because it protects them. they now have a picture of what happened, and they can say here it is we were conflicted about whether we want the police to have the ability to protect themselves, and we can't pass gun control laws in this country for automatic weapons. now, if i was a police officer, i couldn't imagine why you'd want anybody selling automatic weapons. because if i'm up against an automatic weapon with a hand gun, i'm overmatched. so we, we put the police in a very difficult position. >> host: newport ritchie, florida, ann is next, an independent. hi, ann. >> guest: hello, representative mcdermott. hi, greta. this is a call, i'm kind of nervous. i lived in washington stays in eastern and -- state in eastern and western washington state, and i'm calling you from

florida. we're a border state, so i'm going to ask about immigration. i know that washington state and florida have several things in common in terms of being border states -- [laughter] and i have been to canada, and i do love it up there. i wish i was back there. but florida is different in that we have a large immigration problem here that has now gone to another level. the representative bilirakis has decided to look the other way here in newport ritchie when we've had new buildings built to house some of the immigrants that came here who were underage immigrants on the trains that obama let come here. and they're now expanding their facilities here. and i just, i look at the situation, and i think my husband's been out of work for a year, and he was a plumbing

mechanic for 30 years, and finding a job here is going to be much more difficult now that the president has decided to do this. >> host: okay. all right, ann, we'll leave it there and have the congressman weigh in. >> guest: well, a lot of aspects to what you're talking about. if you're talking about the florida situation, one of the things this country could do to make this thing all better would be to reestablish relationships with cuba. because what you're getting is an inflow of cubans coming out of a situation where they can't make it, where they're having a very difficult time or they would see a better thing in the united states. so they come into the united states. and we welcome them if they escape from communism in cue cuba -- cuba, we say, okay, whatever you want, you're here. and that creates an inflow that we could stop if we could say cuba and the united states have relations, and we could make the economy in cuba go, we could have a lot of people stay down there. one of -- people come to the united states for an opportunity to have a better life. my family did.

the germans and the irish came in the 1840s because they were in terrible famines and terrible war, and they came here because they wanted to do better. and that's true of every group of immigrants who have come here. and i, i think that our problems are in part because we do not recognize we are a nation of immigrants, and right now our birthrate is going down, we're not producing enough children, american children, to replace the children who are in this country, so we're bringing in immigrants as we have always done. and i, i think that you're going to see that the problem isn't going to go away. in fact, it's a problem worldwide. famine and drought, the climate change is making people move around. you've got black people living in sweden, and you've got all kinds of things going on right now that never went on in the past. but it always related to climate. and people, if they can't make it economically one place, they move to another place because they care about their family. every single immigrant cares

about his wife and his kids or his husband and their kids, and they are going to find a better place for themselves. and i think it really, it's a very tough problem. we could put controls on it, but i doubt that we're going to stop it. >> host: on the line for democrats, carl in florida. go ahead, carl. >> caller: hello, thanks. i've got a question for the congressman here. everybody's talking about impeaching president obama. i would like to know john boehner, the speaker of the house there, is blocking everything that the president is trying to do. as a former veteran, i had to take an oath to protect the president and the citizens of this country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. would it be possible for the president to declare john boehner a foreign, excuse me, a domestic terrorist and send seal team six after him? [laughter] >> guest: no, i don't think that's a very reasonable plan.

it sort of sounds good, but our system doesn't allow the president to take on somebody in that kind of a way. and it's not going to happen. >> host: mike in jackson, new jersey, a republican. hi, mike. >> caller: yes, good morning. i'd like to ask the good representative two points. he made a point about his people coming over from ireland and england and so forth, and my parents came to this country in 1912. but the big difference between people coming mow and back when your family and my family came was the fact they didn't go for anything or as far as giveouts. they had to work, and they worked hard. and they had no idea of going back to the old country. they were staying here permanently. they made it happen. there was no giveaways, there was no handouts. it is it was -- it was a disgrace for home relief. my father used to tell me this. and it all boils down to this,

sir, money. money, that's the reason many problems are happening. let me ask you a question, and i'm sure you'll answer it honestly. your family makes $1,000 a week. and they're spending $1300 a week. is there something wrong with that question? and i'll leaf it to you to -- leave it to you to answer that. >> guest: well, i'm not quite sure what the point of your question is, but the fact is that immigrants -- well, let's use this as an example. in the western united states where much of the food is grown that's eaten by people all over the country, large parts of the agricultural work is done by immigrants who come from mexico. now, many of them want to come up for the work season, for the migrant harvest, and then want to go back. but our immigration policy if they had to sneak in in the first place, then they have no way -- they can go back, but they'll never get back in again. they'll have to sneak back in.

so it makes much better sense to say how many agricultural workers do we need, give those visas and let them come. in washington state this year, hundreds of acres of as pair gas were plowed under -- asparagus were plowed under because there was nobody willing to do the stoop labor that it takes to harvest asparagus. it comes up out of the ground, you've got to go right down to the ground and cut it, then put it in a box and ship it. now, that is hard work to do eight hours a day. these migrant laborers are coming and wanting to do that, but this year they didn't have enough people. so the farmers lost their crop. the same will be true in our orchards. if there's no migrants to get up on the ladders and pick the apples, then you're going to have the loss of a harvest. so there's reasons why these people come both from their point of view and from our point of view. and i think it would be -- that's what they tried to work to out in the senate bill. but the house wouldn't take it

up because they would rather argue and try and demonize migrants than deal with the problem. it is a problem that can be dealt with if people will compromise. >> host: mike, democratic caller, new jersey. >> guest: i was just calling, the congressman is a champion on extending up employment benefits -- unemployment benefits. is anybody planning on doing that? >> guest: well, when i was chairman of the committee on income security, i rewrote the whole unemployment legislation, and it's almost all been repealed. i did that in 2009, i guess, or 2007. and it's almost all been repealed in the last seven years. we -- and january 1 of this year, 11 months ago, we ended any extended benefits so 1.4 million people were kicked off the rolls immediately, and we've not done anything since.

