>> so we were actually have some conversations before this. of the so part of what we've been doing and this has been work that has been funded under the national institute of drug abuse, is actually looking at what are those inpayment levels for drug driving, particularly for marijuana use. we have a lot of scientifically based impairment standard for alcohol. we're doing, national institute of drug abuse has been doing research in terms of what are those threshold levels particularly around marijuana levels that are the threshold for impairment. so, you know, we hope to have some information available through the national institute of drug abuse to provide guidance to states in terms of what should be the threshold level around impairment for drug driving. >> [inaudible] thank you for your time this morning. i know you have a very busy schedule that you have to get to now. i think we've made, we delayed you a little bit. my apologies. please join me, members and guest, thank you the director. >> thank you very much. great, thank you.

[applause] >> live now to the floor of the u.s. senate, lawmakers gaveling in for the day for an hour of general speeches and then more debate on extending long-term unemployment benefits this is live coverage of the senate. [ help them to draw near to you with true hearts and the full assurance. that their times are in your hands, thank you for the liberties you have given america. help us to remember that eternal vigilance is the price for freedom. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the

pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 250. the president pro tempore: respect -- mr. reid:. the clerk: a bill to provide for increase in the federal minimum wage and so forth. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first half, republicans the final half. following morning business the senate will resume consideration of the legislate vehicle for the unemployment insurance extension legislation. the senate will recess today as we do every he tuesday, from 12:30 to 2:15, for our caucus

meetings. mr. president, as i went about my business here in the senate yesterday, i was informed the koch brothers are at it again. we know they're at it, but now they're at it in nevada, among other places. one of their puppet organizations is, i'm told, going to run commercials against me in nevada. that's quite interesting, mr. president. as i understand it, they have focused on places where there is an election. they may not know that, but i'm not running for anything this -- i have to wait a few years, until my six-year term is up. what is the issue that they raise in those ads that they say they're going to run in nevada? by my criticizing the koch brothers, i've attacked their

freedom of speech. the gall of these two brothers is staggering, mr. president. keep in mind they are the fifth-richest people not in whatever state they live in -- they have lots of different homes in america. they are the fifth-richest people in the world. in the world. these two mogul multibillionaires are so eager to force their will on the american people that they'll do it even in the face of their own hypocrisy, which we have already established some time ago. so, mr. president, i am beginning to think that april fool's day arrived a day early. you see, mr. president, it's a fool's errand for the koch brothers to think they can use their money to frighten me or to brain wash nevadans or the rest of the country. they are spending lots of money to try to do that. the people of this nation trace

their freedom of speech back to the constitution, not a bank account that has lots and lots of zeros at the end. the koch brothers are trying to use their immense wealth to buy their way around the laws and regulations of this nation to make themselves even richer. everything they do is so selfish, so self-centered in an effort to make them, i guess they want to be the sixth-richest is not good enough, fifth-richest is not good enough. fourth. they want to be the richest because that's what they are into and making as much money as they can. and there is nothing wrong with that except for what they're doing with their money. i know they say we gave money in, i think, new york city to cancer research. mr. president, what they have done to damage the national institutes of health is, it's not possible to measure that.

here's the rules the multibillionaire koch brothers want to play by. they should be allowed to say false and misleading things the affordable care act, but we're not allowed to criticize them for it. now, mr. president, yesterday i am told -- just listening from the news. i haven't heard anything from the white house directly. i am told that yesterday in one day more people signed up for obamacare than the previous three months. people are anxious to have health insurance. they are anxious to have health insurance. and i've been very satisfied with me and members of my caucus and people around the country standing up to these moguls and their false, misleading fearmongering ways. so it should be no surprise that

these multimillionaire, billionaire, really, really, really rich -- fifth-richest people in the world -- have decide what had we'll do is we'll try to frighten the raid. mr. president, there have been times in my life i've been a little afraid, but i'm not afraid of them. they can run -- i understand they spent $30,000. let them spend $300,000 in nevada. i don't care. and i really don't. these oil barons have commissioned a group of people, one of their many organizations. as i've said here on the floor, mr. president, mostly ads we see, we think come from americans for prosperity. that's their name. but they funnel money through many, many organizations. the chamber of commerce.

what does the chamber do with those ads? run ads against democratic senators. because the chamber of commerce is a republican-oriented organization. and it's good to get money from the koch brothers because they can hide them under the chamber of commerce. now, this organization now that they are floating around, that they're going to run these ads, i'm told, against me is called american encore. it was previously called -- quote -- "the center to protect patients rights." i guess that didn't work so well, with well more than ten million people have now signed up for obamacare. people who didn't have the opportunity before. i guess they decided ads against me is more important than protecting patients' rights so they have come up with another catchy name. americans -- american encore.

no matter what they call their organization or their myriad of organizations, they all have one stated purpose, to make these oil barons even richer. and if you need further proof -- and i'm not sure anyone does -- take a look at the legislation that has influenced how they made their money. in recent years a tea party-driven house of representatives never miss add chance to funnel more tax cuts to the wealthy by raising taxes on the middle class. mr. president, the vast majority of wealthy people in america today are willing to do more. i've spoken to my friend, the presiding officer; there are a lot of rich people in the state of new jersey. and even though the presiding officer has worked with those people who are badly in need of help, people in new jersey have walked up to the presiding officer and said, i'm willing to pay more. the same in nevada,

mr. president. but every time we try to do something here to get a few more resources to build roads, bridges, highways, dams, water systems, sewer systems, the republicans here in congress say no. the republicans in congress do not represent mainstream republicans in america today. they don't even represent mainstream rich republicans around the country. they're driven, they're afraid of the tea party. now we have a budget proposal coming out today from the house of representatives. the person who ran for vice president last go-round on the republican ticket is the chairman of the budget committee. and he's coming out with a budget. it's a blueprint for a modern koch -- how would we say this? koch topia. yes, that's it.

k-o-c-h-t-o-p-i-a. call it whatever you want. we might as well call it the koch budget because that's what they're doing, protecting the koch brothers. these proposals are called, and i'm fascinated by this, mr. president, the path to prosperity. well, it is a path to prosperity for some people, the really rich. because that budget would end medicare as we know it. it's like the last budget that the chairman of the budget committee in the house came out with. it would slash education funding while expanding tax loopholes for the megarich. so whose prosperity was being plotted in these schemes? today as we get closer to the new ryan budget, we'll have to see how much of the koch brothers' agenda is reflected in this new budget and we'll have plenty of time to talk about that.

you don't have to be a fortune teller to know the similarities are extensive. to any and all groups who wish to attack me on behalf of multibillionaires, fire away, mr. president. i am very happy -- i'm proud to be the target of those attacks. i will gladly endure them in order to call attention to the unscrupulous acts of these two barons. i don't expect americans to go along with their attempt to rig our democracy and hand it toefr a couple -- it over to a couple power-hungry tycoons, i guess in kansas. i know they have homes in new york. the country will be watching but not fooled by the koch brothers' attempt to purchase influence. for whom? for the koch brothers.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: washington democrats have controlled the white house and the senate for years now. they've tried just about every tool in the liberal toolbox to turn the economy around, and yet according to the latest gallup tracking poll, just 19% of americans think the economy is doing well. millions, millions are out of work, and close to 60% of americans say things are getting even worse. so by basically any objective standard you'd have to say that the washington democratic approach just hasn't worked. you'd have to say it's time for a change to do something that can work. and that's just what republicans are proposing again this week.

