it gets issues between his teeth because a number of records of tax refund with the midterms behind him, speaker boehner may decide that it's time to legislate, and, of course, the president may be reluctant to end his second, to leave office with no significant economic policy accomplishment in his second term. so one could imagine that things would look better in 2015 than they do now. ..

for giving stuff away to their constituents? >> well, let's, let's go back to the very beginning. you know the classic conundrum here is diffuse benefits and the possibility of concentrated losses and of course the reverse it is easy to confer concentrated benefits which will then be defended ardently by

their recipients and, what we had in '86 was a very, everything i say is provisional with gene sterling in the room but it is but politically speaking there was a there was a broad and i think pretty passionate group within the republican party that leased that the key to sustained, vigorous economic growth was significantly lower tax rates. right? that belief, that was the supply side movement in its youth. you know, words worth once wrote about the french revolution. it was very heaven to be alive during those days and i think a lot of young supply-siders genuinely believed they found the missing key to the secret of

economic growth, non-inflationary economic growth after a rather dismal decade. and that i think was a substantial counter balance to the classings i can micro calculus of individual members congress or individual committees. it was just barely enough to overwhelm the perennial temptation that you talk about and i think, you know, certainly there is strong institutional support today, you know, for the idea of lowering rates again. that was certainly a major objective of camp's exercise and there is one publication, the one i happen to write for every week, that thumps the tub tirelessly for lower rates. it is the last bastion of supply side theology and as is the case with all theologies it is

passionate even if imperfectly understood. >> this would be the wsj about the the way. >> i didn't think there was much ambiguity. >> chris, in your survey research have you given people that choice as bill was talking about, not just asking about tax preferences in isolation but would you trade them away for lower tax rates? do we have any sense if there is support for that? >> we'll put a national survey in the field that would do that. i have seen questions in the past that asked people, would you support increase in health care spending? would you support increase in retirement spending if that meant higher taxes for you. so one potential way out of this is, if you are able to link tax increases with already popular programs, that are really popular, not just popular in perception than it seems that people are willing to let go of

favored tax breaks or even see their marginal income tax be raised. and you know, another point in comparison to '86, is that one thing that would make it more difficult this time is that there is a change in the composition of overall tax expenditures after 1986 which a lot of business tax expenditures got slashed which left the social tax expenditures in place for individuals and the proportion of overall tax expenditures that go to individuals for social programs rose after '86 and continued to be close to '80 percent. if you consider with the pressure of interest groups i'm not sure i could use the phrase low-hanging fruit. but it would be more difficult to cut individual social tax expenditures than go after the business ones. >> that brings up a very interesting point. it is often forgotten that the

'86 reform was revenue neutral in its totality but if you looked at the two stovepipes of corporate and individual, it wasn't. my distinct recollection, subject to correction, is that corporate taxes net actually went up substantially as a result of reform and that was then used to subsidize more changes on the individual side that could otherwise have been you know, achieved of the banner of revenue neutrality and so i suspect that some of the corporate types who smell a rat, may be on to something. it is not just a fantasy in their nostrils. so you know, stay tuned. >> that is an interesting issue. particularly interesting that points out very often now that so much of business taxation happens now on the individual side that that makes it even more complicated to do this kind of tradeoff. well, it brings up, it brings

up, you know, the deepest split now in the business community between the, you know, small business people represented by the national federation of independent business and the corporate business community and their interests are not in alignment on this issue and on many other issues as well. it's, increasingly notional to talk of the business community as i'm sure you know. >> carl, let me ask about this you mentioned this in your introductory remarks but i would like to you dig deeper into it. this question is it necessary to have broad-based public support for tax reform or kind of a public disinterest sufficient? >> i would argue right now washington needs some successes, needs some victories, maybe casting the question in slightly different way. if you look all over government activities in the last 10 years there is only one area where people are really positive about

government right now. they really do believe that the country is safer since 9/11. that obama's made us safer, that bush made us safer. that is an absolute constant. that is one of the few positive things i see in the data. interesting approval of congress in the last couple months since the agreement in late 2013 is actually ticked up ever so slightly because the mood has been quiet and people haven't been fighting. so to turn that question around if there is a success, if something is seen as getting done and republicans and democrats are working together that could provide sorts of evidence for the president and congress and that might be a good thing. the public will never be deeply engaged in tax reform. it just isn't going to happen or the pros and cons of keystone pipeline or all these other issues. we think about these issues in terms of our values and can be sold that way. i think it's possible even with a significant lack of public interest that something could move forward because it's the right thing to do and because it

will be a success. >> chris, let me ask you about that. would politicians be better off trying to sell tax reform as a values issue rather than as a economic issue? >> i think so. you know, there is a recent study talking about a disconnect in that after the bush tax cuts 2/3 of americans said they supported them even though when you asked them in the same survey they thought inrequality was a problem and have government take policies to address the inequality gap. so the puzzle why would 2/3 say they support the bush tax cuts and turn around five questions later say they want the government to address growing inequality? i believe that disconnect is caused because taxes have not been linked with other issues people really care about. so one thing we have an idea in public opinion that there are certain issues which are

tethered to people's values and beliefs and there are some positions people take just because they're asked to take a position a surveyor, right? so it is really important to get into the depth of the conviction when we're talking about public opinion. about whether someone is saying they support tax reform because someone is asking the question, or whether it's really tethered to an ideology of so there's a fabulous book out just recently by james denson and chris ellis about ideology in america and you know one of the paradoxes of public opinion is that they look at over 7,000 questions since 1956 and show that a majority of americans and even a majority of self-identified conservatives and republicans say they want, in the abstract, lower government spending, smaller government but when asked about specific programs, want increased spending. so you know, one thing i

theorized about is tax expenditures allow policy makers to thread this public opinion needle, right? if you're looking at public opinion saying that we want smaller government and less government but we want to you spend money on health care, education and homes, that if you're able to support tax expenditures, you can finance popular goals, support specific groups but at the same time make rhetorical claims that you're lowering the size of government. but if, but if tax breaks were able to be linked to, you know, income inequality and income inequality becomes a bigger issue, that could sway some people. but again to point to the our research and others, throwing cold water, it will have an effect on independents, it will have an effect on democrats. if you link tax breaks to inequality, i doubt given the results it will sway the opinion of people that identify as conservatives and republicans. >> bill, is that a values ish

zooissue and if it is, what's the value? >> well, just for funny went back and took a look at the speech that ronald reagan gave at the signing ceremony for the '86 tax return and his answer to that question was, that it is both an economics question and a values question and he refused to give one pride of place as opposed to the other. he said individual citizens, this will be good for you. this will be good for families, but he also said to the country, you know, the spirit that made america great is the spirit that will be revived and nourished by the new, by the new incentives in the '86 tax reform for innovation, entrepeneurship, the kind of individual interprize that has built this country. and he was absolutely unabashed

about putting the complexities of tax reform into the great american narrative that he was so good at telling and retelling and every time he retold it with a sense of delight as though he was saying it for the first time. so my, my counsel based on the master of the enterprise's practice to would-be tax reformers, don't choose between economics and then values. root the narrative of tax reform in the values, in the values that you and you, you believe in most passionately and believe that the american people either do or can be brought to embrace as the core of the problem today. now, would those values be the same as they were in 1986? not necessarily. you know, times have changed and so for example, right now i