there is no talk because the republicans have the idea that when you're unemployed, you're lazy, and you sit in your rocking chair and rock waiting for the check to come in the maul. that is simply not true about the unemployed people, and it's unfair to them, and in a country where we have problems, we should be able to take care of our brothers and sisters. this is a, you've got to keep the common good. if it's good for me and i'm doing fine, that's all i care about. this is a terrible country. if greta and i don't take care of each other or you or all the people who are watching this, it becomes a country where everybody's for himself, and it doesn't work. unemployment insurance is saying this guy doesn't have a job, i'm going to give him some money til he gets a job. and i think that that's a good thing to do in a civilized country. >> host: we have about 20 minutes left here with congressman jim mcdermott, democrat of washington, senior member of the budget committee and also senior member of ways and means.

he's also the top democrat on the health subcommittee on the ways and means committee. here's the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning, sir, basic costs squeezing people. surging price tags for health care and other essentials leave spending elsewhere. on health care wasn't the intelligent of the affordable health care -- intent of the affordable care act to lower health care costs? >> guest: well, yes, of course. and part of that is because if you have everybody paying into the system, then you don't have so many free riders. right now we started out when mr. obama got into this, we started out with 31 million people who were free riders. if they got sick, they went down to the hospital. they got taken care of. what the bill was to do was to get everybody paying so there would be more money in the system, and people who would hae health insurance, and they'd do preventive things so they wouldn't wait until a terrible catastrophe happens. they would be doing things up front to prevent it.

we've got some real problems, and i think that the problem has been that we spent the last two years -- 51 times we've tried to repeal it was the republicans just -- because the republicans just say it's bad, it's bad, it's bad, and rather than saying this part doesn't work, let's see if we can figure out to -- the reason i got reelected, the reason i ran, i've got other things i could do, the reason i ran is because i want to be there to help them shape the changes that will make it work better for people. >> host: so what's going on then? the speaker of the house put out this tweet, that according to gallup one in three americans say they have put off getting medical treatment because of the costs. so what are the problems that need to be fixed to lower the cost? >> guest: well, i'll give you one of them. i was on another radio station this morning. a guy working for a company, he makes $11 an hour, and the company is less than 50 employees, and the owner of the company offers a plan to his employees.

now, this guy says on $11 an hour and my family income, i'm not -- that's too much. and i forgot exactly how much it was. but he said it was too much. now, if he rejects the plan he gets from his boss and goes over to the exchange, then he goes into the exchange, but he gets no subsidy, and his costs go up even higher. so we have to, we have to look at this question about affordability. because one of the people they talked about in this article they said it would be the same as the mortgage payment would be my payment for my insurance. i can't live like that. so i've got to let the insurance go. i've got other things i've got to spend my money on. so we've got to look at the question of affordability and how much do we have to subsidize people to keep them in the health insurance system. if we don't care, you and i will be all right. you've got a good system here at c-span, i've got one in the congress, and all of us who are employed in places where we're taken care of, we're okay.

but the people out there who do not have that kind of situation are in terrible -- they're one illness away from a bankruptcy. so we shouldn't have that in the richest country in the world, and we can fix it. >> host: darrell issa, now the chairman -- currently the chairman of the house oversight and government reform committee in the 113th, won't be in the 14th, but he tweeted this out that jonathan gruber and marilyn tavenner have agreed to testify before his panel on december 9th. what did you make of the mit economist, jonathan gruber, his remarks? >> guest: i think jonathan gruber was kind of peripheral to the process. i don't know who got to him, but i do not agree with him. i don't think that was true, what he said. >> host: why did he say it? i mean, what's going on there? >> guest: i have no idea. maybe they'll find out in the testimony. i suspect there'll be questions from both sides, and when somebody was not central to the decision making goes out and

makes an affirmative statement in the press -- and the press doesn't pay, they don't ask a second source, they don't go and research it, they just put it up and everybody says, oh, that's the truth, because i saw it on television. well, it may not be the truth, what he said. he may have said a partial truth. and that's really what they'll get at in this inquisition -- [laughter] when it occurs in mr. issa's committee. i hope they're looking for information rather than just making headlines. >> host: second round of enrollment has begun for the affordable care act. here's a headline from november 20th, that obamacare sign-ups were inflated with dental plans, so the number was inflated. do you have any concerns answer round two -- about round two of enrollment? >> guest: the penalty is much stronger now. i think it's going to push a lot of people to join up or mistake some kind of arrangement -- or make some kind of arrangement that works so they don't get penalized the next tax year. but i do have a -- because of

the problems i know like the one i talked about, those kinds of problems are in the system. i never have said the -- >> and the senate about to gavel back in, so we're going to leave the last few minutes of this conversation and take you back to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: -- but the current estimate is some of the