while senate democrats dust off the same old poll-tested ideas for papering over the symptoms of may -- malaise, republicans are proposing ideas to give people real hope for something more, something better than what we've been getting for the last five years, something that speaks to their hopes and their potential. in other words, the other side is doubling down on the status quo while republicans are offering change. specifically, we'll be proposing numerous job-related amendments that have one unifying purpose, and that's to break through the stagnation of the obama economy and kick domestic job creation into high gear. our approach is simple. let's give free enterprise and private initiative a chance. let's use the tools that we know can lead to the creation of stable, well-paying 21st

century jobs our constituents want and deserve. too often to seems our friends on the other side are single mindedly focused on treating the symptoms of a down economy rather than actually providing struggling americans with positive, meaningful paths to a better life. they just can't seem to get their minds around any legislative proposal that puts ordinary americans and private initiative in the driver's seat instead of the government. to me, that largely sums up the difference between the parties. but it goes even further than that. because washington democrats aren't just reluctant to embrace any idea that doesn't emanate from washington. they don't even want to hear about them. but if we're going to get this country back on track, that needs to change. and that's what republicans are arguing for this week. what we're saying is if all you want is subsistence-level relief, then that's what the party of government is going to give you. but if your goal is to truly

help those who aspire to join the middle class, if you want to help people phabgz phaoeuz their potential -- maximize their potential and build a better life, then it's time to start looking beyond washington. deep down i think our democratic friends understand this too. i think they understand that pushing big-government legislation with words like jobs or affordable in the title isn't the same as actually creating jobs or actually making things more affordable. it's like handing somebody a men u instead of serving them a meal. the tragic effects of this approach are clear. from an affordable care act that turned out to be anything but to a stimulus bill that seemed better at stimulating late night pinch -- punch lines than stimulating jobs. if you need proof take a look at the poll-tested campaign-crafted agenda they rolled out this

week, an agenda packed to the brim of base-pleasing showboats and few, if any, real solutions for the middle class. the nonpartisan congressional budget office tells us that one of their proposals could cost up to a million jobs -- cost jobs, not create jobs. this prioritization of party-pleasing show votes over actually helping grow the middle class is a tragedy for our country. the american people really deserve two national parties that are serious, and it's long past time for democrats to start engaging with us in a serious effort to help americans who struggle so much in the obamacare -- in the obama economy. the good news is they'll have their chance this week. republicans are filing amendments on a whole range of job centered policies, that deserve not a vote but bipartisan support.

an amendment would eliminate the 30 hour workweek rule which is hurting americans' take home pay. one of our members from utah is putting forward an appeal to destroy the device tax. a good number of democratic senators have joined us in the path to get rid of this job killer and they deserve the opportunity to help us eliminate it once and for all. the senior senator from north dakota has an amendment that would speed approval of the keystone pipeline. this is a project that would create thousands, thousands of jobs right away, and it's just a no-brainer. senate democrats need to join democrats across the country who have already endorse this had commonsense initiative and help us to pass it. i personally plan to file an amendment that would give congress the ability to stop e.p.a.'s backdoor national energy tax and would also keep unelected bureaucrats from blocking desperately needed jobs in kentucky by sitting on surface minding permits. this administration's anti-kempt

policies have helped bring about -- anti-kentucky policies have helped bring about a depression, that is a depression with a capital d, in many kentucky coal counties. it's about time they started having a little compassion for the coal families who just want to put food on the table. and that's exactly what my amendment aims to do. so these are just a few of the many proposals republican senators will be putting forward this week. they represent the kind of solutions our country needs right now to finally emerge from this awful economy. real solutions that focus on creating well-paying jobs, increasing take-home pay, training a world-class workforce and breaking a seemingly endless cycle of chronic high unemployment. as i've indicated, we tried the washington democrat approach for years now. we know that it just hasn't worked. we also know their new agenda isn't serious, that it's nothing more than an obamacare

distraction strategy. and we know this because democrats actually told us it was created by their campaign committee, that it was designed to appeal to their base. get some points for candor. so if the democratic majority is finally ready to get down to business and create jobs, this is the moment to prove it. this is the moment to drop the he happenedless, endless campaigning. this is the moment to work with us to actually create jobs and help the middle class. and this is the most for legislation that would do just that. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and with the majority controlling the first half of the time. there mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimoui askunanimous consent g

deadline for first-degree amendment to h.r. 3979, which is the legislative vehicle for unemployment insurance extension, be:30 p.m. today april, 1. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak in morning business. i listened carefully to the statement just made by the republican senator leader, senator mcconnell of kentucky, in which he promised concrete ideas, real hope, change, job-related approaches, free enterprise -- giving free enterprise a chance, trying to deal with putting america back to work. and then he gave us three examples. and i might say to the senator that i'm familiar with all three because none of these are new. we have heard them over and over again from the republican side of the aisle. i won't go through each one of them. a couple of them relate to the affordable care act. it is interesting to me the house of representatives has voted i believe 45 times to repeal the affordable care act. the senator from kentucky said, we've got to get back to free

enterprise ideas. let me tell you a free enterprise idea when it came to health care. before the passage of the affordable care act, the free enterprise idea this was -- if you were unfortunate enough in your family to have a sick baby, if your wife was a cancer survivor, if your child had diabetes, the free enterprise answer was, we will raise the cost of health insurance to the point you can't afford it or we won't even offer it. that was the free enterprise idea on health insurance for millions of american families. there was another free enterprise idea out there in health care as well. it said, we're going to sell you health insurance policies that just protect you up to a certain amount of money. and if tomorrow you're in a terrible auto accident, if the day after tomorrow you're diagnosed with cancer and face millions of dollars of radiation, surgery, care before you can get your life back together again, be my guest to pay for it yourself. that's why medical bills were the number-one driver of bankruptcy in america today. that was free enterprise at

work. what we said, let's put some sensible rules of the road in here so that families that buy health insurance have the promise that they'll have peace of mind when they face these life-threatening struggles which families face every day. so we passed the affordable care act and not a single republican, not one, not a single republican would join us in that effort. we rejected the free enterprise approach to health care and said, let's have something that basically respects families, basically respects the needs we all have to have protection when somebody in our house is sick. not a single republican would support us. and they never have since. the bill we passed isn't perfe perfect. changes will have to be made. i've said that from the start, though i support it. but not a single republican have been willing to sit down and work on bipartisan compromises and changes. not one. it's take-it-or-leave-it.

and they want to walk away from it. we're not going back to those old days. i can guarantee you the american people will never return to their idea of health insurance because it was fundamentally unfair, it was too expensive and a lot of americans didn't have a fighting chance to have health insurance in their lives. things have changed. the reports are in and the reports are telling us that dramatic things are occurring. as the affordable care act's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9 1/2 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. some have done through -- done so through the marketplaces created by law. some through private insurance. others through medicaid. that's been expanded, incidentally, medicaid in about half of the state. listen to this. the increased coverage from the affordable care act so far amounts to substantial progress toward one of the law's principal goals -- listen -- it is the most significant expansion of health care

coverage since the creation of medicare and medicaid 49 years ago. the republicans want to return to the good-old days and they want to tell people, being insured isn't better for you. not good enough, i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle. what we have here is an opportunity for families for the first time in their lives to have health insurance coverage. have you ever been at a moment in your life where you have a sick baby and you're in a hospital waiting room and you have no health insurance? i have. it happened when i was in law school. i remember it to this day, sitting there with my wife and baby with a number in my hand waiting to see who would walk through that door and be the doctor for my baby. you'll never forget that as long as you live. that shouldn't happen to anybody. everyone should have the peace of mind of health insurance coverage and that's what this bill does. and if the senators on the other side want to return to the --

quote -- "good-ole days" of no coverage, i can just tell you, america is not going back. we are not going back to the days when families with kids graduating from college had no health insurance while they looked for a job. we protect those families until the kids reach the age of 26. we are not going back to the days when struggling senior citizens can't afford to pay for their prescription drugs because of the so-called doughnut hole. we're not going back to that day. we're going to move forward as a nation. is this bill perfect? of course not. should it be changed for the better? yes. but let's not lose sight of what we have achieved and what we can achieve if we work together. now, when it comes to the creation of jobs, there's something else i want to say. i believe that people who get up and go to work every single day, work hard for a living, not lazy at all should not be living in poverty. that's. basic statement. you want to go to work, work

hard 40 hours a week, you should not be living in poverty in america and that is happening because the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. do the math. it's less than $16,000 a year to live on. who could do it? well, some people try, struggling paycheck to paycheck. yesterday in chicago, illinois, gloria came to the microphone in the federal plaza and told the story of working a minimum-wage job. she has two kids. and lives in a homeless shelter. 40 hours a week on minimum wage living in a homeless shelter. come on. this is a better nation. would i pay 10 cents more for that hamburger so gloria would have enough money to have the dignity of her own place to live with her children? you betty would and i -- you bet i would and i wouldn't think twice about it. we should have more respect for people who work in this country. raising the minimum wage to