think that it would be very effective if it parses economically and politically to try to link tax reform to accelerated job creation. that was not what ronald reagan had to worry about in 1986 but we certainly need to worry about it now and similarly my impression is that even within the republican party there are now some second thoughts about this worship of the individual entrepreneur, the job creator. a lot of republican thinkers are now beginning to ask themselves, what about the working stiffs? what about the people who take jobs and carry out, carry them out faithfully but don't necessarily create them? are we abandoning a whole section of the population with this rhetoric of individual entrepreneurship? you know, and so i think that also linking tax reform to the

well-being and security of average families, the job, the job takers, not the job makers, would be an updated version of the values of tax reform. >> so let me play devil's advocate with everybody. so we know some things about tax reform today that we didn't know in 1986 because we've got the experience of 1986. so there's been a got bid of research that suggests whatever good tax reform did in '86 it didn't do very much for the overall economy. if it did we couldn't find it. so with that experience, can the politician with a straight face make the argument that tax reform, they tried but can they actually make the argument that tax reform is a job creator? >> people are pretty desperate right now. the pessimism in the public and i say that seriously is so deep.

it's been there for so long, since 2008, a very high level. so i think they want to try things to see if they can work because the picture is so pessimistic. >> so that is another interesting issue. ask chris and then bill, given that deep pessimism that didn't exist in '86 about the ability of government to do something right, are people willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt to do this amorphous thing called tax reform when they really can't even understand what it is? >> well i see two potential obstacles. one is a lot of policies that are only indirectly related to economic growth are framed as good for economic growth. so there might be mistrust in the public that this is yet another policy being framed as good for economic growth and the other three, you know, health care at types has been framed for economic growth and other

things. so there is that. and then one thing that is unnerving about public opinion when it comes to trust in government and, even questions about do you think that you're paying your fair share, is that these correlate highly with the performance of the economy. so if you look at trust in government, and economic performance, these correlated over .9 level for over 40 years. so as public opinion scholars we have to question whether, when we ask about trust in government it's tapping into anything real other than people's, people using the economy as a way to evaluate the performance of the government. so other people have posited that when there are high levels of trust in government that thaa window of opportunity to ircarry out tax reform because the public is willing to allow the government to raise taxes on them but you know, we called

into question the very ability to measure trust in government because it correlates so highly with the economy and people's perception of what they're paying in taxes. when the economy goes up, people think that they're paying their fair share. when the economy goes down, you have more people responding that their taxes are too high. so, because of the correlation with the economy, we, again, have qualms about these questions tapping into real beliefs. >> carlin, do you share that concern. >> i'm not sure that i do. there is strong correlation between additudes about virtually everything. in 2000, 2001 people were positive about the environment and no real changes in the environment and positive about all sorts of things but no relation to the issues at hand. i think trust is important when

thinking overall when think about something like tax reform but you have to interpret it carefully. >> by, do you agree with this? >> well, you know, i -- there are actually two questions on the table so let me address both of them. first of all i think, that what chris said about the linkage between trust and performance of the economy is arguably true for the last 40 years but if you go back a decade before that, which is the time when the trust in government moved step functionally from the world of our fathers to the world of today, that is, the early '60s to the early '70s, there the collapse of trust in government i believe was not principally driven by the are performance of the economy. >> i agree. >> this is a, this is a, a short term if i may be from god's eye,

called 40 years short term truth but not an eternal truth. >> if we could only do tax reform in 1960 we solved all the problems. >> kennedy tried and he couldn't do it. so, but on the broader question, you know, i think we need to distinguish between tax reform and tax revolution. and tax reform i will call the kind of reform that leaves what is taxed more or less the way it was, even though it deals with it differently. tax revolution would be a change in the mix of what's actually taxed. and i suspect it will be the easier for the american people to understand a proposal for tax revolution at this point than for tax reform. let me give you, let me give you an example. and i'm not a tax professional but my gut tells me that it may

be a productive, a productive proposal. right now we are taxing labor pretty heavily and, we're not taxing carbon very much at all. but we claim we want more jobs and less global climate change emissions. what if we put that on its head? some people have actually proposed a broad-based carbon tax as replacement for the payroll tax. there are all sorts of obstacles but at least people can understand that and pending further inquiry there is an economic maksim to the effect that if you tax something less you will get more of it. if what we want more of right now is jobs, i recognize that economists say, well corporations don't really pay it. it is all on the workers, et cetera, et cetera. i don't think workers would mind a pay increase at this point by the way. i think they would be net winners from that swap but

that's another point. but, i wonder, just to, just to bust out of a conversation all together, we have supposing that the '86 paradigm is a road map for the future of tax reform. that might be true. but what if it isn't? what if that was then and this is now? >> chris, karlyn, do we know anything about the willingness of the american people to accept something like a carbon tax? after all this is their car. >> i'm not sure about the carbon tax although i think it's a great idea. one thing i consider to be the overarching tension in american politics and it would go towards reducing the proportion of income taxes as for federal revenue is that 70% or more of the federal income tax is paid

by the top 20%. the perception is that that money all goes to the poor and, so -- >> if only. >> exactly. so, as long as a majority of the federal revenue comes from the income tax there is going to be a perception in the american mind of the makers and takers that romney slipped up in getting taped, talking about you know, that perception is real in the public's mind and it creates, it creates restrictions on what you can do with social welfare. it creates restrictions on what you can do with taxes. so i think that, you know, a revolution in more than something that is incremental would actually possibly sell better. karlyn has the point people might not trust if they hear phrase tax reform. they just might not trust they will be on the winning side of whatever that is. if there is something larger

that is done, it would be more visible and therefore you would allow people to form real opinions on it. >> karlyn? >> i've never seen a question in survey research, though we haven't had many in recent years shows support of increase in the gas tax. those numbers seem to be pretty hard. but again we don't have many questions because pollsters are not repeating these very often. it is interesting you mentioned that tax reform ranked in the middle not very high of the four polls that were asked about priorities for congress and administration. always climate change ranks as least urgent issue. bottom of one of those polls. in pew's 21 issues is at very bottom. so i guess i would -- i am always skeptical of poll questions as distractions. something is real when it affect it is be all the questions between '84 and '85 showed

support for retirement accounts. when it became real in 2005, you had united wall of democratic opposition, strong opposition from aarp and so-called support just evaporated. i'm always suspicious of abstractions. kind of research chris is doing where he is testifying or excuse me testing values differences people have on some of these general propositions very valuable. these general abstractions, i don't know, i'm just wary. >> there is a distinct however -- i think there is distinction and, look, i'm unaware of any solid survey evidence on this question either way so, i'm flying blind at this point. but, it seems to me that if you simply ask people a question, you know, are you in favor of an increased carbon tax, you're going to get two answers. one is no and the other is hell no. >> exactly. >> but if you put a this for that proposal on the table, what would you think about a proposal