discussions on the floor and in the hallways about thanksgiving and thursday when i sat down with my family over thanksgiving dinner, i thought about our history, and my grandparents came to vermont from italy, my great grandparents from ireland, my wife's family came to vermont from the province of quebec in canada. we like most americans are a family of immigrants, so it makes our country so special and strong and thanksgiving is a good time to celebrate, honor that strength. but far too many program families live in fear, fear of being torn apart, losing a mother or father or sister or brother to deportation, bringing peace to those families is one of the things that motivated me last year in the long debate on immigration policy. both democrats and republicans in this chamber praised the fair

and thorough process that we gave in the judiciary committee that we gave the immigration bill. we had six hearings, 42 witnesses, we debated bipartisan legislation the committee a total of 37 hours over a three-week period. we considered 212 amendments. we adopted 136 of them. all but three on a bipartisan basis. the full senate then debated the bill and again by an overwhelming bipartisan majority passed it. but the republican leaders in the house even with all this bipartisan effort here and a very good immigration bill they won't even allow a vote on the bill. they won't even allow a vote on it. today they're batting zero when it comes to addressing the broken immigration system. allows them to say we would do this or we would do that so long as they never have to vote one way or the other.

it's the typical let's vote maybe and see if the american people let us get away with it. they complain the president is acting a loan, well, the american people support immigration reform and that's why the president acted. his actions are legal, they're only a temporary fix. they want to do something, take up the senate bill. let the republican leadership allow the members of both parties to vote on it. i would say it would pass and that's why the president has worked to keep families together. that's why next week the senate judiciary committee will again turn to the issue of family unity, a remarkable story president obama began to tell last week to come and talk with us. the fact is we have done the work for an immigration bill. we've done everything for border security to reuniting families that people talk about, why won't the republicans at least vote, vote yes or vote no.

we did. and i applaud those republicans and democrats in the senate who stood up and voted. let the house act. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the nomination of ms. nani coloretti to be deputy secretary of the deputy housing and urban development. the deputy secretary is a critical component of the management team oversee h.u.d.'s programs that provide affordable rental housing, community, and economic development

opportunities, and an opportunity for creditworthy families to achieve the dream of homeownership. i believe ms. coloretti has the skills and experience necessary to take on this role. that the full senate bank, housing and urban affairs committee also approves ms. coloretti's nomination on april 29, 2013 -- 2014 by a voice vote. ms. coloretti is currently the assistant secretary for management at the u.s. department of the treasury. during her tenure at treasury, ms. coloretti helped create a new treasury operations excellence team which has applied lean principles developed in the private sector

to improve performance at the treasury. this work encompasses dozens of process improvement outcomes, saving the department money and staff time while engendering a a -- continuing -- continual improvement. prior to joining the treasury department ms. coloretti held positions in the san francisco mayor's office, including budget director, the san francisco department of troubled youth and their families, the u.s. office of management and budget, and the private sector. she is also a recipient of the national public service award, the public policy and international affairs achievement award and the federal 100 award. in all, ms. coloretti would bring over 20 years of

experience in budget and program analysis as well as 15 years of management experience to the department of h.u.d. deputy secretary. at a time when millions of american families struggle to find affordable rental housing, america continues to lock many creditworthy potential borrowers out of homeownership and h.u.d.'s state and local partners work to provide greater opportunities with limited resources, it is critical that h.u.d. and the programs it oversees are run efficiently and effectively. as h.u.d.'s deputy secretary, ms. coloretti would be a valuable addition to the secretary's management team. i urge my fellow senators to support her nomination. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i'm going to be asking a unanimous consent agreement on some legislation that combines some work i've been doing and the ranking member of the p.w. committee and my friend, the senator from alaska. i want to complete a statement first and turn it over to the senator from louisiana. i want to thank chairman boxer and ranking member vitter for working with me on this sport legislation. i thank the bipartisan virginia delegation on both sides of the capitol, specially rob whitman. we have worked on it for four years. the chesapeake bay while located around virginia and maryland and delaware is a national treasure. it's the centerpiece of culture of many coastal communities in virginia and several neighboring states. restoring the health of the chesapeake bay must be a national priority. virginia and five other states, the district of columbia, ten

federal agencies and more than a thousand local governments have spent decades on this shared priority. we have joined together over the years in a shared commitment to the bay. we worked across jurisdictional lines, across the political aisle, across every level of government in partnership with the private sector and with nonprofit groups like the chesapeake bay foundation. this important bipartisan legislation that we're going to be moving on shortly ensures that we maintain a federal commitment to the partnership to restore the chesapeake bay. it also makes showers during these challenging fiscal times every dollar spent on improving the health of the bay produces real results. the chesapeake bay accountability bill requires the u.s. office of management and budget to prepare a cross-cut budget. this means we'll actually track where and how federal and state restoration dollars are being spent throughout the entire chesapeake bay watershed.

this will allow us to tract costs and match them to results. it means more accountability, it means more transparency to our combined efforts to restore this national treasure. this bipartisan legislation is an important step forward in ensuring that the chesapeake bay restoration and preservation efforts remain effective, accountable, responsible and transparent and in a moment i'm going to urge all my colleagues to join us in approving this. i'd like to yield the floor to the ranking member from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i'm really honored to join my colleagues here on the floor, senators warner and begich. i'm pleased to support senators -- senator warner's bill that he just described and also a second bill that senator begich and i have been working very diligently on that will be part of the unanimous consent. that's h.r. 5069, the federal

duck stamp act of 2014. this bipartisan legislation is a real victory for sportsmen and for conservation. it's a straightforward bill that updates the fee paid by duck hunters for a duck stamp for the first time since 1991. and that's a big win for the hunters, it's a big win for conservation. because of the cost of the duck stamp goes directly toward conservation of waterfowl habitat. in fact, 98 cents on every dollar generated goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for ducks and where you have more habitat, have you more ducks, and have you a healthier environment. it's really as simple as that. i'm very pleased to say that our work on this bill is really exactly how this place and american democracy is supposed to work.