$10.10 an hour is our way of showing respect for people who get up and go to work every day. they're on the buses in new jersey in the morning. they're on the train in chicago in the morning. they just dropped the kids off and they hope they're going to be safe because it's a neighbor. there wasn't a lot in the refrigerator when they left the home. they're hoping to pick up something before they get home. and they go to work every day and they know that struggle is going to be repeated over and over and over again. the free enterprise system is the best system in the world but there are moments when we need to step in as an american fami family, set some standards, set some goals. the same thing is true for unemployment compensation. we finally have a bipartisan approach to in the senate. five democrats, five republica republicans. we've worked out a plan. we're going to pass i think -- i've got my fingers crossed -- we're going to pass an extension of unemployment benefits. what do these benefits mean? it means if you are out of work -- some people who worked for 20 hours additio -- 20 year,

rather, lost their job, now they're trying to find another job, we're going to help you keep your family together while you look for that next job. how much are we talking about here? average $300 a week. how long could you get by on $300 a week? it would be tough, wouldn't it, to pay the rent? mortgage? utility bills? food? clothes? shoes for the kids? cell phone. you need that to find a job, don't ya? 300 bucks a week. well, we've got a chance to pass the bipartisan bill on unemployment compensation for a five-month forehea-month

there have been times in my life when neighbors, relatives and people came in to give me a helping hand. for me it was government loans when i went to school. couldn't have done it without it. i think it's paid off. it has in my life and i think it's paid off in america. ultimately the voters have the last word about whether or not speaker boehner's word about unemployment compensation is the right way to do it. there's another bill we're going to take up next week. pay equity. i've been blessed, my wife and i have, daughter, son; both in the marketplace, both talented. so proud of them. there's no reason why a daughter should be paid less than a son for the same work, but it happens every single day. we have got to establish a standard in america of equal

opportunity and mean it. equal opportunity when it comes to daughters and sons, when it comes to women and men in the workplace. it's not too much to ask. the first bill that president obama signed into law as president was the lilly ledbetter act. i remember this worm working in alabama in a tire factory who after she had been there more than ten years realized she was doing the same work as that man standing next to her and was being paid less every single day. she had enough of it, brought a lawsuit against the company. the supreme court turned her away and we had to change the law and the president signed into law the lilly ledbetter act to make sure that women had a fighting chance. now we want to bring it to a new level to make sure that pay equity for those in the workplace is an american dream come true. we can do that. the free enterprise system is good, but listen, let's be honest about it, in some aspects it doesn't really reach the goals that we want in terms of

equal opportunity in this country. i want to make point two when it comes to this whole question of affordable care. i happened to meet a man, ray romanowsky. he was in a health care clinic in chicago. he was a part-time musician most of his life. for the first time in his life he has health insurance. he has a medicaid card. he said i can't tell you how good i feel that i finally got this health insurance. there are some people who don't understand medicaid. medicaid is health insurance for low-income people in america and millions depend on it every single day. recently some republicans made statements discrediting the medicaid program. let me set the record straight. medicaid is successful. it's been a lifeline for millions of people, especially for children. my friends on the other side of the aisle find it easy to discredit the government

program. as senator mcconnell said earlier, we tend to look to government. well, we do when there's no place else to look. in this case these individuals had no chance for health insurance without the government's help. over 54 million people benefit from medicaid, and it's not surprising that interest in this country grows when our economy is struggling. before the affordable care act, two out of three people on medicaid were pregnant women and children. 36 million of our most vulnerable citizens. medicaid also serves the disabled. it's been a lifeline for low-income disabled. before the affordable care act, almost three million people were covered by medicaid in illinois and over 50% of all births were covered by medicaid. since the affordable care act was signed into law, over 210,000 people in illinois have signed up for medicaid. thousands more are eligible in the process of finishing their paperwork. that's a success.

according to 2011 data, 65% of all the office space physicians in illinois would take medicare -- march done me, medicaid patients. this argument that new medicaid patients won't have a place to go for care is wrong. i see senator harkin is on the floor here, from iowa, chairman of our help committee. he was one of the real leaders when it came to the determination of the affordable care act and how many people would be covered. i'm going to yield the floor to him in just one minute, but let me say this. the affordable care act is making a difference. and for people in low-income categories, medicaid means that when they walk into the hospital now facing a medical emergency or need for care, they're not going to walk away leaving bills behind them. their bills will be paid by the medicaid system. that is part of what we're trying to achieve. the personal responsibility that every person, every family, every business will have a responsibility to have health insurance and an opportunity for

an affordable alternative. the free enterprise system is a strong system. the free enterprise system created on fairness and justice when it came to health care, which we are addressing with this affordable care act. i'm going to yield the floor to senator harkin. i thank him for his leadership on this issue. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i just want to thank our majority whip for, again, telling it like it is, what's happening with health care in america today. we've come too far to turn back. we've made tremendous changes in the way people are going to access the health care system in america because of the affordable care act. look, we all admit, were mistakes stphaeud -- made? were there glitches? yes. but we went from a system in which people were excluded from getting health care. you talked about that, various people with preexisting conditions. kids, people who had no access

whatsoever. now they're covered. that is a huge leap in this country. so if we made some mistakes, if there were a few glitches and stuff, we worked those out. our friends on the other side say, no, ditch the whole thing, get rid of everything, turn the clock back. i agree with the senator from illinois, the people of america don't want to turn that clock back. they want to move ahead. they're now getting covered more than ever before with affordable coverage that they've never had before and we're not going to turn the clock back. i thank the senator. mr. president, first, i ask unanimous consent that diana hodges and benjamin roland, interns with the education and pension committee be granted floor privileges for today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i want to take a time this morning to talk about an issue that has been brewing for a long time, is going to be coming to a head here in the senate sometime in the next several days, i hope, and it's one which compels us, compels us to do something. and that is to raise the minimum

wage in the united states of america. mr. president, we have waited too long to do this, and so we have to act on it as soon as possible. so i'd just like to point out some of the data and some of the statistics confronting us right now. first of all, why should anyone be afraid of voting to raise the minimum wage? the american people are way ahead of us on this. you look at the polling data. to increase raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, all voters, 73% -- democrats 90%, independents 71%, and even republicans 53% -- say we ought to be raising the minimum wage. so the vast majority of american people want to do this. here's just, again, a chart from across the country. here's arkansas, here's florida, georgia, my state of iowa, kentucky, mississippi, wisconsin, all 52, 73%, 61, 54%.

the vast majority of americans in these states say yes we need to raise the minimum wage, so it is not just one part of the country. small business owners support raising the minimum wage. 57% say we should raise the minimum wage as opposed to 43%. so small businesses, they get it. voters say that raising the minimum wage will help the economy. this comports with what over 600 economists including several nobel prize economists have said. raising the minimum wage will boost aggregate demand, will raise the g.d.p. in america. the economy benefits. you know what? the american people, they get it. they may not understand all the interkasis of -- intra kasis of economics but they get it. 53% believe it will help the

economy. 22% said they don't know. only 21% say it will hurt. so the vast majority of americans understand in their bones that raising the minimum wage is going to help the economy. why? because they know it will put more spending power in their pockets. and when people in lower-wage jobs get more money, what do they do? they don't go to europe. they don't buy private islands and private jets. they spend it in the local economy, on main street where the small businesses are. so, again, that's -- the american people get it. now why are we -- why should we be concerned about this right now? the minimum wage is not kept up with average wages. in 1968, the minimum wage was 53% of the average wages in america. today it's 36% of the average wages in america. a tremendous decline between those who get the minimum wage

and what the average wages are in america. since 2009, the last time that we had an increase in the minimum wage, let's look what's happened to the things that low-income people have to spend their money on. as i said, they're not renting private jets and they're not going to fancy restaurants to eat. but they do have to spend money on electricity, rent, auto repair, food at home, child care and mass transit. so the minimum wage has gone up zero percent since 2009. zero. electricity, 4.2% increase. rent 7.3%. auto repair 7.6%. food at home 8.8%. child care 11.11%. mass transit 17% increase. so, if you're a minimum wage worker, all your costs have gone up. your income has stayed the same. your income has basically stayed the same. and here's another thing. the american people get, they understand this.

c.e.o.'s get big raises. since 2009, the last time we had the increase in the minimum wage, c.e.o. raises have gone up 23%, 14%, 5%. that's about 40-some percent. minimum wage stayed the same. so those at the top keep getting more and more and more. low-income workers, they get nothing. they just keep falling further and further behind. so how are we doing compared to other countries? we always say we're doing all right. americans are doing all right. what are we doing compared to other countries? here's the national minimum-wage rates in u.s. dollars, in nominal u.s. dollars. right now the united states is third from bottom. there's portugal, spain, united states. look who's ahead of us. austria, japan, canada, the netherlands, new zealand, ireland, belgium, france, luxembourg, australia.