that would eliminate the tax that employers and employees now pay on their incomes up to $110,000 which, which covers most of the territory of earners in the country and in return there would be a quote, carbon tax, which by the way is a lot broader than a gas tax. >> i understand. >> so you know, if you put all of that on the table you might get a different answer. >> you certainly might. >> you don't know. >> we just don't know. >> let me ask you all a little bit about framing. doug holtz-eakin was here for another event a couple months ago and doug was telling us that he done some focus groups, not surveys but focus groups on this, just the words, tax reform. and what he discovered was people hated the phrase. it goes to a little bit what karlyn was saying before. that they felt tax reform was a euphemism for, we're going to

raise your taxes. so i asked him what questions, what words did they like? they liked modernize. they liked fairness. but they didn't like reform. karlyn -- >> those are values. those are values. simplicity is value. modernization is value. fairness is value. that is where people are starting. that is why those were received more postively. >> chris, what do you think? >> i think you would go farther with fairness than you would reform but, i think that there are limits to what framing can accomplish. you know, one thing that we don't know from public opinion research that it would take a long time of asking and doing the same experiment is, even in my own work, so when we give people information about the distributive benefits of taxes and it changes the response and they downgrade their support for tax breaks, one thing that i'm, you know, concerned about is that change ephemeral or is that

something if we asked them a year later or six months later would still stick? so you know, there is giving people information that might change their level of support for something and then there's learning, right? so how often does something need to be repeated by members of congress and the president for that piece of information that is attached to the policy idea to become learned and real and be reflected consistently in someone's opinion? that's something that we just don't have a handle on. >> what do you think? >> fairness, modernize, do they do anything to ring your bells? >> doesn't matter what rings my bells. the question is what rings the people's bells. i have to say since i'm in washington i will say i associate myself with chris's skepticism about framing effects. i know there is a lot of political science that has been committed on that subject but i think that i think that it is

easy for people doing the framing to overestimate, overestimate the efficacy of their efforts. a lot of people want to believe that only if we tell a better story we'll get a better result. sometimes that's true but often, often it isn't. but if surveys consistently pick up skepticism about the phrase, tax reform. it would be the beginning of wisdom to stop using it politically and think of some soothing euphemism. and i'm surprised to hear that modernization polls better because i don't think that a lot of, so many americans are quite so satisfied with the results of modernization in the economy. for example, technological substitution of, you know, of instruments for human labor is not wildly popular. so but i'll accept the survey for what it's worth. >> good enough. let me switch gears and ask you

all about, i think there are some interesting generic issues about big reforms of government programs. we just have gone through one today, being march 31st, actually kind of appropriate. what does the experience of the affordable care act teach us about efforts to do tax reform? i will think of a new name before we're done here but karlyn? >> i think it is pretty important to have bipartisan support. i don't know how deep that has to go but i think it is very important, given what we've seen with the aca. if you look at questions, democrats and republicans seem to be on different planets whether it is working, et cetera, et cetera. i think you need strong bipartisan support. >> what about the importance of public education, people really understanding what -- >> the accumulation of additional information about the aca hasn't really changed attitudes very much at all. dan once said that the public has a kind of preliterate way of

knowing. they approach a issue at beginning. form their opinions based on their values and journalists, social scientists, people in this room change their views based on accumulation of more information. publics don't do that because they don't have time to read about all the fine print in the aca or even their own experiences with the aca. they always start in terms of their values and way they talk about this to their neighbors and their friend. so i don't think the accumulation of additional information is going to significantly change attitudes about the aca. what may change attitudes if it is perceived to be working over a period of time. then the public may come to believe it is the right way to go. the public doesn't like radical change. people who opposed it at the beginning thought it was radical change. and that is why you don't get strong support for repeal either because that is seen as radical change. people are always somewhere in the middle of those issues over all. >> chris what do you think? what did we learn from the affordable care act? >> one thing how polarized the

public has become. there is a lot of ink spilled on the polarization of congress but that has filtered down to the public and just how much things are interpreted through partisan lenses is when we're looking at survey research looking at differences in partisanship and why they're just severe and stark. people are not emptyives. you can't provide -- empty sives the information is consumed and evaluated against their own ideology. often times it is coming from partisan sources. so you really kind of need a nixon in china moment for people really to believe information about policy change. that is, their party needs to take a stand that would otherwise kind of go against what a person would expect. so the, the polarization of the public has just create ad situations where you, you know,

and go to karlyn's point you really need bipartisanship. from my understanding one of the reasons that president obama didn't embrace simpson-bowles is the realization that the second he did that publicly it would alienate people who identify as conservatives and republicans and make it less likely to get bipartisan support in congress, right? you had this political environment where something might be a great idea but if you're a high-profile party member, the second you say it is a good idea you alienate 40% of the public. because you alienate them it makes it difficult to reach across the aisle that is this is something you have an interest and your constituency has an interest to work on. so that is going to be a obstacle. >> lessons from the affordable care act. >> well, the late senator moynihan was famous for many of his sayings and perhaps the best known is the most obsolete. you know, that everyone is

entitled to his own opinions but not to his own facts. well that was then, this is now and in this era of mistrust the entire question of what is information, what is reliable information is subject to the same sorts of partisan tug-of-wars that opinions used to be. so under those circumstances think karlyn is right. that information as, as we, aging consumers of walter cronkite's nightly news, information in that old-fashioned sense is almost defunct. i hope not permanently but almost. but it doesn't follow from that and this is a little wrinkle that want to put on it. it doesn't follow from that that if it's not information in the old-fashioned sense that changes people's views it must be values. i think there's a third thing.

and karlyn hinted at this, namely, experience. right? people will trust the kind of information that comes to them through their own experience of whether something is working or not. and so, i think the question of whether the affordable care act becomes a permanent part of the american policy landscape is entirely contingent at this point, not on what anybody says about it. i don't think an additional word on the subject, even if it is crammed with information will change a single mind. right? when people reflect on this two years from today, what will their experience have been? that will determine what kind of issue it is in the 2016 presidential election. i share the conventional view that what happens between now and november is unlikely to have much of an impact, right. but 2 1/2 years is a very different than six months in

politics. >> so let's then circle back to tax reform. the numbers that karlyn presented to us at the beginning of this discussion suggested that people's experience with the current tax code is kind of okay. so given that, given the reluctance that she discussed about people's reluctance to make big changes, how does one sell them on this change that they may feel is actually necessary? >> bipartisanship certainly. >> with bipartisanship, yes. >> let me give you all a chance to ask a few questions. nobody has got any i can see. a couple of requests. first of all, please wait for the microphone. second one is please identify yourself. third one, we have a lot of people and limited amount of time to ask questions. please don't make a speech. just ask a question and we can get through as many people as

possible? let's see. start towards the front. hang on, wait for the mic. >> hello. i'm jacqueline coolidge from the world bank. i'm interested in hearing a little more about the topic of complexity of the tax code and how that relates to perceptions of fairness? so on one hand you've got most people could just fill out the ez. not that it is necessarily so complex for themselves but i think they have the perception and certainly small business people do, that the complexity of the tax code is favoring you know, a narrow group who could afford very fancy and expensive tax lawyers and accountants and everybody else consequently getting the shortened of the stick. >> chris, do we know anything about that? >> so there was a gallup survey

done that asked people informational questions to see about levels of knowledge. and about income taxes and tax breaks in general and so, it didn't ask about complexity but asked if people knew that the income tax was progressive and what the income tax was and you had over 60% understanding those items. where, i don't know of any questions dealing with complexity but i do believe that people associate, if you think of the other side of the coin of complexity being tax breaks which actually add complexity to the code, people have associated tax breaks with rich. and one thing to know there is consistent -- so we asked people their feelings about different groups and the rich are not well-liked by the american public and on a consistent basis. so, you know, one strategy that people have used is to link something such as tax breaks with a group that people have a certain feeling towards.