i first heard about this real need from duck hunters, from sportsmen who live this and breathe this every day. i'm annexational hunter but these folks absolutely live it and breathe it every day and understood the critical need. i immediately got very involved. i reached out to allies like senator begich who had a great interest in it. i met with the house sponsor, representative john fleming, also from louisiana. we met with the house natural resources chairman, doc hastings and we got a strong version of the bill that passed through the house recently and that now comes to the senate. and today, by this consent, we will pass this house bill through the senate and send it to the president. as i said, that's the way the process is supposed to work, and this is a real win for hunters, for conservation, for

the environment. and i'd like to thank my colleague and partner on this, senator begich, and yield the floor to senator begich. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: thank you, madam president. to my colleague, senator vitter, thank you for this incredible work, for several years perks we have been focused on this piece of legislation for two reasons, one not only is it important for the hunters, the duck hunters but also a provision in there is important for users in my state in alaska. this is an important bill that as mentioned 98 cents of every dollar that goes into a duck stamp goes back into habitat protection for hunters into the future and into the current. along with that since 1934 over almost a billion dollars, three quarters of a billion dollars has been spent in protecting wetland habitat again for the purpose of ensuring that we have this habitat protected not only for hunters but in my case for

subsistence users. i agree with senator vitter, this is the kind of legislation you want to see done where democrat, republican, house and senate are working together. representative young worked with other house members to figure out how to move a bill, we had a senate version own over here we were working on and at the end of the day it's not about whose name is on the bill, it's about getting the job done and here we have a piece of legislation that will finally correct the pricing on the duck stamps to ensure we keep up to inflation and ensure that the continued preservation of wetlands is done for our hunters and sportsmen but on top of that, for my state for alaska, this recognizes the need for subsistence hunters where millions of acres are set aside for as refuge and protected status but our subsistence users live on the land not for extra extra game but for literally food for winter, in order to

survive. and so this allows a waiver to be put into place it will have minimal impact on the duck stamp program but will ensure that subsistence users, people who live on the land in alaska can continue to do that without the threat of a federal agency finding them -- fining them or dealing with them in some way that because they didn't have the stamp and this allows them to go for a waiver and ensure they can continue to do their subsistence hunters they have been doing for generations before the government locked up their land they've been hunting off of and this will happen not only now but into the future. i thank senator vitter for his work and his effort and not in this body but on the other side working with house members over there we had tokyo to make sure it would work together, would do it by unanimous consent. along with that, senator boxer and her staff at e.p.w. staff that did an incredible job and it's an honor to be here and the last

thing i will say to senator warner, let me say this, my son just had an opportunity to go to the bay. it's an incredible field study he did there with some of his staff. it was a great experience. he was able to go into the mud. i'm not sure what that was exactly, but he was able to go chest deep. then he decided not to do that but to be able there to help people. it was great to experience that, that incredible bay that is a national treasure. having that bill up also at the same time i think is not only good for your community but good for this whole country. and folks from my state that come to visit this community is another opportunity to see a national treasure. so it's an honor to be down here to have two pieces of legislation that will pass by u.c. i now yield the floor, madam president. mr. warner: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i thank the senator from alaska for his comments. i would be happy to take his son or his whole family out to visit the bay again. i also want to commend the senator from louisiana and the

senator from alaska for working together in the way this place is supposed to work. you have an issue. you have a lot of duck hunters in virginia as well. they firmly have supported this legislation and appreciate also the special considerations that need to be addressed in terms of the state of alaska. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the e.p.w. committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1000 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration and the consideration of h.r. 5069 which is at the desk en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? if not, without objection, the committee is discharged. mr. warner: i ask further -- the presiding officer: and the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. warner: i further ask unanimous consent that the warner substitute amendment to s. 1000 which is at the desk be agreed to, the bills as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed en bloc and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: parliamentary inquiry. did that unanimous consent cover both bills? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. mr. warner: madam president, i ask that the time in the quorum call be charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i'm going to take a few minutes today to discuss the ongoing saga of the 2014 tax extenders package. getting this legislation passed through the senate has been quite an ordeal from the outset. as you will recall, the finance committee reported its tax extenders package in april, and a few weeks later, progress stalled on the senate floor when the senate majority leadership refused to allow votes on any amendments. after that time which was in mid may, the tax extenders set somewhat in limbo although both sides acknowledged a desire to get something passed during the lame-duck session if not before. the advance committee extenders package, if you remember,

extended 55 expired or expiring tax provisions for two years without making any of them permanent. the house took a different approach which was to make certain important tax provisions like the r&d tax credit, for example, permanent, bringing more certainty to american businesses, families and individuals. over the past several weeks, negotiations have been ongoing in the hopes of reducing a bill -- prowg a bill that combined the senate finance committee's package with the approach taken by the house. now, i'm generally hesitant to publicly comment about what happens behind closed doors in negotiations, but on the other hand much of what has happened -- of what happened next has already been printed in the media. that being the case, i don't feel too awkward discussing the recent turn of events that has brought us to where we are now with the tax extenders. last week before the thanksgiving holiday, the