australia is at $16.40 an hour, u.s. dollars. ireland, 11.16. new zealand, $10.96 an hour. we're way behind, way behind other countries in what the minimum wage is. and here's who benefits. here's who benefits. 28 million workers will get a raise if we raise the minimum wage. 28 million workers. 15 million women, 13 million men, 4 million african-american workers. a lot more to say about that. 7 million hispanic workers and 7 million parents will get a raise. again, that's not just minimum-wage workers. a lot of people who make less than $10.10 an hour will get a raise, so it's not just those at $7.25. it's a lot of other people will also get a raise. and that's another thing i've

heard from my republican friends. they say there are a lot of people that are making up to $40,000 a year, families that will make more money. that's true. so this isn't just, raising the minimum wage isn't just for people in poverty. that's true it helps them, gets them out of poverty. but it also helps families who may be, maybe there are two workers in the family and they're both low-income workers. they're making above the minimum wage but they're low income. or let's say you have a family with maybe three kids, one breadwinner makes a decent income of $30,000, the other one makes minimum wage. that family too will get an increase. so here's what happens. about 83%, 83% of families, families in america, will get a raise. that is everyone making less than $60,000 a year. 83% of american families making

less than $60,000 a year will get a raise. that's middle income. that's middle america. and there are a few, 17% the economists tell us that make over $60,000. that's families now. will also get a boost. but the majority are families making less than $60,000 a year. so it's a middle-class bill. raising the minimum wage helps middle-class families. it also does one other important thing. it helps kids. you don't think about this a lot. 14 million kids will benefit from raising the minimum wage. 14 million that are now in low-income families, and they're struggling to get by. and so, i thought it was interesting that the american pediatric association, who you take your babies to to see the

doctor, the american pediatric association says, yes, raising the minimum wage will help our kids. it will help them develop better. they'll have better oral health, better immunization rates. it will decrease rates of obesity, complications. the american pediatric association tests for child poverty suggests raising the minimum wage. they get it. they see kids in poverty and low income. they know what's happening to them. by raising that minimum wage, you'll help kids have a better life and a better start in life. so let me just talk a little bit now about the -- about the basics, about the basics of this bill. first of all, our bill would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour -- where it's been since 2009 -- to $10.10 an hour in three steps. 95 cents, 95 cents, 95 cents over three years. we then index it, index it to rates of inflation in the future

so no longer will people who make the minimum wage fall below the poverty line. keep it above the poverty line. the third thing our bill does is raise the minimum wage for tipped workers. can you believe this? when i tell people this, they say, "no, you must be wrong, harkin." tipped workers in america today, minimum wage, $2.13 an hour. people said that can't be right. it is. it's been at $2.13 an hour since 1991. imagine that. $2.13 an hour. well, what our bill would raise that from $2.13 an hour over about a six-year period of time to about 70% of the minimum wage, which is pretty close to what the historical average was before 1991, that tipped wages would be up there. so it raises it to 70% of the minimum wage over six years and then indexes that also in the future.

so, again, why -- why did we settle on $10.10 an hour. why did we settle on $10.10 an hour? some people say, "why $10.10? why not $9"? well, here's why we raised it. we know where the poft line is. back in 1968, it was 120% of poverty. and if we want to raise the minimum wage and get it just above the poverty line and index it for the future so we wouldn't fall below, what would that be? well, to get it to 107% above the poverty line, just above the poverty line, it would be $10.10. so, again, in 1968, the minimum wage was 120% of poverty line. now it is 81% of the poverty line. our bill would raise it up to 107% of the poverty line.

that's why we picked $10.10, because it gets you above the poverty line and then you index it in the future. now, the historic average -- the historic average on this has been people say, well, isn't that a big increase? well, historically, whenever we've raised the minimum wage, the percent increase has been about 41%. our bill rais raises it 39%. so we wanted to keep it also within the boundaries of what we've done in the past in. the past, about 41%, going clear back to 1939, average about 41%. you might notice that in the 1990's, there was a 27% and a 21%. that's because for some odd reason, we raised it twice in the 1990's. so we looked at the decades. we -- historically we've raised

the minimum wage about once every decade. if you look at it in the decades decades, we're, again, right about average. 150%, 60%, 81%. in the 1980's, it was 16%. then in the 1990's we had two steps. in 2007 when we passed it, we raised it 41%. by the way, that was signed into law by a republican president, not a democratic president. and so ours raises it by 39%. so we wanted to get it above the poverty line, index it there but keep it within the boundaries sort of what we've done in the past and that's what this bill does. so it's critical, critical to get it above the poverty line. the minimum wage has lost 32% of its purchasing power. so in 1968, if we had kept the minimum wage at the same relative status from 1968 to

now, the minimum wage would be $10.71 an hour. it's now $7.25. so in those years, 32% of its purchasing power has been lost by minimum-wage workers. so, again, i wanted to cover a little bit on the tipped wages because that's another important part of our bill. people say, well, tipped wages. you know, people make tips and all that and we keep hearing from some entities that if we raised the tipped wage, it's going to hurt the economy and it's -- and it's going to hurt the restaurant business. well, that's just not so. just not so. look at the poverty rates. these are just -- if you look at this, this is restaurant servers right here. if you take a state that has a $2.13 minimum wage, which is the federal minimum wage for tipped workers, the poverty rate among

restaurant workers is 19.4%. some states have already said that they're going to have their tipped wages the same as the minimum wage. they've done that. where you have a full state minimum wage for tipped workers the same as everybody else, the poverty rate just among restaurant workers falls to 13.6%. if you look at all tipped workers -- and every -- a lot of people think tipped workers, you're only talking about people that wait on tables. that's not so. 40% -- 40% of all tipped workers are not -- are not -- restaurant workers. right now we're talking about pizza delivery people, parking lot attendants, people who work in hair salons, your manicurists. that's about 40% of tipped workers. the presiding officer: your time has expired, senator. mr. harkin: i ask consent for

another five minutes o minutes. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. harkin: i thank the senator for allowing me to go on for a few more minutes. if you looked at all tipped workers in a state with $2.13 minimum wage, poverty level is 19.4%. where a state that has the tame fosamefor tipped or non nontipps 16.1%. we've also heard that jobs will be lost if we increase the minimum wage of the well, again, we've looke.well, again, we've e digging here. in states that have a $2.13 minimum wage, tipped wage, same as the federal, the job growth among restaurant workers has been 2%. in a state which has a minimum wage for tipped workers the same

as everybody else, the job growth has been twice as much, 4%. this is among restaurant workers, just among restaurant workers. look over here at the sales. per capita, now, these are just restaurant workers. in those states with a $2.13 minimum wage, $1.42 per capita. in states with a full minimum wage, it's $1.68 per capita. that's why economists are saying raising the minimum wage and raising the tipped wage, minimum wage, is good for the economy. it increases aggregate demand. you might say, why would this job growth be more? why would the sales be more in a state with a higher minimum wage for restaurant workers? easy. if the restaurant workers are making enough money to go out and eat themselves or to do other things, they increase the wages for all of the other restaurant workers in the state. and that's true. how many times have i heard from people who wait on tables or restaurant workers who say, i

wish i could make some more money. i'd like to go out and eat myself sometime. but they don't make enough money to do that. but in the states where they have a full state minimum wage, both the job growth and the sales per capita are much, much greater. lastly, and here's it's just -- this is what's unconscionable. this is unconscionable. this is a restaurant worker in the district of columbia and she got a paycheck. and her paycheck is for zero dollars and zero cents. have you ever seen a paycheck for zero dollars? why is that? because she's a tipped worker making $2.13 and after they took out her fica taxes and sales -- and -- and other taxes and things like that, she got zero dollars. so, therefore, she had to rely upon only her tips. but what are her tips? here's what a lot of people don't understand.

how do you classify a tipped worker? how do you classify a tipped worker? if you make more than $30 a month in tips, you can be classified as a tipped worker. think about that. if you make more than $30 a month. so if you work five days a week for a month, that's $150 a day. if you -- that's $1.50 a day. if you make more than $1.50 a day in tips, you can be classified as a tipped worker and be paid $2.13 an hour. [laughter] i mean, what's -- you look at that and you say, that can't be right. but it is right. that is exactly what's happening. people -- tipped workers are getting -- they're getting at the bottom of the barrel. and yet we rely upon them for so many things. people pushing wheelchairs in the airport.