so as measurements of tax breaks for the rich in people's negative feelings towards that and that is relatively consistent. that is maybe a window into people's feelings about complexity. >> chris, seems there are two issues about complexity. the one is idea that other guy is getting better deal than me. the other is that taxes are too hard to do. the some people said turbotax effect kind of eliminated that second one. people putnam members in. they don't really know what is going on, don't really care but not that hard anymore to do your taxes despite complexity. is there anything to that? >> so, a lot of this is differentiated by socioeconomic class. when we ask questions about taxes, knowledge on the tax system and taxes unsurprisingly is highly differentiated among socioeconomic class. the more money you make, more education you have, the more you put the right response on these. also i think that there is

difference by socioeconomic class how people do taxes. you might have upper middle income folks who feel efficacious and get turbotax and do it themselves in a weekend in their living room. a lot of working class folks will go to stores like you sigh all over the country. american tax company or local stores that do taxes. i think the difference between how people interact with income tax is heavily weighted on socioeconomic class. someone goes in and get as refund for eitc and pays someone from a tax firm 20 bucks they might not think it is complex and sat there for 20 minutes, right? the people more likely to navigate the tax code are using turbotax or doing it for themselves. >> another question right here. >> thank you, i'm edward callen. i'm a retired "new york times"

economics correspondent and covered taxes for self years. bill, i have a come men if i may and a question for you. the comment you said opposition, you explained opposition to tax reform saying the opposition is con of concentrated and benefits are diffused. i understand the first point. a few people will get increase in tax liabilities. when you say diffused, you could say, a lot of people will benefit. if you put it that way, one might say, why isn't there more support for it? i think the answer they will benefit but only a little bit and you might comment on that. let me ask a question of the several interesting things you said i thought the most interesting was thaw couldn't persuade walter mondale to embrace tax reform. i wonder why that was and whether his thinking sheds any light on the paucity of support nowadays?

>> first, let me respond to your comment. by diffuse that was short land for a setted a attitudes and responses very responses that you mentioned of the by diffuse i mean broad but shallow. shallow in two senses. first of all the benefits conferred on average taxpayers are perceived as being small in relation to their, small in relation to their liabilities than is the case for these concentrated beneficiaries to stand to lose a great deal. the second thing i meant by diffuse, weak in the sense of not very ardent.

not very passionate, as opposed to the passionate opposition to the removal of something very valuable from your wallet. which people denned tend to resist pretty powerfully. i think there is something of a statute of limitation in politics. if so, mine has run. and so i can, i can report without naming names that i spent a great deal of time trying to organize a policy process as mr. mondale's issues director, that would have led to an endorsement of tax reform, at least in principle. it is my, i know for a fact that has this process neared what i hoped would be it end, there was a little news item in the old center column of

"the wall street journal" that reported this fact and some people who were quite important to the mondale campaign were not amused to learn about the candidate's impending endorsement of the bradley-gephardt approach. there was a certain amount of pushback. i was called on the carpet and that was that. i don't think it is broadly illuminate about american public opinion. it is, i think, quite revealing about the interaction between the policy and the financial wings of a nascent presidential campaign and i suspect that not all that much as changed. does this say anything about risk-averse on the part of politicians? >> that's what they are, yes. that may have something to do with the difficulties of tax reform. >> other questions? yes, sir.

>> thank you, my name is mark gallagher. i'm a fiscal advisor to a number of foreign countries working with imf, usaid and u.s. treasury. this has been a great presentation. i really appreciate it. i will not give a speech here. i just have a question. this is a country made up of peoples from all over the world but we just so narrowly gaze in our own history. the last tax reform we admit was not much of a reform was 1986. but we've had tax reform in south africa, in russia, he will sar have door. jack you know the south africa case for sure. there are bases where this stuff has been done. are we on another planet? does american exceptionalism prevent us from looking what handles where? not to interrupt your research programs, but is there a research program on what we can learn from tax reforms or tax

revolutions that happened elsewhere, thank you. >> karlyn, have you seen any survey research on this? >> i have not. >> chris? >> i know that there are comparative studies on public opinion and values and that the, the holding on to the idea of smaller government and less spending is something that is at its levels, uniquely american compared to other countries, so. >> well i do think that political systems make a difference if mr. putin decides he wants tax reform i suspect russia will have tax reform. things are a little bit different here. >> i just came from a kingdom, jordan, i don't think that's right. >> well, i think that in, you know, from the standpoint of concentrated effective political power, that the king of jordan would be happy to trade places with the president of russia.

but that's a, that's a conversation, that's a conversation for another day. i think that, you know, the thrust of your question which i think is most operation for american purposes, is the fact that we can not conduct our tax business in total isolation from the way the rest of the world conducts its tax business. and that's one of the things that's driving an agitated discussion about corporate taxation right now. and that on two fronts. first of all, the you know, it's my recollection that when we did the '86 reform we leapfrogged most if not all of the other countries of the oecd and had lower lates for corporate taxes than they did. of course the situation is now exactly the reverse. so people are trying to use that fact as a driver for corporate reforms that reap dues rates.

it hasn't worked very well so far but at least they're trying. the second nexus between our code and the rest of the world that is real loy really generated by differences in taxation of profits. one of the big collisions right now in american tax policy which is also a partisan divide in many respects is between people who want to treat taxation of profits earned overseas in a way that reflect the the overseas rate as opposed to people who want it to reflect the american rate and some people believe that we have more than a trillion 1/2 dollars parked overseas in large measure because american corporations with significant international operations are very reluctant to repatriate those foreign profits at american rates. stay tuned. so i think increasingly the linkage between the operation of

our tax code and the operation of tax code of other countries around the world is going to drive the discussion the discussion of american tax system. whether it will drive change anytime soon i can't tell you. >> other questions? yes, sir. >> nice present takes, thank you very much. i'm a candidate of public policy program at george washington university. as an international student who has been here for some years, i always have a benchmark to compare institutions here. in developing countries and i see, i take a little, feel heartened that you also have dysfunctional institutions. a few years ago i was reading a book about mission fail, respect tougher institutions they were

talk in the context of other countries. what institution, what institution should qualify here to be called instructive. and national congress here came to my mind. what about, mr. galston mentioned revolution. instead reform. what type of revolution should it be on a scale of my extreme, with what should happen to the american economy, our people, our government, that should urge them into action? >> well, very, very briefly and this may be the cockeyed optimist in me breaking through my pessimist shell which is pretty thick, but i would not be surprised and i will defer to experts in public opinion to nye

near right and far right, i would not be surprised to see the next american presidential campaign waged on the slogan of he or she can get things done. that is, i think that there is a pent up desire in the american people to break through this endless gridlock and actually come up with an agenda that the person who is elected president of the united states has the ability to execute. i think the longer this goes on, the more the desire for leadership, not just presidential leadership but starting there, that can get things done is likely to build. right? i think, i think of it as a metaphor. you know, if you think about the plate at the time none i cans. plates lock into position. there is enormous amount of energy generated against each other but don't move.