speaker's office and the senate majority leader's office were very close to reaching a deal on a tax extenders package, one that would have included all of the provisions from the expire act, which is the senate finance committee reported tax extenders bill, as well as a number of permanent tax extender provisions. this emerging deal would have been a reasonable compromise between republicans and democrats and between the house and senate approaches to this matter. it was not the legislation i would have written but as a compromise taking place in the congress, that is, for the time being still divided, it was likely the best that both parties could hope for. like i said, madam president, we were on the cusp of a deal last week. then something strange happened. on tuesday, the white house caught wind of the potential deal. even though the terms have not yet been finalized, and issued a veto threat. how often does that happen,

madam president? how often does the president issue a veto threat on potential deals still under negotiation? and how often do we find that extraordinary threat ratified by people who are involved in the negotiations? like i said, this was not a republican wish list that was being negotiated. house republicans were willing to make a number of tough concessions in order to get a deal across the finish line. for example, the deal would have made permanent the american opportunity tax credit, a provision that first came into law in the democrats' partisan 2009 stimulus bill, and that has been a high priority item for democrats. it would also have made the state and local sales tax deduction, which is a high priority for a number of congressional democrats. it would have made it permanent. and it would have rolled over the tax extenders that expired during 2013, including many that

most republicans do not support for another two years. these were major concessions, madam president, and to its credit, the house is willing to make them in the interest of a bipartisan agreement. more importantly, the deal was supported by the senate majority leader who last time i checked was a democrat, yet the deal wasn't good enough for the president or more the more liberal members of the senate, or should i say the senate democratic caucus. apparently, they weren't willing to take yes for an answer. instead of compromising even a little bit, president obama issued his veto threat and has been rallying democratic senators against the proposed deal, or at least that's what i have been told. as a result, it appears unlikely that any deal on the tax extenders package will be reached during this congress. instead, the most likely scenario appears to be that congress will pass a one-year retroactive extension of tax provisions that have already

expired. short of not passing anything at all, this is probably the worst of all possible worlds, madam president. rather than the certainty that would come with making some of the more prominent individual and business tax extenders permanent, families, individuals and businesses will have to put long-term plans on hold, in hopes that the congress can get its act together the next time around. now, this is bad news for middle-class families. this is bad news for individuals. this is bad news for job creators. and this is bad news for those of us hoping that the government will improve the way it does business any time in the future. we all know, madam president, the makeup of the next congress will be different than it is now. i don't mean to be too presumptuous, but i think it's safe to say that the president and his liberal allies are unlikely to get a better tax extenders deal in the next congress than the one the senate

democratic leadership had been negotiating up until last week, and i commend the senate democratic leadership for its work on that matter. i condemn the house leadership -- i congratulate, excuse me, the house leadership for doing the same thing. do any of my democratic colleagues who have come out against a proposed deal really think that the prospects are likely to improve next year? i have to ask because, quite frankly, this recent turn of events is mind-boggling to me. in the end, i think the only conclusion that makes sense is that this line of attack, the president's veto threat and liberal opposition to the potential extenders bill is more about politics than about policy. it's about the president's strategy of following an electoral rebuke of his policies by tacking even further to the left, and it's about congressional democrats' efforts to pander to their liberal base at the expense of good

government. i would hope that i'm wrong about this, but like i said, there is not another logical explanation that i've heard. i hope the white house and its senate allies will prove me wrong and come to the table with an offer that reflects a genuine compromise with the house. i think the events of this past week have demonstrated divisions within the democratic party and that those divisions are causing real problems. once again, we had the senate majority leader in the room and ready to make a deal only to be undercut by the president and his liberal allies in the senate. i find that very unfortunate, and i want to commend the democrat majority leader for trying at least. of course, i'm going to congratulate him for trying. of course, at the end of the day, i suppose none of us should be surprised on what has happened. after all, president obama is not particularly known for being

business friendly or placing his focus on job creation, which is sorely needed in this country. whether it's crippling environmental regulations, which we're now seeing come to the forefront in dramatic terms, whether it's labor policy or health care, the president has demonstrated that he's all too willing to put his political ideology above the needs of our economy. make no mistake, the proposed tax extenders deal, the one the president scuttled with his veto threat, was all about job creation. it would have made the research and development tax credit, small business expensing and other provisions which the white house has supported, by the way, it would have made them permanent, giving certainty to the business community, paving the way for more investment and paving the way to more jobs in our society. the president's latest gambit on the tax extenders is really just a series in a long line of

instances where politics has trumped job creation. still, as one who has been willing to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i can't help but be disappointed. but make no mistake, madam president, things are about to change around here and we'll have an opportunity to right this ship. i just hope we'll have a lot of democrats who are willing to help us. we need to focus on an agenda that will actually grow our economy. we need to focus on an agenda that will actually create jobs. and we need to focus on an agenda that will empower the american people. that's going to be the focus of this new congress. once again, the president and his allies here in the senate missed a big opportunity to address some of their party's priorities with the tax extenders legislation. it's difficult to imagine that they will have another bite at the same apple in the next congress. absent a deal, we are now left with only one option, the

one-year extension that will likely be passed by the house this week. once again, a one-year extension is not a great deal for families, individuals and businesses, but it's far better than letting these provisions lapse entirely. indeed, if we do nothing, we run into a series of problems including a delaying and delayed filing season which means millions of delayed refunds for americans who count on them. in addition, doing nothing would essentially amount to a tax hike on millions of people and businesses. consequently, i plan to vote in favor of the one-year extension unless, of course, my colleagues on the other side finally come to their senses and allow a better deal to be had. i have been disappointed that what the majority leader and speaker of the house and others who had worked on it had worked out. as much as there were parts of