val lavalet attendants, parking attendants. a lot of people are classified as a tipped worker if they make more than $30 a month in tips. $1.50 a day. think about that. $1.50 a day. they get that, they get classified as a tipped worker, and they can be paid $2.13 an hour. so again, mr. president, the time has come. the people of america understand this. working families understand it. this is a civil rights bill. it's a women's issue bill. and i say it's a civil rights bill because if you look at the people who are going to get benefits, 13 million people, 28% of african-american workers, 32 percent o%of asian and other workers. 50% of people making the minimum

wage are with elm. it'women. kids. people who aren't getting adequate nutrition and child care are the kids of people making the minimum wage or tipped wages, even less. so it's a -- it's a civil rights bill, it's a women's issue, it's a kids issue and it's an economic issue for america. it's time to give america a raise and raise the minimum wage. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about jobs. once again this week the senate is taking up an extension of unemployment benefits, which will be the 13th such extension since 2008. and arguably, of course, we came out of an economic downturn, a lot of people hurt by that, a lot of people in need of help and assistance and yet here we are, what, six years later now

and we're still talking about extending unemployment benefits. why? because we haven't created the number of jobs that are necessary to get the people who've been unemployed for a long period of time back to work. and once again we've got senate democrats ignoring the real issue, which is the lack of jobs that has left so many americans struggling to find work. the solution to years of high unemployment is not perpetual extensions of unemployment benefits but the creation of new jobs. steady, good-paying jobs with opportunity for advancement. workers don't want to spend years on meager government benefits. they want to return to work. but in order for that to happen, there have to be jobs available and there haven't been too many jobs over the past five years. and that's why republicans have proposed a number of amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation that would remove obstacles to job creation and encourage businesses to expand and hire new workers. unfortunately, mr. president,

democrats have shown little interest in job creation over the past five years and so they're happy to extend unemployment benefits 13 times in six years but they're not unwilling to actually do anything to treat the causes of unemployment and to help hurting workers get the jobs that they're looking for. in fact, mr. president, democrats' record on job creation's been pretty dismal. there's been the stimulus bill which completely failed to bring about the economic growth that the president promised. there are thousands of new regulations the administration has placed on businesses which stifle job creation. the national -- the backdoor national energy tax, which the e.p.a. is trying to put on power companies in this country, is going to be passed on. people across this country who can least afford it are going to be looking at much higher utility bills. when he the keystone pipeline, which has generated open hostility from members of the other side, and, of course, we know that has immediate job creation potential. that's something that would, according to the president's own

state department, create 42,000 jobs, shovel-ready jobs, could have them available as soon as we get the thing approved. and of course there's the obamacare legislation which passed several years ago which continues to wreak havoc or job creation in this country. now, chief among the burdens obamacare places on businesses is the employer mandate. which requires all businesses with 50 or more full-time workers, which the administration defines as 30 hours or more a week to provide government-approved health insurance or, or to pay a fine. now that's financially impossible for thousands of nonprofits and businesses with small profit margins like restaurants. as a result, many of these businesses are being forced to cut workers' hours below 30 hours a week. and when they hire new workers they're hiring part-time, not

full-time employees. the employer mandate is also discouraging a lot of small businesses from hiring at all, businesses who plan to expand are now deciding if they will be safer financially if they keep their businesses below 50 employees. as a result, many new jobs are simply not being created. then there's the costly tax on lifesaving medical devices like medical pumps. this obamacare tax which is so economically damaging that it's opposed by many democrats as well as republicans has already affected more than 300,000 jobs in the medical device industry. if the tax isn't repealed soon, many more jobs in the industry will be lost entirely or sent overseas. ultimately the congressional budget office estimates that obamacare will result in up to 2.5 million fewer full-time workers. on top of that, the budget committee estimates that the law will reduce wages by more than

$1 trillion p. mr. president, right now more than 10 million americans are unemployed, nearly four million of them have been unemployed for more than six months. and per pet extending unemployment benefits doesn't fix that problem. we need to start creating jobs. i have an amendment to the legislation before us, mr. president, it's called the solutions to long-term unemployment act. it includes four commonsense measures that would support the unemployed and make it easier and cheaper for employees -- sorry, for employers to hire new workers. for starters, my amendment would provide direct support to unemployed workers by offering a onetime low-interest loan of up to $10,000 to allow an individual who has been out of work for six months or longer to relocate to a city or state that has a lower unemployment rate. unemployment rates vary substantially across the united states. my home state of south dakota, for example, has an unemployment

rate of 3.6%, which is far below the national average. and we have a hard time in my state of south dakota, believe it or not, actually finding workers to fill the jobs. i talk to employers all the time in my state who are trying to find people to fill the jobs that are available in south dakota. and so moving to a state with a low unemployment rate can substantially increase workers' chances of getting a job. unfortunately most long-term unemployed americans lack the means to pack up and move to a new city or state. my amendment would help ensure that lack of resources does not prevent americans from heading out to where the jobs are. mr. president, my amendment also would support workers by cleaning up the mess that is federal worker training programs. currently there are more than 50, 50 worker training programs spread across nine different federal bureaucracies. needless to say, that leads to a

lot of duplication. worse, a majority of these programs have never been evaluated to see if they actually work or not. my amendment would consolidate 35 of these programs into one streamlined program and move control to the states. with every state facing different unemployment challenges trying to administer a one-size-fits-all program from washington makes absolutely no sense, putting states in control would allow each state to tailor its workforce training programs to the needs of its own citizens. my amendment would also provide two incentives to encourage businesss to hire the long-term unemployed. first, my amendment would permanently exempt long-term unemployed work tprers -- from obamacare's requirement that 50 50 -- workers would hire more or

pay a fine. they are afraid of the financial hit they would take if they end up subject to obamacare's mandate. my amendment would allow businesses to hire those new workers without that fear. mr. president, this idea recently gained broad bipartisan support in the house of representatives. the house has acted on a similar measure to exempt veterans from the obamacare employer head count. that measure passed the house of representatives by a vote of 406-1. that is a strong indication that we need to provide relief from obamacare's costly mandates to ensure those who need and want to work are able to find good jobs. i'm confident that if the majority leader would allow this provision to get a vote on the senate floor, we'd see a similar outcome that would benefit long-term unemployed individuals. finally, mr. president, my amendment would provide another hiring incentive by granting a six-month payroll tax holiday for each long-term unemployed worker that a business hires.

for an employer hiring a worker that's making $40,000, that six-month payroll holiday means a savings of $1,240. mr. president, if it's the senate's will to extend these benefits, republicans want to ensure that this extension is paired with the kind of help that will actually ensure that we don't have to extend unemployment benefits a 14th or a 15th time. that's why we are here offering measures to address the root cause of unemployment, the lack of jobs. it is vital that we stop putting band-aids over the problem and start focusing on solutions. democrats may not have made job creation a priority for the last five years, but they can start making it a priority today. and they can do that, mr. president, by the majority leader allowing votes on republican proposals to make it easier and less expensive to create jobs. and we just heard, we keep

hearing proposals that are being brought to the floor by democrats that will drive up the cost of doing business in this country, make it harder, create more obstacles to hiring people, to creating jobs than a proposed 40% increase in the minimum wage, for example, that visited with employers in my state of south dakota, small employers. i had a meeting with employers who, the size of their businesses ranged from 30 employees up to about 200 employees, all of whom concluded that an increase of that magnitude minimum wage would make it much, much harder for them to grow their businesses and to create jobs. the congressional budget office estimated that it would cost our economy up to a million jobs, raising the minimum wage. why? because it makes it more expensive, more difficult for employers to create those jobs and to hire new workers. and as a consequence, there are fewer jobs that get created in our economy. if the goal, mr. president, is

to lift people into the middle class, to get more people to work in this country, i don't know why we would look at policies that have proven in the past to make it more difficult to create jobs and cost us jobs in our economy. and we have the congressional budget office saying that it would cost us up to a million jobs and also raise costs for people in this country. in other words, the things that people have to buy, it would raise prices. i should say raise prices in this country for the things people have to rely on in their daily lives. and those are the types of things that we continue to hear from the other side, proposals, mr. president, that, frankly, sound good and maybe poll well. but when you really get down to brass tacks, don't get the job done and clearly the job is creating jobs, something we haven't done here for five years because we consistently get policies coming out of our democrat colleagues and out of the president that drive up the

cost of doing business in this country, drive up the cost of hiring new kpwhraoerbgs put -- employees, put more obstacles in the way of job creation. instead of creating good-paying jobs and give people in this country opportunity for advancement that will help lift them into the middle class. mr. president, we can do it. it is high time that we did it. and i hope again that the majority leader will allow votes this week on republican proposals, and there are many of them here that actually will make it easier and less is expensive to create jobs in this country. it is long time we start providing real help to the unemployed in this country. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i'd like to discuss the legislation currently under consideration here, but i want to begin by briefly discussing how we arrived at this point. in january i was one of a few on