finally something lets loose and there's a big move all at once. i believe that certainly some time in the next decade and i hope sooner than that, this pent-up public desire for a clear course of action, ably executed by political leadership, is going to become a dominant theme. that's why i, that's yes believe certainly on the republican side governors with a good track record of executive accomplishment are likely to have a substantial talking point as they put themselves forward for the republican nomination because then the claim, i can get the job done is not merely a promise. it is also evidence-based. >> let me ask each of you, i think this is a really important issue, if bill is right, and argue and assume he is, that the next president gets elected at least in part on a platform of, i can get things done, is tax reform the thing that they would start to get done?

there is a long list. there's immigration. there's entitlement reform. there is budget deficit. and then there's taxes. probably some others i've forgotten. if you were a domestic policy advisor to one of those candidates, would you suggest that they not only make their platform, i can get things done, but i can get tax reform done? >> you're talking to me? >> yeah. start with you. everybody else gets to answer it too. >> probably not. with a proviso. if the economy in 2016 looks like the economy today, i would not lead with tax reform. there would be a bunch of other economic issues that would come ahead of tax reform. if things look a lot better, and if, if the next congress, which i believe is the 114th surprises us by getting off the dime and passing, passing

immigration reform, which is not impossible. though i keep on saying with each coming congress it is not impossible and it always is impossible but go figure, but then there might be, there might be space to move tax reform up to the frontier of issues. right now, no. >> karlyn, you mentioned that tax reform is always kind of in the middle. same question, if you were advising a presidential candidate would you? >> i'm glad i'm not a political operative but that said i think i would put tax reform in the top tier of issues. if we're in, what sam called this morning a permanent economic slowdown. people are really desperate. part of something to address serious and deep economic concerns. i would put it in that cluster of things to address, serious economic weakness. i put it before immigration in that case if it continues through 2016. if the economy continues to perform as it has. >> chris, where would you --

>> i think there is unfortunately disconnect issues people would highlight to get elected and issues they want to govern on. what we know about large policy change it normally occurs in the first two years of a president's term. not only first two years, but under conditions that their party controls congress and the public mood is in their party's favor. those things would have to usually align to get revolutionary change. you know, one potential i see that could create tax reform, is that if you think about the overarching goals of the party, if you think about republicans wanting to lower tax rates in all different areas and democrats wanting to build social welfare state, and in one sense i think that this period reflect as stalemate between the two parts. with the passage of aca, the democrats have come close to kind of rounding out a national welfare state. the republicans have drastically through changes to marginal

rates and addition of tax expenditures lower rates, so there's there is only incremental changes for those, if you take those as two of the parties goals. so there's a potential i think, a window, for revolutionary tax change based upon the idea of how much more can you really get if your goal is to lower marginal rates? how much more than you get if your goal is to build a national welfare state? that might create an opportunity for parties to say, let's do something big. >> just one more word on this subject. i'm sure, as you know, as a fellow political scientist you would agree with the proposition that our generalizations are true until they aren't and one of the interesting things about the reagan tax reform, of course, is that it wasn't the first two years of the first term. it was the first two years of the second term which makes it all the more impressive. i think this is one of many

respects in which our current circumstances are really driving our sense of what's possible. i mean based, based on the past two administrations one could be led to the first two year conclusion. but of course bill clinton achieved what is arguably his biggest domestic success in his second term. so, i would not, i think it would be really unfortunate if we came to the conclusion that sort of like waste dna, the last six years of a president's term are sort of wasted time, right? i hope we can govern ourselves in a higher proportion of available time than that. >> you know, i agree. so large change, i think, well, large change in the party's desired direction. so in those situations you gave, those were kind of compromised policies in which they were working across the aisle to get welfare reform. >> that's true. >> so a condition i would see

that could bring about tax reform is the election of a republican president, democrats control one chamber in congress and then, at some point during the republican president's term the policy mood of the country turns liberal. which happens. like so we have two measurements of public opinion. one being individual, another being aggregate. aggregate public opinion tend to go in countercyclical ways to where policy is going. you think about a second term of a republican president with a democratic house and public opinion changing and that could provide conditions that would be ripe for some type of tax change. >> i'm doing the math. this gets us to 20 -- maybe one more question here, eric. hang on just a second. >> so, one word i haven't heard in this conversation about taxes and public opinion but i hear politicians use this all the time is irs.

and so i was kind of wondering if, changing attitude towards the irs and recent so-called scandals and anything like that, how, have there been major changes in attitudes and how has that affected the tax reform process? >> again in the public domain we've had no questions, only one question since -- >> we'll leave the last few minutes of this discussion as the u.s. senate is about to meet on this wednesday. for more debate on extending long-term unemployment benefits for another five months. at 10:00 eastern, lawmakers will have procedural votes limiting debates adding unemployment to the house bill. the original house bill insures volunteer firefighters are considered volunteers even if they receive some compensation. off the floor, senators are engaging in a number of amendments to the bills. senators also planning votes some time today on several executive nominations including assistant secretary ever state for democracy, human rights, and labor and assistant secretary of

labor for employment of and training. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. holy god, you make the clouds your chariot and walk upon the wind. we see your works in the rising of the sun and in its setting. for the beauty of the earth and the glory of the skies we give you praise.

today, make our lawmakers heirs of peace, demonstrating that they are your children as they strive to find common ground. may they take pleasure in doing your will and fulfilling your purposes in our world. lord, you are never far from us but often we are far from you, so show us your ways and teach us your paths. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our 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. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., april 2, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 250. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 250, s. 1737, a bill to provide for increase in the federal minimum wage, and so forth. mr. reid: mr. president,

following my remarks and those of the republican leader the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 3979, which is a legislative vehicle for the unemployment insurance extension. the time until 10:00 will be equally divided and controlled. the filing deadline for second-degree amendments is 9:30 today. 9:30 a.m. today. at 10:00 a.m. there will be a cloture vote on the reid substitute amendment. additional votes are expected throughout the day. senators will be notified when we schedule them. there are two bills at the desk due for second reading, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time. the clerk: s. 2198, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior, the secretary the commerce and the administrator of the environmental protection agency to take actions to provide additional water supplies and disaster assistance to the state of california and other western states due to drought and for other purposes.