it that i would rather not have voted for, it was treated in this shabby way by the president. i don't understand that kind of leadership in this country. i don't understand why the president does some of these things. i don't understand why the left just can't take an offering to them that was much better than what we're going to get. the majority leader knew it. look, republicans have been tough on the majority leader. i've been his friend for years. i care for him. i think it's a tough group of people to manage, just like they are on our side as well. it's a tough job. and, frankly, i think the deal he worked out should have been

followed. you want -- it would have given the president much of what he wanted initially, anyway, would have brought us together one more time, would have been a wonderful thing. it would have made the end of the year work that we're doing much more satisfying and acceptable. and it would have been a good prelude to next year of us working together, something that this body needs really, really badly. i want to commend the distinguished majority leader, senator reid, for the work that he tried to do. i want to congratulate him, i mean. i want to congratulate the speaker of the house for being willing to work on this. and i think it's unfortunate that we're at this point in these negotiations where we're going to have a one-year extension, it's not going to be

anywhere near what we had negotiated and what the majority leader had negotiated with the house. there are parts of that negotiation that i wish i could have changed, but the fact is we had come a long way and i want to pay tribute to the -- to the distinguished chairman of our committee. i don't think he had much confidence at first we were going to put this bill through the committee. at least he expressed he didn't, to me. i said let's do it. and we did. and even though there are parts i wish weren't in there and parts he wishes weren't in there it was a classic bipartisan compromise through two sides who feel very, very deeply about these issues, each and every one of them. and i think the work of senator

reid, the distinguished majority leader, and the speaker, had done was not only a step in the right direction but would have been something most all of us would have been quite pleased with. so i congratulate them for their work. i'm disappointed that we're where we are. and i hope we can solve these problems in the future and i'll be working as hard as i can to try to bring about bipartisan efforts in that regard. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, last wednesday americans all across the country were preparing for thanksgiving. they were traveling, many of them going to visit friends and

family, places around their communities, their state, or their country. so what did the obama administration do when it thought nobody was actually paying attention? it snuck out a huge new regulation that imposes job-crushing environmental restrictions. "politico" ran an article later that day. the headline was "the most expensive regulation ever. obama rolls out a major e.p.a. rule." why would the president do that? why would he put out a major rule from the environmental protection agency affecting millions of americans and do it right before a holiday? if he's regulations are such a good idea, you would think the administration -- claims it's a good idea, you would think that the administration would put it out in a way that people would be paying attention. i want to know why the administration did this in a way

to hide the regulations from the american people. well, president obama actually didn't say a word about it that day. instead, he pardoned a turkey. the turkey got a better deal than the american people did last week. they're the ones who are going to be paying for the president's expensive and destructive regulation. here's what's happening. the environmental protection agency has proposed a new rule that would dramatically slash the limits of ground-level ozone. in 626 pages, you add on the appendix, another over 500 additional pages in the appendix so here's what "wall street journal" had to say about the new rule. an editorial on it friday with a headline "highway to the danger ozone." like so many such rules, this one twists decades old air

pollution laws to restructure the energy industry and gradually ban fossil fired power. so you have follow fuel fired power gradually being banned as this administration tries to restructure the u.s. energy industry. it says coal is the first target, the article also adds but natural gas is next. the current limit on ozone is 57 payroll taxes per billion. parts per billion. the environmental protection agency wants to cut that down to 70 or 65 or 60 parts per billion. the agency estimates the new rule could cost nearly $17 billion every year. $17 billion a year in costs. most of the country would fail to meet washington's tough new standards if they were in place today. as much as 95% of the country would be unable to comply with the new regulations if they go

down to 60 parts per billion. states, counties, cities, they'd all have to curb their energy production and limit manufacturing, it would mean less economic growth, fewer people working, raise the cost of everyday living, destroy middle-class jobs. no question about it. this rule will undermine energy reliability, stall manufacturing investment, it will smother particular community for middle-class families. it costs too much and there is very little benefit. it doesn't matter the extreme environmentalist wing of the democratic party support it. the obama administration is turning a deaf ear to people, people who want washington to focus on jobs. that's what we saw in the election earlier this past month, the people of the country want the administration to focus on jobs. the administration claims that

its tough new rule will lead to health benefits. what about the health damage done to people who lose their jobs because of the rule? in march of 2012, the committee of public works subcommittee on nuclear safety issued a report titled "red tape making americans sick." a new report on the health impacts of high unemployment. according to the testimony and scientific research reviewed by the subcommittee, unemployment caused by excessive regulation like the new ozone rule increases the likelihood of hospital visits, illnesses and premature deaths. that raises health care costs. it hurts the health of children and the well-being of families. the obama administration doesn't want to hear it and certainly doesn't want to talk about it. bipartisan majorities in congress have rejected the president's energy policies. senate democrats wouldn't even bring up his cap-and-trade plan

for a vote in this body. so what does the president do? does he learn the lesson that the american people don't want his enormously expensive job-crushing policies? does he listen to the voters in the most recent elections? people who sent a clear message that they weren't happy with the direction the country is headed. no, not president obama. he goes ahead and does it anyway. people are concerned about jobs. they're concerned about the economy. the president is focused, though, on making it tougher for the private sector to create jobs and tougher for the economy to grow. he purposely is going around the american people and their representatives in congress and taking this drastic step on his own. why? because he knows even democrats in congress don't support him. so what do the democrats who