our side of the aisle to vote to begin debate on the unemployment insurance extension bill. i said at the time, and i still believe today that the senate should have a full and open debate on this important issue as well as a number of others, a debate that includes consideration of modifications and changes to the program. the president, after all, in announcing his position on extending unemployment benefits, said that the program needs reforms. and this is an opportunity to implement those reforms. members on both sides of the aisle, both republicans and democrats, have acknowledged the need for reforms. and so my vote to consider this legislation early on when it came up was not about supporting or opposing extending the emergency unemployment insurance program, but it was about initiating a debate on this important topic and setting the

stage for both sides to work together. find a credible way of paying for this extension if it was granted, or -- and, excuse me, and responsible reforms in terms of amending or changing the current law so that we can avoid some of the duplication and some of the misuse of the funds that go into this particular program. so those two things -- responsible pay-for and measures to reform the program -- were critical. and i felt that's the debate we needed, and in fact we did have that discussion in a bipartisan way back and forth with a caucus here on our side of the aisle and a caucus on the other side. now, it's clear that we've gotten to the point where not

all of us are happy with the result that came forward. i see my colleague from nevada, senator heller, on the floor. no one could have been a better leader in terms of pulling the group together, working to find a sensible solution to this. and i commend him for the efforts that he has made. however, my disappointment is, attitude of disappointment in this congress of not having the ability to offer amendments when the bill comes to the floor. but once again, being shut down by the majority leader simply saying i'm going to use senate procedures -- some of them arcane procedures -- to deny opposition any opportunity to bring their ideas, their thoughts, their amendments to the process. throughout the discussion that we've had with our colleagues across the aisle in trying to

form consensus and bring the bill forward, some of us were disappointed that those issues that, items that we offered, we thought were reasonable were not included in the final version. not everything -- you don't always get everything that you want. but nevertheless, at least around here you used to be able to go down to the floor and say i want to give my colleagues a shot at hearing what my amendment tries to accomplish and putting it to a vote. and if you win, you win. you lose, you lose. and in the end you look at the total package as amended, or at least as attempted to be amended, and make a decision. do i want to support this or not support this. and that's the position that we were in. i had two what i thought were reasonable requests. one was prohibiting the simultaneous collection of social security disability

insurance and receiving unemployment insurance. look, the law is basic and it's commonsense. if you are eligible to receive unemployment benefits, you have to assert and have to be determined as someone capable of receiving suitable work that is provided by the state. i had an amendment to incorporate this proposal into the language of the final bill that is going to be before -- the language is identical to the language previously proposed by senate democrats that would offset social security disability benefits by the amount of unemployment insurance received. so as i said, by law a person has to be able to work to qualify for unemployment benefits.

yet, as we've found, some people claiming those benefits also are claiming social security disability benefits. the law provides that in order to claim disability payments, you have to prove that you're not capable of working, that there are medical bases, medical reasons why you can't work. here we have documented by agencies of the government that people are getting checks for both programs. all we were trying to do, all i was trying to do was put forth a provision saying you can't do both. you're either able to work or you're not able to work f. you are able to -- aren't able to work, you qualify for disability payment. but if you are able to work, you need accept the work that is provided but you can't do both. now, while some adjustments have been made, there still are several billions of dollars that it costs the taxpayer for the

duplication of this. and secondly, i offered a provision that gave the states the flexibility to make decisions as to how people would qualify for these benefits. i hear frustration from employers all across indiana that are basically being told by people who are looking for work, i'd rather keep collecting unemployment when -- rather than the job that you are offering to me. and in this time of slow economic growth and coming out of the recession very, very slowly, some people, as has been documented by many, many employers to me across the state of indiana, are basically sayi saying, people would rather collect the benefits. so we put in what was called asuitability provision that people who -- that would

prohibit individuals from receiving emergency unemployment compensation if they accept -- fail to accept any offer of suitable work. and that is defined as work within their capabilities. or if they trophy appl refuse tr work referred to them by the state employment agency. unfortunately, that was not -- that proposal was discussed, debated. people thought it was a pretty good idea. i thought we had bipartisan support. but in the end, it was not incorporated. instead, they said, well, let's study this. it's been studied. it's been documented. we don't need to study -- a study is a way for, let's take this decision out of the process and it will put it down some dark, deep hole and maybe some study will come out later on and then they'll find another reason not to support it. so bottom line is that the two amendments that i had hoped would be part of this final package have been not incorporated. i understand the back and forth.

what i'm asking for, what i have been asking for now, is the opportunity to bring those two proposals forward, debate it on this floor, call for a vote. i'm not going to tbb it. i' -- i'm notgoing to filibustet going to delay it or throw a monkey wrench into the process here. have a time-limited, straightforward debate and members given the opportunity to vote their "yes" or vote their "no." and then at the end, when all this process has been worked through, as the senate was designed to do but under this leadership of senator -- of the current majority leader not been able to do, once again, once again the very function, design of the senate has been thwarted by the leadership, or lack of leadership, by the majority leader who simply said i will use procedural measures to keep you from offering any amendment to this bill. i do appreciate the work that

went on behind the scenes to try to come up with a consensus bill. i think that fell short of where i would like to go. i would at least like to have the opportunity as a senator to offer on the floor an amendment to the bill. and then accept the results, yea or nay. since both of these things that i have mentioned have had bipartisan support, why are we not allowed to vote for it or against it, however you want to vote? and why are we not allowed to have the opportunity that was -- to do what the senate's supposed to do on behalf of the constituents that we all represent? that was the basis for my decision to go forward with th this. a lot of people misunderstood that, but it was simply a decision that i made that we ought to return to some form of regular order here. the reason you come to the senate is to be able to be a

participant in fashioning legislation. and our majority leader, senator reid, has disallowed that opportunity. meaning essentially robbing the soul of the senate, the purpose of the senate, the purpose of senators, turning us into robots, rubber-stamping whatever the majority leader wants us to pass or not pass, telling us that the 200-and-some years of tradition of debate and vote in the senate, the ability to offer an amendment -- you have a disagreement or you think you want to improve the bill -- that it's been denied us. so once again here we are back in this same situation because we have one individual here who's made a decision that the minority doesn't count. that senators, even some in the majority, don't count. they don't get to offer amendments either. and we're going to do it his way and not our way, not the way it's been done for more than 200 years. so with that in mind, not even having the ability to bring forward something that i think

has bipartisan support, is responsible, will address the reforms that the president called for has been once again denied. and with that, i simply cannot support going forward with this even though there are people out there that are legitimately looking for work, making every possible effort, should be able to qualify an unemployment program. but the most basic of reforms that ought to be debated and voted on and we ought to have the courage to put our "yes" or our "no" to it so that people back home know where we stand, that has been denied us yet once again. this is a dysfunctional body led by a dysfunctional leader and it's not operating as the constitution has put forth and is thhas the tradition of the se has required. it's a shame, it's a shame on us that we are not even allowing debate and the opportunity to offer reforms, even when they have bipartisan support.

mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. i want to begin by thanking the two previous speakers for their comments and their dedication to their particular cause. my friend from indiana knows that both of his amendments are something that i would have supported had given the opportunity to actually vote on them. but the important thing is this, mr. president, as we're moving forward. the senate is moving forward with a debate on a bipartisan proposal to responsibly extend the unemployment benefits and i'm encouraged by our progress so far and hope that we can ton work with our colleagues -- we can continue to work with our colleagues to pass this piece of legislation. so in speaking on this bill, i'd be remiss not to thank again my friend from rhode island for his

tireless effort to help unemployed americans by temporarily extending unemployment insurance benefits. i admire his dedication. i'm greatly pleased that we're here today to support a bipartisan effort to help all americans keep american families on their feet in a very, very difficult economic climate. i also want to thank senator collins, portman, murkowski and kirk for their continued willingness to come to the table to craft a bill that would garner enough support to pass here in this senate. i also, as i just mentioned, want to acknowledge the contributions of both senator coats and senator ayotte, who though not cosponsors of this particular version of the bill, they've been essential in these negotiations, as well as senator isakson and senator hoeven, who've also been engaged in this matter in recent months. mr. president, last december federal unemployment insurance benefits were allowed to expire, leaving millions of job-seeking

americans wondering how they would recover -- how they would cover their mortgage, pay their utilities, fill up their car with gas, put food on the table for their families. my constituents who write to me, who call my office and the people i speak with when i'm home in nevada have shared many heartbreaking stories with me. i've heard from individuals all across the spectrum, from every sector, from every industry. and i'd like to share one of those letters from michael in carson city, nevada, who wrote to me several weeks ago. after michael and his friend moved to nevada from california just a few years ago, they needed unemployment insurance benefits to help them bridge the gap between jobs. sometimes they had to visit the local food pantry to keep food on their table, but michael kept looking for a job and eventually he found some work as a substitute teacher. he also found another part-time job working nights and even weekends.