s. 2199, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings to both of these matters. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the measures will be placed upon the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, one of the privileges of addressing the senate each morning is the opportunity to call attention to what i believe and what i think the country believes are noble causes. i certainly hope so. today is world autism day. to the americans who have autism and the millions of family and friends affected by this condition, one day is simply not enough to focus on this misunderstood illness, but it helps and we certainly hope it does. autism is a general term for a group of complex disorders of brain developments affecting social interaction,

communication and behavior. according to a recent study, the center for disease control, 1 in 60 children is diagnosed with having some form of autism in our country. as more and more children are identified as being autistic, it's important we in congress do all we can to provide for their families, their caretakers and give them the help that is so vitally necessary. under the affordable care act, autism screenings and other preventive services are available at no cost to families. for those diagnosed with autism the days of being denied health insurance due to their preexisting condition ended with the passage and implementation of the affordable care act. today, because of the affordable care act, adult children with autism may stay on their parents' policies through age 26, providing them with the stability and additional

treatment they need. with benefits like these, mr. president, it's no wonder that more than seven million people have sought health coverage under the affordable care act. and this doesn't count the estimated 800,000 to 900,000 people who are on the 14 state exchanges. but, mr. president, in addition to that, there's going to be everyone that tried to sign up during the last many months and were unable to get through for whatever reason, are also now going to be signed up, which will add hundreds of thousands of more people. so the numbers are pretty clear. the estimate given by the white house many months ago, which my republican colleagues made fun of, has now been exceeded. so maybe they'll quiet down and stop talking about repealing this bill that affects millions and millions of people favorably

while the health care laws helping autistic americans who have been diagnosed, but it also helps their families, researchers at the national institutes of health are tackling the question of why this disease is here, what are the origins of this disease. this condition. i shouldn't call it a disease. research is critical in supporting the development tools, interventions and evidence-based services to help provide the quality of life for people in the autism spectrum. over the last year researchers funded by n.i.h. have made significant advances in understanding the onset of autism. they have learned that brain changes that contribute to autism occur even during pregnancy and continue through the first years of life. they have also concluded that some of the possible signs of autism may begin to appear within the first six months it can be identified. the work of the n.i.h. in understanding the problem cannot

be understated. but far more needs to follow to better comprehend autism. congress also has responsibilities. one is providing resources to the national institutes of health and the center for disease control. and we need to do that. my friend, senator durbin, has introduced legislation that would focus on ways we can provide more help that's badly needed, with sequestration and the other cuts that have taken place, it is unfair to these two agencies. achieving a better life experience also known as the able act, would also improve the quality of life for individuals with autism and other disabilities through tax-advantage savings accounts. these special savings accounts would help disabled americans and their loved ones plan for the future by setting aside money to cover future expenses

including education, housing, therapy and rehabilitation. i'm the sponsor of the able act and proud to stand with all advocates in celebrating today, world autism awareness day. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the statement i just gave appear separately in the record as to what i'm going to complete my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, on another matter, and what has become an annual frustration for the american people, the tea party-controlled house budget committee released its budget proposal yesterday. this budget is frustrating for americans because it doesn't reflect what they envision for this nation. in fact, the ryan budget more closely resembles the wants of the multibillionaire koch brothers than it does the pattern for helping america. for those who haven't seen the prequell, that is the newest budget proposal, it's the same old story and it's a story of

broken promises, of broken promises to our children, our seniors, and to our families. to our children, we promised that we would provide and protect them. safeguarding them during their vulnerable years of childhood and adolescence, and at least try to do everything we can to help them. yet by repealing the expansion of health care to millions of americans cutting medicaid by $1.5 trillion, the ryan-koch budget tells our nation's children you're on your own. we must provide our children by supplying the tools they need to succeed. most importantly, a quality education. but evidently house republicans don't see the need for us to invest in education because their budget slashes tens of billions of dollars in funding to schools and rolls back federal financial aid to colleges and students generally. simply put, the koch-ryan budget breaks the promise to seniors

that we've had in existence since the great depression. it would be the end of medicare as we know it. health insurance companies for seniors would skyrocket as would their prescription costs. finally the ryan-koch budget breaks a promise to every american family that we as the federal government has given them by working hard and playing by the rules, you can get ahead. that isn't what the ryan-koch budget would allow. what do the republicans propose to do with this money they cut from medicare, medicaid and education? they would create more tax breaks for corporations of the wealthy. but, mr. president, it's more than that. it's what some of the things that's not written, these holes that are in the budget that we've heard before and we know they want to whack social security. they're just afraid to put it in writing. the koch budget would cut the corporate tax rate to 25% and lower the top individual tax rate for america's highest

earners. so i guess i say, mr. president, to the house budget committee and all the house members, democrats and republicans. is $80 billion personal wealth of the koch brothers enough? i think most everyone would say yes, it's enough. but not the koch brothers. they want more. they are the richest people in the world. individually they are only fifth. put them together, they are the richest in the world. under this budget that i've talked about, middle-class families would pay about $2,000 a year more in taxes. but the rich would pay less. democrats believe in growing the economy from the middle out, but the republicans are still trapped in the trickle-down economics based on handouts to the super wealthy and special interests. perhaps the koch budget -- i should put the ryan-koch budget

was summarized best by the center for budget and policy priorities, richard greenstein who said -- and i quote -- "more poverty and less opportunity." that's what this budget is about, more poverty and less opportunity. hr mr. president, whether it's current law such as the affordable care act or much-needed legislation like comprehensive health care reform, i ask my republican colleagues to work with us for a better america.

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the democratic majority led us to believe the senate would be discussing jobs this week, but it seems to be a pretty one-sided discussion. republican senators came to the floor to talk about our innovative ideas to create jobs and grow opportunity for all americans. as for senate democrats, though, well, they couldn't even stand up to call for votes on the jobs proposals. i think this reflects a growing divide here in the senate between a republican party that's focused on the middle class and a democratic party that's obsessed with november 4. that's really disappointing for america. the american people need two serious political parties in this country. by at least -- but at least our constituents can be assured of one thing. republicans are laser focused on

delivering real prosperity to the families who struggled so much in this economy. it's the impetus behind basically everything we do, and it's the impetus behind the numerous jobs proposals republican senators are rolling out this week. for instance, several republican senators will take to the floor again today to talk about energy's potential for driving growth and american job creation. and while the government needs to stop holding americans back from sharing in the energy boom. i also plan to join and discuss my own amendment that would fight back against the president's war on coal jobs. i'm looking forward to that colloquy. but right now i'd like to talk about another jobs proposal senator paul and i have again introduced, national right-to-work legislation. it would allow american workers to choose whether or not they'd like to join a union and it

would protect a worker from getting fired if she'd rather not subsidize a union boss who fails to represent her concerns and priorities. it's just such a commonsense, pro-worker proposal. according to one survey, about 80% of union workers agree that employees should be able to decide whether or not joining a union is right for them. one obvious benefit is increased take-home pay for workers who choose to keep the hundreds of dollars that would otherwise be taken from their paychecks by union bosses. and there's a huge opportunity component here as well. that's because most unions operate on a seniority system, with pay raises often based off the amount of time a worker has spent at a company rather than on her performance. well, i think an american worker deserves the opportunity to earn more money if she works hard. i think she deserves the

opportunity to rise through the ranks and put more money in her pocket if she's determined to do it. that's real paycheck fairness. these are just bedrock american values, core workers' rights, that should never be denied to our constituents, especially in a terrible economy like this one. many of kentucky's neighboring states have gone right-to-work with great success and i hope kentucky will join them soon. i recently read an op-ed that laid out just how much we could have gained over the last decade if we had. it noted that private-sector jobs had grown by 15.3% in right-to-work states compared to just 6.9% in kentucky. that manufacturing had expanded three times faster in right-to-work states, and that compensation had grown by 14.2% compared to just 4.3% in

