jersey guy. ms. collins: close. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senator from pennsylvania and i be permitted to engage in a colloquy as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the ongoing debate on unemployment compensation shines a spotlight on the underlying problem and that is extremely sluggish job growth in our still lagging economy. putting people to work is my number-one priority.

as american families continue to struggle to get the jobs they need at the wages they deserve, it is more important than ever for members on both sides of the aisle to come together on legislation to promote economic growth and job creation, and that is exactly what the senator from pennsylvania, senator casey, and i have done. we come to the floor today to discuss our bill to do exactly that, to create jobs, to promote our small businesses. the name of our bill is "the small business tax certainty and growth act," which we introduced last year. our bipartisan legislation focuses on areas of consensus that both parties can embrace to

rekindle opportunity by helping small employers start up or grow and creator add good-payin -- and create or add good-paying jobs. mr. president, it is often that said small businesses on our nation's job creators and the data bear that out. according to the bureau of labor statistics, small businesses generate 65% of the net new jobs that were created between 1993 and 2009. together, america's small businesses employ nearly half of our nation's workers and generate half of our nation's g.d.p. even the smallest employers have a huge impact on our economy. 18% of all private-sector

employees work for businesses with fewer than 20 workers. senator casey and i recognize that employers can't grow, they can't add jobs unless they have the money to invest in building and expanding their businesses, and that's why our bill focuses on making it easier for them to plan their capital investments and aims to reduce the burden and uncertainty of taxation all in the name of creating jobs. let me explain a few of the provisions of our bill. first, let me start by stating the obvious. starting up a new business that can hire workers costs money. our bill eases the tax burden on new employers by permanently doubling the deduction for start-up companies from $5,000

to $10,000. there are two other provisions in our bill that affect employers both large and small that we propose to extend. first, the so-called bonus depreciation and, second, the 15-year depreciation for improvements to restaurants and retail facilities. unfortunately, these important provisions were allowed to expire at the end of last year, causing great uncertainty and, thus, discouraging investment and the creation of jobs. just think about this, mr. president. the law has reverted to a provision that says that a restaurant has to depreciate its renovations over 39 years. can you imagine a restaurant waiting to renovate only once every 39 years because it's

going to take that time to write off, to depreciate, the costs? the 15-year depreciation schedule for improvements is far more realistic. our bill also provides certainty for small employers that use section 179 of the tax code. that's the small business expensing provision. recent studies by the national federation of independent businesses, nfib, which has endorsed our bill, show that the constant changes in the tax code are among the top concerns of small business owners. indeed, i think the senator from pennsylvania and i have both found in talking to smaller employers in our state that they are yearning tor for some certay in tax policy. they simply can't deal with a tax code where one year the

deduction is at one level and the very next year, it's uncertain whether congress is going to renew the provision or let it continue to be expired. the level of expensing has been unpredictable from year to year and has changed four times in the past seven years. this uncertainty makes it difficult or even impossible for small employers to take full advantage of this tax incentive in their long-term investment planning. our bill would fix this problem by making the maximum expensing allowable permanent at $250,000 and index it for inflation. we also expand the ability of small employers to use simplified methods of accounting. mr. president, let me give you a

real-life example of what the small business expensing and the bonus depreciation provisions can mean. last year i spoke with rob todd, the founder of alagash brewing company, which is based in border securitinportland, maine. alagash makes some of the best craft beers in the country. and i have a feeling pennsylvania has a few of those beers in that area as well. rob's operation started out as a one-man show in 1985. in the 18 years since, it has grown into a firm that employs approximately 65 people and distributes craft beer throughout the united states. rob noted to me that his company's ability to expand was fueled in part by bonus depreciation and the section 179

expensing. new to the craft beer business, rob had difficulty obtaining financing on favorable terms, but these cost recovery provisions allowed him to pay less in taxes in the years he acquired the equipment needed to expand his business. those tax savings were then reinvested in his business, thus creating jobs. so just think about that. what a difference these provisions have made to this company, which has gone from a one-man operation to employing 65 people. this economic benefit is multiplied when you consider the effect of allagash's investment on equipment manufacturers, the transportation companies needed to haul new equipment to his brewery, the increased invento

inventory, and the suppliers of the materials needed to brew additional beer. mr. president, we're all too familiar with the litany of polls showing how little faith the american people have in their elected leaders and how much they want us to work together to solve our nation's problems. i've been privileged to work with senator casey to do exactly that. the legislation that we have introduced is neither a republican nor a democratic proposal. it is instead a bipartisan plan to help spur america's economy to assist our small employers and, most of all, to create good-paying jobs. i urge my