through perseverance, michael ended up finding a full-time job and now he and his wife and their young daughter are enjoying some financial stability that they didn't have just a few years ago. i think michael's story is a great example of how valuable employment insurance -- how valuable unemployment insurance is to american families who've fallen on some hard times. i thank michael for taking the time to share that story with me and i'm very glad that his family is doing well in carson city. i have another letter from john from henderson. john lost his job last april, been looking for work for nearly a year now. unemployment insurance has helped him keep a roof over his head, also helped him keep the power on. john is doing everything he can to make ends meet while he continues to search for a job. but it's getting tougher and tougher to put food on the table and provide for his young family. without any help, john and his family may lose their home. they've worried about where to

go and they're worried about what options that they have left. i have a stack of letters just like these. nevadans sharing their individual experiences with me. these stories are why i'm here today and why i fought so hard to find a way to temporarily extend these benefits in a responsible way. these are real american families trying to make ends meet. they're people who want to get back to work, want to be self-sufficient, want to provide for their families. without unemployment insurance, many of them would have lost their homes, been forced to serve -- to search and seek out additional government services. unemployment insurance helps people before things go from bad to worse and can make and does mean a difference for millions of americans. last week i spoke briefly on the need to extend these benefits and i want to reiterate an important point that i think is often misunderstood. unemployment insurance benefits go to unemployed individuals who

are actively seeking employment. i share the desire of many of my colleagues and constituents to rein in out-of-control federal spending and reduce the dependence on federal aid. but i believe unemployment insurance is a critical safety net for american families, especially during periods of high unemployment like we're currently experiencing. further, additional benefit tiers are only available to states that meet certain unemployment rate thresholds, meaning that the duration of benefits decreases as the state recovers. this ensures that job seekers in the hardest-hit states have access to critical resources when they need it the most. nowhere is this more apparent and important than in my home state of nevada, which has the unfortunate distinction of carrying the nation's highest unemployment rate for nearly five years, nearly 14% unemployment at the highest. nevada's current unemployment rate is at 8.5% and remains

still one of the highest in the country. high above the national average and far from where we need to be as a state. what concerns me even more is the fact that thousands of nevadans have dropped out of the work force entirely, people who lost their jobs, exhausted both their state and federal employment -- unemployment insurance benefits and were still unable to find work in this tough economy. nevada is now trending in the right direction thanks in large part to the vision of our governor, governor sandoval, but again, we still have a long way to go. that's why we need to temporarily extend unemployment insurance benefits to give people of nevada, rhode island, and many other states some financial certainty under our country's -- as our country's economy recovers. and as we continue to push forward to restore our economy, we need these benefits and they will naturally diminish. this brings me to another

important point to highlight about this bill. this is a temporary extension of unemployment insurance benefits, five months, to be exact. temporary extensions of these programs during high periods of unemployment have found bipartisan support in the past and i think they merit bipartisan support today. i agree that we should not indefinitely extend these programs and i would also like to see additional reforms, and we should continue that discussion. i strongly agree with my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the key to our economic recovery is through the creation of new jobs. under this administration, there are still three workers for every available job, leaving far too many qualified workers out of a job simply because there aren't enough opportunities available. my republican colleagues, including senators hoeven, thune, lee, and many others have introduced more than a dozen

bills to spur job creation by reducing governmental burdens and making it easier for businesses to grow and create new jobs. bills that will help reduce the need for unemployment insurance benefits, strengthen our economy and improve the financial security of millions of americans. i just hope as we are debating this bill before us today that we have the opportunity to debate and vote on these important job-creation measures. now, i know there are some questions regarding how state workforce agencies might administer retroactive benefits and enforce some of the new requirements provided in this bill. these concerns are not unreasonable. however, i firmly believe that not only can congress work with states to overcome any of these challenges, but congress has a responsibility to overcome these challenges. no bill is perfect, and the capabilities of state systems compound the difficulty of the task at hand.

this isn't a new obstacle for congress, though. every person in this chamber is familiar with the challenges involved in finding a balance between federal and state laws, ensuring that what we do here in washington isn't an undue burden back home. we deal with that problem every single day. additionally, the department of labor has provided $345 million to states over the past five years to help states modernize their systems so that they're more responsive and efficient. so i know -- i know we canned find way to work with our state agencies to reduce the burden of administering that's benefits. in fact, the department of secretary -- labor secretary thomas perez wrote a letter last week in response to some of these very concerns and believes that the challenges are not insurmountable. as a former labor secretary for

maryland and now department of secretary for the department of labor, mr. perez has hands-on experience at both the federal and state levels. secretary perez -- this is not the first time that there has been a gap in u.i. extensions. and though this gap may be a little longer than usual, secretary perez states that "we are confident that we can successfully address these challenges again." it may also be difficult to implement measures in our u.i. system. the jobless millionaires and billionaires should not be receiving unemployment benefits. the limit -- the limited resources we have to provide for this social safety net ought to be reserved to americans and for americans who need this help the most. some state systems may not being

responsive -- responsible enough to get this done by the time these benefits expire again. i recognize that. but if we continue to provide a series of short-term extensions without any reforms, we will never fix the underlying issues. we've known for years that there are some well-off individuals abusing the u.i. system and it is long past time that we do something about it. we should not be just content -- content just to extend federal programs if we know there are inefficiency. we need to do something about these programs to run more efficiently and effectively and ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are used in a responsible fashion. mr. president, i'm proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this legislation. it hasn't always been easy, but i thank my colleagues pour their patience and -- for their patience and continued hard work to help the american people find some stability.

i look forward to moving this bill, working with the house to restore unemployment insurance benefits as we continue to improve the health of the american economy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. heller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. heller: we are in a queerm. -- we are in a quorum. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: i ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the senate recess at 12:30 p.m., with senators

permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: thank you. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sphoer from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, at the completion of my remarks i ask unanimous consent the distinguished senator from kansas -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. hatch: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that after the completion of my remarks and the distinguished senator from kansas will then be able to give his remarks. the presiding officer: wowbltion. hatch thaifng the chair. -- mr. hatch: i thank the chair. rise in opposition to the unemployment insurance act of 20146789 this legislation is flawed in many respects. that being the cairks i intending to vote against it. first and foremost, it needs to be said that the fact that we've -- we're even having a debate about extending unemployment benefits is unfortunate. throughout the obama administration, our nation has been plagued with lackluster job

growth, lower and lower rates of labor force participation, and high levels of long-term unemployment. indeed, under this president, it has been harder to find a job than at any other point in our nation's history. as has been said before, these are just symptoms of a much larger problem fen the plight of the long-term unemployed which this bill is supposed to address is not the major problem facing america today. the major problem is that despite the best efforts of many of us in congress, our government hasn't done enough to foster economic growth. more often than not in recent years, government has stood in the way. it's been an impediment. we are now more than five years into this administration. it is becoming increasingly clear that president obama does not have a plan to address these problems. true enough. he has proposals that would

expand the government and redistribute income, but nothing resembling a plan to promote growth in the private sector or to actually put people back to work. in many of the president's redistribution schemes end up costing labor supply and jobs as the nonpartisan congressional budget office has made clear with respect to obamacare and the president's proposed minimum wage hike. growth is what we should be debating, mr. president. ideas and proposals that would actually grow our economy and help people find jobs. but instead, we are here once again to debate an extension of the emergency unemployment compensation policeman or e.u.c. let's talk about the e.u.c. program for just a few minutes. the proponents of this legislation have told us that extending -- quote -- "temporary"-- unquote federal unemployment benefits is vital to our economy. but i think the facts tell a much different story. between july, 2008, when

program the program started and december, 2013 when it expired, we spent roughly $265 billion on e.u.c. benefits. that's more than a quarter of a trillion dollars on a temporary federal benefit program. for so much of that time the program paid up to 73 weeks of federal benefits amounting to a record total of 99 available weeks of unemployment benefits when you add the state and federal benefits together. all told, we've paid out e.u.c. benefits for 66 months, which is two and a half years longer than any similar emergency unemployment program in the united states history. in other words, mr. president, e.u.c. is a program with a long track record and when you look at that record, you see that it hasn't had the positive economic impact proponents of the program often claim that it has.