control the senate right now going to do about it? if history is any indication, they're not going to do anything. democrats in congress are just going to roll over and accept another destructive policy by president obama. that's what they did with the health care law, a terrible law. and democrats in congress pushed it through anyway because president obama told them to do it. nancy pelosi was the speaker of the house at the time. she said, first you have to pass the bill before you get to find out what's in it. well, now even democrats are admitting it was a bad idea, as they're lerpg more an learning e what was in this bill that they voted for. the senior senator from new york said the other day that the health care law -- quote -- "wasn't the change we were hired to make." close quote. he said, with the economy in bad ship, it was a focus on -- quote -- "the wrong problem" -- close quote. now, that's from a senator who

voted for the health care law. today the senator is right when he says i it was a focus on the wrong problem. with this new ozone regulation, the president is still focused on the wrong problem. he should still be looking for ways to grow america's economy, not ways to tie it up with more red tape. president obama has made the wrong choice time and time again, adding more regulations, more rules, more bureaucracy. he continues to push extreme policies that he knows the american people reject. the president is using unelected and unaccountable czars to go around congress and the public. his latest executive action shows his presidency is failing and floundering. president obama is not even waiting to try to work with republican congress when the republicans take the majority in january. he's acting on his own right now. in january, republicans in congress will listen to

americans and focus on the priorities of the american people. we will hold the obama administration accountable for its destructive overreach. we will listen to people struggling under obama red tape and suffering because of it. we will do everything possible to stop this regulation and help americans have better job opportunities in the future. 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:

quorum call:

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i

come to the floor to speak about the president's executive order on immigration. and i have been listening to my colleagues both here and on the other side of the capitol, and i rise in amazement. it's almost incredulous that our republican friends are against the president taking the same action that presidents reagan and george h.w. bush took to defer deportation to solve a critical problem that we all know exists in the country, a problem that impacts millions. but now when president obama exercises the same executive authority -- the same -- they are on the air, on threfertion, on talk -- on television, on talk shows, on twitter fearmongering, calling it illegal, calling it amnesty, a constitutional crisis. but where was all of that when president reagan and president

bush did it? they hold hearings in the house titled open borders: the impact of presidential amnesty on border security which is ridiculous because we've had more border security in this nation than we've had in the history of the congress, in the history, i should say, in the united states. as a matter of fact, we spend more on border enforcement than on immigration and enforcement than we do on all of the other federal law enforcement entities combined. they threaten to sue the government or even shut it down. the irony of which is laughable, as shutdown over conducting background checks and collecting taxes from undocumented immigrants would only cost current taxpayers billions of dollars. and certainly it would cost them billions of dollars, if it's anything like the last shutdown that republicans forced. so double standard?

absolutely. it is the very definition of double standard. on immigration reform, our republican friends on -- particularly on the other side of the capitol has become the poster child for double standards. on the one hand, they know the political ramifications of the demographic reality. on the other hand, they refuse to. calf up with history and fix our broken immigration system. they're sailing against the headwinds history and now they want to prevented the president from pulling them to shore, saving them from their own immobility, their own inaction. they're also sailing against the headwinds of what the american people want. in poll after poll, we have seen that the american people want to fix our broken immigration system and that which the senate passed and which i was honored to be one of the group of eight that put it together a year and a half ago and passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, has still the highest ratings among the american people. it's sitting in the house of representatives for the last year and a

half. and a new poll shows the president's approval rating has not gone down since the executive action announcement was made, but as some predicted it would, but rather it's increased five percentage points among all voters since early november. so in my view, any action, executive or otherwise, is movement in the right direction and what america expects of its leaders. americans are spenting someone to act, someone to tackle the difficult issues, and immigration, particularly for those, our house colleagues, seems to be a very difficult issue they can't tackle. now, it's not difficult for me and it's not really difficult for most americans who believe in the power of common sense, not for those who believe in the need to secure our borders, to secure the country, to promote economic opportunity and to preserve our history as a nation of immigrants and that core

value of family values. now, mr. president, i cannot recall anyone coming to this floor and praising inaction, praising a president for not having done enough as a matter of consequence. that's exactly what our republican colleagues are doing. once again, standing squarely on the wrong side of history. in fact, on the wrong side of their own history, invoking the double standard and claiming what's right for their party's president is wrong for this president. history, however, is a funny thing. we can choose to ignore it, but eventually it catches up with you and it has finally caught up with my republican colleagues. now, mr. president, i repeat what i have said all along, the antidote to executive action is passing immigration reform. let's be clear. regardless of how big or bold the president's announcement may be, a permanent legislative

solution continues to be our ultimate objective. administrative relief will not grant anyone, anyone legal status or citizenship, but it will clear the way for many to come out of the shadows, come to the government and register themselves, go through a criminal background check, have to pass that check, get a work permit and pay taxes as the rest of us do. and because of the president's executive action, the nature of who is he will eligible is really people who have u.s. citizen family here. it will prevent needless deportations and give a chance to those who want nothing more to keep their families together. we're talking about millions of hardworking people who right now many are exploited, creating downward pressure on the salaries and wages of all americans by virtue of that exploitation. and we have an opportunity to change that. i would rather know who is here

to pursue the american dream versus who is here to do it harm, but i can't know that unless i get people to come forth and go through a criminal background check. so if my republican colleagues are so concerned about getting immigration policy right, if they are so concerned about the president overstepping his authority, which is the same authority that republican presidents use, they can exert their own authority and push our bipartisan bill over the finish line with one vote, one vote in the house of representatives. the president has said himself that he acted because there is a cost to waiting, a cost measured in the thousands of parents of u.s. citizen children who are deported, husbands and wives who are separated from their u.s. citizen spouse, and the economic consequences. now, i know there are some who suggest let's wait until the next congress. let's wait to see, give them a little time. if not, we'll act.