kentucky. so i'm encouraged by the members of kentucky's legislature who continue to fight for right-to-work legislation. kentuckians shouldn't be suggested to that kind of prosperity gap any longer. and neither should millions of other americans struggling across our country. i believe they should have a more equal chance of finding work in every state and that they should no longer see their communities failing to secure new investment because their state hasn't passed right-to-work. that's just one more reason why i believe in our national legislation, too. so i'm asking our democratic friends to join senator paul and me in standing up for workers' rights and a stronger middle class, to join us in passing right-to-work legislation. let's be honest. after more than five years of economic misery under their watch, that's the least washington democrats can do for the american people. unfortunately, i suspect we'll hear a lot of excuses instead

about why washington democrats can't or won't stand with us in this fight. no matter what they say, though, the american people would know the truth. it's because big labor bosses have such sway over today's democratic party and because big labor bosses aren't about to give up their perks or their vice grip over american workers. well, big labor bosses should know that republicans are determined to fight for american workers, american jobs and a stronger middle class, even if the bosses work against us every step of the way. right-to-work is just a smart way to get america on the path to real recovery and it's critical to empowering workers and giving them more freedom. i really want to commend senator paul for his leadership on this legislation, for his longtime advocacy on this issue, and i hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will prove me wrong by working together to pass important jobs initiatives

like right-to-work for the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 3979, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 333, h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to discuss and present amendment number 2931 to the bill before us. this is a germane amendment. it's all about the substance of the bill before us and it is a

fully bipartisan proposal since all of the substance of this amendment was actually contained in the president's budget submission, his most recent budget submission. the amendment idea is very simple, it would prohibit unemployment insurance and disability double dipping. those are two different things. one is about somebody who's temporarily unable to find work, still looking for work, clearly able to work. that's unemployment insurance. disability is fundamentally different. that's somebody who is disabled and because of that disability cannot work on a long-term bas basis. so as president obama has proposed, as many republicans have proposed, this would simply prohibit an individual from receiving both of those benefits at the same time and would save about a billion dollars over 10

years. that's president obama's own estimation. and so, mr. president, to fully present and consider this, i would ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment numbered 2931. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: reserving the right to object. mr. president, we've had millions of people over the last many months who lost their unemployment benefits. in most instances, it's a real traj tragic thing. many of the people who lost these benefits are past middle age, because of the recession, they lost their jobs they've had for a long time, and they can't find work. we've read into the record

tragic stories about people using their social security to try to save their son's home. i mean, it's -- we have people who have -- a woman living on -- she's been couch surfing. she said, i didn't know what the term meant. now i know. and they've had to struggle without these extended unemployment benefits. the senior senator from rhode island has negotiated on a bipartisan basis a fix to this. it's basically giving the republicans everything they asked for. paid, everything's paid for, no disagreement as to the pay-fors; doesn't increase the deficit at all. in fact, it would stimulate the economy significantly. there's -- we've been told by economists, mark zandi, john mccain's chief economic advisor when he ran for president, we've been told by him and others that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy

quicker and faster and more efficiently than any other thing we do. because they're desperate for money and they spend it. but, mr. president, in spite of the bipartisan agreement negotiated with jack reed, senator heller from nevada and other republicans, we have the vast majority of the republican senators doing the same thing they've done for a long time -- they respond in their usual way. when they're face a bill they're trying to kill, they try to change the subject, diversion. now, already on this piece of legislation before the senate today, we have more than 24 amendments been filed by republicans dealing with obamacare alone. in spite of the fact -- in spite of the fact that yesterday it was announced that there are 7.1 million people who have already signed up. that doesn't count the 14 state exchanges that we'll get another

900,000, it's estimated, plus the two-week extension in which hundreds of thousands of more will sign up. mr. president, their tone deaf. they've got to go to some other issue but they can't. more than two dozen amendments on this bill alone dealing with obamacare. repealing it inspect differentr. several other amendments have been singled out we have before the body, to attack the administration efforts to protect the environment. they proceethe protests of the s prove that they're not wanting to talk about unemployment benefits. they're more about protecting the koch brothers. what are they trying to do? kill extending unemployment benefits. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. vitter: mr. president, i'm going to repeat my request because apparently the majority leader, based on his comments, didn't understand it. i have an amendment that is about unemployment insurance. i have an amendment that's germane to the bill. it's not about obamacare. it's not about e.p.a., it's not about the koch brothers. and i have an amendment that is a proposal contained in president obama's last two budgets. so my amendment has nothing to do with any of the comments and objections he made. so for that reason, i'm trying to clarify that and i would again ask unanimous consent that my germane amendment, proposed by president obama in his last two budgets, be in order -- and it be in order for notice offer my amendment number -- for notice offer my amendment number 2931. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president, i clearly understand the diversion and delay tactics of my friend from louisiana and i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: well, mr. president, reclaiming the floor, i think it's very unfortunate. i don't know why it's diversionary to talk about the substance that's before us in this bill. that's not changing the subject, i would say through the chair to the majority leader. that's talking about the subject. i don't know why it's delaying anything to consider an amendment during the time set aside for this bill. that's not delaying anything. that's doing the business of the senate by bringing valid ideas to the floor and offering them as an amendment. and i don't know why it's republican obstructionism to have an amendment that is a proposal contained in president obama's last two budgets. so, again, i would just make point that everything the majority leader said in objecting to my being even able

to present my amendment for a vote doesn't apply to my amendment. it's complete nonsense. it's just talking past the substance of this amendment, which is about unemployment insurance reform and which is a bipartisan proposal and which is included in the president's last two budgets. now, this is an important and commonsense reform. it's commonsense because eligibility for the two programs we're talking about are mutually exclusive. it's apples and oranges. disability is designed to assist folks who are physically or mentally unable to work for a significant period of time, sometimes permanently. unemployment insurance, in contrast, is intended to replace some of the earnings for those individuals who become unemployed and are unable to find work temporarily. it is an oversight, a technical

imperfection in the law the fact that some limited number of folks can double dip and get both at the same time. and this is widely recognized on a bipartisan basis. on the republican side, of course, i have this amendment. senator coburn, my colleague from oklahoma, has had similar proposals. senator portman, my colleague from ohio, has had similar proposals. on the democratic side, there's no higher-ranking democrat i can possibly cite than president obama. he's included this reform, exactly this reform, in his last two budget proposals. i've never heard any articulation from any democrat or any member of the senate why this reform doesn't make sense. and the majority leader, while objecting to my even being able

to present this amendment for a vote offered no such rationale. he talked past it. he talked about the koch brothers and he talked about e.p.a. and he talked about obamacare instead of talking about my germane, commonsense, bipartisan reform amendment to this bill, which has been included, this proposal, in president obama's last two budgets. so i really find this very unfortunate, but i'm going to continue to fight for a vote on this amendment. it will improve the bill. whatever you think about the bill, this will improve it. this will save about $1 billion over ten years. this will clear up the double dipping which was never intended and is contrary to the fundamental purpose -- different purposes of the two programs tk-rpbs -- and this will advance a program that has been included

in president obama's last two budgets. with that, mr. president, i will return to promote this amendment. but for now i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you,

mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. it's been more than three months since two million americans, nearly 60,000 people in my home state of ohio, tens of thousands in the presiding officer's state of massachusetts, it's been nearly two months since these fellow americans, fellow workers, most of whom overwhelmingly most of whom have worked day in and day out through most of their lives, it's been that long since unemployment benefits have expired from them simply because congress, the house of representatives and the senate, have failed to act. this body has tried to act a number of times, and a number of times it's been filibustered. we couldn't get 60 votes to move forward. the house of representatives has seemed, frankly, indifferent to the efforts of these two million

people. think who these people are. this is about unemployment insurance. it's called insurance for a reason. insurance means they pay in when they're working, they get benefits when they're laid off. but they must be seeking work to qualify and earn -- and i underscore earn -- those benefits. they're not given them. they have earned them. they've paid in unemployment insurance. they get assistance when they've lost their jobs. every day we fail in this congress because of republican filibuster and because of cold indifference in the house of representatives, every week, every day we fail to extend these benefits more americans slip into poverty. people aren't getting rich from unemployment insurance. the average unemployment check in massachusetts, in ohio, across this country is about $300. $300, so that families can keep their heads above water, so they can avoid foreclosure, so they can put gas in their car, so

they can go look for work as they're required to do to receive unemployment, that they can just keep their family going. that poverty reduces spending when they don't get the benefits, they're not spending the money in the community. when they do get these benefits, they're spending money at the local grocery store in chillicothe, going to the local shoe store in portsmouth. they're going to the car repair shop in toledo or in lima, putting money into the economy which generates economic activity which grows job. extending unemployment is not just the right thing for families in dayton, in akron, in springfield, ohio, in springfield, massachusetts, it's the right thing for the economy because it puts money into the economy and helps to create jobs. forget about statistics. forget about the 60,000 number of people in ohio. forget about the two million across the country. listen to what this does to

individual lives. let me just close with sharing three or four stories from people around my state. laurie from montgomery county, southwest ohio, dayton area writes i worked my entire life until i lost my job last summer. i spend four to five hours a day looking for jobs. the positions in my field are limited. i'm told i'm either overqualified or underqualified. phoeu unemployment benefits aren't much but allow me to make car payments so when i get a job interview i have a car to get there. please don't let me down. please don't let me down. robert from belmont county on the west virginia line near the ohio river in eastern ohio, robert writes, i lost my job in 2012 and my employer, the steel mill shut down, i was unemployed for more than a year before finding another position. i was in that job two and a half months and was let go because of the down economy. not enough time for a new claim to get me by.

i have a family to support. now that the extension is gone, what am i going to do to support my family? what am i going to do when there aren't these jobs out there to support my family? do the right thing. many lives are depending on it. the first person says please don't let me down. the second person from belmont county says do the right thing. scott from union county in central ohio, where they are doing a little better overall but still tough times. i was laid off from my job at the beginning of this year. i had only been there six months. it was a godsend for me. i don't have a college degree but i was given a chance to show i could do this job even though a degree was required. we went through a round of layoffs in october. my job was saved at the time, but then our company closed its doors in january. now i have nothing. zero income, zero outside help, nonexisting savings. not because i didn't save but because i didn't make enough money to save anything the last few years. i joined the military out of

high school. i used my g.i. bill to put myself through some college. soon enough i was in a mountain of debt from school and needed to work full time. i wasn't able to save money because i couldn't even afford to pay my student loan debt. while i'm writing you i'm sitting here watching my son play. he's so happy but he doesn't know why his dad is so sad, nor will i ever tell him. i'm begging you to get this all figured out soon. these are stories. they are veterans, they are people who have worked all their lives, they are people who have struggled. they are people who have never really had it easy but they do what we ask. they work hard. as president clinton used to say they play by the rules. they took personal responsibility for their lives. and this congress, this senate, because of filibuster, has turned its back on these workers. the house of representatives, because of its indifference, has shrugged these workers off. it's wrong. it is important that congress pass the extension for unemployment in this house, send it across the hall and they pass

it. the president eagerly awaits signing this legislation because it will matter to citizens in middle town, ohio, all over might state -- my state and all over this country. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i applaud my colleague from ohio for his stories from his home state on the families that have been dramatically impacted by the broken bridge between a lost job and the next job. indeed, in my home state, there are about 26,000 folks who are affected in this manner. you can think of it, the face between two jobs, as a chasm, a

chasm that threatens the success of every family. they are hoping to make their payment on their light bill. they're hoping to make their rent payment or their mortgage payment. but they have to make it to that next job and savings run thin, particularly when savings are very hard to come by when our economy is generating fewer and fewer living-wage jobs. in the last recession of 2008, 60% of the jobs lost were living-wage jobs. but the jobs that we're getting back, only 40% are living-wage jobs. and, indeed, that means millions of families have gone from a strong foundation, ability to raise children, to buy a modest home, perhaps to take an annual vacation, perhaps to save a little bit of money to help send kids to college, they've gone

from that foundation to struggling and chasing minimum-wage, near minimum-wage jobs, part-time jobs, jobs that often have no -- no benefits. and for all those who are -- are wrestling in this situation, they aren't going to have a big pile of savings to get from one position to the next, and that's why during of periods of high unemployment we have created a longer unemployment insurance bridge to get them successfully to that next job. because when people fall into the chasm between one job and the next, it isn't just the family that's hurt, it's not just the worker that's hurt, our entire society is impacted. it's impacted in several ways. first we have the situation where people go through foreclosure and that's devastating to the family, devastating to the children, certainly it also impacts the value of every home on the street. and we have the situation of

families who lose their home, that lose their rental home and become homeless. and it isn't just the parents who are impacted, the children are deeply impacted and they go through a traumatic event. and that is certainly a terrible situation to endure and mal effects throughout. indeed -- maleffects throughout. indeed, of those 26,000 families in oregon, right now there's a couple sitting at their kitchen table and they're trying to figure out just how many meals they're going to skip in order to make their next rent payment. or they're struggling with how long they can defer a health care bill while they make their mortgage payment. these are tough decisions. and this is -- this is why we've had a bipartisan agreement developed under president bush

that during periods of high unemployment we would have a longer bridge to the next job. the logic is very, very simple. the logic is that during periods of high unemployment, the average time between jobs is longer, that is, the chasm is wider, so you need a longer bridge to get there. and this is a -- a program that automatically pulls itself back in, retires itself as the unemployment rate drops. as the unemployment rate drops, the number of extra weeks become fewer and fewer. that's why there was so much logic behind that. this is why there was no partisan divide. well, today we're going to vote again on whether to keep this logical bipartisan, self-retiring critical bridge in place and i hope we have a brought bipartisan vote to support it. and then we need to turn to the

house and say to the house of representatives, this is not another bill that you can lock in the basement and throw away the key. this is a fundamental piece of legislation that affects the welfare of our families, the health of our economies, the strength of our communities, and it merits a vote on the floor of the house of representatives. it is certainly a reasonable expectation that everyone in america should see where their congressman or their congresswoman stands on such a vital economic strategy for individual families and for the broader community. so let us not disappoint those 26,000 families in oregon. let us not disappoint those

1.7 million families across america that have counted on problem solving, common sense rather than partisan warfare to address this issue. thank you, mr. president. mr. merkley: mr. president, i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i as k consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the substitute amendment numbered 2874 to h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. signed by 17 senators.