indeed, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits we've already paid under this program, we've suffered through the worst jobs recovery in our nation's history and the long-term unemployed have suffered the most. and there is evidence to suggest that this program has actually made the recovery worse. for example, according to recent research published by the national bureau of economic research -- quote -- "northwest extensions can account for most of the persistently high unemployment after the great recession"-- unquote. while some democrats have claimed that extending unemployment benefits is the best way to create jobs, the facts certainly tell a different story. now, i'm not going to condemn anyone for wanting to extend a helping hand to those who continue to face difficulties under the obama economy. but if we're going to debate yet another extension of federal unemployment benefits, we should at the very least get our

facts straight. so with all this in mind, the cost of the e.u.c. program and the questionable benefits, let's take a look at the legislation before us now. one thing i'd like to point out is that with this legislation, we have once again abandoned regular order and bypassed the committee process entirely. i've remarked on this problem here on the floor several times before. when we ignore the traditional role of the senate committees, we short circuit the legislative process and more often than not we end up with an inferior product. this bill is certainly no exception. we learned this last month when the national association of state work force agencies sent a letter to the senate outlining its concerns with this bill. chief among among these concerns was that it would be extremely difficult for states to retroactively pay out unemployment insurance claims as

this bill would require. indeed, according to naswa, back dating e.u.c. claims would make it -- quote -- "nearly impossible"-- unquote to apply individual state work search requirements which is a key factor in determining eligibility for unemployment insurance. in addition the letter indicated there would likely be an increase in e.u.c. overpayments as a result of this retroactivity requirements. due that these concerns and others naswa concluded it would take states up to three months to implement this legislation which is problematic because though the bill before is technically for a five-month extension, only two months of benefits would be paid out prospectively. in other words, many states would not be ready to implement this legislation by the time it expires. this is more than a glitch or a bump in the road, mr. president. it is state work force

agencies, the very people who will have to implement this legislation on a day-to-day basis telling the senate that this bill is unworkable. according to the naswa letter, there are a number of states that would consider not participating in the program due to these problems and the short time available to address them. labor secretary perez sent his own letter in response to nsawa's statement promising to help states address these concerns. however, this letter was short on actually details as how to how that assistance would be offered. all of that said, these are the kinds of problems that i was talking about. mr. president, problems that can be addressed if committees are given an opportunity to operate. had the committee had an opportunity to vet this legislation, we could have also fully examined the offsets my colleagues are using to pay for this e.u.c. extension.

these are also problematic. the main pay-for in this bill is the use of what is called -- quote -- "pension smoothing"-- unquote. which is little more than a budget gimmick but an especially pernicious budget gimmick when repeated. it has the potential to do real harm to pension plan funding levels, threatening the future retirement security of american workers. since the great recession of 2008, pension plans have struggled to regain their footing financially. the drastic drop in interest rates forced many plans to dramatically increase their pension contributions to keep pace. in 2012 at the historic low point for interest rates, congress essentially gave pension plans four years of funding, of funding relief to get through the worst period of low interest rates. congress did this by allowing pensions to fund their plans as if interest rates were higher

than they really are. but we can't indefinitely pretend that interest rates are artificially high and contribution levels artificially low. reality still matters. and the reality is, although still low by historical standards, interest rates are no longer at rock bottom and pension funding needs to gradually adjust to market rates as current law provides. put simply we should avoid additional pension smoothing because it permits lower funding and poor pension funding is bad pension policy. pension funding remains a serious concern and this is not the time to make it easier to underfund pensions. doing so is worse than just kicking a can down the road. this can of pension fund young will explode on american workers in the federal form of underfunded provisions that will

somehow have to be rescued either through painful cuts in benefits, much higher premiums or taxpayer funded bailouts. there's no other way around it. the other offset is the extension of customs user fees. this is also problematic. traditionally speaking, offsets in the trade space are reserved for legislation that actually extends trade programs. such as the generalized system of preferences or the african growth and opportunity act. if we start using these offsets in other areas, we won't have anything left over when it comes to extending these important programs. both of these offsets, pension smoothing and customs user fees, fall under the jurisdiction of the senate finance committee just like the underlying u.i.en extension. and once again had the committee been given an opportunity to consider these issues, it's likely that these offsets would

not have been used. as you can see, mr. president, there are a number of problems with this bill that could have been considered and addressed had the finance committee been allowed to do its work and it should have been allowed to company its work -- do its work. other problems could haven ben varner addressed if there were a fair and open amendment process here on the floor. sadly, it doesn't appear we're going to get that either as the senate democratic leadership appears poised once again to try to force a major piece of legislation through the senate without giving the minority an opportunity to offer amendments. before our next vote on this legislation i think we'll see a number of amendments filed, many of which would likely improve the bill. others would address the more pressing need to stlaitd the economy and create -- stimulate the economy and create jobs. i have amendments that would do both. for example, i have bun that would repeal the tax on medical devices which enjoys bipartisan

support in the house and senate and would prevent further job losses in one of our most important u.s. industries. i have another amendment that would repeal the obamacare employer mandate. i'm sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would deem this out of bounds but they shouldn't, after all, the obama administration seems pretty intent on delaying the employer mandate. it's already been delayed for two years. if the mandate is that harmful to implement, why don't we do away with it altogether and ensure it doesn't cost us any more jobs? and further requests for unemployment benefits. one amendment i have would help to ensure that the retroactive e.u.c. benefits do not threaten program integrity. specifically, it would require states as part of their e.u.c. agreements to certify that paying out retroactive benefits will not lead to an increase in fraud or overpayments. these are just some of the

amendments i may offer to this bill and all of them in my opinion would be improvements. but it doesn't look like we're going to be able to offer amendments in the deliberative body in the world. i'm saying that pretty sarcastically at this time. i know many of my republican colleagues have amendments they'd like to offer as well yet my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to have a real debate about these issues. instead, they're content to let the the majority leader fill the tree and block any and all republican amendments from coming up for a vote. one can only wonder what they're afraid of, madam president. presumably the majority has the votes to defeat any amendments the minority wants to offer. what's the harm in having a real debate? where is the harm in having an open amendment process? i can only conclude they're worried that some of the votes they'd have to take would be difficult politically. indeed, preventing difficult votes seems to be priority number one for the current senate majority. at this point it appears they have the votes to pass the bill, i assume we'll be through

with this process this week, yet while the senate debate over unemployment insurance may be coming to an end, i can only conclude that the process failures we're seeing in this chamber will continue as we move on to the next item of business, which is in my opinion, very unfortunate. this week's debate over e.u.c. is just the latest example of what's wrong with the senate these days. sadly, it doesn't look like things are going to get better under the current leadership. madam president, these are important issues we really need to let the senate operate in the way it always has and let's quit playing these -- these games of -- and power plays. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to speak about the affordable care act or obamacare, and what i have long believed is a march to

rationing. the rationing of health care. the obamacare bill and the accompanying regulations now tower over seven feed fiat, one foot above where i stand when stacked together, and they have provision after provision that will deny patients the care that they want, the care that they need to ensure that they get the life-sustaining and lifesaving treatments that are best for them. these rationing elements in obamacare have been documented -- have been documented by a recent report of the national right to life committee's powell center for medical ethics. that study is entitled "the affordable care act and health care access in the united states." and perhaps the most egregious thing about obamacare is that it directly inserts the federal government into the personal lives of americans and their families and their doctors.

we all know about the individual mandate that coerces people into purchasing a product they may not want by threatening to tax them and i have often spoken about my personal nemesis in the rationing boards that i'm going to bring up, the independent payment advisory board, ipab. this is a board made up of 18 -- that's 15 voting and three nonvoting -- all unelected bureaucrats who will decide what gets to stay and what must go in medicare coverage. they'll decide what treatments and services will be covered and which will not. and there's no accountability. it would, in fact, it would take two-thirds a majority of the u.s. senate to undo any of their actions. as a result this board diminishes our constitutional responsibility. this president has already raided a half a trillion dollars from medicare to pay for obamacare, and then he gave

himself the ability to go after even more medicare dollars without any accountability. this, my friends, is frightening, it's irresponsible, but there's more. it's inconceivable or it is conceivable, pardon me, it is conceivable that the independent payment advisory board won't just limit medicare access. it will also propose ways for the federal government to limit what americans of all ages are allowed to spend out of their own private money, not taxpayer funds to save the lives and the health -- the health care of their families. shocking but true. obamacare tells bureaucrats on the boards to make sure we aren't even allowed to keep up with medical inflation. further, it is conceivable that the board will suggest ways for the federal government to impose so-called quality and efficiency standards on doctors and hospitals with the purpose of limiting the healthe