well, this is the same republican party, particularly in the house of representatives, that blocked immigration reform in 2006, in 2007, in 2010, in 2013 and 2014, despite a strong bipartisan bill here. so if they wish, they can join us at the negotiating table with their own proposals and their own solutions because doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is no longer an option, and that's precisely why they didn't want the president to follow through on what he told them. he waited on executive action. he gave them advance notice. he said i want you to act, but if we don't act eventually i will have to act. let's look at what my republican friends find so objectionable. to put it simply, the administration is creating a new deferred action for parental accountability, a program that provides deferred action on a case-by-case basis to

undocumented parents of u.s. citizens or lawful permanent residents. those who were present in the united states on november 20 of this year, those who have continuously lived in the united states for five years since january of 2010 and are not an enforcement priority. also by expanding that program that already exists for dreamers, by expanding the age content. now, this is an amnesty because amnesty means you did something wrong, you're forgiven, and you're on your pathway to getting whatever you want. amnesty means you get something for nothing. no. first of all, these people have no pathway to becoming a permanent resident or citizen under the president's executive order. secondly, their only opportunity is not to be deported, assuming they can pass a criminal background check and pay their taxes. now, as a result of the president's order, more people will go to the southern border to protect it.

more people will pay took who may not be paying them now. more families will stay rehnida, and more people who are in the shadows will come forthright as soon as the government does a criminal background check. i'd like to know who those people are and make sure they don't have a criminal background. more criminals and felons will be deported because it will be a priority to deport those individuals. what's wrong with that set of circumstances? so this is temporary relief as the congress hopefully comes together on a more permanent basis. in my state of new jersey, approximately 137,000 parents of u.s. citizens and legal permanent residents will benefit from the new action. about 67,000 will benefit from the new program on children. that's an estimated 204,000 people in new mexico who can

come out of the shadows and contribute to the community and the economy. these are moms and dads, good people, hardworking people who can register with the government, pass a background check, get a work permit, pay taxes and no longer fear deportation. and take care of their families as well. the fact is, as i said, because of the president's executive actions, more felons will be deported, more resources will go to our border, more families will stay together and more people will pay taxes. these are all good things. as a matter of fact, the council of economic advisors has found over the next decade the range of executive actions announced by the president will increase our gross domestic product by up to .9%, an additional $210 billion. it will reduce the federal deficit by $25 billion through increased economic growth. and it will raise the average wages for all u.s. workers by

.3%. the executive action the president has taken and the republicans have criticized will increase the productivity of our work force. how? by allowing those from undocumented immigrants, the spouses of highly skilled h-1-b visa holders to be part of a former economy and match the skills they have with the skills needed and entrepreneurial start-ups that they often create. and by the way, that's a fraction of the economic benefits of what we did here in a bipartisan basis that is sitting in the house of representatives for the last year and a half. the senate bill that we passed according to the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan scoring division of everything we do here, said that the bill that we passed will increase the gross domestic product of the united states by over 3% in 2023, that's less than nine years, and 5.4%, 5.4% in 2033, an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023, and

$1.4 trillion in 2033. it will reduce the federal deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and another $700 billion between 2024 and 2033. that's almost a trillion dollars in deficit spending that can be lifted from the backs of the next generation of americans by giving 11 million people a pathway to citizenship. what do we ever do that we pass that grows the economy, reduces the deficit and creates more jobs for all americans? very little. the immigration bill that the senate passed and it's been pending in the house does all of that in addition to securing our border. so let's be clear -- the president's executive actions are only temporary steps. only congress can finish the job. deferred action is an act of prosecutorial discretion, but it's not a path to citizenship

or a permanent solution. the fact is we have waited and waited and waited, and in the absence of any republican action in the house on immigration reform, the president has used the power he has available that other presidents have used as well. if the republicans are concerned about executive act, they should use their own power to pass immigration reform. either the senate bill or their own vision of what comprehensive reform is. now, for those who question the legality of this, i would just simply say there are three letters, one before the executive action and two after from law professors and former general counsels of the immigration and naturalization service and chief counsels of usis. they say the president has the authority, he is on sound legal footing.

so we're tired of waiting for republicans to say yes to something, yes to taking action that is in the interests of millions in this country who expect leadership, expect action, expect progress, expect cooping, not confrontation and obstruction. millions of families are tired of waiting. the nation is tired of waiting for republicans to catch up with history, in this case with the lessons of their own history. let's invite our republican friends to invoke the memory of ronald reagan and george h.w. bush and for once commend this president and following their lead in doing what is right by the nation, doing what is right by our taxpayers, doing what is right by our families. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the vote originally scheduled for today at 4:00 be delayed until 4:10 p.m., and notwithstanding rule 22, following the vote on cloture in calendar number 1069, burrows, the senate proceed to vote on cloture on calendar number 1067, lopez. further, if cloture is invoked on either of these nominations, at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, december 3, all postcloture time be considered expired and the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order upon which cloture was invoked. further, that following these votes, the senate proceed to vote on cloture on the following nominations -- calendar number 1036 hale, kearney and pappert.